Minimalist extremism

We hear so much about extremists.  They exist across all religions, races, and beliefs, and today I read about a bunch of loosely scattered folks who would fit into the definition of "minimalist extremists."

As much as I savor the idea of simplifying my life and making it smaller, there are some who have taken the concept to a whole new level by living in 100 square foot homes.  I'm not actually sure if they're my heroes or if I think they're a bit insane.  Regardless of what I think, you've got to give someone credit for proving that it CAN be done.

It all started in California when a young man decided he wanted to live in a micro-home.  He later went on to start the Tumbleweed House Company which specializes in manufacturing tiny, portable homes.  I believe there's a sub-100 square foot model and the largest is around 175 square feet, about the size of the average walk-in closet in a suburban home.  To put that into perspective, the average American home contains somewhere around 2,000 square feet of space. That's about 15 times more space than you'd find in an average Tumbleweed home.

 As a minimalist, I have spent a good 7 years in homes with 800-850 square feet of space.  Most people think my home is VERY small, but I have a hard time wrapping my mind around living in 120 square feet.  In a home the size of a smallish bedroom, one must have a kitchen, bath, living space, bed and storage.  I don't care how creative you are, that's a mighty tight squeeze.  It would require paring belongings down to practically what you could carry on your back or in the boot of a Smart Car.  I know its very possible because I've traveled for chunks of time with only a small backpack, but in many ways traveling with practically nothing is different from LIVING with practically nothing.

The little homes are well built but far from inexpensive on a square footage basis.  A 120 square foot model will run you about 40 grand.  That's a higher price per foot than in all but some of the most expensive cities.  Granted the little dwellings make ingenious use of space.  Tables fold, benches swing out, the bed is up in a loft and the bathroom design enables you to shower, brush your teeth, and take care of nature's call pretty much all at the same time.  Additionally, the homes are on wheels, less because they are easy to move, but rather due to the fact that most municipalities won't permit a stick built home of such a size.  It's so small, it violates many ordinances regarding minimum space standards.  Most towns and cities won't let you live in a fancy garden shed.  It isn't ironic that in a society that preaches excess, you're breaking the law if you decide to live in a very small home.  The solution is to make it mobile since home ordinances don't apply homes that move.

There's no doubt that in some very expensive cities, people get very creative with small spaces.  Just peruse the "Small, Cool" contests on Apartment Therapy and you'll see some fantastic tiny places.  When a micro studio runs $2,000 a month in your city, you do whatever is necessary to live small because anything else is simply unaffordable.  But living that small in Anytown USA is a whole different animal.  It's not a choice out of necessity but rather a lifestyle choice.  There's a big difference.

I currently live in the downtown historic district of a coastal southern city.  Housing here isn't nearly as expensive as where I came from.  Not even close.  As a result, you don't often see many REALLY small spaces here, but they do exist.  I looked at one such space which was just over 300 SF.  It was gorgeous. There were high ceilings with crown mouldings, a top of the line kitchen in miniature, premium appliances, solid mahogany doors, marble floors and super modern fixtures...everything you'd expect in a luxury home.  It was well located....BUT, it was basically a really pretty closet-sized space.  I labored in my mind as to where my bike would go and what I would do with some of my beloved belongings.  My adolescent daughter, who occasionally spends time with me would have to sleep on the couch and have no space of her own.  The truth is, some of the very few things I'm attached to would have to go.  I'd have hard choices to make.  I'll admit, it was very tempting but even as a minimalist, I found myself feeling a bit anxious about having to cram my entire life into such a tiny box.  In the end, I settled on an 850 square foot flat available in a similar location that was less money and had some luxurious features of its own.  When it came down to it, I just couldn't comfortably make the jump into such extreme minimalism.  Minimalism shouldn't be about being uncomfortable.

I suppose minimalism, like religion, has it's degrees.  Some are content to simply call themselves Christians or Jews or Muslims and others take their faith and beliefs to a whole new level.  I'm not saying that minimalist extremism is bad.  No extremism has to be bad so long as it doesn't harm or infringe upon the rights of others.  It's a personal choice.  Sure, this whole blog thing is about promoting a simpler life.  It is very possible to be extremely happy with far less than most people in our society have, but personally, I don't think trying to cram myself into a tiny home the size of a closet would make me happy in the long term.  For me, that's excessive.  I like to cook, so I need just a bit of space to prep ingredients and more than one burner.  I have a daughter who likes to have a little bit of space of her own.  A tiny bath is fine, but I don't want to have a throne in the shower.  I'd also like to live in a home that's attached to the ground.  All those personal wants CAN be addressed in the context of a rather small space.  I can still live simply, and in some ways luxuriously in a fairly small home. I can't personally justify being an extreme minimalist...but I wouldn't mind renting one of those little tiny houses just to try it out.  Who knows....I might just like it.

Its intriguing, but I just don't know if I could do it....could you?

Our disappearing history

Nothing like a cool fall afternoon at the flea market....one of my favorite pastimes is digging through piles of old cool stuff, taking a glimpse at what life was like 100 years ago.  Strangely enough, I can't help but think that 100 years from now there will be precious little evidence of our past to sift through other than what might be saved in digital form.  The truth is...nobody really knows how long anything saved in digital form might last.

Here's the problem (or problems) as I see it:

Photos:  Old pictures from the past, although fragile, are tangible and can be physically archived even if that archive happens to be a hot attic.  I know that most of the photos I have taken in the last 5 years are currently stored in digital form.  While its true that I took thousands of photos in those years, almost none are in tangible form.  As technology progresses, more and more photos are lost forever due to hardware failures, storage device failures and changes in storage format.  If I kept my photos on an unmarked SD card in a drawer, what are the chances my family would know to look for it if I left this earth suddenly?  Physical pictures can be found, SD cards get lost or tossed.  So....what are the odds any of my family photos will be around in 100 years?   Should I plan better?  Yes, but like most people, properly archiving digital photos isn't on the top of the To-do list.  Most will vanish...probably.  What this means is that after physical pictures gave way to digital, there may be huge gaps in family photgraphic history, and even history in a broader sense if we fail to back up the zeros and ones to something more physical.

Household items:  Nothing is made to last anymore.  That 100 year old apple corer that grandpa got from his dad is made of cast iron.  It isn't going anywhere.  Today everything is made to toss, and even if it isn't, the quality of yesteryear is long gone.  Today an apple corer might make it a couple of decades if there's no plastic in it and its stored carefully.  Sadly, our history is sent to the landfill on a daily basis.  The same goes for furniture.  How long can a particle board chest of drawers be expected to last?  In a moist spot it might last 6 months before it disintegrates into oatmeal.  Even real furniture, with few exceptions, won't last as long as the solid wood and pegged construction of years long gone.

Homes:  I love stepping into a 150 year old home.  Beams were beefy and foundations were stone.  Many were engineered to outlast even the longest living occupants.  Not today.  Profit margin rules when it comes to constructing new homes.  Most are slapped up in a few weeks using plastic pipe, OSB...which is just fancy particle board, and a quick covering of vinyl siding.  Weather and water, a home's mortal enemy make quick work of newer structures.  Cheap materials rot and decay quickly if exposed to the elements.  Older homes with their dense wood and stone structures resist weather longer (although when they fail, they fail big.)  The charm, quality and sturdiness of older homes often makes them candidates for restoration.  New tract housing often has zero charm and only provides basic shelter and structure.  Recent homes in poor condition are more often razed than renovated because it makes little economic sense to restore them.  Once again, the almighty dollar dictates the demise of our physical history.

So what will be out there to look at in 100 years?  Will the furniture below have the same value in the future as a walnut Victorian chest from around 1900 has today?  Will it even last a tiny fraction of a century?

So what do you think the life expectancy is for something made of pressed sawdust?

Its hard being minimalist in a money centered society.

Its been over a year since I posted.  I've had plenty of good material pop into my head, but I just seem to get sidetracked.  Poof...a year passes.

As we all know, our country is still in the economic doldrums.  Nobody seems to be getting anywhere fast, except for the super rich.  I was reading an article about how expensive it is to be poor.  Those who have little money or credit always pay higher interest rates, they get whacked for bounced check fees and rates on credit cards approach numbers you'd expect to pay if you borrowed money from a guy with only 3 fingers on his left hand.  The end result is that a lot of people can never dig themselves out of bad economic times.

I've been watching the news on current events and can see now, more than ever, we (meaning those who make the rules) base our legislation and values on what makes the most money...what benefits the economy. We don't seem to care much about what is good for our citizens or what creates a good life for most people. Another recent article discussed how Americans have been paring back their levels of credit card debt.  That's good, right?  Apparently not.  The article went on to explain that since consumer spending accounts for 70% of the economy, people have obviously lowered levels of spending and that's, well....not good for the economy.

I understand how the economy helps us all have a decent life as goods and services are exchanged....but here's what I'd like to say... a lot....FUCK the economy!  What about the PEOPLE who live in this country?  Does everything always need to be more, better, larger, newer....?  Do we always need to spend more?  Do companies always need to make more profit this year than they did last year?  If that's what everyone expects then companies must figure out new ways to extract more profits.  That means worker exploitation, poorer quality goods that need to be replaced and so on...OR coercing everyone into spending more money that they don't have.

I've always been a fan of the EU and Scandinavia where the focus is more on people rather than profits. Citizens in those regions receive:  Lots of mandatory paid vacation time, guaranteed medical care, cleaner surroundings, healthy foods and much more that comes with culture that is centered around people over profits.  Folks on the other side of the pond are among the happiest and most content in the world even though they have very high tax rates and the weather can be downright miserable for much of the year....AND they typically have far fewer possessions and smaller homes than we have.  Here we get less and less vacation time, longer work weeks, an emphasis on more and bigger, unhealthy food everywhere, ridiculously expensive medical care (often of lesser quality) that bankrupts a fairly large number of citizens ....but I'll stop there.  The majority of our problems stem from placing profits first over the well being of the citizenry.

Sadly, it doesn't appear that we will change our ways anytime soon since money controls everything here...even the legislative process.  Will we ever get to the point where we aren't led to the mall in an effort to cure what ails us?   When I tell people I'm a business owner who isn't trying to franchise or make enough to buy a boat or a huge house, I'm considered "unmotivated."  Why would anyone be content to live in an 850SF apartment when my parents had a 2,000SF home?  Yes....I know we're supposed to aspire to doing better than our parents did.  Who says I'm not doing better if I'm happy with what I have?  Is the size of my home and the quantity of shit it's filled with the only measure of what "doing better" is?  We need to think hard about what is REALLY important....Having crap or having experiences?  Would it be OK if we all said..."I'm good, I don't need anymore stuff."  Would the earth split open?  Probably not.

Would living small like this be so bad?  Are there days you wish life could be this simple?  Think about it.