Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ranging from as little as 100sq feet, up to the behemoth 172sq ft 'Popomo', a lifestyle change for Americans is just a few pages of plans and some lumber away.
Lower power bills, less maintenance (replacing an 8x16ft roof doesn't cost that much), and overhead.
The wave of the future is here. And since banks do not finance these things, they could basically end the "foreclosure crisis" in a couple of years. No more complaining about a 30 year mortgage, adjustable rates, etc. These things are bought the old fashioned way. With cash, and some sweat and labor.
Tumbleweed Houses.
But the irony is, this country is so broke - Less than 80% of working Americans couldn't even afford to buy one them right now even if they wanted to!! Ha, ha.
Although I understand the passion (I definitely have the passion) for tiny homes, I've found that these sorts of posts are not productive. And they do not "convert" people. First of all, the desire to live in a small home has to come from within.
Second, "societal norm" largely dictates the size and style of home the typical person lives in. Just look at architectural history to see the "norms" of 100 years ago, 200 years ago, etc. The typical size of homes change over the years and "the flock" is gong to go for that and consider it the "norm." Anything outside that norm is considered eccentric and you are likely to get a good deal of hostility.
Third, it's a free country. If someone thinks he/she really needs or wants a gigantic barn-sized behemoth 9500 sq ft home, it's his/her call not yours, just like if they think they need or want a seats-25 Dodge nuclear-powered-diesel-back-up ram pickem up truck, it's their call not yours. It's not your place to tell them they need to drive a 1995 Geo Metro (that would be my choice, given the choice between the two ). They have to want to drive the Metro, otherwise it's simply a matter of "I want 'better,' but I'm stuck with this." It spawns hostility.
Now, having said that, it doesn't mean you can't provide alternative ideas to folks about what they live in. It doesn't mean you can't get them to think about it. The best way to do it is by example. Just do your thing. Let people see your tiny home and the way you live in it. It tends to fascinate people. And, if you watch videos or see model homes, you'll find that most folks are actually strongly drawn to these small homes. It's almost a psychological draw to the small, cozy space over the rather "cold" space in the typical super-sized home of today.
There was a model home on display in this area a few months back that was around 500 sq ft. The local Ikea also has a model home of 560 sq ft (I think) inside the store. People are FASCINATED by this. It was hugely popular for people to walk through and check out. That's pretty ironic since most cities in the area mandate at least 1200 sq ft for homes within the city limits.
But, I've found you shouldn't really argue for small-space living logically. I've tried here on the forum and it's largely ineffective. Generally all you get are a few "converts" with praise who were already keen to the idea, those who already are into it (preaching to the choir), and a whole lot of defensive comments (for the big homes of today) from everyone else. Just look at the pages and pages of comments in this thread. That's why the Tumbleweed House company simply takes their product on the road and displays it, rather than going on a crusade with words like "you're all going to live in 100 sq ft because you won't be able to afford any more than our homes." That's not the way to go about it. You can argue logically until you are blue in the face about the advantages (and there are many). You can tell folks how much they will save on heating/cooling, maintenance, initial outlay, blah, blah, blah, but it won't generally help. People typically don't care. They assume the norm and that sort of logic doesn't register with them. They have to WANT to live in that small house.
Personally, I could never stand to live in a large home. I can appreciate the architecture of the Victorian mansions of the past, but I couldn't live in one. It would drive me insane. And I HATE the homes that are being produced today. They are style-less, cheaply-built junk for the most part and lack any sort of "soul." But that's just me and my opinion. I simply am not drawn to large spaces (within homes). I live in a small space right now as much because that's what I like and am comfortable in than for any economic advantage or savings on work. That's the way it should be. It shouldn't be that way because you want something bigger, but can't afford it. You have to want to live in that small-space home. It has to be part of your identity. I'm in the process of designing/building a small timber framed home that will end up being somewhere between 200 to 350 sq ft (I keep changing some of the details of the shed extensions to the basic 12x16 1 1/2 story timber frame structure). And I'm more excited about that home than most people would be about building a home the size of the Louvre to live in.
Hell, I go around town and take pictures of the remaining small homes from years ago. I see a 1 bedroom 400 sq ft cottage for sale around here (there are very few left) and I get all hot under the collar. That's the way you have to feel if you are truly an advocate of tiny homes.
The more efficient and compact the better! It really all depends on the floorplan and layout of a particular space. Once you get out of the rat race corporate suburbs, house size is not a super important aspect to many people. I would say my ideal sqft range for a house would be 1400-1800. House must be super insulated and have southern exposure for northern tier winters.
I think the smartest thing to do right now is buy one of those 2500 square foot houses for half what they sold for 5 years ago. Seriously, I can 't imagine living in anything less than about 600 sq. ft. It would be like a motel room.
The concept of the small house isn't a bad idea, but I think a better idea would be some sort of maximized usage of any house. Some homes have living space in the attic, but not all of them. Some have basements than can only be used for storage via elevated racks because of flooding.
If I was single, and had no future of being with someone, I likely would be leaning towards a small house mindset. I would still want a decent sized lot, and a garage big enough for one vehicle and a lawn mower. After looking at some small homes, I definitely could deal with just 300 sq. ft., I would want a small kitchen with pantry, a laundry storage area, bath/shower combo bathroom, a living area that could hold two couches, but could do with a small bedroom/loft bedroom. I would want to be able to have enough room to have some people over, but wouldn't care if I couldn't entertain say twenty people.
I already live in a small house -- and my next house will be bigger, but not by much. A bedroom would be nice for my quilting area, and a second bathroom is required.... for two people who are getting older! The best option would be two "master suites".
And I also know how we live, and for us -- an open concept with no formal living and dining rooms is perfect.
But the one thing I can say -- there will no wasted space. I've seen some really stupid "design features" that add NOTHING to the living space, but waste.
I was in a custom built house (high end, yet! as they loved to tell people) that they had changed the front door access. But because it was strangely situated at the very right corner of the house, they "added on" so there could be a window with a "small room" to the right of the door.
The small room? Was this really tiny, way creepy, no light boxed in area, where they stuck a child sized rocker and a tall granny doll in it. And they weren't maintaining it, so it was dusty.
Then there was the condo we looked at to buy years ago. Once again -- from the outside there was a window, but this little alcove was right next to the stairs -- long and thin, with sight access from the open stairs and outside, so you couldn't use it for storage, and too thin for a chair to use as a reading alcove -- and no power to set up a light....
I think the smartest thing to do right now is buy one of those 2500 square foot houses for half what they sold for 5 years ago. Seriously, I can 't imagine living in anything less than about 600 sq. ft. It would be like a motel room.
I fail to see why it would be "smart" for anyone except those who need all that space. In my case, I would simply be heating and maintaining 90% of the home that I wouldn't ever use. Not so smart. I'd rather have that extra space for a garden. Structure just for the sake of structure isn't smart at all, as I said, unless you need it for some reason--kids (or maybe an orphanage), buying some cots and renting out the extra 10 rooms, leased extra warehouse space, running a hotel on the side, etc...
I think the smartest thing to do right now is buy one of those 2500 square foot houses for half what they sold for 5 years ago. Seriously, I can 't imagine living in anything less than about 600 sq. ft. It would be like a motel room.
That is what I did. I know it is more then what I need, for now. But I am 29, and have one kid with plans of more coming. I also live out of state form ALL family so we have frequent visitors throughout the year, I'd say 2 months a year we have a relative in the house.
My plans are, you can't trust the market, I am not buying a house as an investment, I am buying it as a place to live. On top of that, for it to be reasonable, I would need to live there for 10 years or more.
One thing I have seen people my age, that bought 5-6 years ago. They lived "sensible" and bought what they needed, not what they planned for. Some of them are living in 1200 sq ft. houses, and 2 bedroom townhome/condos. They now are working on a 2nd or even 3rd kid in one case. They only have 2 bedrooms. There is no yard for the kid to play in, place is small to even be able to have a pet. One guy was lucky and had a loft that he just did a home renovation to turn it into a bedroom.
They have growing families, and are in great financial situation to more then double the size of their house... if they could walk away form their current place with only losing a few thousand, but in some cases its $50k so they are stuck.
Alot of them are really upset about this.
Life is about balance, you have to balance a certain degree of "life enjoyment" with frugalness.
I fail to see why it would be "smart" for anyone except those who need all that space. In my case, I would simply be heating and maintaining 90% of the home that I wouldn't ever use. Not so smart. I'd rather have that extra space for a garden. Structure just for the sake of structure isn't smart at all, as I said, unless you need it for some reason--kids (or maybe an orphanage), buying some cots and renting out the extra 10 rooms, leased extra warehouse space, running a hotel on the side, etc...
Or buying low with hopes of fullfilling any need you have, and potentially sell high sometime down the line.
Or buying low with hopes of fullfilling any need you have, and potentially sell high sometime down the line.
That's a viable argument. But if you are absolutely sure you'll never need even a quarter of that much space (I'm talking singles and couples who are either older or never plan on having a large family and never have conventions on the weekends), it's simply an added expense that is not really very logical, other than perhaps the "flipping" aspect. But that's pretty risky these days.
That's a viable argument. But if you are absolutely sure you'll never need even a quarter of that much space (I'm talking singles and couples who are either older or never plan on having a large family and never have conventions on the weekends), it's simply an added expense that is not really very logical, other than perhaps the "flipping" aspect. But that's pretty risky these days.
What of the people I listed who didn't do it, and are extremely unhappy living in a smaller house and are stuck into it.
In theory we could just own a scooter for transportation, and with a family of 4 just take 4 trips to pick up each person and drop them off.
I pay $1500 a month in taxes, $1000 a year in insurance, got my house for a great price, got a fixed loan at 3.75%, I doubt rates will go much lower, I believe the magic number is 2% where loans are no longer profitable to give, so they aren't.
My utilitied bills have been around $130 a month for the summer(newer place energy efficient, and has natrual gas)
I am paying less or about the same in every bill, then I have in renting for the last 5 years and my place is about 1000 sq ft. bigger.
and most important... I am happy Love my yard, love my neighborhood, love the trails in the woods behind my place. Keeps me and my family close to home when we go out and enjoy ourselves on the weekends saves money as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). They have to want to drive the Metro, otherwise it's simply a matter of "I want 'better,' but I'm stuck with this." It spawns hostility.
Love my yard, love my neighborhood, love the trails in the woods behind my place. Keeps me and my family close to home when we go out and enjoy ourselves on the weekends saves money as well.
