Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the idea of the modern housing situation should be looked at as an extreme, with some houses being very large. But, it should not be spoken out against with the other extreme, tiny houses. Smaller homes should be discussed, but not 186sqft, that is just absurd.
So is Bill Gates. Ted Turner, Al Gore and the rest of the filthy rich giving up their humongous digs, jets, yatch, three or five mansions to CARE ABOUT OUR PLANET???? thought not. Can it.
My brother built a 14x14 treehouse for his grandkids. It has real windows, doors, heat/AC, walkaround porch and a staircase leading up to it. He remodels it as they age. i could stay the night in it but never live.
I doubt you could talk a single person (much less a family) into building a house that is the size of a bedroom.
Rather than a ridiculous info-graphic, how about posting a floorplan, with measurements? I can't wait to see how the bed, bathtub, refrigerator, and couch are going to coexist.
We have a small RV, about 260 SF, with bedroom, bath,living/kitchen. Tat is about as small as you can effectively live in and have storage, true living space.
I spent 3 months lurking youtubes of Tiny Houses. Got my own personal design all figured out, right down to the tiny details (no pun intended). Unfortunately, it's just a fantasy for me.
On another note.... 400 sq ft Park Model Homes are pretty awesome! That's my 2nd fantasy. <sigh>
It's a false dichotomy to say the only choices are 2,500 sf or 186 sf. What about 800, 1,000 or 1,500 sf? Still a big savings all around but you have more options for activities than sitting around you're fold-down kitchen table. Or what about apartment/townhome complexes with more sf but that also have shared common areas, like laundry rooms, community rooms and outdoor areas?
Also, in a 186 sf home you wouldn't have any storage space to speak of, which could possibly force you to make many more car trips for groceries and household goods.
There are lots of ways to save energy and resources that don't involve cramming yourself into a single tiny room.
It's a false dichotomy to say the only choices are 2,500 sf or 186 sf. What about 800, 1,000 or 1,500 sf? Still a big savings all around but you have more options for activities than sitting around you're fold-down kitchen table. Or what about apartment/townhome complexes with more sf but that also have shared common areas, like laundry rooms, community rooms and outdoor areas?
Also, in a 186 sf home you wouldn't have any storage space to speak of, which could possibly force you to make many more car trips for groceries and household goods.
There are lots of ways to save energy and resources that don't involve cramming yourself into a single tiny room.
The smallest room I have effectively seen someone build is about 500 sf. It's a condo/apartment in NYC and they made parts of the room adjustable so it seems like more. It cost $1 million to build though
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,771 posts, read 81,730,333 times
Reputation: 58170
Despite TV shows like "Tiny House Nation" and "Tiny House Hunters", the current trend in single family homes (at least here) is bigger house, smaller lot. While most older homes here are 2,000-2,800 sf on 12,000 sf lots, the new developments are almost all 3,000-4,000 sf on 5,000 sf lots.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.