We could end up with a house under $10,000 that could be placed anywhere in the world.
Average U.S. construction prices per square foot for apartment buildings start at $130 per square foot, depending on location and material/fixture quality. New York is the most expensive at $230 per square foot.
So at 36 square feet, this dumpster home would end up at what... $270 per square foot? That's way more expensive than an actual apartment building, and that's before appliances and shared spaces such as bathrooms/laundry rooms/kitchens, not to mention the shipment costs which have got to be significant.
Are cost per square foot comparisons meaningful between buildings of very different size? Many of the costs are going to be for things that do not scale linearly with building size.
For example, consider a single room building with a square floor plan. Suppose this building needs an electrical panel, and it needs an outlets every 10 feet along the walls. Suppose an electrician costs $100/hour, takes one hour to install a panel, and 15 minutes to run wire to an outlet location and install the outlet.
For a 10x10 (100 square feet) building, it would cost $200 for the electrical work, for a contribution of $2 per square foot to the building cost.
For a 100x100 (10000 square feet) building, it would cost $1100 for the electrical work, for a contribution of $0.11 per square foot to the building cost.
I'd expect a typical building would have a lot of sub-costs that are either independent of the building size, or scale with the perimeter length.
That doesn't necessarily tell the whole story of the house for under $10,000. Technically, yes, it might be more expensive per square foot, but you also have to account for the self-sufficiency of the house in not incurring other costs. Furthermore, as far as I know, you can't purchase and own housing in quantities of 36 square feet, so you end up paying for more space even if you don't require it. I think owning a fully functioning living space for under $10,000 definitely has it's merits, though it's definitely not for everyone.
It's not a fully functioning living space. It's a small bedroom with underfloor storage. There is no toilet, no water supply, no perishable food storage, no washing station.
And in its current incarnation, you have to have air conditioning or a roof that's open where you have to be constantly on the lookout for rain.
It's a cute project, but it's not a fully-functioning living space.
Edit: Also, introduce a second person (most cultures are into pairing off as a social norm) and you need to pretty much have the entire floor as a bed, meaning no floorspace to store the bookshelf or plant, and having to move the bed every time to get at storage. Maybe some sort of sliding bed/couch thing, but those aren't particularly cheap.
"...you can't purchase and own housing in quantities of 36 square feet..."
And in most of the US, you still won't be able to do so. Or, more correctly, you won't be able to place the dumpster-home in a desirable location and use it as a permanent residence.
Most municipalities have minimum house sizes as part of their building code. You could potentially put the dumpster-home on wheels and get it approved as a mobile home, but you'd still be limited to areas that allow mobile homes.
> So at 36 square feet, this dumpster home would end up at what... $270 per square foot?
Yes, but an actual apartment building would cost a fortune and be very difficult to build, while you can get started with dumpster-homes for a few thousand dollars (which is what a homeless person might rack up in one or two emergency room visits) and don't seem too difficult to make. The fixed costs are very different, even if the apartment building has economies of scale.
We really should have a lower limit for housing. Meaning if you're "homeless" you get given something about the size of this to live in that will at least keep you alive until you can find something else.
Currently we have people building "homes" literally within the suspension beams of bridges, in shop doorways, and we have hundreds of people freezing to death out of the streets yearly. When we could build a basic "home" for under $150, it seems completely avoidable.
I think, counter-intuitively, the biggest roadblock to doing something like that might be regulations (e.g. building codes). They define what a "home" should and shouldn't be, but ultimately set the bar very high (and we wind up with the current situation).
Maybe there should be a new set of regulations for "emergency accommodation." Nobody should be literally homeless in 2014 in the Western world, particularly as it would cost less than an iPhone to house them for a year (assuming only a roof and basic electric space heater, nothing else).
Building codes don't need to be thrown out to construct low cost housing, and low cost housing doesn't need to result in slums.
Salt Lake City recognized the total cost of a large homeless population was significantly higher than building permanent homes paired with services to accommodate them. Reducing the chronic homeless population increases capacity of emergency services, saves the community money, improves quality of life for both homeless and those living/working in an area with a large homeless population, and creates a setting where support services (health, wellness, education...) can be more efficiently and effectively provided.
Salt Lake City has 779 permanent housing units for supporting chronically homeless. On a random night's count, 87% of the homeless population was sheltered.
Chronic homelessness decreased 9% from 2012-2013, and has decreased 74% since program start in 2005.
2005 - average annual cost for emergency services and jail time for each chronically homeless person was $16,670. The cost to house them and provide case management services was $11,000 per person.
Over half of those housed by the program moved on to permanent destinations. Only 8% returned to homelessness.
What a super project. Besides the fact that it was even more economical (I think if there had been a surcharge it would still be the right thing to do). But it also seems to have been instrumental in providing a stable base from which to return to a more normal life.
Likewise for earning income. It's a good thing that people want to keep regulators away from kids' lemonade stands, but what about an adult? Isn't it also a barrier to pulling yourself up by your bootstraps if you can't legally sell things like lemonade, childcare, and plain white Ts?
One thing most homeless people need in order to find a home is income. Being homeless carries a huge stigma with it that can make it difficult to find a job, so low-income (or no-income) housing is indeed immensely important. However, one big problem with such housing is that it often isn't that close to jobs. People who can't afford a home often can't afford a car either, and Austin's (for example) public transit is a hot steaming pile of garbage. Rich people in the suburbs typically don't want low-income housing next to their homes or shopping malls so, indeed, zoning is an issue. Concentrating low-income housing in one area creates a lot of problems.
Another major problem is that there is a large correlation between being homeless and mental issues. In Canada, you can go on welfare and get housing if you need it, but you have to jump through hoops and interact with government employees to do so. Some people just aren't able or willing to do that. Of course, the climate is rather deadly up here for large portions of the year. There are shelters that the homeless can go to, but there are always those who seem to prefer sneaking into abandoned buildings or sleeping on transit vehicles. Persuading these people to get off the streets takes a lot more resources than people expect, so those resources just aren't there a lot of the time.
Perhaps small, spartan, stand-alone shelters that aren't in large blocks of low income housing and aren't formally assigned would attract those unwilling to seek other forms of shelter.
It's not building codes. It's that as soon as you have something that resembles a bona fide home, it becomes legible to the legal system, ownership is claimed/assigned, and then its occupant is on the economic treadmill of the debt-based financial system (or they are forced out).
What specifically are you proposing? Our entire economy is kept going at its current rate only by the sheer majority of people being forced into make-work jobs so they can pay rent for a piece of land to sleep on. My point is that unless you think it good to create a second class of citizen that gets conditional freebies for jumping through government hoops, then the underlying treadmill that everyone is on needs to be remedied first.
My comment relates to an idea I heard recently and really liked. Essentially it advocated subsiding mortgages instead of rent for the classes of people who can't do it on their own. That way, they're building equity and have something to call their own.
In addition, we'd need to provide some additional protections from foreclosure, etc. commensurate with their need. Stability is a key factor to being to climb out of the hole.
Subsidizing mortgages will just cause them to go up - property "valuations" are only limited by the carrying cost of the loan. Honestly I think this is why California prices are so astronomically high - there are no heating bills in the winter to distract from mortgage payments.
> commensurate with their need
If satisfying government hoops is a requirement, you turn that into their primary job. And thats a dead end for respectability.
> Stability is a key factor to being to climb out of the hole
For many people, there is no discrete "hole" - their existence in an area is simply not economically viable. I don't state this harshly because I wish to cast them off, but because I wish to illustrate that putting a bandage on their individual situation still leaves the underlying treadmill that we're all on.
(And yes, life itself is a treadmill as well - living isn't free. But tally up the costs of necessities such as food/water/shelter, and compare to the man-made rent to have a place to put that shelter)
New rule: If a place doesn't have a toilet, you can't say you're "living in it". This guy is living partially in a dumpster AND partially in a gym (where he uses the bathroom.)
That's a 'no true Scotsman' argument. After all, if he installs a bathroom you could say: "Yes, but it has no kitchen". So he adds a kitchen and then you go: "but there is no shower" and so on. There is always going to be one reason left why living in a dumpster does not make it the equal of living in a house. The final argument will be that it isn't at least 400 square feet.
The thing that should matter most is whether or not he spends the majority of the time in it that other people would spend in their homes while not living more time in another home or equivalent.
And by that definition he's living in it right now.
OK, I live on the street.... but I poop and eat and sleep in a house I bought.
The point is that if you can't get through even a single day somewhere (given some time to prepare and stock up), but you rely on access to some other private property, you don't live (only) there.
Shared toilets are fine. You live in the building (and associated sheds in the case of an outhouse) rather than the single room. Dining might be in another building but you don't have to go there if you don't want to. 'kitchen' is just a name for a room, you can put a rice cooker in any room.
It's not a no true scotsman. The 'can I comfortably spend 48 hours there' test is a pretty good one. Once he adds the bathroom it'll qualify, though it'll be a few more square feet.
And yeah some way to bathe is probably necessary. He'll have that on the dumpster house.
I don't like this definition. Having a place to live isn't necessarily about getting all your needs met in one central place, it's about having a reasonably secure place you can always go where you won't get in legal trouble for being and storing your stuff in. It's mightily inconvenient to not have immediately-ready access to somewhere to take a dump, but I wouldn't make that a precondition for saying you 'live' somewhere.
I understand the counter-points to this, but I'm inclined to agree with drcode. We've seen a stream of "I lived in X" stories lately, most of which include sleeping somewhere, but not really living there - trunk of car, dumpster, etc.
Sorry, but in most of the US, indoor plumbing (or something close) is generally considered a requisite for a "home".
No kitchen, toilet, running water or insulation? It's about as livable as a kid's tree house. Plus, it probably violates about half of the building code. This is simply a publicity stunt.
Not exactly a kids version but quite livable. And I think this house is meant to make you think, it's a reductionist view on living rather than a complete replacement for all the amenities that we take for granted.
Running water, toilets and insulation are not present in plenty of the houses in the country where I currently reside and I can see a kitchen added in there or in very little extra space.
Correct. And he doesn't hide that fact at all. He says his experiment is designed to provoke thought and raise awareness, and he even checks it out to curious people for a night at a time. I see no problem with any of it.
I am a fan of small houses, though perhaps this dumpster is a little too minimalist (for me) in its current form (the article states they are taking the time to work out what is truly beneficial in a small house, and it looks like this investigation is far from over).
The most desirable small homes I've seen so far are from dwelle, they seem to strike a good balance between compactness and practicality... http://www.dwelle.co.uk/ If anyone else has some small home projects they were impressed by, please share, I'd like some further inspiration.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I'm a big fan of living modestly and I'd love to see more progress towards modest homes, in terms of both new technologies and new cultural norms (try to find a well-constructed 750 sq. ft. home for sale in a safe neighborhood).
On the other hand, I didn't see anything in the article about how this scales to relationships, marriages, and children. Considering how commonplace (and even economical!) various forms of cohabitation are, I wonder if this isn't another spherical cow experiment. Or am I missing the point?
I went to a talk by Jeff Wilson a couple of months ago. He's testing the hypothesis that you can have a fulfilling existence and actually experience more freedom through minimal living. While even he acknowledges that a 36 sq. ft. dumpster is on the very extreme end, he hopes that the experiment and the conversation around it will help us to to find practical ways for technology and culture to progress towards being more minimal.
By the way, his talk was much more interesting/enjoyable than I'd anticipated, and you can watch it here: http://creativemornings.com/talks/prof-dumpster/1. The Q&A part was pretty interesting too, but unfortunately it looks like that didn't make it into the recording.
This is reminiscent of the teacher and philosopher Diogenes [1], who lived in a large tub in the Athens marketplace. Alexander the Great is said to have been so impressed by Diogenes' minimalism that he remarked "if I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes."
I'm a fan of all these small-living endeavors. I'd personally build a somewhat larger passive-solar-optimized structure out of more appropriate materials.
The gotcha is always land. Try to find an affordable plot near enough to community and services. It's going be way more than the cost of the building.
No mentions at all of food or meals, nor cold weather. Great way to live if you can afford to eat out 3 meals a day, and it's warm enough to just sleep outside anyway. It's really not living simply... it's just outsourcing the complexity to his wallet.
"No mentions at all of food or meals, nor cold weather."
From TFA: "He keeps all of this in cubbies under a recently installed false floor, along with some camping cooking equipment."
That setup is fine for cooking which only requires boiling water. The lack of refrigeration is probably the biggest limitation for food preparation. Fresh meat and veg is feasible but only if you buy in small enough quantities for a single meal or two. I wouldn't try anything fancier than stir fry, stew, or pancakes.
Regarding weather, this is Austin.* It is a pretty rough winter if you go below freezing at all. Add longjohns to his wardrobe and the cold will be manageable.
Average U.S. construction prices per square foot for apartment buildings start at $130 per square foot, depending on location and material/fixture quality. New York is the most expensive at $230 per square foot.
So at 36 square feet, this dumpster home would end up at what... $270 per square foot? That's way more expensive than an actual apartment building, and that's before appliances and shared spaces such as bathrooms/laundry rooms/kitchens, not to mention the shipment costs which have got to be significant.