The standard lot width throughout Chicago, a major city with millions of people, is 25’, and one is not allowed to build to the edge, so in effect 16-20’ is a normal width for a home here.
There are some larger lots (32’, usually) and some people have combined lots to make larger properties, but that’s the standard size.
Single-wide quad-high
Amateurs.
In Turin, there is the “Fetta di polenta” (slice of polenta) designed by the famouns XIX century architecht, Alessandro Antonelli. Built only with stones, bricks and mortars. No reinforced concrete was used.
Just move to the north west of England you can get a 3 bed house for 60k in some citys, thou weather you would want to live there…
But 90k sterling will get you a house in a city in a nice enough area.
In the UK, a typical terraced house from the 1850’s is just over three meters (11’) wide, they’re perfectly liveable. Although as they were mostly built with outside toilets, these days the bathroom is often downstairs, through the kitchen at the back.
In Bristol, we’ve had much the same reaction to a pair of houses, which have recently been built in what was a narrow lane (and the price of housing is similarly crazy):
The fridge is likely under one of the counters, beside the washing machine.
I thought maybe a fireman’s pole, in a column also set up for indoor rock climbing.
edit: put a big fan in the bottom of that column, use it for indoor skydiving. Claim that use use antigravity to travel between floors.
Obviously there are no setback requirements in that city.
I totally agree. I’ve been to that street and the house looks ridiculous enough that I went round to the alley in the back to try to figure out what it is. The issue isn’t that it’s narrow.
It would have been possible to build a nice house with the same general shape and square footage on that lot. This is not that house.
According to the video, points 1, 3, and 4 were dictated by zoning and building codes. That’s before you get to the lot size and shape.
It’s not a house I’d want to live in for an extended period of time, let alone one I’d pay CAD$3-million for, but they were working within a lot of unusual constraints to prove a point (perhaps only to themselves).
Like the double decker couch.
The ground floor is not the first floor and the 1st floor is the 2nd story? This is an abomination.
This is Europe.
That might work better than a trampoline, with laundry and groceries spilling all over the place. 
I propose a cultural exchange, the US can adopt the metric system and Europe will start using our system of floor ordering. We will even start putting the 13th floor back into our buildings as a sign of goodwill.
The one thing that gets me here is 3 bedrooms 3 bathrooms in an incredibly space-constrained house…
Why 3 bathrooms? We’re living in a three bedroom one bathroom house in the UK, it’s fine, our upcoming extension upgrades us to 4 bedrooms and two bathrooms, which for the same amount of people seems like luxury…
Why does a 3 bed house need more than two bathrooms? Why waste the space you severely lack?
My only guess is that the builder sees this as an income property rather than a single-family home, to be operated as some kind of co-living hybrid for young professionals where each renter gets their own bathroom and bedroom and shares the kitchen and common area. A tight fit for the renters, but that’s life in the big, expensive city where sub-300sqf rentals in new “microcondo” buildings can go for $1900/month and cost $250k-350k to buy.
Why would we care? The US is metric when they want to sell us stuff. The only inconvenience is that Europeans have to deal with miles and Fahrenheit when vacationing there. So what? With six weeks of paid vacation we aren’t in a hurry.
It’s a small price for the entertainment of watching Americans trying to calculate wether a balcony turned pool will crash or witnessing a Mars Probe disintegrate.
I don’t even believe that. Windows are not allowed on the sides for fire code reasons. The previous house that was on the lot and was demolished was at the front in line with the other houses. I’d suspect they wanted to build a house that ran from the front to the back or something ridiculous so they didn’t have to walk from the carport and when they were told it couldn’t do that set it to the back instead of the front.
The idea that the zoning or the building code would prohibit windows on the ground level is absurd.
You can get a good house in Minneapolis / St. Paul for under $200k, easily.
I should have said “I feel like I’m priced out of all warm cities of any size.” I’m sure Minneapolis / St. Paul is a lovely place to live, but I’d have to buy a winter coat if I lived there, and that’d be a shame 
