
Do-It-Yourself Downsizing: How To Build A Tiny House - stretchwithme
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128109273
======
pwim
I'm living in a 170 square foot apartment in Tokyo. This is on the small side,
but not so unusual for an apartment close to the city center. In addition to
the savings in rent, I also save money by not collecting possessions. The
space isn't such an issue, because I fully utilize it. Having a bigger place
would be nice for having people over and what not, but the majority of the
time I wouldn't use the space.

~~~
stretchwithme
that's very cool. Does it have any cool space saving features you can show us?

~~~
pwim
I don't have any furniture. I sit on the floor, and sleep on a Futon
(Japanese-style <http://www.yumetai.co.jp/img/goods/L/24623s1.jpg>), which I
can fold up and put away during the day.

Besides that, I just try and not collect possessions. If I don't use
something, I give or throw it away. I avoid buying stuff that will take up
space unless I regularly use it.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
Why does this turn up so often here on HN? It's cute, and interesting, and
perhaps a fun hack to try to do, but I've seen it several times now.

Here's one earlier version found in 30 seconds with <http://searchyc.com> :

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=921959>

... and here are some related links:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=659799>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=651810>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1298314>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1377012>

~~~
dabent
To me, the most interesting "hack" here is how the Tumbleweed house company
has hacked its way onto Oprah, NPR and the top result for "tiny house" on
Google.

I wish my startup could do that.

They've done a remarkable job with PR and are effectively the Apple Computer
of trailer homes.

------
Pyrodogg
As habitual pack rat I'm fascinated by these tiny houses. I think it would be
great to simply live in a smaller space. Then there isn't any room for clutter
to accumulate.

~~~
aarongough
It would probably be a better solution to change your habits... I used to be a
bit of a hoarder, then I set myself a rule: "If I haven't used something in 6
months, it needs to be thrown out or given away."

My apartment is pretty minimalist now...

------
stcredzero
Not quite as small, but cozier and more conventional.

Shelter Kit: <http://www.shelter-kit.com/>

415 sq ft Lofthouses start at $17k

------
mhd
I always thought those houses quite fascinating. This, plus some storage space
would allow you to go not-quite-Walden. OTOH, minimalism isn't exactly about
square-footage. A slightly bigger house, with a bit more "whitespace" would
probably be more comfortabl -- imagine a small traditional Japanese house, or
one of those buildings based on upcycled shipping containers...

Also, for ecological reasons, this would still be a waste of space, as you're
only using two dimensions and probably need some space around the building. A
typical apartment building would be better.

This is quite good if you've got a lot more land, but only a little space to
build upon (forest, hills, etc.).

If I remember correctly, even the founder of the company selling those houses
only partially lives in one of them. He's got a bigger, traditional house next
to it.

~~~
frossie
Regarding "whitespace" - I personally find head room to be a lot more
psychologically meaningful that square footage (in other words, I'd rather
live in a 1,000 sf house with 9ft ceilings than a 2,000 sf house with 7 foot
ceilings, although the analogy breaks down eventually). And the advantage of
head room is that you can't fill it with junk :-)

I wonder whether "digital packratting" (collecting e-books, scanning
everything to Evernote, collecting gaming "trophies") can replace the hoarding
need that is so important to many people, but without the downside of being
burried in clutter.

~~~
mhd
Well, at least it's harder to fill ceiling with junk. Tall shelves and loft
beds certainly help... I do agree with you, I'm really looking for something
with larger ceilings once I have to get my own apartment again. Even if it's
just in the middle of the room (i.e. under the roof). But there has to be some
degree of horizontal space, too for that to work. 6x6x10 would be a bit weird.

I think clutter is some kind of vicious circle. Once you start, it's hard to
stop. And starting is pretty easy if you're not really vigilant -- things like
long work hours, kids and long commutes quickly start your hoard. And if your
life doesn't work out the way it does, you're prone to nostalgia and
memorabilia.

Smaller accommodations make it harder to start that. But there's small, and
there's tiny...

------
ck2
Instead of $15-$20k, just spend $8k on a singlewide trailer and redo the
interior to your desire.

------
enjo
I live in a 1,000 square foot house. It's the right size for my wife and I.
We'd fit just fine with a kid as well... Having lived in smaller apartments
(down to 500 square feet) I just don't see me doing it ever again:)

~~~
psadauskas
My fiance and I recently downsized to a 1000 sqft condo. Living small is
surprisingly expensive, though. Its crowded in the condo, because all the
stuff we have as hand-me-downs, like the TV and sofa, is meant for a much
larger space. It costs a lot of money to get new stuff that fits in the space
better.

~~~
rue
With respect, 1000 sq.ft. (about 92m2 for those of us using sane units) for
two is not "downsizing". You are suffering from space blindness.

About 75m2 (800ish sq.ft.) is comfortable for a family of three, and you can
certainly get by with much less.

~~~
roel_v
Where do you live? In Belgium 90m2 apartments are considered small, even for a
couple with no kids. 120 m2 is standard for newly build ones, I'm building a
few between 125 and 170 although these are luxury apartments. My sister bought
a 170m2 one smack dead in the center of a big city (Antwerp), as urban as it
gets in Belgium. Where I live now in the Netherlands the standards are lower
though, especially in Amsterdam.

~~~
rue
The topic was "downsizing" :)

My somewhat educated guess is that recent and current construction have been a
bit smaller than Belgium. The law says new apartment buildings, for example,
have to have an _average_ apartment size of 75m2 but I would say that in the
city here 100-120m2 is pretty standard for a family of four.

Mind, even 120m2 (~1300 sq.ft.) is quite small by U.S. "middle class"
standards.

~~~
roel_v
Well yeah, unless I'm misunderstanding, you were saying that 92m2 is not
downsizing (at least not downsizing enough). So I said that 92m2 is at the
bottom of 'normal' size apartments. I guess you can argue that 92m2 to be
below average means that the average is too high, but it would seem that
everyone else thinks that it's normal.

~~~
rue
Yes. 90m2 is _huge_ considering actual needs of two people. Half that is still
comfortable. A third is livable.

It may be a big shift down from what someone had before, and may even seem
normal-sized by current standards but that is only because of disproportionate
expectations. It can only be seen as true "downsizing" when your scale is way
too big to begin with. Consider how the Mini is a "small" car - while being
about twice the size of the original mini.

Mind, it is still a good move.

~~~
roel_v
You're bringing this as if there is an objective measure for the 'needs' of
the living space of two people, and that what is considered 'normal' is way
above that objective measure. You're not bringing any supportive evidence for
this (in my eyes) grandiose claim, other than proof by vigorous hand waving
and stating it in terms of great certainty.

The one objective measure one can bring to the table is the lower boundary -
which is maybe around 2 m2 per person, as there are numerous houses (e.g.
dwelling where illegal immigrants are housed in by human traffickers) (I'm
just making a guess here, based on hearing for example about 50 people being
packed in small houses in farming areas). I suppose you're not seriously
arguing that this is what we should strive for, yet this is (objectively) how
little room humans can 'survive' on. (if it were possible on less, these
people would get less, considering human traffickers probably try to minimize
their costs in order to maximize profits).

You quantify your statements by saying that 30m2 is 'livable' for two people.
I don't see how you can make this assertion. What is 'livable' or
'comfortable' is entirely subjective. One may get /used/ to living in a
smaller room; heck, one would get 'used' to being sodomized daily with a coke
bottle too, I guess, as long as it's done for a long enough time. That still
doesn't mean it's something to aim for. You're projecting an entirely
subjective /opinion/ (houses should be small, people should not have much
stuff which is implied by living in such a small house, ...) onto this
discussion and present it as /fact/.

Anyway I'm perfectly willing to accept that there is an 'optimum' in the sense
that the median of the population would feel comfortable enough living in an
apartment of a certain size. I know of no way to measure this optimum, because
so many of the variable are hard to quantify. Instead we could say that the
reality shows preferences already: the amount of space people feel most
comfortable in, in function of their spending capability, is the house they
live in! This may not be perfect, but it sure would show that what 'people' in
general find 'comfortable enough' is a lot higher than your 30 m2.

~~~
rue
The point of "downsizing", related to "downshifting", is to remove the excess
largess western cultures have grown accustomed to. To some anyway. It is also
a _voluntary_ choice so no need to worry about concentration apartment
buildings where flats only have room for one TV set.

I live, with one other person and three cats, comfortably in 54m2 (581
sq.ft.). We used to live slightly less comfortably in 42m2. I know four or
five couples who live in 30-37m2 currently (which I, you will note, said was
"livable"). And others that have 90m2+.

90m2 may well be standard for two people where you are at least but it is
wasteful in terms of resources if nothing else.

------
mikecane
Has anyone here done this or is doing this? Back in 2008 when I first
encountered this, I was aghast at how you'd first have to do some heavy
research as to where you'd locate because the rules were so different,
especially regarding what's considered "real estate" for tax purposes.

~~~
bittersweet
Is it still possible to find a nice piece of land in the US and just build
your home there?

I'm from the Netherlands and there is no way in hell you can buy a piece of
land away from everything.

~~~
starkfist
Where I grew up I would say building your own home is almost as popular as
buying one. But I wouldn't say the land is "nice." You can even do this in
places close to Silicon Valley, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains. Although,
there can be a lot of restrictions on the land use due to environmental and
other zoning regulations.

~~~
whyenot
Yes, you can find inexpensive land in the Santa Cruz mountains, but you have
to be a little careful. One common reason why the land is cheap is that there
is no pre-existing well or other easy access to water. If you have to drill a
well, it can cost many thousands of dollars, and there is no guarantee of
success.

------
Jake541
@twobraids on Twitter lives in a minimalist self-built yurt. It's been a while
and I am on an iPad, but he has a website detailing the build.

I did research on these tiny houses a couple years back and they have a nice
variety of builds. Some of the ones with sleeping lofts were very interesting.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
I would love to build a yurt at the foot of the hill I live on. I've been
thinking that since my kid wants a tree house and the location I want is near
some downed trees, we can "compromise" and he can help me build a house out of
trees :-)

------
starkfist
I've lived in multiple < 200 square foot apartments in Japan and a 300 sq foot
apartment in SF. I think these tiny homes would be a fun getaway. That said,
something about a tiny detached house like this gives me the creeps, whereas a
tiny apartment does not.

~~~
stretchwithme
Maybe because it reminds you too much of an outhouse or a toolshed? :-)

~~~
whyenot
or Ted Kaczynski?

------
starkfist
This would be fun as a weekend house up in Vermont, but I have no idea where I
could put it.

