Tiny House: What's the attraction? (Denver, Colorado Springs: real estate, apartments, HOA)

[rochester_veteran]

Originally Posted by StealthRabbit

[b][color="Red"]
Actually many homeless are turned off by the 'self policing' of Dignity Village. Too many Rules

We see the same thing here in Rochester and probably most cities across the country where facilities for the homeless are provided but many homeless people won't use them because of the rules. That's a conscious choice and there's not much we could do if people are making this choice. It goes back to you can't save someone from themselves.

[nightbird47]

I was homeless for a few months some years ago. I was lucky to get into a shelter for most of the time. I dreamed of a lot of things but most of all a dependable place to go home and to bed. A tent in an area where others were using them would have been better. I got into a county housing program, and the place was overfull and a zoo, but my roommate and I considered our room our room. But there were a lot of interesting fireworks with people who weren't like you in too little space.

If I could have had a tiny house to live in and get over the hump, I'd have JUMPED for it. It would be *your own space*. Don't deny the value until you find out.

My current house is 720 sf, and a quarter of its got assorted and unused stuff in in it. The part I live in is in tiny house territory. The living room is also where all the computer stuff goes, and I'm putting in special shelves. The part of the kitchen I don't use will become a bunch of storage, easy to get to. Eventually I'll get to the add on part. But I have looked over a few tiny house layouts just in that size range with so much better layouts and I'd love to have one.

Our idea is a motherin law cottage. My son's family includes my dil's mother already. I think being close to the family and spending time with them, and when I don't want company, I have my own front door. I'm not a housework fan either, so small in that way would be a bonus.

For centuries people lived in very small homes, and didn't have each room dedicated to one function. They didn't feel they were being denied space. With these huge psudomansions today, its time for an adjustment of values which would save people, land and the planet a lot of fuss.

[hikernut]

Originally Posted by Phil P

I don't know how someone could live enjoyably in a tiny home with that as their full time residence, if they could afford more. I can see how they would be attractive vacation homes though.

If it doesn't need to fit on a trailer I don't see why anyone would want a so-called tiny house. Build something small but reasonable so it can use standard-sized appliances, cabinets, furniture, etc.

Townhouses or row houses with a solid wall between units could be nice. The exterior area that's exposed is relatively small so maintenance and heating/cooling should be less than for a standalone house.

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by hikernut

If it doesn't need to fit on a trailer I don't see why anyone would want a so-called tiny house. Build something small but reasonable so it can use standard-sized appliances, cabinets, furniture, etc.

Townhouses or row houses with a solid wall between units could be nice. The exterior area that's exposed is relatively small so maintenance and heating/cooling should be less than for a standalone house.

as long as you can comply with local code...

There are some really nice cottage designs for sub 1000sf,
There is a pretty nice 'cottage' community on Campus at Davis, CA.

I have met a couple 'tiny home exiles' who switched to a Yurt.

[hikernut]

I'm not in the building trade so I don't know from experience how costs scale with home size. But common sense tells me as the square footage is reduced, the cost is not going to scale down much after some point. Let's face it, to have a legal house you need a toilet, you need a sink in the bathroom, you need cooking facilities, you need a front door, each bedroom needs an egress window, etc, etc. To a point adding area is relatively cheap as long as one isn't adding more fixtures.


On top of all this, there's the reality that anytime you do something non-standard it's going to be more expensive. I'd expect a 'tiny home' is faced with this reality.

[MountainEarth]

Let's call tiny home communities what they are ... Trailer parks 2.0. Which is fine. There's a place & need for trailer park style living. The community in Woodland Park you speak of most definitely fits the model.

[TCHP]

True, but these are also very individualized trailers built to best suit the owners tastes, so they can can be much more than a simple box with axles. Owners will want more than just a trailer park experience to go with them. But, that cold be the kicking off point of getting them out there.

The homeless... that's a bit more tough. While I'm sure there are a percentage that would relish the housing opportunities being demonstrated by various municipalities out there, I think we also need to understand there is a percentage of chronic homeless that don't care for any of that because they choose to live outside of most societal rules as well as a percentage of violent and dangerous homeless that we need to figure out a better method of dealing with than giving them a home.

[MountainEarth]

Originally Posted by TCHP

True, but these are also very individualized trailers built to best suit the owners tastes

Which means they generally are not affordable housing. The ones Aspen is installing for employee housing, for example, are $100,000 for 400 square feet. And the ones in Woodland Park start around $900/mo for a base home + lot fee in the park. That's a whole lot more than most trailer parks for that kind of square footage.

I realize the idealized fantasy is to place one's tiny home on a great big expanse of land. But that really does nothing to actually solve the problem of a lack of affordable housing. And to be honest, if one really wants to adopt the tiny home lifestyle they also need to adopt a lifestyle of minimalism. Otherwise, no matter where they place them, they'll soon be adding 1-2-3-4 sheds to the property to contain all their stuff. And that's really why a lot of people don't want these in established neighborhoods. The tiny house isn't the problem. It's all the junk. One only need to look at what's happening to South Park to know this is going to be an increasing issue going forward.

[TCHP]

C'mon, Aspen is hardly a reasonable example of anything normal.

I'd say the majority of tiny home buyers want to or wholly subscribe to that lifestyle of minimum materialism, unlike a percentage of single wide who simply want cheap housing but still want all their junk. The delta in size between a trailer home and a tiny home is usually 1000 vs 500, so using tiny homes simply as a method of cheap living will fail unless you also want minimalism. Also, unlike a single wide, a tiny home truly can be mobile, so if the owners subscribe to the "experience" lifestyle, they can hook it up and move it when the job market, environment, or desire changes. Despite their name, mobile homes are hardly mobile without considerable expense and effort.

From what I've seen, most new, custom built tiny homes cost the same as a 40 year old single wide of various disrepair, or around $30k. Sure, they can go up form there, but so do single wides. A new single wide without moldy water lines and tweaked interior walls will run upwards of $70k+. Lot rent for either tiny home or mobile home would be the same.

The big delta I see between the two, based on conversations I've had with a tiny home manufacturer about their buyers, is the lifestyle approach. Create a park to match the lifestyle, and you'll have a waiting list. Try to integrate them with existing trailer parks or use them to get homeless off the streets and you'll get push back, discontent, and the ACLU knocking on the office door when you try. Try to replace single wides with tiny homes to jam more people into the park, you may also fail.

I also don't think anyone is suggesting that zoning be changed to allow any tiny home in any neighborhood, but rather seeing if there should be changes to some rules to accommodate the technology that is coming forward with these units. Will someone try to skirt the law, yea, that is a norm these days, but we will have to deal with lawbreakers in tiny homes no differently than lawbreakers in other zoning or construction violations, including all the shacks and tents in South Park.

[abcdefg567]

Originally Posted by StealthRabbit

Homeless would LOVE a $100k Tiny house, and they are getting them in Portland, OR, who has a program where the city pays for the tiny house if YOU will put it in your backyard... After 7 yrs, it is YOURs to keep / rent out. (We had a tiny house convention this weekend) I didn't go, cuz I can still build a NICE small ~ 1200 SF home on 5 acre view lot for under $100k, and have great equity built for life... Or (more often) I build a 4,000 SF shop with an apartment for <$60k) that would hold 20 homeless

sad, but the PORTLAND homeless REFUSED a wonderful empty jail (400 beds / showers / access to transit...)

Portland setup Dignity Village almost 20 yrs ago,,, https://dignityvillage.org/

Today... (it was SO SUCCESSFUL) they have as many as 600 new homeless tent-site / RVs squatting on the roadways reported / week!

Actually many homeless are turned of by the 'self policing' of Dignity Village. Too many Rules

That seems very expensive! I mean...a new mobile home can be had for less and would be larger.

And wow, I had no idea! I guess it's hard not to be sad when seeing these people, especially with pets and living in blanket style tents next to the highway.

My friend volunteers at a shelter and says many beds go unfilled because people do not want to listen to the devotional (the one requirement.)

I suppose it's not as simple...back to imaging retirees or college students using them. If we didn't have kids I wouldn't mind one eventually, especially if it could be bought with cash.