Live data from Hacker News

Architect's Dream House: Less Than 200 Square Feet

npr.org

81–90 of 156 posts

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

#81

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.

Best username ever - and perfect for someone that lives in a hanger!

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

#82
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.

We're not well above carrying capacity for the environment, seeing as how mortality rates are going down and not up.

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

#83

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.

I've got 30 lineal feet of bookshelves in my house that are filled with books I bought over the last 30 years. If I lived in my sister's house, I'd have to get rid of 80% of them.

I could do that, but I don't have to, so I don't.

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

#84
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.

My wife and I lived in a 430 square foot apartment with a baby. It was tolerable, but could have been very reasonable if the space wasn't so poorly utilized (the apartment was mostly bathroom and kitchen). We now live in 1,300 square feet with a baby and my mother, and we could easily shave 200-300 square feet off that if we didn't have unnecessarily large bathrooms and bedrooms.

Houses these days are unnecessarily large. My parents live in 6,500 square feet, and they're empty nesters! I guess that space makes a lot more sense be because they live in a suburban hellhole where there are no public spaces and every excursion outside is a half-hour car trip, one way.

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

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've got 30 lineal feet of bookshelves in my house that are filled with books I bought over the last 30 years. If I lived in my sister's house, I'd have to get rid of 80% of them. I could do that, but I don't have to, so I don't.

Books are the one thing that a subgroup of hackers has a hard time parting with. I'm fairly minimalistic with all of my possessions, but books... man, I would have a really hard time getting rid of my library :(

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

#86

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…

Dunno. I spent 2 months living in a 6ft x 8ft tent while trying to climb Everest. I got plenty of fresh air and exercise - sometimes a little too much. I actually found it quite pleasant although I was reduced to reading paper books - internet access was tricky.

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

#87

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 technology is the enabling factor behind the tiny house movement.

I'm not sure why these stories keep coming up as original. I received my architecture degree in the early 90s and we had an entire studio course that included designing micro structures for dense urban populations. Yet, at least once a year I see a story about this novel new concept.

It's just a little house. If you put them all together in a village format it becomes a mobile home park. But for some reason no one wants to live there. Call it a mini house or micro house and suddenly it's cool. shrug

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

#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 one day and do that unless you cannot afford living in a house, and I don't care what she says. Maybe it's her cottage or trailer, I really don't know, but don't believe anything they say on the news.

A lot of people would go insane in a 200sqft space. It's like a cell. If anyone wants to try, please come live in my shed. It's very minimalistic, raw, super nice like this place.

:)

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

#89

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 technology is the enabling factor behind the tiny house movement. I'm not sure why these stories keep coming up as original. I received my architecture degree in the early 90s and we had an entire studio course that included designing micro structures for dense urban populations. Yet, at least once a year I see a story about this novel new concept. It's just a little house. If you put them all together in a…

Nowhere in the interview does the architect say that this is an original idea. She explicitly mentions that it is a growing trend, in fact. And also the words "micro" and "mini" don't appear at all in the article.

This is cool because she did a stunningly beautiful job on an 11,000$ budget. Her aesthetic sensibilities are, from the looks of this project, almost perfectly aligned with mine... but I have none of the talent to create something so beautiful in any medium unfortunately. Wow!

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

#90
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 turned them into a hermit. How does that help? It seems selfish at some level.

Post reply on HN