Tiny Houses

[eclair]

I love the idea of a 97 square foot house -- I'm not sure I could handle actually living in one, but I definitey love the thought of trying.  It would force you to rid yourself of all that junk you carry around, pare back to the bare necessities, and think very hard before acquiring anything new.  Read more about it:  http://sfgate.com/columnists/lloyd/

[Tosspot]

Excessive opulence is far more fun...

[LenexatoKCMO]

Been reading a bit too much Thoreau lately?

[anniewarbucks]

Too small for me. Reminds me of a backyard work shed. I would not want to live in something that would be used to store my lawnmower in.

[KC0KEK]

One of the companies that specializes in tiny houses is based in Southeast MO, around Perryville.

[jimb]

wow - that would be like living full time in my cubicle (which, sadly, it often feels like I do)

[bahua]

Looks like a great place to live, if your climate is like SF.

[Moniker]

I love the idea of a 97 square foot house -- I'm not sure I could handle actually living in one, but I definitey love the thought of trying.  It would force you to rid yourself of all that junk you carry around, pare back to the bare necessities, and think very hard before acquiring anything new.  Read more about it:  http://sfgate.com/columnists/lloyd/

It is like living in Queens, NYC but without all the cockroaches and crime.

[Joemoney]

I would expect nothing less from a SF newspaper or SF citizen than something so anti-wealth/consumption.

I'll take the 110,000 square foot house over that one any day:  http://k53.pbase.com/g4/72/200972/2/642 ... FcEYJI.jpg

[ShowMeKC]

100 square feet is not enough IMO... But anything above 3000 square feet is far too much, unless you have a large family, and even then, you either have to sacrifice your yard, or have to build up.

[HalcyonKC]

I just hope he's successful in his quest to destroy the Ring of Sauron.

[bahua]

I just hope he's successful in his quest to destroy the Ring of Sauron.

Best ever.

[KCK]

i thought my house was small at around 1000 square feet. Obviously I was wrong.

I have heard of people living in 300 square ft. apartments and I wondered how they managed, but 97 square feet is nothing.

[eclair]

I would expect nothing less from a SF newspaper or SF citizen than something so anti-wealth/consumption.

That's funny cuz I know that the tiny house movement has sprouted all over, and as said in a previous post, I think there is a company in MO or KS that specializes in them.  Also, I was really impressed at the modesty and restraint of the person living in the tiny house.  At the same time he advocated for them, he clearly stated that perhaps 4,000 square feet was a good size for someone else because he didn't know their needs.  I think the general idea is that we should strive to have only as much space and material goods as we actually need... as opposed to what we want.  I think that is an idea that Americans (in particular) need to consider more often.

[jaysonv]

This month's issue of Dwell is about small spaces (but they're about 4 times larger than what was mentioned above!).  The articles are interesting and center on what is important to the owners and how their small space reflects their priorities.  There's also a reference in the Editor's Letter to the George Carlin bit about a house being the place where you keep your stuff while you're out getting more stuff.

One of the houses features a pack-rat couple that live in their highly-organized 400-ish sqft loft.  The second house is a completely stripped, utilitarian (yet well-decorated) tiny condo.  The third is a Japanese house that is pretty much one giant kitchen table.

I've found this particular issue of Dwell to be especially good for these articles.

Dwell: Smaller is Smarter

[chrizow]

i love seeing how people successfully live in small spaces.  the excess of america is disgusting.  why does a couple with no kids "need" a 3,000 square foot house?  or, hell, a 7,000 square foot house?  it's wasteful and gluttonous.

that said, i always laugh when i read about people living in studio lofts in NYC, Boston, London, etc who very high-mindedly discuss their "choice" to live in a "small space."  translation: "at $1,000 per square foot, we could only afford this 400 sq ft studio loft.  thus, we had to throw away all our belongings or put it in storage.  look how minimal we can be, though!  and aren't my eyeglasses fashionable?"

[Steve52]

Good way to deal with the global population explosion.

Capital will become unavailable. Food will grow scarce. Trade will be interrupted. Mobility will be constrained. And an awful lot of pissed-off people will be poised to fight over the table scraps of industrial civilization.

[Moniker]

i love seeing how people successfully live in small spaces.  the excess of america is disgusting.  why does a couple with no kids "need" a 3,000 square foot house?  or, hell, a 7,000 square foot house?  it's wasteful and gluttonous.

that said, i always laugh when i read about people living in studio lofts in NYC, Boston, London, etc who very high-mindedly discuss their "choice" to live in a "small space."  translation: "at $1,000 per square foot, we could only afford this 400 sq ft studio loft.  thus, we had to throw away all our belongings or put it in storage.  look how minimal we can be, though!  and aren't my eyeglasses fashionable?"

It is funny because it's true, on both sides of the state line.

[Theiler]

That's one HELL of a dorm room...

[KC0KEK]

why does a couple with no kids "need" a 3,000 square foot house?

One possible reason is because they can either spend the money on a house (or two) or let it go to Uncle Sam. At least with the house, you can enjoy the fruits of your labor. With taxes, you can't.