I don't know about you but 200sq ft is a little small for me, is the stove under the matress, and does the sink double as your shower?
Comments ... #
This lil house, reminds me of the one that the Toledo Museum made and had on display this past summer.
Wouldn't necessarily want to live in one, but would absolutely love to have one on a small piece of land out in the woods as a weekend get away.
^ I agree. It would be great to spend money on land acreage instead of larger buildings.
The IKEA warehouse in Michigan has several examples of how 300-ft., 500-ft., and slightly larger spaces can be furnished with bathroom, kitchenette, bedroom and office/TV areas.
I could go as low as 500-550 sq ft, but 200 no way.
For comparison my apartment is 600 square ft, when I compared it to the house I lived in prior (in ET) my living room+dining area was 640 square feet.
Trying to imagine 200 would be a pinch, just to fit the basics (shower, sink, refrigerator, bed, cloths storage).
When I was first married, we lived in an 800 sq ft house - very cute for newlyweds. But two large dogs, two kids, and a cat later, it was too small. Having something small for singles is one thing, maybe a couple. But for families? It's just not practical, or healthy IMO - how do the kids have sleep overs, where do you store sports equipment, etc.
Of course, the article does say this is an environmental push, so maybe they don't want us to have families.
One habit that I did pick up from living in small quarters that I still have today - I throw things out that I don't use. Keeps the clutter down and makes cleaning easier.
So a family of 4 would need uh, 4 of those houses.
I can't find the link, but around 2004 or so, there was a 66sf flat (apartment or condo, I don't know exactly how they manage shared property there) in London, overlooking Tralfagar Square or something like that. I believe it was selling for 250 thousand British Pounds, or about $300K at the time. It was about 6 feet wide by 11 feet deep, with a window in the 6ft wide outside wall. (I probably can't find the link to its sale, because it was listed in square meters.)
Allegedly it was a marvel of fold-out residential technology. Everything folded out for use, and then folded back into the wall then you were finished with it. You can find more of the same sort of stuff on YouTube, particularly in dense areas like Hong Kong and Singapore. Seems like some architects there are high-density hobbyists. Worth a look.
I keep a picture of a stair that was built, using the in-between levels as bookshelves. Literally all you saw was books as you climbed the stairs. What a great idea! Another marvel of high-density residence construction. (I'd love to show it to you, but I don't know how to upload it. Help?)
What do people on TT think of this growing trend of using scrap shipping containers as a housing base? At least you know the structure is sound. And you can pickup a scrap shipping container for an absurdly low price, like $1000 or less.
Sounds like a doomsday prepper sort of thing GZ.
Most people used to live in 200 sq ft homes. The reason being is it was easier to heat/cool with the smaller space. The advancements in HVACs changed that.
My wife and I first lived in a 500sq ft apartment. We paid $550 a month. We still talk about how we know we can live on much meager means today because we've done it before.
It's funny I saw this yesterday on reddit.com. http://i.imgur.com/AidpB.jpg The Pallet emergency home. I showed it to my wife because we've been talking about buying a cabin, this could be a fun alternative.