Think Your Place is Small?
 

Try 65 sq ft! Yup you too can live the lifestyle you've always dreamed of thanks to this fine company:

Houses

(Gets going about 30 sec in)

Kind of neat, I could definitely see myself living in something like this at least as a camper/travel kind of thing...but sharing it with my GF (or anybody) might be a bit much. Can you imagine a rainy/snowy afternoon stuck in that thing?

Anyway what do you folks think? Recipe for modern living (easy to heat, cheaper, well built, doesn't require much space) or claustrophobics worst nightmare?

Stop making fun of Baraka's place.

Hey, now! My place is exactly 11 times bigger.

(I'm not kidding.)

Too far?

This kind of thing is akin to the housing concepts of pre—I don't know—16th or 17th century living, in the West at least. A serf's cottage was only bigger because they needed to have a firepit inside, as well as a stable.

The size of my place (715 sq. ft.) is luxuriously roomy in the pre-1950's mindset. Well, at least as far as city living goes.

Very true, it is interesting weather or not stuff like this could catch on, extreme efficiency with your space.

I don't think I'd mind it so much if I didn't have to spend much time in it, kind of cozy.

I thought the little house was kind of cool until he got to the kitchen and there was no room for food or cooking. Then he got to the "toilet." I'm interested in the other homes teased at the end of the clip. They seem small but more reasonable.

Yeah, the proximity of the "kitchen," the hilarious trashcan crapper, and the bed is all bad.

My current place has more than double the space of Baraka's but the rooms are single use.

One is a bedroom, one is an office / study, one is a guest / storage room.

It may be "wasteful" but it's also a lot more comfortable to perform X task.

"Swiss Army Knife," eh? Yeah, uh-huh, one of the really small useless ones.

Also: These people seem to have zero baggage. There is no room to store toys.

Couple has the house/land priority too far to the extreme. The other end being the McMansion on a 1/4 acre lot.

I don't have audio on my pc.

Is that their full-time residence or something else?

It reminds me of moving cross-country with my ex back in 1988.
We moved with what we could fit in a Toyota long-bed truck.
All our power/hand tools, cooking gear, etc, filled the bed up to the wheel well bumps.
A sheet of 3/4 plywood laid over, then a mattress. We topped it off with a Lakeland
aluminum topper. We had just enough room to wriggle into the sleeping 'loft'

The only time it was a trial, was when it rained hard. Heavy rain on an
aluminum roof that was only a foot above our heads, had us both back inside the cab of the truck, mapping the closest coffee & victual oasis.

My current abode is almost 400 sq feet.

I don't know about you folks but I'm still amazed that he appears to be living in that thing with his girlfriend...after a fight one is fuming in the "attic" while the other is festering on the "bench" both trying to pretend the other isn't sitting 2 feet away.

Anyway if you check out the website above the clip there are bigger models that don't seem as bad (the largest is 256 sq ft I think and don't come with trashcan looking toilet holes). I think he'd be better off selling his designs to apartment building developers, giving them a more modern less cabiny feel and selling it for city living. I can't see many country folks living in one of these out in the middle of nowhere. It is neat that you can tow it around and use it like a camper though, I'd be all about that.

EDIT: Ring, Its designed for either temporary or full time use...don't know if they REALLY live there.

Seriously, I could live in that, if I didn't have to shit in a can.

I keep thinking the same thing Fugly, but I don't know...after about 6 months, especially during a snowy, cold winter or stupidly hot summer I think I might be singing a different tune.

My wife and I are in a 799sq ft apartment :) it's just the right size to give us enough space to be away from each other if needed.

Makes our apartment look spacious. I was going to say more, but my husband just made me a delicious teriyaki tofu meal. Yum!

Ring, they mentioned that they built it in Iowa for their move to San Francisco. Since it's built on a trailer I'm sure their use was very similar to yours, though they chose to live in it when they reached their final destination.

They don't really live in the middle of nowhere, it just looks like it because they have nothing else on their property.

Regardless, if that area is their property, that's a lot of green space. With enough green space and a place like that, they're totally Waldening it. I don't think that's so bad. I'd give it a try.

EDIT: I should probably note that if you were to include property in the square footage calculations, they're kicking my fucking ass.

Yeah I'd imagine at best they are probably on the other side of the burbs or managed to find a very wooded lot. It would be a good idea to look into if you are going the self sufficiency route (although I suppose you could just buy a trailer) look at all the land left over for fruit and veggies or animals...a shed...

If your aim efficient use of space (home and land wise) you'd be hard pressed to do better.

It's an interesting design idea.
After living in it for awhile you certainly would know what to change.

There is no way I could live in that thing.



And I'm assuming they are living in it while they build their real house.

I could not live in such small place...

I was fine with it until they got to the "bedroom." If the roof had been flat, instead of slanted, it would work much better for me...I'm claustrophobic, and that would NOT be cool.

Then again, if the weather was nice, I could just sleep outside.

I don't know if I could live there permanently (where would I put all my books? :eek:), but as temporary housing, it's pretty damn cool.

Ok, that's about half the size of my bedroom. There's no way I can live like that. I think I'd tear down the whole place because I'd be so frustrated with how small it is. I'm a clumsy guy so I need space to fall when I trip.

it looks cozy, reminds me of yacht living, but we'd need 2 others for books and cats.

Haha so very few fans of tiny places and efficient space? Yeah just take up needless space and make the world a terrible place for our kids while breaking the environment...goddamn selfish! I kid :D

Check out this video, a women living in a similar tiny house in Seattle:


A big plus in my mind is how few expenses she has ($5 a month to heat?), while it certainly comes at a cost of space and luxury getting off the grid and not being racked with monthly bills would be nice, although there are more comfortable ways of doing it. BTW, aside from the bathroom configuration I like her house a LOT more then the first one I posted above

I'm a fan of reasonably small and efficient spaces, that "house" just goes a little too far.

Really I'd think most people would be found of living in a glorified shed :D

This guy loves it

http://codedink.com/wp-content/uploa...bubbles256.jpg

In fact he may be thinking of suing for theft of intellectual property...the tiny house company totally ripped him off. :thumbsup:

I think posted about this before...

Ah. Found it:
[Post a Triangle.]

- - -

Now that I compare it, maybe I didn't. Let me check again, but it seems as though homes are different, disregarding their small outback ways.

- - -

Yes (finally). Here it is:
[Post a Triangle.]

I came across this piece in the NYTimes a few months ago, and really liked the idea of a tiny home: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/garden/22garage.html

I nannied for a family that lived in a small 2-bedroom house with an upstairs finished attic, 1 bathroom, and a laundry room/pantry. It was just about perfect at that size--and easy to keep clean. I miss that house. My current place is too big for 2 people--we have extra rooms that seem to do nothing but collect junk that we can then shut a door on.

I think it's time for a massive cleaning spree.

That kind of small living requires a certain simple lifestyle. It's the same as open-concept design, where the ideal is that living is a communal and shared experience. That and not many "toys," as Plan9 points out. A kind of Waldenesque or minimalist sort of living, as I point out. Considering you could have an iPad or a laptop as your entertainment device, who needs bookshelves full of books, CDs, and DVDs? Who needs a television and entertainment unit? Who needs a computer workstation?

Many people prefer to have spaces for shared commons with several locales for privacy. At least in the West, this seems the norm. I do envy other cultures that tend to be more communal in their living, the whole idea of sharing the cooking and eating of meals as a pastime and not a chore.

I suppose I'd rather more of a balance. I spend too much time alone and need more shared experiences. I'm in a household of two, however, and so there aren't any problems with our 715 square feet.

Ideally, more space to me would be important based on the fact that I spent a huge amount of time at home. I'd be more comfortable with 1,000 square feet. I don't think I'd have a very strong desire for more than 1,200.

To me, 1,200 square feet would be "huge." I know this isn't normal in the West, but I suppose you can say I'm accustomed to urban living. It's not that I wouldn't mind a huge rancher on an acreage. It's just that I don't have a burning desire for one. Not at the moment, anyway.

I grew up in a big home (not sure how big I'd assume maybe 6500+ sq ft), we had about 5 acres of land, a barn, some of the lot was wooded. It was nice but it was a but the cost and work we had to put in never really seemed worth it to me. In the winter it seemed like I was constantly shoveling snow from the stupidly long driveway and in the summer I was spending all my time cutting grass, removing brush and dead trees, painting, fixing ect. The cost to heat in the winter was astronomical, I wish I could remember what it cost to heat that place with oil the numbers might be staggering for some. Like anything it had its positives and negatives but I'm not sure if I'd ever want to go back to maintaining and paying for a place like that...maybe if I had a big family.

Looks like a great cottage or camper but not a practical house for most families. I could live in it easy if I was single. The bathroom needs some changes though, can't see the little women using it.

Reminds me of the littlest house in Toronto.

The Little House - Home

That is pretty small, but not too small. I'm in the process of selling my 1400 square foot house and moving myself and my family into a 300 square foot RV. With the economic downturn I lost my job and while I got a new one fairly quickly I'm making about half of what I was previously. I had the decision to stay where I am and struggle with bills every month or make a radical change that will give me a lot more economic freedom. Sure, the space will be smaller, but it will be right near the downtown area with 3 parks within walking distance as well as being in the center of the music district. The house just becomes a place for sleeping and the city becomes the place to live. :thumbsup:

Still. :expressionless:

Moving :car:

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l7...pwi0o1_500.jpg
Cornelius Comanns’s “Bufalino” camper | on DesignBoom

... spacious enough to hold a bed, two seating units, a “cooking zone,” a sink,
a water tank, a refrigerator, a half-dozen or more storage compartments, and working space for a home office.

-- created by an industrial designer.

Oh my, that RV/camper is just plain old awesome! I think I want one. Although I'd be a little afraid that if I tossed and turned to much in my sleep I'd just tip the thing over.

Pretty neat though.

These are pretty cool...I live in hotel rooms for over 9 months a year and have downsized everything I need to a couple of bags and trunk boxes.