21 May
2013
21 May
'13
6:46 a.m.
Re. Romy-
Yes, apts in HK and Tokyo are small, but not so small that you can't
have a double bed and a dinner table (Tokyo apts even have space for
small washing machines & small wall-mounted dryers). And in any case,
Japan has a decent social safety net, something we shredded starting
with Reagan.
If you're interested, I can show you some floorplans I've created for
micro living spaces. The stuff I designed is geared toward the
hacker/maker lifestyle with a strong emphasis on sustainability. I'd
happily live in a tiny space of my own making, but not a developer's
design that can't be hacked or modded and is geared toward the
media-consumption lifestyle.
Agreed, the large houses Americans have had for the past century or so
are ridiculous, not to mention _lawns_. But there's a difference
between a wasteful 4,000 square foot suburban sprawl, and an apartment
that's smaller than a camping trailer.
Something else about those tiny apartments: if your best friend loses
his/her job, s/he can't sleep on your couch when there's no room for a
couch. Sleeping on the floor in the tiny aisle next to your bed gets
old after about the second time s/he gets stepped on when you get out of
bed at night to go to the bathroom.
The Oligarchy likes to have it both ways: Big houses for people who can
afford to buy more stuff. Prison-sized apartments for people who
can't. Increase the class divide: more at the top, less at the bottom.
The profit motive for those prison-sized apartments is that developers
get more per square foot. $750 for 200 square feet translates to $3.75
per square foot. Contrast to $2,000 for 800 square feet, which
translates to $2.50 per square foot.
See how that works? Fifty percent increase in price per square foot.
Clever racket, eh?
Decrease in cars is a factor of available public transport for the hours
and places needed. Someone who works the late shift across the Bay and
comes home after BART stops running, is probably going to end up with a
car, even if they have to play parking space roulette every day. BART
running 24/7 would do more to decrease car commuting in the Bay Area,
than squeezing people into shoe-boxes.
Larger apartments mean you have more choices as to how you live and who
you live with. Smaller apartments mean fewer choices. Again, we're not
talking about multi-thousand-square-foot sprawl, but about having enough
space for someone to choose whether to live alone or with a friend, or
offer their couch to an unemployed friend, or the options available for
single parents with kids who are toddlers or older.
200 square feet also means you can't telecommute or telework, because
there's not enough space for even a small desk for a computer. Using a
tablet while sitting on the edge of the bed gets old real fast too. And
forget about modifying the space in any way: those places are like hotel
rooms, no user modifications or space hacks allowed. What's important
is _choice_. The choice to work and play at home sometimes, and in
communal space sometimes.
How these neo boarding houses are worse than work lofts: for one thing,
you can't work there. And no space for a kitchen table, so forget about
inviting friends over for dinner. No space for anything that involves
having more than one other person over for a brief visit.
I don't know what'up in SOMA, but at this point nothing would surprise
me. Back in the day, a bunch of friends of mine were able to rent a
funky space with rabbit holes for bedrooms, affordably, and with a
common room big enough to play live music. And they could build what
they liked in that space.
Less materialism: more than made up for by increased media consumption,
which is materialism "de-materialized." All that matters to the
Oligarchy is that they harvest money from the proles: they don't care
whether they do it by selling you physical stuff or digital stuff.
Digital stuff is easier & more profitable because it doesn't require
pesky factory workers to produce, and because it's a crime to share
digital media.
Healthier eating: Those prison-sized apartments have enough space for a
dorm-sized fridge and a small microwave. Forget about keeping a decent
supply of fresh food on hand unless you want to go shopping every two
days. Eating at common workspaces such as SR should also be a _choice_,
not something forced by absence of a kitchen.
If you prefer working in a communal space, that's your choice. But it
really ought to be _your_ choice, not forced by way of not even having
room for a desk where you live. Personally I can't concentrate in
high-stimulus environments, but I'm set up for working from home and
that works for me. A close friend & coworker of mine likes to do both,
occasionally working at home and occasionally in a communal space
(TechLiminal). The point is the right to choose, just like with
reproductive rights.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-21-Tue 5:39 AM, Romy Ilano wrote:
Aren't apartments in Hong Kong and Tokyo even
smaller, the size of
closets?
I don't understand the need for large houses americans have. Most
don't even have time to maintain them.
I feel like any "profit driven oligarchy" would be against smaller
apartments:
- larger homes mean you have to buy more. Even large apartments.
- small apartments in the city mean probably no car. You always buy
more when you have a car
Larger apartments mean you have room for a traditional nuclear
family. Single people or people who hang out in communal spaces need
not apply
How does this relate to sudo room?
--/well I and many others could be spending all their time in their
garage or their backyard instead of sharing & hanging around the sudor
(although I feel like sometimes its harder for people to share skilled
information ;) than beer and burritos)
/- these tiny apartments remind me more of the boarding houses of the
turn of the century.
They can definitely be improved but I don't understand how they are
worse than live work lofts .. Those soma live work lofts enable
fabulously wealthy people to move into poor school districts and worm
their way out of supporting school taxes
-- you have to be minimal to be in a Tiny space. Again less materialism
SudoRoom helps me avoid eating out needlessly at cheesy trendy cafes
and I can eat healthier too... Instead of fast food I can fill the
fridge with fruit
-- no work from home... I don't work at home personally. I prefer
communal spaces as long as I don't get exploited or harassed. Sudoroom
has been pretty fine so far .
---
On May 20, 2013, at 15:28, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com
<mailto:sonja.trauss@gmail.com>> wrote:
The obvious evil - doer is the laws that make it
hard to build new
housing in sf.
There are strong home owners associations suppressing supply over
there and keeping rent high.
Does anyone know of an org that tries to counter that, or are
developers the only entities that lobby on the other side?
Gtwog you amaze me with every post - you're just finding out now that
we're none of us free, huh.
On Monday, May 20, 2013, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:
No-Sex Apartments.
(Creative commons, with attribution to "G.")
In cities across the USA, a new "solution" to affordable housing is
being promoted: micro-apartments of less than 200 square feet. New
York's conrol-freak in chief, Mayor Bloomberg, is promoting them (New
Yorkers call them "Bloom Boxes"). A developer in San Francisco is
promoting them. And developers in Seattle WA are building them
by the
hundreds.
The Seattle apartments were recently covered in a CBS News
article, here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57582327/tiny-apartments-are-creating-a…
If you look at the picture, something immediately stands out: a
TWIN BED.
As the article says, "...(the) apartment comes with a small private
bathroom, a microwave and a mini-refrigerator. There's just
enough room
for a twin bed, a neatly hung rack of clothes and shelves." (There's
not even room for a desk, so forget about working from home: it's
back
to the plantation for you, worker-bee.)
And therein lies the catch, or more accurately the "nudge," to
use the
Newspeak word for "manipulation."
A twin bed is sufficient for sleeping, but not sufficient for a
regular
sex life with others, much less a stable relationship.
Sure, you can manage it occasionally, but for the long term it's
right
out. Squeezing two people into a bed meant for one is miserable,
particularly in the hot summer.
This is one form of "birth control" that won't be controversial
with the
Vatican or other right-wing religious denominations. I suppose that
also qualifies as a "feature." (We won't mention the fact that
you can
carry on a satisfactory solo sex life in a twin bed, lest the
twin beds
be replaced with "stand-up beds" consisting of straps on the wall.)
There's no need for the Oligarchy to make an explicit No Sex
rule. They
don't have to, when they can just "nudge" the architecture to enforce
that outcome by "nudging" people who might think to disobey.
Best of all (from the Oligarchy's perspective), there's nothing to
revolt against. A revolt against a type of architecture is like a
revolt against traffic jams or weather: there's no obvious
evil-doer to
hurl ballots and tomatoes at.
The Oligarchy likes micro-apartments because they are more profitable
per square foot of building, compared to apartments that let you
have a
bed big enough for two people, and a fridge big enough to let you
keep
enough food that you don't have to go shopping every day.
The working masses (that would be us) who are being lined up to
live in
these boxes would do well to recognize that they are also about
the same
size as prison cells.
The only difference is that you have the key to your cell, just like
inmates in "honor system prisons" for white collar criminals.
That, and
there isn't a guard staring at you whilst you poop, though I'd be
careful about the tiny apartments that come with internet and TV
service
included (no choice of carriers either), as the "smart sensors"
won't be
far behind.
Smaller houses and apartments are of course part of a viable
approach to
sustainability: primarily through lower energy consumption and
proximity
to public transport. Some years ago, a close friend and I came
up with
various designs for micro-houses, from about 160 square feet, up to
about 400 - 500 square feet. A building with a 500 square foot
"building footprint" was sufficient for a family of four. We were
designing for the sake of sustainability, and for the ability of
individuals and communities to build these houses for themselves
at low
cost.
But as with eating bugs, it's one thing to do it by the choice of
your
own free will, quite another to do it by way of getting mercilessly
milked by the Oligarchy. Especially when the Oligarchs continue
to live
in 12,000 square foot (and larger) mansions with sprawling lawns
on all
sides.
What the world can't afford, is the Oligarchy. Darwin, take note!
-G.
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <javascript:;>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss