Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apartments So Small They Can Only Be Photographed From Above

theatlanticcities.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 212 posts

Re: Apartments So Small They Can Only Be Photographed From Above

#191

Post by anovikov »

bjourne wrote: post #44
wilfra wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good video. I disagree that the government should do anything about it though. What's the alternative, make them homeless? If there is both supply and demand, let people do what they want. If San Francisco allowed this, there would be far fewer homeless people, but the only options they give them are $2,000 a month apartments or living in the streets. So lots of people live in the streets.

No, the alternative is to have the government build subsidized housing and then enact strict price controls so that even poor families can afford to live reasonably. That's how it was done in Singapore for example and is why they can live in "spacious" 30-70 m^2 apartments despite having a higher population density than Hong Kong. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore .

People are driven to these places by economic opportunities. They are not living in cages because they have nothing else to do, but because they want to live in Hong Kong, even much better conditions in mainland China is of no interest to them. This is like how people abandon their well built, fully paid out 3-bedroom apartments in mainland Russia and flock to Moscow where they share rooms with strangers, with 5-10 people living together in an apartment in their 30s. This isn't poverty, this is how people try to escape poverty. They cannot be helped to do it (otherwise more people will flock in - you can't move all China/all Russia to Hong Kong/Moscow), and should not be banned from trying (that kills economic progress, with Russians staying in Russian province means they will simply slowly die of vodka, in Moscow they might do something useful, i think same goes to Chinese).

Re: Apartments So Small They Can Only Be Photographed From Above

#192

Post by cynicalkane »

bjourne wrote: post #44
wilfra wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good video. I disagree that the government should do anything about it though. What's the alternative, make them homeless? If there is both supply and demand, let people do what they want. If San Francisco allowed this, there would be far fewer homeless people, but the only options they give them are $2,000 a month apartments or living in the streets. So lots of people live in the streets.

No, the alternative is to have the government build subsidized housing and then enact strict price controls so that even poor families can afford to live reasonably. That's how it was done in Singapore for example and is why they can live in "spacious" 30-70 m^2 apartments despite having a higher population density than Hong Kong. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore .

> the government build subsidized housing and then enact strict price controls

You're aware that the US has been doing this since the 1950s, right? And it hasn't worked as well for us?

Re: Apartments So Small They Can Only Be Photographed From Above

#193

Post by VLM »

lclarkmichalek wrote: post #125
ctdonath wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$1 per meal: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com

Do these people have access to cooking facilities? Also a lot of the stuff there is being bought in bulk, and I imagine that storing stuff might be a problem. And of course, there is the omnipresent fact that many poor people do not have the time/knowledge to prepare many kinds of meal.

20+ years ago I worked at a food store frequented by urban poor including some homeless and as a starving student at that time I fit right in.

At that level "cooking" is buy a bun (or two) from the bakery for 50 cents (or less if day old), a dollars worth of sliced meat from the deli, a slice or two of deli cheese for a quarter, grab a handful of condiment packets from the deli, and "cook" that into a sandwich lunch for about two bucks while laughing at the $7 premade subs from the deli or the fast food joint. And frankly the ingredients are probably higher quality than the fast food restaurant.

Re: Apartments So Small They Can Only Be Photographed From Above

#194

Post by michaelochurch »

redact207 wrote: post #10

It gets worse. The photos are not the bottom of the barrel when it comes to Hong Kong real estate. Those who are in the worst poverty are the ones who live in cages. It's literally a bunk bed with sides enclosed with cage wiring. They have no walls, minimal possessions and live day to day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU4jjdRzy3w Hong Kong is an intriguing city that I highly recommend to go spend some time in.

Those remind me of the Caribbean slave huts (about 4-5 m^3 for two people). I think the cages are worse. I know people who camp in the huts (still standing) but I can't imagine anyone (with other options) voluntarily spending a night in one of those.

Re: Apartments So Small They Can Only Be Photographed From Above

#195

Post by VLM »

barry-cotter wrote: post #76
icebraining wrote: post #69

I find it odd that whoever build those houses decided to make tiny apartments instead of larger shared ones. For cooking, having a shared kitchen - even if used by many families - would probably help a lot, specially since it's cheaper and easier to make a big communal meal than having to cook for each family.

People value not sharing space a lot . In first world countries most of the worst things about being poor come from being surrounded by other poor people. Communal cooking is more efficient at basically every scale from 2 peson household up, where at its most egalitarian it's just taking turns to cook. But I am aware of no modern culture where most people eat communal meals; in fact the only exceptions I'm aware of a…

"no modern culture where most people eat communal meals"

The blue collar lunchroom. A direct descendant of the school lunchroom.

As for anecdotes, the last time I ate in a communal lunchroom was the last manual labor job I had around 1994 while in school, since then its all been eating at the desk, runnin errands, going out. My employers have all had empty lunchrooms as an anachronism, more a place to keep the coffee makers and fridges and junk food machines. Once in awhile you'll see like 4 people in a 300 person company in the lunchroom eating together, or they have birthday parties/meetings in the "lunch"room.

Re: Apartments So Small They Can Only Be Photographed From Above

#196

Post by michaelochurch »

nostromo wrote: post #30
JeremyMorgan wrote: post #19

Call me crazy, but I've always thought if I were a single guy with no family, I could live in something like this. I follow a couple of pages on Facebook about minimal living and think that it wouldn't be all that bad to have a one room place that has all the facilities needed. It sucks that so many are left with no choice in the matter though.

There's a whole community around the idea of tiny houses. For example, check out this 89 sq foot home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbRvsWuWNUM Obviously it's different to choose this lifestyle vs being forced into it due to poverty.

He's got quality but not quantity, by conscious choice.

That said, there are a couple problems with a tiny living arrangement (as I can explain, having lived in New York for 7 years). First, very small spaces are harder to keep clean. While a 1000 SF house is easier to clean than 2000 SF, 1000 is probably easier than 500 SF (with a family of 4). Second, most people are social creatures and like the idea of being able to host larger parties (15-20 people, comfortably) in their house. If you prefer the outdoors over an active social life (like him, and to a lesser extent, like me) then this is a worthy sacrifice, but most people would dislike what a 100 SF house does to their social life. (New York is a strange exception; almost no one hosts in NYC.)

Re: Apartments So Small They Can Only Be Photographed From Above

#197

Post by michaelochurch »

riffic wrote: post #153
kevcampb wrote: post #34

Does anyone have any idea of the costs of building vertically? I ask as I generally love the idea of sky-rise buildings and high density housing. To me, Hong Kong feels almost utopian - like some sort of architects' playground. Stick thin apartments rising up through hillsides. Super dense housing, but the ability to travel 30 minutes and be in remarkable countryside. It really is remarkable. I'd love to think this i…

On the other hand, it has been argued that skyscrapers can be detrimental. In A Pattern Language it's stated that "There is abundant evidence to show that high buildings make people crazy", and it goes further to propose a pattern of a four-story limit for dense urban areas.

In A Pattern Language it's stated that "There is abundant evidence to show that high buildings make people crazy", and it goes further to propose a pattern of a four-story limit for dense urban areas.

Fucking terrible idea. I almost certainly know more about mental illness than you do. What makes people crazy in urban areas is expensive real estate. It's not signing the ridiculous rent checks that does it-- that's just annoying. However, moving involuntarily-- especially when due to adverse economic circumstances-- has a huge detrimental effect on mental health, even inducing illnesses such as schizophrenia[0] which might otherwise be thought to be purely biological.

[0] Schizophrenia, like cancer and depression, probably isn't one disease. There are at least 5 different schizophrenias.

Next to genetics and drug abuse, the strongest predictor for mental illness is whether a person had to move involuntarily for economic reasons. Traditionally, this was a cause for the high rate of mental illness in urban areas. (However, the recent housing catastrophe was a mostly suburban phenomenon; we'll see in about 10 years if that results in suburban MI levels exceeding urban ones)

If you ban high-rises, real estate costs become extreme. Just look at what it costs to live in the Village if you don't believe me. Or look at San Francisco's problem. It's not nearly as dense as New York, but almost as expensive because of the NIMBY assholes.

Bad bad bad fucking idea.

Re: Apartments So Small They Can Only Be Photographed From Above

#198

Post by RougeFemme »

VLM wrote: post #195
barry-cotter wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People value not sharing space a lot . In first world countries most of the worst things about being poor come from being surrounded by other poor people. Communal cooking is more efficient at basically every scale from 2 peson household up, where at its most egalitarian it's just taking turns to cook. But I am aware of no modern culture where most people eat communal meals; in fact the only exceptions I'm aware of a…

"no modern culture where most people eat communal meals" The blue collar lunchroom. A direct descendant of the school lunchroom. As for anecdotes, the last time I ate in a communal lunchroom was the last manual labor job I had around 1994 while in school, since then its all been eating at the desk, runnin errands, going out. My employers have all had empty lunchrooms as an anachronism, more a place to keep the coffee…

I'd add cororate cafeterias to that, especially those are subsidized. But this is for a larger company, at least 1,000 employees or so. And there's a mix of "blue-collar" and "white-collar" employees using it. And the utilization is a lot better - closer to 60%, plus whatever % of building tenant. And while many of the people do take the food and run back to their cubes, the cafeteria is also almost full of people taking communal meals.

Re: Apartments So Small They Can Only Be Photographed From Above

#199

Post by yummyfajitas »

pessimizer wrote: post #149
frogpelt wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think time would be more abundant for poor people.

Only if you wrongly assume that poor people don't work.

In the US it's generally true.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2010.pdf (Note: read past the title.)

However, the US is an unusual place, so we should certainly not extrapolate that the same is true in Hong Kong or anywhere else (besides Canada).

Re: Apartments So Small They Can Only Be Photographed From Above

#200

Post by michaelochurch »

ehmuidifici wrote: post #92

So you all must need to know whats going on with real state in Brazil. Appartments prices here are in a almost insane prices. Houses? In most big cities(Sao Paulo, Rio, Porto Alegre), you can't buy a middle-class house with no more less than 500k (yeah, US dollars).

Real estate is one of those issues that can quickly separate smart people from mouth-breathing idiots.

Mouth-breathing idiots see expensive real estate and think it's a good thing. They clap their fat, ugly hands together. "People really want to live here!"

Smart people realize that expensive real estate is a sign of something that's gone seriously wrong, since high prices have more to do with supply problems (inelasticity) than demand. Regulatory corruption, deficient transportation, and damaged environments are usually behind expensive real estate. It's not something to be celebrated. It's a disease.

Post reply on HN