The fool and I agree: bigger homes not necessarily better

I cringe whenever I hear someone boast about how “green” their 5,000-plus-square-foot home is. I say your home can’t be environmentally friendly when it gobbles up that so much space, and when it requires so much raw material to build.

The staff at Motley Fool — the famous financial self-help Web site — agree with me. You can read their thoughts on big houses here.

The Fools point out several disadvantages to big houses. The first is the one I’ve long been harping on: Larger homes are not environmentally friendly.  They use more supplies to build and consume more energy and heat.

The other reasons are also interesting. For instance, the writers at the Fool say that homes that are too big have a negative impact on family togetherness. It’s too easy for family members to disappear into their own individual spaces. Another problem? Homes that are too big cost too much. This has led many families into financial hardship when those mortgage payments become too large to handle.

My family and I live in a small home. Sure, sometimes I feel as if the four of us — plus one dog — are climbing all over each other. But a small house is easy to clean and maintain, and does foster a sense of togetherness. I also know that I’ve not trampled upon the environment by ripping our small house down to replace it with one three times its size.

So remember, bigger is definitely not always better when it comes to  homes.

But what do you think? Are there hidden advantages to living in a McMansion that I’m ignoring? Or are you, too, a fan of the small home? Let me know.