Really cool designs, but the sizes themselves arent all that impressive IMO. A 300sqft lot with 3 floors can probably be at least 800sq ft of space, which isnt that bad at all.
I was much more impressed by the converting apartment in under 350 sq ft of space that was posted on HN a few months ago (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1294480)
My version is having to move the computer desk that's in front of the wardrobe, having a bunk bed that turns into a double bed, and moving the couch when I want to go to the bathroom (also very cramped with the toilet in the shower stall).
Of the houses depicted in the article, I liked "Penguin House" the best - the others are just not sunny enough - what's with modern architects' disdain of large windows and balconies...
I'm still amazed that the housing boom hasn't exploded in Uruguay (it's bizarre that housing is cheaper in most of the United States than in Montevideo - ok, NY and Silicon Valley excluded). The arcane government regulations and heavy taxing of for-profit development is really weighing us down (end rant).
I know I'm suppose to like this feel good small houses thing. It makes a lot of sense to sleep in a small house if that is within your means. But you know, I still like my average sized american home. Although I used to live in a tiny studio and loved it because it was only me. I could not imagine myself raising a family in a small place like that. I like small living spaces if I'm by myself. I need a bigger space for my family.
I prefer to have lot of lands and lot of space to conduct scientific experiment, build rockets and train network and generally engage in hacking physical stuff.
Still, I might make use of small space design principle for my imaginary hacker mansion, if only to make use of it more efficiently and make my house feel larger than it really is.
Ick. I'm not sure I'd like to live in a giant cinderblock, especially not one with tiny windows spread all over the walls. It looks so disorienting, I don't think I'd ever feel comfortable in a room like that.
Tiny houses that still, mostly, look to be half empty due to a minimalist aesthetic. Except the 6' wide house, they all look roomier than mine and I've got a wife and baby kicking around :-)
In all seriousness though I think if my property was 6' wide my first move would be build a basement and sub-basement and sub-sub-basement. The ground floor would be for my motorcycles, kitchen on the 2nd floor, den in the basement, sleeping in the sub and storage in the sub-sub. You'd barely need any square footage, especially if you use ladders instead of stairs.
I guess you could say I'm thinking like a submarine designer?
Run a forced air line to the lowest level and run regular central air from the lowest level (rather than simply the basement, you'd be running it from the 2nd or 3rd sub-level).
It would also be ideal to ensure the basement is fully sealed (IE the moisture wrap they bury after you've had a leak can actually be laid before the foundation) which will help dramatically with the moisture in the basement levels.
I would imagine a house would become more vertical in narrower confines. I know my friend had a house that was only 12ft wide but long. The ground floor was kitchen and dining room, 2nd floor was a huge living room with a small bathroom, 3rd floor was 2 bedrooms, 4th floor (attic conversion) was the master bedroom with a huge en-suite bath.
I don't understand why you'd build a single story home on a <500sqft lot. A spiral staircase doesn't have a significant impact on square footage and a second or third level would dramatically increase the usable area rather than keep at the limit of ground level.
I almost broke an ankle once and lived in a place with stairs. Doing stairs with crutches was bad enough. I don't think I could have handled a ladder! Good luck.
