I'm living in a 170 square foot apartment in Tokyo. This is on the small side, but not so unusual for an apartment close to the city center. In addition to the savings in rent, I also save money by not collecting possessions. The space isn't such an issue, because I fully utilize it. Having a bigger place would be nice for having people over and what not, but the majority of the time I wouldn't use the space.
Besides that, I just try and not collect possessions. If I don't use something, I give or throw it away. I avoid buying stuff that will take up space unless I regularly use it.
Yes, I live in an apartment in Shinjuku (though it is on the border with Nakano). It is a self-contained unit with its own bathroom, toilet, and kitchen (sink and one burner stove).
It's Japan - so having a bath is an important feature, which I do. In fact, I think it would be pretty rare to find a place with just a shower. It's kind of a bath shower/combo, as is typical of Japanese homes and looks something like this:
http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/16/27/30/t...
In here, the bath is covered as Japanese usually share the same bath water amongst the family (you wash in the shower before getting in - it's more about relaxation than cleaning).
To me, the most interesting "hack" here is how the Tumbleweed house company has hacked its way onto Oprah, NPR and the top result for "tiny house" on Google.
I wish my startup could do that.
They've done a remarkable job with PR and are effectively the Apple Computer of trailer homes.
I'm guessing that people post it as a physical hack. Hack in the sense that they're doing more with less than "should" be possible. Add that it's mildly counter-culture and environmentally friendly, and people vote it up.
As habitual pack rat I'm fascinated by these tiny houses. I think it would be great to simply live in a smaller space. Then there isn't any room for clutter to accumulate.
It would probably be a better solution to change your habits... I used to be a bit of a hoarder, then I set myself a rule: "If I haven't used something in 6 months, it needs to be thrown out or given away."
I always thought those houses quite fascinating. This, plus some storage space would allow you to go not-quite-Walden. OTOH, minimalism isn't exactly about square-footage. A slightly bigger house, with a bit more "whitespace" would probably be more comfortabl -- imagine a small traditional Japanese house, or one of those buildings based on upcycled shipping containers...
Also, for ecological reasons, this would still be a waste of space, as you're only using two dimensions and probably need some space around the building. A typical apartment building would be better.
This is quite good if you've got a lot more land, but only a little space to build upon (forest, hills, etc.).
If I remember correctly, even the founder of the company selling those houses only partially lives in one of them. He's got a bigger, traditional house next to it.
Regarding "whitespace" - I personally find head room to be a lot more psychologically meaningful that square footage (in other words, I'd rather live in a 1,000 sf house with 9ft ceilings than a 2,000 sf house with 7 foot ceilings, although the analogy breaks down eventually). And the advantage of head room is that you can't fill it with junk :-)
I wonder whether "digital packratting" (collecting e-books, scanning everything to Evernote, collecting gaming "trophies") can replace the hoarding need that is so important to many people, but without the downside of being burried in clutter.
Well, at least it's harder to fill ceiling with junk. Tall shelves and loft beds certainly help...
I do agree with you, I'm really looking for something with larger ceilings once I have to get my own apartment again. Even if it's just in the middle of the room (i.e. under the roof). But there has to be some degree of horizontal space, too for that to work. 6x6x10 would be a bit weird.
I think clutter is some kind of vicious circle. Once you start, it's hard to stop. And starting is pretty easy if you're not really vigilant -- things like long work hours, kids and long commutes quickly start your hoard. And if your life doesn't work out the way it does, you're prone to nostalgia and memorabilia.
Smaller accommodations make it harder to start that. But there's small, and there's tiny...
yeah, I think the website says he has several small houses on his property. I guess all his guests get their "own room" :-)
One thing I like about it is how easy it is to completely clean the house from top to bottom. But no place washer and dryer. I think it would be cool to have one as a retreat.
I live in a 1,000 square foot house. It's the right size for my wife and I. We'd fit just fine with a kid as well... Having lived in smaller apartments (down to 500 square feet) I just don't see me doing it ever again:)
My fiance and I recently downsized to a 1000 sqft condo. Living small is surprisingly expensive, though. Its crowded in the condo, because all the stuff we have as hand-me-downs, like the TV and sofa, is meant for a much larger space. It costs a lot of money to get new stuff that fits in the space better.
Where do you live? In Belgium 90m2 apartments are considered small, even for a couple with no kids. 120 m2 is standard for newly build ones, I'm building a few between 125 and 170 although these are luxury apartments. My sister bought a 170m2 one smack dead in the center of a big city (Antwerp), as urban as it gets in Belgium. Where I live now in the Netherlands the standards are lower though, especially in Amsterdam.
My somewhat educated guess is that recent and current construction have been a bit smaller than Belgium. The law says new apartment buildings, for example, have to have an average apartment size of 75m2 but I would say that in the city here 100-120m2 is pretty standard for a family of four.
Mind, even 120m2 (~1300 sq.ft.) is quite small by U.S. "middle class" standards.
Well yeah, unless I'm misunderstanding, you were saying that 92m2 is not downsizing (at least not downsizing enough). So I said that 92m2 is at the bottom of 'normal' size apartments. I guess you can argue that 92m2 to be below average means that the average is too high, but it would seem that everyone else thinks that it's normal.
Yes. 90m2 is huge considering actual needs of two people. Half that is still comfortable. A third is livable.
It may be a big shift down from what someone had before, and may even seem normal-sized by current standards but that is only because of disproportionate expectations. It can only be seen as true "downsizing" when your scale is way too big to begin with. Consider how the Mini is a "small" car - while being about twice the size of the original mini.
You're bringing this as if there is an objective measure for the 'needs' of the living space of two people, and that what is considered 'normal' is way above that objective measure. You're not bringing any supportive evidence for this (in my eyes) grandiose claim, other than proof by vigorous hand waving and stating it in terms of great certainty.
The one objective measure one can bring to the table is the lower boundary - which is maybe around 2 m2 per person, as there are numerous houses (e.g. dwelling where illegal immigrants are housed in by human traffickers) (I'm just making a guess here, based on hearing for example about 50 people being packed in small houses in farming areas). I suppose you're not seriously arguing that this is what we should strive for, yet this is (objectively) how little room humans can 'survive' on. (if it were possible on less, these people would get less, considering human traffickers probably try to minimize their costs in order to maximize profits).
You quantify your statements by saying that 30m2 is 'livable' for two people. I don't see how you can make this assertion. What is 'livable' or 'comfortable' is entirely subjective. One may get /used/ to living in a smaller room; heck, one would get 'used' to being sodomized daily with a coke bottle too, I guess, as long as it's done for a long enough time. That still doesn't mean it's something to aim for. You're projecting an entirely subjective /opinion/ (houses should be small, people should not have much stuff which is implied by living in such a small house, ...) onto this discussion and present it as /fact/.
Anyway I'm perfectly willing to accept that there is an 'optimum' in the sense that the median of the population would feel comfortable enough living in an apartment of a certain size. I know of no way to measure this optimum, because so many of the variable are hard to quantify. Instead we could say that the reality shows preferences already: the amount of space people feel most comfortable in, in function of their spending capability, is the house they live in! This may not be perfect, but it sure would show that what 'people' in general find 'comfortable enough' is a lot higher than your 30 m2.
The point of "downsizing", related to "downshifting", is to remove the excess largess western cultures have grown accustomed to. To some anyway. It is also a voluntary choice so no need to worry about concentration apartment buildings where flats only have room for one TV set.
I live, with one other person and three cats, comfortably in 54m2 (581 sq.ft.). We used to live slightly less comfortably in 42m2. I know four or five couples who live in 30-37m2 currently (which I, you will note, said was "livable"). And others that have 90m2+.
90m2 may well be standard for two people where you are at least but it is wasteful in terms of resources if nothing else.
Maybe it's you who suffers from space blindness. :) People can get used to a wide range of personal space availability. A friend who lives north of Dallas, TX lives with his wife in a 1500 sq.ft. house which seems tiny to them and those they know. When I was visiting recently, he was struggling with how to fit all of their stuff in the house, as quite a lot had overflowed into the garage, making it unusable for, you know, parking in.
I am in India and real estate prices are obscene.I am doing reasonably well but am going to struggle to afford a 850 sq ft apartment. I was looking at a 1000 sq ft spot as something of a 'giant space'. :)
My girlfriend, daughter and I are quite comfortable in 700 square feet. More would obviously be nice, but neither one of us are willing to move to the parts of town necessary to make that affordable. When I was on my own I lived in a 450 sq ft apartment which I considered plenty big enough for me, and where I (god forbid) ever to find myself alone again I'd probably move back to a 400-500 sq foot apartment. Again bigger would be nice, but not nice enough to sacrifice either location or the extra money.
I've thought that a component that might contribute to greater comfort in a small, shared home is soundproofing. I seek myself and I think other people seek a certain amount of separation -- I mean the ability to be by yourself, at times. For a bit in additional materials and/or better construction, the ability to go into a room, shut the door, and be unaware of what others in the house are doing, would be quite valuable.
Has anyone here done this or is doing this? Back in 2008 when I first encountered this, I was aghast at how you'd first have to do some heavy research as to where you'd locate because the rules were so different, especially regarding what's considered "real estate" for tax purposes.
Yes, there is lots of land available. The problem (I think) the OP was referring to is that most areas have building codes that regulate what kind of structure you can build.
Go far enough outside the cities and there are still many places in the US that don't have building codes, though. So you can go and build your very own neon green & pink hobbit hole with a tree for a doorway and no one can say anything :-)
There are huge areas away from the main coastal population centers, this is a really big continent. But you might have to live without easy connection to the grid, drill your own well, handle you own electricity generation, deal with some long distance wifi connectivity. But there are folks with their nearest neighbor several km away.
Where I grew up I would say building your own home is almost as popular as buying one. But I wouldn't say the land is "nice." You can even do this in places close to Silicon Valley, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains. Although, there can be a lot of restrictions on the land use due to environmental and other zoning regulations.
Yes, you can find inexpensive land in the Santa Cruz mountains, but you have to be a little careful. One common reason why the land is cheap is that there is no pre-existing well or other easy access to water. If you have to drill a well, it can cost many thousands of dollars, and there is no guarantee of success.
@twobraids on Twitter lives in a minimalist self-built yurt. It's been a while and I am on an iPad, but he has a website detailing the build.
I did research on these tiny houses a couple years back and they have a nice variety of builds. Some of the ones with sleeping lofts were very interesting.
I would love to build a yurt at the foot of the hill I live on. I've been thinking that since my kid wants a tree house and the location I want is near some downed trees, we can "compromise" and he can help me build a house out of trees :-)
I've lived in multiple < 200 square foot apartments in Japan and a 300 sq foot apartment in SF. I think these tiny homes would be a fun getaway. That said, something about a tiny detached house like this gives me the creeps, whereas a tiny apartment does not.
