[lmm]

> For example, London has it's own housing design guide that recommends new one bedroom apartments for two people to be a minimum of 50 square metres (538 square feet). That's still less than space standards in continental Europe but it's enough space to live comfortably even if it doesn't count as tiny by Western standards.

According to the article, that's almost "tiny".

I lived alone in a 47 square meter apartment until recently, and it definitely felt larger than it needed to be.

> This article is one of the few examples of a tiny house situated in what seems like a dense urban environment. In contrast, many tiny homes are placed among open space. The tiny homes don't feel cramped because they're surrounded by nature, with beautiful long uninterrupted views out of the windows. No noisy neighbours or traffic nearby either.

> But take away the countryside location of these tiny homes and could the tiny house work in an urban environment? I doubt it. The future for housing for most people on the planet (including the US) is in cities and urban environments. Can you live in a tiny home where you don't have long, uninterrupted views out of your windows? Or where you only have windows along one side of your dwelling (e.g. single-aspect apartments). Do you feel you have enough privacy when your apartment or house is joined with your neighbour's home?

Apartment living is fine (although limiting cars in cities is a must since they're so noisy). I'm pretty sure this guy's big problem is that he's living alone and working from home. That's a recipe for going stir-crazy however big your house is. (And I have to wonder: why pay city-centre prices if you're working remotely anyway?)

[msh]

You might enjoy the non-work possibilities that city center living provides.