
Living Simply in a Dumpster - kcovia
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/the-simple-life-in-a-dumpster/379947/
======
rada
_We could end up with a house under $10,000 that could be placed anywhere in
the world._

Average U.S. construction prices per square foot for apartment buildings start
at $130 per square foot, depending on location and material/fixture quality.
New York is the most expensive at $230 per square foot.

So at 36 square feet, this dumpster home would end up at what... $270 per
square foot? That's way more expensive than an actual apartment building, and
that's before appliances and shared spaces such as bathrooms/laundry
rooms/kitchens, not to mention the shipment costs which have got to be
significant.

~~~
Vraxx
That doesn't necessarily tell the whole story of the house for under $10,000.
Technically, yes, it might be more expensive per square foot, but you also
have to account for the self-sufficiency of the house in not incurring other
costs. Furthermore, as far as I know, you can't purchase and own housing in
quantities of 36 square feet, so you end up paying for more space even if you
don't require it. I think owning a fully functioning living space for under
$10,000 definitely has it's merits, though it's definitely not for everyone.

~~~
vacri
It's not a fully functioning living space. It's a small bedroom with
underfloor storage. There is no toilet, no water supply, no perishable food
storage, no washing station.

And in its current incarnation, you have to have air conditioning or a roof
that's open where you have to be constantly on the lookout for rain.

It's a cute project, but it's not a fully-functioning living space.

Edit: Also, introduce a second person (most cultures are into pairing off as a
social norm) and you need to pretty much have the entire floor as a bed,
meaning no floorspace to store the bookshelf or plant, and having to move the
bed every time to get at storage. Maybe some sort of sliding bed/couch thing,
but those aren't particularly cheap.

------
Someone1234
We really should have a lower limit for housing. Meaning if you're "homeless"
you get given something about the size of this to live in that will at least
keep you alive until you can find something else.

Currently we have people building "homes" literally within the suspension
beams of bridges, in shop doorways, and we have hundreds of people freezing to
death out of the streets yearly. When we could build a basic "home" for under
$150, it seems completely avoidable.

I think, counter-intuitively, the biggest roadblock to doing something like
that might be regulations (e.g. building codes). They define what a "home"
should and shouldn't be, but ultimately set the bar very high (and we wind up
with the current situation).

Maybe there should be a new set of regulations for "emergency accommodation."
Nobody should be literally homeless in 2014 in the Western world, particularly
as it would cost less than an iPhone to house them for a year (assuming only a
roof and basic electric space heater, nothing else).

~~~
harlanlewis
Building codes don't need to be thrown out to construct low cost housing, and
low cost housing doesn't need to result in slums.

Salt Lake City recognized the total cost of a large homeless population was
significantly higher than building permanent homes paired with services to
accommodate them. Reducing the chronic homeless population increases capacity
of emergency services, saves the community money, improves quality of life for
both homeless and those living/working in an area with a large homeless
population, and creates a setting where support services (health, wellness,
education...) can be more efficiently and effectively provided.

The 2013 report goes into detail:
[http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/documents/homelessness2013.pdf](http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/documents/homelessness2013.pdf)

Some highlights:

Salt Lake City has 779 permanent housing units for supporting chronically
homeless. On a random night's count, 87% of the homeless population was
sheltered.

Chronic homelessness decreased 9% from 2012-2013, and has decreased 74% since
program start in 2005.

2005 - average annual cost for emergency services and jail time for each
chronically homeless person was $16,670. The cost to house them and provide
case management services was $11,000 per person.

Over half of those housed by the program moved on to permanent destinations.
Only 8% returned to homelessness.

~~~
jacquesm
What a super project. Besides the fact that it was even more economical (I
think if there had been a surcharge it would still be the right thing to do).
But it also seems to have been instrumental in providing a stable base from
which to return to a more normal life.

Wonderful.

------
drcode
New rule: If a place doesn't have a toilet, you can't say you're "living in
it". This guy is living partially in a dumpster AND partially in a gym (where
he uses the bathroom.)

~~~
jacquesm
That's a 'no true Scotsman' argument. After all, if he installs a bathroom you
could say: "Yes, but it has no kitchen". So he adds a kitchen and then you go:
"but there is no shower" and so on. There is always going to be one reason
left why living in a dumpster does not make it the equal of living in a house.
The final argument will be that it isn't at least 400 square feet.

The thing that should matter most is whether or not he spends the majority of
the time in it that other people would spend in their homes while not living
more time in another home or equivalent.

And by that definition he's living in it right now.

~~~
gohrt
OK, I live on the street.... but I poop and eat and sleep in a house I bought.

The point is that if you can't get through even a single day somewhere (given
some time to prepare and stock up), but you rely on access to some other
private property, you don't live (only) there.

~~~
jacquesm
Plenty of student houses have shared dining rooms and toilets, he _definitely_
sleeps in the house.

~~~
Dylan16807
Shared toilets are fine. You live in the building (and associated sheds in the
case of an outhouse) rather than the single room. Dining might be in another
building but you don't have to go there if you don't want to. 'kitchen' is
just a name for a room, you can put a rice cooker in any room.

It's not a no true scotsman. The 'can I comfortably spend 48 hours there' test
is a pretty good one. Once he adds the bathroom it'll qualify, though it'll be
a few more square feet.

And yeah some way to bathe is probably necessary. He'll have that on the
dumpster house.

------
joshuaheard
No kitchen, toilet, running water or insulation? It's about as livable as a
kid's tree house. Plus, it probably violates about half of the building code.
This is simply a publicity stunt.

~~~
jacquesm
> It's about as livable as a kid's tree house.

[http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_copRHv93JEI/SrlhWCKPSVI/AAAAAAAACf...](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_copRHv93JEI/SrlhWCKPSVI/AAAAAAAACfw/DKRPvBKrexY/s400/tree-
house.jpg)

Not exactly a kids version but quite livable. And I think this house is meant
to make you think, it's a reductionist view on living rather than a complete
replacement for all the amenities that we take for granted.

Running water, toilets and insulation are not present in plenty of the houses
in the country where I currently reside and I can see a kitchen added in there
or in very little extra space.

------
herbig
Pretty cool.

This guy was living in a dumpster before it was hip:

[http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/brooklyn-
dumpst...](http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/brooklyn-dumpster-
home-sweet-home-article-1.1422854)

Also check out the film "Tiny" about people who build/live in tiny houses.

------
ZenoArrow
I am a fan of small houses, though perhaps this dumpster is a little too
minimalist (for me) in its current form (the article states they are taking
the time to work out what is truly beneficial in a small house, and it looks
like this investigation is far from over).

The most desirable small homes I've seen so far are from dwelle, they seem to
strike a good balance between compactness and practicality...
[http://www.dwelle.co.uk/](http://www.dwelle.co.uk/) If anyone else has some
small home projects they were impressed by, please share, I'd like some
further inspiration.

------
humanrebar
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I'm a big fan of living
modestly and I'd love to see more progress towards modest homes, in terms of
both new technologies and new cultural norms (try to find a well-constructed
750 sq. ft. home for sale in a safe neighborhood).

On the other hand, I didn't see anything in the article about how this scales
to relationships, marriages, and children. Considering how commonplace (and
even economical!) various forms of cohabitation are, I wonder if this isn't
another spherical cow experiment. Or am I missing the point?

~~~
gaveeno
I went to a talk by Jeff Wilson a couple of months ago. He's testing the
hypothesis that you can have a fulfilling existence and actually experience
more freedom through minimal living. While even he acknowledges that a 36 sq.
ft. dumpster is on the very extreme end, he hopes that the experiment and the
conversation around it will help us to to find practical ways for technology
and culture to progress towards being more minimal.

By the way, his talk was much more interesting/enjoyable than I'd anticipated,
and you can watch it here: [http://creativemornings.com/talks/prof-
dumpster/1](http://creativemornings.com/talks/prof-dumpster/1). The Q&A part
was pretty interesting too, but unfortunately it looks like that didn't make
it into the recording.

------
nikatwork
This is reminiscent of the teacher and philosopher Diogenes [1], who lived in
a large tub in the Athens marketplace. Alexander the Great is said to have
been so impressed by Diogenes' minimalism that he remarked "if I were not
Alexander, I would be Diogenes."

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope)

~~~
diogenescynic
Sometimes I hang out here too.

------
candeira
I'd like to see the office where he keeps the rest of his stuff, like books
and other tools he needs for work, paperwork, etc...

------
jonah
I'm a fan of all these small-living endeavors. I'd personally build a somewhat
larger passive-solar-optimized structure out of more appropriate materials.

The gotcha is always land. Try to find an affordable plot near enough to
community and services. It's going be way more than the cost of the building.

------
devindotcom
No mentions at all of food or meals, nor cold weather. Great way to live if
you can afford to eat out 3 meals a day, and it's warm enough to just sleep
outside anyway. It's really not living simply... it's just outsourcing the
complexity to his wallet.

~~~
keenerd
"No mentions at all of food or meals, nor cold weather."

From TFA: "He keeps all of this in cubbies under a recently installed false
floor, along with some camping cooking equipment."

That setup is fine for cooking which only requires boiling water. The lack of
refrigeration is probably the biggest limitation for food preparation. Fresh
meat and veg is feasible but only if you buy in small enough quantities for a
single meal or two. I wouldn't try anything fancier than stir fry, stew, or
pancakes.

Regarding weather, this is Austin.* It is a pretty rough winter if you go
below freezing at all. Add longjohns to his wardrobe and the cold will be
manageable.

* [http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Texas/Places/austin-te...](http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Texas/Places/austin-temperatures-by-month-average.php)

------
pkinsky
Sounds perfect for that Google employee who spent three months living in his
car.

------
shiftyrussian
Looks like we might have a solution to Sydney's sky high house prices.

------
BruceIV
Did anyone else catch his Oscar the Grouch mug in the photo? I laughed.

------
tomcam
No access for the handicapped.

------
enupten
I see Mumbai is going to become more chic.

