You Might Also Like


  • Reply ATBScott April 1, 2016 at 2:17 am

    Wow – really nice, but by no means is this a “Small House”. Looks to be close to a couple thousand square feet!

    • Reply Krista O'Brien April 6, 2016 at 6:33 am

      My thoughts exactly!

  • Reply Anna April 1, 2016 at 6:48 pm

    Such a great start. I would love to see the rest of the house. It is so frustrating to be interested in looking at what has been done in a space only to find half of it posted.
    No bedrooms, no bathroom, not even a kitchen.
    I agree, as lovely as the parts we did see, I wouldn’t call a house with a table that easily seats ten with plenty of real-estate left before you hit the “living room” too small.

  • Reply Skooj April 4, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    I was under the impression that most people consider anything under 1000 sq/ft to fit the “small house” category (with under 400 being considered tiny). If that’s the case this house fits at 884 sq/ft.

  • Reply martha April 5, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    wanna see the kitchen and bedrooms, too…this is my perfect home, perfect !!!

  • Reply Putty April 5, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    I’ve never seen slate used on exterior side walls this way… I like.

    • Reply csm April 5, 2016 at 7:04 pm

      I agree, the slate on the exterior is lovely!

  • Reply Matt April 5, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    If this house is under 2,000 sq ft, let alone 1,000 or less, then I’ll eat my hat!! I’d bet that the living room/dining room “barn” portion alone exceeds 1,000 sq. ft. And what’s up with telling us the building was originally built in NY, then moved to and restored in Texas, but not providing any detail, including as another reader mentioned pictures of the “rest of the house”?

    The other aspect of this that is disingenuous is that most Tiny homes are build with economics, efficiency and the like in mind. There is no way this place was created with any of that in mind, and most certainly not efficiency given you’d be heating and cooling all of that cavernous space, (Though it is lovely) to no end, which is pointless and certainly NOT economical or efficient.

  • Reply Anna April 5, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    I certain;y looks much larger in the pictures….so kudos to the photographer! I checked again and you’re right this home says it’s 884 sq/ft.

    I would still like to see the whole house, to me, that is part of the point of posting your house. They are important aspects of houses….the kitchens and bathrooms, where they are and how they’re laid out.
    I like the slate and many other details, as well.

  • Reply Skooj April 11, 2016 at 5:35 am

    Fully agree… I hate when they leave stuff out, or shoot in a way that you can’t get a sense of how the house is laid out.

  • Leave a Reply