We've come a long way very quickly from the days of the 4,000-square-foot home. Now all the trendsetters opt for 100-square-foot homes. ;-)
« Help a Reader: Giving Perspective | Main | Why I Love 401ks »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Sweet, maybe I should put some hardwood floors and a toilet in my shed out back and sell it for $15k!
Posted by: Kevin M | October 22, 2008 at 05:09 PM
I think I'd have trouble with my 5 daughters in something like that :)
Also, there's something more to be said about a home than just "not keeping up with the Jones'".
Owning a home with property is a form of forced savings, since you build equity into something that (generally) appreciates. One of the homes here are more like a car.. depreciates as soon as you buy it.
And anyone who work from home, like me, would simply go crazy within such a small "home".
Posted by: Eric Poulin | October 22, 2008 at 05:19 PM
@Eric:
You just get another one to be your office. That way, you can even "go" to work. Clean separation of work and home. Walk next door to your office. When you're done, walk back to your home. Very clean and simple.
I would actually very seriously consider living in one of these. $15K is not a bad price, about the same $100 / square foot that normal homes cost.
Posted by: Rick | October 22, 2008 at 05:31 PM
Wow. I wish I lived in an area where a "normal" home cost $100 / sq ft!
Posted by: Bad_Brad | October 22, 2008 at 05:56 PM
That'd still sell in Newport Beach. Put it down right near the wedge and charge about $90k for it ;-)
Posted by: JB Flory | October 22, 2008 at 06:17 PM
That'd still sell in Newport Beach. Put it down right near the wedge and charge about $90k for it ;-)
Posted by: JB Flory | October 22, 2008 at 06:18 PM
Though I'm sure I could survive in something like a 100 sq ft home I just don't think I would be sane very long. I kind of like about 300 sq ft per person. That puts a family of 4 in 1200 sq ft, which is extremely comfortable, everyone has their own space, and there are common areas for mostly everything you need to live.
Posted by: Traciatim | October 22, 2008 at 06:56 PM
I'll stick with my 4000 sq ft home, thanks
Posted by: hgg | October 22, 2008 at 07:08 PM
As a poor person, I have been promoting tiny homes for years.
Posted by: | October 22, 2008 at 10:23 PM
People seem to take pride in extremes. Either they have pride in their McMansions, or they take pride in their mobile sheds. Not to many people seem to want to take pride in their modest homes with enough space for everyone but not to much.
Posted by: Tomcat1066 | October 23, 2008 at 06:15 AM
Bit extreme for me, but I do like the space design efficiencies that are learned from this practice. I'd like to see more well designed 1500 sf homes now that feel like 2500 sf.
I think the way you make something like this work is to treat your home like your bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom, places that you don't spend much waking time in anyway. Your den, office, living room, and dining room are all outdoors (definitely more desirable in a year round moderate climate). In warm/dry places, I would consider a tiny house (not this tiny, maybe 300 s.f.) with a nice 400 s.f. half covered porch that wouldn't use any utilities other than a couple of lights and a place to plug in my laptop and a radio. I go crazy in a 4000 sf house much faster than on a 400 s.f. porch (the hotel in The Shinning was huge, but gave me the most confining feeling EVER). This theory doesn't work so well in a place that gets cold (or extremely hot) for more than a month.
Posted by: Strick | October 23, 2008 at 08:09 AM