Furniture Should Do Double Duty In Tiny Space

A brief summarization of the newspaper article: A women who recently purchased new home is worried of how to furnish it due to its small size. An ‘expert’ on interior decorating provides her with two pages of his opinions of how to make it appear larger.

What I found most interesting about this article with regards to space, is that when anyone is decorating a small space, the main objective is not to decorate it tastefully or to have it contain items that are meaningful to us, these are important, but the number one issue is to make it appear larger. But why? Does larger mean more expensive? In some cases it may, but it is also possible to have a large room with little value of purchased goods within it versus a small room with expensive furniture and decorative pieces. The interior decorator suggests things like ‘no space should go unused or underused’ and that the notorious underused dining room should be put to better use. These common opinions reveal that those who are able to afford a larger home with larger rooms are able to have spare space. Is this not an odd characteristic for appearing wealthier? Is it not simply pointless to have extra space that will not be put to use? Though I have heard that the larger a room appears, the better, (whether through lighter paint colour, smaller furniture and /or better lighting) multiple times, I have recently questioned this view. In my personal opinion, I believe that a smaller room decorated with meaningful items, is more favourable and tends to be where most people gravitate to due to its ‘cozy’ factor, as opposed to a large room that often feels impersonal and colder. I believe that it is a large misconstruction to say larger equals better or more appealing when it comes to rooms or homes, and small and cozy is taken for granted by many, or unseen for its greatness and utility.