2. And we were indeed trying to save money, we didn't need to, but we did.
3. Totally agree: The main reason I'm sharing my experience, is that so many people glamorize the "Tiny house" movement, but (having lived it) I can tell you it sucks.
4. I agree with wider range - but personally (along with my wife) we will never go below 500 sqft for two people again. we each need some space, and it doesnt really even save moneh. We ended up not even saving much money because we had to eat out probably 75% of the time, because there was no room to store food and cook properly. Generally, you also just get exhausted. It's tough living in a small place, you have to spend almost all your time outside or you'll go nuts and can't really have friends over.
1. These are usually meant for one person, not two.
2. Why'd you live there in the first place? Presumably because you couldn't or didn't want to afford anything else.
3. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean someone else won't.
4. This is easily forgotten, but average American dwelling size has been increasing for decades: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/09/13/how-the-ave... or http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283, even in the face of recent de-materialization due to digitization. It ought to be possible for people to be able to choose from a wider array of dwelling sizes, rather than forcing people into larger units than they need or want.