I hate living in my tiny house (2019)(fastcompany.com)
fastcompany.com
I hate living in my tiny house (2019)
https://www.fastcompany.com/90407740/why-i-hate-living-in-my-tiny-house
187 comments
The original idea for tiny homes was to avoid the mortgage rat race and retire early. An alternate solution that is almost as inexpensive but that doesn't involve living in a shoebox is a mobile home in a good old fashioned mobile home park. For seniors looking to downsize/economize their retirement a MH in a quiet senior 55+ community can solve the financial problem while still allowing them a single family home dwelling that you can park next to (unlike an apartment) and that is cheap enough to live near you grandchildren in a metro area. Senoir parks also have many community benefits for retirees. The one downside is the space rent that you have to pay to the park that is not under your control. Some parks such as Natural Bridges on the Pacific Ocean near Santa Cruz, CA have astronomical space rents ($5000+/month). Other places such as San Jose have rent control ordinances that limit increases in space rent to 3%/year. A few parks are set up where the residents own the park and so the rent they pay is to themselves and they have democratic control over any increases. In most cases space rent is comparable to property taxes in a normal single family home. Construction of new mobile homes is very adequate and at the same time affordable generally in the range of $100k-$150k. MHPs have been socially maligned but they are a great housing solution and a much better option than most people think.
Small problem - investment groups have realized there’s money to be squeezed out of the tenants. If you can find a co-op park, or something with strong tenant rights and price controls, it might make sense. But buying a MH in a park owned by a family runs the risk of astronomic rent increases and reduced services should the family sell to one of several professional investments groups.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/03/15/what-happens-w...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/03/15/what-happens-w...
What I absorbed: housing shouldn't be an investment market, otherwise investors try to suck the money out of everyone. Whatever corner they try to hide.
That's actually one of the big problems with buying a mobile home. They don't really increase in value (as much as, say, owning a traditional home).
You understand that investors are providing a needed service, right?
Their existence in the market doesn't stop you from existing.
Their existence in the market doesn't stop you from existing.
We collectively decide what's ok or not. The market is man made, man regulated, if tomorrow we decide housing is a basic necessity we can change that
Meanwhile we let the Qataris &co buy flats in Europe capitals and keep them empty as investments vessels, I find that much more disgusting that "think of the investors =("
Meanwhile we let the Qataris &co buy flats in Europe capitals and keep them empty as investments vessels, I find that much more disgusting that "think of the investors =("
Again, how does the existence of investors making money by providing housing prevent you from providing housing at below market cost?
You'll find that it doesn't. That any such restrictions are political decisions not investor decisions.
You'll find that it doesn't. That any such restrictions are political decisions not investor decisions.
I wrote about the space rent issue. The bottom line is you may have to abandon your MH or sell it cheap if an investor jacks up the space rent, but the MH cost split over the time of your residency would be relatively small. Example $100k MH over 8 years is about $1k/month worst case.
> mobile homes [are] very adequate and at the same time affordable generally in the range of $100k-$150k.
This is absolute insanity. In the midwest or quieter parts of Europe, this would already net you half to two thirds of a nice home.
This is absolute insanity. In the midwest or quieter parts of Europe, this would already net you half to two thirds of a nice home.
In 2018 I've started building my home, end of 2019 I've finished it. Total cost: $150k, two story with 3 bedrooms, 2 bath, 2 space garage and large basement. If I started now, it would cost over $300k and I couldn't afford it anymore. Prices now are just insane.
I have a friend that bought a house with a full guest house in metro area of missouri for 125k. He lives in guest house and rents oyt the house to travel nurses for more than hist mortgage payment.
Make that all of a nice home (or several crappy ones). I just bought a nice 3 bedroom/2 bath detached house on 1/4 acres for 120k in May. We're in a city but not a huge one.
I'd advise against a mh for older people. As soon as your knee or hip goes the mh is useless
I think they're mostly describing the immobile kind that's basically a pre-fab home trucked to the spot. Sometimes double-wide.
Not true - MHs can have special shallow stairs that are easier on the knees or even a wheelchair ramp or lift if necessary. All three of these options exist on houses on my street. Also my wife has bad knees but had knee joint replacement surgery on one pre-Covid and is scheduling the other knee post-Covid and she is happy with normal stairs.
I've known a couple people at least that lived in mobile homes and had a ramp built to accommodate them better. Are you saying for situations where a ramp isn't an option or isn't sufficient?
If the solution is putting your senior citizens on wheels than the problem must be seriously borked in some aspect.
These were great 10 years ago, but lot rents are too high now.
That’s not a “solution”. You never own the land and investment companies are buying up the land and jacjpmb up rent.
Try reading what I wrote.
> The one downside is the space rent that you have to pay to the park that is not under your control.
“Other than that, how did you enjoy the show Mrs. Lincoln?”
“Other than that, how did you enjoy the show Mrs. Lincoln?”
If they jack up the space rent too high they will end up owning an empty park.
That's also true for normal landlords (citation: I am one), but that doesn't mean normal rent isn't getting pushed as high as possible by the fundamental nature of market incentives.
I'm of the the opinion that the market which is making me so much money right now is fundamentally broken, and that the only fix is for local governments to be at least half as much in the business of building and letting out housing as they already are in the business of building infrastructure such as roads and utilities — lots, but not necessarily all.
I'm of the the opinion that the market which is making me so much money right now is fundamentally broken, and that the only fix is for local governments to be at least half as much in the business of building and letting out housing as they already are in the business of building infrastructure such as roads and utilities — lots, but not necessarily all.
The difference is that when a “normal landlord” raises their rents to make it unaffordable, you can find a few friends, rent a UHaul and move somewhere else for a couple of hundred dollars or worse case, you can move in relatives, with friends, or even an extended stay and put your stuff in storage [1].
Moving your mobile home can cost between $3K and $15k and even that presupposes that your mobile home is in some type of shape to move without repairs (https://www.moving.com/tips/moving-mobile-home-expect-pay/)
[1] my wife son and I stayed in an extended stay for 6 months when we decided at the last minute to have a house built instead of buying one. We didn’t want to pay the month to month rates.
Moving your mobile home can cost between $3K and $15k and even that presupposes that your mobile home is in some type of shape to move without repairs (https://www.moving.com/tips/moving-mobile-home-expect-pay/)
[1] my wife son and I stayed in an extended stay for 6 months when we decided at the last minute to have a house built instead of buying one. We didn’t want to pay the month to month rates.
No because even though a “mobile home” is suppose to be just that, in reality the cost to move your home also becomes unaffordable.
That’s the point.
Lol reading this just makes me think Kanye was right
According to the article:
> Node, which builds tiny homes in factories to reduce construction cost
These cost >=$150k (source: https://www.fastcompany.com/90381454/these-flatpack-homes-ca...).
> Node’s smallest unit, at 400 square feet, is $150,000
This seems expensive to me given that in Kenya a 40x8 foot container home costs between 950,000 and 1,400,000 Ksh (c. $8000-$11500, so less that a tenth Node's price). (source: https://premiumcontainers.co.ke/current-cost-of-shipping-con...)
There's absolutely no reason technologically that housing has to be expensive. If it is, it's because of social/regulatory reasons.
> Node, which builds tiny homes in factories to reduce construction cost
These cost >=$150k (source: https://www.fastcompany.com/90381454/these-flatpack-homes-ca...).
> Node’s smallest unit, at 400 square feet, is $150,000
This seems expensive to me given that in Kenya a 40x8 foot container home costs between 950,000 and 1,400,000 Ksh (c. $8000-$11500, so less that a tenth Node's price). (source: https://premiumcontainers.co.ke/current-cost-of-shipping-con...)
There's absolutely no reason technologically that housing has to be expensive. If it is, it's because of social/regulatory reasons.
Once you add insulation to that 8 foot width (because, you know, you aren't in Kenya) it is unlivable. Of course you could combine two containers in width with welding, but at that point it's easier to just build a structure from scratch.
I have a guess that insulation is important in Kenya too.
Quick googling showed, that the average salary in Kenya is about 1/10 of that in the US. So the prices are the same to the respective people living there. Technology doesn‘t matter much here, economics are the reason why prices have to be different.
The typical reason why the price is whatever people are able or willing to pay for an item, is a lack of competition.
Right. If you want to buy a house in a desirable place, you’ll have to compete with other people who want it.
Yes because the supply of new homes is artificially kept low by planning laws.
Supply of new homes is cebtral London is artificially kept low by laws of physics.
Not every market is like market of shoes, that allows infinite competition and substitution.
Not every market is like market of shoes, that allows infinite competition and substitution.
I didn't know the laws of physics was what kept the greenbelt around
you could replace one 2000m^2 mansion with a Singapore-style skyscraper and create 2000+ new 1-bedroom apartments ...
That’s true practically everywhere in the world. Can you name a place you’d like to live where it is not?
> That’s true practically everywhere in the world.
True.
True.
It’s not about buying a house in a place. These are the construction costs if you already have the place.
Ever heard of trade? If only there was a simple way of moving shipping containers across oceans.. /s
I'll take it one step further: deploy your highly available container home in a Kubernetes cluster.
/s
/s
If only a startup could disrupt the housing market as easily as something that only requires bits, not atoms.
If airbnb is something to go by there's more money to be made making it worse than better
When robotic long-haul vehicles become reality, why wouldn't this be a viable biz model ? Every couple of months you contract a carrier to take your container home elsewhere. Connect a few connectors and Hey, presto! Same digs, new view.
Container homes are absolutely not a reasonable solution to the housing crisis...
"I also question how well tiny homes make sense as a solution for long-term housing"
I also agree. 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?
Millions of people already live in homes like this and have to contend with these issues. Can we have small or modest-sized homes that give us light, space, privacy, quiet and comfort in a noisy urban setting? It's one of the most pressing and important issues in housing design - and one that architects and home builders have failed to address.
Also, space can be 'modest' in size rather than 'tiny' and still be sustainable or amenable to high density. 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.
I also agree. 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?
Millions of people already live in homes like this and have to contend with these issues. Can we have small or modest-sized homes that give us light, space, privacy, quiet and comfort in a noisy urban setting? It's one of the most pressing and important issues in housing design - and one that architects and home builders have failed to address.
Also, space can be 'modest' in size rather than 'tiny' and still be sustainable or amenable to high density. 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.
Also, space can be 'modest' in size rather than 'tiny' and still be sustainable or amenable to high density.
And in most of the US, we can increase density massively without reducing size to “tiny” or even “small” sizes. The norm in the US is a single-family home (~70%, including townhomes). We could build a lot more large apartment/condo buildings. A lot more duplexes. Both are rare in most of the US. Apartments are almost exclusively targeted at younger, childless people and rarely more than 2 bedrooms.
And in most of the US, we can increase density massively without reducing size to “tiny” or even “small” sizes. The norm in the US is a single-family home (~70%, including townhomes). We could build a lot more large apartment/condo buildings. A lot more duplexes. Both are rare in most of the US. Apartments are almost exclusively targeted at younger, childless people and rarely more than 2 bedrooms.
The problem is neighbors.
The reason why everybody wants a detached home is so you don't share a wall or floor with a neighbor.
Dense housing could be built so that you are well isolated--unfortunately, it never is. Consequently, you have to deal with stomping upstairs, dogs that bark all day, etc.
If people are truly interested in dense housing, we'll need some building codes that make building it a bit more expensive.
The reason why everybody wants a detached home is so you don't share a wall or floor with a neighbor.
Dense housing could be built so that you are well isolated--unfortunately, it never is. Consequently, you have to deal with stomping upstairs, dogs that bark all day, etc.
If people are truly interested in dense housing, we'll need some building codes that make building it a bit more expensive.
Agreed. Apartments are largely viewed as temporary and not for families - thus they’re built cheaply and not big enough (to meet American family expectations). The current 5-over-1 trend is awful in this regard. Yeah, it’s inexpensive to build, but light wood framing done to a tight budget leads to noisy, smelly, awful places to own or live long-term.
Apartments in dense cities are worth millions of dollars, and yet their construction quality is surpassed by some soviet brutalism from the previous century.
Also laws and planning for apartments and leaseholds are absolutely atrocious in UK and most contries that do not have a socialist past - people in charge just do not understand how to deal with them.
Also laws and planning for apartments and leaseholds are absolutely atrocious in UK and most contries that do not have a socialist past - people in charge just do not understand how to deal with them.
Agree, esp. regards a clarification around 'tiny'.
Personally (controversially?) I've always questioned the idea of a tiny house in the countryside. In dense urban (and otherwise restrictive) environments focusing on size makes some sense. But in a rural setting? Emphasizing 'tiny' over e.g the UN-Habitat's mantra of "fast, affordable and absolutely green" feels like a misinterpretation and unnecessary burden ('fast' might be switched out in this context too). I'm not advocating for sprawling mansions by any means, but certainly a more holistic consideration of space and its effects on mental health.
Personally (controversially?) I've always questioned the idea of a tiny house in the countryside. In dense urban (and otherwise restrictive) environments focusing on size makes some sense. But in a rural setting? Emphasizing 'tiny' over e.g the UN-Habitat's mantra of "fast, affordable and absolutely green" feels like a misinterpretation and unnecessary burden ('fast' might be switched out in this context too). I'm not advocating for sprawling mansions by any means, but certainly a more holistic consideration of space and its effects on mental health.
> 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?)
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?)
You might enjoy the non-work possibilities that city center living provides.
Another advantage of tiny homes in rural settings is they're generally optimized for outdoor living, thus dramatically increasing the usable space by using the abundant outdoor space.
Urban settings generally lack that option.
Urban settings generally lack that option.
We recently remodeled our 1.2k sqft house to a 2.1k sqft one. My wife and I have 4 kids and 2 dogs. Our kids are 12, 10 an d 2x 1.5 (twins). That gives some context.
Before the remodel, we had 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. We made it work but it felt a bit small.
By American standards, 2.1k sqft for a family of 6 is not large by any means.
When remodeling, we spent a lot of time on the final layout, drawing inspiration from homes we felt good being in. My wife is an interior designer which played the largest role in our decisions. Interior designers have very technical backgrounds and a lot of knowledge in space planning.
Our remodeled house feels the right size. Not because of the sqft, but because of the layout. We looked at 3k sqft houses prior to remodeling and they felt smaller than our 2.1k sqft one despite an extra 50% of floor space.
All that is a way of saying that “space” matters. It’s not “bigger is better” and you can’t Marie Kondo your way out of tiny spaces. There’s an optimal space + layout that can reduce stress in your life.
Before the remodel, we had 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. We made it work but it felt a bit small.
By American standards, 2.1k sqft for a family of 6 is not large by any means.
When remodeling, we spent a lot of time on the final layout, drawing inspiration from homes we felt good being in. My wife is an interior designer which played the largest role in our decisions. Interior designers have very technical backgrounds and a lot of knowledge in space planning.
Our remodeled house feels the right size. Not because of the sqft, but because of the layout. We looked at 3k sqft houses prior to remodeling and they felt smaller than our 2.1k sqft one despite an extra 50% of floor space.
All that is a way of saying that “space” matters. It’s not “bigger is better” and you can’t Marie Kondo your way out of tiny spaces. There’s an optimal space + layout that can reduce stress in your life.
To your point, I've noticed open floor plans often offer less flexibility. E.g. having a formal dining room allows you to turn it into an office or another bedroom much more easily.
Old houses are larger even when smaller - often because they have these things called “walls” and “doors” that make “rooms” out of open concept spaces.
I do get amused about how everyone hates cube farms but loves open concept.
I do get amused about how everyone hates cube farms but loves open concept.
Do people (the workers) actually hate cube farms? Between open floors and your own cubicle, I'd take a cubicle every time.
I thought open floors only became a thing because companies realized they can save money and workers would put up with it, which doesn't seem to be wrong.
I thought open floors only became a thing because companies realized they can save money and workers would put up with it, which doesn't seem to be wrong.
Yes. I still hear other people talking. Either give me an office or let me WFH.
At least give me a high partition so I don't have to watch my cow orker sloppily eating food with their mouth open and gesticulating wildly all day.
I can put on noise cancelling headphones but I can't visually block out physical shenanigans, my monkey brain is tracking for threats.
I can put on noise cancelling headphones but I can't visually block out physical shenanigans, my monkey brain is tracking for threats.
Noise cancelling headphones will help ambient noise. But it won’t help when you are being actively interrupted for “just one question”. When I’m at home, I can block time on my calendar for “deep work”, shut down Outlook and Slack. I set my Slack status to “doing deep work until X:00”
Oh open floors is even worse. The best is tiny little rooms - offices.
Cube farms at least you can customize and claim “your space”.
Cube farms at least you can customize and claim “your space”.
kind of a gesellschaft vs gemeinschaft situation though
> Our remodeled house feels the right size. Not because of the sqft, but because of the layout. We looked at 3k sqft houses prior to remodeling and they felt smaller than our 2.1k sqft one despite an extra 50% of floor space.
I'll echo this. We (family of 4) remodeled our 1500sqft 3BD/2BA to a 1600sqft 4BD/3BA, but the house feels larger than some 2k sqft houses because of the clever space design, because of a double height atrium and a large open kitchen.
I'll echo this. We (family of 4) remodeled our 1500sqft 3BD/2BA to a 1600sqft 4BD/3BA, but the house feels larger than some 2k sqft houses because of the clever space design, because of a double height atrium and a large open kitchen.
Who could have imagined that taking something to the extreme isn't compatible with a regular human lifestyle.
As someone outside the landed gentry, I see having an appropriately sized (small) home as my entry point. Most of my extended family have these monstrosity homes that serve mostly as storage space for dusty boxes and extra rooms that are utilised poorly, and took on significant debt to have it. Seems insane to me. This, however, is the polar opposite and just as insane.
As someone outside the landed gentry, I see having an appropriately sized (small) home as my entry point. Most of my extended family have these monstrosity homes that serve mostly as storage space for dusty boxes and extra rooms that are utilised poorly, and took on significant debt to have it. Seems insane to me. This, however, is the polar opposite and just as insane.
For most of human history people lived in mud huts, yurts, teepees, igloos, lean-tos and the such. Generally they're all pretty small.
I would say car dependent suburbs are the more extreme lifestyle. Sprawl drives the kind of consumption that is destroying the planet. Are humans even theoretically capable of anything more extreme than that? I don't think so.
I would say car dependent suburbs are the more extreme lifestyle. Sprawl drives the kind of consumption that is destroying the planet. Are humans even theoretically capable of anything more extreme than that? I don't think so.
People also didn't spend a vast majority of the day every day in their huts. They spent most of that time outside of these huts, hunting, farming, or in a community center.
Japan metros like Tokyo are a modern example of this lifestyle. People go to their 600 sqft apartments/homes primarily to sleep and bathe, and that's about it. The rest of the time they're out working, playing, eating... living.
Japan metros like Tokyo are a modern example of this lifestyle. People go to their 600 sqft apartments/homes primarily to sleep and bathe, and that's about it. The rest of the time they're out working, playing, eating... living.
> Who could have imagined that taking something to the extreme isn't compatible with a regular human lifestyle.
the problem is when some extreme style of living becomes a well known trend, then you get lots of people that would otherwise be incompatible with an idea that try to cope with it anyway...
... then you get articles like "I hate Living in My Tiny House"
side : these types of articles rarely hit the real point of "Maybe I shouldn't blindly follow every trend.". Rather than that bit of truth they just list the reasons why the idea is stupid from their perspective and conclude it with why no one should ever try it.
the problem is when some extreme style of living becomes a well known trend, then you get lots of people that would otherwise be incompatible with an idea that try to cope with it anyway...
... then you get articles like "I hate Living in My Tiny House"
side : these types of articles rarely hit the real point of "Maybe I shouldn't blindly follow every trend.". Rather than that bit of truth they just list the reasons why the idea is stupid from their perspective and conclude it with why no one should ever try it.
If you read the fine article, you'll note that the author isn't following a trend. He simply can't afford rent otherwise.
He also works full time from home, begging the question...why not move somewhere cheaper?
Particularly in the USA and childless. Especially if you don't need access to the best public schools, there are so many extraordinarily vibrant metro areas with really cheap housing.
As someone currently trying to find a new, vibrant metro to live in, could you list some you like, and specifically why they are attractive?
Wherever you land, one bit of advice I've heard which I very much agree with is this: avoid involving yourself in the local politics for 2-3 years minimum.
Remember the locals like the way things are, and they got that way because of, not in spite of, the local political views. Better to live there a bit and absorb and, ideally, integrate with the political climate.
Not saying they're perfect, but they are unique and deserve a fair shake.
Remember the locals like the way things are, and they got that way because of, not in spite of, the local political views. Better to live there a bit and absorb and, ideally, integrate with the political climate.
Not saying they're perfect, but they are unique and deserve a fair shake.
>the problem is when some extreme style of living becomes a well known trend, then you get lots of people that would otherwise be incompatible with an idea that try to cope with it anyway...
Trend followers doing it for the image and pouring money in ruin every hobby and niche sport.
Seeing a trend bite back at them is kind of nice.
Trend followers doing it for the image and pouring money in ruin every hobby and niche sport.
Seeing a trend bite back at them is kind of nice.
We've been building tiny houses for the past year and a half (4 houses total, two of which we've sold). After talking to a couple of hundred people interested in tiny houses, here's what we've learned:
The wheels/trailers are "dumb" because almost nobody wants to move them once they get them in place. So as far as we can tell the only reason to build on a trailer is to avoid regulations in many locations throughout the US (an example: where we are in New Mexico if you build a house on a foundation you need to hire licensed plumbers and electricians whereas if you build on a trailer you can DIY; needless to say licensed professionals are far more expensive that doing it yourself so there are significant savings when you DIY).
The people interested in tiny houses seem to fall into three buckets (maybe 4): 1. people who want an Airbnb on their existing property (these are usually well-to-do folks who don't bat an eye at the pricing) 2. older folks who don't have the means to retire in a normal-sized house 3. younger folks who don't have the means to live in a normal house 4. if there's a 4th, it's younger folks who want a vacation house that they can Airbnb when they're not using it.
These 4 markets seem quite large based on the number of people who have reached out to us when we do pretty minimal marketing. And the reason we started doing this in the first place was to build below-market-rate housing (i.e., targeting groups 2 and 3 above), but there's a bit of a paradox going on here that we're trying to solve: groups 2 and 3 do not have the means to buy houses (tiny or not) outright so the only way we're going to crack this nut is if you can finance the purchase. We think we've found a way to do that, at least in our local market of Northern New Mexico, and we're just going through the proper channels with our local county to test this concept because lenders of course require that what you're building is legitimate. We're still hopeful that this will be a good solution locally, if not more broadly. Btw, we have never given a thought to trying to do this in an urban area. Doesn't seem sensible given land values where cheaper housing is almost by definition multifamily (i.e., >=2 units on a lot).
Edit: Oh, duh, here's a link to the house we build: https://santafe.craigslist.org/reo/d/el-prado-brand-new-full...
The wheels/trailers are "dumb" because almost nobody wants to move them once they get them in place. So as far as we can tell the only reason to build on a trailer is to avoid regulations in many locations throughout the US (an example: where we are in New Mexico if you build a house on a foundation you need to hire licensed plumbers and electricians whereas if you build on a trailer you can DIY; needless to say licensed professionals are far more expensive that doing it yourself so there are significant savings when you DIY).
The people interested in tiny houses seem to fall into three buckets (maybe 4): 1. people who want an Airbnb on their existing property (these are usually well-to-do folks who don't bat an eye at the pricing) 2. older folks who don't have the means to retire in a normal-sized house 3. younger folks who don't have the means to live in a normal house 4. if there's a 4th, it's younger folks who want a vacation house that they can Airbnb when they're not using it.
These 4 markets seem quite large based on the number of people who have reached out to us when we do pretty minimal marketing. And the reason we started doing this in the first place was to build below-market-rate housing (i.e., targeting groups 2 and 3 above), but there's a bit of a paradox going on here that we're trying to solve: groups 2 and 3 do not have the means to buy houses (tiny or not) outright so the only way we're going to crack this nut is if you can finance the purchase. We think we've found a way to do that, at least in our local market of Northern New Mexico, and we're just going through the proper channels with our local county to test this concept because lenders of course require that what you're building is legitimate. We're still hopeful that this will be a good solution locally, if not more broadly. Btw, we have never given a thought to trying to do this in an urban area. Doesn't seem sensible given land values where cheaper housing is almost by definition multifamily (i.e., >=2 units on a lot).
Edit: Oh, duh, here's a link to the house we build: https://santafe.craigslist.org/reo/d/el-prado-brand-new-full...
Thank you for at least trying to price your units at a reasonable cost. I keep seeing these things at prices over a hundred thousand and it blows my mind. It's completely divorced from the idea that originally seemed to inspire the movement, to buy less house, minimize their 'stuff' to just the important things and pay off everything early.
I wish you luck in your endeavors and hope that if I ever get a place where I can actually afford one I am able to get a unit like this one.
I wish you luck in your endeavors and hope that if I ever get a place where I can actually afford one I am able to get a unit like this one.
Really appreciate you writing this because the progression has been difficult. In the interest of just figuring things out, we built the first house without much consideration for anything other than "can we build and sell inexpensively?" which we did manage to do for $50k. Some significant Covid inflation later, though, and that price is now a pipe dream, but we do think at the $80k number it's sustainable. And like I said the real goal now is to potentially get these financed so the people who can't afford to pay cash (i.e., most people who would be interested in buying) can actually get one of these. Anyway, thanks again. It's taken longer than we want, but we're making progress.
Isn’t the biggest reason to build on wheels is to register the tiny house as a vehicle and not pay property taxes on the house value?
Would take many many years to rack up property taxes that would equal the upfront cost of an electrician alone (due to the low value of the house/land, at least in non-urban areas).
Also, almost everyone we’ve spoken with about tiny houses actually wants their city/county/state to recognize tiny houses as legitimate, including the taxes, because then they could legally live in the house full time. The problem is only a tiny fraction of locations in the US allow people to live in them full time.
Also, almost everyone we’ve spoken with about tiny houses actually wants their city/county/state to recognize tiny houses as legitimate, including the taxes, because then they could legally live in the house full time. The problem is only a tiny fraction of locations in the US allow people to live in them full time.
This reminds me of the van life trend. Seems attractive on the outside. Until you actually try it and realise it's like living like a hobo.
The Youtube algorithm recommended a "top ten" list awhile ago about things the youtuber hated about van life. I had been watching quite a feel tiny homes videos, mostly out of curiousity about how people made efficient use of their space more than a desire to move into a small home.
In any case, it's a pretty honest breakdown of the challenges of van life, from someone who seemed to be making bank on the whole trend. Interestingly, going back and looking at the titles of subsequent videos, it sounds like it's becoming more of a struggle for her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4QQTfIvzv4
In any case, it's a pretty honest breakdown of the challenges of van life, from someone who seemed to be making bank on the whole trend. Interestingly, going back and looking at the titles of subsequent videos, it sounds like it's becoming more of a struggle for her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4QQTfIvzv4
Matt Foley was never intended as a positive role model, that was sort of the whole point.
>Matt Foley was never intended as a positive role model, that was sort of the whole point.
It sounds great until YOU ARE LIVING IN A VAN, DOWN NEAR THE RIVER.
Great skit. I miss him.
It sounds great until YOU ARE LIVING IN A VAN, DOWN NEAR THE RIVER.
Great skit. I miss him.
It’s useful to have small apartments even for people who don’t intend to live there for life. Like students or fresh graduates getting their careers together, minimalists who don’t care for accumulating stuff, and so on. Living in Tokyo, it’s awesome
how, if you want to live centrally, you can still do it on a budget.
Separately, Americans don’t know how to make space efficient homes, I loved my tiny 23m2 apartment in Tokyo and found it quite livable. I’ve never seen American apartments that use space in a remotely efficient way like those ones do.
Separately, Americans don’t know how to make space efficient homes, I loved my tiny 23m2 apartment in Tokyo and found it quite livable. I’ve never seen American apartments that use space in a remotely efficient way like those ones do.
On top of that, these tiny houses are talked about in an american context, where cities and lifestyles are designed for the suburbs, cars and the fact you have so much space for storage. Cities like tokyo provide a lot of stuff within walking distance so you don't need to have it yourself, like gym equipment, close by groceries, a lot of good restaurants / bakeries and so on.
Because you need to get into a car, go on a +10m drive, etc, everything is designed for the 'costco lifestyle', buying 20 packs of everything and recreating many of the services of the city within your own house, because otherwise it is too expensive and inconvenient to have them. If you want quality baking and meals too, you need to make it in your own house, because you probably surrounded by boring american chain stores otherwise.
Because you need to get into a car, go on a +10m drive, etc, everything is designed for the 'costco lifestyle', buying 20 packs of everything and recreating many of the services of the city within your own house, because otherwise it is too expensive and inconvenient to have them. If you want quality baking and meals too, you need to make it in your own house, because you probably surrounded by boring american chain stores otherwise.
Tokyo gets a bad rep, but on average apartments are smaller in London than Tokyo for instance.
While I was still living with my parents, I romanticised the concept of a tiny house. It wasn't until I bought my own (normal) three bedroom house and went on my honeymoon, which was a stay in a tiny house, that I realised how valuable the extra space is.
I find that many of the people who “fantasize” about a tiny house have trouble keeping any size house clutter-free, and assume that having a tiny house would fix it.
I think this is the case with a lot of "escapes" (tiny house, van life, moving across country/world, starting to work for yourself). Particularly when compromise is the name of the game, not having enough positive reasons to go into a situation is not going to fix the negatives.
I'm pretty clutter free these days. Then again, I've taken it a step further. everything I own fits in a luggage and I change airbnbs every month. can't buy what you can't fit in the bag!
I've had the opposite experience. I used to romanticise the idea of my own giant mansion, then I lived in a big apartment and realised how useless (and worse, you have to clean it) the extra space is.
I found exactly the opposite, every time I went up in size it was much better.
I also find that cleaning large apartments doesn't take much more effort than cleaning smaller ones - amount of cleaning that's needed is more related to the number of people living there than to the size.
I also find that cleaning large apartments doesn't take much more effort than cleaning smaller ones - amount of cleaning that's needed is more related to the number of people living there than to the size.
I'm single, with 3 bedrooms. That's 2 bedrooms and a living room that I don't use except to accumulate junk that I also don't use.
Ha! I had the same experience, except I had a 2 bed 2 full bath unit. Totally unused extra rooms that only got use when I had guests staying with me for an extended period of time. I downsized, got rid of all that junk in the extra room which was extremely liberating, and moved to a 1 bed 1 bath unit across the country. Best decision I've made!
Get two roommates?
Noise is my least favorite thing. I'll live in a tiny box so long as it's quiet.
Do it
[deleted]
I didn't really get what they hate about it. I read some mild annoyances, which I had a hard time understanding because I grew up in an 800 sq ft house with 2 parents and 5 kids, then served on a submarine in the US Navy. I'm probably an outlier in the low direction in terms of Americans and their space requirements.
This is only tangentially related but at some point we need to get over the desire of homeowners in large cities to continue to increase the value of their million dollar homes. This doesn't seem possible at the local level, so maybe the federal government needs to step in and force housing development to happen.
> but at some point we need to get over the desire of homeowners in large cities to continue to increase the value of their million dollar homes.
I don’t see the two being opposed. I have ingrained NIMBY tendencies but have recently come around to “more housing / dense housing” idea
Some cities have taken a path towards sprawl that can be corrected by state / federal intervention.
A mega city planned redevelopment would be interesting to see
I don’t see the two being opposed. I have ingrained NIMBY tendencies but have recently come around to “more housing / dense housing” idea
Some cities have taken a path towards sprawl that can be corrected by state / federal intervention.
A mega city planned redevelopment would be interesting to see
I lived in a 250sqft studio with my wife for a couple of years… it was worth it for the cost savings at the time.
To each their own
To each their own
250sqft makes 23m2 sound so big.
It's all contextual, if you were raised with sqft it sounds extremely small.
23 square meters is ~243 square feet. They're almost the same.
> 23 square meters is ~243 square feet. They're almost the same.
243sqft is a room 15.5ft per side. 23m^2 is 5,694sqft, nearly 23 times more floorspace than 250sqft.
243sqft is a room 15.5ft per side. 23m^2 is 5,694sqft, nearly 23 times more floorspace than 250sqft.
Quit being pedantic.
Everyone with an IQ that isn't also an acceptable temperature for refrigerating meat knows that a square with 23m on a side is not relevant to a discussion of tiny houses or apartments and he was talking about a space of 23 square meters.
And since I apparently can't get away with not spelling it out. A room that's 15ft on a side (or in the ballpark of 250 square feet) is roughly equivalent in interior space to a trailer that has external dimensions of 8.5ft by 20-something feet long which is not an odd size for a tiny house.
Everyone with an IQ that isn't also an acceptable temperature for refrigerating meat knows that a square with 23m on a side is not relevant to a discussion of tiny houses or apartments and he was talking about a space of 23 square meters.
And since I apparently can't get away with not spelling it out. A room that's 15ft on a side (or in the ballpark of 250 square feet) is roughly equivalent in interior space to a trailer that has external dimensions of 8.5ft by 20-something feet long which is not an odd size for a tiny house.
Exponentiation has higher precedence than multiplication. It's 23(m^2), not (23m)^2.
> It's 23(m^2), not (23m)^2.
Because 23m^2 is nearly 23 times bigger than 250sqft.
23^2 = 529
23m = 75.459ft
75.459^2 = 5,694.1059sqft
5694/250 = ~23
Because 23m^2 is nearly 23 times bigger than 250sqft.
This sounds pretty whiny given there are plenty of apartments much smaller that people live in just fine in places like Japan, Hong Kong and I'm sure more.
Here's 12000 apartments the same size or smaller within a 40 minute commute of Shibuya Tokyo
https://www.chintai.net/list/?cf=0&ct=0&m=0&m=1&m=2&m=3&jk=0...
People live in them just fine because their expectations are different. It's like most students don't complain when living in dorms. Yes it's not the same, but the point is the expectation is different so it's fine. Similarly, I lived in hotels for 1~3 months at a time several times, often one after another (no larger place in between). Not a problem because my expectations matched.
Here's 12000 apartments the same size or smaller within a 40 minute commute of Shibuya Tokyo
https://www.chintai.net/list/?cf=0&ct=0&m=0&m=1&m=2&m=3&jk=0...
People live in them just fine because their expectations are different. It's like most students don't complain when living in dorms. Yes it's not the same, but the point is the expectation is different so it's fine. Similarly, I lived in hotels for 1~3 months at a time several times, often one after another (no larger place in between). Not a problem because my expectations matched.
I value my personal space, and so does my fiancé. Having our own personal space to decompress separately has been a game changer. We are much closer as a result.
I suspect most people connected to the internet and social media can be subject to overstimulation. An easily accessible mini retreat has really been helpful.
I suspect most people connected to the internet and social media can be subject to overstimulation. An easily accessible mini retreat has really been helpful.
I lived in an ADU for a grand total of three months before moving out for more space in a typical apartment. I had to pay more but it was worth it to escape the claustrophobia.
I've also lived in a duplex that occupied the same lot footprint as the bungalow + ADU, yet had much more space for both parties to enjoy because simply building up and adding a second floor was a more efficient use of the lot.
I think ADUs are at best a stopgap but are so far from an optimal solution that they shouldn't be taken seriously by policymakers.
I simply do not understand the aversion to multi-story construction in some places.
I've also lived in a duplex that occupied the same lot footprint as the bungalow + ADU, yet had much more space for both parties to enjoy because simply building up and adding a second floor was a more efficient use of the lot.
I think ADUs are at best a stopgap but are so far from an optimal solution that they shouldn't be taken seriously by policymakers.
I simply do not understand the aversion to multi-story construction in some places.
Multi-story can make it difficult to age in place as the population grows older. I'm not quite 50 and in reasonably good health for my age but already find trips up and down the stairs multiple times a day unappealing. My first descent in the morning frequently reminds me that I no longer have a 30 years old's legs.
IMO you should take that as a warning to improve your health before it gets even harder and have a pretty bad time in your 60s and 70s. You should be able to climb stairs with no problem in your late 40s and there are many who do fine in their 70s if they keep up their fitness.
Like looks at this MRI comparing a 40 year old triathlete, a 74 year old and a 74 year sedentary man. Sarcopenia is a choice in many ways!
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-Typical-quadricep...
Like looks at this MRI comparing a 40 year old triathlete, a 74 year old and a 74 year sedentary man. Sarcopenia is a choice in many ways!
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-Typical-quadricep...
There are also joint issues, and they can actually be accelerated via keeping fit. Walking up the stairs with an aching knee or hip is no fun.
I concur with your assessment. I will not live in a home with stairs again if I have a feasible choice. I guess an elevator might suffice but I don't really want to live in a home with multiple stories, or in a shared building, either. My lower body is not what it used to be. I can go up and down stairs just fine when I need to but I will go out of my way to avoid that requirement at home. Turns out that years of physical labor and military, plus a couple surgeries, can take a toll on the body.
Huh? Multi-story is the best thing for aging; an apartment block full of single floor apartments with a lift is easy and natural, a house without stairs is pretty hard to make viable.
I have one slightly smaller one (180sqft) and while I still have yet to live in it full time (it's a WIP) it already feels claustrophobic sometimes. Every inch counts, but it's also important to have open-ness outside the tiny home too.
What I really wanted was the ability to experiment with so many things I would not be allowed to do in a traditional home, without worrying about blowing a bunch of money or hurting a $200k+ home I don't own/have a mortgage on. There's a lot I inherited from the previous owner, but it'll have custom automation and control software for the climate (dehumifier, heat exchanger, monitoring of power usage, etc), my dream programming space (converting the previous owner's "balcony" into a sort of indoor/outdoor deck with a massive transparent rollup door), and integrating more screens into my life (controlled by me, not loaded with any proprietary stuff that will inevitably hurt me).
But it's also just me and my cat. I've told partners already that I don't think I could live in this with anything more than that.
What I really wanted was the ability to experiment with so many things I would not be allowed to do in a traditional home, without worrying about blowing a bunch of money or hurting a $200k+ home I don't own/have a mortgage on. There's a lot I inherited from the previous owner, but it'll have custom automation and control software for the climate (dehumifier, heat exchanger, monitoring of power usage, etc), my dream programming space (converting the previous owner's "balcony" into a sort of indoor/outdoor deck with a massive transparent rollup door), and integrating more screens into my life (controlled by me, not loaded with any proprietary stuff that will inevitably hurt me).
But it's also just me and my cat. I've told partners already that I don't think I could live in this with anything more than that.
Where does your cat take a shit? Do you smell it?
I have a space that's sorta 1/2 inside 1/2 outside the cat can walk to on his own. I haven't brought the car down yet but that's where the litter box will go.
I've lived in a small space before with my cat and as long as you clean the box frequently (at least daily), it's not an issue.
I've lived in a small space before with my cat and as long as you clean the box frequently (at least daily), it's not an issue.
I really enjoy all Never Too Small[1] videos, but as a fascinating curiosity. Having lived quite a few years in apartments ~400 ft sq apartments, can't think any other reason but necessity to do so.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/@nevertoosmall
[1] https://www.youtube.com/@nevertoosmall
Kirsten Dirksen and Bryce Langston also have great videos of peculiar housing:
- https://www.youtube.com/@kirstendirksen
- https://www.youtube.com/@livingbig
- https://www.youtube.com/@kirstendirksen
- https://www.youtube.com/@livingbig
I like some of the ideas in a tiny home but I couldn’t see myself enjoying it long term. I definitely would want it on a slab foundation instead of a trailer and maybe expand it out a little bit.
I’d really like it outside of the city, have a simple kitchen and living room inside and more elaborate outdoor kitchen and living space outside. Build a barn big enough to house my truck, piddle in, storage for lawn and garden, and an office to work from home.
I’d really like it outside of the city, have a simple kitchen and living room inside and more elaborate outdoor kitchen and living space outside. Build a barn big enough to house my truck, piddle in, storage for lawn and garden, and an office to work from home.
Most of the "tiny house" that are on a trailer are because it's legally registered as an RV, same as a real travel trailer. With a trailer title for the underlying frame registered in your state with a license plate in exactly the same legal way as if you bought a boat trailer or a flatbed cargo trailer.
Theoretically this means it doesn't need to meet building code and go through the approval process in whatever rural location you put one on land as its only dwelling, or as an ADU. It's an attempt at a legal workaround saying to the local government "this is totally NOT A HOUSE it's my RV trailer!".
But by the time you hook it up to water supply, electricity and sewage disposal it effectively becomes fixed in place.
Theoretically this means it doesn't need to meet building code and go through the approval process in whatever rural location you put one on land as its only dwelling, or as an ADU. It's an attempt at a legal workaround saying to the local government "this is totally NOT A HOUSE it's my RV trailer!".
But by the time you hook it up to water supply, electricity and sewage disposal it effectively becomes fixed in place.
Theoretically this means it doesn't need to meet building code
Not entirely true - mobile homes are supposed to meet a federal code published by HUD. The typical “tiny home” should be built to this standard.
Actual RVs are indeed a bit of a free-for-all. Some of them are really cheap and definitely not built to last.
Not entirely true - mobile homes are supposed to meet a federal code published by HUD. The typical “tiny home” should be built to this standard.
Actual RVs are indeed a bit of a free-for-all. Some of them are really cheap and definitely not built to last.
Yeah, what I have heard is that it’s technically not a “tiny house” if it’s not built on a trailer. Which I’m okay with but I guess it also means there might be other housing regulations from whatever city I setup in.
In the US, there are basically two categories of building codes. Local codes for normal permanent buildings (which differ from town to town). And the federal HUD code for mobile homes (of which tiny homes are a subset - basically just trendy/stylish mobile homes).
A mobile home is different from an RV in that an RV is not generally intended for full-time living. It also isn’t meant to be permanently/semi-permanently placed in one location, as mobile homes are. It’s pretty common to have a mobile home placed such that it’s externally indistinguishable from a permanent home of similar size. The interior layout is the tell. Or the fact that it’s located in a trailer park.
The “problem” is most local zoning (different from the building code) in urban/suburban bans mobile homes and also bans permanent homes smaller than some arbitrary size. So, without a carve-out for ADUs or some other change in zoning, you can’t actually live in a tiny home, small permanent home, or anything in between. Apart for the rare urban mobile home park, it’s not until you get well outside most metro areas that you can drop a mobile home on your own land without a zoning problem.
A mobile home is different from an RV in that an RV is not generally intended for full-time living. It also isn’t meant to be permanently/semi-permanently placed in one location, as mobile homes are. It’s pretty common to have a mobile home placed such that it’s externally indistinguishable from a permanent home of similar size. The interior layout is the tell. Or the fact that it’s located in a trailer park.
The “problem” is most local zoning (different from the building code) in urban/suburban bans mobile homes and also bans permanent homes smaller than some arbitrary size. So, without a carve-out for ADUs or some other change in zoning, you can’t actually live in a tiny home, small permanent home, or anything in between. Apart for the rare urban mobile home park, it’s not until you get well outside most metro areas that you can drop a mobile home on your own land without a zoning problem.
You have it backwards. The whole point is that it's not technically a mobile home so you can get around the "no mobile homes" rule that every city/town run by snooty jerks inevitably adopts.
It is often both. It is true that in many jurisdictions you cannot have a manufactured home, full stop.
You also have minimum home size laws in residential single family zoning areas, which either limit to one dwelling per lot (meaning no legal addition of an ADU when an existing home exists on the lot, no matter how it's built), or would not allow a stick built on concrete slab 300-350 square foot separate unit because the square footage is too small.
Or because the local municipal laws do not allow for installation of a separate water supply, sewer service and electrical grid connection for a 2nd home on one lot. They only permit things like a detached garage which has a sub-panel attached to a home's primary 200A panel.
So even if you solve the problem of it being not a "manufactured home" but legally a trailer you still can't drop it on a concrete slab or pilings and it has to legally remain a "RV trailer" with yearly vehicle registration/plate/tabs.
You also have minimum home size laws in residential single family zoning areas, which either limit to one dwelling per lot (meaning no legal addition of an ADU when an existing home exists on the lot, no matter how it's built), or would not allow a stick built on concrete slab 300-350 square foot separate unit because the square footage is too small.
Or because the local municipal laws do not allow for installation of a separate water supply, sewer service and electrical grid connection for a 2nd home on one lot. They only permit things like a detached garage which has a sub-panel attached to a home's primary 200A panel.
So even if you solve the problem of it being not a "manufactured home" but legally a trailer you still can't drop it on a concrete slab or pilings and it has to legally remain a "RV trailer" with yearly vehicle registration/plate/tabs.
What I think would be ideal, and I've fantasizfantasized about, is a tiny home community. A larger shared "community" space at the hub, with 4 to 6 to 8 "spoke" tiny homes. The hub gives you space to entertain, and you retreat to your TH as you see fit.
The hub would function Air BB style in that aside from shared hours, each TH unit can schedule X hours per month.
Something like that.
The hub would function Air BB style in that aside from shared hours, each TH unit can schedule X hours per month.
Something like that.
A few modifications:
1. attach the units and TH's together so that you don't have to go outside (more relevant in non-temperate climates I suppose)
2. Put a high-quality kitchen in the common area (they don't work well in THs anyways -- not enough space for eg prepping and cooking and storing a meal for the week)
3. Move bathrooms and showers to the main area (they don't work well in THs anyways -- wet rooms are gross)
Aka, a shared house with room mates. I lived in these for years and would much prefer a shared house to a TH...
1. attach the units and TH's together so that you don't have to go outside (more relevant in non-temperate climates I suppose)
2. Put a high-quality kitchen in the common area (they don't work well in THs anyways -- not enough space for eg prepping and cooking and storing a meal for the week)
3. Move bathrooms and showers to the main area (they don't work well in THs anyways -- wet rooms are gross)
Aka, a shared house with room mates. I lived in these for years and would much prefer a shared house to a TH...
That's the general idea. But not #1. I think privacy trumps comfort.
I know "shared community" sounds great to some, but to me it would be a living hell. I hate nosy neighbors. I tried with one neighbor, he and his family seemed nice enough, and he was new and getting to know people. After a few months I had a semi-retired cousin who likes to travel a lot stay with me for a month or so as my guest. After a couple weeks my neighbor waves me over, I figure it was just to say hi, and starts asking nosy questions about who that "man" staying at my house is, and I refuse to answer him because, well, it's nosy and none of his business. I was nice at first about my refusal because he didn't give me any reason why he was asking, but then he got angry. So I just walked away and haven't talked to him since. The best neighbor is a fence.
Agreed. That's why my "spokes" are from 4 to 8. 4 puts the THs apart with the hub in between. Maybe 6 is doable. 8 would mean a good distant from hub to TH in order to keep the THs far enough apart.
This is pretty common model in Finnish student housing. Everyone has their private room and then shared kitchen, WC and Shower. Or bathroom might be in the room.
Their popularity is kinda waning despite affordable pricing. It does cater to certain type of people, but I think it is rather small subsection of population.
Their popularity is kinda waning despite affordable pricing. It does cater to certain type of people, but I think it is rather small subsection of population.
It's pretty common for American student housing as well. I remember it and wouldn't (voluntarily) share a bathroom and kitchen with a couple of strangers again. Only takes one slob to make it miserable.
I think you just reinvented the village.
[deleted]
One of the nice things about having a larger house is different rooms have different moods at different times of day and times of year. You’re not just in the same space every day. Some days a certain room just calls to you and time is well spent in it.
Just for reference for those in the US, the "tiny house" in the article would be a small but fairly standard sized apartment in Paris. I think the US just such a warped view on house sizes compared to much of the rest of the world.
At 22 square meters, it looks like it's on the small side for Paris, based on some Googling, and smaller than my studio in NYC.
It is indeed. Also I want to add that in a city like Paris, you have access to high quality public facilities like open acceas library study room, squares and parks with comfortable chairs so that you don't need to stay home for much more than fix a quick meal and sleep.
That said, it is a precarious lifestyle and not something people do by choice.
That said, it is a precarious lifestyle and not something people do by choice.
From what I have seen, the "tiny house" trend typically is located in the middle of nowhere though where there is plenty of space to build a much bigger one.
A small apartment is pretty good and workable when it's in a city where you can make use of external facilities. I just don't see the point when you have space for 50 houses on the land but you build this one shipping container sized one right in the middle.
A small apartment is pretty good and workable when it's in a city where you can make use of external facilities. I just don't see the point when you have space for 50 houses on the land but you build this one shipping container sized one right in the middle.
It’s just cramped apartment living with a sprinkling of influencer cool
> “There’s no silver bullet to solving the housing crisis”
Luckily, there IS a silver bullet: live in areas with low cost of living, which is most areas in the country
Luckily, there IS a silver bullet: live in areas with low cost of living, which is most areas in the country
There aren't enough dwellings near the jobs. That's the whole problem.
I kinda not jokingly would suggest that there are available jobs because there is not enough housing. I.e. there is a big worker churn due to untenable living costs. It is easier to get jobs since a lot of people give up and move.
Dunno how strong this effect is though ...
Dunno how strong this effect is though ...
Churn doesn't create new jobs. In depopulated places like the rust belt, the problem isn't that all the jobs are filled by people with stable 20-year careers, the problem is there aren't any jobs period.
The author works from home, that’s not a problem here
In many places there are. But they aren’t in the best places or where someone thinks they deserve to live. I’m not saying we don’t need to build more, but people need to come to grips with what they can afford and what that means for their location.
I dont agree.
The cost of pushing infrastructure and services out to the country is a lot more expensive and less efficient than high density housing in cities.
That might work for some but moving away from common infrastructure creates other problems. I found this video [0] a decent dive into issues and possible long term solutions. None quick or easy but I think are most likely to succeed in a lot of places.
[0] https://youtu.be/sKudSeqHSJk
[0] https://youtu.be/sKudSeqHSJk
Needs a (2019) in the title
Ye
I live in a 1BR apartment and it's huge; much too large for me.
I moved here 7 years ago, from a small studio (efficiency) place. The last place had a dorm-size refrigerator, a non-walk-in closet, no tub, etc.
Between there and here, I've accumulated a lot of stuff, and for a while it seemed like I could never downsize again because I needed a separate working space, and this was a dealbreaker for entertaining thoughts of a roommate or going back to a studio at all.
However, I've downsized, got rid of plenty of stuff including some storage furniture and my desktop computer(!) and I feel ready to downsize again. And eventually, I will need to.
I'm 50 and living independently with mental illness. Every year I have a nervous breakdown, because managing my own household is a Herculean effort I can barely sustain. If I prepare all my own meals and clean up after myself, I'm exhausted. If I don't, then I'm broke and fat. It's not a winning situation.
Eventually I'll need to work something out where I give up my independence of living and rely on some sort of caregivers, and I may also need to admit a roommate to the mix. This will not be enjoyable.
It reminds me of our grandmother who, 50 years ago, lived in a 5BR-2BA house with about 6 apartments in back. She was a landlady and head of household. And eventually it was just way, way too much for her to maintain, even with Mom and Dad's help. The space we take up as Americans is unconscionable. Either have a large family and share that space, or give it up, or share it with other adults equitably. We just don't need these McMansions all over the place. We also don't need pedestrian-hostile suburbs!!!
I moved here 7 years ago, from a small studio (efficiency) place. The last place had a dorm-size refrigerator, a non-walk-in closet, no tub, etc.
Between there and here, I've accumulated a lot of stuff, and for a while it seemed like I could never downsize again because I needed a separate working space, and this was a dealbreaker for entertaining thoughts of a roommate or going back to a studio at all.
However, I've downsized, got rid of plenty of stuff including some storage furniture and my desktop computer(!) and I feel ready to downsize again. And eventually, I will need to.
I'm 50 and living independently with mental illness. Every year I have a nervous breakdown, because managing my own household is a Herculean effort I can barely sustain. If I prepare all my own meals and clean up after myself, I'm exhausted. If I don't, then I'm broke and fat. It's not a winning situation.
Eventually I'll need to work something out where I give up my independence of living and rely on some sort of caregivers, and I may also need to admit a roommate to the mix. This will not be enjoyable.
It reminds me of our grandmother who, 50 years ago, lived in a 5BR-2BA house with about 6 apartments in back. She was a landlady and head of household. And eventually it was just way, way too much for her to maintain, even with Mom and Dad's help. The space we take up as Americans is unconscionable. Either have a large family and share that space, or give it up, or share it with other adults equitably. We just don't need these McMansions all over the place. We also don't need pedestrian-hostile suburbs!!!
[deleted]
People who think more housing lowers housing prices have never been to a big city.
Waiting for the “But Tokyo!” guy.
Waiting for the “But Tokyo!” guy.
More housing lowers housing prices and makes the city better, which attracts more people, which raises housing prices. It's hard to separate the two effects, but if you compare a city that builds more with a city that builds less, building less has little to recommend it. And yes, Tokyo is a good example.
more people in a city making more efficient use of global resources doesn't sound like a worst case scenario
Problem solved. Tokyo.
That also requires ~30 million Japanese, without which you might end up with a very different city.
Price is supply/demand. More housing usually came because of a huge population causing more demand. Population is almost like a force of gravity where dense places can never build enough because more always want to come.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
The answer is actually less housing.
The answer is actually less housing.
If your goal is lower prices in one specific area. You won't be able to live there because it will all be occupied, but the people who do will enjoy lower prices I guess.
But house prices don't exist in isolation. A denser area will have better, higher paying, more specialized jobs, more options for entertainment/lifestyle, better access to just about everything. So the higher prices are worth it.
But house prices don't exist in isolation. A denser area will have better, higher paying, more specialized jobs, more options for entertainment/lifestyle, better access to just about everything. So the higher prices are worth it.
Denser areas aren’t worth it if you like peace and quiet, nature, and physical safety.
His bathroom doesn't have a basin so he goes to the loo and washes his hands in the kitchen sink over his dishes... that's disgusting.
More so than washing poultry over the dishes? When you go #1, that can't be a big deal. When you go #2, well, your hands aren't going to be worse off than the food you got from the garden that wandering birds may have shit on, and if you're washing the dishes you're taking care of that too. If you're not washing anything well, then that's the issue.
making someone cross a door handle boundary without a plausible opportunity to wash their poopy hands is a deal breaker to me, even if only 1/3 of people are actually bothering to really soap up
Not sure about other countries, but it's extremely common in France for the toilet to be in its own room, and then the washbasin and shower in another. Not just in multi-residential either.
Dunno the history (gives a bit more flexibility: a showerer doesn't constrain the toilet), but could also be an aversion to not clean yourself in the same place you poop.
Dunno the history (gives a bit more flexibility: a showerer doesn't constrain the toilet), but could also be an aversion to not clean yourself in the same place you poop.
Lots of bars and restaurants do this in the USA. Not something the health department worries about.
You shouldn’t be washing poultry
It's processed under iffy conditions in the states. Curious, why not?
You're more likely to spread the contamination rinsing, splashing, wiping, etc than you are just putting it wherever you're cooking it.
That seems to be an argument for not washing your hands where anyone brushes their teeth.
Cooking the outside kills anything dangerous there, washing it will splash it and salmonella everywhere. Black people wash chicken as part of their culture, but if you have no cultural reason to do so you absolutely should not
You keep clean dishes in the kitchen sink?
Most of your house is already absolutely caked in feces particles, you just don't see it. Your toothbrush has feces on it, your soap, your towels, everything
Urbanites became absolute cry babies, bring them to the farm for an hour and they would starve themselves after they learn animals shit and veggies grow in compost.
Life is disgusting, get over it
Urbanites became absolute cry babies, bring them to the farm for an hour and they would starve themselves after they learn animals shit and veggies grow in compost.
Life is disgusting, get over it
Even more harrowing, no bidet.