Skip to comments.Honey, I Shrunk the Country
Posted on 10/21/2012 9:08:27 AM PDT by markomalley
Micro housing. Its not just for the homeless anymore. So says the New York Times.
Most people see a parking space and promptly back up into it; Tim McCormick sees one and thinks, I could live here.
Who would willingly choose to live in something with the footprint of a parking space (8x10x16 feet)? Millions already do, argues McCormick, a communications consultant: bedrooms, dorm rooms, motel rooms, hostels, mobile homes and the like. I myself live comfortably in a converted one-car garage of 200 square feet, he says, which allows me to live inexpensively near downtown in super-expensive Palo Alto.
The Times has run more stories on the, uh, growing movement to live in cramped spaces than it has on Benghazi.
But when you think about it, thats entirely appropriate for the house organ of Barack Obama, the man who has systematically set out to cut America down to size.
Remember these oldies but goodies?
I do think that at a certain point, youve made enough money.
You didnt build that.
there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.
I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
We cant drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. Thats not leadership. Thats not going to happen.
Its no wonder that, as the Weekly Standards Jonathan V. Last discovered, Americas general fertility rate is now the lowest its ever been.
So dont let anyone tell you that our president hasnt accomplished anything of significance. Based on his own words, hes done just what he intended to do. Imagine what he might accomplish with another four years.
As Obamas own brother George is wont to say, a mans home is his castle shanty.
A person needs 200 square feet for accommodations for eating, sleeping and personal grooming, a man and his wife need 400 square feet. Children need an additional 100 square feet each, birth through time they depart the home.
Anything larger than that is just to house your ego.
“Things” you just as well could put into storage somewhere.
I’m glad you don’t get to decide how much space I need. The more the better.
The “slumming down” of a once-great country...the “new normal” in Obama’s America.
How is it that I grew up “poor” but never cared about people living in mansions?
If anything the greedy reliefers bothered me more.
Otherwise,what do I care if someone lives in a tent or a mansion?
As long as they aren’t harming themselves or others.
He is probably making a lot of money, at least for some other areas of the country.
There are a couple of trends here. The first is towards smaller housing, which isn't really that bad. In the housing boom, we were buying McMansions as status symbols, and it distored the expectations of what we thought was normal. These micro houses, on the other hand, are not that different from the normal of 1900. People then would buy tiny houses for cash, and add onto them themselves after a while.
The second trend is one I know of in the tech industry. We have long made more money than average, but often are contractors who live far from the houses we pay for and the families we have. People commute across the country to their jobs and leave their families behind. The lifestye is of a poor person, not upper middle income.
This man in Palo Alto may have his wife and kids in another city.
Tell me where, and I'll see that city code enforcement dismantles your "home" posthaste.
Then you can work on policy to provide Palo Alto with economic liberty.
But someone who thinks it is his place to decide what someone else needs is a fool who needs his nose broken until he learns to keep it in his own business.
By all means, brag about your converted garage hovel, douchebag...
Very soviet of you. In America, we don’t fill our needs, we fill our wants. From each according to his ability, to each according to his NEEDS.
In America, it’s about getting what you want. IE,,The pursuit of happiness.
One problem with the "McMansions" is that they were often on far too small of lot. I would much rather have a smaller house and a few acres of land. But then that doesn't match with the New York Times' push for the new urbanization.
I’m literally in the same boat...except my little cruiser is on the Atlantic side, and no Admiral.
Picked it up last year of Bush’s presidency, it helped me weather the economic crisis very well. Advertised as “hurricane damaged”, turned out to only have a few scratches and a running diesel, sail away for $4500.
Now when I’m on the hook my $50 smartphone is my only bill, tieing up at a marina with water, power, laundry, cable is $250mo in N Jax.
I suppose I should have included the “/sarcasm” tag.
It is not for me, or anybody, to decide how ostentatiously somebody may wish to live. That is a matter for their own conscience, their pocketbook, and desire to please those with whom he (or she) may choose to cohabit with.
I was merely stating the irreducible minimum upon which accommodations could be still be termed “housing” and not imprisonment.
But hey, select your own jail.
I think if I lived by myself I could comfortably live with little space, although I get very anxious when in small spaces.
I currently live in about a 3000 square foot home. Three adults, two dogs and a bird live here. I feel like I’m stepping on people or animals all the time. I need “me” space that is not filled with a lot of crap. I can’t stand going in the den that is my husband’s territory. There is not a nook or cranny that doesn’t have some time of crap in it or on it. I have begged him to quick bringing crap home but he doesn’t listen. Since the dogs have not learned yet to pick up their toys or treats, I’m constantly picking them up too.
In the end I think people should live in whatever size house they want and can afford. There are a lot of big homes around me and I love them. I’m glad that there are people that can afford to buy them.
There is a need for a lot of diversity in living quarters that people might choose to live in. The trick is that they are the ones who choose, based on their “opportunity costs”.
That is, if you are a starving college student, who doesn’t have a whole lot of stuff, something like a Japanese “tube motel room” makes a lot of sense, if it is inexpensive enough so you have money for other things of more value to you.
Yet the same student, if they don’t drink beer, might vie for something roomier, that costs more, like a dorm room. Others might be willing to share a suburban house and split the rent with several other tenants. Others might save a bundle by living with their parents.
In all cases, it is what they want, based in the opportunity costs of their choices.
Lets see. One pResident, one wife, two kids and a gramma.(dog stays in the yard) Thats 800 sq. feet needed. Just the size of a two car garage. I’m sure O and Moochelle would be willing to trade that big white inner city monstrosity for something more plebeian./Sarc
any storage space needs to count for this to be true. this is like the guy who saved money for a year by leeching off his neighbor’s wifi and “borrowing” their paper to read before putting it back. and he was so proud of how much he saved, the little narcissistic parasite.
my model stash and workshop alone are 400 square feet by itself. plus 18 bookcases.
i agree after a certain point i don’t need to make any more money NUT THAT IS MY DECISION not some bureaucratic wanker in the FFFG.
Very well spoken. The zoning nazis have reduced choices dramatically. They are the reason that inexpensive housing is hard to find.
There are lots of other reasons. For example, in a given area, when wages go up, rents invariably rise as a consequence, and with increase taxes based on those raises, workers may end up earning less.
Lessors also tend to jack up prices around universities, military posts, and other places where they are assured renters who need to live there.
Yes, the economic law of supply and demand is still in effect. Still, where there is a demand, and it is technologically and economically feasible, someone will usually create the supply.
I think there would be a demand for inexpensive dormitory type housing without the control by the university, military, or other concentrators of population. It is possible that land nearby has become so valuable that rents need to be high to pay for it, but I believe that zoning ordinances have driven up housing costs considerably.
I’ve heard stories back to the 1940s about collusion between lessors in college towns to block new construction, and often to arrange kickbacks from the universities for placements. And the universities, for their part, wanting to force students to live in dorms.
It’s all about the money. On the plus side, at least back then, returning veterans refused to play ball with a lot of the rackets, and they were not men to be taken lightly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.