Small spaces certainly meet some of the Index’s basic criteria, e.g. food, shelter, water and sustainability. However, would this work equally for everyone?  And although we are all concerned about the environment, just how much of a sacrifice are we each willing and able to make?

 
Post WW2, and virtually all wars since, humans have been subjected to aspirationalism, individualism and extreme consumerism in every aspect of their lives, despite growing concerns over the environment, and lack of progress in world social equality and mobility.  These traits are accelerating at a faster rate than ever before – witness world mobile domination by Apple and Samsung, in a very short period of time.

For those working in urban areas who are time-poor but cash rich, can afford frequent holidays, and pay for help; for those with fluid residency; or those able to afford second homes, small functional spaces could make perfect sense - however, they are the minority.

 
And, people seem increasingly to need both headspace and physical space, time and often money, to cope with modern life.  In the UK, in an era of economic richness, mental health issues are increasingly prevalent.  Due partially to social inequalities and a break down in family and social structures, it is also because of the ‘busy-ness’ of life - being on 24/7 - being visible in life via social media - whatever our social status - and the focus on ‘me’.

 
The consequences are reflected in all manner of coping mechanisms – extreme consumerism, addictions of every ilk, etc, which are self-perpetuating, and accelerate the breakdown of society.  Pushing people into ever smaller spaces is like adding petrol to the flames – it won’t drive the change which is needed to meet the SDGs.
So, whilst in theory, there is an argument for small functional spaces, for families, multi-generational households, and the less well-off, plus all the paraphernalia that goes with it, perhaps not.

 
Foremost, it requires a visionary commitment to changes in our society.  It then requires equal commitment, resources and community engagement to create the well thought out development policies necessary, to ensure the right social infrastructures are put in place first - of the right quality and in the right locations.  This is why Metroland and garden cities came to be. 

Only when these are established, and a greater sense of equality prevails, will some of the ‘burden’ of modern living be relieved, and societal behavioural changes become possible.  Encouraging ways to ‘downsize’ your life, have less stuff and live more communally then have a chance of success.

Pushing people in at the deep end and expecting them to swim (in a small functional space) will work for some - for the majority, however, they need to feel secure to learn.

So perhaps the key is making this an option much more readily available for those existing and aspiring swimmers, whilst creating the right environment for learners.

END