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

Architect's Dream House: Less Than 200 Square Feet

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 156 posts

Re: Architect's Dream House: Less Than 200 Square Feet

#31

Post by nilkn »

gaadd33 wrote: post #29
samstave wrote: post #11

If you haven't seen the documentary "tiny house movement" watch it... Personally, I think these efforts lack an understanding of basic annoyances: Assume you want to sleep when others don't? Oh - the answer is this is for happy single people. Assume you overcook your steak and the whole place smokes up and your bedding now stinks. Assume you have more than (1) friend over. Have kids? I LOVE small/minimal spaces - but…

Somehow most people living in dense cities make do with a small amount of space. For example it's not uncommon to find 300sq ft apartments in Manhattan. Some people even manage to raise kids in such space. Look at places like Hong Kong and similar where small units are the norm and yet people seem to be able to live with the issues you mention.

Some people live without a home at all. That doesn't mean it's a healthy way to raise kids.

Re: Architect's Dream House: Less Than 200 Square Feet

#32

Post by timmaah »

Casseres wrote: post #6
akcreek wrote: post #5

200 sq ft would be hard for me personally, but mid-January I'm closing on a 375 sq ft building that I'm converting to a living space for myself, my wife and our dog. It will be short term for us while we restore the main building though... probably 18-24 months. After that it we'll use it as a guest house and I'll probably put it on Airbnb or similar as well. I've always wanted to live in a smaller space though so I'…

If one was confined to 200 sq ft, I would agree that it would be difficult to live in. I think the idea with most of these tiny houses, is that owners live more outdoors, and they move the tiny houses to the environment they want to live in.

My wife and I live in just under 200sq ft. No way we could do it if we weren't mobile. We would drive each other nuts. Warm enough weather that we can keep the door open is preferable.

Just spent the last month in the middle of San Diego and now it is out to the desert.

Re: Architect's Dream House: Less Than 200 Square Feet

#34

Post by timmaah »

platz wrote: post #15
samstave wrote: post #11

If you haven't seen the documentary "tiny house movement" watch it... Personally, I think these efforts lack an understanding of basic annoyances: Assume you want to sleep when others don't? Oh - the answer is this is for happy single people. Assume you overcook your steak and the whole place smokes up and your bedding now stinks. Assume you have more than (1) friend over. Have kids? I LOVE small/minimal spaces - but…

What about the RV folks, same criticisms?

We live in 8x25'. The bedroom is separate enough for one to sleep while the other is awake. My wife and I's schedule is offset by about an hour or two. Give each other a bit of alone time.

She also cooks 3 meals a day in our tiny kitchen. Nothing stinks afterwards.

Re: Architect's Dream House: Less Than 200 Square Feet

#35

Post by datasage »

officemonkey wrote: post #18

My sister, who lives in midtown Manhattan, lives in an apartment smaller than this place. If you're downsizing from a bigger place, you basically get rid of everything. I have 30+ wine glasses in my condo in Chicago. My sister has two. The other thing that happens in a tiny space: you end up buying quality. You will wait to find "just the right desk lamp" and then pay a premium for it.

With space you end up buying so much stuff you may end up not really using, or buy low quality stuff just to fill the space.

Re: Architect's Dream House: Less Than 200 Square Feet

#36

Post by gaadd33 »

nilkn wrote: post #31
gaadd33 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow most people living in dense cities make do with a small amount of space. For example it's not uncommon to find 300sq ft apartments in Manhattan. Some people even manage to raise kids in such space. Look at places like Hong Kong and similar where small units are the norm and yet people seem to be able to live with the issues you mention.

Some people live without a home at all. That doesn't mean it's a healthy way to raise kids.

Are you comparing living without a home to living in a small apartment in a major city?

Given people seemed to raise kids and survive in 983 sq ft during the 1950s (average house size) I don't see why people think we need massive houses to raise children in today.

Re: Architect's Dream House: Less Than 200 Square Feet

#37

Post by voltagex_ »

001sky wrote: post #27
voltagex_ wrote: post #21

I'm in a wheelchair. Brand new houses built with stairs make me sad. I've often thought I'd love to work with an architect to design accessible houses: it's not just for me, anyone with limited mobility or energy would benefit.

This is basically a mobile home, which has no foundation. As such, there is nothing in the design which is not easily re-built to your spec. The design is inherently modular. When you are dealing with a 200sq ft living space, its best to have it tailored to your own needs, and not a random or lowest common-denominator-based spec. The common areas, however take on more importance in a community or non-remote setting a…

Hey thanks, that's good to know.

Re: Architect's Dream House: Less Than 200 Square Feet

#38

Post by nilkn »

gaadd33 wrote: post #36
nilkn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people live without a home at all. That doesn't mean it's a healthy way to raise kids.

Are you comparing living without a home to living in a small apartment in a major city? Given people seemed to raise kids and survive in 983 sq ft during the 1950s (average house size) I don't see why people think we need massive houses to raise children in today.

Yes, but I was using the definition of "small" from your previous post: 300 sq ft, not 900+ sq. ft.

Re: Architect's Dream House: Less Than 200 Square Feet

#39

Post by samstave »

gaadd33 wrote: post #29
samstave wrote: post #11

If you haven't seen the documentary "tiny house movement" watch it... Personally, I think these efforts lack an understanding of basic annoyances: Assume you want to sleep when others don't? Oh - the answer is this is for happy single people. Assume you overcook your steak and the whole place smokes up and your bedding now stinks. Assume you have more than (1) friend over. Have kids? I LOVE small/minimal spaces - but…

Somehow most people living in dense cities make do with a small amount of space. For example it's not uncommon to find 300sq ft apartments in Manhattan. Some people even manage to raise kids in such space. Look at places like Hong Kong and similar where small units are the norm and yet people seem to be able to live with the issues you mention.

>Look at places like Hong Kong...

I have spent extensive time in HK, and I apologize that I have only had the misfortune of interacting with people who make incomes on-par or above that of a typical Silicon Valley worker, thus they have AMAZING places to live....

Unfortunately I am at the poor end of the spectrum at south of 200K USD per annum

Re: Architect's Dream House: Less Than 200 Square Feet

#40

Post by grannyg00se »

Brakenshire wrote: post #19

This is fine in a warm country, or in a place where you're going to be in or out of your house all the time. Living in a cold and/or isolated place, being cooped up in such a small area would be unhealthy, you need to move around much more as a matter of course. Particularly if you're working at home, you'd have to be very proactive to avoid serious impacts on your health, because your lifestyle would be almost inher…

I like that distributed space idea but if you're not in a warm climate that would be a serious annoyance. Who wants to go out in freezing weather to get to the kitchen? you could get your exercise interspersed throughout the day without leaving the tiny house.
Post reply on HN