Opposing the tiny homes trend

Not too long ago in a post about our move from a smaller home into a larger one I made a comment about seeing some problems in the smaller-is-better fad. This is my more comprehensive explanation of that one line. :-)
.
First, the wonderful pros I see in the trend. Our society is filled with excess. We own too much. We expect too much. We demand too much. Our homes are big, our cars are big, we fill our fridges and pantries with food we never eat only to throw it all away when it spoils. Choosing to live within our means is a very good trend. Choosing to own the space we need and rejecting the excessively large homes that consume all our time to care for is very healthy. Deciding own large homes and then feeling the need to fill those mansions with stuff we don't need distracts us from our God, our faith, our families, our friends, our opportunities to serve. I am in a certain sense a big fan of of minimalism. I do not understand the drive that some people have to own collections; I want only things that I use and enjoy.
.
The home we just moved from is less than 1000 square feet and is quite large enough for 1-4 people. Maybe you are a single person who works from home. Maybe you are a couple or small family who will not be expanding. Maybe you would like to rent that house from me. I'll try my very best to be a good landlord. ;-)
.
My first objection to a tiny house is the expectation that a family will not and should not grow. I have seen several articles about eager tiny home owners who are clearly not planning on ever having children. Our society upholds the ideal of couples restricting their family size to 2 children or less, applauding couples who choose to avoid the blessing altogether. Pets and careers have replaced children for many and the tiny home movement encourages that. A purposely tiny home intentionally limits the size of a family, which is fine in certain limited circumstances (older couple, chaste single person being a couple easy examples that come to mind). But there is an immense difference between those who can't have children and those who disdain the very idea. As Christians we should value each child as a person created by God and avoid seeing them as expensive commodities or as less important than earthly ideals such as careers and material possessions. Children are messy, can take up more space than adults with their energy and toys, and do less work in putting items away, an activity essential to living peacefully in a tiny home.
.
My second biggest objection to a tiny house is the limits it places on hospitality. Hebrews 13:2 is just one of many passages in the Bible which encourage us to provide hospitality toward others, both strangers and friends. A truly tiny house is just big enough for the people living in it, leaving no space for guests. There are no extra chairs, no guest beds, no room at the dinner table. Any hospitality that is offered requires a lot of work and planning, since the hosts must carefully consider what and who will fit in their house. Food will probably be made last minute (no room to prep and store anything), and children will as likely as not be excluded (they take up too much space and get into too many things). Our particular ideal for hospitality is higher than most, so we wanted a home where we could host 20+ people (and not just once a year). Our particular climate requires us to plan on hosting indoors where others might be able to host outdoors. There are possibilities to practice hospitality despite small living quarters including hideaway beds, paying for someone's meal at a restaurant, serving in a soup kitchen, and participating in a meal train or bringing a complete meal to a friend's house (they provide the space, you provide the food). But increasing the effort required to practice hospitality often reduces the frequency we engage in it.
.
Our particular climate makes it challenging to get outside every day. I have made an effort to do so several times but have never succeeded. I hear there are places where it is 68 and sunny almost year round...and daylight hours always exceed nighttime hours...Here we are not so fortunate. It rains or snows as often as not, is cold more often than not, and I haven't figured out a way to carry two babies simultaneously nor to push their double stroller down an unshoveled sidewalk. Getting outside takes effort and getting to a gym regularly is not happening for me right now. A tiny home doesn't provide enough space to get in a good workout. I have noticed a definite increase in both my activity and that of my children since we moved to our larger home at the beginning of this month. Once we adjust and need to intentionally exercise to get the same results, we now have the space indoors to make that happen. Tiny homes require extra effort to exercise and increasing the effort required to make it happen often reduces the frequency we will actually engage in it. I'm not saying it won't happen; I'm suggesting that I might not and that the sacrifices required (paying for a gym, arranging childcare, spending time and money driving to a location where that exercise can take place) might unintentionally outweigh the benefits.
.
Pictures I have seen of tiny homes (the really tiny ones) don't leave much space to cook in. Now, I don't watch the tv show and I haven't sought out the various floor plans available. But until earlier this month I owned a poorly laid-out, apartment sized kitchen. Big enough to cook 3 meals a day for my husband and I with guests doubling the number of plates at our table as often as 3 times a week (our highest frequency before children). NOT big enough to peacefully cook 3 meals a day and 1-2 snacks a day for 6 people, let alone have any guests join us. Again, increasing the effort required to make homemade meals often reduces the frequency a person will do so. Wouldn't it be better for our society's health and family budgets to eat at home more often, cooking the food from scratch, rather than tempting us to eat at restaurants or out of boxes and cans?
.
I hope to avoid cluttering our new living space with items we don't need or truly want. The reality depends not only on me but also on my husband who cares sometimes about things I would just as soon toss and on my children who still need to be taught how to hold material possessions lightly with an open hand. Buying in bulk and storing items not currently needed can destroy a budget and foster unhealthy materialism but used well can be tools which save money and decrease a tendency toward spending a lot of time shopping. In a climate where we experience all four seasons, every member of my family needs clothing appropriate for a variety of weather conditions, and that clothing needs to be put somewhere. I choose not to buy a new wardrobe for each person with each change of seasons. So, during the winter I need to store my sandals and shorts somewhere and during the summer I need to store my coat and boots. I choose to save clothing that older children outgrow to pass on to younger children, though I will not keep those boxes of unused clothing for grandchildren and I try to avoid keeping more than a certain reasonable number of outfits. I also choose to make use of space to keep cloth napkins, heavy stoneware dishes, extra toiletries, a chest freezer and other items which we use regularly but had run out of room for in our previous home. I would love to see more people reuse items or buy slightly larger (less packaging: but only if you actually use it all) to reduce waste. But they take up space which might be too valuable in a house chosen to be as small as an individual can get away with.
.
There are good reasons to choose a tiny home. But, I wonder, are they always the best reasons? Are some people sacrificing a better in favor of a good? Is smaller always better? Not for me and my family.