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 the best way to implement a tiny house community is as a shared HOA community. It would help with taxes as well.
Most Free Americans don't want to live in any type of community that is governed by an HOA. If I want to paint my house yellow with purple trim and fly an American flag in my front yard I don't need or want an HOA telling me I can't. Not worth giving up my freedom for a pages of bylaws on what I can or can't do to my own property.
Most Free Americans don't want to live in any type of community that is governed by an HOA. If I want to paint my house yellow with purple trim and fly an American flag in my front yard I don't need or want an HOA telling me I can't. Not worth giving up my freedom for a pages of bylaws on what I can or can't do to my own property.
I don't know. I think there's a decent percentage of people who like the security HOAs can provide. They don't mind trading in a little freedom.
Those who own or control land and legislate construction levels as well as the money supply are the least interested in resolving poverty or their "housing problem."
...
I wouldn't be surprised if there was an agenda to convince people to be satisfied with less.
Most Free Americans don't want to live in any type of community that is governed by an HOA. If I want to paint my house yellow with purple trim and fly an American flag in my front yard I don't need or want an HOA telling me I can't. Not worth giving up my freedom for a pages of bylaws on what I can or can't do to my own property.
Some free Americans would just as soon have somebody else mow the lawn, trim the hedges, and enjoy amenities that they could never afford on their own. That way they can spend more time enjoying their freedom and less time swearing at the lawn implements. But it is a free country; choose your own path.
I've always preferred very small living quarters for many reasons. But not because of some fad or trend. I just don't like barn-sized homes and never have. I've never "gotten" the appeal to massive houses (to me a massive house starts at around 800 or 900 sq ft).
But truthfully, if you are looking into a "tiny house" because you saw it on TV or the web and it seems to be the cool new thing, save yourself some grief and forget it. Stay in your McMansion. You've got to WANT to live small. Otherwise you're following a fad that will pass in a couple of years and you're going to be miserable, not to mention you will have wasted a lot of time and money.
If you think you want to live in less than 400 sq ft like I do (I would have it no other way), rent a motel room with a kitchenette and live there for two or three months. If it's you, great! If not, you haven't made a stupid mistake that will cost you big money.
This is the same company that built the third street cottages.
Stupidity is the only reason for paying such a price.
A "tiny" home can be built for $20,000 or even much less with a bit of the "owner/builder" thing. That's assuming you have the land and small homes aren't illegal.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, anyway. To me, an eyesore is the total crap they (mostly illegal immigrant labor) throw together nowadays and call a home. The McMansion junk built now will not even be livable in 75 years. If you want to see a quality home that had some pride put into it when it was built, look at the homes of the late Victorian era (both large and in many cases, small). They've already lasted 120 years and if taken care of, those homes will be around in two or three hundred years.
For that matter, the small timber frame hall & parlor "colonials" from 350 years ago are, in many cases, still standing and still being lived in. Do you think the garbage that is thrown together now will be livable in 350 years?
This is the same company that built the third street cottages.
Of course, which I pointed out just a couple of posts later. From post #154...
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent
Ross Chapin & Associates is one of my favorite architecture firms. The Third Street Cottages first piqued my interest in pocket neighborhoods. I think the designs are exquisite, and they appeal very much to my personal aesthetic. Let me be clear, though, that these tiny homes are very expensive and not the solution to the affordable housing issue that concerns the OP.
Another thing to remember is that this pocket neighborhood is located on Whidby Island, which isn't exactly an affordable area in the first place, but the example does help to demonstrate the breadth of quality available in tiny houses.
Last edited by randomparent; 06-05-2014 at 10:08 AM..
$100 per square foot?? For cheap materials? Ughh... rip off...
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.
