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

151–160 of 212 posts

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

#151

Post by IgorPartola »

wilfra wrote: post #51
bjourne wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

I disagree it is the governments job to give people a place to live. From the sounds of it, Hong Kong already does a lot of this. At some point, people need to take care of themselves.

A hungry homeless person is everyone's problem and a huge risk. No matter how you slice it, you end up paying the price: the value of your house goes down, the crime rate goes up, etc. It is a myth that you can escape poverty. Sure, you can move to an expensive gated community with a white gloved guard shooing away the "undesirables", but why do you think it's so expensive?

Moreover, a hungry homeless person is a security risk. How many iPhones, GPS's, laptops, etc. are stolen in a smash-and-grab incidents? How many people get hurt? No, not by your friendly neighborhood homeless lady, but by a person who feels they have no other choice but to steal or a person who is hooked on an addictive substance and can't stop?

Poverty also does not take a lot of people. A few percent here and there will cause enough headaches to become noticeable.

And poverty is chronic in society. It's not like if you took all the homeless, poor, and hungry and shipped them off to some unknown land you'd rid of the problem. No, instead more people would be pushed into the margins, becoming poor. You have to treat the cause.

Therefore, if poverty is inherent in certain societal setups, if it is everyone's problem (i.e.: everyone pays the cost) and it takes only a small percentage of people being poor to become a big problem, it is in the interest of everyone to change the societal setup so that poverty is minimized. Your original point was that it's not the government's job to do this. I argue that it is. The government (by the people and for the people) would not be doing it's job if it wasn't taking care of me or the person next to me.

As an aside, some might argue that private charities work much more efficiently than governments when it comes to homelessness/poverty/hunger. Personally, I believe a balanced approach works best. Big slow moving government projects with lots of oversight and restrictions coupled with flexible and quick-acting private charities are much more effective than either of the two.

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

#152

Post by JackFr »

notimetorelax wrote: post #5
berlinbrown wrote: post #2

I live in apartment. Not a micro-one. But I imagine you can find solace in just having only the things you need. Why do you need a ranch size home and 20 acres?

Do you have children? Or a dog? It is usually a good idea to have one extra room per each member of the family. This way if you want to be alone for a while you can. Or if you want to listen to the music that others don't appreciate you can (headphones can be tiresome to wear).

Baseless. Start it with "I like..." and then it's true.

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

#153

Post by riffic »

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.

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

#155

Post by lilsunnybee »

ctdonath wrote: post #114
hmsimha wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was the second thought that occurred to me as well (the first was to be absolutely horrified). The reporter said the rent for one of those cages is 12 (AUD I believe) per month. Likewise, that only left each cage dweller with 13 AUD per day from their welfare check for other expenses (which the narrator said was not enough to afford 3 meals every day after other expenses). So if the cost of living in a cage for…

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

Most disgusting comment i've seen in quite a while. Maybe you can go live in one of these cages too and see how thrifty you can be.

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

#156

Post by lilsunnybee »

wilfra wrote: post #51
bjourne wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

I disagree it is the governments job to give people a place to live. From the sounds of it, Hong Kong already does a lot of this. At some point, people need to take care of themselves.

You're going to end up paying for it one way or another. Either in expensive prisons with armed guards, or by intervening before things get out of hand.

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

#157

Post by lilsunnybee »

wilfra wrote: post #133
king_jester wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the responsibility of society and communities to end situations that even allow for the poor to exist, otherwise we are simply sending people to their doom.

Well hey, I'll get on board with that. Sounds like an impossibility though unless you're a country like Kuwait with an endless supply of money you don't have to work for and a tiny population.

Maybe, if there weren't many wealthy people out in the world buying worthless shit with their money, power and influence.

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

#158

Post by derleth »

rohamg wrote: post #54
derleth wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I imagine you can find solace in just having only the things you need. No. You, maybe, but not me, and certainly not everyone. And that's not even fully addressing the unstated assumption that everything you 'need' would even fit in an apartment, let alone a micro apartment. Getting rid of things isn't always a good thing to do. Having the ability to be fully packed and ready to move in an hour is a tactic, not…

Simple living and minimizing material possessions is absolutely a philosophy, and an increasingly popular one at that. Im not sure how you argue otherwise.

> Simple living and minimizing material possessions

Not the same thing, which is my point.

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

#159

Post by arrrg »

jib wrote: post #47
brador wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much was that and how long ago?

400 euro/month around 5-10 years ago.

That’s cheap? Wow. If it’s close to Versailles it’s well outside Paris.

I’m now moving into a 17sqft mini apartment (just for four months), one metro station from the center of Hamburg (20 min to my very central workplace, including a ten minute bus ride to the next metro station plus walking and waiting times). I will pay 270 euro/month for it, including heat and electricity.

You can get more spacious apartments in similar places in Hamburg for about 500 Euro/month. If you share an apartment with roommates you might even pay less than 400 Euro.

Is Paris really so much more expensive, even well outside the city? I mean, Hamburg (and Munich and now also Berlin) are already making headlines for their crazy expensive rents.

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

#160

Post by derleth »

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.

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

Fiscal conservatives must assume this or their philosophy does not work.

Post reply on HN