4 ms·

I don't get the tiny house thing. They seem to have become a fad because house prices in a lot of places are currently out of reach of a lot of people. But isn'

I don't get the tiny house thing. They seem to have become a fad because house prices in a lot of places are currently out of reach of a lot of people. But isn't the part of the equation that's grown astronomically the cost of the land, not the cost of building the house? I know that I couldn't afford a house where I am now (without a large down payment and mortgage repayments that were an unresponsible portion of my income) even if I just bought an empty plot of land.

mr_toad 7y ago
I would have assumed that they would have put the tiny houses on tiny plots of land, possibly existing land that has been subdivided.
- p1necone 7y ago
  I guess if you lived in a country where there weren't legal limits on subdivision size that would make sense. Is that the case in the USA? "I live in a trailer on my parents backyard" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "I built my own house at 19 you lazy bastard".
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    Generally, in the US, tiny homes are below legal minimum sizes for permanent homes. So, most are built as trailers, even if installed permanently. Similarly, most towns and counties are subdivided such that tiny plots aren’t available. There is a growing movement to allow ADUs in urban spaces, but it’s far from universal. If memory serves, Arlington VA (next to DC) allows an ADU within the main house (converted basement) with some fairly strict limits. No ADU in the back yard.
    - TylerE 7y ago
      Basement apartments are problematic from a fire code perspective, especially if it's a "true" ADU that doesn't connect into the main house.
      - alistairSH 7y ago
        Correct. The basement ADUs I've seen in this area are on partially exposed "walk out" basements, so there's a dedicated door and window(s) for egress. Most retain a door to the main area, just dead-bolted (so no use in a fire).
- protomyth 7y ago
  That would be a problem. There seems to be a lack of tiny plots to go with tiny houses. I get the feeling cities are about as happy with any concept of tiny plots as they are of trailer parks.
  - p1necone 7y ago
    I would imagine if you allowed tiny subdivisions you'd end up with slums, not hipsters instagramming their tiny houses.
    - smileysteve 7y ago
      This. Tiny house plots aren't distinctly different than trailer parks, and tiny houses aren't that distinct from a single wide. There are nice trailer parks with new or maintained and addons porches. But there are also trailer parks where maintenance, but particularly septic and sewage were ignored
    - protomyth 7y ago
      And that's why we won't get affordable housing.
Krasnol 7y ago
It reminds me of the wave of ads and hype for open office environments where you actually want to save some cash and squeeze in more people in less space.
ilamont 7y ago
The other part of the fad is the gorgeous photography of tiny houses and articles extolling the concept that was shared widely on social media. It romanticized the idea, and generally avoided the downsides.
- crashcrashcrush 7y ago
  100% that the “pintrest-izaton” of Tiny Homes contributed to the rad. They’re also photographed as cabins in lush environments - not wedges behind an Eichler off University Ave in Palo Alto.
- notmyfuture 7y ago
  The first wave of tiny houses seemed to be mostly self-built and people had poured a lot of love & hours into construction. Then they were all over Instagram/Pinterest. This has paved the way for a second wave, where some occupiers aren't quite as enraptured: mass production (or at least not self-built), living this way by more by necessity than choice.
AYBABTME 7y ago
While I'm not a fan of tiny tiny houses, I personally don't feel comfortable in houses that are too big. I would prefer a tiny house to a large suburban house in which I'd feel lost. I think it's probably similar for a lot of people; feeling that a smaller house is just right for them. It's probable that the "tiny" part is a lot more reactionary to big suburban castles, and I'd posit that those into the tiny house fad are likely more interested in houses that are more compact/dense, than an actual tiny house.
- brewdad 7y ago
  That's completely valid but there's a world of difference between 300 sq feet and 500-600 sq feet per person. The McMansion is rediculious but that doesn't mean that the opposite extreme isn't also crazy. Admittedly, my family of three lives in 1800 sq feet and we probably have at least 200 sq feet that only gets used a handful of days a year. I wouldn't want to go smaller than about 1300 sq feet for our family though.
Pfhreak 7y ago
Some folks like to live more sustainably and believe a smaller house comes with a smaller ecological footprint (I do not have sufficient data to argue whether it does or does not.)
- wolco 7y ago
  In many ways it would (lower heating/electric) needs but it also decreases food storage spaces and increases take-out usage. If you need to travel somewhere to perform similiar tasks those costs need to be accounted for as well.

mr_toad 7y ago

I would have assumed that they would have put the tiny houses on tiny plots of land, possibly existing land that has been subdivided.

p1necone 7y ago
I guess if you lived in a country where there weren't legal limits on subdivision size that would make sense. Is that the case in the USA? "I live in a trailer on my parents backyard" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "I built my own house at 19 you lazy bastard".
- alistairSH 7y ago
  Generally, in the US, tiny homes are below legal minimum sizes for permanent homes. So, most are built as trailers, even if installed permanently. Similarly, most towns and counties are subdivided such that tiny plots aren’t available. There is a growing movement to allow ADUs in urban spaces, but it’s far from universal. If memory serves, Arlington VA (next to DC) allows an ADU within the main house (converted basement) with some fairly strict limits. No ADU in the back yard.
  - TylerE 7y ago
    Basement apartments are problematic from a fire code perspective, especially if it's a "true" ADU that doesn't connect into the main house.
    - alistairSH 7y ago
      Correct. The basement ADUs I've seen in this area are on partially exposed "walk out" basements, so there's a dedicated door and window(s) for egress. Most retain a door to the main area, just dead-bolted (so no use in a fire).
protomyth 7y ago
That would be a problem. There seems to be a lack of tiny plots to go with tiny houses. I get the feeling cities are about as happy with any concept of tiny plots as they are of trailer parks.
- p1necone 7y ago
  I would imagine if you allowed tiny subdivisions you'd end up with slums, not hipsters instagramming their tiny houses.
  - smileysteve 7y ago
    This. Tiny house plots aren't distinctly different than trailer parks, and tiny houses aren't that distinct from a single wide. There are nice trailer parks with new or maintained and addons porches. But there are also trailer parks where maintenance, but particularly septic and sewage were ignored
  - protomyth 7y ago
    And that's why we won't get affordable housing.

Krasnol 7y ago

It reminds me of the wave of ads and hype for open office environments where you actually want to save some cash and squeeze in more people in less space.

ilamont 7y ago

The other part of the fad is the gorgeous photography of tiny houses and articles extolling the concept that was shared widely on social media. It romanticized the idea, and generally avoided the downsides.

crashcrashcrush 7y ago
100% that the “pintrest-izaton” of Tiny Homes contributed to the rad. They’re also photographed as cabins in lush environments - not wedges behind an Eichler off University Ave in Palo Alto.
notmyfuture 7y ago
The first wave of tiny houses seemed to be mostly self-built and people had poured a lot of love & hours into construction. Then they were all over Instagram/Pinterest. This has paved the way for a second wave, where some occupiers aren't quite as enraptured: mass production (or at least not self-built), living this way by more by necessity than choice.

AYBABTME 7y ago

While I'm not a fan of tiny tiny houses, I personally don't feel comfortable in houses that are too big. I would prefer a tiny house to a large suburban house in which I'd feel lost. I think it's probably similar for a lot of people; feeling that a smaller house is just right for them. It's probable that the "tiny" part is a lot more reactionary to big suburban castles, and I'd posit that those into the tiny house fad are likely more interested in houses that are more compact/dense, than an actual tiny house.

brewdad 7y ago
That's completely valid but there's a world of difference between 300 sq feet and 500-600 sq feet per person. The McMansion is rediculious but that doesn't mean that the opposite extreme isn't also crazy. Admittedly, my family of three lives in 1800 sq feet and we probably have at least 200 sq feet that only gets used a handful of days a year. I wouldn't want to go smaller than about 1300 sq feet for our family though.

Pfhreak 7y ago

Some folks like to live more sustainably and believe a smaller house comes with a smaller ecological footprint (I do not have sufficient data to argue whether it does or does not.)

wolco 7y ago
In many ways it would (lower heating/electric) needs but it also decreases food storage spaces and increases take-out usage. If you need to travel somewhere to perform similiar tasks those costs need to be accounted for as well.