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

91–100 of 156 posts

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

#91

Post by hsitz »

drivingmissm wrote: post #76
flexie wrote: post #68

Cute little cabin and amazing what you can put into 20 m2. And it must be nice to know that you've built it yourself. But I don't believe for a second that this is the architect's dream house. Come on. It's like saying that a static blog is a programmer's dream project. She may have had a dream one night about living in a small house but I am sure that as soon as she can afford to, she will move into something bigger…

Yeah it is just a tricked out mobile home.

Actually, no, it's not just a tricked out mobile home. Apart from size, it's constructed like most regular homes, but even higher quality. Most tiny houses are built using stick framing, same as regular houses, with 6" exterior walls and lots of insulation (higher insulation level than most regular homes), have level of interior trim that is similar to but usually better than regular homes. Also most tiny houses are built so at least part of structure has very high ceilings, 11 to 12 feet, which greatly adds to feeling of spaciousness. Tiny homes cost much more per square foot than regular size homes, but of course are much cheaper overall. Even though they're usually built on wheeled trailers and can be moved, they're not built for constant moving.

In short, tiny homes are built to "feel" like a regular home, even though much smaller. Mobile homes, in contrast, are not, generally feel cheap and light, much different experience.

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

#92

Post by hsitz »

z92 wrote: post #43

The difference is 'Family'. Inevitably you will need to have a partner and say, four children, for the human race to survive. At that point you have to go the traditional route.

Even assuming that people started having four children "for the human race to survive" (a wacky thought in itself) what would prevent a family from having a compound of two or three tiny homes? At some point you would need so many tiny homes you wouldn't have much cost savings. But seems totally doable to have pair of homes or trio of homes, with, e.g., kids sleeping in one and parents in another, connected by common deck/porch.

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

#93

Post by aet »

nostromo wrote: post #16

I think technology is the enabling factor behind the tiny house movement. Books, CDs, movies, photos, files, paperwork, videogames: all compressed down to the size of a hard drive. So many random gadgets have been replaced by a smart phone, like camera equipment, phones, flashlights, calendars, etc. Now people are ditching TVs as well and just using iPads and laptops to watch video. There are other more subtle things…

When yuppies do it, it's a tiny house. When everyone else does, it's a trailer.

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

#94

Post by oceanician »

I've debating about doing this in the UK with a 32ft shipping container, and possibly straw bail externally for insulation, and a water collector on the roof for grey usage.

Seen some great projects in London & Brighton, but non in Manchester for homes yet. Though there's been a great use for offices in the Sharp project.

Anyone else in the UK looking at this sort of thing?

One question: Why the wheels if you're only going to move it every so often - say a couple of years?

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

#95

Post by driverdan »

viame wrote: post #88

You can compress these things and a lot of people have, but to live like this is another story. I myself build homes, apartments, I also design kitchens, did flips, and I can tell you that I have not met one person that could live in a tiny box like that. Yes, it is a dream of everyone, to be very simple and live like this, but this is not going to happen. She moved from 2,500sqft to 200sqft, why? You don't wake up o…

> I have not met one person that could live in a tiny box like that

What's wrong with the people you've met? If they're single there's no reason they couldn't live in a place like that. They don't need most of the junk they own and could get along just fine in a small home.

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

#96

Post by untothebreach »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #90
viame wrote: post #88

You can compress these things and a lot of people have, but to live like this is another story. I myself build homes, apartments, I also design kitchens, did flips, and I can tell you that I have not met one person that could live in a tiny box like that. Yes, it is a dream of everyone, to be very simple and live like this, but this is not going to happen. She moved from 2,500sqft to 200sqft, why? You don't wake up o…

Agreed. Stunts like this are done by design students; what evidence that anyone lives in it, for any significant amount of time? I've had a strange notion recently, that these things are actually not helpful in the larger scheme of things. Some creative person goes an lives in a shoebox; no room to design or socialize or have a hobby or even bring work home. Now we've taken a productive person out of society and turn…

This woman seems to do ok: http://rowdykittens.com/

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

#97

Post by shawnee_ »

Living small(er) in order to minimize carbon footprint makes sense. Green Metropolis by David Owen is a fantastic book that makes the case for Manhattan being a great blueprint for the ideal city of the future -- people living more densely = less energy use individually & less "space" to accumulate stuff and waste. Trash disposal in the city is such a complex problem that residents are literally forced to be economical about their consumption habits. Traditional concepts of homesteading on the plains, whether with large ranch houses or an "eco" house made of straw and mud are not necessarily ecologically friendly when there's imperative need to drive to get to the nearest urban area for work, school, shopping, etc -- these, he argues, are the antithesis of efficiency.

Small eco-homes are not just a trend; they are the new era in real estate development. But they need to be built such that they can collectively share infrastructures the same way city residents do. The project I'm working on, applied to YC with (and was rejected from) last batch is built on this idea of more ecological homesteading in order to create better urban planning. Masdar City http://www.masdarcity.ae/en/ is an interesting prototype for the future of cities. We've schooled our youngins enough for them to know that ecological awareness needs to be a lifestyle. They're surprisingly aware that the world they are inheriting has exponential population growth, limited resources, and that the "industrial revolution" model of economic viability just isn't going to work forever they way it has been working.

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

#99

Post by ghaff »

clarkm wrote: post #50
nostromo wrote: post #16

I think technology is the enabling factor behind the tiny house movement. Books, CDs, movies, photos, files, paperwork, videogames: all compressed down to the size of a hard drive. So many random gadgets have been replaced by a smart phone, like camera equipment, phones, flashlights, calendars, etc. Now people are ditching TVs as well and just using iPads and laptops to watch video. There are other more subtle things…

I just finished watching BBS: The Documentary and noticed the same thing. It seemed like everyone they interviewed had an entire room full of old computer equipment. They had boxes of software, walls of hardware manuals, stacks of monitors, cabinets of capacitors and resistors, rows of soldering irons, and at least one fully-equipped workbench. Up until the past decade or so if you wanted to be a serious computer ent…

In the 1980s (roughly the period covered by that documentary), you didn't necessarily need to build printed circuit boards and the like. Though a number of people interviewed in the film go back to the very earliest days of BBSs when there was more of that sort of thing.) But, you're basically right. Even if you didn't do a lot of soldering, you generally were building PCs, needed all sorts of cables and miscellaneous hardware, lots of books and other paper.

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

#100

Post by stevoski »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #65
nileshtrivedi wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I decided to give away my prized collection of books and move to e-books in my quest for minimalism. The only challenge that remains now is my musical instruments. :)

There's always the phone Ocarina: https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~ge/ocarina/

And there is also Fakeblock: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-official-fakeblock-app/i...
Post reply on HN