3 ms·
I currently live in a new 330 sqft microhouse in Berkeley. Its not a solution at all. You can't have a family and you don't gain enough value to buy an actual
by tsunamifury 10y ago
I currently live in a new 330 sqft microhouse in Berkeley. Its not a solution at all. You can't have a family and you don't gain enough value to buy an actual livable size home.
The only use it has is to rent to others on your backlot to help pay for your $1.2m two bedroom home's constant renovation needs.
Its like living in too small of a pot, you either end up with a tiny plant (your life) or a dead one.
- stickfigure 10y agoAccording to the 2010 census (via wikipedia), in SF "There were 345,811 households, out of which 63,577 (18.4%) had children under the age of 18 living in them." It seems highly likely that much of the other 81.6% might be willing to sacrifice some space in order to spend less on housing. But it's not an option. Instead we either overpay or have roommates - often both - and rent rather than buy.
- Dylan16807 10y agoThe article isn't really about how big your home needs to be. If you want a multiple of that many square feet, you pay a multiple of $50k. You're talking about a budget of $1.2m. Let's spend half of that with the article's math. $600k gets you 3000 square feet of low-rise, or 1500 square feet of mid-rise right at the center of downtown. That's enough for a pretty big family.
- chupasaurus 10y agoFYI: In Soviet Russia in the early 80's, there were 161,5sqft of house space per each resident. The most common accomodation was single-room apartment 351sqft sized.
- tsunamifury 10y agoYou just cited a nation who has been in a population decline.
- chupasaurus 10y agoUSSR's population had grown up since WWII to the end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union#Population_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Uni...