.jpg?1553267060 "© <a href=\"//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Euelbenul&action=edit&redlink=1\">User:Euelbenul</a> - <span>Own work</span>, <a href=\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0\">CC BY-SA 4.0</a>, <a href=\"https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51360903\">Link</a>. ImageFallingwater House, iconic project designed by Frank Lloyd Wright back in 1939")
© <a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Euelbenul&action=edit&redlink=1">User:Euelbenul</a> – <span>Own work</span>, <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0">CC BY-SA 4.0</a>, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51360903">Link</a>. ImageFallingwater House, iconic project designed by Frank Lloyd Wright back in 1939
Home. Our shelter. Our private space. In an urbanized world with dense megalopolises like Tokyo, Shanghai, and São Paulo, homes are getting smaller and more expensive than ever. If you are claustrophobic, Marie Kondo is your best ally in the quest to earn some extra space. And even though private backyards have become a luxury for most, our data shows that single-family houses are still the most popular project type on ArchDaily. Why is this? (Especially when it seems incongruous given the reality of today’s crowded cities.) Why do some universities still insist on designing and building houses as academic exercises? Wouldn’t it be more creative—and more useful—to develop architecture in small-scale spaces? Would it be more rewarding to develop solutions on bigger scales?