Tiny House News

[blenhardt]

I just don't get the tiny home deal. There are all kinds of RV's that have been engineered for years that are safer to tow than these top heavy trailers. As for better materials-have you been in an RV lately? My fifth wheel has some pretty good materials. Most are now coming with residential refrigerators if desired. There's no way I would live in or travel in a tiny home-RV, yes.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Unfortunately, from what I understand, being homeless has little/nothing to do with a home for many of the homeless.

Homelessness is usually not a single issue, but the Salt Lake city project started with housing first and has been a success. This should be a project people can agree on from any end of the political spectrum because it helps the homeless and actually saves tax dollars by spending the money more efficiently, focusing on long term solutions and lowering crime rates.

From an SF Gate article:

"This city has all but ended chronic homelessness, and San Francisco could learn a lot from how that happened.

What Salt Lake City did was simple: It created attractive housing that street people actually longed to live in, provided the new residents with plenty of on-site counseling to help them with problems such as drug abuse and unemployment, and put one person in charge who could get government and nonprofit agencies to work together.

The result is that in the decade since Salt Lake and San Francisco launched campaigns to end chronic homelessness, Salt Lake's hard-core street population shrank so drastically it is expected to be statistically gone by next year - but San Francisco still struggles mightily. And Salt Lake did this by spending $20 million a year in a million-resident metropolitan area. San Francisco spends $165 million."

Salt Lake City a model for S.F. on homeless solutions - SFGate

 

[Sarah in SC]

daylate, I have read a lot about their success with reducing homelessness in Utah. Housing First is a really fascinating concept.

 

[NW-Bound]

I just don't get the tiny home deal. There are all kinds of RV's that have been engineered for years that are safer to tow than these top heavy trailers. As for better materials-have you been in an RV lately? My fifth wheel has some pretty good materials. Most are now coming with residential refrigerators if desired. There's no way I would live in or travel in a tiny home-RV, yes.

Not all tiny homes are built to be towed for travel. Many are built on wheels so that they can bypass building codes or city ordinances that apply to homes with a foundation.

The materials and finishes are way above typical mobile homes/trailers. Think granite and solid wood, and very high quality (and in some cases, custom) appliances.

Yes, tiny homes usually have better construction and insulation than RVs. You would not be able to afford to heat an RV with walls of 1" thickness in the winter.

Of course that makes them heavier. And just because some of them have wheels does not mean that they are meant as travel trailers.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

The tiny home movement reminds me a bit of the Lustron (mail order) home of yester-year. My Dad lived in one for many years while living in North Carolina. There were two of them in town and they are both still standing. We visited last year and one of them is still in pretty good shape. To me, that's impressive for a house that built in a factory!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustron_house

 

[daylatedollarshort]

We often read and post here articles these days on how many soon to be retirees will be living on Social Security alone. This is going to mean a need for low cost housing options, maybe tiny houses, factory built housing or even both - factory built tiny houses.

I keep thinking lately about an article I've posted before by Keynes writing in the 1930s, predicting in his future (our present time) the "economic problem" will be solved through technical advances (man's basic need for adequate food and shelter). I think he was right. We just need to apply his logic and make the baseline standard of living available to more low income households, the currently homeless and our future retirees, some of whom who may need to survive on very low household incomes. Compared to most of human history, an upscale tiny house, bus pass for transportation, Medicaid / Medicare and even food from the 99 cent store would provide maybe not a lavish but surely adequate and humane baseline lifestyle at a relatively low cost to society as a whole.

 

[Lisa99]

We're about to live for the next 4 months in our new 400 sq ft. Fifth wheel.

We're coming from a 2200 sq. ft. house (which we are not selling) so it will be an interesting experiment in how well we do in such a small space.

Kudos to those who can live in something that small permanently.

 

[Sarah in SC]

The tiny home movement reminds me a bit of the Lustron (mail order) home of yester-year. My Dad lived in one for many years while living in North Carolina. There were two of them in town and they are both still standing. We visited last year and one of them is still in pretty good shape. To me, that's impressive for a house that built in a factory!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustron_house

Never heard of them--how cool to read the link! Kinda bummed that they were giving them away at Quantico in 2006, and only one person applied. Dang, I'd have wanted one! Thanks for this!

 

[ERD50]

I guess I'm confused. In terms of 'tiny homes' for the homeless, or poor, or people with marginal income (people on just SS was mentioned), what does a 'tiny home' have over a condo/apartment?

OK, you don't share walls, so maybe more privacy. But that comes with needing a bit more land, maintenance, unexpected repair costs, etc. That may not be a good trade-off for people with marginal income.

And a condo/apt is likely to be more environmental, if that's a concern.

If someone wants a well designed, small house, fine. I'm just not getting it as any kind of solution for marginal income people.

-ERD50

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I guess I'm confused. In terms of 'tiny homes' for the homeless, or poor, or people with marginal income (people on just SS was mentioned), what does a 'tiny home' have over a condo/apartment?

OK, you don't share walls, so maybe more privacy. But that comes with needing a bit more land, maintenance, unexpected repair costs, etc. That may not be a good trade-off for people with marginal income.

And a condo/apt is likely to be more environmental, if that's a concern.

If someone wants a well designed, small house, fine. I'm just not getting it as any kind of solution for marginal income people.

-ERD50

I could build a tiny house and put it in my backyard like the Berkeley urban planner but I don't have the skills, land or permits to put a condominium complex there. Some people seem to be able to build tiny houses for $15K or less:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2210565-181/teen-face-a-tiny-house?page=0

Apartments and condo can be solutions for low income housing as well - like cube housing in London.

There are success stories for various types of affordable housing but the basic idea that seems to be having success is housing first. It is hard to hold a job, eat healthy food, or not be sick all the time when you are living on a park bench. In locations where land is cheap or there are spaces available but not big enough for apartment buildings then tiny houses might be a good option. I'm no expert on the subject, but I've seen the youtube videos where people build solar cabins for $2K and wonder why we can't provide every household in the U.S. with simple, basic housing at least on that level.

 

[Sarah in SC]

The opportunity for a community to build tiny homes for homeless folks is kinda like the premise of Habitat for Humanity. Participating in the process is quite valuable for all parties.
Whereas an apartment building is a major project, and isn't so much a community effort.

 

[ERD50]

I guess I'm confused. In terms of 'tiny homes' for the homeless, or poor, or people with marginal income (people on just SS was mentioned), what does a 'tiny home' have over a condo/apartment? ...
-ERD50

I could build a tiny house and put it in my backyard like the Berkeley urban planner but I don't have the skills, land or permits to put a condominium complex there. ...

The opportunity for a community to build tiny homes for homeless folks is kinda like the premise of Habitat for Humanity. Participating in the process is quite valuable for all parties.
Whereas an apartment building is a major project, and isn't so much a community effort.

OK, but being able to provide some lower cost housing by allowing a 'tiny home' in addition to a SFH on a lot in CA (generally a very high COL area), or
the kind of thing Habitat for Humanity does, is really only applicable to a pretty small slice of the homeless population (and I applaud efforts to help even a small slice).

It's just that I got the impression from some earlier posts, that this was a major solution for homeless in general. That just seems like hyperbole to me.

-ERD50

 

[meierlde]

OK, but being able to provide some lower cost housing by allowing a 'tiny home' in addition to a SFH on a lot in CA (generally a very high COL area), or
the kind of thing Habitat for Humanity does, is really only applicable to a pretty small slice of the homeless population (and I applaud efforts to help even a small slice).

It's just that I got the impression from some earlier posts, that this was a major solution for homeless in general. That just seems like hyperbole to me.

-ERD50

A question how does the cost of a new tiny house compare with the cost of a trailer of about the same square footage. I do recognize that lots of areas are seriously zoned against trailers and tiny homes do fit under the zoning in terms of construction but may come up against minimum square footage rules (I do know for deed restrictions they would come up against the 1 main structure and minimum size rules) one zoning ordinance I checked sussts 3000 to 5000 sq foot lots.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

OK, but being able to provide some lower cost housing by allowing a 'tiny home' in addition to a SFH on a lot in CA (generally a very high COL area), or
the kind of thing Habitat for Humanity does, is really only applicable to a pretty small slice of the homeless population (and I applaud efforts to help even a small slice).

It's just that I got the impression from some earlier posts, that this was a major solution for homeless in general. That just seems like hyperbole to me.

-ERD50

The Salt Lake City project didn't use tiny houses as far as I know. I think they mainly used apartments:

The Shockingly Simple, Surprisingly Cost-Effective Way to End Homelessness | Mother Jones

I don't think there is a one size fits all solution. The last Habitat for Humanity homes I saw for sale in our area were over $400K. While that may make housing affordable to some households in a high COL place, obviously that is a not a solution here to help the homeless with zero income or seniors living on Social Security alone, which is not adjusted benefit-wise for cost of living based on location.

 

[NW-Bound]

... The last Habitat for Humanity homes I saw for sale in our area were over $400K....

Good grief! Jobs in expensive areas do not pay several times higher than the national average, so how can people with low-paying jobs even afford that?

While that may make housing affordable to some households in a high COL place, obviously that is a not a solution here to help the homeless with zero income or seniors living on Social Security alone, which is not adjusted benefit-wise for cost of living based on location.

They simply have to relocate to less expensive areas. For the same money, they can have open space and better housing than getting crowded in inner cities. We cannot keep subsidizing people to pile on top of one another.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

They simply have to relocate to less expensive areas. For the same money, they can have open space and better housing than getting crowded in inner cities. We cannot keep subsidizing people to pile on top of one another.

The $400K Habitat for Humanity homes weren't in San Francisco. They were an hour out in the 'burbs.

The area needs more than software developers to thrive long term. Teachers should be able to live near where they teach without a 2 hour commute each way. The housing shortage is part due to geography (lots of water and mountains not suitable for building) but also in large part due to man made building restrictions, including out dated restrictions on backyard cottages which can be changed and updated.

 

[NW-Bound]

The $400K Habitat for Humanity homes weren't in San Francisco. They were an hour out in the 'burbs.

Man, that makes it a whole lot worse. In a recent RV trip, I drove out of the SF area on I-580. Traffic was jam-packed way past Livermore, up till Tracy.

The area needs more than software developers to thrive long term. Teachers should be able to live near where they teach without a 2 hour commute each way...

I agree. If I were a teacher, I would say "To hell with it", pack up and move.

The article you reference says:

Redfin reported that there wasn’t a single home for sale in San Francisco that a teacher making that average salary could afford. In San Mateo County, 1.2 percent of homes — one in 80 — were affordable for teachers; in Santa Clara County, the number was 1.3 percent...

If a Bay Area tech company needs to set up a server farm, they could, say, open it in a less expensive mid-sized city, like Bend, Oregon. But a Bay Area school has no such luxury...
​

Obviously, they do not value teachers enough. And there are other jobs that pay even less, I am sure. So, more reason for people to vote with their feet. Let the children of those highly-paid high-tech workers be untaught, their fancy cars not repaired, their expensive homes not maintained, their garbage not collected. Or should their companies and the high-tech workers get taxed enough so that they will move to Bend, Oregon? Of course the cities and the state do not want to chase these high-tech companies away.

And not all high-tech workers can afford multi-million-dollar homes. My brother left Google, and they tried to get him back with more stock options. After debating the pro and con, he declined. The extra pay was nowhere near enough for him to get a house that he wanted. It would be a decline in standard of living for his entire family in exchange for a bragging right. Many workers would love to get a chance to work at Google even if they had to rent a room from someone, or jam the family into a tiny old home. Not my brother.

In the end, it's up to the individuals to do what is best for themselves.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

In the end, it's up to the individuals to do what is best for themselves.

That is one way of looking at it. I think modernizing the man made building restrictions and developing more affordable housing solutions may be a bit more pragmatic than forcing all the teachers and middle class families who may have grown up here and never lived any place else to move away.

 

[NW-Bound]

No, I was not advocating "forcing out" anybody but rather describing the truth that growth cannot go unchecked. Please let me elaborate further.

People crowd into some places for certain reasons: weather, job availability, cultural attractiveness, etc... And when they do, certain negative aspects develop such as traffic jam, high cost of living, expensive home prices, rising crime rate, pollution, etc... When these drawbacks become too much, they will balance out the positive attributes of the places, and an equilibrium is reached.

If we somehow were able to combat all these negative aspects, what would happen? I myself would want to move there instead of living in this hot-as-Hades Southwest. Soon, the entire US population would be living there, and the interior of the country would be abandoned. I don't think that can work, or we can ever achieve that.

So, in order for the crowded places to stop growing or just to slow down, there has to be some negative aspects remaining. Expensive housing may just be one of the criteria to keep growth in check. If not, there has to be something else negative to keep some people out.

 

[NW-Bound]

Will any of the crowded US cities become like Hong Kong, where some people are living in cages? Their 6' x 2-1/2' cage costs them $110/month in rent, and 20 of them share a dirty toilet. Showers are taken from a hose.

I suspect that these Hong Kongese do not have a choice, but think most Americans can relocate if things get so bad.

For more details, see: Hong Kong's 'caged dogs': Poverty-stricken people forced to live like animals in one of the world's wealthiest and most densely populated cities | Daily Mail Online.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I get what you are saying NW-bound, but there are many low density suburbs, especially in the South Bay where many of the jobs are, compared to other major metro areas and restrictive zoning is a big part of the problem. Many feel it would make more sense to have more high density housing near where the tech hubs are located, but there is a lot of pushback from the current homeowners.

It is a complex topic, we've probably side tracked this thread enough for now.

 

[NW-Bound]

Yes, it is true that there are different housing situations, and I should not be bringing Hong Kong's extreme example into this thread.

Rereading the OP's article about the town of Walsenburg allowing tiny homes being built, I found that this is really about people desiring tiny homes, and it is also not about squeezing in more smaller homes as infill in established cities.

Cities are starting to allow zoning for Tiny Houses:
To become tiny-house-friendly, Walsenburg didn't just greenlight one subdivision. Last year, it became the first city in the state, and one of the first in the nation, to change its land use codes to allow tiny homes on any residential lot. They just have to be on a foundation, not a trailer - See more at: Walsenburg Has Big Hopes For Tiny Houses | CPR

http://www.cpr.org/news/story/walse...l&utm_campaign=FBCPR5964#sthash.MpS42xC0.dpuf

Walsenburg is a small town of 2.3 sq.mi. with a population of 3068. That's a density of 1333/sq.mi., which is much lower than where I live (3000/sq.mi.), let alone places like Berkeley at 11,000/sq.mi, or San Francisco at 16,000/sq.mi.

So, space is not at all a problem in Walsenburg. Nor is housing cost. I looked on Zillow and saw a home of 2740 sq.ft. for $200K. There are plenty of homes under $100K. Land goes for about $40K for a 40-acre lot! You are now permitted to build a tiny home on a HUGE lot or more like a ranch, although the article talks of turning a high school football field into a subdivision of tiny homes. That's 28 homes on 3 acres or 1/10 acre per home.

 

[timo2]

Rereading the OP's article about the town of Walsenburg allowing tiny homes being built, I found that this is really about people desiring tiny homes, and it is also not about squeezing in more smaller homes as infill in established cities.

Walsenburg is a small town of 2.3 sq.mi. with a population of 3068. That's a density of 1333/sq.mi., which is much lower than where I live (3000/sq.mi.), let alone places like Berkeley at 11,000/sq.mi, or San Francisco at 16,000/sq.mi.

So, space is not at all a problem in Walsenburg. Nor is housing cost. I looked on Zillow and saw a home of 2740 sq.ft. for $200K. There are plenty of homes under $100K. Land goes for about $40K for a 40-acre lot! You are now permitted to build a tiny home on a HUGE lot or more like a ranch, although the article talks of turning a high school football field into a subdivision of tiny homes. That's 28 homes on 3 acres or 1/10 acre per home.

For what it's worth, the median household income (2013) in Walsenberg was $28,217 with an unemployment rate (2015) of 7.4%. It's not a rich area, as you noted with the property prices.

But the point others here brought up about the efficiency of modern manufactured housing versus the tiny homes is a good one. I can't imagine picking a tiny house on wheels over a nice trailer with 3 popouts and a porch tarp. In Walsenberg, it appears that they don't want a trailer park, but little cabin style buildings with no wheels.

 

[timo2]

What's the difference between a 'Tiny Home' as seen on TV and an illegal squatters shack?
" a Tiny Houses project being built under the auspices of advocates from Denver Homeless Out Loud, was raided by the Denver Police Department.Ten activists were arrested and the encampment was dismantled."
Tiny Houses Project at Sustainability Park Raided by Cops, Ten Arrested | Westword

 

[pb4uski]

I saw this article the other day. i think it is an interesting idea.... perhaps even an investment opportunity to "build" an apartment unit for rental.

Stackable, Portable Apartments Are Tiny Homes for the Homeless