Apparently you have never seen a Japanese apartment.

Credit where credit is due Utah already solved the homelessness problem, just no one else seems to like the answer.

A state like Utah can never solve the homelessness problem.

Doesn't look very effective to me, just some design stunt.

The topic reminds me of this woman and her living/working room:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZSdrtEqcHU

I admire people who are so organized, although my (city-)appartment isn't much bigger and I have just gotten rid of a lot of stuff to have more space.

Considering the shelves on the outside, the structure suggests it would sit inside an apartment along with 3-4 other ones with a sort of small community all renting one space.

Being a 10x10x10 seems like rather odd dimensions, and having plumbing and trying to be a complete house does seem a bit odd. I'd personally rather have wiring and no water/sewer/garbage; Although a spot for storing water or pouring from a spout would be okay.

Much better designs usually are those put on the back of trailers that don't require special permits to move. 230square foot houses are good examples, or that cardboard house i linked earlier.

LOL. He's not homeless, he's just into wilderness survival. :P

I honestly kind of like it. I adore "small homes" and I'm somewhat of a minimalist.

The cube isn't meant to be a complete house on its own, it's meant to be inside an outer shell that provides actual living area. The bed, for example, is pulled out from under the TV shelf, and when pushed in is under the bathroom floor. The inside of the cube is the bathroom, the outside is various compartments and shelves.

"Homes" smaller than this, such as those Japanese rooms mentioned earlier in this thread, generally are little more than sleeping space and share cleaning, washing and cooking facilities between several homes.

It's bigger than a holding cell...

It's a "$ per square foot" wet dream for some designer / builder / developer. Knock yourself out, I guess. Either people will buy into it or they won't. If they do, then I guess there is something to it.

Back to the question of, "could I live like that?" If single, I think I could. 20 years of the semi-traveling life has meant a lot of hotel nights for long stretches so somewhat compact living arrangements aren't new to me. Much of it depends on whether I'd stub my toe every night on the way to the bathroom (seriously).

And this for a couple years myself (bottom rack, on a 60s-vintage tender):

Not only tight, but very little privacy. 10x10 and a lockable door would be a luxury in comparison.

Years of living alone in a 31 m² apartment... it was plenty of space to me, and I liked how fast it was to e.g. vacuum clean, the vacuum cleaner reached in every corner without having to move the electric plug around.

Oddly, it was mainly my PC and console retail game collection with which I had the most trouble to fit anywhere, even though I had even got rid of the PC game boxes, and kept only the CD jewel cases and manuals. Hence I am happy for GOG, saves a lot of space, and also my wife is completely unaware on how many games I have. :)

But overall, I would have been ready to live there alone for the rest of my life, if needed. It even had a nice and pretty big balcony. The only thing I wondered a bit was that it was on the third floor (three stairs up) without a lift... Possibly a problem when one gets older. Now we live in a 5th floor (with a lift) where one can go easily with a wheelchair if needed.

Later I lived there with my wife for a couple of years. It was manageable, but maybe a bit too constrained, and had to carefully think where to put what. My wife kept bugging me about my old physical games, as she had problems finding room for her masses of clothes in the wardrobe.

Also when she wanted to throw some party to friends... boy it sure was stuffed.

Yo dawg, we heard you like rooms, so we put a room inside your room.

This thing is pointless, you still need a fully equipped room to support its infrastructure. It's not even a solution for people who can't afford any better, since they need to have a fully equipped room in the first place. And if you have such a room, why on earth would you need this cube?

God damn, I was first wondering "100 m²? That's a huge area!", but you are obviously talking about feet...

It seems like it's designed for people who actually have no possessions. I mean seriously, buy a couple of books and a guitar or something and your cubitat is totally clogged.


Anyway, this actually reminded me of another thing I don't quite understand. When you look at any furniture catalogue or lifestyle magazines or whatever, it always shows rooms with no decorations, two magazine issues on a coffee table, three books on a very simple bookstand and that's it. I understand it's supposed to showcase the furniture itself with no distractions, what I do not understand however is that a lot of people actually take this literally and they think that this is how the cool new stylish room is supposed to look like and so they really try to make their rooms look like this, that is no decorations, no books, nothing.

For downsized and quieter living, you choose your possessions carefully. If you don't have room for a guitar, how about a violin? Or a ocarina? Or maybe a harp? (Since a harp is just a bunch of tensioned strings, you could build the entire room as your acoustic chamber! Reminds me of that one next generation episode...)

To live rather comfortably you need very few possessions, and most of them are mufti-functional. Dave Canterbury says each tool/item should have at least 3 uses before he'd consider carrying it.

The house sizes in the US and most buildings are way overblown, currently to qualify for a house it's something like 2,400 square feet, when a tiny house of less than 250 square feet can be enough for a single person. Depending on climate, you could literally live out of a backpack.