Where small space living and community intersect

[catherine]

http://inhabitat.com/nyc/horrifyingly-cramped-64-sq-ft-chinatown-apartments-captured-in-annie-lings-mesmerizing-photographs/81-bowery-6/?extend=1

This is an interesting photo expose of the cramped quarters of Chinese immigrants. They live on practically nothing so they can send money home.

The photojournalist tries to capture both the "horrifying" living conditions as well as the sense of community.

I keep thinking, maybe a "horrifying" living condition is when a family of 4 rattles around in a 4,000 sq. ft. space without even speaking to each other all day.

I'm not saying that these cramped quarters are not challenging or difficult--but I'm reminded of the beach bungalow DH's relatives owned when DH was a boy. It was probably no bigger than a two-story motor home, and on weekends 20 of his relatives came down from Queens for a relaxing weekend. There were berths set up in the basement.

My DD actually lived in a co-housing situation in Brooklyn, and her "room" was a lot like one of the pictures in this essay. It was more like a perch. You had to climb up on a real ladder and the "room" was about 3 ft tall, so she would just crawl in and lie down. There were about six people living there--some hardcore environmentalists, and they had greywater systems in place. Very different. A tad "horrifying" to the parents (us) but she survived.

[ToomuchStuff]

My brain automatically took this to the international space station.
It is amazing that we think we can't live with less, or that kids should get every "advantage" (some turn out not to be). Had this discussion with a friend of mine, who he and his 5 brothers, all grew up in a house that was around 1000 square feet.

[gadder]

What an inspiring story of human resilience and community. Any city should be proud to have such strong-willed and resourceful people living in their midst, and be willing to give them an opportunity for a hand-up. (Though I am sure those immigrants would much rather be living in larger quarters).

I think it is quite possible to live comfortably in small quarters, bunked in tight with all sorts of people, but there has to be some organisation, some mutuality, i.e. community. And it cannot be in a situation of dire poverty, for then close quarters become cramped, and what could be a cosy close-knit community becomes suffocating, tense, unbearable, ripe for disease and squalor.

So when does cosy become cramped?

Expectations and context partly. Growing up, our family of five travelled cross country in a Duster (small car). Today, acquaintances say they NEED that SUV or mini-van (with air-con and DVD players on backseats). Is this simply being spoilt by wealth?

[bae]

The March rental data for that neighborhood in NYC claims that the rent for a studio apartment is ~$4250/month.

I don't find the pictures of the living situations in that article to be "horrifying", but rather a quite clever adaptation to the real estate circumstances.

I'd love to be able to have a 8x8 apartment in Manhattan for $100-$200/month, heck.

[catherine]

I'd love to be able to have a 8x8 apartment in Manhattan for $100-$200/month, heck.

Tumbleweed house--Tribeca version. Hmm.. sounds pretty good to me!

[Spartana]

Having lived for many years onboard ships (military ships not cushy cruise ships) in tiny shared spaces with bunk beds stacked 3 or 4 high on either side of a tiny room, and just a small locker for all my earthly possessions and uniforms, a 64 sf "private" room would seem like heaven to me! Definitely helped instill a love of small spaces in me - and an appreciation of how little of a space I need to be happy in. So after that I lived in a small apt (500 sf) and then on a small sailboat (with now ex) dh, it all seemed huge.

Currently I'm living in a very large immigrant Vietnamese community, and seeing the very large family groups who share a house together both in order to get ahead in life (pooling money and resources) as well as to help each other out, seems like a good thing to me. It's something more westerners could do for the same reasons.

[KayLR]

What an inspiring story of human resilience and community. Any city should be proud to have such strong-willed and resourceful people living in their midst, and be willing to give them an opportunity for a hand-up. (Though I am sure those immigrants would much rather be living in larger quarters).

I think it is quite possible to live comfortably in small quarters, bunked in tight with all sorts of people, but there has to be some organisation, some mutuality, i.e. community. And it cannot be in a situation of dire poverty, for then close quarters become cramped, and what could be a cosy close-knit community becomes suffocating, tense, unbearable, ripe for disease and squalor.

So when does cosy become cramped?

Expectations and context partly. Growing up, our family of five travelled cross country in a Duster (small car). Today, acquaintances say they NEED that SUV or mini-van (with air-con and DVD players on backseats). Is this simply being spoilt by wealth?

Your Duster would not accommodate all the child safety seating now required -- not that I'm defending "needed" SUVs, just saying ...

[awakenedsoul]

When I was a young gypsy in NYC, we lived three in a tiny two "bedroom" apt. It was really little. One of us was usually on tour. We were there to train, audition, and make it into a Broadway show or tour. We all reached our goals. I wouldn't want to do that now, but it was fun at the time...

The older I get, the less I realize I need.

[Lainey]

When I saw that photo I thought "fire-trap." I'm all for people scrimping on housing to save or get ahead, but I also think fire codes are there for a reason.

[iris lilies]

When I saw that photo I thought "fire-trap." I'm all for people scrimping on housing to save or get ahead, but I also think fire codes are there for a reason.

Goobermnt safety regulations both protect the people and restrict their liberty. It will always be a push-pull.

The reality of the situation depicted is that it depends entirely on the demographics of the group living there for success. If the inhabitants were typical homeless people who inhabit the sidewalks of my city, that cube-apartment place would, within a matter of weeks, be a complete wreck. Human and animal excrement, rats bed bugs and cockroaches, rotting garbage, and likely fire would have destroyed the place. Not a month goes by without an abandoned house in my city goes up in flames due to squatters setting it on fire.

The fact that neat and tidy Chinese people with a focused goal in life did not wreck the place, instead made it habitable for all, shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Not all cube dwellers are created equal. It's too bad it was shut down.

[jp1]

Goobermnt safety regulations both protect the people and restrict their liberty. It will always be a push-pull.

So you think they should have the liberty to die when fire and smoke sweep through the whole space in a ridiculously short period of time making it impossible to get out?

I'm all for people creating/finding options of living arrangements that are smaller/less expensive if they want to. I'm not for creating unsafe spaces that people will live in that are dangerous. Not to mention that it would be dangerous for the fire department who will have to go through the place trying to find people when the fire happens.

[iris lilies]

So you think they should have the liberty to die when fire and smoke sweep through the whole space in a ridiculously short period of time making it impossible to get out?

I'm all for people creating/finding options of living arrangements that are smaller/less expensive if they want to. I'm not for creating unsafe spaces that people will live in that are dangerous. Not to mention that it would be dangerous for the fire department who will have to go through the place trying to find people when the fire happens.

"Unsafe" is not a clear definition, in fact, it seldom is. Most situations that are regulated have plenty of grey in shades between black/unsafe and white/safe. If you can't think of situations where humans have been seriously hurt while in places that have passed inspections, then you aren't thinking.

nanny g (note the small letters, it's local gubmnt you know) would not have allowed me to live in my own house for the past 20 years had current regulations been operating in my neighborhood back then. And no one is better off for that. So that I am clear, the regulations were in place back 20 years ago in spots throughout the city but my neighborhood was exempt. We are rugged individualists, urban pioneers, and we don't cotton to nannyg telling us what's good for us especially since that same nannyg was The Enemy in tearing down many of the houses around here.

The City's concern about "safety" (cough cough grab for inspection fees cough) isn't benefiting my neighborhood. I think it's ok, I guess, for rentals, but for owner occupied places, it is just stupid.

The devil is in the details and by "regulations" here I don't mean standard fire/electrical codes but other nit picky things.

[ToomuchStuff]

"Unsafe" is not a clear definition, in fact, it seldom is. Most situations that are regulated have plenty of grey in shades between black/unsafe and white/safe. If you can't think of situations where humans have been seriously hurt while in places that have passed inspections, then you aren't thinking.



(coughing fit), Hyatt accident.

[gadder]

Your Duster would not accommodate all the child safety seating now required -- not that I'm defending "needed" SUVs, just saying ...

Ha! You remember a Duster!

Good point. Sometimes the old ways are not the best ways and I am all for progress safety-wise. Still, there does seem to be an inflation of "want" versus "need", not to be cranky...

[jp1]

I agree completely that the government tends to overreach often. Increases in pollution controls on cars at this point seem silly to me given how little the improvements will be. The controls that were increasingly stringent from zero back in the early 70's to what was in place 30 years later made sense because the benefit was great. The cost to get even more stringent won't be worth the very slight improvement we'll all get in air quality. Or the coming requirement for backup cameras on all cars. Yes I know that something like 70 kids per year get run over, but considering how many cars are on the road is it really cost effective to add $100 to the price of every new car? As much as we would all like a perfectly safe world it just isn't realistic.

However, a rabbit warren of cubicles in a giant room, being rented out to lots of people, would seem to me to pretty much be the definition of unsafe and in my opinion should be regulated by the government.

[KayLR]

Ha! You remember a Duster!

Good point. Sometimes the old ways are not the best ways and I am all for progress safety-wise. Still, there does seem to be an inflation of "want" versus "need", not to be cranky...

Oh, yeah, I had a lovely avocado green one myself at one time.