Apartments So Small They Can Only Be Photographed From Above(theatlanticcities.com)
theatlanticcities.com
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/
211 comments
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...
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...
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).
it was AUD12 per square foot. So something like AUD180/month for one of the cages.
$1 per meal: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com
Do these people have access to cooking facilities? Also a lot of the stuff there is being bought in bulk, and I imagine that storing stuff might be a problem. And of course, there is the omnipresent fact that many poor people do not have the time/knowledge to prepare many kinds of meal.
20+ years ago I worked at a food store frequented by urban poor including some homeless and as a starving student at that time I fit right in.
At that level "cooking" is buy a bun (or two) from the bakery for 50 cents (or less if day old), a dollars worth of sliced meat from the deli, a slice or two of deli cheese for a quarter, grab a handful of condiment packets from the deli, and "cook" that into a sandwich lunch for about two bucks while laughing at the $7 premade subs from the deli or the fast food joint. And frankly the ingredients are probably higher quality than the fast food restaurant.
At that level "cooking" is buy a bun (or two) from the bakery for 50 cents (or less if day old), a dollars worth of sliced meat from the deli, a slice or two of deli cheese for a quarter, grab a handful of condiment packets from the deli, and "cook" that into a sandwich lunch for about two bucks while laughing at the $7 premade subs from the deli or the fast food joint. And frankly the ingredients are probably higher quality than the fast food restaurant.
Some is bought in bulk, but not all. In response to similar concerns, some meals listed were prepared & cooked with just a knife, pan, spatula, and open fire of scrap wood.
I would think time would be more abundant for poor people.
why? if you're poor, the amount of time you need to spend just taking care of life's basic necessities goes way up. getting things done efficiently, getting other people to do things for you, and deciding you can sacrifice a few hours' earning potential to do something else, are all things that require you be well-off first.
I don't know about Hong Kong, but not in the States. Time is a luxury.
Only if you wrongly assume that poor people don't work.
In the US it's generally true.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2010.pdf (Note: read past the title.)
However, the US is an unusual place, so we should certainly not extrapolate that the same is true in Hong Kong or anywhere else (besides Canada).
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2010.pdf (Note: read past the title.)
However, the US is an unusual place, so we should certainly not extrapolate that the same is true in Hong Kong or anywhere else (besides Canada).
> Only if you wrongly assume that poor people don't work.
Fiscal conservatives must assume this or their philosophy does not work.
Fiscal conservatives must assume this or their philosophy does not work.
Most disgusting comment i've seen in quite a while. Maybe you can go live in one of these cages too and see how thrifty you can be.
Disgusting? My food budget disgusts you? I write that blog to help people know how well one can eat at that price, and to refute people like you.
If you had read the parent post you'd have deduced I was responding to "even in the US you can eat quite well on $13 a day if you are frugal and know how to cook and budget".
If you had read the parent post you'd have deduced I was responding to "even in the US you can eat quite well on $13 a day if you are frugal and know how to cook and budget".
Thank you for the blog and for this comment.
However, access to cooking facilities can be a huge problem. A lot if the stuff in your blog can be done with a few pieces of cookware and a hot plate, but even that might be hard to get a hold of for some.
However, access to cooking facilities can be a huge problem. A lot if the stuff in your blog can be done with a few pieces of cookware and a hot plate, but even that might be hard to get a hold of for some.
That may not be much help for the poor in HK.
Makes problems like my code not compiling seem rather small.
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.
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.
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.
Public housing or housing vouchers are one thing. Price controls are another. Price controls are absolutely, without a single empirical doubt, the worst policy you could enact. You might as well start torching your housing supply...the effects are the same.
Hyperbolic, but accurate when you've accounted for that.
Vouchers without controls drive up prices, becoming a transfer from govt to landlords.
Public owned housing is the answer.
Public owned housing is the answer.
Vouchers with artificial limitations on new development drive up prices, becoming a transfer from govt to landlords
Eliminating artificial limitations on new development is the answer.
Eliminating artificial limitations on new development is the answer.
48% of the HK population already live in government provided/subsidized housing, that's already very high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_Hong_Kong#Housing_st...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_Hong_Kong#Housing_st...
People are driven to these places by economic opportunities. They are not living in cages because they have nothing else to do, but because they want to live in Hong Kong, even much better conditions in mainland China is of no interest to them. This is like how people abandon their well built, fully paid out 3-bedroom apartments in mainland Russia and flock to Moscow where they share rooms with strangers, with 5-10 people living together in an apartment in their 30s. This isn't poverty, this is how people try to escape poverty. They cannot be helped to do it (otherwise more people will flock in - you can't move all China/all Russia to Hong Kong/Moscow), and should not be banned from trying (that kills economic progress, with Russians staying in Russian province means they will simply slowly die of vodka, in Moscow they might do something useful, i think same goes to Chinese).
Yes this. The HK govt is appalling in its disregard of the poverty line. (>6yrs in HK, and I'm no SG fanboy, but it is SO far beyond HK in this, there is just no comparison)
Can you quantify this? HK has one of the best welfare systems in the world.
An agency colleague and I did volunteer design and marketing work for a Hong Kong food bank (St. James). At the time it was one of the few food banks in HK (I don't know if this has changed or not, but I'd be surprised if it has). Part of our initial work was research and I was pretty shocked that the HK govt didn't even set a national poverty line. Given a rough line of half median income, over a million HK residents were easily below at the time.
If you're talking strictly social security, even the government acknowledges it has a problem.
Here's a recent SCMP article where the welfare dept itself states that at least 40% of HK residents in poverty aren't covered by welfare.
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1062025/700000-sl...
(mirror: http://goo.gl/GxyTw )
The good news is that the HK govt did, finally, just implement a standard poverty line (half median income). This is the first step and a long time in coming.
If you're talking strictly social security, even the government acknowledges it has a problem.
Here's a recent SCMP article where the welfare dept itself states that at least 40% of HK residents in poverty aren't covered by welfare.
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1062025/700000-sl...
(mirror: http://goo.gl/GxyTw )
The good news is that the HK govt did, finally, just implement a standard poverty line (half median income). This is the first step and a long time in coming.
I think the problem in HK is the number of undocumented immigrants. No papers, no open borders, surrounded mostly by water, these people are easy to exploit. I was told that many of the construction workers' (building skyscrapers) wages barely amount to the cost of the day's food.
It's sort of amazing the people in these conditions care enough about quality of work to build buildings that don't fall down.
Cough, ahem, well, it was also explained to me that there may be some systematic labor-related problems with construction quality in those buildings. Not exactly related to worker pay-rate, but the gist is that they tend to pour the concrete too wet (because it is easier/faster to work). This is probably because of productivity-based bonus pay for foremen. The difference in strength isn't enough to cause a building to fail under nominal conditions, but catastrophic failure is more probable in some destructive event (weather, earthquake, explosion, etc).
I was in Singapore and now I'm living in HK. Reading that SG has higher density than HK made was surprising, because here in HK there are so many needle-like apartment buildings, but I didn't see that so much in SG.
I think the reason is that HK does have bigger area than SG but actually far less land is being used in HK (many hills), so practically speaking, the density is higher in HK :)
I think the reason is that HK does have bigger area than SG but actually far less land is being used in HK (many hills), so practically speaking, the density is higher in HK :)
Is that really how it works in SG? I've been told housing prices are outrageous there and if you're too poor to afford public housing you get shipped off to the poor house and are not allowed to leave unless you can find someone to take responsibility for you.
Note: I've only visited SG so this is 2nd hand info through my friends in SG.
Note: I've only visited SG so this is 2nd hand info through my friends in SG.
That's sort of how it works here. The Singaporean housing market is divided into HDB (public housing) and Condo (private housing). Condo's nowadays start at around SGD 1m for something small and basic, but aren't such a bad deal with banks charging interest of just 1.8% on a 40 year loan. Most Singaporeans can't afford this with an average monthly wage of just SGD 2,000 per month.
Public housing on the other hand is heavily subsidised and somewhat controlled for PRs and citizens. FYI Singapore was a giant slum up until the government formed the HDB board in the 1960s. The CPF (Singapore's retirement fund) can be used as a deposit against your apartment which nowadays start at SGD 300,000 if you go far from the city. As you can guess, this results in many people having a lot of cash tied up in non-liquid assets when they retire that leads to a host of other issues.
I moved to Singapore 3 years ago from Australia and love the place and prefer life here to Hong Kong any day.
Public housing on the other hand is heavily subsidised and somewhat controlled for PRs and citizens. FYI Singapore was a giant slum up until the government formed the HDB board in the 1960s. The CPF (Singapore's retirement fund) can be used as a deposit against your apartment which nowadays start at SGD 300,000 if you go far from the city. As you can guess, this results in many people having a lot of cash tied up in non-liquid assets when they retire that leads to a host of other issues.
I moved to Singapore 3 years ago from Australia and love the place and prefer life here to Hong Kong any day.
Well, that makes around 1200 EUR.
So, that's even better than the "common" (not avg) monthly wage in many places in Europe. Indeed, cost of living in Singapore must be over the roof…
So, that's even better than the "common" (not avg) monthly wage in many places in Europe. Indeed, cost of living in Singapore must be over the roof…
> the government build subsidized housing and then enact strict price controls
You're aware that the US has been doing this since the 1950s, right? And it hasn't worked as well for us?
You're aware that the US has been doing this since the 1950s, right? And it hasn't worked as well for us?
I disagree it is the governments job to give people a place to live. From the sounds of it, Hong Kong already does a lot of this. At some point, people need to take care of themselves.
A hungry homeless person is everyone's problem and a huge risk. No matter how you slice it, you end up paying the price: the value of your house goes down, the crime rate goes up, etc. It is a myth that you can escape poverty. Sure, you can move to an expensive gated community with a white gloved guard shooing away the "undesirables", but why do you think it's so expensive?
Moreover, a hungry homeless person is a security risk. How many iPhones, GPS's, laptops, etc. are stolen in a smash-and-grab incidents? How many people get hurt? No, not by your friendly neighborhood homeless lady, but by a person who feels they have no other choice but to steal or a person who is hooked on an addictive substance and can't stop?
Poverty also does not take a lot of people. A few percent here and there will cause enough headaches to become noticeable.
And poverty is chronic in society. It's not like if you took all the homeless, poor, and hungry and shipped them off to some unknown land you'd rid of the problem. No, instead more people would be pushed into the margins, becoming poor. You have to treat the cause.
Therefore, if poverty is inherent in certain societal setups, if it is everyone's problem (i.e.: everyone pays the cost) and it takes only a small percentage of people being poor to become a big problem, it is in the interest of everyone to change the societal setup so that poverty is minimized. Your original point was that it's not the government's job to do this. I argue that it is. The government (by the people and for the people) would not be doing it's job if it wasn't taking care of me or the person next to me.
As an aside, some might argue that private charities work much more efficiently than governments when it comes to homelessness/poverty/hunger. Personally, I believe a balanced approach works best. Big slow moving government projects with lots of oversight and restrictions coupled with flexible and quick-acting private charities are much more effective than either of the two.
Moreover, a hungry homeless person is a security risk. How many iPhones, GPS's, laptops, etc. are stolen in a smash-and-grab incidents? How many people get hurt? No, not by your friendly neighborhood homeless lady, but by a person who feels they have no other choice but to steal or a person who is hooked on an addictive substance and can't stop?
Poverty also does not take a lot of people. A few percent here and there will cause enough headaches to become noticeable.
And poverty is chronic in society. It's not like if you took all the homeless, poor, and hungry and shipped them off to some unknown land you'd rid of the problem. No, instead more people would be pushed into the margins, becoming poor. You have to treat the cause.
Therefore, if poverty is inherent in certain societal setups, if it is everyone's problem (i.e.: everyone pays the cost) and it takes only a small percentage of people being poor to become a big problem, it is in the interest of everyone to change the societal setup so that poverty is minimized. Your original point was that it's not the government's job to do this. I argue that it is. The government (by the people and for the people) would not be doing it's job if it wasn't taking care of me or the person next to me.
As an aside, some might argue that private charities work much more efficiently than governments when it comes to homelessness/poverty/hunger. Personally, I believe a balanced approach works best. Big slow moving government projects with lots of oversight and restrictions coupled with flexible and quick-acting private charities are much more effective than either of the two.
Wish I could upvote this enough.
Not to mention the toll on the children of the poor who do not get enough good nutrition, education, or a sense of safety and permanence to grow up to be respectable, law-abiding citizens.
That's what I don't get about allegedly intellectual, allegedly fiscally conservative people who are anti-welfare. They think that it's about not "giving a free ride" to people who "don't deserve" it. They are neither intellectual nor fiscally savvy enough to understand that there is always a cost, and to help and house people with welfare -- even people who will never "contribute" -- will cost far less in the long run than the ripple effect from feeling righteous.
That's what I don't get about allegedly intellectual, allegedly fiscally conservative people who are anti-welfare. They think that it's about not "giving a free ride" to people who "don't deserve" it. They are neither intellectual nor fiscally savvy enough to understand that there is always a cost, and to help and house people with welfare -- even people who will never "contribute" -- will cost far less in the long run than the ripple effect from feeling righteous.
>I disagree it is the governments job to give people a place to live. From the sounds of it, Hong Kong already does a lot of this. At some point, people need to take care of themselves.
The government IS the people. It's not some alien body as some people (mostly in the US) seem to think.
The government is the people voting to elect some representatives, so they can get some things done for them ("the country") that need massive co-ordination and central planning.
Of course it can go astray (politicians taking advantage of their power for their own benefit and such), but it's not like there such thing as "perfection" anywhere in life, be it private or public.
The government IS the people. It's not some alien body as some people (mostly in the US) seem to think.
The government is the people voting to elect some representatives, so they can get some things done for them ("the country") that need massive co-ordination and central planning.
Of course it can go astray (politicians taking advantage of their power for their own benefit and such), but it's not like there such thing as "perfection" anywhere in life, be it private or public.
Right and if the people of Hong Kong thought the government should be providing suitable housing for everybody who comes to Hong Kong (note that many of these people are foreigners) then they would vote in politicians who would make that happen.
Not everybody who comes to HK, but permanent residents in HK. Foreigners shouldn't get to come and grab resources. One of the reasons property prices in HK is so ridiculously high is because of many mainlander speculators coming in buying up apartments, jacking demand even higher. The reason this city needs government intervention is because the government controls the majority of land supply, and there isn't nearly enough to satisfy everybody.
They could set up an emigration plan to somewhere less crowded.
As the video pointed out, only about half of government officials in Hong Kong are directly elected by the population. For the remainder, there is little pressure or incentive to get anything done in this regard.
Are governments here for the sake of their people? Or are people here for the sake of their governments?
You are free to hold your opinion. But at least be upfront with that you consider it an ideological issue as there obviously are reasonable alternatives to having poor people live in prison cells.
they are not being forced to live there, they are choosing to do so and paying rent. they are free to move anywhere else they want, including across the border to mainland china where it is much cheaper.
It is absolutely the governments job to give people places to live if they are unable (not unwilling) to do so on their own. The difficulty lies in determining who is truly unable and who is simply unwilling.
It is absolutely your opinion that it is their job.
It is the job of the people to determine what the job of the government is.
That was my point.
You're going to end up paying for it one way or another. Either in expensive prisons with armed guards, or by intervening before things get out of hand.
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.
Wealth distribution on this planet is fucking terrible.
That works once, then it stops working in the future and backfires because people would no longer be motivated to create wealth in that jurisdiction. Which means no jobs and no tax revenue.
How long does it take to stop working? I'm living in Copenhagen, and it seems to have been working here for quite a while now. And it makes the city much nicer for everyone. As a middle-class professional, I don't need the social welfare system myself (at least, not currently), but I still do benefit from the quality of life that comes from living in a city with very low crime, relatively low poverty, and reasonably good (though far from perfect) economic equality.
Occasionally people do leave, whether for tax reasons or other reasons, but on the whole even the wealthy agree that the quality of life you get from living here is worth the expense paid in taxes, compared to moving somewhere that's more unequal and more violent. If anything I would guess there is a net influx of well-off people, and there would be more of one if immigration rules were loosened, to make it easier for wealthy people to move here from outside Europe.
Occasionally people do leave, whether for tax reasons or other reasons, but on the whole even the wealthy agree that the quality of life you get from living here is worth the expense paid in taxes, compared to moving somewhere that's more unequal and more violent. If anything I would guess there is a net influx of well-off people, and there would be more of one if immigration rules were loosened, to make it easier for wealthy people to move here from outside Europe.
> How long does it take to stop working?
For Denmark, about another 7 years. Why do you think the government is acting the way it does? (For those not familiar with the situation, pursuing a reform strategy in straight opposition of explicit pre-election promises). By then, the baby-boomers will have retired and the smallest generation in modern history is left to pay for everything.
As for crime, there is no evidence that low inequality causes low crime rates, or the opposite. Significantly more inequal Switzerland and Singapore has lower homicide rates.
For Denmark, about another 7 years. Why do you think the government is acting the way it does? (For those not familiar with the situation, pursuing a reform strategy in straight opposition of explicit pre-election promises). By then, the baby-boomers will have retired and the smallest generation in modern history is left to pay for everything.
As for crime, there is no evidence that low inequality causes low crime rates, or the opposite. Significantly more inequal Switzerland and Singapore has lower homicide rates.
> As for crime, there is no evidence that low inequality causes low crime rates, or the opposite.
This study disagrees: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s...
This study disagrees: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s...
That's some nice confirmation bias you've got going on there.
Do you honestly believe the ultra-rich work for money?
Imagine, if you were a multi-millionaire, would you go to a job you hated for 60 hours a week?
Imagine, if you were a multi-millionaire, would you go to a job you hated for 60 hours a week?
Do you honestly believe that there is no level of taxation where the ultra-rich (and the moderately rich which is where most tax-revenue comes from anyway - there are just many, many more of them) will react and leave?
Not really. Wealth attracts people primarily due to change in relative status as compared with other people. So if you do progressive taxation, someone who makes 1 million before tax still ranks higher than someone who makes 2 million before tax, even if ends up that they make 700,000 and 1,200,000 respectively. Due to the marginal utility curve of having more money, they really aren't that different off in other non-status related respects either.
It certainly can have adverse affects on investment payoffs that distort market logic; if you could figure out a way to progressively tax consumer consumption instead of income you could get around that.
It certainly can have adverse affects on investment payoffs that distort market logic; if you could figure out a way to progressively tax consumer consumption instead of income you could get around that.
Rich people who live in Hong Kong do not view their relative wealth like people who live in Manhatten, because they surely travel frequently and are thus acutely aware of just how much richer they are than everybody else on the planet, while rich people in Manhatten can get trapped in the cognitive bubble you are describing and misunderstand their relative wealth.
Singapore, being a rich island nation, works the same. If they started taxing the shit out of their rich it would certainly result in many of those people leaving the country and many, many more not setting up shop their in the first place.
Singapore, being a rich island nation, works the same. If they started taxing the shit out of their rich it would certainly result in many of those people leaving the country and many, many more not setting up shop their in the first place.
Surely rich people in Manhattan never travel?
Sure they do but on average a millionaire from HK is going to travel internationally a lot more - especially to poor countries - than a millionaire from New York, simply due to geography and living on a small island. All they have to do is walk over the border into Shenzhen to get a sense of just how rich they are. One could conceivably grow up in NYC and never grow to truly appreciate how much their life differs from those in the poorest parts of the World.
There are plenty of poor people in Manhattan, inequality is very high. But maybe you are right and rich people in Manhattan have more opportunity and desire to insulate themselves. I wouldn't know.
Queens/The Bronx/Harlem aren't that far from the Upper East Side... They're not Shenzhen by any means, but they should serve as a decent reminder, especially if they're aware that those places are relatively rich compared to lots of places.
Can you provide a source/study for this?
You need a source to confirm that if you take the wealth away from the rich people in your tiny island nation, other people are not going to be motivated to create wealth there in the future?
Hong Kong and Singapore thrive because they are low tax, low regulation havens for the rich. Start enacting 'eat the rich' policies and the rich will go elsewhere.
Hong Kong and Singapore thrive because they are low tax, low regulation havens for the rich. Start enacting 'eat the rich' policies and the rich will go elsewhere.
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.
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.
Let me get this straight. You think that if it were allowed to build on every square foot of HK, that there would be no housing problem in HK? What additional problems do you imagine would be created by the paving-over of every unit of land?
> which is a bad idea for another reasons, but not libertarian ones
I don't think it's a good idea, Libertarians do.
I don't think it's a good idea, Libertarians do.
Libertarians are not the only ones who believe it is not the governments responsibility to provide for the poor.
It is the responsibility of society and communities to end situations that even allow for the poor to exist, otherwise we are simply sending people to their doom.
Coming from a family of humble means, poor, whom emigrated to the US from Mexico I can tell you that a lot of the reasons that poor people are poor is because they choose to be poor. So forgive me if I'm not too sympathetic about poor people.
In the USA of all the friends that I had I was the only one to go to college. We were all in the same boat but I chose to study and do my homework and they did not.
Then there were lots of other students that not only would they not care about their studies but they actually made it worse for the rest of us in a daily basis. They got into gangs, smoke pot, bullied other students, where disruptive during class.
You know what, fuck them. They chose to waste their youth, they chose to do nothing with their lives so I don't give a fuck about them being poor. I was there, in the trenches with them and I can tell you that nobody forced them to waste their lives. They did it of their own will.
In the USA of all the friends that I had I was the only one to go to college. We were all in the same boat but I chose to study and do my homework and they did not.
Then there were lots of other students that not only would they not care about their studies but they actually made it worse for the rest of us in a daily basis. They got into gangs, smoke pot, bullied other students, where disruptive during class.
You know what, fuck them. They chose to waste their youth, they chose to do nothing with their lives so I don't give a fuck about them being poor. I was there, in the trenches with them and I can tell you that nobody forced them to waste their lives. They did it of their own will.
No, poor people who breed are sending people to their doom.
Well hey, I'll get on board with that. Sounds like an impossibility though unless you're a country like Kuwait with an endless supply of money you don't have to work for and a tiny population.
Maybe, if there weren't many wealthy people out in the world buying worthless shit with their money, power and influence.
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.
If landlords are exploiting people and providing unsafe places to live, then that should be dealt with. I haven't seen anybody other than you mention those things though. People are just appalled by how small and ugly the rooms/cages are and they feel sorry for the people who choose to live there. The government shouldn't tell people who want to pay to live there that they cannot do so.
They mentioned in the video concerns about hygiene and electrical safety, and cockroaches. Twenty people sharing a toilet, how well do you think that works? What I am suggesting it telling landlords what they can and cannot do, not the residents. Every slum in the world has numerous landlords that don't maintain acceptable standards. To pretend that very poor people have the consumer freedom to challenge that is ignorant.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
It sucks that so many are left with no choice in the matter though.
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.
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.
I mean isn't that twice the size of a dorm room? It could not have been that bad.
The size of the rooms in the dorm I lived in my freshman year were as follows:
" Single: 14’4” x 7’ ; Double: 14’8” x 14’4” ; Triple: 15'3" x 15'5"'' "
So the single room comes in at about ~100 sq. feet, and the double ~210 sq. feet.
Some of our facilities, like kitchens, bathrooms and showers, were communal however (I can't tell if this is the case in these apartments, but I can't see any bathrooms). Another big difference is that for nearly all college students, the dorm is not really their only home; everyone I know had a significant amount of stuff stored in their parent's house. I believe we were also provided a communal winter storage area for things like bikes, boxes of summer clothes, etc.
" Single: 14’4” x 7’ ; Double: 14’8” x 14’4” ; Triple: 15'3" x 15'5"'' "
So the single room comes in at about ~100 sq. feet, and the double ~210 sq. feet.
Some of our facilities, like kitchens, bathrooms and showers, were communal however (I can't tell if this is the case in these apartments, but I can't see any bathrooms). Another big difference is that for nearly all college students, the dorm is not really their only home; everyone I know had a significant amount of stuff stored in their parent's house. I believe we were also provided a communal winter storage area for things like bikes, boxes of summer clothes, etc.
I don't know what US dorms are like, but I'd guess they have some shared space to stretch out in. Maybe a kitchen or lounge. But what we're talking about is the room, and nothing else.
That's not a great way to live.
That's not a great way to live.
My dorm room was a bunk with a futon under it with a very small desk to the side. It wasn't ideal but fine considering I spent most of my time somewhere else.
[deleted]
The largest dorm I had in college (in suite style where I had my own room) was 130 sq ft. If I had my own place, I'd at least want a bathroom and kitchen (I'd go crazy and ask for a laundromat set), but I could work with ~100 sq ft of other living space easily for just a bed / work desk / clothes basket or 3.
Dorm rooms come with spacious common areas and libraries for socializing and working. That's rarely all the indoor space you have access to (without paying for a coffee, driving, etc.)
My dorm room is 200 sq ft. I have a reasonable amount of floor space but fitting a kitchen in here would be a stretch.
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.
Obviously it's different to choose this lifestyle vs being forced into it due to poverty.
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.)
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.)
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.
How much was that and how long 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.
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.
400 euro/month around 5-10 years ago.
That’s cheap? Wow. If it’s close to Versailles it’s well outside Paris.
I’m now moving into a 17sqft mini apartment (just for four months), one metro station from the center of Hamburg (20 min to my very central workplace, including a ten minute bus ride to the next metro station plus walking and waiting times). I will pay 270 euro/month for it, including heat and electricity.
You can get more spacious apartments in similar places in Hamburg for about 500 Euro/month. If you share an apartment with roommates you might even pay less than 400 Euro.
Is Paris really so much more expensive, even well outside the city? I mean, Hamburg (and Munich and now also Berlin) are already making headlines for their crazy expensive rents.
I’m now moving into a 17sqft mini apartment (just for four months), one metro station from the center of Hamburg (20 min to my very central workplace, including a ten minute bus ride to the next metro station plus walking and waiting times). I will pay 270 euro/month for it, including heat and electricity.
You can get more spacious apartments in similar places in Hamburg for about 500 Euro/month. If you share an apartment with roommates you might even pay less than 400 Euro.
Is Paris really so much more expensive, even well outside the city? I mean, Hamburg (and Munich and now also Berlin) are already making headlines for their crazy expensive rents.
Are you sure you have your units right? You can just put a bed on 17sqft, but you could not also have a door swinging inwards or even place to stand next to that bed (https://www.google.nl/search?q=17+sq+ft+in+sq+meters)
I think he is missing a zero. 17 sqft is a mini-closet, not a mini-apartment. 170 sqft would still be pretty small, but doable.
I got the units wrong. Really stupid error.
It’s a mini apartment with huge quotation marks around it. One 9 square meter living room (with cupboard, sofa, table), one 8 square meter bedroom, including a shower. Toilet and tiny kitchen niche in the tiny, 1 meter wide hall not included (for whatever reason) in the 17 square meters.
I still think the 270 Euro/month are pretty expensive for what it is, but luckily I only have to live there for four months (and in the summer, so I’m not going to be in there all the time and will rather try to enjoy the city).
It’s a mini apartment with huge quotation marks around it. One 9 square meter living room (with cupboard, sofa, table), one 8 square meter bedroom, including a shower. Toilet and tiny kitchen niche in the tiny, 1 meter wide hall not included (for whatever reason) in the 17 square meters.
I still think the 270 Euro/month are pretty expensive for what it is, but luckily I only have to live there for four months (and in the summer, so I’m not going to be in there all the time and will rather try to enjoy the city).
Sorry, units wrong. 17 square meters, obviously. That’s about 180 sqft.
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!
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!
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
"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
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...
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.404783143152.173014...
When I look at these pictures, it makes me think the problem is being single.
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.
http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/mongolian-homeless-l...
I think, it cannot get worse than that.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
See also the now demolished Kowloon Walled City
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
I'd add cororate cafeterias to that, especially those are subsidized. But this is for a larger company, at least 1,000 employees or so. And there's a mix of "blue-collar" and "white-collar" employees using it. And the utilization is a lot better - closer to 60%, plus whatever % of building tenant. And while many of the people do take the food and run back to their cubes, the cafeteria is also almost full of people taking communal meals.
In Sweden bringing your own lunch to work and eating it in the lunchroom is quite common even among more 'white'-collar workers. At the last two engineering firms I've worked at, I'd say that roughly half the employees do that.
Nearly all dinners are communal in the many cohousing[1] communities in Denmark.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohousing
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohousing
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.
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 :)).
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, ...)
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.
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.
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
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
It's funny how every piece of news can be immediately retargeted as a diatribe against the ever-evil "rich bankers".
Its because the standard of living of many bankers is disgustingly lavish compared to the people they exploit.
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)
* 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)
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...
http://www.sydsvenskan.se/lund/husvilla-lth-studenter-tvinga...
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
Hong Kong is unique. Even if China was truly communist, HK has operated differently.
What kind of mobility do these people have? Could they choose to move to somewhere in rural China and get something of decent size?
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.
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.
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.
Mostly younger people though.
The night buses from wanchai are full of HKers heading home to SZ.
I used to work with people who commute from Island South to SZ, but they only do it on Friday night and come back on Monday morning. In general, people living cages neither have the money nor time to commute.
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.
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.
The median income in HK per household per month is HKD 18000 in 2010[1] (USD ~2300). Everything you can buy in HK is essentially NYC prices. You can't feed your family with this income, so they are living in HK, taking advantage of free education and healthcare. There is also no "Chinese rural areas" anywhere near HK. HK is an island and a peninsula. North of HK is Shenzhen, also a big metropolitan area. There's no commuting to these "rural areas" that's feasible. Also, to commute to China, you essentially have to leave your children in China, otherwise you'll be leaving your children in HK, and take a job in China instead, which defeats the purpose.
[1]: http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/populatio...
[1]: http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/populatio...
I was thinking in terms of moving instead of commuting. If your job prospects elsewhere are no good though it doesn't really help.
The problem is these people generally have little skills so their job prospects are pretty terrible anywhere. In reality, if you have a stable job, or possibly a family, you'd be living in public or subsidized housing instead of a cage. But that's no longer possible in the last decade since the government had stopped these programs.
Shenzhen is still much, much cheaper than HK. I had a 2 bedroom 90 square meter apartment in Shenzhen in a brand new building and a nice part of town for 3,000 RMB/month. The same in Hong Kong would have been roughly 10 times more expensive. And Shenzhen is an expensive mainland city.
Alternatively, these people choose to live in these cages that cost ~ HKD 2K and save the rest for their families.
[deleted]
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).
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.
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.
Same goes for Vietnam. There're houses like 1/1.5 meters width. No bed, furniture whatsoever.
[deleted]
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.
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?
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.
– 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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
I don't live on a ranch, and don't really have any desire to, but let's play devil's advocate.
With a ranch and lots of land, you can grow your own food, raise your own animals and not be tied down to requiring (as much) other people. You don't have to deal with traffic (foot or road), generally anyway, and your neighbors are probably pretty friendly - probably because they don't have to deal with masses of people on a daily basis and aren't stressed out / overly stimulated.
You get the night air, the country views and peace and quiet. That goes a long ways for some people. That is something you don't get in a urban setting.
With a ranch and lots of land, you can grow your own food, raise your own animals and not be tied down to requiring (as much) other people. You don't have to deal with traffic (foot or road), generally anyway, and your neighbors are probably pretty friendly - probably because they don't have to deal with masses of people on a daily basis and aren't stressed out / overly stimulated.
You get the night air, the country views and peace and quiet. That goes a long ways for some people. That is something you don't get in a urban setting.
> You get the night air, the country views and peace and quiet. That goes a long ways for some people. That is something you don't get in a urban setting.
Country views, not so much, but I live in a city on Massachusetts's South Shore and I get fantastic night air and the place is quiet as a grave after about 9PM.
Country views, not so much, but I live in a city on Massachusetts's South Shore and I get fantastic night air and the place is quiet as a grave after about 9PM.
You've just described why I want to live in a low population area. Thank you.
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?
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?
Bay Area resident here.
Most families of 4 are living in a 1br if they're lucky. Plenty of families of 10 doing 2brs etc.
Bay Area is seriously a bad choice if you're not in IT or making at least 6 figures combined yearly.
Most families of 4 are living in a 1br if they're lucky. Plenty of families of 10 doing 2brs etc.
Bay Area is seriously a bad choice if you're not in IT or making at least 6 figures combined yearly.
I'm fairly sure if money were no object and transportation was near instant,
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 ...
It would also cost an insane amount of money, as well as inevitably only being for the very wealthy. You might make things better for yourself but definitely not all of mankind.
Talk about taking the discussion in a different direction..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Could you name me some of those cultures? What interests me is given the choice would they want to have extra space or not? IMHO good indicator of it is how their rich live.
Baseless. Start it with "I like..." and then it's true.
Maybe it is baseless but I wanted to give a little perspective, to show that it's not always about your wishes. If you live with someone you have to accommodate for their needs as well.
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?
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.
Try to store one, or maybe even two expensive and dirty mountain bikes in an apartment. Especially with a crazy girlfriend around.
clean the bikes, get a wall rack, and dump the girlfriend (which might get you down to one bike)
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.
I lived in China for a bit. I only had bikes while I was there. I hated hauling the damn things up the stairs.
You better NOT be putting your expensive bikes away dirty, sir!
Who is wealthy enough to live on a 20 acre ranch anyways? This is not a real issue.
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.
> 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.
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.
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 :-)
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 :-)
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.
How wonderful for you it is a choice, and not out of necessity.
"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....
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....
I really hope that your point here was to underline that indeed, you don't.
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?
My point as that "Needs" and "wants" and "desires" are totally different. While no one may need a 20 acre backyard, many will love it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU4jjdRzy3w
Hong Kong is an intriguing city that I highly recommend to go spend some time in.