Living Small!

I live small, by choice, I love it. I live in what would be a 192sq foot space which is my RV.

But why are things like RV and Tiny Homes viewed by so many as a 'cheap alternative' rather than just an 'alternative'.

Its not that I cant afford a home, its that I have better ideas of what to spend $160,000 on.

Thoughts?

@tryit: No thanks. I own a 1500 sq ft home and its not big enough for me. My dream is to own a plantation style house on at least 15 acres of land.

I like big and roomy.

"Cheap" doesn't necessarily mean the quality of a small home. It just means it is a lot less pricey than owning and maintaining a 1000+ sq ft house.

true. the price per square foot is higher.

on a personal level I just get offended when talks go around in larger cities about making a 'Tiny Home Community for the poor'. I mean first off so called 'Tiny Homes' are 2x-3x times more expensive then they should be for the same material and workmanship and second off its just better regardless of income. Related to RVs even though it is true mostly poor people live in RVs full time I got tell you guys, its pretty cool living in an RV. The only problem is all the poorer people in the park.

Anyway, because I live how I live I am about to retire at 51 and I can go friggin anywhere I want so yeah

I always liked the premise of being able to take your home anywhere with you. I think its a primitive, natural instinct to have and can be very fulfilling.

@tryit: Im not big on tiny homes but I don’t want to pay for rooms I won’t use. 2 bedrooms is enough.

Thats great if your single and your responsibilities don't require that type of need. If i was single, i would probably be sharing rent with some buddies or something. Some of us can't do that as we have kids and such. But if you got it covered, and it works, good for you. Save on buddy, cause one day that might not be a choice for you. Enjoy while it lasts

do the math then.

what would 2 people at 192sq ft be? and as far as responsibility go, does such responsibly involve 1600 sq ft instead of college?

You obviously have not been in a old 1962 volkswagon beattle with 10 others, lol ..

Buying a house is a good investment, but it's your money. Do whatever you want.

My Samsung UN65JS9000 would not fit in an RV that small. Also, at best you'd get crappy WiFi if you parked close enough to Tim Hortons. I couldn't do it. Great for a mobile meth lab but that's about it.

The real issue is not "If it's cheap or not", it's "Are you happy, comfortable, and contented?". A house by definition is a place where you live, it can be a dumpster or a mansion, so as long as you and your family are comfortable with it then it's a good house.

160k is all that you save? lol

That buys you 1 room here, good luck finding a house for less than 400k, hell even 500k, and that's out in the country.

The city is 700k and up.

How many people are there you live?

I don't view that as a "cheap" alternative, but that lifestyle is not for me. If it works for you, cool. I'm a big guy, 6'4" 285 lbs. and I enjoy my space. I also enjoy having space in the house for my gym in the basement so I don't have to go to a commercial gym to workout. I enjoy having space for my kids to hang out with us when we want and for them to have their own space when they (or us) need it. I don't have or need a mansion, but I couldn't do 192 sq ft. My wife and I used to live in a 500 sq ft apartment when we first got married, that was plenty small for me and I couldn't go back to it now.

oh I am cool with that. I am just saying I take offense to some articles that are making Tiny Home and RV living as (and I quote) a 'last resort'.

See I have the money, I dont want to spend it on a house, instead I want to spend it on retiring at the age of 51 instead of 67 but its not a 'last resort' by any stretch of the imagination. Even knowing that I have just a year left of work left has been a huge weight off my shoulders, I am a completely different person now because of that fact. But that is how I want to spend my money

1...1 person per 192 sq ft.

guys lets stretch a bit and do the math here (your not the first person to make this observation)

also...to be fair major cities dont even allow 'tiny living' so I understand for many people its not a choice, a 600 sq foot house simply doesnt exist but there is a difference between doing it because nothing else exists and doing it because one wants to

I pay for G4 unlimited data. It costs me $160 a month but I get high speed unlimited data for my desktop and laptop and I can get it almost anywhere, including state and national parks.

so are stocks of which you can diversify as well.

I am not saying one is better than the other and infact I have made money buying and living in a condo when I was in the city multiple times so its absolutely worth being an owner.

But to buy a house specifically (instead of lets say a condo) just because of investment is like putting all your money into one stock. But if you use the space and would need that space anyway, then yeah its a win win

I'm confused ... I'm trying to calculate it to m^2, but I'm not sure if my results are correct oO My gaming room alone is abouzt 6 * 6 meters which equals to 36m^2. According to google this is 387,501 square foot. So my gaming room alone is bigger than the entire living space of TC?

Either way. Yes, I do want and need space. My gaming room isn't even big enough to hold all the games I own. So some of them are in the living room and the majority in the cellar (which is huuuge). Then my wive needs a hobby room, a room for guests and one for our yet-to-be-born baby.

yeah...I know its hard math.

1 person = 192sq feet

2 persons = 400 sq feet

3 persons = 600 sq feet

and this is max, because more people turns out use a lot of shared space

So the 'your one person so 192 is fine, but I am three which is why i need 1600 does not make sense'

6mx6m is about 387 sq ft.

huh? sorry, I don't get it xD Why is the difference between 2 and 3 200 sq feet if each new person needs less space? And who made up this numbers, you?

But we - soon 3 people - certainly do have much, MUCH more than 600 sq feet. We have about 200m^2 in total (which excludes a winter garden, a balcony and a garage) which would result in over 2000 sq. feet. So I have more than 3 times the space I need.

... Or do you count living space differently in the US? Like do you have some rooms you don't count or something special?

200 sq meters would be about 2152 sq. feet, which is a pretty typical house size in the US, although most newer homes average about 2,400 sq ft per the 2014 Census Bureau. In many northern US states, we also have a basement (below ground), which typically does not count towards total sq. feet (nor property taxes). Garage space also does not count towards the house size.

that was rounded up in hopes that I didnt have to do the exact math but one would understand the idea.

Its actually less because of shared spaces.

So I am not sure I understand exactly what you are struggling with in understanding. I think its great that you want 2000sq ft but you dont need 2000sq ft and thinking as such moves it from a luxury to a burden.

complex I know

Thanks for the explaination. Yeah it's pretty much your average house.

ok. So you just made some numbers up you think are perfect for everyone? I, for my situation, need and want more space.

for a while I was looking into "green" or prefabricated housing, since I got the itch to be a homeowner. While the homes themselves are affordable, here in California you still need a plot of land to put them on; all the land in the city or town area is incredibly expensive, while the land out in the country is expensive because it only comes in large multi-acre plots. So even if I bought a home that cost 150k, to actually live in it would cost me another 450k.

Might as well just buy a regular home that will appreciate a lot better.

And by "might as well" I mean never, because right now as a single guy working a decent paying job but still earning less than six figures, it will never happen.

At least I am contributing to my 401k, I tell myself at night, crying myself to sleep...

no not even remotely.

I never suggested everyone should live at 192sq ft. I totally understand many would not want to. I am just saying I dont like how articles make it out to be 'a last resort'. its not a 'last resort' for me, its a choice. because I choose doesnt mean I suggest everyone should as well.

HOWEVER, the argument of 'I need a larger place becasue I have two people' is logically silly becasuse 2 people in the context of what I illustrated is about 400sq ft not 1600sq feet.

Now if you wanted to say 'per person I dont want to live with just 192sq ft (which you did NOT say) then that is fine.

are you over complicating this? you just need a better reason other than 'because I have two people' and that reason can include 'because I dont want to' which is more acceptable of an answer then 'becasue i have two people'

I think you are applying objective formulas to a subjective topic. Three people might only "need" 600 sq ft to live, but what if they work at home? Then they'll probably want an office. What if they all like to cook together on the weekends? A much larger kitchen is probably something they'd need (I've cooked in small kitchens, not fun).

Three people also means three people's worth of stuff: what if one person goes skiing, the other kayaking, and the third likes to practice carpentry as a hobby? Then they need a place to store their gear and tools, as well.

I don't think asking for more room than is "needed" quite puts us into luxury territory any more than having an internet connection is a luxury.

But yes, you can ask for too much imo, but who am I to dictate that?

I wish i lived in a RV.I like adventure in my stale and boring life ?

I think you are trying to justify something with yourself thru me.

Again: There is nothing wrong with not wanting to live with 192sq foot per person. Nothing wrong with that all. But follow along with this conversation example:

Assertion: 'I like to live at 192sq ft, its what I like, its what I perfer, its my choice'

Response: 'I cant do that because I have two people'

well 1. I didnt say you are required to and 2. without more information about WHY you need more than 192sq ft per person then the response is a bit silly now isnt? because given the information provided 2 people would be........384sq ft and I should not have to explain that

@tryit: You keep repeating I said "3 people need more space than you alone" but I can't find the post where I said that? Just to make this sure, even if I was living alone, I would not want to be in such a small living space. I need more space to live a life I think it's worthwhile.

Oh and I literally did not understand the thread at the beginning, i was genuily asking

multiple people basically said this:

Response: 'That is fine if you are one person but I am more than that'

And I keep saying 'that is fine but outside of more information then more people (example 2) does not equal 1600 sq ft but rather 192x2.

I am also not saying people should live the way I do, my bias suggests they would be happier in the long run but I might be wrong, what I do know is for me its friggin fantastic. I love it, the freedom is wonderful

maybe that clears things?

I'm going to be driving one of these full time soon, I don't think it gets much smaller outside of a 36" coffin sleeper.

OP is poor. Got it.

@tryit: In other words, you live in an overpriced trailer park home?

yes....

not sure i understand your point though

@jayraby13: hell yeah a full truck size motor home. You can take your home anywhere ....

@tryit: I love the idea of a tiny house, especially in the country off grid. My wife would never go for it though.