# Nano House



## jebatty (Jul 18, 2011)

Tata of India now may have the world's least expensive house, cost is proposed at $700, 216 sq ft. Makes a person ponder why India is set to overtake China and the US in the years ahead, and why members of the Hearth.com forum puzzle over heating multi x 1000 sq ft houses + pools, hot tubs, etc. Saw another article that the average Korean works 1000 more hours per year than the average US worker. Me thinks the good ol' USA golden era could be over unless we get our priorities back in line to provide a genuinely better future based on conservation, efficiency and modesty.


----------



## mayhem (Jul 18, 2011)

We could all live in an insulated woodshed if we wanted to as well.  

I for one could not imagine the pure hell of living in a house thats smaller than my bedroom  15'x14.5'?  

I dohave to say though that the idea of being able to put up a building that size for $700 is pretty appealing.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jul 18, 2011)

That's pretty cool. There's a lot of effort out there re-purposing used cargo containers as living spaces as well.  

As to "what it all means", I dunno that working an extra 1000 hours a year makes anyone's life necessarily better.  Parts of our population are disgusting with their consumer excesses.  Countries with exploding populations that they cannot feed/house may come up with neat solutions out of necessity.

Picky point- let's all agree to stop using "nano", unless it's nano


----------



## begreen (Jul 18, 2011)

Their priorities are quite different. With millions of people in poverty, living in dung covered, mud wattle huts, this is a big improvement. For anyone that has lived on a boat, it's not that bad and really helps one shed a lot of unnecessary stuff. India is establishing a new middle-class very quickly, as is China. Woe be to the planet if they want anything near what we consume now. That said, go Tata. (full disclosure, I own Tata stock.)

Here's a link to some examples of tiny houses in the US. 

http://tinyhouseblog.com/


----------



## btuser (Jul 18, 2011)

I thought the thread was going to be about a house built with nanotubes. You could grow it like one of those DIY crystal sets, and all you'd have to do is backfill the hole and hook up a fiber line.  Solar roof, battery storage in the framing/wall cavities of the house, wall colors could be programmed and it would all be fireproof.

Now how about some fake grass!


----------



## Jags (Jul 18, 2011)

9ft x 8'1" and they have the gall to call it "living"?  Hardly.  My big, fat leather chair stretches out farther than that. :coolsmile: 

I expect to see more of this stuff in the lands of "too many people".  Ya gotta do something with them all.  I don't have anything against them, its just not for me.  I don't need big spaces (heck, I currently have 3 adults and two children in 1750 sqft - not spacious by a long shot), but I do need my living room walls farther than a sneeze away from each other.


----------



## smokinj (Jul 18, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> 9ft x 8'1" and they have the gall to call it "living"? Hardly. My big, fat leather chair stretches out farther than that. :coolsmile:
> 
> I expect to see more of this stuff in the lands of "too many people". Ya gotta do something with them all. I don't have anything against them, its just not for me. I don't need big spaces (heck, I currently have 3 adults and two children in 1750 sqft - not spacious by a long shot), but I do need my living room walls farther than a sneeze away from each other.




Same here. House is 1950 and the garage is more living space than a garage. Nothing fancy at all. If I went smaller it would need to be a better climate than I am in now. Then I could stay outside most of the time.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 18, 2011)

A question that resides in the back of my head and surfaces from time to time, usually when it is most pointed, is this: how do I reconcile my extravagant housing and living lifestyle, as compared to the majority of the world's population, with the way a majority of people must live? Certainly, no one in good faith can hold the position that the world can support its many and growing billions of people at the rate of resources consumed by those living in the US. 

The nano house is an example of this question put into perspective, even though the nano house is "better" than the housing in which millions if not billions of people currently live. In any event I think I could live in the nano house, and in doing so I would need nearly none of the material things that now consume my earnings and time. All of this sometimes makes me think that my life is defined by an exercise wheel, and that the faster the wheel turns based on my effort, the more "life" I will have, until all I do is run faster and faster. The futility of accumulating stuff starts to become obvious.

The nano house, although smaller, does not seem too much out of sync with the average home size post WWII, which was about 800 sq ft. Families then were larger than today. Why is more needed now?


----------



## smokinj (Jul 18, 2011)

jebatty said:
			
		

> A question that resides in the back of my head and surfaces from time to time, usually when it is most pointed, is this: how do I reconcile my extravagant housing and living lifestyle, as compared to the majority of the world's population, with the way a majority of people must live? Certainly, no one in good faith can hold the position that the world can support its many and growing billions of people at the rate of resources consumed by those living in the US.
> 
> The nano house is an example of this question put into perspective, even though the nano house is "better" than the housing in which millions if not billions of people currently live. In any event I think I could live in the nano house, and in doing so I would need nearly none of the material things that now consume my earnings and time. All of this sometimes makes me think that my life is defined by an exercise wheel, and that the faster the wheel turns based on my effort, the more "life" I will have, until all I do is run faster and faster. The futility of accumulating stuff starts to become obvious.
> 
> The nano house, although smaller, does not seem too much out of sync with the average home size post WWII, which was about 800 sq ft. Families then were larger than today. Why is more needed now?




I have live in 950sq ft with 4 people a cat and home office......My house payment is the same on fewer years and the utility's are less. So anything can be done! I choice to think and work smarter rather than live like that.


----------



## Jags (Jul 18, 2011)

jebatty said:
			
		

> The futility of accumulating stuff starts to become obvious.



This is debatable.  I have a lot of stuff.  I do mean, a lot.  BUT - nothing gets free rent.  I use it all, mostly because that is my lifestyle and/or fun, etc.  Do I NEED a 1942, 10,000 watt generator.  No, but I re-engineered it to a useful purpose in todays world.  Why did I do this - because I enjoy doing stuff like that.  That is the reason I have much of the "stuff" that I have.  You may not enjoy that type of activity and therefore don't need a welder a torch a cutoff saw, tons of scrap steel, a full shop, cherry pickers, etc.  Thats fine, but don't define "stuff" as a futile accumulation.  Thats a very broad brush.

Could I forget all that "stuff" and sit on a lawn chair in my front yard.  Sure.  Or maybe go for a nature walk to spend away a couple of hours, sure (and I do), but that is not the way I am going to live out my existence.  I'm not a very good sit-er-downer.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jul 18, 2011)

Sounds like Jags has some neat stuff- I can't wait to see it on that "Hoarders" show.


----------



## Jags (Jul 18, 2011)

Adios Pantalones said:
			
		

> Sounds like Jags has some neat stuff- I can't wait to see it on that "Hoarders" show.



Nope - it ain't like that.  I have to be able to walk to each thing easily.  Anything that has a motor and moves has its own parking spot.  That is one reason that I have sooo much building capacity.  I don't like piles.  I even have racks for my steel supply (I built them of course   )  Lets just not talk about the work benches though, OK?


----------



## smokinj (Jul 18, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> Adios Pantalones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You should have on problem with a 500sqft home.. :cheese:


----------



## lukem (Jul 18, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> jebatty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I personally hate STUFF.  STUFF is a broad term and means different things to different people.  For a lot of people I know, they think I have STUFF in the form of a couple chainsaws, log splitter, trailer, ZTR mower, lots of OPE, wood working tools, etc.

For others, I see them as having STUFF in the form of iPads, Blue-Ray players, DVRs, SUVs (that never see 4wd), great big houses for a family of 3, fancy clothes, and 700 facebook friends.

To each their own.  Whatever makes you happy.  I have no problem with their stuff, and don't care if they have a problem with mine.

What has gotten a lot of people in trouble is extending beyond their means to get said stuff.  Usually that will bring itself in line over time.

I choose to live simply, do what I can do myself, myself.  Could I have all that other STUFF...sure...I have the means...but there's no appeal for me.  Maybe we just need (as a country) to redefine what is appealing.  I have no idea how to do that though...without some pretty nasty social side-effects.


----------



## Jags (Jul 18, 2011)

smokinjay said:
			
		

> You should have on problem with a 500sqft home.. :cheese:



The funny thing is - that is about the size of my cabin on the river, so I know exactly what it takes (or would take) to live in an area like that.  It is VERY possible, but you have to have a minimalist life style.  It works for the river because it is basically mono purposed.  That is fine and dandy for a river cabin, but at home I am everything BUT a minimalist.  I like to do it ALL. :lol:


----------



## smokinj (Jul 18, 2011)

:cheese: 





			
				Jags said:
			
		

> smokinjay said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




lol, My chix coop will be in the 500sqft range!    :cheese:


----------



## Jags (Jul 18, 2011)

smokinjay said:
			
		

> lol, My chix coop will be in the 500sqft range!    :cheese:



Oh - and just look at those chickens, livin' large in the egg mcmansion.


----------



## lukem (Jul 18, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> smokinjay said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Above 200 sq ft it no longer meets the international poultry farmers' designation for a coop.  It becomes a chicken ranch.  I made all of that up.


----------



## smokinj (Jul 18, 2011)

lukem said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL, dont know how big I will go, may have enogh tulip poplar to even do for couple hogs to...


----------



## jebatty (Jul 18, 2011)

> Why did I do this - because I enjoy doing stuff like that.  That is the reason I have much of the â€œstuffâ€ that I have.  You may not enjoy that type of activity and therefore donâ€™t need a welder a torch a cutoff saw, tons of scrap steel, a full shop, cherry pickers, etc.  Thats fine, but donâ€™t define â€œstuffâ€ as a futile accumulation.  Thats a very broad brush.



I really do get this. I have a welder, 18" band saw, 20" planer, etc etc., tractor, sawmill, chainsaws, etc etc., and I really do enjoy that stuff. And I use it, often. But part of my point is that with all that stuff, I then needed two whole buildings in which to store and use it, and I needed the land on which to put the buildings, and a heating system, and insurance, and concern about possible break-in some day and the stuff is gone, and ..... it took lots of money for all of this.

What would I do if I didn't have and use that stuff? What would I spend the money on? Maybe more reading, or volunteering at the animal shelter or food bank, or maybe taking a trip to some interesting places, learn about other cultures, learn a foreign language, mentor some kids at school, coach a sport, spend some time up in the Boundary Waters, and other "stuff" I don't have or choose to make time for. Maybe donations for scholarships, families that are down and out, a benefit for the disease-stricken, lost job, parent. That's kind of my point. Am I using my wealth (little in the whole scheme of things but could make a world of difference in the lives of some others) in ways that leave the world a better place? or that just satisfies me?

Just musing. Partly because it so hot and humid right now I can't use any of my stuff. lol.


----------



## Jags (Jul 18, 2011)

jebatty said:
			
		

> Just musing. Partly because it so hot and humid right now I can't use any of my stuff. lol.



I understand the stance.  I do and have done many of the things on your list, also.  But, truth be told, after working with my brains all day long (I know, hard to believe), I really like to get my hands dirty in the evenings.  I build "stuff".  Done it my whole life, since I was old enough to ride my bike the one mile from my little town to the farm (which I now own).  Gotta have "stuff" if your gonna play with the "stuff" I play with. :coolsmile: That and fishing is my therapy and keeps me balanced.


----------



## allhandsworking (Jul 19, 2011)

I owned an apartment in Manhattan that was smaller I sold it for 350k when the market was bad!  The monthly maintenance  charge was 700$


----------



## jimbom (Jul 19, 2011)

On the original topic.  Square footage is not the proper measure in my opinion.  Plenty of little band box houses use more resources than my place.  Not because I spent a lot of money or have high falootin features in my house.  The most simple constructs, available to all are used.

Insulated double stud wall construction.  High clearance trusses so attic insulation can be deep.  Simple discipline to seal every penetration in the building envelope.  More windows on the south than the north.  Solar shading to accommodate seasons.  Really cheap but effective practices that are ignored by the majority of people.

I was working in construction during the oil shock of the seventies.  We saw the same knee jerk reaction as we have today.  Alternative energy with government subsidies in the seventies.  Same today.  Didn't pay then.  Doesn't pay now.  But, if you can get your fellow citizen's resources, why not cash in?


----------



## begreen (Jul 19, 2011)

Right on. My BIL built his house exactly this way in 1980. He has laughed at heating bills since. Uses 2 cords of wood a year for heat and probably still has 1999 oil in the tank.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 19, 2011)

> But, if you can get your fellow citizenâ€™s resources, why not cash in?



This is a core ethical consideration. If so, to what extent? To the point of starvation and death or just short of that so that the neighbor lives in constant hunger? Does it apply to all resources of the earth so that, at least as to some, there may be no more for children, grandchildren, yours or those of others? Does it apply to other types of life on earth to the point of extinction? Why not kill all the tigers, or the rare turtle, or fish the seas barren? And of equal importance, if your neighbor holds the same value, doesn't this end in a fight to the death with the smarter or stronger one getting everything and the other dying or being killed? But if you and your neighbor shared, you both would be OK?

And then, who is the neighbor? Your spouse, children, near relatives? The friend at work that you hunt with (an ideal time for an ambush)? The family whose bread winner became disabled due to a work injury and now can't provide for the family? And of course, more remote "neighbors" or perhaps less worthy neighbors?

Although by no means am I a really good example of this value, I do hold a value of conservation and modesty in use of resources of all kinds, if for no other reason than having found that my greatest joy comes from strong inter-personal relationships, and these rarely bear much relationship to resources or stuff. In fact, the desire for and obtaining of resources and stuff often impair or prevent these relationships.


----------



## mecreature (Jul 19, 2011)

smokinjay said:
			
		

> lukem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All the bacon and egg sandwiches you can eat.. sounds good to me....

My boss would let me work 1,000 hours more each year. But how would I do that and get my vacation time in?

I would like to see the outside of that house. Maybe I could raise the roof and put a loft in, maybe a nice deck.


----------



## btuser (Jul 19, 2011)

My wife and I lived in a chicken shack for a year.  It was awesome. Completely quiet and 50' from a spring-fed lake with my own beach.  It had a gas furnace in the center with no ducting, and if you shut the heat off when you left it would freeze the dishes in the sink in a matter of hours.  One bedroom, one bath, and a kitchen/living room.  Dining table was on the porch.   The guy who rented it was questioning whether to tear it down or not when I scored it.  It was $200/month with cable, phone and two 20 amp breakers included.   You had to share the phone line  with next door.  I'm guessing it was under 300 sqft.

We should have never left the chicken shack.


----------



## smokinj (Jul 19, 2011)

btuser said:
			
		

> My wife and I lived in a chicken shack for a year.  It was awesome. Completely quiet and 50' from a spring-fed lake with my own beach.  It had a gas furnace in the center with no ducting, and if you shut the heat off when you left it would freeze the dishes in the sink in a matter of hours.  One bedroom, one bath, and a kitchen/living room.  Dining table was on the porch.   The guy who rented it was questioning whether to tear it down or not when I scored it.  It was $200/month with cable, phone and two 20 amp breakers included.   You had to share the phone line  with next door.  I'm guessing it was under 300 sqft.
> 
> We should have never left the chicken shack.



lol, I remember one in the very small town of Windsor Indiana. (My home town)


----------



## btuser (Jul 19, 2011)

I kinda sorta don't regret leaving it but I've got to say if that where I end up I would be more than happy.


----------

