And here's a video link to econospacemaking, there are many examples on YouTube

Here is a link that might be useful: video link

EatRealFood, I tried to access that item in the first link.
It was damaged and could not be opened.

Can you please just give the link to the SITE, and let us each choose what we want to open for our computer? My Norton Security helps keep my computer straight, and was not prepared to have a PDF file downloaded direct from a blind link. And Cluegiver was unable to preview it as well.

>>>> "Can you please just give the link to the SITE" http://www.livingarchitecturecentre.com/

>>>> "My Norton Security helps keep my computer straight, and was not prepared to have a PDF file downloaded direct from a blind link." Then again, you could run a Linux system and be for all practical concerns, safely unconcerned about having to think about, or pay for, or use, or update, or anything, any such sort of absolutely un-necessary "Security" BS softwares.
I have been on-line 24/7 with as many as 5 browsers and 120+ tabs open and running for as long as eight months continuosly with never an issue nor a worry, and only an outgoing firewall between me and "them"....

sorry moccasinlanding
I'm new to posting links, and did not realize when I posted it is not as informative as I had hoped or that it might be a problem w/ security for PC's.
I hope you were able to do a search on YouTube and see the video from Peter Cowman, the architect.
Spudbondwarrior, I hope to reach 1/2 your expertise w/ security soon...b/c although I have used a computer at work for many years, the network made us immune from worrying about viruses.

EatRealFood, not a problem. it said the file was "corrupted" or something like that, and I just hesitate to download something I was not looking to place on my computer. I can click on a link with no problem, since I am set up to do that.

Spunbondwarrior, my experience with computers is entirely with Windows OS, and I have no idea how to acquire and run a Linux system. Since I look forward to a day when we will all be operating tablets and no OS at all, I will pass on the Linux for now. Just like back in 1958 I was willing to wait to get a TV until it would be possible to hang it like a picture frame from the wall....hehehehe.....almost a 40 year wait and I'd have missed all my beloved TV series.

Maybe we could interest you in hanging around and giving us advice on keeping our small homes up to date on electronic state of the art. Glad to make your acquaintance.

Here is a link that might be useful: Living Architecture

mocassinlanding
thanks for posting that link. That's what I wanted to post but couldn't find it.

And the link is below. How does 84 sq feet strike you?
that is like, 8 x 10 .....

Not for me.

Here is a link that might be useful: Tiny little home movement gets smaller

mocasinlanding: I completely agree, too small, what I think the movement in this area is meant to accomplish is to make America re-think what is the true or actual space that they require. I love the idea of less house=less paid work. We might be the only country with a 24hr shopping network and a booming storage industry, I don't know. Other countries have copied us but we are unique in McMansions, unused dining rooms and "great" rooms that are not dual purpose. I believe that smaller is better if you also use the best materials, as no one wants to live in an uncomfortable situation. My relatives outside New Orleans(Baton Rouge, Arabi, Shreveport) had small tidy houses. When I first visited as a child I was surprised, even though I grew up in a modest split level which was not 2000 sq/ft. Now today I still meet people who can't believe I live in 500sq/ft.(my neighbor has the same apt. w/ 2 children in bunk beds) What I'm trying to say there's small and then there's...a big fight w/ your husband b/c you have no where to go :) Fortunately I can always go out and putz around on the street...sometimes I run into people and it takes me an hour to buy milk.

LOL eatrealfood. My DH heads to get the mail three blocks away. Usually takes him an hour and a half because every one needs to visit coming and going.Gotta love small towns.

shadesofidaho:I'm not in a small town, but I always made a point of making friends so I have a small network of people I can seek if I need help(my friend who works at the butcher shop,the other one owns newsstand, my neighbor next store 1ft. away)One day my SH locked us out and I had to go to the thrift store to borrow a ladder, it was the only place that had one...he built a scaffolding from bricks/pallets and put ladder on top to get to 2nd floor of building, in the rain.
I'm hoping small home building, and less sprawl will bring back the community we desperately need, not the "pull in driveway, close door" type that we have now.

Although I'm still trying to figure out what a SH is, Step-Husband, Shared Husband, Second Husband, Silly Husband, Sheep Herder?? Eatrealfood touches on several issues involving economic practicality and wider public acceptance of smaller homes and smaller home communities. How do you make them practical, affordable and desirable? It's obvious that many of us here would prefer the concept of smaller, self-contained villages over urban sprawl but it's hard to make businesses (a dirty word in an Occupy minded world) like grocery stores profitable (another dirty word) while serving smaller numbers of mostly local patrons. Americans have proven they will drive past such stores in search of the Big Box bargains. Available, buildable land located in close proximity to amenities sells for a premium which typically means the lot sizes are overly tiny with spillover parking ending up in the street which has been dramatically narrowed to maximize building space. Such communities around here leave only one driving lane at night when all the residents and their cars are home for the evening. Not good. This premium on land prices translates into high and/or excessive cost per square foot of the finished product which eliminates affordability which is typically one of the main motivators for living smaller. To quote Alan Greenspan, "it's a conundrum".

And I completely agree with ML on the 84 square foot angle. That may work for a select few, but in reality, few people could ever downsize enough to live in such tight quarters. If you have to go somewhere else to "take care of personal business", wash clothes, or retrieve out of season clothing or recreational items (like a spare Frisbee) from off-site storage, then you aren't truely "living" in that small space. Interesting case studies but not really practical.

200 to 250 square feet is doable for 2 people max. Anything smaller is simply getting by. And again, if you have to store your stuff elsewhere, that's cheating.

1200-1300 max should be a good place to start on sq ft. The biggest obstacle though is where you can build it. I do not want to live in a condo site and open land where we live is as scarce as hens teeth. Even a few lots in the latter had building restrictions of 1500 sq ft. Developers have ruined everything.

you are so right puzzlefan. We would like to build a couple of houses together that share a courtyard, IN TOWN, and can't find any where that will allow it.

I too have been waiting to sell- or more literal- for someone to buy- my northern larger home. I want a small- 800-1000sf home. Very, very plain, open- only a secluded bathroom. But I DO want it built VERY well- sturdy, well insulated, green, possibly steel. I want an essentially flat (minimal slant) roof. Oh....I am tired of waiting...

I think in our code book here the smallest living structure=home is 320 SQ FT minimum. but that might go against the IBC now the city has adopted that. Would have to look that one up.

Marti and others posting on this thread, good to see so many interested in living smaller.

I know my nephew after Hurrican Katrina became interested in the "compound" style of living, where two city lots could serve for 3 separate homes with shared parking and gardens, and not all alike. They have sort of developed in Louisiana, and are called "Katrina Cottages."

If you look that up, it will give you further leads. There are many developers who are interested in that too, and I believe they are the ones that city planners seem to listen to, not us crazy consumers....I mean, after all, what do WE know!!! thbbbbbttt to them I say. But it is hard to buck the trend, If the cost of housing continues to rise, all that will be left for us to "occupy" will BE WALL STREET.
:)

IRC or IBC does specify a minimum of 70 sq ft for a habitable room. That's a pretty small room (7' X 10'). I'm not sure if there's anything in there about the size of the whole structure. Many cities/states have 'anti-shack' laws prohibiting small dwellings. In CT, it used to be 750 sq ft, but that was 30+ years ago.

Living in a VERY small house requires a major shift in thinking- kind of like living on a boat. And as Scott pointed out, if you are dependent upon off-site storage, that's cheating. I once read that 500 sq ft per person is a reasonable number, and I would agree. Plenty enough room to be comfortable.

A lot of it has to do with climate, too. Here in FL, we do so much living outside that you can get by with a smaller house. In the frozen north, cabin fever can be more of a problem.