Hacker News Reader

Comment by basseq | Hacker News Reader

Some math:

A 208 sq-ft. mini-studio for $600/mo (+ the up-front purchase cost, whatever that is). That's $2.88/sq-ft.

By way of example, I found a 538 sq-ft. studio in downtown Austin for $1,387/mo. That's $2.58/sq-ft.

So, by area, the Kasita is more expensive. (This should not be surprising.) The argument then becomes one of absolute dollars: the difference between a 538 sq-ft. studio and a 208 sq-ft. Kasita being fairly moot, so hey, save $600+/mo.

And I laud this: I think there's a great market for micro-housing. (See also: all the "Tiny House" shows on HGTV.) I don't understand why I need to buy a "pod" and then convince developers to put a "rack" on their lots. Just build smaller apartments: the math should work out.

View on HN

>See also: all the "Tiny House" shows on HGTV.

We just watched one of these on Netflix and looked up some of the follow-on stories you can find on the net from the featured people. The general consensus is that after about three months you realize that the house is way too small.

Yet there are thousands of people happily living on narrowboats in the UK, which typically give living space of 300 sq ft or below. (Narrowboats are 6ft 10in wide, giving <6ft usable interior width; and anywhere between 40ft and 70ft long, but the engine and front/rear decks take up a chunk of that.)

I suspect the key is an identity and a setting beyond the accommodation itself. If you put a bunch of narrowboats on an industrial estate on dry land, few would go near them. The Kasitas aren't designed to float, of course, but careful attention to neighbourhood, landscape, and nearby amenities could make them just as desirable places to live.

Living on a narrowboat is a very niche way of life even in the UK, and they have far more mobility and much lower densities than any form of dense urban living could.

Interesting, I had no idea that this was a thing. ~£800 to rent one for a week:

http://www.drifters.co.uk/

It's like entering Diagon Alley into an older world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sbb9qm-pqw

Narrowboats aren't desirable places to live. They're mainly a way for unscrupulous landlords to rent out illegally-low quality living space while evading inspections.

I'm going to call out [citation needed] on that blunt "aren't desirable" and that "mainly".

Source: I edited Waterways World magazine for six years, worked for British Waterways for two before that, and know a fair bit about narrowboats.

I suspect it's like many people who do the digital nomad thing and other lifestyle experiments. The novelty makes it cool for a bit. Until it's not.

They also tend to be very out of the way; no city will let you put a tiny house in it.

I've lived in two studios with a less extreme size difference than that: 333sqft and 450sqft, and the difference between just the extra 117sqft is actually pretty massive in terms of flexibility.

208sqft sounds terrifying to me after living a year in 333sqft.

By contrast, if you're single and don't have too much stuff (say, a bed, a desk, TV, 2-person table, small couch), 450sqft is pretty easy. I spent three years living in that much space.

Currently doing around 450 with my gf, it's fine really, but we're early 20s. But I completely agree, at these sizes, the marginal value of a unit of space matters a lot. Whereas in my parents house you can cut out 10-20% and barely notice, in mine it's the difference between fun and feeling miserable. And having an additional 20% would mean I could live there for the rest of my life without kids - right now it's fine but I couldn't characterise it as ideal.

208... I don't know, it depends on the furniture. My brother lived on 160 as a student, excluding a kitchen which was shared in the hallway, and drycleaning etc which was also centralised in the building, and it was pretty nice for a single person. Essentially a hotel room with a proper desk. It's certainly not a dream gig but it was also far from terrifying. Writing it now makes it sound really shitty but it worked, until you're 30 or so.

you're right, i've spent 5 years (damn... time flies) living in 450 and it's the perfect amount of space for one person.

i wouldn't go below 400. it's just too small... studios larger than 400 tend to have real bathrooms (sink, tub/shower, and full size toilet) and real kitchens (30" sink, 30" range, 30" fridge) which are requirements for me.

feeling restricted in the kitchen is frustrating/suffering to me because i cook a lot. i think someone who doesn't cook could probably do 350.

> i wouldn't go below 400. it's just too small...

This is pretty amusing to me in Japan, where 400 square feet is pretty far above the UPPER limit of a usual apartment for a single person. I guess that shows how culture/environment can change perception. :)

I would go so far as to say that a lot of single people live in apartments that are closer to 200-250 square feet here and that 400+ is seen as extravagant. I live in a 600 square foot apartment and people are always blown away and ask what I do with all the extra space; my apartment is intended for a family with kids.

Out of cultural curiosity do you have western furniture like a sofa and love seat? My understanding about Japanese house culture is that it is largely a floor sitting culture. As a result there is less need for space larger furniture space.

I have a western sofa and a big IKEA double bed, but that's because I've chosen to live more like an American. I have quite a few Japanese friends who simply have a bed (or sometimes a sofa that turns into a bed) and a small table, plus a TV and dresser/closet.

It's definitely more of a floor sitting culture here and there are stackable floor chairs, cushions, etc. to make it more comfortable. It's also way easier to deal with guests by bringing out more cushions or floor chairs than it is to keep a bunch of actual chairs and a big table on hand.

Is this in Tokio? In Germany & Austria 37m^2 (~400sqf) will also be seen as small, even in the bigger cities.

It's my experience in both Tokyo and also in the countryside in Gunma. 30 m^2 is usually the upper bound for an apartment for a single guy.

It fairly reeks of "pet rock" to me ( and the HGTV show is the principal evidence for that ) , but I'm not exactly in the target demo.

The world need the Sears Craftsman house again.

The latest house on This Old House [1] is being built in the same way as the Sears houses were from a company called Connor Homes [2]. They even talk about the Sears homes in the first episode.

1. http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/tv/house-project/overview/0,... 2. http://connorbuilding.com

I more mean the whole business model more than I mean the design of the houses - although the designs were worth repeating.

If you can swing the $53/month mortgage, you might like to take a look at:

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/11451-Lansdowne-St-Detroit...

...looks like a nice neighborhood, and the inside seems we'll maintained. So that's $0.04/sq-ft/month.

I've thought about the idea of establishing a micro community in Detroit. Buy up cheap adjacent houses and lots and get entrepreneurs interested in a combination of tech business(to draw outside money) and local service businesses(restaurants, stores, etc to service the community members and attract more people) to move in. The biggest investment would be establishing good security, utilities and internet.

I'm interested in this, maybe as an investor too. I like the idea of ways to enhance the 'buy and hold cheap houses' investment concept. I also have one or two ideas on how to do that. Send me a message if you go ahead with it. My email is in my profile.

I wonder what goes to an ecosystem first, talent or funding. For the latter, one approach should be to get the auto giants interested. GM, Ford, etc. are already investing in both automated vehicles and ride-sharing, they want a piece of that action too. If cars are the next big product space to be disrupted by tech, Detroit has potential for that. Also get Eminem involved, if he hasn't diversified in being a celebrity VC yet.

For the former, maybe appeal to disgruntled devs who are getting priced out of the Bay?

The thing about Detroit houses is that they sell for much lower than they are assessed for, so buyers would be paying taxes that are very high compared to the selling price.

Yea except this neighborhood is about as sketchy as you can get. The last event I went to at the old Detroit City airport was staffed with a perimeter of heavily armed guards. I know a couple people who purchased houses in Indian Village and nobody even takes garbage out after dark. Comparing Detroit and Austin is a stretch at best.

All major airports have a perimeter of heavily armed guards these days.

It's no longer an active airport.

Wikipedia says it's still used by cargo, corporate, and private operators.

Hah. I once worked with a guy who put essentially his entire life's savings into 10-15 of these Detroit properties a few years back in 2013-2014. Suffice it to say I was right--there's been little-to-no upward pressure on home pressures in the area, despite the fact that he thought he was soon to strike it rich.

The old mantra holds--like any publicly available asset--if it were a great deal--it would already have been sold!

He's probably right about the appreciation but wrong about the timeframe.

He's probably right about the appreciation

I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm curious what you have to back that statement up. Detroit is rapidly losing population[0] with no end in sight. Typically for prices to rise, there has to be some kind of demand. I guess you could just gut the supply by wholesale tearing everything down and seeing if you can sell what's left.

0. https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&...

Property eventually appreciates, you just have to wait long enough. Now, at the extreme you may need to wait longer than a lifetime, but that's not likely to be the case here. However, it could very well be more than 20 years depending on how much he paid.

I don't think it's unreasonable to hold an asset for that length of time if the projected value makes it worthwhile.

> Property eventually appreciates

Ghost towns say otherwise. Property usually appreciates, given enough time, but it's never a guarantee; Detroit is dying-globalization killed manufacturing-it's a bad bet to think it'll appreciate when much of the city is already abandoned.

Yup. You really need some momentum, or some hope of momentum. Cheap prices ain't gonna do it. Right now Detroit is essentially competing with rural areas in price, but giving none of the benefits of a city: proximity to jobs, vibrant culture, amenities. It has many of the disadvantages of a city, in excess, like crime. And the momentum is not positive.

Can Detroit rebounce? Surely. But I don't think a smart investor would make a bet on it, outside of specific neighbourhoods and projects.

Areas of Detroit are apparently rebounding [1] to the point where it's even a bit controversial. (Gentrification is forcing out some black-owned businesses.) But it's very uneven and, yes, I wouldn't bet on the rust belt in general.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/feb/05/detroit-city-c...

Yep. People have been thinking Detroit would turn around since about 1955. And they've been wrong every year for 60 years now.

If Detroit ever returns it'll be slowly, organically, and not driven by speculation. Nearby neighborhoods are more attractive and inexpensive than downtown (Dearborn, Livonia, etc). Until higher-end businesses and lifestyles return to central Detroit, (not to mention basic city services), surrounding city property values will never climb.

I wish Dan Gilbert the best, but having grown up in the area, I've heard it all before.

I always hear there's lots of caveats to this. e.g. sometimes the water, electricity and internet aren't available. Or the house costs $10k but you need to buy the unpaid taxes, too, plus pay property taxes on a home that's valued at 50k+ when it's worth a fraction (I think in this case it's also listed on zillow, property valuations for tax purposes being 2x the listing), etc etc.

I mean absolutely, it's a cheap deal, even all this considered, but not as good as it looks. The final cost is probably a multiple of the listing, and you're still in a neighbourhood that's sketchy. Lots of interesting stuff has been written about Detroit and the various initiatives to buy a fixer upper, things like 'if you call an ambulance or police, they don't come, or they arrive 30 minutes late', feature commonly in such articles.

Its to allow you to easily move by shipping your pod with all of your stuff in it, no need to do as much packing/unpacking. Pretty much the only thing to move would be to secure breakables then lock your cabinets shut.

This would make it easier to change employers as you only need to see if a potential employer has open rack space nearby, rather than dealing with possibly selling/buying a house or finding a suitable apartment nearby.

How much stuff would a person living in a Kasita have? I'm skeptical that avoiding packing/unpacking hassles will be a driver of demand.

Its more of a friction reducer than anything.

I find the appeal similar to the containerization technologies for computer software that have taken off recently. While having the binaries as part of the container is nice, the important part is that I can put my containers pretty much anywhere with minimal effort on my part and quickly/easily move if the current host tries charging too much. This basically is trying to do the same for housing.

Also you are not locked into the whims of the developers of the racks as much as you are with an apartment. Like making lots of noise at 3AM? Buy a pod with lots of sound insulation, same goes for someone who works night-shift and wants to sleep at 6PM on Saturday when everyone else is having a party.

You could also just live in an RV.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com