Live data from Hacker News

Architect's Dream House: Less Than 200 Square Feet

npr.org

61–70 of 156 posts

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

#61

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 So many random gadgets have been replaced by a smart phone, like camera equipment, phones, flashlights, calendars, etc.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 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. :)

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

#62

My wife and I live in a ~720 sq. foot loft we built inside of an airplane hangar. The story is here: http://www.makingthishome.com/hangar-loft-remodel/ We really love living in smaller spaces.

So ... I saw Katie's "Tire House" post. I've seen and read some of Mike Reynolds' work, but hadn't seen anyone specifically critical of the Earthship design. Is there a specific post which gets into the downsides of the mode of construction or do I have to read her whole blog to find out? http://www.makingthishome.com/2009/05/27/earthship-tour-aka-...

In a nutshell, we encountered two problems (which may or may not be prevalent with all Earthships)

1. Extreme temperature fluctuations. You're essentially living inside a solar collector. In the fall, the sun would blaze in through the windows, and I know you're supposed to have overhangs, shades and air vents and underground air circulation systems, all of which we used. The bottom line is you can't cheat physics. Even with the shades closed, the house is receiving over 300k BTU/hr of solar heat. This is just too much for any reasonably sized cooling system to handle. My infrared thermometer measured surface temperatures in excess of 140 deg. F on surfaces near the windows. In the winter, the same windows would leak heat like a sieve. Here in Montana when it's overcast, 10 deg. F, and the wind is blowing 30 mph the front of the house would barely reach 55 deg F. This was with the 30k BTU propane furnace going 100% duty cycle. I would work at my computer with long pants, a sweater, a blanket over my legs, and an electric heater blowing under the blanket :) The rear of the house is built into the hillside, so it would be warmer in the back, but you could never get the place past about about 65-68 in the winter no matter how much you tried. The sheer size of the front windows and lack of insulation again made the house design at odds with thermodynamics in my opinion.

For the sake of comparison, our place in the hangar has ~R30 walls to the hangar, and again about ~R25 walls to the outside. We have in-floor radiant heat provided by our geothermal heat pump. Earlier this month when it was -20 deg. F outside we were toasty warm at 74 (we have a newborn child in the house now). And we were using significantly less energy to heat than at the Earthship.

2. Mice. The house construction methods are inherently porous, and mice have infiltrated the entire structure. They live in the cavities the walls form (and the roof supports), along the utility raceways in the ceiling, under cabinets, everywhere. I surmise that the mice have tunneled through the back of the hillside, between the tires, and up into the hollow cavities which support the ceiling. They then use this space to move around the inside of the house structure to other areas. No amount of trapping poisoning, etc. has slowed the onslaught of mice into the house. If the only way to prevent mice from infiltrating your supposedly green house is to use concrete in its construction and set outdoor poison traps which potentially kill hundreds of mice and may harm animals which then consume the poisoned mice, is this really such a green alternative?

I've visited an Earthship being constructed in Big Sky Montana by Mike Reynolds this year. The design changes I've seen may partially address point 1, but as far as point 2 I'm not at all convinced that this new house will be any better. I admire his vision, and that he's been able to take his ideas so far. From an engineering standpoint, even taking into account the ecological footprint of the structure, I'm not convinced that his approach is the best when you look at the whole picture.

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

#63
If you guys like this, then make sure to look at an interview with Marcin Jakubowski the founder of Open Source Ecology.

He said that you can build your own house for $2000 dollar.

I can't find that report now, but here is a link to their discussion form.

http://forum.opensourceecology.org/discussion/903/building-a...

they even open source the design to build your own brick presser.

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

#64
post #63

If you guys like this, then make sure to look at an interview with Marcin Jakubowski the founder of Open Source Ecology. He said that you can build your own house for $2000 dollar. I can't find that report now, but here is a link to their discussion form. http://forum.opensourceecology.org/discussion/903/building-a... they even open source the design to build your own brick presser.

here is more detail. It is called a

OSE Microhouse

http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/OSE_Microhouse

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

#65

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 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/

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

#66
post #29

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.

It is quite true that you can live happily in small places. However, it doesn't mean it is preferable to do so.

Having lived with my wife in a 490 sq foot jr. one bedroom for one year - and now in a 2 bedroom, ~800 sq foot place, I can say I really don't get the whole minimal housing thing. Our new place is objectively better; aside from price and the most marginal savings in cleaning time, there was no advantage to living in the smaller place.

Improvements:

* It was impossible in old place to fit bikes, TV, and 2 computer stations in living area. So 1 computer station went into bedroom. Causes conflicts if one person is sleeping and other is awake -- moving computer + associated papers/books is an annoyance.

* Dedicated sleeping room. No need to disturb other sleeping person while getting clothes, etc.

* Place to retreat: In a small place, if you just want to be alone, you really can't be. We have lower stress levels with 2 bedrooms.

* Space to move around: We feel healthier having more space to move around.

* Can now actually invite more than just 3 people over at a time.

That said there are limits; we'd gain little from more space. But there's a lot to be said for having at least one bedroom per person.

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

#67
I like the idea of efficient space and less to keep clean. But I want a well-stocked lab at home: toolboxes, musical instruments, books, hardware projects, cooking equipment. Piles of junk are hard to clean around. I've been thinking that a 'compactus' unit like this might serve all needs: http://www.officecentre.com.au/prod1129.htm You could probably get it installed to house servers in the end-units.

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

#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. Let's not kid ourselves :-)

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

#69
post #50

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…

i like minimalism but to a point. i have a full workbench for example as i like to fix stuff on m own. not just computers, mind you. i also like creating physical stuff - i think most ppl on HN revolve around creating non-physical stuff most of the time.

i also cook my own food more often than not. both are more economical _and_ i enjoy it. ive a 800sqft 1 bedroom in sf so its not that small either. workbench isnt in a garage so its pretty compact yet is a real, full featured bench. 2500sqft with unused rooms certainly is way too big tho.

Post reply on HN