It’s a movement because it’s breaking away from the norm. The norm is over-consumption of space. Since space is a limited commodity, in a world where the desire for space is increasing (due to to the untick in the global population), the demand outstrips supply and the cost increases.
This has two consequences. On the one hand, the richer you are the more likely you are to be able to afford space. The second, the richer you are, the more space you are likely to acquire due to its increasing value. The economics make sense.
The unintended consequences are that more people are required to pay premiums for this space due to the demand increase partly caused by investors hoping to snap up space they do not actually use. This affects their living standards and ability to rise above their current economic station, keeping them in poverty cycles for longer.
The small house movement asks the why question. Why can’t we get along with less? Why can’t we settle for less space that we own and more space that is available for us to use whenever we feel like it, parks, trails, nature reserves, etc.
It flips the common logic and moves counter-cultural.
Whenever we do, we discover wide open spaces and uncommon economic trajectories.
What is the common logic in your field that is worth creating a movement for?