A vacation house bigger than most people I know can afford for their actual home. And than the author speaks of "making sacrifices". Makes me want to throw up.
How can you say that? I don't actually see the square footage of the house mentioned anywhere, but it doesn't appear to be overly large (once you account for the optical tricks the author used to make the space appear larger than it is). My estimate would be somewhere around 800 sq. ft., which isn't unreasonable for a vacation home.
House? You're lucky to have a house. We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, half the floor was missing, and we were all huddled together in one corner for fear of falling.
And guess what, there are areas in the world where families of 3 or more generations share a tiny single room and call that their home. How dare you to imply that you are living in a tiny home when those people would be more than happy with a single room of yours.
Well, or maybe we can simply agree on the fact that different people have a different understanding of what a tiny house should look like? I'd too call that house tiny because the part in the world where I come from we tend to have much bigger houses.
And btw. the article isn't so much about the fact that this house is tiny by all means, it's more about using what you have or can afford and make the most out of it.
He doesn't quote that size as being the size of his house - he quotes it as the total floor space of an average dining room, a small kitchen and a small living room, added together.
He doesn't give the dimensions of his home. However, from looking at the pictures it's possible to estimate - I get around 25' by 20' looking at the number and size of windows.
Only in the US can 800 sq. ft. be considered tiny. I live with my wife and daughter on 700 sq ft. and while a bit more space would be nice, it's hardly cramped.