It's interesting that most reactions here are either a)"this is nothing compared to country x" or b)this is an example of extremely negative hardship.<p>I thought the direct lessons he laid out were excellent, about being ruthlessly honest on what you truly need to be happy, and the freedom that you get from the resulting wealth when combining that with a SF tech salary.<p>It is a reasoning from first principles on living conditions that not enough people do imo. I think we tend to subconsciously accept the default of more space/stuff=better without making a direct choice on what is the specific right amount for ourselves. Coming to a definition of what "enough" is for ourselves keeps the goalposts from moving as income rises.<p>Also the point about gaining empathy for the poor based on experiencing a lower margin for error and high cost when things went wrong in this lifestyle was another good observation.
For anyone wondering how this is possible: by violating fire code. He says he, then he and his wife, then one or both of their children were sleeping in the closet. I'm not familiar with the language of the California Building Code, but in the 2014 verison, volume 1, chapter 10 gets into the limits. The closet is not a "sleeping unit": it doesn't meet the 120 sqft minimum, doesn't have a wide enough door, and doesn't have two methods of egress. There's probably more I didn't find.<p>I know this seems like tedious legal nitpicking and the main apartment room is <i>right there</i> and "everybody does it", but nearly every line of fire and building code exists because of a preventable tragedy. Even if it's not against the lease it's unsafe. (And he built a barely-braced lofted bed in an earthquake zone!?)<p>The author happily compounded the rent they saved every month but failed to compound the increased risks they took every night.
The more I read such articles, the more I think you'd have to be nuts to choose to live in San Francisco.<p>And yet, clearly, plenty of people do choose to live in San Francisco.
There are Orthodox Jewish families in Israel which have very few rooms for very large families. (Among the ultra-Orthodox in Israel the fertility rate is 10 children per family). Often these families have very little income which includes state support for their large families, and esp in large cities such as Jerusalem can little afford larger accommodations.<p>In SF, NYC (where I live) and other US localities, the issue is not family income but rather is the use of politics to limit zoning density and thus artificially creating housing scarcity.<p>Thus, renters pay more than they otherwise would with an efficient market and billionaire land-owners have much greater wealth than they would in an efficient market.<p>In NYC, we had a somewhat similar situation with Taxis. Medallions were artificially limited to 13,000 in this city of 8 million where many people do not own cars and use mass transit and taxis. As a result of this 13,000 limit, taxi medallions had a market value of $1.2 million.<p>Then thankfully, Uber came along, thus creating a larger supply of hail-able taxis and the taxis medallions now have a market value of $700,000 or so and some taxis are no longer in use.<p>In NYC, our current mayor has two properties that he rents out for a total of $120,000 per year. He is able to get this high rent because of city laws that limit zoning density. Thus, he has every incentive to want to artificially limit zoning densities.<p>Thus, while many liberals fret over income-inequality, they still support zoning regulations in cities such as SF and NYC that amount to a transfer of wealth from lower income individuals to wealthy individuals.
Growing up in communist Russia, 400sq. feet apartment would be the luxury option for 2 or 3 families with multiple children each. No joke, my parents lived with their siblings and parents (and sometimes grandparents) in the same apartment even after everyone had children of their own. Somehow we still managed to occasionally have 20 more people over for birthday celebrations and cook all the accompanying excessive amounts of food :)
The question is why do we have the most talented people in a certain industry having to live in confined spaces while paying through the roof for it.<p>Not even Hollywood is like that. People may stay in trailers for some time but that's it<p>As personally having to live in a tiny place (not in SF though) it is not something I want to do for an extended period of time, even though the advantages like 'city living' are good
I really like the insight about density. I temporarily changed my living situation from a 4 bedroom house where my kids had moved out, to a 2 br apartment and I recognized the density issue but had not conceptualized it so clearly as the author did.
I lived in a small bus in New Mexico for a while and got addicted to this site, <a href="http://tinyhousetalk.com" rel="nofollow">http://tinyhousetalk.com</a>. You don't have to be a gypsy to admire the space efficiency and DIY furniture. Most of what I've put together (sofa, bookshelf, etc.) feels incredibly stronger than anything I could get for 4-6x the price. But that's just how things are, some trade off of price for quality for time. Anyway, I admire his/his wife's attitude and ability to look at the situation optimistically and make it work.
This is off topic, but in March 2016, I'll become a dad for the first time and I was wondering if some more experienced parents could answer a question for me.<p>That article has a black board with a tally of diapers changed today. The count was up to thirty. Is that somewhat accurate/possible???<p>If so, holy shit, I'm investing in cloth....
This was much, much more thoughtful than I expected. Some of the thought processes resonated with me. I spent a long time getting rid of everything I owned and, yet, after doing this for three years, I didn't have the change in mindset I really needed until I kind of marathon watched "Mission: Organization" on HGTV. I was still stuck in the American mindset of accumulation. I had long wanted to live more spartanly and I was deadest on <i>buying</i> my way there -- cuz, yeah, <i>that</i> makes so much sense.<p>Anyway, it's a really good read and not at all what I was expecting. I am sort of disappointed that so many of the comments here are about "Boo -- small space living!" or "Ugh! San Francisco!" or "It's even worse in many other countries!" because the piece really was not written that way. It wasn't written as "Ugh! Pity me! Boo hoo!" It is very thoughtful and a really good read.<p>I just wish the article had a native tweet button. I couldn't find one.
This isn't so bad. The Netherlands is the most dense population of any country outside Taiwan and families dwelling in small spaces continues to this day. There is a 12-member family spanning 3 generations all living in the same small house next door to me. Our tiny 60 square meter home is considered normal for our area. By American standards, SF seems like tight living, perhaps. But by world standards, space is not the priority that you find elsewhere in the States.
In another city a place this cheap would be less than $400 / month. Meaning someone could choose this lifestyle simply in a different city working for minimum wage and meet the requirements for housing costs of less than 1/3 income.
:) 400 sqf with two kids might be a drama for people in the US but it is completely normal in other places of the world, even including the EU. It's not comfortable, but 600-700 sqf is completely usual for families in where I live (an apartment like that costs around 15-20 times the average yearly salary).<p>EDIT: typo, I meant sqf and not sqm.
I'm about to move going from 1100sft to about 800, and bemoaning that change... it's hard for me to imagine 400... I lived for almost two years in under 500sqft, and don't think I could ever do it again... as soon as I was able, I moved into the biggest apartment I could find close to where I wanted to live.<p>I'm only making the change I am now because it's actually closer to the job I started a couple months ago, and I'm hoping in the next 18 months to have my credit clear (still paying off medical bills from 5-6 years ago), my car is paid off in 14 months, and want to have enough for a down payment for a house.<p>It's hard for me to imagine living in SF, where rent is significantly more than I pay now, and the pay doesn't quite correlate.
This is one reason I think we should do a type of zoning in-between urban and suburban. Even if you divide a normal residential suburban lot into 9 pieces, if you do two stories, then every little lot could contain 578 square feet, which is 178 square feet more than their 400 square feet apartment.<p><a href="http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage/" rel="nofollow">http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage/</a>
The author describes a strategy: maximize the density of storage space and minimize the density of living space.<p>I had discovered that excellent wisdom independently when setting up my various college dorm rooms.<p>He later says that he is "forever changed" by the experience. I hope so. Myself, I had forgotten, and I thank him for the reminder.
As someone who got into cycling a few years ago Rule V (Harden the Fuck Up) has permeated the rest of my life.<p>If you can do 50 miles when the hail is coming in sideways and it's dark and your on a hill in the middle of nowhere then everything else seems easier.
I had a colleague in nyc, who moved with his homemaker wife and 2 children, from Utah where they owned their own home, to nyc to live in a studio. I thought it was a very brave choice.
If neither of them worked, they could get a three bedroom apartment at Taxpayer expense!<p><a href="http://www.section8facts.com/2014/10/23/section-8-guidelines-for-unit-size-how-many-bedrooms-updated/" rel="nofollow">http://www.section8facts.com/2014/10/23/section-8-guidelines...</a>
That is stupid. If your salary won't cover decent living then why bother? It is people like yourself who drive rates low and then post how difficult is to live on them...