Housing is the most elastic requirement in the list of livelihood dimensions. In peace time, most people must cope with similar housing conditions as everyone else. If you can’t tolerate the average housing condition then you can either pay a premium or learn to live like everyone else.
Luxury not needed– big size or stone build. I believe wood is inferior and cheaper, but somehow lots of expensive homes in the U.S. are wooden… due to supply-n-demand. Both stone and wood homes are adequate.
— eg: In primitive cultures (even today), humans need shelter from natural hazards and wild animals, so they used caves and built tents. They live together and light fires to fend off animals. Family privacy was not a real problem. Read [[the family]] by TimeLife.
Unlike nutrition, modern housing is not a requirement for physical survival or even protection.
— eg: Singapore HDB was initially building 1BR and 2BR (3-room flats), considered adequate for most families (which were bigger then). Then it started building more 3BR.
— eg (personal 2nd-hand): Level of Housing for Henry.L (couple with 5 kids) is one good illustration that Basic Livelihood depends on which city, which era you pick.
— eg (personal 2nd-hand): I actually know a Singaporean Indian family of four, living in one-bedroom apartment, and coping fine for years. I was the tenant taking up another bedroom. I am sure they are not in hardship.
— eg: The 40-sqm Hongkong homes are … enough by my standard.
Japan also featured small homes. The Japanese (and Hongkong) families have had comfortable, high-quality lives in homes as small as 10[1] to 40 sqm. It’s not as hard and miserable as you may think.
[1] 150 years ago, many Japanese families (with kids) lived in 10-sqm apartments if they choose a big city.
— eg (personal xp): Bushwick street cleanliness was a livelihood concern to me.
— eg (personal xp): private space at home.. During 2020 covid19 lockdown, I complained and struggled in my limited home office… no livelihood hardship.
— eg: China in the 80s have many 三代同堂 homes in one studio.
— eg: in middle-class livelihood ]CN, I described Chinese intellectual 梁晓声’s criteria of “70 sqm home”. My parents’ best home ever is actually 75 sqm 居住面积.
— eg (personal xp): 筒子楼… In Beijing East district, my family of 4, like countless other families, spent several years in a 10-sqm “studio” with a big bed + a small bed (for my elder sister). Cooking was always in the common corridor. Bathroom and water room were communal, without hot water. See https://baike.baidu.com/tashuo/browse/content?id=835bbb2f98fddc26a6039d6d
- dilapidated common facilities .. pipes, wiring, sewage, corridor lighting, blackened walls/ceilings due to corridor cooking
- blackout, breakdown
- lack of privacy .. communal living
Hardship? Not at all. I think residents (including me) didn’t complain, because these are well accepted facts of life, like hurricanes, rundown subways or street baggers in the U.S. I think Khmer villages are similar — every member of the village lives in similar housing. Equality brings harmony. Now consider the current residents of 筒子楼, mostly renters. Their living condition is way below current “average”, therefore deprivation and poverty. U.S. inner city housing is probably a similar story.
When my family moved into a 1BR with private kitchen and bathroom, I felt slightly better. My upstairs neighbor #1010 the Ma’s also had 4 people but slightly older. A few years later, during my middle school years (probably 1987) we moved to a 2BR in the outskirts. Although we doubled our living space, I felt even less of an improvement.
So in terms of livelihood needs, I think housing need evolves. The determining factor seems to be peer comparison and equal access.
— Q: is 2BR adequate for my family? No hardship. In the U.S. suburbs, I think 2BR is unavailable, unheard-of , too small even as unit in a MFH. I guess U.S. builder in the suburbs would never build such a thing. However, in a condo you will find 2BR units, 1BR and studios.
Taking a step back, Why is the “availability” factor even relevant to me? Because my minimum “need” is paradoxically, subconsciously driven by other people’s preference and actual decisions. If 100% of my so-called peers consider 2BR too cramped, too inconvenient, insufficient privacy… then it’s hard to feel comfortable about 2BR. (It’s good to try it out as a renter family. ) In Hongkong or the Beijing 20 years ago, 2BR is mainstream and clearly adequate.
If I add lower-income U.S. families into my reference group, then yes I find many renter families living in 2BR. Recall my Hamilton home, my Boston home,
My Hongkong landlord in Bayonne midtown didn’t mind a small 2nd-floor home. She had lots of storage room in basement, Floor 1 and Floor 3.
In reality, I will want (not “need”) a 3BR for the 2 teenage kids.
— SDXQ:
In contrast, Some middle-class immigrants to U.S. find the average U.S. schools unacceptable. Admittedly not a livelihood issue by my definition, but unacceptable to them.
— commute .. is a huge personal need. Based on my definition of livelihood (as explained to Shuo), 3H daily commute is not a livelihood issue. However, even without real experience, I imagine such a long commute to be detrimental to my wellbeing and family life. Not livelihood issue, but very serious, and unacceptable to me.