Micro-houses are cool. The minimal cost and maintenance is really appealing. Having to do it because everything else is unaffordable is not.
It’s even worse now that boutique builders are making tiny homes with aged cheddar wood and once in a century nails and crap. Houses in general should have never been made financial investments. It’s shelter.
Serious question: What ought to be a financial investment? Nothing? Points that are otherwise worthless?
Anything that is meant to be consumed should not be an investment, anything that in an ideal society should be cheaper to purchase for the betterment of that society, should not be an investment.
Companies that produce those things, ideally better or more efficient every year for various reasons, those should be investments.
We should invest in banana farmers, not bananas. Likewise we should invest in construction companies, not houses.
Why do you think you need to invest in anything? It’s a gamble or a guarantee depending on the amount of money someone has at the beginning. If you’re rich your money will make money without producing anything. If you’re poor you might lose it all. This idea that you need to invest benefits the rich far more then the poor.
It’s normal to me, I’ve been living in a van for 3 years, I love everything about it, in fact I read your comment which reminded me this is a novel atypical lifestyle, which then reminds me that many people take exception to it, are uncomfortable that we exist, which is the only thing I don’t like about this lifestyle, that mainstream society stigmatizes us.
But for those of us who get a thrill out of living tiny, and living anywhere/everywhere, and freedom from rent/mortgage, aaah this is FREEDOM
I’m glad you’re happy. However, virtually no one else would be. I mean a statistical blip of humanity would be happy living in a van.
The reason I’m uncomfortable that you exist is that people I know who live out of their cars are mentally ill individuals who have convinced themselves that they enjoy something which is, very clearly, sad and terrible.
That may not be you, but I’d be willing to bet it’s a majority of van-dwellers. It’s just not a healthy lifestyle for most.
You’re not wrong. ideally we van/RV people would love to have a house AND a travel option, but realistically money prevents most people from having everything they want,
so when it comes to choosing a lifestyle whether in a static location or freedom to travel, most people have to choose one or the other.
Life is difficult and full of challenges no matter what you do, so you might as well go all in on the one thing you’d prefer most, and just deal with all the pros & cons just like everything else in life.
And hey there are tons of sad confused mentally ill people who live in houses too. maybe the ones living in cars would have felt the same way living in a house, but they’re saving hella money by not having to pay rent or mortgage. And money saved up over time, you know what that becomes? Money can indeed buy happiness.
Why is wired internet necessary?
I have unlimited data, and a hotspot that up to fifteen devices can connect to, including my laptop.
And solar panels charge all my electronics.
This has so much more context needed. Like the dude is getting the land for free as a sorta art piece and doesn’t, or didn’t plan to do it long.
Kinda dystopian and depressing, but honestly some parts of it seem nicer than the houses he’s neighbours with. I like how it’s designed to not interfere with the skip lorry’s cab.
E: How much is the porta potty rental?
Good for him, I guess, but … I wouldn’t want to live in that POS even if you paid me. These stories are so frustrating because they start to normalize that living in a shoebox is normal. It isn’t. It’s terrible.
Well considering the Western world’s comforts are here for us at the cost of poverty everywhere else. Hum idk maybe this should be a start in a moderate society.
One that has no rich fucks but also doesn’t have poverty
Why am I worried that some asshole developer is going to buy that little triangle of land out from under him, kick him off, and then just leave it unused for years. Maybe that sort of thing doesn’t happen in the UK, but it sure AF would happen in the states.
From the article
“The land was granted to him by an arts charity called Antepavilion”
He owns the land. Doesn’t stop the government from doing an eminent domain claim I guess but if they do he’s going to get more than it’s worth
No, the art charity owns the land. They just let him use it.
My electricity bill is so small that it is included in my land sponsorship,