What if we took the space constraints of apartment living and subtracted all economies of scale from compact building?
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
124 points (96.3% liked)
Texas
1474 readers
51 users here now
A community for news, current events, and overall topics regarding the state of Texas
Other Texas Lemmy Communties to follow
Sports
- Houston Astros
- Houston Texans
- Houston Rockets
- Texas Rangers
- Dallas Cowboys
- Dallas Stars
- Austin FC
- San Antonio Spurs
Rules (Subject to Change)
-
Be a Decent Human Being
-
Posting news articles: Please use exact article Titles
-
Posts must have something to do with Texas
-
Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
-
No NSFW content
-
Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The sad part is I want a small space. But I also want a big yard to grow things and to live in the woods away from people.
I get it, but sub urbs still kinda suck for that. Too dense for freedom and privacy, yet to sparse for transit or cultural events.
Totally agree. I don't think single family housing is really good or fair anymore. Hell I am not sure I even think humans can own a piece of land. I feel selfish for wanting to be able to buy a house.
So what you want is an apartment with community gardens, maybe rooftop gardens and/or a multi-tier greenhouse interior for an apartment block. (Doesnβt help with living in the woods, but I think we were all born a bit late for that to be practical for most, tho we could rebuild community gardens and rewild our spaces if we condensed housing)
Thatβs what I want too. I hate owning property and needing to upkeep it and shit, all so I can have growing space and privacy. And I donβt even have much of either.
We can do those things, we just choose not to for⦠reasons.
I suppose a shed in the woods is not impossible but a lot of factors need to be just right or it gets way too expensive and/or uncomfortable. In Europe, most forests are publicly accessible and there are various tiny settlements but I suppose that's not the case in many American states.
Here in the Netherlands we have lots of plots on the outside of cities with gardens people in apartments can rent for a small fee. Friend of mine has one and we get a ton of veggies and stuff from them every year it's great. Going out to take care of it is like a day to the countryside kind of thing, they tell me.
Just because you slap a second story on your trailers and call your park a subdivision, ain't mean the tornado won't find ya!
They could actually be liveable if you removed the driveway and yard, and added a frequent bus service on every other street, as well as a tram line/subway stop in the neighborhood, and a market square with mixed zoning. It could be more thermally efficient, too, with the houses touching. Or just build blocks of flats at this point, they are cheap, dense and not as uncomfortable as shotgun homes. However, I am sure that US regulations would never allow that.
Plenty of townhouses like you've described. The same crowd that moves into these houses are the ones that don't want all the issues you've just described in yours.
Pretty sure most don't have a market square with mixed zoning and trams that get them into the dense city centre in 10 minutes every 5 minutes.
Why not keep the driveway and yard, yet still add the frequent bus service on every other street and other things? The driveway and yard don't detract from livability. If someone wants they could remove the driveway themselves and plant a veggie garden or something.
They take up space that could be used to expand the house to liveable dimensions. And the lots are 6 m wide, enough for on-street parking.
Personally I would prefer 600 sq ft and some outdoor space over 1000 sq ft and no out door space, that's the benefit of detached housing. Otherwise you may as well buy a 1000 sq ft apartment.
Well, the houses could be shorter (square), which is a more practical shape, and have the cost benefit of only two outside walls, with the rest of the plot being a backyard. And the houses could now include a garage with a liveable space above. Its advantages as opposed to a driveway are obvious: the car is protected from weather and crime, and owners of small or no cars can repurpose the extra space for DIY or other purposes. Also, a backyard, as opposed to a front yard, incentivizes non-lawn use, so the street appears less green from the front but actually benefits biodiversity. Backyards also feel more private, especially with tall fences.
So yeah, I can get behind a 2-floor house with the footprint 55 mΒ² (or 600 ftΒ², don't be afraid of superscripts) with green space, as long as half of it is not a concrete driveway and I can do some gardening (or even grow "private plants").
That's a shed.
Nothing wrong with tiny houses, but these look like theyβd blow over in a small wind.
The American dream was tortured to death, buried, dug up, ground into "dietary supplements," then sold by Mr. Beast so he could pay poor people to fight over the chance to claw their way out of debt.
Why 2 bath and only 1 bedroom?
~~Probably 1.5 bathroom. Downstairs toilet only upstairs bathroom for bedroom.~~
Edit: nevermind, saw the layout someone else posted. It's a shitty house design on top of being tiny.
I mean, I would buy that in a heartbeat. Where I live you would be lucky to get a 4th floor 600sqft studio for less than $300,000.
Not saying it's good, just saying if that's your nightmare then come to Canada.
It's a matter of perspective. In the grand scheme of things, that property is worth maybe $1.59.
But it's listed for $159,000.
That's the problem.
And the elms of the famous Elm Trails are in another location?