Tell the truth now. You have a formal dining room but eat at the breakfast nook. The living room with the vaulted ceiling sits empty while everyone piles into the family room. That third bathroom doesn't get visited more than once a week.

There's a lot of space that just doesn't get used, despite the labor and material required to build it and the money you're spending to heat and cool it. Looking at it, of course, is free.

Is that how you should be living?

Maybe not. A lot of people are rethinking not just how much room they need, but how they structure their lives.

"There's more to small than size," says Seattle-area architect Ross Chapin, who specializes in designing small-home "pocket neighborhoods."

"There's a shift in attitude that is real personal -- realizing what is enough," he says. "When you can shift your attitude that way, you can save thousands of dollars in yearly expenses."

And, in the process, be on the way to living sustainably.

Housing prices and energy cost savings are starters. Other factors causing the shift in attitudes include changing demographics -- smaller families and increase in empty-nest baby boomers -- and the need to develop cities more densely so that farmland is spared.

Northeast Portland builder Walt Quade says we can thank the recession for the change in thinking. Seriously.

People are beginning to make better decisions, he says. They're buying smaller homes and smaller cars, and bumping up their savings. City and regional planners are tinkering with development codes to allow and encourage denser development and alternative housing.

It's made us think, Quade says, about what's important.

"That's the kind of process people need to go through," Quade says.

Quade is a tall, bearded and barrel-chested man who's constructed his share of big houses. But as he talks, he's standing in his revised vision: A 325 square-foot house he built in his backyard.

The house occupies a 12-foot by 29-foot rectangle. Open the front door and you're in the living room, which is a step away from kitchen area. The bathroom is a couple strides past that, and beyond that is the single bedroom. The Murphy bed folds up into the wall, allowing a hobby or work table to fold out.

Quade built it with the intention of learning how to construct a small home. Plans are one thing, but handling the materials and getting a feel for how the space works are something else.

"Until you build it, you don't know," he says.

Quade acknowledges the tiny house is not for everyone. It costs about $40,000. It can fit on a truck and be hauled to a beach or mountain site as a vacation cabin, but Quade has another market in mind.

Portland's building code since 2007 has allowed Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs: Sometimes called "granny flats" or "mother-in-law apartments," they can be tucked into backyards or added to existing structures. They simply can't exceed 800 square feet.

They are one of the ways the Portland-Vancouver area will accommodate 1 million new residents projected to arrive here by 2030.

, the regional government for Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties, believes we can handle that growth with only minor expansions of the urban growth boundary -- the line that separates city and country.

But we'll have to crowd in. And people such as Quade are all for it.

"My feeling is, if we want to grow responsibly, that's what the urban growth boundary is all about. This is the way we have to go," he says. "There are lots of ways we can approach higher densities within the UGB and be creative about it."

It's an idea that's taking hold.

Wood Village, in east Multnomah County, changed its development code in September to allow cottages -- houses of 1,200 square feet or less and clustered around a common outdoor space. Although the city was primarily concerned about providing housing options, the code change also doubled the allowable residential density. Metro estimates that cottages will cost 20 percent to 30 percent less than traditional single-family homes.

Salish Pond Cottages in nearby Fairview -- designed by Chapin -- found a ready market of people for homes ranging from 750 to 1,200 square feet. Valerie Correa, a family therapist, lives in a one-bedroom home with her 2-year-old son. She converted a loft into her son's room, and some of her furniture doubles as storage -- such as a daybed with drawers underneath.

"You definitely have to clear out stuff more frequently," she says.

Quade's tiny house off Northeast 55th Avenue is occupied by his sister-in-law, Raynice Pawlowski, who arrived from a Chicago suburb. Moving in required her to shed some of her belongings; there is no room for clutter.

"I try to keep things put away and be tidy," she says. "It's a good space."

Both living situations feature outdoor space that provides relief from cramped quarters. The Salish cottages front a pond and have a common area for gatherings that would overwhelm a small home. Pawlowski shares her brother-in-law's large yard, vegetable garden and fruit trees.

But storage is a key issue.

, the Swedish-based furniture and home accessories store in Northeast Portland, addresses that with floor models that demonstrate how to live small. Among them is a two-bedroom "Eco Home" unit packed into 572 square feet.

Store spokeswoman April Minister says the model uses vertical storage up the walls and furniture that does "double duty" as storage containers. The arrangement provides "ah-ha" living space moments for customers.

"We only live in about 500 square feet, anyway," Minister says. "That's what it opens your mind to."

Chapin, the architect, says people should assess their lives.

"What do you do with the turkey pan?" he asks. "The suitcases, the cross-country skis, the snow tires, the winter clothing, the vacuum?

"You still need storage," he says. "The idea of a real tiny house is great, but there are still critical needs. Where do you put the files, the last several years of taxes?"

His firm considers homes "fully livable" at about 500 square feet for one person, 900 square feet for a couple, 1,200 square feet for a small family and 1,600 to 2,000 square feet for a larger family.

No one, he says, needs 4,000 square feet.

The instinct to live smaller comes from a convergence of worry over limited land and resources, global warming, "peak oil" and other issues, he says. Living in our big, beautiful houses, with living spaces focused to the back instead of toward our neighbors, isolates us.

"The good news is that living a little closer together fosters a sense of community," Chapin says. "We've far over-emphasized the importance of privacy, to the point that we have a society that has quite a bit of dysfunction, and we're seeing the fraying at the edges.

"I think there are two significant movements in the country," Chapin says. "One is that bigger is better; that's been the prevailing notion for the last 50 years. Another movement says small is beautiful.

"I think the first movement is moving toward its sunset, and the second is more on the rise."

--