I love the idea of tiny houses (and not-so-tiny houses like this one) clumped around a much larger shared space. I love it so much that I'm part of a (currently) seven party consortium trying to find rural acreage in unincorporated parts of the outer SF Bay Area to build such a thing. What we've discovered is that zoning ordinances in every county of California are openly hostile to the idea. The general rule is basically one ginormous single-family home (with a single kitchen) per parcel. Sometimes a second, but that's pretty much it.
It might be possible to get variances or special permits from friendly planning departments, but it's hard to convince a group of people to make large $ investments in dreams which could be destroyed arbitrarily by changing political winds. We may take the risk anyways, but our problem has gone from practical matters of structure and finance to a fundamentally political one.
This is really a shame. I suspect that a lot of people, like us, would be perfectly happy in low-footprint small (<500 sq ft) homes as long as they had easy access to a fancy kitchen, home theater, storage, etc in a space shared with a dozen of their friends. I always wondered why this isn't common - and the answer is, at least in California, it's effectively illegal.
This is a really cynical take on it but I've found the key to interpreting these regulatory thickets is to simply ask "Would this benefit the poorer people in my community directly if allowed?". If the answer is yes, expect to find surprising resistance to the idea at all levels of government "planning".
>...and the answer is, at least in California, it's effectively illegal.
Because your (prospective) neighbors are worried you're building a Section 8 slum that's going to crash the value of their own properties. The house is usually a family's biggest investment, so it's not really surprising people get testy when they see a potential threat.
<stickfigure>: I like that idea! What areas have you tried?
You can get pretty rural pretty quickly west of I-280 in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and of course Santa Cruz County further south. Head 10 minutes west of I-280 via Sand Hill Road, and you're at Skyline at Alice's restaurant, which marks the limit of the town of Woodside's boundary. Anything north, west, or southwest of that point is unincorporated.
As a practical matter if you're in a rural unincorporated area you're going to have to deal with septic tanks, and finding a place in the bay area where you can dig seven (and counting) different leach fields with possible space for expansion, not on >35% slopes, not near streams, etc. is going to be tricky. Further out you may have problems getting water; are you going to dig a well? How many GPM? Check out the problems that mutual water companies in the hills have had during previous droughts. On the other side of the ridge things are even worse; there's La Honda's rationing and talk of trucking in water: http://www.hmbreview.com/news/cuesta-la-honda-guild-keeps-ra...
On a more positive note, if you can get the structure and finance down, why not build a ~3000 ft^2 conventional house with external power/water/septic hookups? Those hookups are where you'd place your friends' tiny-homes-on-trailers. They wouldn't be permanent structures, so perhaps that would pass legal muster. Or buy 7 acres and subdivide? Again, I like your idea and wish you the best.
Is it an absolute necessity for you to do this in the SF Bay Area? I'm sure you'd have a much easier time with city-councils, permits and ordinances if you were more open to the idea of doing this idea of yours in other parts of the country.
Consider adding a couple of wheels to your design. That way you don't qualify as a permanent structure. In some places it is enough if you just don't have a foundation.
That's a great idea! I've been trying to figure out my ideal living environment over the past year, and I've come to the conclusion that a personal space within a larger shared space - anywhere in size from a large house to a small village - would be ideal. How did you find the collaborators for your current planned arrangement? (And - might as well ask - do you have any openings?)
It's a tricky by-product of the market. People are hostile to the idea because their property values drop when you get lots of micro homes in the area. And the property values rise when you have low density housing, privacy, little traffic, families with kids and dogs etc.
In other words, anywhere you want to do this, you're opposed by people who already live there, who usually have quite a bit to say about the area.
And anyone who wants to take away that influence from incumbent homeowners or tenants will be marked as someone who is destroying a long standing community for the sake of outsiders who want to take it over.
It is indeed a shame as I'm personally a big fan of small homes and at one point tried to get a new housing project off the ground.
But I'm seeing in some places slow consideration for new ways of living. From turning office buildings who've struggled to reach 25% occupancy in places where living rents are skyrocketing into homes, to microhomes.
In any case, it's not an easy issue. In some ways, small housing shares similarities with minimum wage: just because the economy is such that without a legal minimum wage, adults would still be willing to work for $4, doesn't mean we ought to allow it and let the market figure it out. People will get exploited. Similarly, the government needs to set building standards, including the minimum space a home ought to have, in my opinion (I just happen to think it can be quite small, if properly built, for certain people). If you don't have these standards, I would be the least surprised if we suddenly found large groups of students, young adults and struggling working poor living like they do as the 'Rat Tribe' in Beijing. [0] And again, like minimum wage, we don't want that.
But yeah then we're talking, really really small. <500 sq ft should really not be an issue. I live with my girlfriend on a little over 400 at the moment and it's great.
Yeah, I tried to do that in some warehouse space in the north bay - no go, and the planning folks made it clear that if I bought the warehouse anyway and did it under the table, I'd get busted.
It might be naive of me to think that maybe you haven't already seen this, but if there are any examples of what you're trying to accomplish in California, they're probably somewhere on this list: http://www.ic.org/directory/listings/?cmty-country=United%20...
California certainly has some ecovillages, but most have buildings sized like typical houses.
That reminds me of the SROs that used to dot the SOMA area before being slowly replaced with high rises. Many of the warehouses in the area are being converted into offices. One room with shared bathrooms and kitchens. Chinatown still has some of this housing as does the Tenderloin. I believe the Tenderloin is losing it fast with all the tech companies moving to the mid Market area. I don't think it's a good long term housing situation because of the tragedy of the commons.
Have you talked to any existing communes about their planning and permits? While communal living isn't exactly common, it's also not exactly virgin territory.
I live in the UK, and the tiny house movement appears to be a uniquely American phenomenon. The US is lucky to have so much open space which lets people build their own homes. The reason these tiny homes don't feel cramped is because they're surrounded by nature, with beautiful long uninterrupted views out of the windows. No noisy neighbours or traffic nearby either.
But take away the countryside location of these homes and could the tiny house work in an urban environment? I'm doubtful. The future for housing for most people on the planet (including the US) is in cities and urban environments. Can you live in a tiny home where you don't have long, uninterrupted views out of your windows? Or where you only have windows along one side of your dwelling (e.g. single-aspect apartments). Do you feel you have enough privacy when your apartment or house is joined with your neighbours' home?
Millions of people already live in homes like this and have to contend with these issues. The challenge for homebuilders and architects is to design housing to address these issues: homes that give us light, space, privacy, quiet and comfort in a noisy urban setting. Sadly, if I look at the new build housing going up in the UK I'd say architects and house builders are doing a pretty poor job of it. Are things better in the US in this regard?
Also, space can be 'modest' in size rather than micro or miniature and still be sustainable or amenable to high density. For example, London has it's own housing design guide that recommends new one bedroom apartments for two people to be a minimum of 50 square metres (538 square feet). That's still less than space standards in continental Europe but it's enough space to live comfortably even if it doesn't count as tiny by Western standards.
Given the view out of my flat is more flats like mine and cars I'd happily not have so many (possibly even any) windows if I could replace them with equivalent sized high DPI screens (a constant trope in sci-fi) and had adequate ventilation.
I nearly picked one flat when I moved because it had a bedroom without a window which would have made a perfect office.
I have a project that I eventually want to get off the ground. It has to do with improving how we build houses by making all interior structure modular.
I don't necessarily think "small" is the way to think about it. Instead if a family lives in a house for decades their priorities / needs change. So, for example, the retired couple who still live in the house with 2 bedrooms for their children when they first bought the house.
Or what about the house that's available and in an ideal location and has all the right things, but it's a one-bedroom with plenty of square feet, but where will the kids sleep?
If you had a modular way of reconstructing the interior of the house, and they redo the walls using inexpensive modular components, all of a sudden maybe now their master bedroom is twice the size it was, or maybe that space becomes a loft / sitting area instead.
Suddenly it makes sense that a family could reasonably expect to live in the same house over long periods of time comfortably, if it suits them, no matter the changing circumstances that life presents them.
EDIT: And make far better use of the space they have over time as circumstances change.
A place here in town builds modular office environments that have snap-together walls, etc. Sort of like huge cubicles that are grown all the way up instead of slapped together. They have giant metal base plates that you install on the exterior walls of the floor and then you click your "fake walls" into them at right angles. You can even get sound deadening panels or colour inserts that slide inside the walls.
I asked one of the guys on the tour why they don't do it for houses. He replied that the problem with houses is that it's rare to find houses that are actually built with enough precision to have perfectly square corners and perfectly vertical walls. It doesn't really make sense to go to that extent for a narrow-margin stickbuilt 2- to 3-storey dwelling that doesn't support the immense weight of an office building.
The modular idea could still work. You'd just have to add this little hacky layer in between to adapt the out-of-plumb house bits to the injection-moulded modular walls or whatever. I dunno what that layer would look like and still be cheaper than making changes to a home the traditional way.
Knocking down or throwing up the structure for a partition wall isn't that expensive. If you want to build something like 16 linear feet of wall, you need 4 panels of drywall ($40), about 16 2x4s ($43), some tape ($2), joint compound ($15), a gallon of primer ($20), and another of paint ($30-60).
All in all, you can do that for about $200, if you're willing to do it yourself. This neglects doing the electrical (you don't need plumbing for a partition, but you do need outlets every 12 ft so that there is no space on the wall with more than 6' without one).
Until you get into moving structural walls, or doing kitchens and bathrooms; you can change the interior of the house fairly cheaply. Depending on where you live, you may not need any permits either if it isn't a structural change.
"(why the standard ceiling height in this country is 8 feet is a concept I will never understand)"
One word: efficiency
Tall ceilings create a heating and cooling nightmare. In my area a number of builders over the last two decades came into the valley from warmer climates like Arizona and built a bunch of homes with very tall ceilings. People loved them and they kept building, then a cold winter comes along and people complain about their $800/month+ heating bills in what was claimed to be an energy efficient home.
My house has a tall main room that spans two floors. People ask me why I have the fans on in the winter... and I tell them that it keeps our heating costs down. It's counterintuitive, but true.
I don't really think it's the case. You're adding surface area, yes, but not that much, and you can easily compensate by being more careful with windows and avoiding wasteful features like bumpouts &c.
On a 35*50 (1750 sq. ft) single level house, you're adding 170 ft of exterior wall to an envelope that had 1360 sq. ft of walls and 1750 sq. ft of ceiling giving directly on outdoors, or 5.4%. Given a "code" insulation level of R-20, it would mean adding less than an inch of insulation to compensate.
I suspect the builders from warmer climates simply didn't build correctly for the climate: not enough insulation, problematic details. You get issues whenever builders move from one climate to another, because many of them just don't care enough to learn about how to adapt houses to their new climate. Details that are fine in one climate (if you're living in a dry enough place, you can install your windows almost without thinking) won't work in another (install a window "Vegas-style" in Seattle and see how long it takes before it leaks).
Yup. Here in Edinburgh we have quite a lot of Victorian flats with 14' ceilings. They're noticably more expensive to heat in winter than flats like my current one, which is modern and has 8' ceilings.
They do also feel a lot bigger, though. Maybe it's worth the tradeoff?
I have wondered whether you could go crazy vertical and try to get rising heat to create a cooling system, as with termite mounds. In winter, pull cloth mezzanines across to create buffer layers.
That's pretty cool. For better worse, a pre-condition for living in a tiny house is having the land to build one on. For my family, an amenity of our somewhat larger house happens to be its location, among nice neighbors, near public transit, and within walking or biking distance to all of our daily destinations such as work and school.
So, you can build portable tiny homes, though that constrains the tininess even more so.
Another pre-condition is being in a city with tiny house-friendly zoning regs.
As someone who frequently entertains the notion and novelty of tiny living, I keep up with it, and know more than a few folks who have been evicted from their tiny homes.
D.C. has actually been making it harder to live in tiny homes, as they are non-conformant structures in which you can "camp", temporarily, but cannot live, so there's this shell game going on of tiny home dwellers rotating out their dwellings just frequently enough to be on the right side of the law.
While it's not nearly as small as the one in the article, my house is on the smaller end of many Bay Area homes (1600 sqft on a very narrow lot). But nobody who visits believes that it's only 1600 sqft - they all think it's closer to 2000, probably because the architect vaulted the entry/living-room ceiling to 15ft, and the upstairs bedrooms to 13 ft.
What's harder about living in a small house as your primary home (not a vacation home like the article) is storage space, especially when you have kids.
There are also clever ways of doing built-in storage in a small home that minimize the use of living space. Of course you also can't be a packrat.
I recommend Dwell magazine as a great source for small living space design ideas.
I find it ironic that you call 1600 sqft "small". Here is a pretty standard 700 sqft house in the UK that a family of 4 would comfortably fit in - I wouldn't really call this small:
It's a vacation home that looks fairly secluded, has big windows and nice furniture. Am I just too paranoid? This seems like the sort of thing that's due for an inevitable burglary. That's one attraction to me of the cargo container homes, despite the terrible aesthetic. If you need to go on an extended trip, you can just throw a cargo lock on the front door and be done with it.
Which therefore they're not "living in" in the common sense of the phrase but are "holidaying in". Rich people, pah.
"I work my office job from a toilet cubicle. You guys paying for offices are schmucks. Here's how I do it, I go to the toilet for free right next door to my office space I rent for $5000/mo. I'm working in entirely cost free space for the whole day. Then for the other 8 hours 45 minutes of my 9 hour day I work from the office. See, it's easy; can't see why people don't do this more!"
A vacation house bigger than most people I know can afford for their actual home. And than the author speaks of "making sacrifices". Makes me want to throw up.
How can you say that? I don't actually see the square footage of the house mentioned anywhere, but it doesn't appear to be overly large (once you account for the optical tricks the author used to make the space appear larger than it is). My estimate would be somewhere around 800 sq. ft., which isn't unreasonable for a vacation home.
[+] [-] stickfigure|11 years ago|reply
It might be possible to get variances or special permits from friendly planning departments, but it's hard to convince a group of people to make large $ investments in dreams which could be destroyed arbitrarily by changing political winds. We may take the risk anyways, but our problem has gone from practical matters of structure and finance to a fundamentally political one.
This is really a shame. I suspect that a lot of people, like us, would be perfectly happy in low-footprint small (<500 sq ft) homes as long as they had easy access to a fancy kitchen, home theater, storage, etc in a space shared with a dozen of their friends. I always wondered why this isn't common - and the answer is, at least in California, it's effectively illegal.
[+] [-] noonespecial|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsotha|11 years ago|reply
Because your (prospective) neighbors are worried you're building a Section 8 slum that's going to crash the value of their own properties. The house is usually a family's biggest investment, so it's not really surprising people get testy when they see a potential threat.
[+] [-] declan|11 years ago|reply
You can get pretty rural pretty quickly west of I-280 in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and of course Santa Cruz County further south. Head 10 minutes west of I-280 via Sand Hill Road, and you're at Skyline at Alice's restaurant, which marks the limit of the town of Woodside's boundary. Anything north, west, or southwest of that point is unincorporated.
As a practical matter if you're in a rural unincorporated area you're going to have to deal with septic tanks, and finding a place in the bay area where you can dig seven (and counting) different leach fields with possible space for expansion, not on >35% slopes, not near streams, etc. is going to be tricky. Further out you may have problems getting water; are you going to dig a well? How many GPM? Check out the problems that mutual water companies in the hills have had during previous droughts. On the other side of the ridge things are even worse; there's La Honda's rationing and talk of trucking in water: http://www.hmbreview.com/news/cuesta-la-honda-guild-keeps-ra...
On a more positive note, if you can get the structure and finance down, why not build a ~3000 ft^2 conventional house with external power/water/septic hookups? Those hookups are where you'd place your friends' tiny-homes-on-trailers. They wouldn't be permanent structures, so perhaps that would pass legal muster. Or buy 7 acres and subdivide? Again, I like your idea and wish you the best.
[+] [-] zo1|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noamyoungerm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] archagon|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IkmoIkmo|11 years ago|reply
In other words, anywhere you want to do this, you're opposed by people who already live there, who usually have quite a bit to say about the area.
And anyone who wants to take away that influence from incumbent homeowners or tenants will be marked as someone who is destroying a long standing community for the sake of outsiders who want to take it over.
It is indeed a shame as I'm personally a big fan of small homes and at one point tried to get a new housing project off the ground.
But I'm seeing in some places slow consideration for new ways of living. From turning office buildings who've struggled to reach 25% occupancy in places where living rents are skyrocketing into homes, to microhomes.
In any case, it's not an easy issue. In some ways, small housing shares similarities with minimum wage: just because the economy is such that without a legal minimum wage, adults would still be willing to work for $4, doesn't mean we ought to allow it and let the market figure it out. People will get exploited. Similarly, the government needs to set building standards, including the minimum space a home ought to have, in my opinion (I just happen to think it can be quite small, if properly built, for certain people). If you don't have these standards, I would be the least surprised if we suddenly found large groups of students, young adults and struggling working poor living like they do as the 'Rat Tribe' in Beijing. [0] And again, like minimum wage, we don't want that.
But yeah then we're talking, really really small. <500 sq ft should really not be an issue. I live with my girlfriend on a little over 400 at the moment and it's great.
[0] http://projects.aljazeera.com/2015/01/underground-beijing/
[+] [-] spiritplumber|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stephenboyd|11 years ago|reply
California certainly has some ecovillages, but most have buildings sized like typical houses.
[+] [-] socrates2016|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saalweachter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickfox|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostit2xx|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] design-of-homes|11 years ago|reply
But take away the countryside location of these homes and could the tiny house work in an urban environment? I'm doubtful. The future for housing for most people on the planet (including the US) is in cities and urban environments. Can you live in a tiny home where you don't have long, uninterrupted views out of your windows? Or where you only have windows along one side of your dwelling (e.g. single-aspect apartments). Do you feel you have enough privacy when your apartment or house is joined with your neighbours' home?
Millions of people already live in homes like this and have to contend with these issues. The challenge for homebuilders and architects is to design housing to address these issues: homes that give us light, space, privacy, quiet and comfort in a noisy urban setting. Sadly, if I look at the new build housing going up in the UK I'd say architects and house builders are doing a pretty poor job of it. Are things better in the US in this regard?
Also, space can be 'modest' in size rather than micro or miniature and still be sustainable or amenable to high density. For example, London has it's own housing design guide that recommends new one bedroom apartments for two people to be a minimum of 50 square metres (538 square feet). That's still less than space standards in continental Europe but it's enough space to live comfortably even if it doesn't count as tiny by Western standards.
[+] [-] xasos|11 years ago|reply
I agree. Skyscrapers would provide the best bang for buck in terms of space. You could fit a lot more people into a city like San Francisco.
[+] [-] noir_lord|11 years ago|reply
I nearly picked one flat when I moved because it had a bedroom without a window which would have made a perfect office.
I accept I'm not the norm though.
[+] [-] lostit2xx|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] datashovel|11 years ago|reply
I don't necessarily think "small" is the way to think about it. Instead if a family lives in a house for decades their priorities / needs change. So, for example, the retired couple who still live in the house with 2 bedrooms for their children when they first bought the house.
Or what about the house that's available and in an ideal location and has all the right things, but it's a one-bedroom with plenty of square feet, but where will the kids sleep?
If you had a modular way of reconstructing the interior of the house, and they redo the walls using inexpensive modular components, all of a sudden maybe now their master bedroom is twice the size it was, or maybe that space becomes a loft / sitting area instead.
Suddenly it makes sense that a family could reasonably expect to live in the same house over long periods of time comfortably, if it suits them, no matter the changing circumstances that life presents them.
EDIT: And make far better use of the space they have over time as circumstances change.
[+] [-] ayuvar|11 years ago|reply
I asked one of the guys on the tour why they don't do it for houses. He replied that the problem with houses is that it's rare to find houses that are actually built with enough precision to have perfectly square corners and perfectly vertical walls. It doesn't really make sense to go to that extent for a narrow-margin stickbuilt 2- to 3-storey dwelling that doesn't support the immense weight of an office building.
The modular idea could still work. You'd just have to add this little hacky layer in between to adapt the out-of-plumb house bits to the injection-moulded modular walls or whatever. I dunno what that layer would look like and still be cheaper than making changes to a home the traditional way.
Good luck if you do it, I can't wait to buy it.
[+] [-] cpwright|11 years ago|reply
All in all, you can do that for about $200, if you're willing to do it yourself. This neglects doing the electrical (you don't need plumbing for a partition, but you do need outlets every 12 ft so that there is no space on the wall with more than 6' without one).
Until you get into moving structural walls, or doing kitchens and bathrooms; you can change the interior of the house fairly cheaply. Depending on where you live, you may not need any permits either if it isn't a structural change.
[+] [-] Retra|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patcheudor|11 years ago|reply
One word: efficiency
Tall ceilings create a heating and cooling nightmare. In my area a number of builders over the last two decades came into the valley from warmer climates like Arizona and built a bunch of homes with very tall ceilings. People loved them and they kept building, then a cold winter comes along and people complain about their $800/month+ heating bills in what was claimed to be an energy efficient home.
[+] [-] nostromo|11 years ago|reply
My house has a tall main room that spans two floors. People ask me why I have the fans on in the winter... and I tell them that it keeps our heating costs down. It's counterintuitive, but true.
[+] [-] alricb|11 years ago|reply
On a 35*50 (1750 sq. ft) single level house, you're adding 170 ft of exterior wall to an envelope that had 1360 sq. ft of walls and 1750 sq. ft of ceiling giving directly on outdoors, or 5.4%. Given a "code" insulation level of R-20, it would mean adding less than an inch of insulation to compensate.
I suspect the builders from warmer climates simply didn't build correctly for the climate: not enough insulation, problematic details. You get issues whenever builders move from one climate to another, because many of them just don't care enough to learn about how to adapt houses to their new climate. Details that are fine in one climate (if you're living in a dry enough place, you can install your windows almost without thinking) won't work in another (install a window "Vegas-style" in Seattle and see how long it takes before it leaks).
[+] [-] tw04|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thenomad|11 years ago|reply
They do also feel a lot bigger, though. Maybe it's worth the tradeoff?
[+] [-] cturner|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tuna-piano|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unimportant|11 years ago|reply
This is how it's done in Europe:
http://humble-homes.com/heijmans-one-affordable-tiny-house-a...
[+] [-] raverbashing|11 years ago|reply
Yes, I'm talking about the UK (and Ireland)
[+] [-] analog31|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmelton|11 years ago|reply
Another pre-condition is being in a city with tiny house-friendly zoning regs.
As someone who frequently entertains the notion and novelty of tiny living, I keep up with it, and know more than a few folks who have been evicted from their tiny homes.
D.C. has actually been making it harder to live in tiny homes, as they are non-conformant structures in which you can "camp", temporarily, but cannot live, so there's this shell game going on of tiny home dwellers rotating out their dwellings just frequently enough to be on the right side of the law.
[+] [-] nandemo|11 years ago|reply
http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/products/cypress
[+] [-] danans|11 years ago|reply
What's harder about living in a small house as your primary home (not a vacation home like the article) is storage space, especially when you have kids.
There are also clever ways of doing built-in storage in a small home that minimize the use of living space. Of course you also can't be a packrat.
I recommend Dwell magazine as a great source for small living space design ideas.
[+] [-] lucaspiller|11 years ago|reply
http://m.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/36576725?search_ident...
[+] [-] hueving|11 years ago|reply
1. http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/
[+] [-] olalonde|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stickfigure|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enrmarc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ipsin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghaff|11 years ago|reply
Pretty much :-) Not really different from just about any other house in a more or less rural environment.
[+] [-] jacquesm|11 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSzgh3D7-Q0
[+] [-] delbel|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|11 years ago|reply
"I work my office job from a toilet cubicle. You guys paying for offices are schmucks. Here's how I do it, I go to the toilet for free right next door to my office space I rent for $5000/mo. I'm working in entirely cost free space for the whole day. Then for the other 8 hours 45 minutes of my 9 hour day I work from the office. See, it's easy; can't see why people don't do this more!"
/tired, bad humour
[+] [-] alexun|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makeitsuckless|11 years ago|reply
A vacation house bigger than most people I know can afford for their actual home. And than the author speaks of "making sacrifices". Makes me want to throw up.
[+] [-] quanticle|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkot|11 years ago|reply