Is Bigger Really Better? Why Building Smaller Could Be the Biggest Environmental Decision You Make
We talk a lot about sustainability in the building industry. There's an increasing focus on environmentally friendly products, reducing waste, improving energy efficiency and making better choices about the materials we use in our homes.
And rightly so. These are all incredibly important conversations to be having.
But there's one part of the conversation that I think we're missing, and it's potentially one of the biggest opportunities we have to reduce the environmental impact of building a new home.
Why aren't we talking more about the size of the homes we're building?
It might be a slightly controversial opinion, but I genuinely believe that one of the biggest environmental decisions you can make when building a home isn't necessarily what you put into it. It's how much of it you actually need.
When Did Bigger Become Better?
Somewhere along the way, we've developed this perception that bigger is better when it comes to our homes.
A 250m² or 300m² home is often seen as something to aspire to. More bedrooms, more bathrooms, multiple living areas, a separate office, a media room and plenty of space for everything we could possibly need.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a beautiful, comfortable home that works for your family.
But I think we need to start challenging the idea that a beautiful, functional home has to be a big one.
What if, instead of starting with the question of how big we can build, we started by asking how much space we actually need?
What if we put more emphasis on how a home functions rather than how many square metres it has?
Because I think there's an enormous opportunity here, not just environmentally, but financially and in how we actually live in our homes.
The Environmental Impact of Building Smaller
When we talk about reducing the carbon footprint of a new home, we often focus on selecting lower-carbon building materials, improving insulation, installing energy-efficient appliances or incorporating renewable energy.
These are all worthwhile considerations, and they're things we're incredibly passionate about at Whio Homes.
But consider this.
If you're planning to build a 300m² home and, through smarter design, you can achieve everything you need in 150m², you've just reduced the size of your home by 50%.
That's potentially half the floor area requiring foundations, flooring, framing, insulation, linings and finishes.
Now, that doesn't automatically mean you've halved the carbon footprint of your build. Different materials, design choices and construction methods all influence the total embodied carbon, and some elements of a home don't reduce proportionally with floor area.
But you've created an enormous opportunity to reduce the quantity of materials required before you've even started comparing the environmental credentials of individual products.
And that's what I find so interesting.
We can spend an incredible amount of time trying to make the materials in our homes more environmentally friendly, but are we overlooking the opportunity to simply use less of them?
To me, that's a conversation worth having.
Smart Design Is More Important Than Square Metres
I think one of the biggest misconceptions about smaller homes is that you're automatically compromising on functionality or comfort.
But a smaller home doesn't necessarily mean a cramped home. It means you need to be more intentional about how you use the space.
Take something as simple as a spare bedroom.
In a larger home, you might have a dedicated guest bedroom that sits empty for 95% of the year, alongside a separate office that's only used during working hours.
Why couldn't those two spaces be combined?
A thoughtfully designed room could function as an office throughout the week and comfortably accommodate guests when needed.
Or consider bathrooms.
It's become quite normal to have a family bathroom, a separate toilet and an ensuite attached to the master bedroom.
But what if we designed an ensuite that could also be accessed easily from another part of the home? With the right layout and consideration for privacy, you could create a bathroom that serves multiple purposes rather than having a dedicated space used by only two people.
These might seem like relatively small design decisions, but when you start applying this thinking throughout an entire home, the opportunities really add up.
It's about designing rooms around how we actually live, rather than simply following the traditional formula of what a house is supposed to include.
And importantly, it doesn't mean sacrificing the things that matter to you. It means identifying those things early and making sure every square metre is working as hard as it possibly can.
We Live in 90m² With Three Kids
I can speak from personal experience on this one.
We have three young children, and our family of five lives comfortably in a 90m² home.
Now, I'm not suggesting that 90m² is the perfect size for every family, because it absolutely isn't. Everyone has different lifestyles, priorities and requirements.
But what it has shown me is that we don't necessarily need as much space as we think we do.
And when I hear people talking about needing a 250m² or 300m² home to comfortably accommodate their family, I can't help but question whether that's actually what they need, or whether it's simply what we've become accustomed to thinking a family home should look like.
Imagine what you could achieve with 150m² and a really clever design.
That's a substantial amount of living space when it's thoughtfully planned.
The challenge is shifting our thinking away from the number of square metres and towards what those square metres actually deliver.
Smaller Doesn't Necessarily Mean Half the Price
There's another important consideration here, and that's cost.
If you halve the size of your home, you're not necessarily going to halve the build cost.
There are certain expenses involved in building a house that don't change significantly with its size. Kitchens, bathrooms, service connections, consent costs and various other components still need to be accounted for.
In fact, smaller homes can often have a higher cost per square metre because those fixed costs are spread across a smaller floor area.
But that doesn't change the fact that the overall cost of building a smaller home can be substantially less.
And I think this is where we need to change how we assess value.
Rather than focusing entirely on the cost per square metre, shouldn't we be looking at the total cost of achieving a home that genuinely works for us?
Because every additional square metre comes with more than just the initial construction cost.
There's more space to heat and cool, more surfaces to clean, more materials to maintain and, eventually, more components to replace.
Those ongoing costs continue long after the house has been built.
So, if we can design a smaller home that provides the same level of comfort and functionality, we're potentially reducing not only the environmental impact of construction but also the ongoing financial and environmental costs of living in it.
Sustainability Should Start at the Design Table
At Whio Homes, we're incredibly passionate about the materials we choose.
We use products such as Terra Lana wool insulation, Magnum Board and low-toxin finishes because we believe the materials that make up our homes have an important role to play in creating healthier, more sustainable living environments.
But I also believe that sustainability needs to start well before we get to the stage of selecting materials.
It needs to start at the design table.
It starts with understanding how a family lives, what spaces they genuinely need, how those spaces can work together and where we can eliminate unnecessary floor area without compromising comfort or functionality.
Because there's little point in creating an environmentally conscious home if we've built significantly more of it than we actually need.
And I'm not suggesting everyone should be living in tiny homes or that there's anything inherently wrong with building a larger home.
What I'm suggesting is that we challenge ourselves to think differently.
If we can achieve the same outcome with a smaller footprint, why wouldn't we explore that option?
Maybe It's Time to Redefine What a Great Home Looks Like
I think we have an opportunity to change the way we approach housing in New Zealand.
Rather than measuring the success of a home by its size, what if we measured it by how well it works for the people living in it?
How comfortable is it?
How healthy is the indoor environment?
How much does it cost to run and maintain?
How efficiently does it use the space available?
And what impact has it had on the environment, both during construction and throughout its lifetime?
To me, those are far more meaningful measures of a great home than the number of square metres on the floor plan.
We absolutely need to continue improving the materials and building systems we use. But we also need to recognise that one of the simplest ways to reduce the environmental impact of building is to question how much we're building in the first place.
Sometimes, the most sustainable material is the material you never needed to use.
And perhaps the future of better housing isn't about building bigger homes.
It's about building smarter ones.