Why Haven’t Tiny Houses Taken Off in Pittsburgh? (Braddock: apartments, rentals)

[guy2073]

The tiny house in Garfield should never be used as an example unless it is as an example of someone who is incompetent and never should of built a house. If the city was smart they would take a few of the lots they have and subdivide them so two small houses can fit on them. The city will gain more revenue off that property being able to tax two homes. The pwsa should eliminate the sewer and water tap fees to make it more economical for a builder. Then someone like me can come in and build two places at the same time and make a profit and make the homes affordable. I suggested this to the north Braddock building inspector when Katrina home plans were popular for a property I own, he laughed it off. I was projecting I could build 4 at a time and sell them for sub $50,000. https://www.mariannecusato.com/untitled

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by guy2073

The tiny house in Garfield should never be used as an example unless it is as an example of someone who is incompetent and never should of built a house. If the city was smart they would take a few of the lots they have and subdivide them so two small houses can fit on them. The city will gain more revenue off that property being able to tax two homes. The pwsa should eliminate the sewer and water tap fees to make it more economical for a builder. Then someone like me can come in and build two places at the same time and make a profit and make the homes affordable. I suggested this to the north Braddock building inspector when Katrina home plans were popular for a property I own, he laughed it off. I was projecting I could build 4 at a time and sell them for sub $50,000. https://www.mariannecusato.com/untitled

Thank you so much for being one of the only ones to not reply with cynicism, skepticism, or snark.

It’s rare to find “tiny houses” on the market in Pittsburgh. Oh, I don’t care if I can get a 3-BR house in Brookline for <$100,000. Other than renting out the additional two bedrooms to CraigsList strangers for rental income what else would I, a single dude, do with all that extra space?

I currently live in an approximately 700-square-foot 1-BR apartment on my own. It feels too big for me, and the price I pay for an abode this large ($800/month) is far from economical. I’m sure I could pay much less monthly to own a 500-square-foot tiny house with a loft as a bedroom.

I don’t think this is a “clueless hipster fad”. Yes, so far 3/4 of the prospective buyers featured on the series I’m watching seem like whack-a-doodles, but I’m sure there are plenty of others, like me, who are grounded and just want to destress through minimalism.

There was a tiny lot for sale along Howley Street, across from Bloomers Laundromat, not long ago. I fantasized weekly about buying it and putting a tiny house on it because the lot wasn’t large enough for anything else. Then I saw what happened in Garfield and wondered if it’s possible to do this at all in the city economically?

Guy, if you bought a cheap URA-owned vacant lot for like $5,000 and built two tiny houses on it, could you conceivably sell them for <$75,000 each and still make a worthwhile profit without government subsidies? If not, then the city really needs to examine its policy regarding new housing.

[SteelCityRising]

Also, while people like to champion Pittsburgh as being a family-friendly city let’s also not forget that ~50% of city households are singles. Am I really the only one dreaming of a 1-BA w/bedroom loft tiny house instead of a 1,500-square-foot+ home where I’d waste over half that space filling it up with clutter over the years and spend thousands heating, cooling, and maintaining it?

[guy2073]

Yes I could. I have my own concrete and carpentry company, my cost is very low.

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Thank you so much for being one of the only ones to not reply with cynicism, skepticism, or snark.

It’s rare to find “tiny houses” on the market in Pittsburgh. Oh, I don’t care if I can get a 3-BR house in Brookline for <$100,000. Other than renting out the additional two bedrooms to CraigsList strangers for rental income what else would I, a single dude, do with all that extra space?

My response wasn’t snark, it was just an opinion. We have a surplus of housing in Pittsburgh as it is, so most people just buy a regular house. If they want something small with no maintenance they rent an apartment. Ive watched countless episodes of those shows, and most of the people want the mobility of the tiny house. I also think there should be a follow up show called Tiny House Divorce where they visit them a year later.

I am all for smaller footprint living, but I am not sure one can get a lot in a prime neighborhood for $5k, but I haven’t checked the city site. There is an empty lot down the street from me that I believe was going for $8k, but that is Brookline. So $8k there, then you have to hook up utilities, and buy the tiny house...pretty soon you have spent $80k for a tiny house, when you could have spent $60k down the street, and pulled the door closed on the spare bedrooms.

[kettlepot]

I believe the biggest reason is that while the lot may be cheap (in Pittsburgh... the lots are mighty expensive in Oregon and California), constructing the house inexpensively requires assembly line construction. However, moving the house to the lot requires it to be on wheels. Houses on wheels are called mobile homes and have issues with quality, permanence, and community acceptance.

There are several ways to work around this and to get costs down while still producing a product which is acceptable. One way is to move the assembly line to the lot. In Southern California, they use to build something called the California Bungalow Court (click link for images, though not all of the pictures are of actual bungalow courts. Some are just bungalows.). These were about 6 to 8 small, identical houses, approximately 500 - 600 square feet in size, built on a traditional 5000 to 6000 square foot lot. They would face towards each other and a center walkway coming from the street side entrance. Producing 6-8 identical structures at one time should reduce construction costs while allowing for professional design to maximize use of space.

Today, people love them and they are highly sought after by people in the know. Originally rentals, many have been converted into condominiums selling in the $200k - $300k range. Remember, these are in Southern California. A small house alone on a standard lot is currently about $600k in San Diego. They have a few faults however. Insufficient parking was the main one. Other faults were inadequate sound-proofing and storage. People just ended up with too much stuff, or wanting too much stuff, like washer/dryer, dishwashers, kitchen counter space and bigger bedroom closets.

[guy2073]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

I believe the biggest reason is that while the lot may be cheap (in Pittsburgh... the lots are mighty expensive in Oregon and California), constructing the house inexpensively requires assembly line construction. However, moving the house to the lot requires it to be on wheels. Houses on wheels are called mobile homes and have issues with quality, permanence, and community acceptance.

There are several ways to work around this and to get costs down while still producing a product which is acceptable. One way is to move the assembly line to the lot. In Southern California, they use to build something called the California Bungalow Court (click link for images, though not all of the pictures are of actual bungalow courts. Some are just bungalows.). These were about 6 to 8 small, identical houses, approximately 500 - 600 square feet in size, built on a traditional 5000 to 6000 square foot lot. They would face towards each other and a center walkway coming from the street side entrance. Producing 6-8 identical structures at one time should reduce construction costs while allowing for professional design to maximize use of space.

Today, people love them and they are highly sought after by people in the know. Originally rentals, many have been converted into condominiums selling in the $200k - $300k range. Remember, these are in Southern California. A small house alone on a standard lot is currently about $600k in San Diego. They have a few faults however. Insufficient parking was the main one. Other faults were inadequate sound-proofing and storage. People just ended up with too much stuff, or wanting too much stuff, like washer/dryer, dishwashers, kitchen counter space and bigger bedroom closets.

The California bungalow layout is what I had planned, I was going to sell or rent them as handicap accessible

[eschaton]

Yeah, as others have said, there are fixed costs related to construction in Pittsburgh which do not scale depending upon size. Hence the smaller you make a house, the more money you lose on it.

To be fair, I don't think there are that many stationary tiny homes in urban areas anywhere in the country. They're really something which is are only used as glorified trailer homes, or put on plots of land in rural areas where permitting is negligible.

Of course, we have the added disadvantage that there's plenty of small, but not tiny homes (say in the 900-1,200 range) in Pittsburgh to be had on the cheap as well.

[selltheburgh]

unless somebody built a village of 50 of them on shared sewage and crammed them into less than 25 lots, they aren't cost effective... And at that point, you might as well build a condo building...which aren't being built because they also aren't cost effective at this point in Pgh.

[gg]

Tiny houses are a fad and will soon fade away, like shag carpet. They are stupid to be honest. There are plenty of homes around that are under 800 sqft which is fine. Why bother with a tiny house? Makes no sense really. Fun to watch and dream, but not really living.