Living Simply in a Dumpster
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Average U.S. construction prices per square foot for apartment buildings start at $130 per square foot, depending on location and material/fixture quality. New York is the most expensive at $230 per square foot.
So at 36 square feet, this dumpster home would end up at what... $270 per square foot? That's way more expensive than an actual apartment building, and that's before appliances and shared spaces such as bathrooms/laundry rooms/kitchens, not to mention the shipment costs which have got to be significant.
And in most of the US, you still won't be able to do so. Or, more correctly, you won't be able to place the dumpster-home in a desirable location and use it as a permanent residence.
Most municipalities have minimum house sizes as part of their building code. You could potentially put the dumpster-home on wheels and get it approved as a mobile home, but you'd still be limited to areas that allow mobile homes.
And in its current incarnation, you have to have air conditioning or a roof that's open where you have to be constantly on the lookout for rain.
It's a cute project, but it's not a fully-functioning living space.
Edit: Also, introduce a second person (most cultures are into pairing off as a social norm) and you need to pretty much have the entire floor as a bed, meaning no floorspace to store the bookshelf or plant, and having to move the bed every time to get at storage. Maybe some sort of sliding bed/couch thing, but those aren't particularly cheap.
Yes, but an actual apartment building would cost a fortune and be very difficult to build, while you can get started with dumpster-homes for a few thousand dollars (which is what a homeless person might rack up in one or two emergency room visits) and don't seem too difficult to make. The fixed costs are very different, even if the apartment building has economies of scale.
For example, consider a single room building with a square floor plan. Suppose this building needs an electrical panel, and it needs an outlets every 10 feet along the walls. Suppose an electrician costs $100/hour, takes one hour to install a panel, and 15 minutes to run wire to an outlet location and install the outlet.
For a 10x10 (100 square feet) building, it would cost $200 for the electrical work, for a contribution of $2 per square foot to the building cost.
For a 100x100 (10000 square feet) building, it would cost $1100 for the electrical work, for a contribution of $0.11 per square foot to the building cost.
I'd expect a typical building would have a lot of sub-costs that are either independent of the building size, or scale with the perimeter length.
Currently we have people building "homes" literally within the suspension beams of bridges, in shop doorways, and we have hundreds of people freezing to death out of the streets yearly. When we could build a basic "home" for under $150, it seems completely avoidable.
I think, counter-intuitively, the biggest roadblock to doing something like that might be regulations (e.g. building codes). They define what a "home" should and shouldn't be, but ultimately set the bar very high (and we wind up with the current situation).
Maybe there should be a new set of regulations for "emergency accommodation." Nobody should be literally homeless in 2014 in the Western world, particularly as it would cost less than an iPhone to house them for a year (assuming only a roof and basic electric space heater, nothing else).
Another major problem is that there is a large correlation between being homeless and mental issues. In Canada, you can go on welfare and get housing if you need it, but you have to jump through hoops and interact with government employees to do so. Some people just aren't able or willing to do that. Of course, the climate is rather deadly up here for large portions of the year. There are shelters that the homeless can go to, but there are always those who seem to prefer sneaking into abandoned buildings or sleeping on transit vehicles. Persuading these people to get off the streets takes a lot more resources than people expect, so those resources just aren't there a lot of the time.
Perhaps small, spartan, stand-alone shelters that aren't in large blocks of low income housing and aren't formally assigned would attract those unwilling to seek other forms of shelter.
My comment relates to an idea I heard recently and really liked. Essentially it advocated subsiding mortgages instead of rent for the classes of people who can't do it on their own. That way, they're building equity and have something to call their own.
In addition, we'd need to provide some additional protections from foreclosure, etc. commensurate with their need. Stability is a key factor to being to climb out of the hole.
> commensurate with their need
If satisfying government hoops is a requirement, you turn that into their primary job. And thats a dead end for respectability.
> Stability is a key factor to being to climb out of the hole
For many people, there is no discrete "hole" - their existence in an area is simply not economically viable. I don't state this harshly because I wish to cast them off, but because I wish to illustrate that putting a bandage on their individual situation still leaves the underlying treadmill that we're all on.
(And yes, life itself is a treadmill as well - living isn't free. But tally up the costs of necessities such as food/water/shelter, and compare to the man-made rent to have a place to put that shelter)
Salt Lake City recognized the total cost of a large homeless population was significantly higher than building permanent homes paired with services to accommodate them. Reducing the chronic homeless population increases capacity of emergency services, saves the community money, improves quality of life for both homeless and those living/working in an area with a large homeless population, and creates a setting where support services (health, wellness, education...) can be more efficiently and effectively provided.
The 2013 report goes into detail: http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/documents/homelessness2013.pdf
Some highlights:
Salt Lake City has 779 permanent housing units for supporting chronically homeless. On a random night's count, 87% of the homeless population was sheltered.
Chronic homelessness decreased 9% from 2012-2013, and has decreased 74% since program start in 2005.
2005 - average annual cost for emergency services and jail time for each chronically homeless person was $16,670. The cost to house them and provide case management services was $11,000 per person.
Over half of those housed by the program moved on to permanent destinations. Only 8% returned to homelessness.
Wonderful.
The thing that should matter most is whether or not he spends the majority of the time in it that other people would spend in their homes while not living more time in another home or equivalent.
And by that definition he's living in it right now.
The point is that if you can't get through even a single day somewhere (given some time to prepare and stock up), but you rely on access to some other private property, you don't live (only) there.
It's not a no true scotsman. The 'can I comfortably spend 48 hours there' test is a pretty good one. Once he adds the bathroom it'll qualify, though it'll be a few more square feet.
And yeah some way to bathe is probably necessary. He'll have that on the dumpster house.
Sorry, but in most of the US, indoor plumbing (or something close) is generally considered a requisite for a "home".
Correct. And he doesn't hide that fact at all. He says his experiment is designed to provoke thought and raise awareness, and he even checks it out to curious people for a night at a time. I see no problem with any of it.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_copRHv93JEI/SrlhWCKPSVI/AAAAAAAACf...
Not exactly a kids version but quite livable. And I think this house is meant to make you think, it's a reductionist view on living rather than a complete replacement for all the amenities that we take for granted.
Running water, toilets and insulation are not present in plenty of the houses in the country where I currently reside and I can see a kitchen added in there or in very little extra space.
This guy was living in a dumpster before it was hip:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/brooklyn-dumpst...
Also check out the film "Tiny" about people who build/live in tiny houses.
The most desirable small homes I've seen so far are from dwelle, they seem to strike a good balance between compactness and practicality... http://www.dwelle.co.uk/ If anyone else has some small home projects they were impressed by, please share, I'd like some further inspiration.
On the other hand, I didn't see anything in the article about how this scales to relationships, marriages, and children. Considering how commonplace (and even economical!) various forms of cohabitation are, I wonder if this isn't another spherical cow experiment. Or am I missing the point?
By the way, his talk was much more interesting/enjoyable than I'd anticipated, and you can watch it here: http://creativemornings.com/talks/prof-dumpster/1. The Q&A part was pretty interesting too, but unfortunately it looks like that didn't make it into the recording.
The gotcha is always land. Try to find an affordable plot near enough to community and services. It's going be way more than the cost of the building.
From TFA: "He keeps all of this in cubbies under a recently installed false floor, along with some camping cooking equipment."
That setup is fine for cooking which only requires boiling water. The lack of refrigeration is probably the biggest limitation for food preparation. Fresh meat and veg is feasible but only if you buy in small enough quantities for a single meal or two. I wouldn't try anything fancier than stir fry, stew, or pancakes.
Regarding weather, this is Austin.* It is a pretty rough winter if you go below freezing at all. Add longjohns to his wardrobe and the cold will be manageable.
* http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Texas/Places/austin-te...