In all fairness, there's a big difference between 250 square feet and 800-900 square feet.

I agree that you get into the 250-400 or so square foot range and there are a lot of compromises. I've stayed in well-designed 200 square foot hotel rooms in NYC and, while they were comfortable enough to sleep in, I certainly wouldn't want to live there.

(I know there's a certain cultish appeal to to these small spaces but I also wonder whether, by the time you add up the space you need for bathroom, minimal cooking, some storage, hallways/stairs/elevators in the case of multi-unit dwellings, etc. whether going from compact to tiny really saves all that much.)

They're talking about 800-1200sq², not 250sq². But I've spent some time in a 320sq² rooftop apartment, and it was more than enough for a couple. It's crucial that the layout and furniture are designed/chosen for the purpose, instead of trying to shrink a larger home.

I think you mean ft^2, not sq^2. A square squared is a tesseract, a four-dimensional object that is rather low on the priority list for most homebuilders.

Right :) I'm more used to m².

I don't think of 1200sf+ as being a "tiny home". More like a not-large home.

Assuming this is not just a troll...

1. These are usually meant for one person, not two.

2. Why'd you live there in the first place? Presumably because you couldn't or didn't want to afford anything else.

3. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean someone else won't.

4. This is easily forgotten, but average American dwelling size has been increasing for decades: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/09/13/how-the-ave... or http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283, even in the face of recent de-materialization due to digitization. It ought to be possible for people to be able to choose from a wider array of dwelling sizes, rather than forcing people into larger units than they need or want.

1.The average tiny house is somewhere around 150 -180 sqft, 250 sqft is about double - thus 2 people seemed reasonable.

2. And we were indeed trying to save money, we didn't need to, but we did.

3. Totally agree: The main reason I'm sharing my experience, is that so many people glamorize the "Tiny house" movement, but (having lived it) I can tell you it sucks.

4. I agree with wider range - but personally (along with my wife) we will never go below 500 sqft for two people again. we each need some space, and it doesnt really even save moneh. We ended up not even saving much money because we had to eat out probably 75% of the time, because there was no room to store food and cook properly. Generally, you also just get exhausted. It's tough living in a small place, you have to spend almost all your time outside or you'll go nuts and can't really have friends over.

The tiny home movement mostly compromises new builds that are architected with livability in mind through more efficient and clever uses of space than the average house. Loft bed, various kinds of built-in storage, sliding and pocket doors, multi-function rooms, folding furniture all help to make a much more efficient use of space.

They're still not for everyone, but comparing them to conventional studios isn't fair.

Though tiny houses are a thing, the article is about small houses. 450 sq ft is almost 2x what you're talking about. 850 is more than 3x.

> Having lived in an apartment that is probably could be considered "tiny house size" at 250 square feet with my wife, just why?

Because you are a New Yorker. Even Tiny Housers think living in New York is crazy.

> However, our quality of life dropped dramatically while we lived there (for about a year). I'm so glad I now can actually stretch if I want to, make food, setup a desk for each of us, etc.

All I can say to you is that clever design does exist which makes living in small spaces much less claustrophobic. It is just that in the UK and New York nobody appears to take those lessons to heart.

Things like this:

https://www.stashvault.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/secret...

And the use of unusual roofs like Mansard and Gambrel would transform many small spaces to be livable.

I have seen so many terrible designs in Britain. I think for half of them it is only explicable by a cat walking over the architects keyboard. The older buildings are nearly all fine so it is some modern retardation. Most of them have mold.

This is the product of mental illness:

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/624_351/images/live/p0/25...

Something really went wrong with society in the 70s and this is a visual expression of it.

Time has not been kind to certain architectural styles--either in terms of the aesthetic impression they make on most people or on how the look of the materials has held up. Brutalism is one of those styles.

Very true, with a minor correction. Time has been brutal to certain architectural styles!