4 ms·
I'm having a 'somebody is wrong on the internet' moment here bane. > Most of the time when they're shown off, they're sitting isolated on some huge lot somewhe
by internaut 10y ago
I'm having a 'somebody is wrong on the internet' moment here bane.
> Most of the time when they're shown off, they're sitting isolated on some huge lot somewhere in the woods, so housing density isn't it.
Your thoughts here are of $ per sq ft. THs are definitely more expensive per sq ft. However the absolute number, the house price, is much lower. In my area I can build a TH (320 sq ft + loft) for 50k (to a high standard) and rent land for $50 a month.
> If I look for ones that are actually for sale, they just seem to be rebranded college apartments or RVs - except now the sellers are charging twice
The Tiny Housers agree!
The prices for THs are extortion because a large number of middle class people with no building talent whatsoever don't have the confidence to build for themselves.
A TH is at least 1/2 the price if you build it yourself, which is what most Tiny Housers I know are doing.
> They often come with advice for how to get them into RV parks or mobile home parks, but those can be very expensive
Also agree with that.
That is why most THs aren't in them. I only know one person who has done that.
Most people I know, are on cheap land rents, owned property (in the countryside), or on a piece of land owned by family or friends (in the cities). Some Tiny House people make TH communities but that is less common.
> Just like RVs and mobile homes, most of the shed-like tiny houses are terrible housing investments because the market views them as what they are, RVs and sheds, and depreciates them over time on average, while actual real estate tends to appreciate over time.
Few Tiny housers worry about resale. They just want somewhere to live.
They are also mostly constructed with the same or better quality house building materials and techniques. This means the average energy bill is very low. I've heard as low as $10 per month, but $50 is more common.
In an important way you're wrong about the depreciation curve. Larger houses cost more to maintain. A Tiny House is easier to fix and maintain. I must say the ones I've seen are often built to a much higher quality standard than normal houses.
Most of them aren't moved much, they don't have the same use case as an RV.
I expect the well built ones to last at least 60 years. They're built with the same materials (or better) as a normal house remember.
> you may as well just buy a used mobile home, they're much more comfortable to live in
Aren't most mobile homes are for 3 season living? Tiny Houses usually use 2x4 or 2x6 stick building which easily means R values of 20+, mine is almost R40.
> there are many long-term stories of tiny home dwellers who run away screaming because of how cramped their living conditions are, and all the unexpected external costs (like self storage for their actual stuff) that never seems to get into tiny house movement propaganda.
That is probably true for some downsizers who were wealthier before, but in my case the Tiny House is actually considerably larger than any place I've been able to afford before.
Also you made fun of it earlier but it really does matter how a space is organized. You can have a bigger space feel much smaller if it is cluttered.
> I feel like what they're actually trying to solve is the desire of apartment dwellers to "own" a home without having to go through the normal home ownership system, which they've been conditioned to view as a trap of some sort for reasons, and "hack" that system by coming at it from some non-traditional angle.
Come on. Do you think paying 30 year mortgages is actually normal in history?
My grandparents didn't pay for a mortgage. The average person paid 5-10 years of savings for a house. Tiny Housers are only trying to get us back to that.
> It's also interesting how pretty much all of the professionally designed and purpose built tiny homes
Like I said before this is mostly a DIY movement. People are putting their own labour into this. It is not free or easy but it sure beats the shite out of being in debt.
I'd like to make four final points.
1. No taxes as of yet.
2. The ability to move, to make an exit, that is a really powerful option that is underrated.
3. I've talked to two homeless people who see a Tiny House as an way to escape living on the streets. Their THs might not be high end but it is a huge improvement.
4. Having autonomy is very underrated. No debt. Ability to move. Not having to worry about rent or bills. Getting some skills and know-how that might help you again in the future.
- bane 10y agoI'm not totally convinced of many of your arguments, but I upvoted for the explanations. I think at this point it's just a wait and see thing. We'll see where it ends up in a decade or two. I'm obviously projecting many of my own assumptions onto the movement, but willing to try to accept new information and reevaluate my position on it. I still feel like it's at the nexus of some kind of misunderstanding of how property ownership works and some kind of hacking-the-system idealism. But maybe it'll come up with some good ideas. I actually understand the micro-apartment movement more, because you're getting the convenience of city living along with it, and high density zoning, except that movement is also broken in ways that micro-apartments end up costing as much or more than regular old places. Also, just as an FYI, the American style 30-year mortgage has been around since the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression and were designed to make housing more accessible.
- internaut 10y agoHave you seen the 1920s Sears Catalogue houses? http://www.searshomes.org/index.php/2011/07/03/oklahomas-first-sears-kit-home-the-saratoga/ http://www.searshomes.org/index.php/2011/07/03/oklahomas-fir... That house would only cost $47k in 2016 dollars. The TH movement is primarily about economics. I don't think it would exist if there were new quality houses available in that price range. Pardon my french, but isn't it just fucking amazing how we've 'progressed' with automation in a century and many of us are still working for decades just to afford mere shelter? It's often not even to a high spec. I sometimes look at that Primitive Technology guy and think "You know, that looks like a lot of work, but it only took him three days to construct that hut and he could rebuild it every year and it would still be way more cost effective per labour unit than anything we're doing right now!"
- someguydave 10y ago>Pardon my french, but isn't it just fucking amazing how we've 'progressed' with automation in a century and many of us are still working for decades just to afford mere shelter? It's often not even to a high spec. Yes but why is it this way? I think the best answer is that (in the US) the state has heavily restricted the supply of land available for development in desirable areas (through zoning, etc) and also heavily subsidized demand by nationalizing the mortgage market. This has pumped up several large sectors of the economy (FIRE) which would otherwise be subject to ordinary economic supply and demand. They all profit from home sales, construction and insurance, and have made certain that the state guarantees their revenue. Ordinary home buyers go along with the deal because they get cheaper loan rates and more loan principal than a purely private finance market would ever provide.