The cheapest house?

“The cheapest house is the one that’s already built.”

I heard this on the radio a few weeks ago in an ad for ReBuilding Together Nashville, a local branch of an organization that focuses on revitalizing existing houses to help people either stay in their own homes or find affordable housing in areas where cost of living is especially high. We knew from the beginning that, in terms of actual money, the cheapest house would indeed be one that is already built. But what about other costs, like to the environment or to a community? How are we doing?

It’s a question I think a lot about but haven’t yet arrived at a satisfying answer. Let’s say we bought an existing home, built before the technological advances that allow builders to affordably construct a house that is “net-zero.” Let’s also assume that this alternative-reality house is larger than what we’re building. (In 1990, the average U.S. home surpassed 2,000 square feet. Compare this to the Dog house, which is 866.) What’s the bottom line? Is it better to buy an older, bigger, less efficient home whose building materials already exist, or build a new, smaller, more efficient home that requires new materials?

I have no idea. I would need a team of environmental engineers to run those exact numbers for me. In lieu of that, I’ll tell you the philosophical answer I have landed on to justify our new construction.

Since beginning this project, I have spoken to dozens of people who have been inspired by our house. A few weeks ago, Architect Ryan emailed me to ask some more detailed questions about our budget because several potential clients have inquired about doing something similar. Walking the house with Contractor Randy a few weeks ago, he said he’s been excitedly describing our house to his wife: “I keep telling her, ‘This little house would be all the room we need!’”

Others who have visited the site are surprised by how big our little house looks. Although it’s not even 1,000 square feet, we made design choices to maximize usable space and utilized architectural and psychological “tricks” to make the house feel big and airy. I guess people have a hard time imagining the inside of a small house—since the 1990s, the average size of a U.S. home has grown to 2,600 square feet—so the Dog House might be the first time a lot of people have seen with their own eyes what compact living looks like.

The point I’m trying to make is speculative at best, maybe a bit delusional, too. Still, in the interest of absolving some of my guilt, I’m going to continue believing that this house is no ordinary house. Sure, we had to order several trucks’ worth of concrete, which I know is terrible for the environment! Sure, the wood in our IKEA cabinets is probably from Grandmother Willow herself! But the house also seems to be showing people that it is possible to live with less. When I was searching for a custom home builder in Nashville, I had trouble finding contractors who were familiar with a project under 4,000 square feet. Perhaps the Dog House will be a reminder that estate homes are not the only things worth building. Sure, the cheapest house may be the one that’s already built. But inspiration is worth something, too.