Apartments So Small They Can Only Be Photographed From Above

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/02/apartments-so-small-they-can-only-be-photographed-above/4780/

by vellum • 13 years ago

320 205 13 years ago

I live in apartment. Not a micro-one. But I imagine you can find solace in just having only the things you need. Why do you need a ranch size home and 20 acres?

pragone• 13 years ago

For me, first, because it's cheaper, and two, because I won't be near people. I certainly enjoy the convenience of living in a city and being in an apartment, but I strongly dislike having so many people near me. I look forward to buying 5 or 10 acres and building a nice 2000sqft home where I can enjoy the outdoors and the lack of people.

vecinu3• 13 years ago

This comes down to having freedom and experiencing life on 'a ranch and 20 acres'. If you've never experienced life in such a way, it is almost impossible to understand why people live this way.

I for one love having my own washroom and bedroom where I can rest, relax and find silence.

Do you think a family of 4 would find comfort in an apartment?

I'm fairly sure if money were no object and transportation was near instant, myself and most people I know would choose the ranch and 20 acres.

cmarschner• 13 years ago

I've grown up in a spacious house and am living now on about 800 sq ft with my wife and a baby. That's more than those people in Hong Kong but, given where I am coming from, it is constraint. My wife is coming from a former communist country. There, 60 sq m were regarded enough for a family, and she feels perfectly comfortable in our space. She wouldn't want more. And in fact it does have some merits: I can clean the apartment in an hour. I am forced to throw things out that I don't really need, which makes my life simpler. And since it allows us to live right in the city I don't really need a car. We can do all grocery shopping by foot, and we have all amenities nearby. That's something you'd miss out on a ranch.

thisone2• 13 years ago

Of course a family of 4 can be comfortable in an apartment.

Three bedrooms, living area, kitchen, full bathroom with possibly a half bath if it's a larger place.

Why couldn't a family of 4 be comfortable?

waps3• 13 years ago

  I'm fairly sure if money were no object and transportation was near instant,

It's 2013 ... why can't we have that ? Surely the technology for this exists. I've always had this dream of "turbolifts" from startrek, the ground-based version. They're basically single-wagon trains that can go horizontally and vertically so they function as elevators. So you get in at the end of the hallway (or even the front door of your room) and you step out at work, or in a public station, or ... The big difference is, of course, that it works like a car. You get in whereever and you get out at home, or vice versa. No trains, no swapping cars, no ... Make it cheap by mass producing small cars.

Why can't we build something like that ?

Heh, I've even programmed algorithms for routing these things. There are lots of problems of course, the cars need to be extremely reliable, or you need an extremely flexible mechanical design so you can pick broken ones up from rails. But a comfortable, large, elevator takes up much less space than a car, but of course needs much more infrastructure ... Oh well, dreams ...

notimetorelax3• 13 years ago

Do you have children? Or a dog? It is usually a good idea to have one extra room per each member of the family. This way if you want to be alone for a while you can. Or if you want to listen to the music that others don't appreciate you can (headphones can be tiresome to wear).

greggman3• 13 years ago

plenty of cultures don't generally have room to be alone at home. Not saying I don't like the idea. Just pointing out that depending on where someone grows up the idea that they might have alone time at home might seem strange.

icebraining2• 13 years ago

Sharing a room with a brother is not that bad. You just learn to share the spaces. If I wanted to be alone, I usually took a walk.

JackFr• 13 years ago

Baseless. Start it with "I like..." and then it's true.

webwielder• 13 years ago

As humans, we tend to aspire to more than absolute necessity. Go too far and it turns into indulgence. Personally, I'd like to continue living in a place that allows for movement beyond 180 degrees of rotation.

derleth3• 13 years ago

> But I imagine you can find solace in just having only the things you need.

No. You, maybe, but not me, and certainly not everyone.

And that's not even fully addressing the unstated assumption that everything you 'need' would even fit in an apartment, let alone a micro apartment.

Getting rid of things isn't always a good thing to do. Having the ability to be fully packed and ready to move in an hour is a tactic, not a life philosophy.

rohamg• 13 years ago

Simple living and minimizing material possessions is absolutely a philosophy, and an increasingly popular one at that. Im not sure how you argue otherwise.

HeyLaughingBoy3• 13 years ago

Oh, it can certainly be a life philosophy, but like everything, people change.

It really seems to be age related. When you're younger, you tend to have nothing, so embracing minimalism seems like a good way to go. As we get older and achieve some level of success, a better quality of life tends to follow, and with it more material possessions.

Later, perhaps when we become aware of the number, and perhaps the burden (maintenance, storage space, etc) of all those things, minimalism again starts to look good.

Right now I'm waiting for the kids to grow up and leave so I can talk the wife into us living on a boat :-)

rokhayakebe2• 13 years ago

It certainly can be a philosophy. For the past 6 months I've lived in a tiny place away from my apartment, where (the apartment) I only spent 6 nights in during the same time. I am being convinced increasingly I do not need, or even WANT, the extra space. Were I to find a companion who shared this view, I think I could live this way for several years, if not for the remainder of my natural life.

OGinparadise2• 13 years ago

"Why do you need a ranch size home and 20 acres?"

Why do you need to eat three square meals a day?

Why do you need a $1000+ PC?

Why do you need $50+ jeans?

Why do you need....

tripzilch• 13 years ago

I really hope that your point here was to underline that indeed, you don't.

lilsunnybee10• 13 years ago

being able to afford to eat 3 meals a day is much different than owning a $1000 PC, or $50 jeans. what is your point exactly?

matthewrudy3• 13 years ago

I've lived in Hong Kong for 3 years, normally in a room about 150sqft. And the biggest consequences of living this way are;

– no kitchen, I have to eat out every day, which makes me fat

- no sofa or decent desk – I have to lie on my bed all the time, bad for my back

– no space for guests – can only hang out in restaurants and bars, which makes relationships a bit more distant

All this has an effect on society and culture over here, and it's pretty bad.

InclinedPlane• 13 years ago

What does need have to do with it? If people want to live in a "cozy" apartment in the heart of a bustling city or if they want to live on a ranch home with 20 acres, and can afford to do so, why shouldn't they?

Too• 13 years ago

Try to store one, or maybe even two expensive and dirty mountain bikes in an apartment. Especially with a crazy girlfriend around.

paganel• 13 years ago

I live in a studio apartment in an Eastern-European capital city and you're right, there's no room for a bike in here. Well, tough luck for me, it means I'll only bike whenever I care enough about it to rent one.

thisone2• 13 years ago

clean the bikes, get a wall rack, and dump the girlfriend (which might get you down to one bike)

seanp2k22• 13 years ago

You better NOT be putting your expensive bikes away dirty, sir!

fnordfnordfnord6• 13 years ago

I lived in China for a bit. I only had bikes while I was there. I hated hauling the damn things up the stairs.

HeyLaughingBoy3• 13 years ago

Well, I live in a "ranch size" home on 10 acres. Why?

Actually I'd rather have 20 acres, or 100, but within the constraints we set, this is what we could (barely) afford. I like my own space and I consider it one of the things I "need." In fact, it's way up there in terms of priority. Your "needs" may be different. I've lived in large, medium, and small cities and I simply prefer to live in a low-density area.

Now, about the house itself, it's too big: I'd prefer something about 1/3 the size. Unfortunately, it's impossible to find a small house on a large acreage unless you want to commute over an hour to work and no bank will lend the money to build one.

lilsunnybee10• 13 years ago

Who is wealthy enough to live on a 20 acre ranch anyways? This is not a real issue.

dagw2• 13 years ago

If I don't care about the location of said ranch, I just found several options that I could buy for basically the same price as my current 650 sq ft. apartment.

lilsunnybee10• 13 years ago

Most of the world has only the things they need, if they even have that. It isn't a choice. And there isn't as much solace in being unsure whether you can eat tomorrow or not as you might think.

mediumdeviation• 13 years ago

The source of these images, http://www.soco.org.hk/cagehome/, is an intriguing (if somewhat poorly executed) advocacy-cum-exhibition site.

For those who don't want to click through, the site first present you with a fake Firefox popup, with the only a close button. Each time you close one of them, new ones will appear in greater numbers. Do this three times, and your screen will be filled with popup and a message that translate roughly to:

> Ignoring the housing problem will only make it worse, help us change the status quo!

> Our city may be beautiful on the surface, but underneath all that 10 000 hardworking low income workers are unable to share the fruit of our success. Families are forced to live in apartments with an average area of 40 square feet. They need your help to improve their lives; forward this email, help promote social justice!

redact2072• 13 years ago

It gets worse. The photos are not the bottom of the barrel when it comes to Hong Kong real estate. Those who are in the worst poverty are the ones who live in cages. It's literally a bunk bed with sides enclosed with cage wiring. They have no walls, minimal possessions and live day to day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU4jjdRzy3w

Hong Kong is an intriguing city that I highly recommend to go spend some time in.

nineteenturtles• 13 years ago

Makes problems like my code not compiling seem rather small.

rhplus• 13 years ago

The 'cage' appears to be so that resident can lock their belongings inside when they aren't there (you can see padlocks hanging on the doors of some).

I can't really offer much of a useful statement on the realities of being chronically homeless (which is what these men essentially are) in a big city or on the root causes of the situation in Hong Kong, both social and economic. But I can say that the immediate needs of shelter, which come with a lack of space, privacy and security, are very likely to exist very close to home for anyone living in a big city. Here are some examples of sleeping arrangements for homeless in Atlanta, Chicago, Seattle and Los Angeles (some are emergency shelters, some are permanent):

http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/01/16/Homel...

http://triblocal.com/glen-ellyn/files/cache/2011/08/OTE-sea-...

http://commongroundwa.org/people/images/portlet-images/Portl...

http://test.housing1000sv.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/she...

hmsimha• 13 years ago

That was the second thought that occurred to me as well (the first was to be absolutely horrified). The reporter said the rent for one of those cages is 12 (AUD I believe) per month. Likewise, that only left each cage dweller with 13 AUD per day from their welfare check for other expenses (which the narrator said was not enough to afford 3 meals every day after other expenses). So if the cost of living in a cage for a month is roughly the cost of 3 meals (though that must be calculated at the cost of eating out, because even in the US you can eat quite well on $13 a day if you are frugal and know how to cook and budget) then they are spending less than many U.S. homeless shelters charge (it's not uncommon for homeless shelters to charge anywhere from $5-12 per night here). It's by no means a comfortable lifestyle, but it's better than being homeless and I believe many Americans receiving welfare and/or disability actually have far less buying power with what they receive, considering it's usually not nearly enough to meet rent, utilities, and food and transportation costs).

wilfra14• 13 years ago

Good video. I disagree that the government should do anything about it though. What's the alternative, make them homeless? If there is both supply and demand, let people do what they want. If San Francisco allowed this, there would be far fewer homeless people, but the only options they give them are $2,000 a month apartments or living in the streets. So lots of people live in the streets.

wyuenho7• 13 years ago

The problem is there is no supply and lots of demand. I'm too lazy to google for this, but the latest figure is something like demand is 2-3x greater than land supply. The government absolutely have to do something about this or this city will implode.

bjourne2• 13 years ago

No, the alternative is to have the government build subsidized housing and then enact strict price controls so that even poor families can afford to live reasonably. That's how it was done in Singapore for example and is why they can live in "spacious" 30-70 m^2 apartments despite having a higher population density than Hong Kong. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore.

tehwalrus2• 13 years ago

to rebut this sticking to your libertarian premise (which I don't agree with, but you might actually listen then!):

Government intervention caused this. The government strictly controls which land can be built on, and restricts supply so much that this is what is left. If government stopped restricting which land developers could buy, build on, and sell as housing (which is a bad idea for another reasons, but not libertarian ones) then this problem would go away.

79522• 13 years ago

If San Francisco allowed the sale of contaminated food there would be demand for it from people who have no choice. This is really a consumer rights issue. The landlords should provide a basic standard of safety for such high rents. The scope for exploitation is huge and the government should protect people from that. The size issue is less important.

antihero• 13 years ago

Or, take money from people who are minted and have lots of money and use said money to make these poor people's lives less awful.

Wealth distribution on this planet is fucking terrible.

lazyjones• 13 years ago

> I disagree that the government should do anything about it though. What's the alternative, make them homeless? If there is both supply and demand, let people do what they want

Does letting people do what they want include building without permits (esp. on allotments not designated for housing)? It doesn't work this way, governments already exercise strong control over the housing market due to laws and regulations.

I don't live in HK, but where I live, the large property funds (whose demand has nothing to do with housing) have a dramatic effect on prices - they cause an artificial shortage by purchasing everything on the market, thereby increasing the value of their own portfolio (and their rents). So just "letting people do what they want" isn't going to help the housing situation, it just increases the GDP. The government should use the increased taxes (if any - too many loopholes) to compensate the negative effects.

michaelochurch4• 13 years ago

Those remind me of the Caribbean slave huts (about 4-5 m^3 for two people). I think the cages are worse. I know people who camp in the huts (still standing) but I can't imagine anyone (with other options) voluntarily spending a night in one of those.

sigil• 13 years ago

See also "100x100," a collection of 10 ft by 10 ft Hong Kong apartments photographed by Michael Wolf. The use of space in some of these is just amazing.

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.404783143152.173014...

rokhayakebe2• 13 years ago

When I look at these pictures, it makes me think the problem is being single.

loser777• 13 years ago

Really surprising to see such photos after watching some ancient footage (early 1990s) of the Kowloon Walled City recently. I'd thought that there were no more tiny living spaces.

wallflower• 13 years ago

See also the now demolished Kowloon Walled City

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

robryan2• 13 years ago

What kind of mobility do these people have? Could they choose to move to somewhere in rural China and get something of decent size?

wyuenho7• 13 years ago

Very little.

Most people actually would rather stay in HK to take advantage of the better education and healthcare system for their children than moving to China for a __slightly__ more affordable place. HK is also a much safer city to live in. The food is generally safe and the police is fair and professional.

Commuting between HK and China is also a big problem. Most jobs in HK are in the urban areas in HK, commuting from Shenzhen or elsewhere to those areas daily can take a huge chunk of money out of their wages, let alone the 3-4 hours they have to spend commuting.

matthewrudy3• 13 years ago

Having commuted from Shenzhen for a few months, it seems a lot of people do actually do this.

Mostly younger people though.

The night buses from wanchai are full of HKers heading home to SZ.

wilfra14• 13 years ago

You're saying housing prices on the mainland are only slightly more affordable than in HK? That's absurdly inaccurate. Housing is cheap on the mainland outside of prime areas of big cities. The job market is another story, the earning power in Hong Kong is much better - along with the other things you mentioned.

Many of these people are trying to make a better life for themselves and especially their children. To get there, they are dealing with horrible living conditions. I salute them for that. My grandfather did something similar coming to America from Italy and his whole family is eternally grateful. Future generations of HKers are going to feel the same way.

JeremyMorgan• 13 years ago

Call me crazy, but I've always thought if I were a single guy with no family, I could live in something like this. I follow a couple of pages on Facebook about minimal living and think that it wouldn't be all that bad to have a one room place that has all the facilities needed.

It sucks that so many are left with no choice in the matter though.

daeken• 13 years ago

I thought the exact same. Then I lived in NYC for a year and a half in something like 180sqft. Never, ever again.

Even things like having two other people in the place was uncomfortable. There was space for a full bed and a small desk and nothing more. There was no usable kitchen. It seems like something that can be dealt with, but doing it really, really sucks.

cantbecool• 13 years ago

I mean isn't that twice the size of a dorm room? It could not have been that bad.

nostromo• 13 years ago

There's a whole community around the idea of tiny houses. For example, check out this 89 sq foot home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbRvsWuWNUM

Obviously it's different to choose this lifestyle vs being forced into it due to poverty.

ctdonath4• 13 years ago

http://tinyhouseblog.com/

michaelochurch4• 13 years ago

He's got quality but not quantity, by conscious choice.

That said, there are a couple problems with a tiny living arrangement (as I can explain, having lived in New York for 7 years). First, very small spaces are harder to keep clean. While a 1000 SF house is easier to clean than 2000 SF, 1000 is probably easier than 500 SF (with a family of 4). Second, most people are social creatures and like the idea of being able to host larger parties (15-20 people, comfortably) in their house. If you prefer the outdoors over an active social life (like him, and to a lesser extent, like me) then this is a worthy sacrifice, but most people would dislike what a 100 SF house does to their social life. (New York is a strange exception; almost no one hosts in NYC.)

lignuist2• 13 years ago

Mongolia's capital Ulaan Baatar is also called the coldest capital in the world. Harsh temperatures during the winters force the poorest people to live in the canalization, where are heating pipes:

http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/mongolian-homeless-l...

I think, it cannot get worse than that.

kiiski• 13 years ago

Sure it can. Just make the heating pipes inaccessible.

lignuist2• 13 years ago

This would "solve" the problem within one winter...

irmbrady• 13 years ago

As someone who is moving from the UK to HK in 3 months, with no job or visa secured, and attempting to bootstrap my (first) startup; this scares the crap out of me!

steholmes• 13 years ago

Are you moving to HK for a specific reason? As it's one of the world's most expensive places and although things are slowly improving it's not a particularly great place for startups.

seanmcdirmid• 13 years ago

Ya, HK is pretty much dominated by financial; no one goes there to work in tech, and there isn't much of a talent pipeline. Singapore, Bangkok, Shenzhen, shanghai, Beijing are better.

Coincidentally, I'm in HK on holiday going back to Beijing tomorrow. I'm suffocating in this small hotel room....my wife did a lot of shopping, though.

kevcampb• 13 years ago

Does anyone have any idea of the costs of building vertically?

I ask as I generally love the idea of sky-rise buildings and high density housing. To me, Hong Kong feels almost utopian - like some sort of architects' playground. Stick thin apartments rising up through hillsides. Super dense housing, but the ability to travel 30 minutes and be in remarkable countryside. It really is remarkable.

I'd love to think this is the way forward, and regardless of opinion it seems the way the world is moving. People are migrating to mega cities, the world is urbanising. I guess the efficiencies you gain living this way are part of a real draw there. You don't need a car. Mass transport is cheap and efficient.

Which makes me wonder how Hong Kong's housing situation can be so dire. Even for the well off, the costs are prohibitive, and I dread to think how the poor manage.

riffic• 13 years ago

On the other hand, it has been argued that skyscrapers can be detrimental. In A Pattern Language it's stated that "There is abundant evidence to show that high buildings make people crazy", and it goes further to propose a pattern of a four-story limit for dense urban areas.

michaelochurch4• 13 years ago

In A Pattern Language it's stated that "There is abundant evidence to show that high buildings make people crazy", and it goes further to propose a pattern of a four-story limit for dense urban areas.

Fucking terrible idea. I almost certainly know more about mental illness than you do. What makes people crazy in urban areas is expensive real estate. It's not signing the ridiculous rent checks that does it-- that's just annoying. However, moving involuntarily-- especially when due to adverse economic circumstances-- has a huge detrimental effect on mental health, even inducing illnesses such as schizophrenia[0] which might otherwise be thought to be purely biological.

[0] Schizophrenia, like cancer and depression, probably isn't one disease. There are at least 5 different schizophrenias.

Next to genetics and drug abuse, the strongest predictor for mental illness is whether a person had to move involuntarily for economic reasons. Traditionally, this was a cause for the high rate of mental illness in urban areas. (However, the recent housing catastrophe was a mostly suburban phenomenon; we'll see in about 10 years if that results in suburban MI levels exceeding urban ones)

If you ban high-rises, real estate costs become extreme. Just look at what it costs to live in the Village if you don't believe me. Or look at San Francisco's problem. It's not nearly as dense as New York, but almost as expensive because of the NIMBY assholes.

Bad bad bad fucking idea.

Misha_B• 13 years ago

Construction costs generally rise with the height of the building, both due to higher structural demands and because of additional functional (usually also legal) demands - like two elevators and two fire escape stairways for buildings higher than 8-10 stories. Maintenance is also more expensive for higher buildings. Higher buildings also demand larger distances between them to allow light and ventilation. Because of that - except for places with unusually high density like Hong Kong and parts of Manhattan - the sweet spot for high density, construction costs and quality of life might lie in the 5-7 stories range (typical for Paris and Barcelona). Regarding Hong Kong housing situation - in spite of the high level of economic freedom in other areas, the housing market is in a large part state controlled, with waiting lists for buying an apartment.

netcan• 13 years ago

This is how urban poverty looks. It looked similar in Europe too. They called them Tenements here and every self respecting character in Irish fiction grows up in one.

tuananh• 13 years ago

Same goes for Vietnam. There're houses like 1/1.5 meters width. No bed, furniture whatsoever.

jib2• 13 years ago

I lived in a 9 m^2 apartment (with some extra storage) for 3 years (cheap rent in Paris was nice). It was mostly fine, except you end up hearing neighbors. If not for that, it was pretty good. It had tradeoffs tho, apartment was next to castle of Versailles so lots of nature near. If you are single and there are outside areas to escape to, small living was ok for me at least. Poverty vs choice of living small makes a lot of difference for how it is. Small isn't inherently bad, surroundings matter.

brador• 13 years ago

How much was that and how long ago?

jib2• 13 years ago

400 euro/month around 5-10 years ago.

raverbashing• 13 years ago

Wow

A student residence house (of course, subsidies, etc) could be had for around 250E, or even around 150E for the smallest rooms (around the 10m2 mark)

Of course, not Paris.

greggman3• 13 years ago

Japan also has many fairly small apartments.

Here's a few in the 5-6 sq meter range

http://www.chintai.net/detail/bk_C01004728000466001/

http://www.chintai.net/detail/bk_C01004509001707001/

http://www.chintai.net/detail/bk_C01003440000826001/

A bigger list shows a lot more in the 10-12 sq meter sizes

http://www.chintai.net/tokyo/search/ensen/List.do?e=101001&#...

10-12 seems small in my experience but I have many friends in the 14-16 range

icebraining2• 13 years ago

I find it odd that whoever build those houses decided to make tiny apartments instead of larger shared ones. For cooking, having a shared kitchen - even if used by many families - would probably help a lot, specially since it's cheaper and easier to make a big communal meal than having to cook for each family.

barry-cotter• 13 years ago

People value not sharing space a lot. In first world countries most of the worst things about being poor come from being surrounded by other poor people. Communal cooking is more efficient at basically every scale from 2 peson household up, where at its most egalitarian it's just taking turns to cook. But I am aware of no modern culture where most people eat communal meals; in fact the only exceptions I'm aware of are total institutions like prisons, monasteries or the military.

acgourley• 13 years ago

Nearly all dinners are communal in the many cohousing[1] communities in Denmark.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohousing

VLM2• 13 years ago

"no modern culture where most people eat communal meals"

The blue collar lunchroom. A direct descendant of the school lunchroom.

As for anecdotes, the last time I ate in a communal lunchroom was the last manual labor job I had around 1994 while in school, since then its all been eating at the desk, runnin errands, going out. My employers have all had empty lunchrooms as an anachronism, more a place to keep the coffee makers and fridges and junk food machines. Once in awhile you'll see like 4 people in a 300 person company in the lunchroom eating together, or they have birthday parties/meetings in the "lunch"room.

netrus• 13 years ago

Most of these apartments appear to be somewhat clean. I would totally life in such a place for some time without being worried about my health. SHARED facilities in similar settings tend to end up very dirty and problematic (or at least I experienced it like that in Europe - and no, I am not talking about student dorms :)).

waps3• 13 years ago

You don't understand. These apartments are shared (in most cases). Communal houses are a complete disaster if you don't choose who gets to live in there with you (theft, fights, -God forbid- rape, parties, bullying, ...)

HeyLaughingBoy3• 13 years ago

This is a very good point that these discussions always ignore.

A friend of mine purchased a duplex house so she could live downstairs and rent out the upper floor by individual rooms. The only way she found that it worked was to have new tenants vetted by the existing ones. The 4 rooms were rented individually with shared kitchen and bathroom, but by letting the tenants have a say in who they shared the space with, turnover was very low and people tended to get along better.

grannyg00se• 13 years ago

A special room just for cooking is rather opulent in relation to the level of poverty. There is no need for a stove or a fridge if you buy groceries every few days and prepare meals in a crock pot or rice cooker.

SuperChihuahua• 13 years ago

Here in Sweden, we have students who have to live in old military-tents because of a crappy housing market.

http://www.sydsvenskan.se/lund/husvilla-lth-studenter-tvinga...

protomyth• 13 years ago

Western ND is pretty bad housing wise also. A lot of campers. You know its going to be bad when the oil companies buy hotels.

brudgers• 13 years ago

These are about the size of one of Florida's maximum security prison cells.

"Cells within the Cell Housing Unit have one or two bunks and lockers for personal items. Generally, inmates who require a higher level of supervision are housed in this type of cell. Cells range in size from 7 feet wide to 10 feet 8 inches or 14 feet long. "

In 2011, Florida had just over 100,000 people in prison (that does not include jails or Federal prisons).

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/vtour/securecell.include

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/faq.html

blaze33• 13 years ago

Reminds me of the famous french Foundation Abbé Pierre poster campaign in winter 2008. The tagline was: "12m² for a poster, this is normal, but for a family?".

* http://goo.gl/zhqd3 (translated blog post) or

* http://www.bddpunlimited.com/node/2435 (scroll to "toutes les créations" for a slideshow, js + flash needed)

ehmuidifici• 13 years ago

So you all must need to know whats going on with real state in Brazil. Appartments prices here are in a almost insane prices. Houses? In most big cities(Sao Paulo, Rio, Porto Alegre), you can't buy a middle-class house with no more less than 500k (yeah, US dollars).

michaelochurch4• 13 years ago

Real estate is one of those issues that can quickly separate smart people from mouth-breathing idiots.

Mouth-breathing idiots see expensive real estate and think it's a good thing. They clap their fat, ugly hands together. "People really want to live here!"

Smart people realize that expensive real estate is a sign of something that's gone seriously wrong, since high prices have more to do with supply problems (inelasticity) than demand. Regulatory corruption, deficient transportation, and damaged environments are usually behind expensive real estate. It's not something to be celebrated. It's a disease.

mark_l_watson• 13 years ago

I owned two small cruising sailboats for 20+ years so I can relate a bit to very crowded living conditions. Those pictures showed people coping with small spaces, for example with the high shelves for food staples. Families can cope with a crowded environment, especially little kids who are probably happy being right next to their parents, but with teenagers at home I can't imagine how it would work.

jordanbaucke• 13 years ago

Just stayed in hong kong for a week earlier this month, and I can testify to the multigenerational apartments, and government subsidized ownership.

I stayed in an apartment I rented from AirBnB which was awesome (for 2 people). I noticed other families in the same building where staying in the same sized places but had parents, adult children, and grandchildren living in bunk-beds.

This was in "Central", which struck me as a poor place for a family (apartments of this size ~350sqft were being listed for close to $1 million usd ($7.5~$8 million HK) but than if you had some sort of government price control when the building was built than it made more sense.

eliben• 13 years ago

It's funny how every piece of news can be immediately retargeted as a diatribe against the ever-evil "rich bankers".

lilsunnybee10• 13 years ago

Its because the standard of living of many bankers is disgustingly lavish compared to the people they exploit.

zubentok• 13 years ago

I thought communism was all about human equality. Guess it's true that you are communist until you get rich, feminist until you get married etc..

lilsunnybee10• 13 years ago

Hong Kong is unique. Even if China was truly communist, HK has operated differently.

meepmorp• 13 years ago

It's worth noting that Hong Kong was under British control till 1997, and largely retains its independence from mainland China. It has its own constitution, and the existing capitalist system was left intact, as part of the transfer agreement between the UK and China.

Not that China isn't chock full of disparities between better and worse off people despite the putative ideals of the communist state, but Hong Kong isn't a good example of such.

Apartments So Small They Can Only Be Photographed From Above

Related Stories