Live data from Hacker News

Architect's Dream House: Less Than 200 Square Feet

npr.org

71–80 of 156 posts

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

#71
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…

There is at least one serious disadvantage to her house, and that is: when she cooks, the ventilation will be poor, plus her clothes and "bedroom" are way too close.

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

#72
post #23

If you're interested in learning more about this, I highly suggest subscribing to Kirsten Dirksen on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDsElQQt_gCZ9LgnW-7v-cQ She publishes new videos every couple weeks or so and is intimately tied into the tiny house movement. She also covers things involving alternate ways of living, diy, etc. Lovely person.

Yeah she has a bunch of interesting videos on this.

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

#73
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.

There are many, many, many people producing children at well above replacement levels, and we are already well above the carrying capacity of our environment. I have no personal guilt at choosing not to have children.

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

#74
I am going against the wind. It's not only stupid but also ugly.

Having your bedroom near or inside a kitchen is a total chaos.

>I think technology is the enabling factor behind the tiny house movement.

Technology has helped most persons own a 'palace' which was only possible for super-rich in the past, due to lack of 'economical' technology and advancements.

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

#75
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'…

I strongly recommend reading Witold Rybczynski's "The Most Beautiful House in the World" for an interesting study in how one's ideas evolve over time...

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

#76
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.

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

#77

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 think there is a lot of potential for job creation for young and unskilled workers in the domestic service economy. You could have a device guide a service company employee around your house to do things like take your laundry out to be picked up and returned by a laundry company, and pack it back again, do an inventory of what's in your fridge and food cupboard, and do some tidying or cleaning according to instructions the way you want it. You can have it organised that one person can go around several apartments in one day, and make it simple and secure so people can take this up as temporary jobs easily.

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

#78
The house is lovely, but...tiny homes in the US are mostly detached and surrounded by wide open spaces or have long views out of the windows. They also have plenty of natural light. These factors don't make the homes feel tiny.

The real challenge for most cities is to build high-density housing where you might not have pleasant long views out of your window or lots of natural light. Higher-density housing doesn't mean high-rise, but it probably won't include building (many) detached homes. Apartments and terraced (row) houses are more suited to high-density developments.

Could you still live in a 200 square feet home if it was a single-aspect apartment in an apartment block? (Single aspect = windows along just one side of the apartment compared to a double-aspect apartment with windows at the front and back of the apartment). Or could you live in an equivalent tiny terraced house?

Just for comparison, London now has minimum space standards for new homes (but England and Wales do not). A one bedroom apartment for two people must be a minimum of 50 square metres (538 square feet). In Germany, the equivalent apartment is 60 square metres.

http://designofhomes.co.uk/images/046/space-standards-london...

To me these spaces are modest in size rather that palatial but space is relative and we all have different ideas of what tiny, small or large mean to us depending on where we live. New build homes in the UK tend to be the smallest in Europe and the quality of many new build homes is poor. Here's a comparison of the average size of new homes in the UK, Ireland, Netherlands and Denmark:

http://www.withoutspaceandlight.com/resources/img/space/comp...

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

#79
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.

There are many, many, many people producing children at well above replacement levels, and we are already well above the carrying capacity of our environment. I have no personal guilt at choosing not to have children.

Actually most advanced societies are not producing enough children to keep the population stable.
Post reply on HN