12 ms·

Portland’s Small-House Movement Is Catching On

53 points by spking 10y ago

jseliger 10y ago
Meanwhile, in Seattle, Micro Apartments have largely been regulated into dust: http://www.sightline.org/2016/09/06/how-seattle-killed-micro-housing http://www.sightline.org/2016/09/06/how-seattle-killed-micro.... Seattle is doing somewhat better at affordable housing than SF: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/23/10657690/seattle-housing-crisis http://www.vox.com/2015/12/23/10657690/seattle-housing-crisi..., but that's a really low bar and it is not doing as well as it ought to be.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  Just because someone wants to live in a city does not mean the city is doing a thing wrong by not doing every possible thing to accommodate them. That Seattle article is practically bursting with entitlement; she's demanding the neighborhood change to meet her living/working preferences. Why? Why are her demands any more valid than the people who live there already, or who can afford non-hyperdense housing and don't want to live in a neighborhood with it? It's hard not to see this as something like locusts complaining about farmers trying to stop them from devouring their crops. Maybe, just maybe, the things that make Capital Hill so compelling for her are the very things she wants to change about it to meet her wants.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gm-conspiracy 10y ago
So, the city is allowing mother-in-law suites to be built (and then rented)?
- alistairSH 10y ago
  Looks that way. And seems reasonable. In dense residential areas with mostly free-standing homes, they seem to scale well. They don't dwarf existing units, they don't become eye-sores, etc. Done well, the remaining rear yard becomes a cozy, quiet nook (albeit now communal). As far as I can tell, none of my local jurisdictions (NoVA) allow MIL cottages. Arlington allows MIL apartments (basement, attic conversions) but limits design/space and prohibits renting (literally only for family). Fairfax doesn't even allow that.
pasta 10y ago
This is a strange read for someone comming from a country where houses of 74m² are normal..
- cylinder 10y ago
  Even in California there are many houses around 70sqm. My advice regarding NYT trend pieces remains the same: always disregard them.
lettergram 10y ago
Having lived in an apartment that is probably could be considered "tiny house size" at 250 square feet with my wife, just why? I was living there with my wife and we couldn't really cook, the bathroom sucked (literally 1.5 square foot of walking space), we couldn't do stuff like yoga, I'd I wanted to order a box of something I had to be careful, pets would have been awful (especially cats)... I can go on and on, overall it was probably a worth while experience. However, our quality of life dropped dramatically while we lived there (for about a year). I'm so glad I now can actually stretch if I want to, make food, setup a desk for each of us, etc.
- jseliger 10y ago
  Assuming this is not just a troll... 1. These are usually meant for one person, not two. 2. Why'd you live there in the first place? Presumably because you couldn't or didn't want to afford anything else. 3. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean someone else won't. 4. This is easily forgotten, but average American dwelling size has been increasing for decades: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/09/13/how-the-average-american-home-has-changed-in-the-l.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/09/13/how-the-ave... or http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283, even in the face of recent de-materialization due to digitization. It ought to be possible for people to be able to choose from a wider array of dwelling sizes, rather than forcing people into larger units than they need or want.
  - lettergram 10y ago
    1.The average tiny house is somewhere around 150 -180 sqft, 250 sqft is about double - thus 2 people seemed reasonable. 2. And we were indeed trying to save money, we didn't need to, but we did. 3. Totally agree: The main reason I'm sharing my experience, is that so many people glamorize the "Tiny house" movement, but (having lived it) I can tell you it sucks. 4. I agree with wider range - but personally (along with my wife) we will never go below 500 sqft for two people again. we each need some space, and it doesnt really even save moneh. We ended up not even saving much money because we had to eat out probably 75% of the time, because there was no room to store food and cook properly. Generally, you also just get exhausted. It's tough living in a small place, you have to spend almost all your time outside or you'll go nuts and can't really have friends over.
chrisbrandow 10y ago
Why not simply build larger individual units, but stack many of them vertically? People don't like being cramped with nowhere to put their stuff.
- yardie 10y ago
  Because a bit of air gap is a better sound/social/noise insulator than a thin wall of concrete. I liked the idea of living in an apartment. But after the dance troupe moved in above me and the screaming fuckfest adjacent to us I can see why people prefer houses. I was also told I couldn't barbecue, which as a guy that loves to barbecue, has me looking at single family homes right now. In the same sqfootage and number of living quarters.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Great sound insulation can be fairly cheap during construction. Sadly it's generally an afterthought in the US and it adds around 2 inches to wall and floor thickness.
- icebraining 10y ago
  The idea seems to be reusing spaces between existing houses, so you probably couldn't neither spread them much wider nor make them very tall (since the existing houses seem to have only a couple of stories).
- gaur 10y ago
  > Why not simply build larger individual units, but stack many of them vertically? Certainly there is new development of high-rise apartment buildings and condos. But those remain out of reach for many people because the developers decided to add a dog spa or a quinoa bar or whatever in order to have an excuse to jack up the prices by 50%. Even cities that are allowing new development are largely missing simple, no-bullshit housing for people whose incomes are above the poverty line but below six figures.
Nickersf 10y ago
Whatever, I've been living here in Portland since 1997 and to see what has happened to the housing costs in the city in the last 10 years is sickening. What's next a shipping container for 500k?
plan6 10y ago
Nevermind the fact that all over the world people have been living in smaller houses on average compared to those in the U.S. for many years. But, what I think is unfortunate in house design and construction is that houses are built for use < 100 years, aren't easily upgradable via conduits, etc., and assume that weather and electricity/gas/water usage and cost as a fraction of income and will stay consistent. As for materials, Aerogel's Spaceloft http://www.buyaerogel.com/product/spaceloft-10-mm-cut-to-size/ http://www.buyaerogel.com/product/spaceloft-10-mm-cut-to-siz... that could significantly decrease residential energy needs is barely spoken of, few spend more on quality insulated windows, many are content with hardiplank vs. masonry even though brick provides better insulation and doesn't need painting, cold-formed steel is a better option and would reduce deforestation in combination with increased taxes on the paper industry to drive consumers to use electronic alternatives, the same crap roof shingles are used and few use solar even as solar technology has vastly improved. We could be building small modern castles that we could hand down, but instead we still build cheap throwaways.
- rtkwe 10y ago
  It doesn't help that the aerogel alternative is 5x the cost per sqft. Other cheaper insulation types are really good already.
  - plan6 10y ago
    > Other cheaper insulation types are really good already. This is short-term thinking. I don't expect the insulation in my house to be sufficient for the significantly increased and/or decreased temperatures caused by deforestation, CO2 pollution, ice melting, etc. Yes, we will have moved out by the time it will matter, but I think my children and their children could've potentially lived comfortably in our house had it been built with the best materials available today. And with more insulation, air conditioning wouldn't be causing even more warming: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/sunday-review/air-conditioning-is-an-environmental-quandary.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/sunday-review/air-conditio... Substantially improved insulation in new housing and stopping deforestation could get the world back on track.
mikestew 10y ago
800 sq. ft. is considered "tiny"? Ours is considered to be "family of three or four", worth half a million $, and it only weighs in at 1200 sq. ft. Yes, 50% larger, but when I think "tiny" I think of those houses that would fit between a couple of rows of corn in the garden. These are just mother-in-law cottages before someone stuck a trendy name on them.
jweir 10y ago
Well, if it is catching on, it is not catching on in Portland. The new houses being built are maximizing the square footage and taking up as much foot print as possible. Now some people are adding small ADU(additional dwelling unit) and these often are small. They are meant to be rented out. But these are not primary residences.
- erentz 10y ago
  If Portland is anything like Seattle, the problem is that the absurd zoning encourages developers to build larger houses to maximize their return on the investment in acquiring the land. This is based on conversations with architects and builders where I've asked about this specific problem. This means that I could afford many newer houses if they were built out to something like 1800-2200 sqft which would still be more space than I need. But instead all new houses are built out to 3000+ sqft making them >$1m.
blhack 10y ago
This has got to be one of the most out-of-touch articles I've seen on here. 800sqft is not "tiny". I live in an 800sqft house with two other people (my girlfriend, and a roomate), as well as a dog, and while we have talked about upgrading to a larger house at some point, it's never felt like a priority. We certainly don't feel like we're participating in some sort of "movement" or change in housing norms here (especially since our house was built in the 1950s). Houses this size are really common here in Arizona. In fact, I'd bet that 800sqft is probably near the median for houses in my neighborhood. (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4185818,-111.9412412,3a,75y,61.64h,76.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1I3MBXj0oe-6jbjp1MmD-w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D1I3MBXj0oe-6jbjp1MmD-w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D83.483482%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4185818,-111.9412412,3a,75y,...) How brave of Portland to allow these homes to be constructed. /s
- tmat 10y ago
  not to mention they talk about a "movement." then come to find out none of these people actually live in these.. they're just rentals.. so hilarious.
Overtonwindow 10y ago
This whole issue of affordable housing seems a bit ridiculous to me. The people complaining about affordable housing are urban young people wanting to live in San Francisco, Portland, etc. There are TONS of affordable housing, but not in hip, rich places where these young people want to live. Come south, Atlanta has tons of affordable housing. Austin Texas, Tampa Florida, Akron Ohio for heaven sake's! There is no affordable housing crisis, there is a crisis of unreasonable expectations and spoiled people.
- arkades 10y ago
  Yes. People want to live near locales with services, infrastructure, and the majority of jobs. Fucking entitled shits.
  - FrancoDiaz 10y ago
    Except there are plenty of places with services, infrastructure, good jobs, AND affordable housing.
    - arkades 10y ago
      Which are? I'm not even being facetious. My city is incredibly expensive to live in. I'm willing to hear solid alternatives.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  Can I ride my bicycle in those places without being swerved at or screamed at?
  - ryanmarsh 10y ago
    Yes in most suburbs of the US it's safe to ride your bike.
    - CalRobert 10y ago
      If anything has ever needed a citation, it's that little gem. Suburbs are about the most dangerous place in the world for cyclists. You have lots of traffic, unlike the country, but it's moving really fast and unaccustomed to anything on the road but cars, unlike the city. Source: lived in US suburbs most of my life. Still have a rib that aches some mornings from when I got hit years ago (the driver was shocked when I started calling the police).
jimmydddd 10y ago
Serious Question. Do people not entertain at their homes anymore? If I want to have three couples over for dinner, I don't see I could cook for and accommodate them comfortably in these tiny homes. My in laws from Europe typically come to stay with us for three months every year. I often have out of town friends drop in for a few nights. What about having the family over for Thanksgiving? Also, if the answer is just to go to restaurants/bars for all social events, that would seem to be more expensive in the long run. Just curious.
- sampl 10y ago
  I'm not an architect or tiny house owner, but I have friends and family stay in my large studio apartment fairly often. A modern, open floor plan is a big help. If you stop building walled-off kitchen/dining/family/living spaces, you have a lot more efficient use of the space you actually use. Reuse of space is also huge. You can temporarily rearrange furniture for a big dinner and put it back before it's time to sleep. Another angle... if you stand to save $100k building your house, you can save a lot of money by putting up your family in a nearby hotel overnight.
  - wott 10y ago
    > If you stop building walled-off kitchen/dining/family/living spaces, you have a lot more efficient use of the space you actually use. I though that fad was gone. That's a nightmare in real use. I don't want the meat grease smell in my bed. I don't want the kitchen noise while watching TV in the sofa or chatting in the living room. I don't want the music or the children noise in the kitchen. And I especially don't want all visitors packed together in the same space 24/24, without any half-privacy time to spend in smaller groups. Oh, and since I am the kind of person who spends most of parties inside the kitchen rather than in the living or dining room, how do I manage? :-)
    - ghaff 10y ago
      It's not necessarily either-or. I grew up in a very old house that a totally separate dining room and kitchen. When I bought a house it was the same. After a major remodel for structural reasons, the kitchen and dining room were opened up--which turned out to be a big improvement--but the living room spaces were still largely separate. This actually works pretty well for me. In practice, when I have people over, we still spend a lot of time in the kitchen/dining area--which is also sort of the "mud room" etc.--but the entertaining/hangout area is still somewhat separated. I think more open floor plans than was historically the norm make sense--especially in smaller areas. But, if you have the space, walls can still be useful.
supernintendo 10y ago
A lot of people in these comments seem to be confused over the word "tiny", despite the article never using that word. Tiny homes are a vague category but generally under 400 square feet [1]. 800 square feet isn't small by my standards (I grew up in a mobile home) but compared to the average American home of 2,600 square feet it is [2]. By the way, more space-efficient housing is desperately needed for new real estate developments in Portland. As a matter of fact, it should be mandated. Real estate developers should not be able to treat this city like a personal casino while working class families (many that have been here for decades) get pushed out. In this regard, treating the issue as an outlet for "design statements" is reflective of the problem. Shelter should be a basic human right; hyperinflating the value of it when there isn't enough to go around is to rub salt in the wounds of lower income people. [1] http://thetinylife.com/what-is-the-tiny-house-movement/ http://thetinylife.com/what-is-the-tiny-house-movement/ [2] http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/04/real_estate/american-home-size/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/04/real_estate/american-home-si...
- bickfordb 10y ago
  I live in Portland and I'm going through the planning process for an ADU (accessory dwelling unit) over my existing garage in my backyard. I believe the Portland ADU maximums are around 800sqft for the structure, so if you're adding a level above your (20'x20') garage, the upper residential level will be around 400sqft. A 400sqft footprint is certainly not unheard of for an apartment, but for a standalone residential structure that includes all the mechanical systems is relatively small. The tiny house community does seem to be designing for much smaller (150-200sqft?) sized spaces. Land-use wise, I agree that this housing is needed in Portland and other metros with similar housing stock. Everyone wants to add housing, but no one wants to tear down charming Victorians/Craftsman Bungalow blocks to make way for more density / apartment buildings. As a result encouraging people to add residential units in backyards and basements makes a ton of sense. One thing that wasn't obvious in the article is that the city is simply waiving the development fees for ADUs to encourage their construction. Previously, one could have built the same backyard structures, but would have had to pay ~$20K+ in development fees.
Xeoncross 10y ago
As a developer, I found taking several months off work to build a tiny house very rewarding. I also now have a 100% formaldehyde (and other toxins) free home for my son. I am (slowly) posting videos if anyone wants to see how to build a 400ft tiny house: http://tinyhousemansion.com http://tinyhousemansion.com I insulated the home to death and learned a lot about how houses should be built to save money and reduce energy usage. Entertaining people is limited to one family or so at a time, but since my family is the smallest of our circles we almost always go to other people's houses.
owenversteeg 10y ago
I think calling an 800-1200sqft house "tiny" is a bit ridiculous. My apartment is about 35m2, or ~400sqft, and it's still large enough to have a good-size kitchen and bathroom, large wooden dining table, couch and comfy chairs, a working area with a large desk and a decent amount of storage space. I have no problem having any reasonable number of guests over.
- justincormack 10y ago
  It is the average size of a new UK house I believe, just under 1000 sq ft, 3 bedrooms.
  - wott 10y ago
    In France, the average apartment is 66 m² (700 sq ft) and the average house 110 m² (1200 sq ft). Per person, that's respectively 33 m² (350 sq ft) and 44 m² (475 sq ft). I hope I got the conversion to barbarian units right, but I do not guarantee it.

53 points by spking 10y ago

Meanwhile, in Seattle, Micro Apartments have largely been regulated into dust: http://www.sightline.org/2016/09/06/how-seattle-killed-micro-housing http://www.sightline.org/2016/09/06/how-seattle-killed-micro.... Seattle is doing somewhat better at affordable housing than SF: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/23/10657690/seattle-housing-crisis http://www.vox.com/2015/12/23/10657690/seattle-housing-crisi..., but that's a really low bar and it is not doing as well as it ought to be.

1_2__3 10y ago
Just because someone wants to live in a city does not mean the city is doing a thing wrong by not doing every possible thing to accommodate them. That Seattle article is practically bursting with entitlement; she's demanding the neighborhood change to meet her living/working preferences. Why? Why are her demands any more valid than the people who live there already, or who can afford non-hyperdense housing and don't want to live in a neighborhood with it? It's hard not to see this as something like locusts complaining about farmers trying to stop them from devouring their crops. Maybe, just maybe, the things that make Capital Hill so compelling for her are the very things she wants to change about it to meet her wants.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

gm-conspiracy 10y ago

So, the city is allowing mother-in-law suites to be built (and then rented)?

alistairSH 10y ago
Looks that way. And seems reasonable. In dense residential areas with mostly free-standing homes, they seem to scale well. They don't dwarf existing units, they don't become eye-sores, etc. Done well, the remaining rear yard becomes a cozy, quiet nook (albeit now communal). As far as I can tell, none of my local jurisdictions (NoVA) allow MIL cottages. Arlington allows MIL apartments (basement, attic conversions) but limits design/space and prohibits renting (literally only for family). Fairfax doesn't even allow that.

pasta 10y ago

This is a strange read for someone comming from a country where houses of 74m² are normal..

cylinder 10y ago
Even in California there are many houses around 70sqm. My advice regarding NYT trend pieces remains the same: always disregard them.

lettergram 10y ago

Having lived in an apartment that is probably could be considered "tiny house size" at 250 square feet with my wife, just why? I was living there with my wife and we couldn't really cook, the bathroom sucked (literally 1.5 square foot of walking space), we couldn't do stuff like yoga, I'd I wanted to order a box of something I had to be careful, pets would have been awful (especially cats)... I can go on and on, overall it was probably a worth while experience. However, our quality of life dropped dramatically while we lived there (for about a year). I'm so glad I now can actually stretch if I want to, make food, setup a desk for each of us, etc.

jseliger 10y ago
Assuming this is not just a troll... 1. These are usually meant for one person, not two. 2. Why'd you live there in the first place? Presumably because you couldn't or didn't want to afford anything else. 3. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean someone else won't. 4. This is easily forgotten, but average American dwelling size has been increasing for decades: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/09/13/how-the-average-american-home-has-changed-in-the-l.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/09/13/how-the-ave... or http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283, even in the face of recent de-materialization due to digitization. It ought to be possible for people to be able to choose from a wider array of dwelling sizes, rather than forcing people into larger units than they need or want.
- lettergram 10y ago
  1.The average tiny house is somewhere around 150 -180 sqft, 250 sqft is about double - thus 2 people seemed reasonable. 2. And we were indeed trying to save money, we didn't need to, but we did. 3. Totally agree: The main reason I'm sharing my experience, is that so many people glamorize the "Tiny house" movement, but (having lived it) I can tell you it sucks. 4. I agree with wider range - but personally (along with my wife) we will never go below 500 sqft for two people again. we each need some space, and it doesnt really even save moneh. We ended up not even saving much money because we had to eat out probably 75% of the time, because there was no room to store food and cook properly. Generally, you also just get exhausted. It's tough living in a small place, you have to spend almost all your time outside or you'll go nuts and can't really have friends over.

chrisbrandow 10y ago

Why not simply build larger individual units, but stack many of them vertically? People don't like being cramped with nowhere to put their stuff.

yardie 10y ago
Because a bit of air gap is a better sound/social/noise insulator than a thin wall of concrete. I liked the idea of living in an apartment. But after the dance troupe moved in above me and the screaming fuckfest adjacent to us I can see why people prefer houses. I was also told I couldn't barbecue, which as a guy that loves to barbecue, has me looking at single family homes right now. In the same sqfootage and number of living quarters.
- Retric 10y ago
  Great sound insulation can be fairly cheap during construction. Sadly it's generally an afterthought in the US and it adds around 2 inches to wall and floor thickness.
icebraining 10y ago
The idea seems to be reusing spaces between existing houses, so you probably couldn't neither spread them much wider nor make them very tall (since the existing houses seem to have only a couple of stories).
gaur 10y ago
> Why not simply build larger individual units, but stack many of them vertically? Certainly there is new development of high-rise apartment buildings and condos. But those remain out of reach for many people because the developers decided to add a dog spa or a quinoa bar or whatever in order to have an excuse to jack up the prices by 50%. Even cities that are allowing new development are largely missing simple, no-bullshit housing for people whose incomes are above the poverty line but below six figures.

Nickersf 10y ago

Whatever, I've been living here in Portland since 1997 and to see what has happened to the housing costs in the city in the last 10 years is sickening. What's next a shipping container for 500k?

plan6 10y ago

Nevermind the fact that all over the world people have been living in smaller houses on average compared to those in the U.S. for many years. But, what I think is unfortunate in house design and construction is that houses are built for use < 100 years, aren't easily upgradable via conduits, etc., and assume that weather and electricity/gas/water usage and cost as a fraction of income and will stay consistent. As for materials, Aerogel's Spaceloft http://www.buyaerogel.com/product/spaceloft-10-mm-cut-to-size/ http://www.buyaerogel.com/product/spaceloft-10-mm-cut-to-siz... that could significantly decrease residential energy needs is barely spoken of, few spend more on quality insulated windows, many are content with hardiplank vs. masonry even though brick provides better insulation and doesn't need painting, cold-formed steel is a better option and would reduce deforestation in combination with increased taxes on the paper industry to drive consumers to use electronic alternatives, the same crap roof shingles are used and few use solar even as solar technology has vastly improved. We could be building small modern castles that we could hand down, but instead we still build cheap throwaways.

rtkwe 10y ago
It doesn't help that the aerogel alternative is 5x the cost per sqft. Other cheaper insulation types are really good already.
- plan6 10y ago
  > Other cheaper insulation types are really good already. This is short-term thinking. I don't expect the insulation in my house to be sufficient for the significantly increased and/or decreased temperatures caused by deforestation, CO2 pollution, ice melting, etc. Yes, we will have moved out by the time it will matter, but I think my children and their children could've potentially lived comfortably in our house had it been built with the best materials available today. And with more insulation, air conditioning wouldn't be causing even more warming: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/sunday-review/air-conditioning-is-an-environmental-quandary.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/sunday-review/air-conditio... Substantially improved insulation in new housing and stopping deforestation could get the world back on track.

mikestew 10y ago

800 sq. ft. is considered "tiny"? Ours is considered to be "family of three or four", worth half a million $, and it only weighs in at 1200 sq. ft. Yes, 50% larger, but when I think "tiny" I think of those houses that would fit between a couple of rows of corn in the garden. These are just mother-in-law cottages before someone stuck a trendy name on them.

jweir 10y ago

Well, if it is catching on, it is not catching on in Portland. The new houses being built are maximizing the square footage and taking up as much foot print as possible. Now some people are adding small ADU(additional dwelling unit) and these often are small. They are meant to be rented out. But these are not primary residences.

erentz 10y ago
If Portland is anything like Seattle, the problem is that the absurd zoning encourages developers to build larger houses to maximize their return on the investment in acquiring the land. This is based on conversations with architects and builders where I've asked about this specific problem. This means that I could afford many newer houses if they were built out to something like 1800-2200 sqft which would still be more space than I need. But instead all new houses are built out to 3000+ sqft making them >$1m.

blhack 10y ago

This has got to be one of the most out-of-touch articles I've seen on here. 800sqft is not "tiny". I live in an 800sqft house with two other people (my girlfriend, and a roomate), as well as a dog, and while we have talked about upgrading to a larger house at some point, it's never felt like a priority. We certainly don't feel like we're participating in some sort of "movement" or change in housing norms here (especially since our house was built in the 1950s). Houses this size are really common here in Arizona. In fact, I'd bet that 800sqft is probably near the median for houses in my neighborhood. (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4185818,-111.9412412,3a,75y,61.64h,76.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1I3MBXj0oe-6jbjp1MmD-w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D1I3MBXj0oe-6jbjp1MmD-w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D83.483482%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4185818,-111.9412412,3a,75y,...) How brave of Portland to allow these homes to be constructed. /s

tmat 10y ago
not to mention they talk about a "movement." then come to find out none of these people actually live in these.. they're just rentals.. so hilarious.

Overtonwindow 10y ago

This whole issue of affordable housing seems a bit ridiculous to me. The people complaining about affordable housing are urban young people wanting to live in San Francisco, Portland, etc. There are TONS of affordable housing, but not in hip, rich places where these young people want to live. Come south, Atlanta has tons of affordable housing. Austin Texas, Tampa Florida, Akron Ohio for heaven sake's! There is no affordable housing crisis, there is a crisis of unreasonable expectations and spoiled people.

arkades 10y ago
Yes. People want to live near locales with services, infrastructure, and the majority of jobs. Fucking entitled shits.
- FrancoDiaz 10y ago
  Except there are plenty of places with services, infrastructure, good jobs, AND affordable housing.
  - arkades 10y ago
    Which are? I'm not even being facetious. My city is incredibly expensive to live in. I'm willing to hear solid alternatives.
CalRobert 10y ago
Can I ride my bicycle in those places without being swerved at or screamed at?
- ryanmarsh 10y ago
  Yes in most suburbs of the US it's safe to ride your bike.
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    If anything has ever needed a citation, it's that little gem. Suburbs are about the most dangerous place in the world for cyclists. You have lots of traffic, unlike the country, but it's moving really fast and unaccustomed to anything on the road but cars, unlike the city. Source: lived in US suburbs most of my life. Still have a rib that aches some mornings from when I got hit years ago (the driver was shocked when I started calling the police).

jimmydddd 10y ago

Serious Question. Do people not entertain at their homes anymore? If I want to have three couples over for dinner, I don't see I could cook for and accommodate them comfortably in these tiny homes. My in laws from Europe typically come to stay with us for three months every year. I often have out of town friends drop in for a few nights. What about having the family over for Thanksgiving? Also, if the answer is just to go to restaurants/bars for all social events, that would seem to be more expensive in the long run. Just curious.

sampl 10y ago
I'm not an architect or tiny house owner, but I have friends and family stay in my large studio apartment fairly often. A modern, open floor plan is a big help. If you stop building walled-off kitchen/dining/family/living spaces, you have a lot more efficient use of the space you actually use. Reuse of space is also huge. You can temporarily rearrange furniture for a big dinner and put it back before it's time to sleep. Another angle... if you stand to save $100k building your house, you can save a lot of money by putting up your family in a nearby hotel overnight.
- wott 10y ago
  > If you stop building walled-off kitchen/dining/family/living spaces, you have a lot more efficient use of the space you actually use. I though that fad was gone. That's a nightmare in real use. I don't want the meat grease smell in my bed. I don't want the kitchen noise while watching TV in the sofa or chatting in the living room. I don't want the music or the children noise in the kitchen. And I especially don't want all visitors packed together in the same space 24/24, without any half-privacy time to spend in smaller groups. Oh, and since I am the kind of person who spends most of parties inside the kitchen rather than in the living or dining room, how do I manage? :-)
  - ghaff 10y ago
    It's not necessarily either-or. I grew up in a very old house that a totally separate dining room and kitchen. When I bought a house it was the same. After a major remodel for structural reasons, the kitchen and dining room were opened up--which turned out to be a big improvement--but the living room spaces were still largely separate. This actually works pretty well for me. In practice, when I have people over, we still spend a lot of time in the kitchen/dining area--which is also sort of the "mud room" etc.--but the entertaining/hangout area is still somewhat separated. I think more open floor plans than was historically the norm make sense--especially in smaller areas. But, if you have the space, walls can still be useful.

supernintendo 10y ago

A lot of people in these comments seem to be confused over the word "tiny", despite the article never using that word. Tiny homes are a vague category but generally under 400 square feet [1]. 800 square feet isn't small by my standards (I grew up in a mobile home) but compared to the average American home of 2,600 square feet it is [2]. By the way, more space-efficient housing is desperately needed for new real estate developments in Portland. As a matter of fact, it should be mandated. Real estate developers should not be able to treat this city like a personal casino while working class families (many that have been here for decades) get pushed out. In this regard, treating the issue as an outlet for "design statements" is reflective of the problem. Shelter should be a basic human right; hyperinflating the value of it when there isn't enough to go around is to rub salt in the wounds of lower income people. [1] http://thetinylife.com/what-is-the-tiny-house-movement/ http://thetinylife.com/what-is-the-tiny-house-movement/ [2] http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/04/real_estate/american-home-size/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/04/real_estate/american-home-si...

bickfordb 10y ago
I live in Portland and I'm going through the planning process for an ADU (accessory dwelling unit) over my existing garage in my backyard. I believe the Portland ADU maximums are around 800sqft for the structure, so if you're adding a level above your (20'x20') garage, the upper residential level will be around 400sqft. A 400sqft footprint is certainly not unheard of for an apartment, but for a standalone residential structure that includes all the mechanical systems is relatively small. The tiny house community does seem to be designing for much smaller (150-200sqft?) sized spaces. Land-use wise, I agree that this housing is needed in Portland and other metros with similar housing stock. Everyone wants to add housing, but no one wants to tear down charming Victorians/Craftsman Bungalow blocks to make way for more density / apartment buildings. As a result encouraging people to add residential units in backyards and basements makes a ton of sense. One thing that wasn't obvious in the article is that the city is simply waiving the development fees for ADUs to encourage their construction. Previously, one could have built the same backyard structures, but would have had to pay ~$20K+ in development fees.

Xeoncross 10y ago

As a developer, I found taking several months off work to build a tiny house very rewarding. I also now have a 100% formaldehyde (and other toxins) free home for my son. I am (slowly) posting videos if anyone wants to see how to build a 400ft tiny house: http://tinyhousemansion.com http://tinyhousemansion.com I insulated the home to death and learned a lot about how houses should be built to save money and reduce energy usage. Entertaining people is limited to one family or so at a time, but since my family is the smallest of our circles we almost always go to other people's houses.

owenversteeg 10y ago

I think calling an 800-1200sqft house "tiny" is a bit ridiculous. My apartment is about 35m2, or ~400sqft, and it's still large enough to have a good-size kitchen and bathroom, large wooden dining table, couch and comfy chairs, a working area with a large desk and a decent amount of storage space. I have no problem having any reasonable number of guests over.

justincormack 10y ago
It is the average size of a new UK house I believe, just under 1000 sq ft, 3 bedrooms.
- wott 10y ago
  In France, the average apartment is 66 m² (700 sq ft) and the average house 110 m² (1200 sq ft). Per person, that's respectively 33 m² (350 sq ft) and 44 m² (475 sq ft). I hope I got the conversion to barbarian units right, but I do not guarantee it.