Tiny House Movement

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
User avatar
Topic Author
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Tiny House Movement

Post by stemikger »

I recently saw a video of a family consisting of a Mother, Father and Son who live in a 350 square foot home.

It was pretty ingenious how they had a space for everything and how they enjoyed living in the small home.

They decided to do this because they were sick of struggling financially and by leaving their 2,200 square foot home and living in their new tiny home they are now living completely mortgage and debt free and doing what they love.

I think I could go this route in order to live the life that I want, but I don't think my wife would go for it.

How small of a house do you think you can live in and do you think the tradeoff is worth it.

I personally think it is because I think keeping up with the Joneses is a sure way to an early grave.
User avatar
Noobvestor
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:09 am

Post by Noobvestor »

I love small-space living. My apartment, considered by others to be a bit cramped, feels still-too-big to me. The catch is that I do work somewhat from home, so having a little office is nice - and I do like to have at least a tiny balcony or deck.

Some sites and examples I like:

http://tinyhouseblog.com/

http://dornob.com/

http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/
"In the absence of clarity, diversification is the only logical strategy" -= Larry Swedroe
User avatar
Topic Author
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Post by stemikger »

Posted by Noobvestor
love small-space living. My apartment, considered by others to be a bit cramped, feels still-too-big to me. The catch is that I do work somewhat from home, so having a little office is nice - and I do like to have at least a tiny balcony or deck.
Good to see I'm not alone. I would love to live in a small home. I even love small cars, tvs and also love the art of organization.

Less stuff = larger life.
Last edited by stemikger on Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
kramer
Posts: 1804
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:28 am
Location: World Traveler

Post by kramer »

My mother and sister are also like this, it is like <b>their main purpose in life is a big home.</b>
Ditto! You must be my sibling.
User avatar
Topic Author
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Post by stemikger »

Posted by Kramer
Ditto! You must be my sibling.
LOL. I just edited my reply, but that is funny. It is like they life for a house. Why???
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 6790
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

I live alone. My apartment is just under 800 square feet. I wouldn't want to live in something much smaller than 700. As for small cars, I don't mind them. Small TVs? You're crazy!
yobria
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: SF CA USA

Post by yobria »

As with any other consumption item, the key is to consume neither too much, or too little. 700 square feet is about my low limit as a single person as well.

Nick
evelynmanley
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:13 am

Post by evelynmanley »

This is a really fun tour of very eclectic homes and apartments from very, very, very small size to somewhat larger:

Small, Cool Spaces:
http://contests.apartmenttherapy.com/2010/small-cool/
User avatar
Topic Author
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Post by stemikger »

Triple Digit Golfer
I live alone. My apartment is just under 800 square feet. I wouldn't want to live in something much smaller than 700. As for small cars, I don't mind them. Small TVs? You're crazy!
I could easily live in 500 square feet. I would love the challenge to make it as efficient as possible and I would have it decorated with the best of the best because with 500 square feet you can do that.

The biggest TV in my house is 26 inch wide TV and i love it. All the TVs in my bedroom are 13 and 15 inches. I need nothing more than that.

My cars have always been subcompact also.

My dog is a shi tzu (small breed).

My townhome is around 2,000 sq. feet, but that is because my wife likes the space.

My pool in my backyard is a space saver 8 wide by 12 long.

My investment style is to have one target retirement fund and nothing more. However because my 401K does not offer it, I have two index funds in my 401K and one international in my IRA.
I always loved the fact that Warren Buffett still lives in the house he bought 47 years ago for 37,000. That just turns me on so much.
YDNAL
Posts: 13774
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: Biscayne Bay

Re: Tiny House Movement

Post by YDNAL »

stemikger wrote:I always loved the fact that Warren Buffett still lives in the house he bought 47 years ago for 37,000. That just turns me on so much.
Doesn't conform with the "tiny house movement." :lol:
Warren Buffett still lives in the same house in the same Happy Hollow neighborhood where he bought the home in 1958 for $31,500. It has 5 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms and is 6234 square feet, the house was built in 1921. In 2005 it had a taxable value of $ 690,000. Down the same street about 1 mile away are the Berkshire Hathaway offices, one of the many buildings Warren Buffett owns in Omaha.
Image
Landy | Be yourself, everyone else is already taken -- Oscar Wilde
eriehiker
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 11:49 am

Post by eriehiker »

Square footage is only one variable in a complex formula.

It probably makes sense to live in a tiny house in a large metropolitan area with a strong housing market.

But I live in Michigan and it is now possible to buy a large home - foreclosure or not - for a very reasonable price.

So one option is to downsize. Another option is to move.

I would also suggest that the amount of public space and quality of public transportation is key to downsizing one's home. I have lived in places that have both and the city becomes an extension of one's living room. I have also lived in places with neither and needed the extra space at home to compensate.
saurabhec
Posts: 1816
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:52 pm

Re: Tiny House Movement

Post by saurabhec »

stemikger wrote:I recently saw a video of a family consisting of a Mother, Father and Son who live in a 350 square foot home.

It was pretty ingenious how they had a space for everything and how they enjoyed living in the small home.

They decided to do this because they were sick of struggling financially and by leaving their 2,200 square foot home and living in their new tiny home they are now living completely mortgage and debt free and doing what they love.

I think I could go this route in order to live the life that I want, but I don't think my wife would go for it.

How small of a house do you think you can live in and do you think the tradeoff is worth it.

I personally think it is because I think keeping up with the Joneses is a sure way to an early grave.
I guess no one in their family every comes to visit or stay over? Their choice has a direct impact on their socialization patterns and will reduce family and friend visits.

I do think most Americans live in unnecessarily large homes, but that is their free choice and I don't hold it against them or look down on them for that. I am fairly non-materialistic, but even a 1,300 sq ft apartment sometimes feels cramped with the arrival of a daughter into our lives and all her assorted stuff and frequent visitors. I could not imagine living in a house smaller than 1,000 sq ft with one child.
saurabhec
Posts: 1816
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:52 pm

Post by saurabhec »

yobria wrote:As with any other consumption item, the key is to consume neither too much, or too little. 700 square feet is about my low limit as a single person as well.

Nick
I lived with my wife in an alcove studio of 550 sq ft for a couple of years. Even used to have some folks over for a dinner once in a while. However the apartment did have a terrific floor plan, it utilized every square inch of space. We moved out once we were pregnant.
User avatar
Topic Author
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Post by stemikger »

Posted by Ydnal
Doesn't conform with the "tiny house movement."
This is very true Ydnal, but for the second or third richest man on the planet, it is impressive that he chose to stay there. Like I said before he bought it for $37,500 47 years ago and today it lists for $725,000. Before his wife Suzy died while she still lived there, she did add an extension.

A friend of mine who went to see the house when he was at the shareholder meeting said the neighborhood it is in is a very middle class neighborhood and you can see other houses very close.

Unfortunately Warren did have to get security because of all the traffic that goes by to see his house, especially during the Berkshire meeting every year.

While Suzy was alive she wanted a place in California and Warren said if that is what she wanted go ahead. Warren did go there to spend vacations and parts of the summer, but he only did it for Suzy. When she passed away he sold it. Warren said he doesn’t need a mansion because he does not see how it would add value to his life. I am so impressed with that statement.

Warren also feels this way about vacations. He loves the simple life in Omaha and enjoys his favorite restaurants and does travel on his private jet (his only real billionaire extravagance) but really likes staying at home and working.

His new wife Astrid says he walks to work and if he had his choice he would have an apartment in his office, but she demanded they stay because she loves to garden.
User avatar
Topic Author
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Post by stemikger »

Noobvestor, thanks for the great links.

Oh you too evelynmanley.
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 6790
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

stemikger,

Living in 500 square feet would be way too cramped for my liking. I could do it, sure, but I wouldn't want to. I work out in my living area. I have a fairly large elliptical trainer in my bedroom that I use a few times a week as well. I like my 46" TV and would actually like a 55". I don't "need" more than a small TV. In fact, I don't "need" to eat anything more than about 1,000 calories per day of oats and eggs. But I prefer to. Just like I prefer a larger TV.

If I lived in a 350 square foot place with two other people I'd shoot myself in the face.
shazaam
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:10 pm

Post by shazaam »

Here's a link to the video that (I assume) inspired this post:

http://faircompanies.com/videos/view/sh ... uare-feet/

I, too, am fascinated by the tiny house movement. If I lived alone, I think I'd be quite content with 200 or 300 sq ft. My wife and I share our current, modestly sized home (1500 sq ft) with five cats, though, so I don't think we could manage anything quite that small. There are some very smartly designed modulars in the 500 to 1000 ft that look very liveable, though. For example...

http://www.nationwide-homes.com/ecocott ... lanId=1235
User avatar
HardKnocker
Posts: 2063
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:55 am
Location: New Jersey USA

Post by HardKnocker »

Warren Buffett by no means has a small home.

6000+ square feet?

He's not roughing it.
“Gold gets dug out of the ground, then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility.”--Warren Buffett
User avatar
Topic Author
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Post by stemikger »

Posted by Hardknocker
Warren Buffett by no means has a small home.

6000+ square feet?

He's not roughing it.
Like I said in my previous post it is not the small house movement, but still very unusual for a billionaire. I have friends that make $150,000 per year that have bigger homes.

Look at the other billionaires, Bill Gates, Larry Elison, etc. They all live in Castles or Mega, Mega Mansions.
Stupendous
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 12:22 pm

Post by Stupendous »

I would go insane sharing 350sq ft with 2 other people. That kid isn't bringing home any girls when he is a teen!

I lived in a 1 bedroom apartment for 3 years and rented a room for 1 year in a house. It worked. Renting a room wasn't ideal if you wanted people to visit you but I was saving mad amounts of money ($600/month for rent + utils, $90K/salary).

I now live alone in a 2,200sq ft home. I could lose some space but can't lose the 3 car garage. And I prefer to have things at home than go out so I have my own home theater system and my own home gym. I could have bought an even bigger home but this is fine.

The key is to live below your means but don't go overboard because you could die tomorrow and all that money in the bank you saved is worthless.
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 6790
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

stemikger wrote:
Posted by Hardknocker
Warren Buffett by no means has a small home.

6000+ square feet?

He's not roughing it.
Like I said in my previous post it is not the small house movement, but still very unusual for a billionaire. I have friends that make $150,000 per year that have bigger homes.

Look at the other billionaires, Bill Gates, Larry Elison, etc. They all live in Castles or Mega, Mega Mansions.
If your friends who make $150,000 per year who have bigger homes than Warren Buffett could afford their mortgage payments, what's it to you?

If Bill Gates and Larry Elison could afford their castles or mega, mega mansions, what's it to you?
User avatar
Coffee
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:02 am

Post by Coffee »

Keep in mind that most of these people are living in these tiny homes because they can't afford a regular home, and it's marginally better than living in a mobile home.

If they could live in a regular size home, note-free... I'd wager that most would.
User avatar
stratton
Posts: 11083
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:05 pm
Location: Puget Sound

Post by stratton »

Turning a shoebox-sized house into a Paris oasis
As a designer, Kein Cross is pretty good at estimating space, and when he saw the 18th-century courtyard house in Paris in an ad, he knew it was small — maybe 9 or 10 feet deep.

But walking into it on a rainy day in January, Cross realized his estimate was far too optimistic. The house, which he would later describe to friends in New York as a carriage house, was a respectable 19 feet wide, but from front to back it was only 6 ½ feet. The living room, minus the area taken up by a stairway, was less than 4 feet deep — were Cross to stand in it, arms outstretched, he could easily touch both walls. The kitchen was so tiny there wasn't room to open the oven.
Image
Interior photos here.

Paul
...and then Buffy staked Edward. The end.
shazaam
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:10 pm

Post by shazaam »

Coffee wrote:Keep in mind that most of these people are living in these tiny homes because they can't afford a regular home, and it's marginally better than living in a mobile home.

If they could live in a regular size home, note-free... I'd wager that most would.
Painting with a broad brush, aren't we? Do you know this for a fact, or are you just projecting your own preferences and biases? I don't mean to be combative, but I think you're being overly dismissive of a lifestyle change that, for many, is motivated by a lot more than just money.
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 6790
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

shazaam wrote:
Coffee wrote:Keep in mind that most of these people are living in these tiny homes because they can't afford a regular home, and it's marginally better than living in a mobile home.

If they could live in a regular size home, note-free... I'd wager that most would.
Painting with a broad brush, aren't we? Do you know this for a fact, or are you just projecting your own preferences and biases? I don't mean to be combative, but I think you're being overly dismissive of a lifestyle change that, for many, is motivated by a lot more than just money.
With all due respect, I think it's common sense that most people who lives in tiny homes would rather live in a larger home.

It's like saying that most people would rather have $20 than $10.
User avatar
Watty
Posts: 21839
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:55 pm

Post by Watty »

Putting a tiny house on a stand alone lot that has room for a larger house really saves very little which is why you see so few of them.

Much of the cost of building the house is in the site preparations, building the foundation, plumbing, wiring etc that will have about the same cost for the house not matter how large it is, if it has the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms.

For example building a square 500 sq ft house would be 22.4 feet on a side. A square 1000 sq foot house would be 31.6 feet on a side or only about nine feet more in each dimension.

The smaller house with 22.4 foot outside walls will have a perimeter of 89.6 feet (22.4 * 4) and the larger house with 31.6 foot walls will have 126.4 feet (31.6*4) of perimeter. That is 36.8 feet or 41% more. If you are using 4 foot wide sheets of siding(like plywood) that is would only require 10 more sheets of siding and about 30 additional studs anlong with some more insualation and interior walling.

These are purely made up numbers in a low cost area but if you break down the costs this way;

1) Lot and site preparation (grading, driveway, putting in sewer, power, water etc) $50,000.

2) Basic 500 sq ft construction, $40,000

3) Incremental cost to expand to 1000 sq ft, maybe $10,000 (being generous)


Adding these up the choice between building a $90,000 500 sq ft house compared to a $100,000 1000 sq foot house is an easy choice and virtually nobody would build the smaller house.

If you look at doubling the size again to a 2,000 sq ft house the cost do go up more because you would likely be adding more bed rooms and bathrooms but it would not double the costs again.

Greg
shazaam
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:10 pm

Post by shazaam »

Watty wrote:Putting a tiny house on a stand alone lot that has room for a larger house really saves very little...

Adding these up the choice between building a $90,000 500 sq ft house compared to a $100,000 1000 sq foot house is an easy choice and virtually nobody would build the smaller house.
But is bigger necessarily better? Should you add 500 sq ft for $10,000 just because you can? At the very least, we need to ask the question, which is why I think that the tiny house movement is so important.
User avatar
Topic Author
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Post by stemikger »

Posted by Triple Digit Golfer
If your friends who make $150,000 per year who have bigger homes than Warren Buffett could afford their mortgage payments, what's it to you?

If Bill Gates and Larry Elison could afford their castles or mega, mega mansions, what's it to you?
With all due respect, I am not judging anyone who lives in a big house, I'm just really digging the idea of simplicity.

Not sure why you felt like I was mad at people living in big houses.

I just dig the small house movement and dig the fact that Warren Buffett with all his money realizes that a mega mansion doesn’t necessarily bring happiness.

Now on a side note, I have seen so many of my friends that bought into the idea of a big house equals big happiness and it seems like all the extra responsibility that comes with a big house has added little to their happiness, in fact it seems like it added more stress.

Warren has often said, if he thought buying several mansion throughout the country would add value to his life, he would do it, but he is a man who knows what makes him happy and I think many people can learn a lesson from this.

Now go eat your cheerios.
Manbaerpig
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:32 am
Location: San Jose

Post by Manbaerpig »

small houses? no thanks, I'd rather rent or live in a mobile home long before I bought some unabomber shack or whatever this movement is
User avatar
White Coat Investor
Posts: 15152
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth

Post by White Coat Investor »

I think my minimum is about 500 square feet per person living in the house, with a minimum of 1000 square feet.

But there is no doubt it costs more in time and money to own and maintain.
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy | 4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course
Manbaerpig
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:32 am
Location: San Jose

Post by Manbaerpig »

Watty wrote:
2) Basic 500 sq ft construction, $40,000

3) Incremental cost to expand to 1000 sq ft, maybe $10,000 (being generous)
can you refer me to these contractors willing to build for $50 ft^2?

The quotes I get are approx 2x to 4x this, thanks!
dickenjb
Posts: 2941
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:11 pm
Location: Philadelphia PA

Post by dickenjb »

We live in a 4000 ft2 home, when we moved to the Netherlands we lived in a 135m2 house and did just fine. Even in that small house there were rooms we never used. Now that we are back in the big house we are OK with that also.
Latecomer
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:36 pm

Post by Latecomer »

I think a tiny house would be fun - if you lived in a safe town, close to the library, appropriate (for me) church, park, art galleries, movie house, etc. For me, the house would have to located in a culturally rich locality; thus, the wealth of place would be reflected in the myriad interesting people, beautiful local architecture, arts, and rich botanical life.
Fallible
Posts: 7700
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:44 pm
Contact:

Post by Fallible »

My early growing-up years were spent in a tiny one-bedroom apartment. How tiny? It included a kitchenette with just enough room to get around a fold-out table (and not much more room when the table was folded back against the wall); a living room with space for about five pieces of furniture (a regular sofa was too big, so we had a loveseat), and a tiny bedroom, tiny closet, and tiny coat closet. When I got an accordion for Christmas (yup, under a tiny Christmas tree), I was told there wasn't enough room to store a music stand. And I never protested because I knew we really didn't. So to practice, I sat in a chair sideways and propped the music against the chair arm (worked fine, but considering the size of accordions, it's a good thing I was a skinny kid).

When I look back on childhood, I remember the apartment as a fun and happy place. But I'm glad we weren't there TOO long.:)
staustin
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:36 am

Post by staustin »

Small space is relative obviously... We are a family of 5 in about 1800 sq ft. It's cramped but we wouldn't have it any other way. We kept the space small on purpose. The key is to make every room functional. No wasted space. For example, our front room is both computer room/desk, dining room and homework area. Obviously the living room is the main room which we use both for home theatre, excercise, etc. Be creative with the use of bookshelves in walls. Every single inch of space must have some functional use. No dining rooms to be used each thanksgiving, no separate dining rooms.


Our neighbors certainly think we're desparately poor.. We drive old cars, live in a small house, and aren't extravagant. They don't know however that we're soon about to retire around 45!!

It's a great idea and there are a number of great resources at the local library and the bookstore. I highly recommend it.
staustin
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:36 am

Post by staustin »

AND, let me add that i completely disagree with the comments about "living in a larger home if they could afford it". Our combined income is substantial. We chose to live this way to hopefully retire early and also be environmentally responsible. To each his own.. I don't criticize those that can afford, and decide, to live in a large home. It's just not for us.

However it really is a sign of the times that people assume we're poor...
User avatar
Topic Author
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Post by stemikger »

Posted Staustin
AND, let me add that i completely disagree with the comments about "living in a larger home if they could afford it". Our combined income is substantial. We chose to live this way to hopefully retire early and also be environmentally responsible. To each his own.. I don't criticize those that can afford, and decide, to live in a large home. It's just not for us.

However it really is a sign of the times that people assume we're poor...
Well said!! I don't find it offensive if someone buys a big house if they can afford it, but what I find truly sad is that people assume you are poor if you don't want all the trappings like a big house or fancy car.

There are many big hats and no cattle’s walking around. I knew a couple who had to drive the Mercedes even though they could not afford it and found out later, this same couple was so heavily in debt they were on the brink of bankruptcy. Oh and this was way before 2008 when things were actually supposedly doing well.

I truly believe that people only really need so much to live and the rest is just to show off, whether they realize this or not this is what it is.
User avatar
Topic Author
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Post by stemikger »

staustin wrote:Small space is relative obviously... We are a family of 5 in about 1800 sq ft. It's cramped but we wouldn't have it any other way. We kept the space small on purpose. The key is to make every room functional. No wasted space. For example, our front room is both computer room/desk, dining room and homework area. Obviously the living room is the main room which we use both for home theatre, excercise, etc. Be creative with the use of bookshelves in walls. Every single inch of space must have some functional use. No dining rooms to be used each thanksgiving, no separate dining rooms.


Our neighbors certainly think we're desparately poor.. We drive old cars, live in a small house, and aren't extravagant. They don't know however that we're soon about to retire around 45!!

It's a great idea and there are a number of great resources at the local library and the bookstore. I highly recommend it.
P.S. You are awesome and an inspiration.
User avatar
Topic Author
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Post by stemikger »

Manbaerpig wrote:
Watty wrote:
2) Basic 500 sq ft construction, $40,000

3) Incremental cost to expand to 1000 sq ft, maybe $10,000 (being generous)
can you refer me to these contractors willing to build for $50 ft^2?

The quotes I get are approx 2x to 4x this, thanks!
Here's the link.

http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/
User avatar
englishgirl
Posts: 2491
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:34 pm
Location: FL

Post by englishgirl »

I live on my own. I did have an 1800 sq. ft house, but I rattled around in it and it was just way too big. The current one is 1000 sq. ft and better suited to me, but I think still too big. Maybe 600 or so sq. ft would be a good choice for my next place (unless I am not living alone at that point). It would be good to downsize again.

I often look at the tiny house things, and while intellectually I would like to try to live in somewhere really small, I just don't think I'm quite ready for that. Yet. But part of me would love one day to try to have a big yard (for growing fruits and veggies) with a small house.
Sarah
User avatar
Watty
Posts: 21839
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:55 pm

Post by Watty »

Manbaerpig wrote:
Watty wrote:
2) Basic 500 sq ft construction, $40,000

3) Incremental cost to expand to 1000 sq ft, maybe $10,000 (being generous)
can you refer me to these contractors willing to build for $50 ft^2?

The quotes I get are approx 2x to 4x this, thanks!
Location: San Jose

Not in the Bay Area :greedy


Here in Georgia here is an example of a NEW house that I quickly found that is $68 a sq ft including the lot!

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhom ... A527017618

Remember I was talking about the INCREMENTAL cost of NEW construction where moving the back wall out a couple of feet just adds some extra flooring, walls, and roof and not a lot more labor.
User avatar
fishnskiguy
Posts: 2610
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:27 pm
Location: Sedona, AZ

Post by fishnskiguy »

From the title of the thread, I thought I'd help out with a guy or gal who's house foundation was shifting a bit.

From a guy who spent 28 years in Navy submarines, I'm done with "small houses" :lol:

Chris
Trident D-5 SLBM- "When you care enough to send the very best."
User avatar
happymob
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 4:09 pm

Post by happymob »

My wife and I own too many books. We also like to cook, so a big kitchen is a must.

Technology should be able to help with the former (as e-books become the norm). I'm not sure how to avoid the need for a largish kitchen.

I see the small house movement as a lifestyle choice - if you shed the space, you will end up shedding a lot of the other junk that is considered "normal" these days, yet is actually pretty easy to live without.
snyder66
Posts: 1055
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:46 pm

Post by snyder66 »

If I were single, I could live in a shoebox. But, With a wife and three children, I fear that our 1800 square foot house will become very small as the children get older. But, For now, It's just right.
Dagwood
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: MD

Post by Dagwood »

stemikger wrote:
With all due respect, I am not judging anyone who lives in a big house . . . .

Not sure why you felt like I was mad at people living in big houses.

Now on a side note, I have seen so many of my friends that bought into the idea of a big house equals big happiness and it seems like all the extra responsibility that comes with a big house has added little to their happiness . . . .
Yet you are spending time worrying about what other people do. If I am not mistaken, you are also the same guy who is worried about what everyone else drives as well. Do what you want to do and stop concerning yourself with what others do. Your behavior is essentially the opposite of keeping up with the Jonses, equally destructive, because you are apparently refusing consumption based upon what others do.

EDIT: Thinking about this some more, the problem is that you are reacting to something in society generally that is no doubt true: people have become very much consumption oriented. This constant consumption, without regard to whether it is necessary or even improves the quality of one's life, is something that has been happening probably over the last 50 years, starting gradually and continuing. The problem is, as individuals -- and I think this is something that ties into what I will call the "Boglehead philosophy" -- you will compromise your financial well-being and oftentimes make yourself unhappy by chasing whatever it is that the latest TV ad tells you that you should have. BUT, and this is the big "but" the way to deal with it is not to walk around, or drive around, worrying about what everyone else does because ultimately such behavior is pointless and unhealthy -- the same thing as keeping up with the Joneses, behaviorally, but with a different forced behavior, if you will. Rather, the better way to proceed is to do what you want to do and what makes you happy. If you want to live in a small home and drive a small car, go ahead and do so. If you want to live in a larger home, go ahead and do so. For Bogleheads, the point is to make choices based upon intelligent self-assurance that the choice is rational for the person making it based on the person's overall circumstances, including finances, and not make it based upon societal expectations or what the neighbors just bought. Put plainly, the point is about quality decisionmaking. Decisionmaking motivated by advertisers, jealousy or whatever derivations thereof are out there in the shrink books, etc. is not a quality decision. Do what you want to do, let others figure out what works for them.

Best regards.
User avatar
Topic Author
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Post by stemikger »

Dagwood wrote:
stemikger wrote:
With all due respect, I am not judging anyone who lives in a big house . . . .

Not sure why you felt like I was mad at people living in big houses.

Now on a side note, I have seen so many of my friends that bought into the idea of a big house equals big happiness and it seems like all the extra responsibility that comes with a big house has added little to their happiness . . . .
Yet you are spending time worrying about what other people do. If I am not mistaken, you are also the same guy who is worried about what everyone else drives as well. Do what you want to do and stop concerning yourself with what others do. Your behavior is essentially the opposite of keeping up with the Jonses, equally destructive, because you are apparently refusing consumption based upon what others do.

EDIT: Thinking about this some more, the problem is that you are reacting to something in society generally that is no doubt true: people have become very much consumption oriented. This constant consumption, without regard to whether it is necessary or even improves the quality of one's life, is something that has been happening probably over the last 50 years, starting gradually and continuing. The problem is, as individuals -- and I think this is something that ties into what I will call the "Boglehead philosophy" -- you will compromise your financial well-being and oftentimes make yourself unhappy by chasing whatever it is that the latest TV ad tells you that you should have. BUT, and this is the big "but" the way to deal with it is not to walk around, or drive around, worrying about what everyone else does because ultimately such behavior is pointless and unhealthy -- the same thing as keeping up with the Joneses, behaviorally, but with a different forced behavior, if you will. Rather, the better way to proceed is to do what you want to do and what makes you happy. If you want to live in a small home and drive a small car, go ahead and do so. If you want to live in a larger home, go ahead and do so. For Bogleheads, the point is to make choices based upon intelligent self-assurance that the choice is rational for the person making it based on the person's overall circumstances, including finances, and not make it based upon societal expectations or what the neighbors just bought. Put plainly, the point is about quality decisionmaking. Decisionmaking motivated by advertisers, jealousy or whatever derivations thereof are out there in the shrink books, etc. is not a quality decision. Do what you want to do, let others figure out what works for them.

Best regards.

I remember my post on small cars and I remember you coming to the same conclusion about me. That is fine, but in my heart it is not the case. My first reaction was to defend myself because I felt attacked, but I don't think I need to go there again. I think you have made up your mind on what kind of person I am and nothing I say will change that with you.

Everything you said in the second paragraph I totally agree with. So not sure why I would go any further, except I truly love small houses and cars and love living without debt.

Best regards
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 6790
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

jenny345 wrote:
With all due respect, I think it's common sense that most people who lives in tiny homes would rather live in a larger home.
I don't think that is necessarily true. It is more about the whole simple living concept. Big houses require a lot of time, energy and money to heat, cool, clean and maintain.
I said most, not all. Also, I'm referring to tiny homes, not small homes. Certainly there are people living in 600 square foot places for simplicity. But I doubt there are many living in 350 square foot homes because they're simple and cheap to heat and cool.
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 6790
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

stemikger wrote:
Posted by Triple Digit Golfer
If your friends who make $150,000 per year who have bigger homes than Warren Buffett could afford their mortgage payments, what's it to you?

If Bill Gates and Larry Elison could afford their castles or mega, mega mansions, what's it to you?
With all due respect, I am not judging anyone who lives in a big house, I'm just really digging the idea of simplicity.

Not sure why you felt like I was mad at people living in big houses.

I just dig the small house movement and dig the fact that Warren Buffett with all his money realizes that a mega mansion doesn’t necessarily bring happiness.

Now on a side note, I have seen so many of my friends that bought into the idea of a big house equals big happiness and it seems like all the extra responsibility that comes with a big house has added little to their happiness, in fact it seems like it added more stress.

Warren has often said, if he thought buying several mansion throughout the country would add value to his life, he would do it, but he is a man who knows what makes him happy and I think many people can learn a lesson from this.

Now go eat your cheerios.
Why do you think I was mad? I just asked what it is to you if people who could afford large homes live in large homes. Why do you care either way? Just a question. I'm not sure what Cheerios have to do with this.

Also, I never said those first five words you quoted.
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 6790
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

staustin wrote:AND, let me add that i completely disagree with the comments about "living in a larger home if they could afford it". Our combined income is substantial. We chose to live this way to hopefully retire early and also be environmentally responsible. To each his own.. I don't criticize those that can afford, and decide, to live in a large home. It's just not for us.

However it really is a sign of the times that people assume we're poor...
Like stemikger, you also took the phrase the wrong way.

I'm not saying people who live in a 1,000 square foot place would live in a larger home if they could afford it. I'm saying that MOST people who live in TINY homes (like the 350 square foot example) would live in larger homes if they could afford it. MOST. Not ALL. MOST.

CAPS for emphasis :)
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 6790
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Post by Triple digit golfer »

stemikger wrote:I truly believe that people only really need so much to live and the rest is just to show off, whether they realize this or not this is what it is.
[OT comment removed by admin LadyGeek]
Post Reply