3 ms·

>Find land, which there is plenty of in rural areas, and build a new small house? Then you're just contributing to the sprawl problem, because infrastructure h

>Find land, which there is plenty of in rural areas, and build a new small house? Then you're just contributing to the sprawl problem, because infrastructure has to extend to you somehow. The options are: - bring all the infrastructure with you (be rich) - do without (live in squalor) The third option we need: - small dense affordable housing

mindslight 3y ago
> - small dense affordable housing Yes, we're in agreement that density is sorely missing, due to effectively being made illegal - whether SROs, lot size requirements, building codes prohibiting new triple deckers, etc. I just don't know why your first comment had this: > The only alternative is to buy rural land and try to get creative with the law (e.g. your tiny home on an existing rusted old trailer frame is considered a "remodel", etc) or simply build a small cabin and hope no one from the government comes to bulldoze it. Because that isn't an alternative. Rather it just strikes me as regular rural living in a small house. I'm surprised there haven't been more private corporate attempts to take ruralish land and bootstrap higher density walkable proto-cities with bus (or even train) service to a larger city, especially with the recent trend of remote work making attracting industry less necessary.
- CapstanRoller 3y ago
  >Because that isn't an alternative. Rather it just strikes me as regular rural living in a small house. It was more of a suggestion to do something quasi-legal like a multi-tenant tiny house village. I know a few folks who did this in the PNW, along with one who bought a disused kids' camp facility with small A-frame cabins and turned it into a permaculture farm & community, and then had all their friends move in. You're right in that it's not an answer either, because it's essentially a tiny breakaway society.

mindslight 3y ago

> - small dense affordable housing Yes, we're in agreement that density is sorely missing, due to effectively being made illegal - whether SROs, lot size requirements, building codes prohibiting new triple deckers, etc. I just don't know why your first comment had this: > The only alternative is to buy rural land and try to get creative with the law (e.g. your tiny home on an existing rusted old trailer frame is considered a "remodel", etc) or simply build a small cabin and hope no one from the government comes to bulldoze it. Because that isn't an alternative. Rather it just strikes me as regular rural living in a small house. I'm surprised there haven't been more private corporate attempts to take ruralish land and bootstrap higher density walkable proto-cities with bus (or even train) service to a larger city, especially with the recent trend of remote work making attracting industry less necessary.

CapstanRoller 3y ago
>Because that isn't an alternative. Rather it just strikes me as regular rural living in a small house. It was more of a suggestion to do something quasi-legal like a multi-tenant tiny house village. I know a few folks who did this in the PNW, along with one who bought a disused kids' camp facility with small A-frame cabins and turned it into a permaculture farm & community, and then had all their friends move in. You're right in that it's not an answer either, because it's essentially a tiny breakaway society.