Tiny Home alternative (floor, living room, toilet, steel)
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.
I think a lot of it is a philosophical difference. Many people who are drawn to tiny homes like them because They don't allow for a lot of stuff. I would find the 250 ft. models a bit cramped, myself, but that's because I have pets. Aside from that, I would much rather have a beautifully designed and detailed tiny home than pay for something larger and more expensive, only to spend most of my time in one favorite room. I would, however, never want to live in any house that did not have a fully functional kitchen. I've done that, and it sucked.
For small and mobile nothing beats a well designed RV.
This. There are a ton of reasons to live full-time in an RV, and additional reasons to keep the size of said RV rig on the smaller side. I know quite a bit about this as full-time RV living is what I was going to do before we worked things out to get this house. But none of these advantages seem to apply to a tiny house. My RV was going to travel up and down the east coast, exploring state parks and forests between stops in campgrounds with cool amenities I'd never get otherwise. I'd have never had to put up with annoying neighbors for longer than an hour or deal with extremely cold winters or hot valley summers. The price for all this adventure and convenience, of course, was a massive reduction in space and comfort amenities. But as far as I can tell, a tiny house just has all the bad parts of RV living with absolutely none of the good parts (constant travel, mobility, adventure, etc).
All I can think of to explain the tiny house trend is that it's reactionary against the ballooning size of regular houses, and like most purely reactionary trends, impractical and silly.
In the historic part of our city is a street that has maybe 40 small homes on it. These homes can't be larger than 600 square feet. All they are is a living room, combined kitchen-dining room, two bedrooms and a bath room. Originally none of them had garages because no one had cars and chances are the people living in them did not have a horse and buggy either. Some of the larger homes still have the carriage room where the buggy would go. I am thinking that these smaller homes were for the working class people of the era. Today they are homes for lower wage working people.
Here is an example of a home that I am talking about on one of the first streets in our city. Built in 1914:
Not sure what these places would run if someone wanted to sell them. Around here homes that are in the 1,500 square foot range can go for $450,000 and up.
For a cheap living space I would want a boat. You can rent a live aboard slip for $480 or so a month at the bottom end and on up from there. If you have a 24 foot boat you would be set. Then again that could set you back $20,000 for a "fixer upper" The thing still has to be sea worthy. Had a friend that used to live on his boat when he was single. He liked to talk and would tell us all about the different women he had on the boat. At one time he was seeing three different girls here at work so I tend to believe his stories. He told me that he found someone looking to dump an older boat and for about $16,000 he was sailing up the coast to Ventura CA. After pulling it out of the water he did all the repairs himself, spent another $15,000 and put it back in the water. He lived on it for three years before one of those girls made him give up his lifestyle.
I think a lot comes down to dollars and cents. If a developer has a piece of land, a 2500 sq ft house will cost more to build but will net a whole lot more profit than a 500 sq ft house. Even two small houses squeezed onto a lot will still net less than one larger, more expensive house. And in Denver, where I live, lots are pretty small in the first place, and no guarantee you could even fit more than one house regardless of how small it was, unless you did something like a duplex with shared walls.
And many areas don't want to zone below a certain size - in part because of taxes, but also because they don't want people trying to cram more small houses in. While the houses are smaller, they still have more households using more resources.
I get the premise in being mobile versus stationary, but otherwise cannot fathom why a reduction in home size from 2000 square feet to 500-600 square feet hasn't caught on versus the 250 square foot box. I know America is typically a land of extremes, but thought perhaps by now the prospect of moderation might have started to catch on?
I'm building a small house under 1,000 sq ft. in the future.
park model mobile homes are not built like a home. Most of them have very minimal insulation and framed with 2x3's instead of the minimum 2x4 like in a house 16 oc. Basically living in a nice LOOKING tin can with a roof.
Most people haven't bought into this fairyland fantasy of small houses. The 2400 sq ft house that we owned was fine during our working years. After we retired we bought one house that's 1561 sq ft and a winter home that's 1678 sq ft. That's about as small as I'd ever want to go. My minimum requirements are 3 bedrooms or 2 bedrooms and den, 2 bathrooms and large 2 car garage. You're not going to get that in 400 or 500 sq ft. What we have allows for a comfortable lifestyle where we aren't constantly bumping into each other.
I'm single with no kids a house that big would be a waste. The house i'm building is under 1000 sq ft. with 2 bedrooms 1 full bath, laundry room and full garage underneath with a half bath in the garage. I'm building in rural country area not too deep in the country but far enough away from cookie cutter houses, people congestion and noise.
park model mobile homes are not built like a home. Most of them have very minimal insulation and framed with 2x3's instead of the minimum 2x4 like in a house 16 oc. Basically living in a nice LOOKING tin can with a roof.
The problem with even the nice mobile/modular homes is that in my area they are only allowed in certain parts in the county. Unfortunately all those areas are not exactly where I want to live either because they are too far from work or just in bad neighborhoods with a lot of crime.
The problem with even the nice mobile/modular homes is that in my area they are only allowed in certain parts in the county. Unfortunately all those areas are not exactly where I want to live either because they are too far from work or just in bad neighborhoods with a lot of crime.
They are allowed in the country/suburbs in my area Bucks and Montgomery counties in Pennsylvania. Low to little crime in most areas around here and you are still close to work and stores. I just don't want to live in a mobile home like i said they arent built with quality in mind.
There are a couple of mobile home parks in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. One is in a nice area, and the other one...not so much.
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.