• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

The Micro-Home movement, the art of downsizing and its relation to immortality

micro-home immortality population conservation

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,318 posts
  • 253

Posted 12 April 2014 - 05:02 AM


As we become immortal, is the concern for space a serious one? And even if it is, should we all begin to adjust to the very idea of downsizing our lives, living more modestly and to renovate smaller homes in favor of much larger ones? 

 

There is a movement through out the U.S right now that is gaining a lot of momentum. The Micro-home movement. Basically a lot of this movement is focused on conservation, recycling, energy independence and of course personal evolution and social progression as a species. 

 

But what do we, the immortalists think of it? 

 

I, on the one hand believe that it is a very important movement happening, but on the other hand feel that some people are going to full out extremes with the whole micro downsizing idea. Living in essentially converted tool sheds. 

 

I believe there is a sweet spot, where you can significantly downsize and, depending on your needs, and the needs of your lover and/or family, reach a final compromise between just the right amount of space and an acceptable comfort level that leaves nothing out.

 

Here are some examples of these sweet spots. Some finished, some not so finished.

 

 

I feel something slightly larger than this would be ideal for a student

 

 

This one is a concept for an A-framed house, I personally see a lot of potential with the A-frame, regarding interior design. A lot of room to innovate. 

 

 

Something like this has a lot of potential for a couple.

 

 

This just might be my favorite. But it is likely tied with an A-frame cabin.

 

308115_10150398626007759_157306683_n.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLsuwNfRU_8 (please note this youtube link is not embeddable for some reason)

 

And as I said, this here A-frame might be tied with the previous shipping container home as my two favorites.

 

tiny-a-frame-cabin-in-the-woods-001.jpg

 

 

tiny-a-frame-cabin-in-the-woods-0010.jpgtiny-a-frame-cabin-in-the-woods-0012.jpgtiny-a-frame-cabin-in-the-woods-007.jpgtiny-a-frame-cabin-in-the-woods-005.jpgtiny-a-frame-cabin-in-the-woods-004.jpg

 

 

Okay, so there you have it. A taste of the micro-home movement. Thoughts? 


Edited by TheFountain, 12 April 2014 - 05:10 AM.


#2 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,318 posts
  • 253

Posted 25 April 2014 - 08:17 PM

I am surprised nobody gives a shit about this sort of thing. I would think community building to be very important to my fellow immortalists. 



#3 Layberinthius

  • Guest
  • 298 posts
  • 26
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 26 April 2014 - 04:14 AM

We do care. we're just interested in an even more tighter and compact home. the Freezer/Cryofreezer.

 

It is a very important movement, but its just a reflection upon how horribly pollutant we all are as a species, we all need to change and stop polluting in addition to doing things like this.

 

And we tend to keep our praise/drooling to Facebook/Twitter/Linkedin where more of our peers can praise us instead of showing it on Longecity.com.

 

Plus I have problems with claustrophobia. Infact I would imagine this would be a sort of "sleep in" and "cook in" and "read in on a rainy day" kind of home. but not one which everyday american can play xbox with their pals or shoot hoops inside the home in or whatever crazy stuff americans get up to these days. Like sex on the washer and dryer. It just doesn't fit into the whole "We're all great, we're amazing, we're american, we have lots of sex and own lots of stuff and have tons of money" mentality.

 

I personally sleep and live in 35 meters square with a backyard about 38 meters square, so I'm already there but in suburbia and not as close to nature as I would like. I don't even like my current spacious house somedays, I have to go outside and relax for a while.

 

The best thing about these kinds of homes are that they can usually be rent free or low rent if you are willing to live on another persons property, so that means tons more money being spent on travel, etc.

 

If I had somebody elses money I would probably do it cubbyhouse style, not on a flat surface but in the air in a tree.

 

Then I would be finally safe from harm from the Chupacabra or the Grizzly bear or the Tax man.

 


Edited by Layberinthius, 26 April 2014 - 04:52 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,318 posts
  • 253

Posted 26 April 2014 - 11:37 AM

We do care. we're just interested in an even more tighter and compact home. the Freezer/Cryofreezer.

 

It is a very important movement, but its just a reflection upon how horribly pollutant we all are as a species, we all need to change and stop polluting in addition to doing things like this.

 

And we tend to keep our praise/drooling to Facebook/Twitter/Linkedin where more of our peers can praise us instead of showing it on Longecity.com.

 

Plus I have problems with claustrophobia. Infact I would imagine this would be a sort of "sleep in" and "cook in" and "read in on a rainy day" kind of home. but not one which everyday american can play xbox with their pals or shoot hoops inside the home in or whatever crazy stuff americans get up to these days. Like sex on the washer and dryer. It just doesn't fit into the whole "We're all great, we're amazing, we're american, we have lots of sex and own lots of stuff and have tons of money" mentality.

 

I personally sleep and live in 35 meters square with a backyard about 38 meters square, so I'm already there but in suburbia and not as close to nature as I would like. I don't even like my current spacious house somedays, I have to go outside and relax for a while.

 

The best thing about these kinds of homes are that they can usually be rent free or low rent if you are willing to live on another persons property, so that means tons more money being spent on travel, etc.

 

If I had somebody elses money I would probably do it cubbyhouse style, not on a flat surface but in the air in a tree.

 

Then I would be finally safe from harm from the Chupacabra or the Grizzly bear or the Tax man.

 

In Fairness I tried to include the homes that are a fair trade off as examples of downsizing and spaciousness at the same time. There are some ridiculously small ones out there, I would not consider living in because they're far too claustrophobic. The first one that I mentioned that would make good "student" home is an example of this. The rest of them are far closer to what I would consider livable for the average individual. Even the average couple. With perhaps one child. 



#5 Jeoshua

  • Guest
  • 662 posts
  • 186
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 26 April 2014 - 11:39 AM

Infact I would imagine this would be a sort of "sleep in" and "cook in" and "read in on a rainy day" kind of home. but not one which everyday american can play xbox with their pals or shoot hoops inside the home in or whatever crazy stuff americans get up to these days. Like sex on the washer and dryer. It just doesn't fit into the whole "We're all great, we're amazing, we're american, we have lots of sex and own lots of stuff and have tons of money" mentality.
 
I personally sleep and live in 35 meters square with a backyard about 38 meters square, so I'm already there but in suburbia and not as close to nature as I would like. I don't even like my current spacious house somedays, I have to go outside and relax for a while.


I'm American, and I wonder if you know any Americans, at all, or just have seen some of us on TV. I live in an apartment, as does everyone I know. There are hundreds of thousands of apartment buildings, housing almost a million people, where I live. In contrast, there are two really expensive neighboorhoods with a couple of thousand homes in them, each housing a family of around 4 or 5 people. So that's about a 1:20000 ratio of apartment:home dwellers. And I've never heard of an indoor basketball court in anything but the richest houses, and never once in my area.

You think we're all rich? We're not.

#6 Layberinthius

  • Guest
  • 298 posts
  • 26
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 26 April 2014 - 11:58 AM

 

We do care. we're just interested in an even more tighter and compact home. the Freezer/Cryofreezer.

 

It is a very important movement, but its just a reflection upon how horribly pollutant we all are as a species, we all need to change and stop polluting in addition to doing things like this.

 

And we tend to keep our praise/drooling to Facebook/Twitter/Linkedin where more of our peers can praise us instead of showing it on Longecity.com.

 

Plus I have problems with claustrophobia. Infact I would imagine this would be a sort of "sleep in" and "cook in" and "read in on a rainy day" kind of home. but not one which everyday american can play xbox with their pals or shoot hoops inside the home in or whatever crazy stuff americans get up to these days. Like sex on the washer and dryer. It just doesn't fit into the whole "We're all great, we're amazing, we're american, we have lots of sex and own lots of stuff and have tons of money" mentality.

 

I personally sleep and live in 35 meters square with a backyard about 38 meters square, so I'm already there but in suburbia and not as close to nature as I would like. I don't even like my current spacious house somedays, I have to go outside and relax for a while.

 

The best thing about these kinds of homes are that they can usually be rent free or low rent if you are willing to live on another persons property, so that means tons more money being spent on travel, etc.

 

If I had somebody elses money I would probably do it cubbyhouse style, not on a flat surface but in the air in a tree.

 

Then I would be finally safe from harm from the Chupacabra or the Grizzly bear or the Tax man.

 

In Fairness I tried to include the homes that are a fair trade off as examples of downsizing and spaciousness at the same time. There are some ridiculously small ones out there, I would not consider living in because they're far too claustrophobic. The first one that I mentioned that would make good "student" home is an example of this. The rest of them are far closer to what I would consider livable for the average individual. Even the average couple. With perhaps one child. 

 

 

You should love videos like this then:

 

I'm personally getting my designing tips from these videos, I want to conserve space at every single point in my own home, I'm currently building it.
 


 

Infact I would imagine this would be a sort of "sleep in" and "cook in" and "read in on a rainy day" kind of home. but not one which everyday american can play xbox with their pals or shoot hoops inside the home in or whatever crazy stuff americans get up to these days. Like sex on the washer and dryer. It just doesn't fit into the whole "We're all great, we're amazing, we're american, we have lots of sex and own lots of stuff and have tons of money" mentality.
 
I personally sleep and live in 35 meters square with a backyard about 38 meters square, so I'm already there but in suburbia and not as close to nature as I would like. I don't even like my current spacious house somedays, I have to go outside and relax for a while.


I'm American, and I wonder if you know any Americans, at all, or just have seen some of us on TV. I live in an apartment, as does everyone I know. There are hundreds of thousands of apartment buildings, housing almost a million people, where I live. In contrast, there are two really expensive neighboorhoods with a couple of thousand homes in them, each housing a family of around 4 or 5 people. So that's about a 1:20000 ratio of apartment:home dwellers. And I've never heard of an indoor basketball court in anything but the richest houses, and never once in my area.

You think we're all rich? We're not.

 

 

Indeed. I've seen enough Tourettes Guy videos to know that the home he lived in is positioned in a rather small community surrounded by others, wall to wall.

 

I wasn't alluding to the existence of an indoor basketballl court, rather just throwing the ball from one person on the other side of the room and back again. :) Just a poor choice of descripting words.

 

Its a shame really that the populace aren't interested in population control, the problem will only continue to get worse.


Edited by Layberinthius, 26 April 2014 - 12:06 PM.


#7 Jeoshua

  • Guest
  • 662 posts
  • 186
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 26 April 2014 - 12:12 PM

Japan is a special case in terms of small houses. The very terrain of the island forbids huge villas in anything but the low-lying valleys, what with the mountainsides right up against the ocean. The pressure to downsize in Japan is extreme, and has even affected the evolution of the Japanese people and most of the creatures of the island, to the point that there is even a scientific name for this phenomenon, Island Dwarfism.

There is just not enough space to have huge houses, in Japan, as opposed to somewhere like Texas or Australia, with all its wide expanses of flat lands, stretching out as far as the eye can see.

The same pressures affecting Japan's cities, however, are affecting places like New York City and London. So many people wanting to live in the same area forces people to think vertically. There are only so many houses that one can pack into a building vertically, tho, and lately the pressure has been to have smaller and smaller homes and apartments. It's not to the level of Tokyo, however, since the environmental pressure to downsize isn't as strong in other places.

Myself, I live in Raleigh, North Carolina. We have lots of trees, about a million people, constant growth, and every day a new apartment is getting made. There are some suburban areas around the edges of town that are extremely overpriced for how far away they are from everything, and inside the city perimeter everything is going up, not out.

On the topic of the houses: I love them! They are so much more spacious inside than the 3 room apartment I share with my 3 roommates! But overall the population density achievable with these kind of houses would be much lower than with current townhouses and apartment buildings.

Edited by Jeoshua, 26 April 2014 - 12:13 PM.


#8 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,318 posts
  • 253

Posted 26 April 2014 - 04:13 PM

 

Infact I would imagine this would be a sort of "sleep in" and "cook in" and "read in on a rainy day" kind of home. but not one which everyday american can play xbox with their pals or shoot hoops inside the home in or whatever crazy stuff americans get up to these days. Like sex on the washer and dryer. It just doesn't fit into the whole "We're all great, we're amazing, we're american, we have lots of sex and own lots of stuff and have tons of money" mentality.
 
I personally sleep and live in 35 meters square with a backyard about 38 meters square, so I'm already there but in suburbia and not as close to nature as I would like. I don't even like my current spacious house somedays, I have to go outside and relax for a while.


I'm American, and I wonder if you know any Americans, at all, or just have seen some of us on TV. I live in an apartment, as does everyone I know. There are hundreds of thousands of apartment buildings, housing almost a million people, where I live. In contrast, there are two really expensive neighboorhoods with a couple of thousand homes in them, each housing a family of around 4 or 5 people. So that's about a 1:20000 ratio of apartment:home dwellers. And I've never heard of an indoor basketball court in anything but the richest houses, and never once in my area.

You think we're all rich? We're not.

 

We're only 'rich' in the sense of our ability to move currency. Having said currency is another story entirely. Hence why the government is in debt. 

 

Anyway, I think a micro home community would be much more preferable to inner city living. 


 

 

We do care. we're just interested in an even more tighter and compact home. the Freezer/Cryofreezer.

 

It is a very important movement, but its just a reflection upon how horribly pollutant we all are as a species, we all need to change and stop polluting in addition to doing things like this.

 

And we tend to keep our praise/drooling to Facebook/Twitter/Linkedin where more of our peers can praise us instead of showing it on Longecity.com.

 

Plus I have problems with claustrophobia. Infact I would imagine this would be a sort of "sleep in" and "cook in" and "read in on a rainy day" kind of home. but not one which everyday american can play xbox with their pals or shoot hoops inside the home in or whatever crazy stuff americans get up to these days. Like sex on the washer and dryer. It just doesn't fit into the whole "We're all great, we're amazing, we're american, we have lots of sex and own lots of stuff and have tons of money" mentality.

 

I personally sleep and live in 35 meters square with a backyard about 38 meters square, so I'm already there but in suburbia and not as close to nature as I would like. I don't even like my current spacious house somedays, I have to go outside and relax for a while.

 

The best thing about these kinds of homes are that they can usually be rent free or low rent if you are willing to live on another persons property, so that means tons more money being spent on travel, etc.

 

If I had somebody elses money I would probably do it cubbyhouse style, not on a flat surface but in the air in a tree.

 

Then I would be finally safe from harm from the Chupacabra or the Grizzly bear or the Tax man.

 

In Fairness I tried to include the homes that are a fair trade off as examples of downsizing and spaciousness at the same time. There are some ridiculously small ones out there, I would not consider living in because they're far too claustrophobic. The first one that I mentioned that would make good "student" home is an example of this. The rest of them are far closer to what I would consider livable for the average individual. Even the average couple. With perhaps one child. 

 

 

You should love videos like this then:

 

I'm personally getting my designing tips from these videos, I want to conserve space at every single point in my own home, I'm currently building it.
 


 

Infact I would imagine this would be a sort of "sleep in" and "cook in" and "read in on a rainy day" kind of home. but not one which everyday american can play xbox with their pals or shoot hoops inside the home in or whatever crazy stuff americans get up to these days. Like sex on the washer and dryer. It just doesn't fit into the whole "We're all great, we're amazing, we're american, we have lots of sex and own lots of stuff and have tons of money" mentality.
 
I personally sleep and live in 35 meters square with a backyard about 38 meters square, so I'm already there but in suburbia and not as close to nature as I would like. I don't even like my current spacious house somedays, I have to go outside and relax for a while.


I'm American, and I wonder if you know any Americans, at all, or just have seen some of us on TV. I live in an apartment, as does everyone I know. There are hundreds of thousands of apartment buildings, housing almost a million people, where I live. In contrast, there are two really expensive neighboorhoods with a couple of thousand homes in them, each housing a family of around 4 or 5 people. So that's about a 1:20000 ratio of apartment:home dwellers. And I've never heard of an indoor basketball court in anything but the richest houses, and never once in my area.

You think we're all rich? We're not.

 

 

Indeed. I've seen enough Tourettes Guy videos to know that the home he lived in is positioned in a rather small community surrounded by others, wall to wall.

 

I wasn't alluding to the existence of an indoor basketballl court, rather just throwing the ball from one person on the other side of the room and back again. :) Just a poor choice of descripting words.

 

Its a shame really that the populace aren't interested in population control, the problem will only continue to get worse.

 

There's plenty of space, the problem is people choose to inhabit the same small spaces. New York city is a good example. 



#9 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,318 posts
  • 253

Posted 26 April 2014 - 04:17 PM

"On the topic of the houses: I love them! They are so much more spacious inside than the 3 room apartment I share with my 3 roommates! But overall the population density achievable with these kind of houses would be much lower than with current townhouses and apartment buildings."

 

I think it depends on strategy really. How you wish to build up your community. 

 

And part of the purpose of the micro home movement is to live debt free by paying off the modest cost to build such structures at one instance, and then all you are left with is property taxation. So you pay your house off entirely and then you have no mortgage for 20+ years, you can structure the house however you want. Save energy in whatever innovative way you design, solar tech, wind farms, etc. 

 


#10 Jeoshua

  • Guest
  • 662 posts
  • 186
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 26 April 2014 - 05:32 PM

The small home with a big roof, being powered by solar, on land you actually own, is certainly preferable to an individual to living in an apartment with city-provided utilities, built on land you don't own, and having to be paid for every day. But other than the sustainability for the individual, is it preferable for the community? Solar power is good, but can be done on a massive scale as well as the individual scale, with similar benefits to the environment and sustainability, thereof. It's not as good for the individual who could otherwise have "free" power.

It's the land issue that's the greatest issue at work here. Community housing such as micro-hotels, townhouses, apartment buildings, and other highly dense living arrangements lead to much smaller land footprints and higher population density, and as Mark Twain once said "Buy land; they stopped making it". Obviously he had never heard of the Netherlands, and Dubai didn't even exist back then, but lets ignore that. Unless I let other people sublet other houses that I've built on my land (nullifying the benefits to them), if you own your land that means nobody else can build on it. That's certainly preferable on an individual level, but on a community level it leads to lower population densities than communal living (which a living community with land owned by one person with any number of micro-homes beyond the first could be defined as).

#11 Layberinthius

  • Guest
  • 298 posts
  • 26
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 27 April 2014 - 04:25 AM

Japan is a special case in terms of small houses. The very terrain of the island forbids huge villas in anything but the low-lying valleys, what with the mountainsides right up against the ocean. The pressure to downsize in Japan is extreme, and has even affected the evolution of the Japanese people and most of the creatures of the island, to the point that there is even a scientific name for this phenomenon, Island Dwarfism.

There is just not enough space to have huge houses, in Japan, as opposed to somewhere like Texas or Australia, with all its wide expanses of flat lands, stretching out as far as the eye can see.

The same pressures affecting Japan's cities, however, are affecting places like New York City and London. So many people wanting to live in the same area forces people to think vertically. There are only so many houses that one can pack into a building vertically, tho, and lately the pressure has been to have smaller and smaller homes and apartments. It's not to the level of Tokyo, however, since the environmental pressure to downsize isn't as strong in other places.

Myself, I live in Raleigh, North Carolina. We have lots of trees, about a million people, constant growth, and every day a new apartment is getting made. There are some suburban areas around the edges of town that are extremely overpriced for how far away they are from everything, and inside the city perimeter everything is going up, not out.

On the topic of the houses: I love them! They are so much more spacious inside than the 3 room apartment I share with my 3 roommates! But overall the population density achievable with these kind of houses would be much lower than with current townhouses and apartment buildings.

 

Your idea is sound but I would like to clear up a misconception that you have with Australia.

No. Australia is not a vast expanse of land, It is all desert, only a very small percentage of it is actually livable and desirable for most people, and that is because nobody wants to move out into the desert or into rural regions where there are no utilities, no broadband, no water supply, no sewerage, and dirt roads.

 

It has gotten so bad on the east coast of Australia (Southern hemisphere we're talking about here) that there is concern of overpopulation, not to mention serious road congestion.

 

In my area alone they tore down a small patch of land which included heaps of trees and animals to make yet another suburban cookie cutter block of homes. With only a small fringe of trees surrounding it so it could disguise the fact that a forest used to be there.

 

Houses in my area are already $500,000 and are set to reach a million dollars within the next 10 years.

 

Its already 1 million minimum for a place in Sydney, and its a shithole.

 

I think apartments are a cancer of the system where it is beginning to fail and die, eventually we will all be living in apartments, that sounds very scary to me and it concerns me even more that nobody actually thinks its scary at all but are just going with the flow.

 

People constantly having kids are going to be the end of us all. I'm glad that I've managed to secure my own little patch of land, and can rent out the other bit of it for some very serious income that I can live off of.

 

Its gotten to the point that people are as useless as a tissue, we no longer respect each other and that will be what will spark the next explosion of violence known as World War 3.

 

That's my prediction anyway. I'll meet you again when it reaches 14 BIllion people.

 


Edited by Layberinthius, 27 April 2014 - 04:41 AM.


#12 Jeoshua

  • Guest
  • 662 posts
  • 186
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 27 April 2014 - 05:59 AM

The thought that Australia was possibly not the best example did occur to me, due to the whole Outback situation there. I really just needed somewhere like Texas as an example, and as far as I understand it both places are remarkably similar in that they are mostly flat, dry land, with some greener areas in certain parts. Good post, tho, and I love the TOS reference. Always an interesting aesop, even if its science was always pretty suspect.

#13 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,318 posts
  • 253

Posted 27 April 2014 - 02:14 PM

But other than the sustainability for the individual, is it preferable for the community? 

What do you mean? 

 

Are you seeing the micro-home movement as a move away from community? I don't think so. 

 

Most of the people involved are actually community and environment conscious. And they are trying to be the example instead of copping to someone elses bad one. 

 

I think a community in which micro homes are spaced apart enough to afford privacy while still allowing you as neighbors to get to know, and to work with one another, is ideal. 



#14 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 29 April 2014 - 05:30 PM

I'm liking that two story deliverable house. I could build that and fill it in with spare stuff from Craigslist. It would be a great way to start a community.



#15 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,318 posts
  • 253

Posted 29 April 2014 - 07:36 PM

I'm liking that two story deliverable house. I could build that and fill it in with spare stuff from Craigslist. It would be a great way to start a community.

 

I also think those prefab buildings would make great research facilities. They are awesome multi-purpose structures. 



#16 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 30 April 2014 - 06:07 PM

Guesthouse/Guestlab :)



#17 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,318 posts
  • 253

Posted 17 May 2014 - 10:51 PM

Camerons house from Ferris Beullers day off has been on the market for a number of years. Apparently they are having a difficult time selling it. 

 

It is kind of a modular micro home.

 

http://www.autoblog....ff-is-for-sale/

 

 



#18 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 18 May 2014 - 01:26 AM

I like the idea of an RV, kinda says you can go anywhere.



#19 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 18 May 2014 - 01:32 AM

The trick, if you're going to do something like this is to place the home in the furthest buildable corner of your lot and reserving space for a garage. Some of these have small footprints, but you have to be able to build up or down to make the best use of your space. Putting them up in such a way that would allow you to dig a basement for a large addition would be ideal.



#20 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,876 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:02 PM

I like the micro home movement for its statement about energy efficiency and what is really important in life, however, most people in the U.S. live in apartments and are fine with it. Dense urban areas are very efficient as well. Micro homes are generally for people of modest incomes, who WANT a house and prefer outdoor space to indoor space. Most people today do not fit into this category. Most people like living in the city, highly connected. It seems they are more concerned with virtual space, than traditional natural space.

 

Also, the micro homes are awfully expensive for being "micro". Most that are online are well over $50,000. For that much money I would rather get a tricked out RV.



#21 lemonhead

  • Guest
  • 165 posts
  • 161
  • Location:The Uncanny Valley
  • NO

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:22 PM

I go back and forth between mico homes and RVs. Lots of people build micro homes on trailers to get around minimum square foot requirements, so they can be mobile to some degree; there's probably a risk of damage when moved. RV's on the other hand are meant to be moved and I like the idea that you could pick up and move whenever you feel like it. The advantage of a build-it-yourself micro home over an RV is that you can choose the building materials and design. RVs are made with a lot of synthetic, plastic-y, vinyl type materials that I find smelly and unattractive. Also, I don't know how well insulated RV's are compared to a well-built tiny house. Overall, though, I think I would choose an RV just for the mobility.



#22 lemonhead

  • Guest
  • 165 posts
  • 161
  • Location:The Uncanny Valley
  • NO

Posted 25 May 2014 - 02:34 PM

Perhaps I should learn how to make a yurt.



#23 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,318 posts
  • 253

Posted 25 May 2014 - 04:37 PM

The trick, if you're going to do something like this is to place the home in the furthest buildable corner of your lot and reserving space for a garage. Some of these have small footprints, but you have to be able to build up or down to make the best use of your space. Putting them up in such a way that would allow you to dig a basement for a large addition would be ideal.

Why do you think basements are necessary? 



#24 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,318 posts
  • 253

Posted 25 May 2014 - 04:41 PM

I like the micro home movement for its statement about energy efficiency and what is really important in life, however, most people in the U.S. live in apartments and are fine with it. Dense urban areas are very efficient as well. Micro homes are generally for people of modest incomes, who WANT a house and prefer outdoor space to indoor space. Most people today do not fit into this category. Most people like living in the city, highly connected. It seems they are more concerned with virtual space, than traditional natural space.

 

Also, the micro homes are awfully expensive for being "micro". Most that are online are well over $50,000. For that much money I would rather get a tricked out RV.

 

The reason I want to eventually design and build my own micro home is because I want to create a peaceful spatial environment that is an example of energy efficiency, a way to live peacefully with the earth, even though you would still be in a modernized setting, and of course the example of getting off the government grid system! Solar panels, windmills, etc, would seriously reduce ones national grid bill monthly. 

 

Also these homes express individuality to a large extent. You can start with a base plan and then extend outward in your own way. The prices you quote are for someone else building it for you. But countless people have proven that these homes can be built for 30k both inside and out. 



#25 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 25 May 2014 - 04:47 PM

 

The trick, if you're going to do something like this is to place the home in the furthest buildable corner of your lot and reserving space for a garage. Some of these have small footprints, but you have to be able to build up or down to make the best use of your space. Putting them up in such a way that would allow you to dig a basement for a large addition would be ideal.

Why do you think basements are necessary? 

 

 

Basements can be used to regulate temperature, store things and they add living space. Not having a basement is like wasting space. Once you have one, you can even go down further and make even more space available. Property is expensive, but it is also deep. Youtube for underground homes, there are some pretty cool ones.



#26 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,318 posts
  • 253

Posted 25 May 2014 - 04:56 PM

I go back and forth between mico homes and RVs. Lots of people build micro homes on trailers to get around minimum square foot requirements, so they can be mobile to some degree; there's probably a risk of damage when moved. RV's on the other hand are meant to be moved and I like the idea that you could pick up and move whenever you feel like it. The advantage of a build-it-yourself micro home over an RV is that you can choose the building materials and design. RVs are made with a lot of synthetic, plastic-y, vinyl type materials that I find smelly and unattractive. Also, I don't know how well insulated RV's are compared to a well-built tiny house. Overall, though, I think I would choose an RV just for the mobility.

 

I think if you can find some undisturbed land somewhere you know you will be comfortable with for a while you should purchase the land and then build the home on it. If things change, and a huge town suddenly develops around the land you can always get a return on your investment and relocate. 


 

 

The trick, if you're going to do something like this is to place the home in the furthest buildable corner of your lot and reserving space for a garage. Some of these have small footprints, but you have to be able to build up or down to make the best use of your space. Putting them up in such a way that would allow you to dig a basement for a large addition would be ideal.

Why do you think basements are necessary? 

 

 

Basements can be used to regulate temperature, store things and they add living space. Not having a basement is like wasting space. Once you have one, you can even go down further and make even more space available. Property is expensive, but it is also deep. Youtube for underground homes, there are some pretty cool ones.

 

 

Yea but wouldn't a basement and its foundation alone cost an extra 10k?



#27 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 25 May 2014 - 05:11 PM

 

I go back and forth between mico homes and RVs. Lots of people build micro homes on trailers to get around minimum square foot requirements, so they can be mobile to some degree; there's probably a risk of damage when moved. RV's on the other hand are meant to be moved and I like the idea that you could pick up and move whenever you feel like it. The advantage of a build-it-yourself micro home over an RV is that you can choose the building materials and design. RVs are made with a lot of synthetic, plastic-y, vinyl type materials that I find smelly and unattractive. Also, I don't know how well insulated RV's are compared to a well-built tiny house. Overall, though, I think I would choose an RV just for the mobility.

 

I think if you can find some undisturbed land somewhere you know you will be comfortable with for a while you should purchase the land and then build the home on it. If things change, and a huge town suddenly develops around the land you can always get a return on your investment and relocate. 


 

 

The trick, if you're going to do something like this is to place the home in the furthest buildable corner of your lot and reserving space for a garage. Some of these have small footprints, but you have to be able to build up or down to make the best use of your space. Putting them up in such a way that would allow you to dig a basement for a large addition would be ideal.

Why do you think basements are necessary? 

 

 

Basements can be used to regulate temperature, store things and they add living space. Not having a basement is like wasting space. Once you have one, you can even go down further and make even more space available. Property is expensive, but it is also deep. Youtube for underground homes, there are some pretty cool ones.

 

 

Yea but wouldn't a basement and its foundation alone cost an extra 10k?

 

Yeah, but they are something you can build yourself if you have the materials delivered. Just order a truck load of cinder blocks and a pallet of cement bags. They also cost much more to add after the fact. The home has to be jacked up and it will likely become damaged, especially if not built for it. The basement dirt can also be used to increase energy efficiency with a burm. If you use cinder blocks on the outside walls there is no need for expensive siding and you can cover it with dirt. It's a great and often overlooked way to save money on building materials and energy efficiency. You don't have to air condition a house that's covered in dirt and it's a great place to put stepped gardens for food/aesthetics. I think heating is cheaper if the inside is insulated well also. At the very least, you can put trees on a burm that is further from the walls for added shade. I recently saw some interesting ways to make green houses out of trenches too. Digging is the way to go.



#28 lemonhead

  • Guest
  • 165 posts
  • 161
  • Location:The Uncanny Valley
  • NO

Posted 26 May 2014 - 02:52 PM

I'd want to have a basement or underground storm shelter around, just for safety's sake. I guess there are regions where you don't have to worry about tornadoes, but at least around here storms with powerful straight line winds seem to be more frequent. Right now I'm in a house on a concrete slab and I get nervous when big storms come through. If I had an RV, I'd try to stay at parks with storm shelters; I think they ought to be mandatory in some regions.



#29 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,318 posts
  • 253

Posted 27 May 2014 - 12:59 AM

Hmm, I would only want a basement if it was completely finished, like a living space ought to be. 

 

Then perhaps I would only need one additional floor, the ground floor. 

 

But how expensive does it get to include basements?

 

Have you guys considered that in some regions basements are just not a possibility? Central florida comes to mind. 

 

As well as areas of Arkansas. 


Edited by TheFountain, 27 May 2014 - 12:59 AM.


#30 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 27 May 2014 - 04:10 AM

Hmm, I would only want a basement if it was completely finished, like a living space ought to be. 

 

Then perhaps I would only need one additional floor, the ground floor. 

 

But how expensive does it get to include basements?

 

Have you guys considered that in some regions basements are just not a possibility? Central florida comes to mind. 

 

As well as areas of Arkansas. 

I imagine that it costs less than going up a story. No windows, no siding. concrete is cheap. You have more options for finishing a basement too.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: micro-home, immortality, population, conservation

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users