Small house, tiny bills

Re the issue on “Space: the Interior Landscape” [April 28]: I used to live in a 2,260-square-foot 1960s-vintage tract house, and now I’m in a 1940s postwar-boom box that is all of 875 square feet, so this is an issue close to my heart.

For sake of efficiency, I really prefer the smaller space. Yes, a bit more storage (and a two-car garage) would be nice. But housecleaning is a breeze, and the need to be creative with the space challenges me constantly.

One thing that Sean Mitchell’s article does not address, however, is the cost of utilities. It was not unusual for my electric bill in my former residence to exceed $150, and gas ran at least $40 per month. Heating, lighting and air-conditioning all that space was wasteful. Now my electric bill runs $25 to $50 per month, and I’ve had gas bills as low as $4 per month. In an age where fuel prices -- and hence utility costs -- are skyrocketing, and show every indication of staying high for a very long time, I feel that I am not only doing my part for conservation, I am also doing my “patriotic duty” to reduce demand for foreign oil.

John Niedhamer

Duarte

*

Your research showed that the median home’s floor space per person was 1,560 square feet in 1974 and had grown to 2,340 square feet in 2004. That is an increase of 50% in floor space per person. Bigger spaces mean more energy consumption.

I find it disturbing that a large fraction of our people make home- and car-buying decisions that use energy as if there is no tomorrow. Or maybe there is a tomorrow, but they think they will be dead by that time so it doesn’t apply to them.

John Rahn

West Hills

*

WAS that article intentionally aimed at the affluent class? Did you ever consider writing about what a family of low-income or limited means does to make sure they have this supposedly important “private space” or how this group of individuals goes about making sure there is enough room for them to live the way they “want”?

Chris Bley

Santa Monica