Important to recognize that many cultures traditionally sleep in communal family sleeping rooms yet still manage to procreate. And many big city apartment dwellers are fully aware of when their neighbors are gettin' it on. No shame.
You're going to bring back flashbacks with that comment. I don't know how many times I walked in on my first roommate because he never would leave some sort of signal to warn me. He must have been working on a new edition of the KAMA SUTRA. The next morning, after that night they thought I wasn't there, was especially awkward. Thank heavens I was asleep the whole time, having only realized what had happened because of how embarrassed they were the next day.
Anyway, on a more serious note, it was necessary for me to research living arrangements in single-pen houses a while back and something that stood out to me, regarding this issue, was that one of the people interviewed said that one’s spot in the bed (because that was often the only spot that could be called one’s own) was viewed as totally private and that anything that occurred in that spot was viewed as unobservable, even when in view. The author of my main reference suggested that this type of living arrangement might have fallen out of favor because as communities diversified, people were less comfortable with letting neighbors into their private space because they were different and might live differently, leading to separation of functions.
There have been some psychological experiments done on the effect of overcrowding and the results are depressing.
I lived in Newport Beach CA in a huge complex and it was miserable 10 times worse than a dorm room. People in your shit constantly and no way to avoid it. Had a room in a house in a subdivision and the same thing people in your shit constantly and no way to avoid it.
I don't know that Child Protective Services would accept "pioneer kids must have seen it all the time" as a valid defense for having sex in front of children today. I'm not saying that our ideas about morality/shame are right, but they would certainly have to change a lot before we go back to having families share a single room. Maybe we should also ditch central heat, and go back to sleeping in things like this:
jw468, I like this notion that one's spot in a bed is communally agreed upon as a private space. It reminds me of the declaration by Judith Martin, aka Miss Manners, that "Socially, a fart does not exist." - if one hears it or deals it, it doesn't matter, because no one in the area should acknowledge it, anyway.
More to the topic of microhousing: I can't help but feel that it's not a trend that will be beneficial to anyone but the real estate developers who can use them as yet another way to maximize profit. I don't know a whole lot about the already-existing microhousing complexes (but when has not knowing about something ever prevented me from commenting on it; see podcasts LOL!), for example in Seattle, but while it seems like an interesting experiment in helping people who have just moved to a city have temporary housing until they can get on their feet, I can't help but think it will never truly be transitional only. Housing prices in Seattle are skyrocketing, and if it's absolutely impossible for someone to generate enough income to be able to move up into astronomically-priced housing next door, why would they not just cling to their tiny apodment for as long as possible?
I do think we need to densify more, and suburban sprawl has to stop, but a real mix of incomes in housing can't rely on some people living a sub-human existence. Surely we can build cities with a mix of single family, apartment, duplex, tower, etc. all without forcing some to prepare their meals immediately next to where they poop.
The biggest obstacle to abundant and affordable housing is the NIMBYs thwarting every new project that is too tall, too big, the units are rental, it does not fit the character of the neighborhood, does not have enough parking, or the transit oriented development will contribute too much traffic. In Chicago they fight apartments buildings that have too many studios because the committee of informed and concerned neighbors don't want single people living in their family friendly neighborhood. We have to deal with the CAVE dwellers Citizens Against Virtually Everything and strike back at zoning laws that unreasonably constrict urban development.
it's like paying to live in skid row. isn't this, at it's core, a question of poverty and the inability of real estate and developers to provide adequate housing for people? are there people (other than a few eccentric anomalies) saying they have enough money to live in a normal apartment but would prefer this kind of lifestyle?
there seems to be a fairly significant trend these days to make being poor even harder. i don't see why people would want to do that. i suppose it's related why people would want to pass legislation discriminating against homosexuals in Indiana. people are just bad people.
so do you suppose many of these units will be subsidized, so the real estate companies and developers can get money directly from the city and state to not fix bad plumbing and leaky roofs? i bet they complain about how much of their tax money is going to food stamps to support the welfare cheats while they cash their government checks.
also, why would you pretend a fart or sex doesn't exist? i can't see how it still counts as privacy if it's your space on a bed. if someone sees something, they can't unsee it, no matter how hard they pretend. i could be wrong, but it seems to me the idea of rejecting what you know to be real and true in order to keep your belief in a baseless ideology is basically what started the tea party (and reagan's version of 'conservative' before that).
for example, somebody at some point said if we give rich people more money, something other that rich people getting more money would happen. enough people lied to themselves often enough that they started believing it, until it was taught in actual universities as a viable economic model. seriously. maybe we should quit lying to ourselves, at least in those cases where it's so obvious.
in short, you can't replace the term 'poverty' with 'microhousing' and call it 'trendy' so it isn't a problem anymore. it's still a problem.
So years ago, when I was roaming around in China we constantly found people making out on benches a lot, so we inquired, and someone told us, the reason the kids were doing all this out in public was for privacy vs being home....
I guess if you live in micro-housing you probably don't have a car and therefore can't go park with LA off in the background?
i did live in a hostel for a bit and some kid just draped the blanket down over his lower bunk and got it on with a loud girl. the old man on the bunk above the kid was seriously pissed off and then when it was all done we applauded and asked them to leave.
curtkram, the people that lived in those types of houses were empathic to the needs of those that shared the same space. They knew it was real and part of life, they turned and faced the other way and didn’t make a big deal about it. I’m not suggesting that arrangement as something we should return to; however, in this context, it’s an interesting precedent.
I do agree with you regarding the ability of “a few eccentric anomalies” to live this way. Part of what will determine whether or not microhousing will work is how it addresses the psychological needs of those that live in it. The ability of someone who can afford something larger to be able to live in such a small space is irrelevant because that person knows that if the experiment backfires a larger house can be purchased. The people this is being proposed for don’t have that reassurance; if it doesn’t work, there may be no way out.
Personally, I would despise living in such a small space. I’d feel like livestock, housed as efficiently as possible. My current living space is under 500 sq ft and works for me because it’s large enough that I am able to express myself and because I live alone. The previous residents were an older, happily-married couple. After a year they HAD to move out.
Olaf Design Ninja_, that Chicago story is interesting. I guess it didn’t matter if people saw them because they didn’t know them.
jw, this is a problem of economics rather than design. to turn it into a design problem is a way of sort of white-washing the problem so we can ignore it. we should address the real problem, which is that people can't afford to live.
i get that people look the other way because of empathy, and it's the nice polite thing to do to not talk about someone farting, and ultimately that sort of respect is essential if you're going to live that close to so many other people. however, i think this 'microhousing' discussion is essentially saying that we, as a civil society, would like to force people into a position that requires that sort of action, because then we can call the problem dealt with and not worry about it anymore.
also, your 500sf is over twice the size of the seattle requirement donna linked above.
And you'll notice I said my less than 500 sq ft worked for me because "it’s large enough that I am able to express myself and because I live alone." I don't think the Seattle thing will work, long-term, because it's too small to accomplish that.
i don't think we're arguing about that, or disagreeing on anything, jw. i'm just offering a different perspective, which is to say that the discussion should focus on policy decisions rather than design. i think your comment on privacy is correct and relevant and useful and all those other good sorts of things.
what's being proposed from a design perspective is an exciting challenge. what's being proposed as part of monetary and civil policy is kind of abhorrent.
"what's being proposed from a design perspective is an exciting challenge. what's being proposed as part of monetary and civil policy is kind of abhorrent."
Should the Architect address just the exciting design challenge or all address the monetary and civil policy that results in problems requiring such exciting design challenges?
Microhouse nation on cable is pretty good TV. But those are not person farms like this, but mostly in the middle of nature/nowhere. Love their ingenious solutions.
Should the Architect address just the exciting design challenge or all address the monetary and civil policy that results in problems requiring such exciting design challenges?
Olaf, this is exactly the question of ethics in architecture. We can use architecture to address all kinds of problems on many levels, but at some point architecture *won't* solve the problem and may even make it worse. In my mind we as architects have an ethical responsibility to ask questions beyond just the built object to how that built object impacts culture.
There is nothing "radical" about living in the slums, sometimes theorists get under my skin with this bullshit. There should not be "a new architecture" for the poor as study objects, this is so wrong.
Yeah, the architecture media fetish for slums is disturbing. "Design" is by definition usually trying to find answers to the chaos of slums, not recreate it. More of a burgious elitist interest.
What used to be a comfortable-sized home for the middle class a generation ago has been restored, upgraded, and modernized and is now a home for the upper class. The middle class is not quite in a 'van down by the river' yet, but sure is headed that way.
Have to admit, while growing up as kids, I used to sleep with 4 family members in one bed (king sized bed), squished like sardines, even though we owned a 4 storey house with 12 empty bed rooms. For my family, the weather played a large part (freezing winters and lack of heating systems available today) but almost all my older relatives grew up living in limited spaces as they were poor but almost all managed to have large families (i'm talking a dozen plus kids) xD Never really inquired where/how they managed to procreate.
The developers in my town are trying to do microhousing only because it means more money in their pocket. They can charge 80% of the price of a one bedroom apartment for a single room micro unit about 1/3 the size of the one bedroom, and they also convert nicely into illegal AirBnB units.
Isn't speculative housing (speculative finance on a human necessity) the real culprit?
Potential Fixes:
1) Laws discouraging or limiting land ownership to one parcel per tax return. My landlord currently owns a number of buildings in my neighborhood, while living in a different zip code. This creates disconnect and dissonance between urban space, capital, and habitation.
2) Tax brackets tied to a curve, so they adjust along with median and average incomes as the economy changes. Policy is too slow to react, reactions need to be embedded in the system.
3) A real democracy instead of a representative one. Right now about 45% of my taxes are going to the defense department and it would be nice to have the choice to funnel those taxes into HUD and Education if I choose. Additionally, I would like the chance to vote no on stadium and commercial tax breaks and yes on school, public transit, and affordable housing tax breaks.
-signed someone married and living in a studio, luckily only a third of my salary, whose neighbors have complained about the noise. I can pretend I'm in my own world as much as I want, but management doesn't seem to have the same level of philosophical wherewithal.
I have worked on a couple of these micro projects. Two that have been occupied for close to two years now with occupancy near 100% for both of them the entire time. The demand is huge. We actually just pulled demographics data from one and over a 1/3 of the people living there made over 60k! with the median age of 35! and 67% male occupants. I'm not sure anyone is going to be considering these "affordable" as rents for 220 sf units are going over $1000/month that's exceeding $4.5sf. But what's the alternative for a tech bro making 60k and wanting to keep their rent around the 1k or 20% of their monthly income? The only option is roommates. (way worse for sex) This is the primary market for these units. They are about as transitional as your typical 1 bedroom apartment. They are entry level housing for the next generation of white color workers. I would be willing to bet there are multiple architects living in these types of units which is sad and also a great example of our race to the bottom. Extra design consideration has to be given to sound transmission through assemblies with dense living but its not much different then apartments.
Apr 4, 18 1:46 pm ·
·
thisisnotmyname
My developer would consider 220 sq ft apartments to be gigantic. He and his minions came to me with layouts for 150 sq ft units. Rents are targeted to start around $4.60 a square foot, with no parking and crapola amenities and finishes.
Sex Is The One Big Problem No Microhousing Architect Discusses In Microtopia
Although I enjoy a good discussion of sex, I will likely still want to see this documentary of microhousing.
Microtopia
Important to recognize that many cultures traditionally sleep in communal family sleeping rooms yet still manage to procreate. And many big city apartment dwellers are fully aware of when their neighbors are gettin' it on. No shame.
did the author of this article not live in dorms in college?
Also, pooping.
I have heard that in some cultures like Japan there are hotels where couples can get away for the weekend.
toasteroven,
You're going to bring back flashbacks with that comment. I don't know how many times I walked in on my first roommate because he never would leave some sort of signal to warn me. He must have been working on a new edition of the KAMA SUTRA. The next morning, after that night they thought I wasn't there, was especially awkward. Thank heavens I was asleep the whole time, having only realized what had happened because of how embarrassed they were the next day.
Anyway, on a more serious note, it was necessary for me to research living arrangements in single-pen houses a while back and something that stood out to me, regarding this issue, was that one of the people interviewed said that one’s spot in the bed (because that was often the only spot that could be called one’s own) was viewed as totally private and that anything that occurred in that spot was viewed as unobservable, even when in view. The author of my main reference suggested that this type of living arrangement might have fallen out of favor because as communities diversified, people were less comfortable with letting neighbors into their private space because they were different and might live differently, leading to separation of functions.
There have been some psychological experiments done on the effect of overcrowding and the results are depressing.
I lived in Newport Beach CA in a huge complex and it was miserable 10 times worse than a dorm room. People in your shit constantly and no way to avoid it. Had a room in a house in a subdivision and the same thing people in your shit constantly and no way to avoid it.
I don't know that Child Protective Services would accept "pioneer kids must have seen it all the time" as a valid defense for having sex in front of children today. I'm not saying that our ideas about morality/shame are right, but they would certainly have to change a lot before we go back to having families share a single room. Maybe we should also ditch central heat, and go back to sleeping in things like this:
What do you expect in a society where entertainment based on bloody carnage is normal fare and natural acts that everyone does are forbidden?
What would be different if that was reversed?
Hard to hang a tie on the door knob when there isn't one.
jw468, I like this notion that one's spot in a bed is communally agreed upon as a private space. It reminds me of the declaration by Judith Martin, aka Miss Manners, that "Socially, a fart does not exist." - if one hears it or deals it, it doesn't matter, because no one in the area should acknowledge it, anyway.
More to the topic of microhousing: I can't help but feel that it's not a trend that will be beneficial to anyone but the real estate developers who can use them as yet another way to maximize profit. I don't know a whole lot about the already-existing microhousing complexes (but when has not knowing about something ever prevented me from commenting on it; see podcasts LOL!), for example in Seattle, but while it seems like an interesting experiment in helping people who have just moved to a city have temporary housing until they can get on their feet, I can't help but think it will never truly be transitional only. Housing prices in Seattle are skyrocketing, and if it's absolutely impossible for someone to generate enough income to be able to move up into astronomically-priced housing next door, why would they not just cling to their tiny apodment for as long as possible?
I do think we need to densify more, and suburban sprawl has to stop, but a real mix of incomes in housing can't rely on some people living a sub-human existence. Surely we can build cities with a mix of single family, apartment, duplex, tower, etc. all without forcing some to prepare their meals immediately next to where they poop.
The biggest obstacle to abundant and affordable housing is the NIMBYs thwarting every new project that is too tall, too big, the units are rental, it does not fit the character of the neighborhood, does not have enough parking, or the transit oriented development will contribute too much traffic. In Chicago they fight apartments buildings that have too many studios because the committee of informed and concerned neighbors don't want single people living in their family friendly neighborhood. We have to deal with the CAVE dwellers Citizens Against Virtually Everything and strike back at zoning laws that unreasonably constrict urban development.
This article has a nice graphic that shows you how big/small a unit is.
it's like paying to live in skid row. isn't this, at it's core, a question of poverty and the inability of real estate and developers to provide adequate housing for people? are there people (other than a few eccentric anomalies) saying they have enough money to live in a normal apartment but would prefer this kind of lifestyle?
there seems to be a fairly significant trend these days to make being poor even harder. i don't see why people would want to do that. i suppose it's related why people would want to pass legislation discriminating against homosexuals in Indiana. people are just bad people.
so do you suppose many of these units will be subsidized, so the real estate companies and developers can get money directly from the city and state to not fix bad plumbing and leaky roofs? i bet they complain about how much of their tax money is going to food stamps to support the welfare cheats while they cash their government checks.
also, why would you pretend a fart or sex doesn't exist? i can't see how it still counts as privacy if it's your space on a bed. if someone sees something, they can't unsee it, no matter how hard they pretend. i could be wrong, but it seems to me the idea of rejecting what you know to be real and true in order to keep your belief in a baseless ideology is basically what started the tea party (and reagan's version of 'conservative' before that).
for example, somebody at some point said if we give rich people more money, something other that rich people getting more money would happen. enough people lied to themselves often enough that they started believing it, until it was taught in actual universities as a viable economic model. seriously. maybe we should quit lying to ourselves, at least in those cases where it's so obvious.
in short, you can't replace the term 'poverty' with 'microhousing' and call it 'trendy' so it isn't a problem anymore. it's still a problem.
Totally related.
curt, I share your frustration that adequate housing can't seem to be built in our society. Totally agree with your post.
Is this Facebook's new housing development?
Donna, the size of my unit is just fine, thank you very much ;o)
citizen, how does it compare to a Delorean?
go Facebook! funny shit lightperson
So years ago, when I was roaming around in China we constantly found people making out on benches a lot, so we inquired, and someone told us, the reason the kids were doing all this out in public was for privacy vs being home....
I guess if you live in micro-housing you probably don't have a car and therefore can't go park with LA off in the background?
i did live in a hostel for a bit and some kid just draped the blanket down over his lower bunk and got it on with a loud girl. the old man on the bunk above the kid was seriously pissed off and then when it was all done we applauded and asked them to leave.
micro-housing shouldn't really be a goal, but I guess it's more of a survivalist solution?
curtkram, the people that lived in those types of houses were empathic to the needs of those that shared the same space. They knew it was real and part of life, they turned and faced the other way and didn’t make a big deal about it. I’m not suggesting that arrangement as something we should return to; however, in this context, it’s an interesting precedent.
I do agree with you regarding the ability of “a few eccentric anomalies” to live this way. Part of what will determine whether or not microhousing will work is how it addresses the psychological needs of those that live in it. The ability of someone who can afford something larger to be able to live in such a small space is irrelevant because that person knows that if the experiment backfires a larger house can be purchased. The people this is being proposed for don’t have that reassurance; if it doesn’t work, there may be no way out.
Personally, I would despise living in such a small space. I’d feel like livestock, housed as efficiently as possible. My current living space is under 500 sq ft and works for me because it’s large enough that I am able to express myself and because I live alone. The previous residents were an older, happily-married couple. After a year they HAD to move out.
Olaf Design Ninja_, that Chicago story is interesting. I guess it didn’t matter if people saw them because they didn’t know them.
More like a Winnebago, Donna ;o)
jw, this is a problem of economics rather than design. to turn it into a design problem is a way of sort of white-washing the problem so we can ignore it. we should address the real problem, which is that people can't afford to live.
i get that people look the other way because of empathy, and it's the nice polite thing to do to not talk about someone farting, and ultimately that sort of respect is essential if you're going to live that close to so many other people. however, i think this 'microhousing' discussion is essentially saying that we, as a civil society, would like to force people into a position that requires that sort of action, because then we can call the problem dealt with and not worry about it anymore.
also, your 500sf is over twice the size of the seattle requirement donna linked above.
And you'll notice I said my less than 500 sq ft worked for me because "it’s large enough that I am able to express myself and because I live alone." I don't think the Seattle thing will work, long-term, because it's too small to accomplish that.
i don't think we're arguing about that, or disagreeing on anything, jw. i'm just offering a different perspective, which is to say that the discussion should focus on policy decisions rather than design. i think your comment on privacy is correct and relevant and useful and all those other good sorts of things.
what's being proposed from a design perspective is an exciting challenge. what's being proposed as part of monetary and civil policy is kind of abhorrent.
"what's being proposed from a design perspective is an exciting challenge. what's being proposed as part of monetary and civil policy is kind of abhorrent."
Should the Architect address just the exciting design challenge or all address the monetary and civil policy that results in problems requiring such exciting design challenges?
We can and should try our best at both
Microhouse nation on cable is pretty good TV. But those are not person farms like this, but mostly in the middle of nature/nowhere. Love their ingenious solutions.
Should the Architect address just the exciting design challenge or all address the monetary and civil policy that results in problems requiring such exciting design challenges?
Olaf, this is exactly the question of ethics in architecture. We can use architecture to address all kinds of problems on many levels, but at some point architecture *won't* solve the problem and may even make it worse. In my mind we as architects have an ethical responsibility to ask questions beyond just the built object to how that built object impacts culture.
There is nothing "radical" about living in the slums, sometimes theorists get under my skin with this bullshit. There should not be "a new architecture" for the poor as study objects, this is so wrong.
http://archinect.com/news/article/124892558/without-housing-reform-is-a-tower-of-david-coming-to-your-city
Yeah, the architecture media fetish for slums is disturbing. "Design" is by definition usually trying to find answers to the chaos of slums, not recreate it. More of a burgious elitist interest.
I believe Donna if I am not mistaken both JLC-01 and lightperson address how we should be political about this.
What used to be a comfortable-sized home for the middle class a generation ago has been restored, upgraded, and modernized and is now a home for the upper class. The middle class is not quite in a 'van down by the river' yet, but sure is headed that way.
Wow, this was a good thread. I still haven't seen the film in the OP, though.
re-reading this thread made my morning commute fun.
Have to admit, while growing up as kids, I used to sleep with 4 family members in one bed (king sized bed), squished like sardines, even though we owned a 4 storey house with 12 empty bed rooms. For my family, the weather played a large part (freezing winters and lack of heating systems available today) but almost all my older relatives grew up living in limited spaces as they were poor but almost all managed to have large families (i'm talking a dozen plus kids) xD Never really inquired where/how they managed to procreate.
The developers in my town are trying to do microhousing only because it means more money in their pocket. They can charge 80% of the price of a one bedroom apartment for a single room micro unit about 1/3 the size of the one bedroom, and they also convert nicely into illegal AirBnB units.
Isn't speculative housing (speculative finance on a human necessity) the real culprit?
Potential Fixes:
1) Laws discouraging or limiting land ownership to one parcel per tax return. My landlord currently owns a number of buildings in my neighborhood, while living in a different zip code. This creates disconnect and dissonance between urban space, capital, and habitation.
2) Tax brackets tied to a curve, so they adjust along with median and average incomes as the economy changes. Policy is too slow to react, reactions need to be embedded in the system.
3) A real democracy instead of a representative one. Right now about 45% of my taxes are going to the defense department and it would be nice to have the choice to funnel those taxes into HUD and Education if I choose. Additionally, I would like the chance to vote no on stadium and commercial tax breaks and yes on school, public transit, and affordable housing tax breaks.
-signed someone married and living in a studio, luckily only a third of my salary, whose neighbors have complained about the noise. I can pretend I'm in my own world as much as I want, but management doesn't seem to have the same level of philosophical wherewithal.
I have worked on a couple of these micro projects. Two that have been occupied for close to two years now with occupancy near 100% for both of them the entire time. The demand is huge. We actually just pulled demographics data from one and over a 1/3 of the people living there made over 60k! with the median age of 35! and 67% male occupants. I'm not sure anyone is going to be considering these "affordable" as rents for 220 sf units are going over $1000/month that's exceeding $4.5sf. But what's the alternative for a tech bro making 60k and wanting to keep their rent around the 1k or 20% of their monthly income? The only option is roommates. (way worse for sex) This is the primary market for these units. They are about as transitional as your typical 1 bedroom apartment. They are entry level housing for the next generation of white color workers. I would be willing to bet there are multiple architects living in these types of units which is sad and also a great example of our race to the bottom. Extra design consideration has to be given to sound transmission through assemblies with dense living but its not much different then apartments.
My developer would consider 220 sq ft apartments to be gigantic. He and his minions came to me with layouts for 150 sq ft units. Rents are targeted to start around $4.60 a square foot, with no parking and crapola amenities and finishes.
Sex in microhousing consists mainly of the landlord financially f*cking the tenants.
We touched on how other countries do better at social housing in the most recent Sessions podcast: https://archinect.com/news/art...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.