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.
To ammend my earlier statement, personally I think single purpose guest bedrooms are a waste of space and money. If it's dual purpose (home office, library, etc), I'll cut it some slack.
It just always seems strange to me when there's rooms in a house that won't see the light of day for months at a time. Seems like a total waste.
Going in line with the original subject of the thread -- Everyone moving into 186 sq ft would definitely have an effect on the economy and our use of natural resources. It would also cause near everyone to either off themselves, or strangle their significant other. But there's definitely some value in weighing how much size you actually need for your daily life. If you can live in half as much house, that's half as much materials to build, and half as much energy to heat and cool. It's pretty simple logic.
Personally, if I were building my own place I'd spend the extra money to build a net-zero house. Germany has the "Nullenergiehaus" standard ('Null' = Zero, 'Energie' = Energy, 'Haus' = House). Houses are built tightly, and often don't have heat or A/C. Instead, an air pump / air exchanger is used to bring fresh air into the house. The solid construction, and the people and appliances inside provide enough heat (small auxillary heaters can help if it's really cold, but generally they stay fairly warm inside). Electricity is produced via solar or wind. The only utility the house is tied to is water (and if you're on a well and septic system, it'd actually be off-grid).
Building the French ski house I posted earlier to Nullenergiehaus standards would work perfectly for me. Probably for most other people, too.
Going in line with the original subject of the thread -- Everyone moving into 186 sq ft would definitely have an effect on the economy and our use of natural resources. It would also cause near everyone to either off themselves, or strangle their significant other. But there's definitely some value in weighing how much size you actually need for your daily life. If you can live in half as much house, that's half as much materials to build, and half as much energy to heat and cool. It's pretty simple logic.
Personally, if I were building my own place I'd spend the extra money to build a net-zero house. Germany has the "Nullenergiehaus" standard ('Null' = Zero, 'Energie' = Energy, 'Haus' = House). Houses are built tightly, and often don't have heat or A/C. Instead, an air pump / air exchanger is used to bring fresh air into the house. The solid construction, and the people and appliances inside provide enough heat (small auxillary heaters can help if it's really cold, but generally they stay fairly warm inside). Electricity is produced via solar or wind. The only utility the house is tied to is water (and if you're on a well and septic system, it'd actually be off-grid).
Building the French ski house I posted earlier to Nullenergiehaus standards would work perfectly for me. Probably for most other people, too.
To each their own, but that's one thing I never understood: guest bedrooms. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to be able to offer people a free room to stay in, with a bed. But personally, I could never justify it. Paying extra money up front for a house with an extra bedroom, higher property taxes on a larger house, higher costs to heat and cool the extra space (sure, you can close the vent, but unless your house is REALLY well built, and the doors to the bedrooms seal, it's still leaking heat into the unused space)...
It's the same reason I would never own a pickup truck as a daily driver. For the 1 or 2 times a year I might need the utility, I could rent. No sense in paying a higher purchase price, more on insurance, more on fuel, just to have a capability I'm almost never going to use.
Guests can stay in a hotel.
That RV experience sounds awesome!
Well, a few things. I suppose the concept if not the entire philosophy of being able to offer someone a roof over their head for the night is part of being civilized. From "Rudolph, The Red Nose Reindeer" to "Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom", we have been conditioned that it is proper to be ready to some degree to be able to accept guests and ask them to join us at dinner. Whether it is a room, a fold out sofa in the den, or bunks and cots in the garage, it seems that it is proper way to give a traveling friend a bed for the night as oppose to telling them to find a hotel. The hearth concept goes all the way back to Greek mythology if not further.
Funny you should mention hotels and RV's. Mom usually didn't see the point of putting money into an RV. She saw it as a waste of money. Why put all that money into something for traveling when one could go here or there and spend the money for a nice hotel room.
As I was driving to work tonight in the rain, I was thinking, again, that this was the weather the Forester was designed for, this was the kind of weather that the Forester likes to play in. The Forester can do a lot, carry a lot for different tasks, do it efficiently much of the time, but it does have its limits. Before I bought the ranch and got into the prospect of house building, those other missions weren't on the table. But once the ranch started, it soon became apparent that the Forester was out of its class. Hence, the F250.
Currently, the F250 has probably only been lightly tapped for its cargo carrying capacity, but sooner or later that will change. Could one rent? I suppose, I have experience with renting cars, not pick ups that can haul 7 to 8 tons. Further, four things. First, having it around is an on going learning experience.....including my dreaded fear of what it will be like to have to change a tire on it and I might want to add a floor jack to my equipment infrastructure.
Secondly, when one is considering cost of having as opposed to renting, one needs to also figure what their time and personal energy is worth. For a day, for example, that involves a 4-5 hour load up, 4 hour drive to get on site, 2-3 hour unload, does one want to add the additional 2-3 hours of renting the truck? Does one want to add another day of fees of renting the truck the day before? Sure, it will probably be cheaper than owning it if it is only once or twice a year....but such additionals need to be in the equation.
Third, both vehicles have, will get their own communications equipment. The Forester has its CB, the F250 will get one eventually as well as its Tomtom (it was a gift), and they will both eventually have their Ham units. Such is the kind of stuff probably not easily found in the rental fleet.
Finally, when it comes to moving one of these tiny houses on a trailer, what will it take, anyhow?
But all that aside, differences in life styles to a degree. The F250 is not a daily drive, that's what the Forester is for. The Forester does all the jobs it can do and it is less expensive to operate. The F250 is used, at least, a few times a year for jobs the Forester can't do, be it because of weight or volume or whatever.
Finally, I suppose it comes down to how we approach life. Personally, I like what Hunter said:
“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!â€
One way or the other, sooner or later, life tends to be equipment intensive.......even if it is just having a decent supply of first aid gear around.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,776 posts, read 81,743,750 times
Reputation: 58179
Quote:
Originally Posted by cab591
To ammend my earlier statement, personally I think single purpose guest bedrooms are a waste of space and money. If it's dual purpose (home office, library, etc), I'll cut it some slack.
It just always seems strange to me when there's rooms in a house that won't see the light of day for months at a time. Seems like a total waste.
We currently have a total of 3 guest bedrooms, with two of the 3 kids having moved out, plus one more that's a sewing room. Two are used 1-2 times a year, the other more often when our grandson stays overnight. To us it's not a waste at all, because they are there when we need them, and while our 3,000 sf home is worth $700k now, we only paid $193k so to move to a smaller house in this area would mean a much greater mortgage payment. In another 5-6 years when we retire and move to a lower cost of living area we will go smaller, but not below about 1,600 sf. We like elbow room.
When push comes to shove most Americans can't cut it in small home. They need their stuff their 60 inch plus TV screen. Four guest rooms an over sized living room a three car garage, etc. Most Americans are just too spoiled to make the change & stick to it. It's like asking them to give up their over sized truck/SUV. It's not going to happen. They can't understand that they don't need these thing but they do want them they feel entitled to them. Small homes might be a cool quest house or a retreat but in the end they will crave their bigger homes, the easy answer to someone feeling a bit stir crazy.. step outside.
I believe the trick is finding your personal sweet spot for size and lifestyle. I've had the gigantic home (a few in fact) and I've learned to live with a lot less now. For me the sweet spot is an apartment sized space but with a 2 car garage (because I like to do automotive work in an enclosed space - not air conditioned/heated, but closed off from wind/rain/snow and with electrical running to it and lights). Due to lack of space I am now very careful about purchases and I'm not afraid to donate things I find I no longer need.
Most people just collect more and more junk as they get older. We all grow old and die without taking this stuff with us and in my experience people's children rarely want or need very much as inherited "stuff" to keep as reminders/for memories. There's "thrifty" people who just don't ever have or want to spend money on new things, but then there's a category of people that perhaps just don't see the clutter and junk for what it really is... stuff that weighs them down in life, literally. If you want to live "green" you need to get rid of that stuff - more specifically donate it so that it will get re-used by someone else.
A lot of people also have a notion that they need lots of space in their home to "entertain." People need to think this through... yes having extra sleeping space is great to have when needed, but extra bedrooms and beds just seems excessive when blankets and a floor will suffice for overnight guests. Additionally, I have found that nice porches and places to hang out "outside" are much more practical than wide open inside spaces that rarely get utilized.
In terms of a 60 inch TV - this is definitely a problem with the world today. People don't see TV's for what they really are - hypnosis machines that program people to engage in particular social norms as deemed fit by the advertisers/corporations that run things. Watching TV/playing video games doesn't increase quality of life and I've said it before, I believe to a large extent it is a cancer on society. I'd rather see my children browse the net for information than watch TV.
I think the issue with me and regular homes these days is simply this - they aren't designed with energy efficiency in mind. The walls and roofs/ceilings are poorly insulated for no real reason other than builders want to keep things simple for their contractors, and rain water isn't collected/filtered for re-use (this technology has been around for many years but hardly anyone uses it), and the homes are too big to run off of solar and wind power (and many HOA's have limitations on even installing these things). My ideal home is a simple single floor model with thick walls and ceilings made of ICF or tires filled with dirt and layered with plaster, with triple pane windows and otherwise as above utilizing wind and solar and maybe even geothermal energy sources.
Last edited by belovenow; 01-22-2015 at 12:47 PM..
I guess I have a "different" view on possessions. As you said, it's more weight to drag around. Would it be nice to have a 10 bedroom house with room for all my friends to stay over? Sure. But that means spending more of my time cleaning it, and working my arse off to pay for it. I don't have a TV. I have a laptop computer, a tablet (thinking about getting rid of it -- only really good for Netflix while laying in bed), and a cell phone. That's enough "media" for me, I'd rather be outside. The largest two possessions I own (asides from my car) are my mountain bike and my snowboard.
I used to have a huge wardrobe, full of clothes. Then, I realized I really only wore the same few pairs of jeans, t-shirts, jackets, etc. The rest was literally just taking up "space". Whenever I moved house, it was more boxes to pack, more to haul around... I was wasting time and energy dragging around stuff that I didn't even use. So I started the long process pairing down everything I own. I still think I have too much, though. Maybe I've got a disease.
All the clothes I wear on a regular basis fit inside an 80L hiking backpack. And that's all 4 seasons worth of clothes. In it, I have 4 pairs of shorts (khaki), 4 jeans, 8 t-shirts, 7 pairs of socks, 7 pairs of underwear (edit: forgot, 2 pair of gym shorts). I have a jacket, a sweater, and a winter coat. For shoes, I have a pair of boots, a pair of comfortable shoes, sandals, and running shoes. I have a bag that holds all of my snowboarding gear (boots, ski pants and jacket, gloves, hat, scarf, etc). Then I have a folding suit bag that has two suits (top and bottom, one grey one navy), 3 button downs, 1 pair of khakis, and dress shoes.
I have a regular-sized backpack that regularly holds my laptop, portable harddrive, a few other cables, books, etc. If I go on a trip, it holds a few days worth of clothes fairly well (I've lived out of just that backpack for over a month before). I also have a smaller backpack that I like to use for travel. Fits well under an airline seat, and will hold 2-4 days worth of clothes pretty easily. I have 2 banker boxes that hold a few personal items (some photos, documents / papers, personal nick-nacks). Most of this stuff is "excess", but I like having it all.
Everything I own fits inside my car (a 2013 Scion FR-S -- NOT known for being a big car). I've never actually needed a truck for anything. If I bought a ranch, or suddenly developed a hobby that required a lot of towing / hauling, I'd probably sell my car and buy a truck -- but in my situation, I don't need one. (Note: I bought furniture at the last place I lived, but sold it all to my roommate when I moved).
Living like this allows me to be mobile, which I appreciate. Lately, I've been renting month-to-month, fully furnished rooms. It's nice to be able to pay my lease for the month, and know that if I need to drop everything and leave I can. When my grandfather took a turn for the worse, I had everything I own packed in my car, and was on the road within 15 minutes of getting the phone call. Not many people I know can completely uproot themselves in 15 minutes, and it was nice to spend a few weeks with my grandfather before he passed.
I suppose, without building a $30,000 "house" on a trailer, I'm already living Tiny. In response to the above comment about hospitality -- I've got no issues offering a couch to a friend. I've been the friend on a couch numerous times. I just, personally, wouldn't want to spend the extra money for a dedicated room for others to sleep in. A daybed in an office, a pull-out in the living room... Believe it or not, rooms can serve multiple purposes!
Growing up, I loved having "stuff". We had a 6,000 sq ft house full of "stuff" and "toys". It was a difficult, personal, emotional decision to downsize -- and I can say from experience, I'm happier for it. Having the freedom to move around, saving money (and spending it all on travel). Last weekend, I booked a last minute trip to Kentucky to visit my brother and some old friends, simply because I had a few days off work and had the money. I didn't have to worry about locking up my house, putting valuables out of site, or anything. I just locked my car up (work's got me down in Phoenix right now, so I've actually got all my stuff in my car -- the lot at work is secured and monitored 24/7), and took the bus to the airport.
Maybe in another 10 years, my mindset will change -- but I couldn't imagine spending my 20's held down by the weight of everything I own.
......If I bought a ranch, or suddenly developed a hobby that required a lot of towing / hauling, I'd probably sell my car and buy a truck ........
Think twice on that matter if that situation developed. As I said earlier, the Forester is a lot cheaper to operate daily than the truck. The truck is great for what it does, but it's diesel mileage is around half the gas mileage of the Forester.
It's like what Martin Caidin said in one of his cyborg books about which is more maneuverable, an F-4 or a C-5? The C-5 is more maneuverable when the load in question is 120 tons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbuszu
...........In terms of a 60 inch TV - this is definitely a problem with the world today. People don't see TV's for what they really are - hypnosis machines that program people to engage in particular social norms as deemed fit by the advertisers/corporations that run things. Watching TV/playing video games doesn't increase quality of life and I've said it before, I believe to a large extent it is a cancer on society. I'd rather see my children browse the net for information than watch TV........
There "people" go again; assuming that the entire world fits to their definition (IT'S SAID IN JEST!)
That is one of the ironies of my life where twice I have been walking through the TV section at Best Buy, the direct TV sales lady grabs me...................................and I tell her that I don't watch TV.
HUH? What I watch on my units is essentially "canned", DVD's and tapes. I do have cable linked up to 3 of the 4 units, but it is rarely used for a handful of reasons that is not necessary to go into here. The canned stuff doesn't even come from a service but from my tape/DVD library.
Interesting set of circumstances, no? On one side, one might say that TV is a waste of space, but on the other side, when they find out about my personal libraries, they would counter, probably, by saying all that space could be replaced by a service, a service that decides what selections and what versions of each selection will be carried.
Finally, the other week, it occurred to me as I was watching the often "daily" movie that such was not a bad way to be. Here was something that took my mind off the aggravations I might come home with. Now, one might say, "You ought to read a book instead!".
Think twice on that matter if that situation developed. As I said earlier, the Forester is a lot cheaper to operate daily than the truck. The truck is great for what it does, but it's diesel mileage is around half the gas mileage of the Forester.
It's like what Martin Caidin said in one of his cyborg books about which is more maneuverable, an F-4 or a C-5? The C-5 is more maneuverable when the load in question is 120 tons.
Unless I get huge into boating or something, I honestly can't think of ever actually NEEDING to own a truck. Heck, a Forrester would be perfect -- kayaks / bikes / snowboards on the roof, camping gear in the hatch. AWD and a bit of clearance to get me down a snowy road...
...But the FR-S is much more fun on a track
Don't get me wrong, though. Trucks have their use. I have partial ownership of a metal roofing company. The company has quite a few trucks to haul product around (so I guess, by technicality, I do actually own trucks). And if your life involved a personal business or activity that required near-daily use of a truck's capabilities, it might make financial sense to eat the cost of using it as a daily (let's day Monday thru Friday you're hauling trailers -- putting the numbers to it, it might cost less to just use the truck on the weekends, than to keep the Subie around for weekend driving).
Houses are the same. If your daily life involves a LOT of entertaining at home, and having guests stay the night on a regular basis, then having the extra space makes perfect sense in your situation.
Since downsizing, though, I think I've more than proved to myself I don't need much stuff to be happy. And in fact, when I had more stuff, I was less happy (if happiness can be quantified).
Whether or not someone else would be comfortable in my shoes, I know I'm unintentionally "living green". I've got a small carbon footprint, use little water or fuel (my car gets pretty decent fuel economy, to boot). I share a smallish (1600 sq ft) house with a few friends at the moment, and we never run the heat (and only run the AC for a few hours at a time in the summer -- but it IS Phoenix). So looking at those numbers, living Tiny (just sans-tiny-house) has greatly impacted my carbon footprint, and led to a greener life.
If, down the road, I start a family and settle down, I'd probably build a small, well-built house. ICF, solar, geothermal. Sure, it's "living green" (an added bonus), but it's really because I'd like to save a few extra bucks each month so I can go to the bars with my friends, or go on random trips to Vegas or California.
When I first got the ranch, I was seeing all these great listings on Craig's List for free and cheap building materials such as bricks. Someone here with a 3/4 pallet of bricks free, bricks on auction there where the starting bid was 1/10th of normal price. And so forth.
As it was, I could move some of the stuff on CL with the Forester, such as RR ties from a kid's park rail road, but not really that much past that. Hence, the truck came into the picture.
So, two things. First of all, the truck hasn't yet really moved what it was dreamed to move when I saw all those great deals. Like just about anything else in life, it's a Barbi Doll concept; you buy the basic and am then forever buying accessories. I got the truck but I am learning there is so much more to learn, like how to get stuff into the bed and then out of it if it is just you doing it, various pieces of equipment to have. Learning how to handle trailers, how to drive a BOBCAT are part of the items on my list (a BOBCAT I would rent in the near immediate future).
Secondly, this, too, is part of Green Living; reusing the material that is out there without contracting to have new stuff made.
I like small houses but couldn't live in the tiny "on wheels" type or where everything is in one room or where I have to convert something just to go to bed. I WANT a dedicated bedroom and private bathroom, a second bathroom and additional room for WHATEVER (if "guest room" freaks you out), a living room, kitchen, place for a table, place for laundry and unsightly stuff (can be in the garage) oh and a garage. That's what I want and it doesn't have to be huge and can all be had for under 1000 sq ft, which is what I call a small house. I could get by with less if it's just me forever and ever and nobody ever stayed with me. I could get by with 500 sq ft but it wouldn't be as comfortable or make me as happy.
Not TINY, but small, and that should be the trend.
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.
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.
But there's definitely some value in weighing how much size you actually need for your daily life. If you can live in half as much house, that's half as much materials to build, and half as much energy to heat and cool. It's pretty simple logic.
