Tiny House

[SearchMaster]

I could do it (but wouldn't want to) if it was just me and my wife, but she could not. She's a "bigger is better" person. But I have 3 kids, and there's pretty much no way the 5 of us could fit in 200sf.

Hell, my master bedroom/bathroom is about 700sf. When I mentally look at a third of that space...no thanks.

There's an appeal to simplifying your life but in reality it would be insanity for most.

 

[Ns1]

I could do it for myself, no way I could do it with the wifey + 3 dogs.

 

[roguerower]

One of the interesting things that the show pointed out was that even though the focus was on the tiny houses, the "movement" was all about downsizing from the huge mcmansions that seem to have become the norm in some parts of the country. It's more about looking at yourself and your needs and realizing that the 2,000sf house is a better fit than the 3,000sf house. They also pointed out that many people buy huge houses in order to keep up with the joneses just like they do with vehicles and other stuff.

 

[DrPizza]

We have a fairly small house; when we bought it, we knew that within a few years, the kids would be gone. We live in much smaller when we go camping; pop-up camper with king and queen sized beds, toilet & shower, stove, etc. (And, most importantly, air conditioning.) It's quite comfortable, but we're only inside for the bathroom, shower, sleeping, and making some meals. I think it would get uncomfortable in the winter, even assuming the heater kept it warm enough.

 

[Kaido]

One of the interesting things that the show pointed out was that even though the focus was on the tiny houses, the "movement" was all about downsizing from the huge mcmansions that seem to have become the norm in some parts of the country. It's more about looking at yourself and your needs and realizing that the 2,000sf house is a better fit than the 3,000sf house. They also pointed out that many people buy huge houses in order to keep up with the joneses just like they do with vehicles and other stuff.

That's a good point. My wife does real estate photography on the side & there are a lot of houses that simply have four or five master bedrooms - one for the parents & one for each of the kids. Some of them are bigger than my last apartment, haha.

But at the same time, I don't think there's really anything wrong with that. Building larger houses pumps more money into the economy - buying materials, paying workers to build it, people to maintain it, various taxes & insurances, etc. Plus a lot of farmhouses are pretty large anyway, so it's not like it's a new thing to build large; I think it more depends on the context.

 

[clamum]

I'm not sure if I'd like to live in a real small home, like ~200 square feet, but I definitely don't need a lot of room. I was raised in a 3 bed & bath home (don't know the square feet but it was big, had a full basement too), had a ~1000 sq. ft. apartment, and currently have a 700 square foot place and it's plenty for me. I could do 400-500 square feet fine probably, but like some others have said, a small outbuilding to be used as a workshop would be needed for me in that case.

 

[KeithP]

Hopefully there will be enough interest in these things to get zoning laws changed.

I currently live alone in a two bedroom apartment (820 sq ft, second bedroom is an office, I work from home). I have a washer and dryer in the unit and it works pretty well for me. I could easily live in a house this size and would considering buying one as long as it also included an attached single car garage. However, I don't think any builders are rushing to build houses under 1,000 sq ft + garage and if they did they would probably hamstring the property with an HOA and monthly dues.

I don't know if I could downsize to one of these tiny houses however. To be comfortable I would really need a full size bathroom and a washer and dryer. And, if it was something I was buying, I would want an attached garage.

-KeithP

 

[dave_the_nerd]

It would be great, if I basically was only at home to eat, sleep, and change clothes for the next thing I was going to go out and do. There are some people with that lifestyle; I'd imagine a place like Portland or San Francisco would attract more of them. The problem is, I'm an introvert. I need my alone time and my home is where I get that time.

A 400sqft studio was fine for me alone. Probably could have been smaller.

800sqft meant a real bedroom, with a (not a futon!) bed big enough for a guest. Also enough room for a cat, and I didn't have to sleep next to my computer anymore (luxury!).

1600sqft means enough room for multiple cats, all my books, room for workout equipment (no more gym membership fees) and enough space for two introverted humans to leave each other alone.

 

[roguerower]

That's a good point. My wife does real estate photography on the side & there are a lot of houses that simply have four or five master bedrooms - one for the parents & one for each of the kids. Some of them are bigger than my last apartment, haha.

But at the same time, I don't think there's really anything wrong with that. Building larger houses pumps more money into the economy - buying materials, paying workers to build it, people to maintain it, various taxes & insurances, etc. Plus a lot of farmhouses are pretty large anyway, so it's not like it's a new thing to build large; I think it more depends on the context.

Yep, and those were the houses that they were referring to. The first part of elementary school I lived in a 1500-2000sf split level with three bedrooms. The second part of elementary & all of middle school I lived on base in NC in a 3 bedroom house. In HS I lived in a 2500-3000sf house in Northern VA with 4BR/2BA on the 2nd floor, family/living/dining/kitchen on 1st floor, then basement & garage. We regularly ate in the dining room but never used the living room.

I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing either, however buying a big house to buy a big house seems like a waste to me.

EDIT: If I built a small house like that I'd likely end up paying more for the property than for the house. I'd love to be able to live on a lake or mountain or something with a stunning view.

 

[Imaginer]

So, a resurgence of the RV/mobile home trend?

At a cost of being less aerodynamic when moving the house with some designs?

I do like the look of wood, but it has it's place. Some of the tiny houses I seen online come close to looking like a normal, very small, shed house but in practicality, it possibly doesn't travel well.

Also, I would agree with the comments - it depends on your lifestyle, hobbies, and work more than anything. For me, my 500 square foot workshop says a big no. To consolidate living and working space in such a small manner, HUGE (to tiny) tradeoffs are needed. Mainly that I cannot work easily with larger stock at hand versus having larger tools versus all hand/power tools and a single bench of small size.

Some of the tiny house articles and blogs, definitely sound like it IS the way to go for EVERYONE. That is not the case with many lifestyles, but for those that would work out of not having many possessions, tools, or needing room to work in, it would work out.

Another, is definitely the agreement of designing around the bathroom and plumbing, making sure that these aren't going to interrupt or vent back into the areas you are sleeping in (especially if you are going to store it for composting instead of directly dumping it on the lot you are parked in).

One thing I do not think many tiny house users are presenting, is the relocation costs, utility hook up costs, lot parking, and transversing their house through typical streets and roads along with needing a vehicle of able towing capability and cost in fuel.... These aren't presented in the tiny house articles I have seen. Nor are the given tradeoffs. Just going back to....

My wife had that thing on. If it had actually been about the homes and not about dumb asses who couldn't budget or hold jobs, and judgmental "I'm better than those people with cars and real houses" it might have been okay. Can't remember if I left the room to go play some COD or just shot the TV.



(also, the things are so small forget having company over HEY NOW)

 

[zerocool84]

My apartment is 960sqft and no way would I live in something more than half as small.

 

[KeithP]

One thing I do not think many tiny house users are presenting, is the relocation costs, utility hook up costs, lot parking, and transversing their house through typical streets and roads along with needing a vehicle of able towing capability and cost in fuel.... These aren't presented in the tiny house articles I have seen. Nor are the given tradeoffs. Just going back to....

Forgive me if you are already aware of this, but these houses are not built on trailers because they are frequently moved. Sure, mobility is a potential feature but is isn't the primary reason for the trailer. They have to be built this way to get around zoning laws. If zoning laws allowed, I am sure many owners of tiny houses would not mind a permanent spot with a normal hook up to sewer, water and other utilities even given the extra expense.

I would bet the bulk of these houses stay put with the possible exception of building the house in one location and then moving to its intended address.

-KeithP

 

[Imaginer]

Forgive me if you are already aware of this, but these houses are not built on trailers because they are frequently moved. Sure, mobility is a potential feature but is isn't the primary reason for the trailer. They have to be built this way to get around zoning laws. If zoning laws allowed, I am sure many owners of tiny houses would not mind a permanent spot with a normal hook up to sewer, water and other utilities even given the extra expense.

I would bet the bulk of these houses stay put with the possible exception of building the house in one location and then moving to its intended address.

-KeithP

Most of them I have come into my view, are the ones on trailers. I followed the electric grapevine and found stationary plans, some which are in the middle of a wooded area.

But if I were to have something that small, mobility would definitely be a bonus and a consideration.

Also zoning for these mobile homes - they are called RV/trailer parks. You cannot exactly park these in any location indefinitely or for a long period of time, regardless of vehicle or vehicle/home combo.

Outside of a lot being zoned in a commercial area, and zoned in a residential (city dependent, barring HOA or subdivision rules if any) you can definitely use a lot for a small house. I am not sure if I see the problem with zoning as some mentioned.

 

[Ns1]

Most of them I have come into my view, are the ones on trailers. I followed the electric grapevine and found stationary plans, some which are in the middle of a wooded area.

But if I were to have something that small, mobility would definitely be a bonus and a consideration.

Also zoning for these mobile homes - they are called RV/trailer parks. You cannot exactly park these in any location indefinitely or for a long period of time, regardless of vehicle or vehicle/home combo.

They might be on trailers but they are not intended to be moved around like an RV.

 

[Broheim]

my apartment is a tad over 300 sq ft but the space is quite poorly utilized, I've seen much larger apartments with much smaller bathrooms for instance and I really wish the kitchen was bigger but it's fine for one guy. If I had the same square footage and a little higher to the ceiling I could have made something much better.

I'm a big guy but honestly I don't need that much space, I used to live in a much smaller room with 3 other guys in the army just fine.

 

[roguerower]

Yea, these are meant to be stationary homes that are built and then transported to their final resting place. The reason they are built on trailers is so they can get around the various zoning/code requirements. For instance...one of the owners said that to build a house in their town the req'm was at least 1,500sf.

 

[Eug]

I live in a big house. It doesn't look like a McMansion, but size-wise it effectively is one. Luckily the lot size is big so it doesn't overpower the lot like many big homes do in the city.

I could easily live with a lot less room, and it would cost us less in utilities. But then again I'm a selfish bastard and I really like the space.

With a 4-person family, my desired minimum would be around 1500 square feet. But our house is more than twice as big, just because.

I don't understand the logic of requiring a home build of minimum 1500 sf though. Lots of homes in my city are around 1200 sf and they're OK for couples and small families. Mind you, most of those were built in the 1950s or whatever.

Yeah, when you add everything up it equals a small apartment.
We had DSL, but we moved away for a few years, and when we moved back they claimed all the bandwidth in our area was used up. They then did run fiber right past our place, but they want $500 to run it to the house. Now we survive on 10 gigs of data/month thru att cell network.

Wow, that's tough.

I live in the city and we have VDSL2 service, which is fibre to the neighbourhood, and then it's 2-wire telephone lines to the house from the box up the street.

If I could get fibre installed to the house for $500 (with a decently priced monthly package), I would have done that in a heartbeat.

But then again, I already have an indoor toilet.

 

[Imaginer]

Yea, these are meant to be stationary homes that are built and then transported to their final resting place. The reason they are built on trailers is so they can get around the various zoning/code requirements. For instance...one of the owners said that to build a house in their town the req'm was at least 1,500sf.

Again, manufactured home parks. And I mean manufactured homes as in "mobile" homes. The ones you see temporarily at construction sites or the ones lofted on oversized trucks. Though, it again depends on the city.

One thing to note, that the dictation of code requirements is hallway width. There isn't a requirement for RV trailer homes that I can find. THAT is the workaround (from my understanding). Another, is foundation plans, drainage plans, etc.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I don't understand the logic of requiring a home build of minimum 1500 sf though. Lots of homes in my city are around 1200 sf and they're OK for couples and small families. Mind you, most of those were built in the 1950s or whatever.

Not complicated - it keeps out the riffraff.

 

[roguerower]

Not complicated - it keeps out the riffraff.

Yep...

 

[Red Squirrel]

I personally would have trouble with that because of all my server stuff and I like having more space, but it would be awesome for camping. Get some cheap lake front cottage land somewhere and just put in one of those while you build the cottage at a comfortable pace over the years. Would not take much to cool either, a small window AC unit would probably do the trick provided it's decently sealed and insulated in there. Build a separate hut to house all the utilities like power and water filtration and then run to the small house.

If I had to choose between an apartment or one of these though, I would pick the small house, at least it's my own space.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Also zoning for these mobile homes - they are called RV/trailer parks. You cannot exactly park these in any location indefinitely or for a long period of time, regardless of vehicle or vehicle/home combo.

Sure you can.

Of course zoning differs according to location. But in general you can park these for long periods in many places outside of city limits. I.e., out in the county.

I've seen these shows on tiny houses a few times and checked out a number of websites on the subject. Some people park theirs out in the middle of nowhere and stay for long periods without hassle. Others I have seen are parked in the backyard of a friend etc and don't get hassled.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Anyone else heard of this or know someone living in one?

Yeah. I'm interested in it and have seen several TV documentaries etc and been to websites. Hobbit houses are interesting too.

I've lived in a camper in Europe, mostly but not always traveling around, for several years. It was smaller than, or at least certainly no bigger, than some of the tiny houses. Living on a smallish sailboat is also very similar. IMO, there are two 'keys':

1. Pare down your belongings to those necessary and keep your stuff well organized.

2. The 'outdoors' must be available. I find it too claustrophobic to be confined inside for long periods, whether boat, camper or tiny house. When the weather was bad (cold and rainy) I moved to an urban area so coffee shops and libraries etc were available to hang out in.

Fern

 

[bobeedee]

Couldn't do it. My home office is almost 200 sq. ft by itself and is packed with all sorts of goodies.

You could get by with a smaller space if you got rid of all those "Tom Brady is Satan" posters.

 

[mikeford]

The trick to it is to eat and sleep in the tiny house and "live" outside.

Offgrid has obvious downsides, but incredible cost savings and freedom from dependence on public services. For a home in the boonies, running the utilties that last few miles can get expensive.

I could totally see eating and sleeping in a tiny house, with a couple huge cheap steel buildings for workshop etc. Take the money saved to pay for lots of travel


BTW one of the reason there aren't more small houses is city and county building codes requiring minimum 600 sq ft in most cases. (maybe 300 sq ft, as I recall needed a two story 10x15 floor plan) Maybe right the first time, thinking it was two story 15x20 for 600 sq ft on a 25x30 lot with 5 ft offsets.