http://newsbusters.org/blogs/liz-thatch … q-ft-homes
Imagine living in a 200 sq.ft. home.
More of the liberal dream for you and me.
Any larger would be greedy, anti-American, unpatriotic and racist. You must have voted for Bush.
Kind of seems like a conservative dream to me. Wouldn't a liberal dream house be bigger and wasteful? Or am I confused about what conservative means? <g> My house now is almost 5000 square feet but I have lived happily on a sailboat. 8" wide by 29' long - but both ends and the bottom all taper. <g> It's probably the equivalent of 100 or so square feet of living space. With very low ceilings. <g>
Some people would not mind some would no one is being forced. Mass extinctions, toxified atmosphere and massive water level rise, the conservative dream for you and me, so take your pick.
High-five. Well, for logic that is... not for what it entails.
Living in a box will solve all the problems won't it? Yep, right up to the next made up problem.
If you think climate change is made up try living under the ozone hole. Plenty of people are dying of made up melanoma thanks to other people who want to keep spraying chemicals everywhere.
Look if you have zero scientific or logical understanding and are utterly unwilling to accept the findings of those who do that is fine but the facts are still the facts, not only are they proven you can test global warming yourself in a greenhouse.
But I know you the guy living in Texas has a better understanding of climate science than climate scientists
I think it depends on wants, needs, circumstances (students, with children) and finances. The place one want to reside is a matter of decision factor. It is more dense in cities, check Singapore, HongKong, NY City, or London. Population density is one factor.
I'm curious why you find it a worthwhile endeavor to demonize the notion of living simply, Barefootfae.
Does it make you that upset to believe someone could be happy with that?
? That neutrality of response is not the tonality in which you begin the thread. If you didn't care about it you wouldn't bring it up in a medium meant to debate it. Can we just, redo the question with an honest response?
I went that way because the article couches it in an environment of environmentalism. I have heard some more reasonable reasons here which is nice.
So when it was people making sacrifices for the very good of the earth and our children you had a problem with it but when it was for another reason it's fine? Your priorities and biases are so nonsensical.
I just don't believe in using propaganda to coerce people into making lifestyle changes they don't need to make.
What exactly would you know about that changes people need to make or environmental science?
If someone wants to downsize that is fine but all this about do it for the earth? No...
The massive reduction in construction materials, building energy costs, wiring inefficiency in the house, power reduction to light the whole house and heating costs would be very good, it is indeed very good for the earth for people to be doing this which means it's good for all of us and particularly our children.
Why does environmentalism make you angry? It's an ideal which very literally does no harm to you. I don't think I understand.
Who says it makes me angry? It seems to make more people angry that I don't just accept everything out of hand.
There is a difference between not accepting things out of hand and not accepting proven facts.
So how many need to move into a 10 x 20 to change the world Josak?
Just one, but it would be a very small change. I mean seriously. Small savings make small changes. Big savings make big changes. From one moth not beating itself to death on a light bulb to not need to dam a river.
No one is forcing you to do it, so why be so upset at what other people are choosing to do because it is important to them and consistent with their beliefs?
Because you keep adding things at the end like "More of the liberal dream for you and me." When this has nothing to do with politics.
Again, it does seem to specifically irk you considering you put it up in a forum to address it negatively. I promise I'm not trying to judge you, but I feel as though you're not being forthcoming with your core sentiment. No one comes to an internet debate for valid discourse and debate. I already know I, nor anyone else, is going to change your mind whatever it is regarding.
From what I gather you are irritated from the fact that you don't believe in pollution so you find it unwarranted for you or others to receive suggestions on their lifestyle? If that sums it up right there I'll just stop bugging you.
This goes right along with moving everyone out of the country and making them live in apartment buildings in the city whether they wish to or not.
The only propaganda I saw there was the way the article was written and the comments after.
I could easily, but then again I am not materialistic other than having lots of books (of which I don't anymore) It would just be me and my dogs so that's plenty of room. It all depends on how much space a person really needs to be comfortable. I would hope the rent would be cheap, besides think of it this way, people living on 20 hours a week at minimum wage could afford the utilities.
I lived in a 8 by 15 room and share bath/kitchen. Learntto use all the space.
I am quite sure the sum total of my apartment is less than 200 square feet. Lots of room for me. Oops, actually it's 650 square feet Don't know why I thought it was 200. Anyway, that is a bit small for a house but if some people want to do that then more power to them. I have seen documentaries featuring very small houses and people seem to like them. I'd like to know how big the average Japanese house is.
Lovely site by the way
There was a program on the TV a few months ago, about a project in inner London where they had converted old shipping containers into flats. They were small, obviously, but designed in such a way that there was loads of compartments for storage so stuff wasn't lying around. The kitchen was so small that the camera man couldn't get in the kitchen at the same time as the occupant, but the kitchen had everything which was needed- it was really cleverly designed and looked quite cool. I bet that was less than 200 sq ft.
As long as I can afford more than 200sqft, I'll pay for more than that.
But check this out:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-home … mes-460309
Shipping container homes. Sometimes living in 200 sqft is cool
Some people choose to live on canal boats in the UK. I'm fairly sure they would fit within these limits.
In the end, it depends on who you are, what you want and how you define your needs.
To a large extent, it also depends on where you live. I live in a two-storey, three-bedroom house, but the value of my house would not even buy me a space equivalent to a toilet in London!
I know what you mean about prices...I live in TN, I have a 3000 square foot home, here the price is very reasonable, in California it would cost a fortune, and overseas, I can't even imagine. I do not watch much tv, but I love international house hunters on HGTV, the prices in England and Italy blow my mind!
Fae, this liberal sure doesn't want to live in 200sq ft....I am claustrophobic!
It's basically the size of an outhouse!
Tammy....This thread refers to climate warming and the harm that huge homes and their waste of energy and use of chemicals does to the environment. While you're enjoying your 5,000 square feet of space, you're contributing to the problem. (Do you really need that much space, or just think you deserve it?)
Hi Jaye, Mine is 3000, I did see someone else here say 5000, And I do see your point. I am not privy to the waste of energy associated with my modest two story home. I have 5 children so most times my home feels very small. I am a very energy conscience person. Lights off in unused rooms, short showers, unplugged chargers, etc etc...I would like to understand more about this problem. I do not feel I deserve more than anyone, but my family could never have Sunday dinners in 200sq ft....
Canal boats are too narrow (she states the obvious ) I think, it'd be like living in a corridor. But I know what you mean about the price of property in Wales in comparison to the cities (London obviously being extortionate) I bought my first property in Caerwys, I was just 21 and I borrowed the grand total of £16,000 for a beautiful, 18th century miners cottage and a grade 11 listed building. It was tiny, and the stairs were slap bang in the middle of the tiny kitchen. But I loved it, may have been slightly over 200 sq feet, but not much.
I believe I could do it if I designed and built it. I am currently planning an 800 sq ft building on some property I own. Half of that will be stalls for goats and chickens. I plan on not officially living in the other half but living there. (I would rather not explain that) With a high ceiling, a 200 sq ft house is doable, for a single person. It does lead to one small problem though, what to do with all the junk we accumulate.
Well, lets see here. At 12'X16' my bedroom is on smallish side for a master bedroom, but weighs in at just under 200 square feet.
Visualize adding a small kitchen range and sink, with 3 cabinets above them and a small table and chair to eat on.
Add a bathroom with shower, no tub, taking care that the door swing doesn't hit the range.
Now add in a hot water tank, small.
Stick in a closet just big enough for 2 changes of clothing - laundry every third day will be necessary.
Push in a small computer desk, no chair. The folding kitchen chair will suffice. Still gotta write your hubs, you know!
Baseboard heat probably requires the least amount of room, but makes using the wall it is on problematical.
Shoes can be hung on a nail in the wall when not in use.
No dogs, no cats - a rat (small) might be OK.
No thank you - I don't think I could sleep standing up!
You are thinking in only two dimensions wilderness. The water heater is not necessary with insta hot style water heaters. Put the bed up high with storage underneath it( I have to have a king sized bed). A lot of cooking can be done in the solar oven I built. Heating and cooling can be done by a unit mounted on the exterior. I do have the luxury of being a superintendent for a general contractor who came up the old fashioned way and can do all of this myself. it will be small though and I'm not sure the small rat would have much room. LOL
I did think of hanging the bed, but it would have to be retractable and near the center of the room. Otherwise it would take 7' + 4' (from bottom of bed) for a ceiling height; pretty high, plus you now have to store a ladder!
Instahots are possible, just not very popular around here. I've installed a couple, but most people don't like them. Good point with the heat/ac; a motel type heat pump would be ideal, although it DOES take valuable wall space.
Go ahead and get the rat; if it turns out he's too large, well, supper is served!
Maybe a small dog, Keith, instead of a rat....Small dogs don't take up much room, and most like to sleep with their humans and sit on their laps.
@ the OP....Nope........
i wonder if that is why some folks downsize and then store their 'stuf' somewhere else...just a thought.....storage facilities could do well with folks downsizing...
Relocating "stuff" to storage facilities just costs money and continues the problem. A better answer is to donate what you don't use or need to those who do need it but can't afford to buy it. If it's worn out, toss it, but don't throw away anything that can be recycled in some way. People have too much "stuff", but it's not making them happy, but the reverse. As I said, getting rid of it (and not replacing it with more "stuff") is liberating.
The people who are doing it are having fun and feeling good about themselves. So why get all grinchy about it?
I have about 520 square fee. It's plenty for me.
I think it depends an awful lot on the person. I recently helped build a retirement complex full of apartments just under 500'. For elderly people that didn't get out much it seems that would be just awful - don't think I could live that way.
If most of your time is away from home, though, I would find 500' perfect, with the only problem I have frequent visits from children and grandchildren, often keeping 2 to 4 overnight or for the weekend. A combination of 2 grandparents, a 3 year old, 5 year old and 500 square feet would be a disaster!
Personally, I find smaller spaces cozier. They are also easier to maintain, leaving my time open for more enjoyable activities other than cleaning etc. These homes are not just pushed by the Green people though, most are off the grid and pushed by Conservatives. Why? So that you are not dependent on the Government, you are self-sufficient (energy wise), and can live life on your own terms. It depends on the person and their preferences. I'm not big on owning a lot of stuff, small spaces do not bother me, so it would probably be fine and dandy with me.
I find it suits me fine and I stay home most of the time that I am not working. But it is all in the design. It opens to a large fenced deck shared by 5 apartments so their are often kids, dogs or people playing games out there. I made zones with furniture and found it really quite ample for one person and one dog.
I have a cabin that's 14x16, which is just a little more square footage. I could live in it alone and possibly with a significant other. The bedroom is a loft, which frees up the main floor space. It's doable, just not ideal.
We live in a 21 ft caravan as we are traveling Australia but we di eat outside most of the time .I have no desire to go back into a house !
The only way I'd find it bearable is if the 200 sq foot property came with a reasonable-sized garden to grow vegetables in and just generally use as an outside living space during the summer. A 200 sq foot apartment? No thanks (not unless I had no choice in the matter).
If you want to go for the tiny house thing then that's your prerogative. But it doesn't suit everyone.
I live in a 26 foot travel trailer, and have for three years now.
Most of the work I've been doing...is wiring custom homes, homes far larger than anyone much needs.
Of course I'm single, no children....there's no room in my RV for another person to live.....but my parents own a huge RV....a monster sized one...and they could probably live in that thing if they wanted to.
I don't need much in the way of a house, but as I said, I"m single and have no children - all I need, really, is a bit of a metal building with power ran to it for use as a workshop and storage.
I like my house, front yard, back yard, shed, and garage. I have a lot of stuff. I couldn't live in 200sqft; the piano would barely fit!
I don't have a problem with those who do, though. I think it's adventurous. Especially those living on boats! Trailor sounds exciting, too, but I'd rather be on a boat because it seems more private to me. I like my privacy. That's why I have a house instead of a condo or apartment
How about this small house?
I have seen this. Very cool.
Also, treehouses are amongst my favorite things to browse as far as architecture goes.
Also, anyone see the jet that was turned into a home?
http://smtdaily.com/2012/06/man-turns-7 … ream-home/
Has anybody tried fitting a married couple with kids in these kinds of homes?
I don't think many people are suggesting that it seems to be more for single people or maybe couples, having said that I know a married couple with two children who live in a yacht that probably has about the same internal space and they are very happy people.
Check this out, I had never heard of a yurt before...
Some of those homes look fantastic. I especially liked the Pictures of Amsterdam. The guest house I stayed in in Amsterdam a few years ago was exactly like this. But they tend to build up, while the houses were narrow they often had at least three stories and the stairs were soooo steep, my room was on the 4th floor, the journey to bed, I have to say, was exhausting.
I did. Well, smaller. I lived in a 19' travel trailer for 10 years. Good fodder for my next Hub. I've got lots of pictures...
I think when reading articles like the one posted by the OP, there is a temptation to assume that because environmentalists are extolling the virtues of tiny homes, then that must therefore mean that they believe we should be compelled to live in them. I'm guessing it's this element of compulsion (real or imagined) which is what the OP objects to.
Do we know of any environmentalists who actually do believe in forcing everyone to live in a 200 square feet home?
People who frequently express worry about imagined threats are hard to take seriously, especially when they assign these imagined threats to a particular group for the purposes of spreading fear of that group.
No but I have seen articles by people who believe we should not be allowed to live outside the cities and only see the countryside in pictures. Not making that up.
Then post those sources rather than dragging that issue into a basically unrelated topic.
by whitney_1856 years ago
For the past year or so I've become more and more into the "small house movement" --- living in small (700 square feet or less)homes. Does anyone live in such a home? We recently got a really good deal on a...
by SPomposello3 years ago
My wife and I currently live in a small two bedroom in the Bronx, NY. We have a 15 year old daughter. My wife is pregnant with another on the way, we don't know the sex yet. We plan on moving into a bigger 2 bedroom by...
by matherese6 years ago
my bedroom is my favourite place what's yours?
by Ralph Schwartz2 weeks ago
I've read countless numbers of threads about partisan political talking points over the years. They range from abortion, gun control, immigration, social justice, healthcare, protected classes of people, voting...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.