3 ms·
Unless there is some provision for tiny lots, I really don't get the desire. Even then, many of these tiny houses, particularly anything that can be hauled beh
by protomyth 7y ago
Unless there is some provision for tiny lots, I really don't get the desire. Even then, many of these tiny houses, particularly anything that can be hauled behind a truck, is astonishingly bad. A 400 - 700 sq. ft modular house would be a better idea.
On a side note, there are quite a lot of stories from places like Hong Kong on how to maximize space in their small apartments that could be applied to tiny homes to make them more livable. I've watched a lot of those shows on HGTV and have not seen any of those designs applied. A youtube channel called Living Big In A Tiny House https://www.youtube.com/user/livingbigtinyhouse https://www.youtube.com/user/livingbigtinyhouse has some interesting designs with some space saving techniques.
- ProfessorLayton 7y agoIt's worth pointing out that minimum lot sizes were used to push poor people, particularly POC, out of wealthier neighborhoods by making it uneconomical to build smaller homes on oversized lots. SF has a minimum of 2,500-4000sf [1], and San Jose has a minimum of 5,400sf! It's the same for much of the bay area, the SFH I live in occupies ~20% of the lot it sits on, which is pure insanity for one of the most expensive metros in the US. It is even more insane when you look at the giant lots of SFHs right next to Bart stations. [1] https://www.livablecity.org/rethinking-rh/ https://www.livablecity.org/rethinking-rh/