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.
It is the very tinyness itself that makes tiny houses cute, ignoring any practical matters.
Dollhouses, miniature versions of bigger dog breeds, teeny little cars with cute "eyes", and tiny model cars with operable controls all appeal to the toy-loving part of humans.
That doesn't mean we'd give up the practical, normal-sized items in our lives.
Another appealing aspect of tiny homes is that tiny, labor-intensive details that would cost a huge amount on a regular house due to sheer volume of work hours involved might be affordable when the scope of work is smaller.
But I also remember how people rushed to buy small, high-mpg cars when gas prices rose steeply and did not decline soon. AND how later, more than a few of those would-be converts ditched the little cars after realizing they couldn't carry as much as their previous, larger vehicles. Time will tell if people in the US can really tolerate living in such tight quarters even in solitude, let alone with any other people.
My personal opinion is that I could never live in a tiny house and could live in the right small house if there was plenty of storage. The house we are in now has just under 1200 square feet on the main level and another 700 square feet in the finished basement. My biggest issue with the house is lack of storage and a weird layout overall. But our views are phenomenal, so the drawbacks are offset by the benefits. The nicest thing about the smaller upstairs living area is that we have a gas fireplace that heats the entire main level, so our heating costs are minimal to none. We do have central heat/air and have it set to 64 during the winter for the extremely cold nights, which is the only reason we have any real heating costs.
That kind of just sounds like you are bragging....
We like to entertain, so small spaces are not for us. We have parties with maybe 50 people a few times a year. Once a year, we host a charity benefit at our house with ~ 100 guests and and dinner from a high-end celebrity chef restaurant. All the proceeds benefit a local shelter for battered housewives.
My small house is 382sq feet, on 22 acres in the Ozarks. The county has no code enforcement. I'm not living there now, but I lived there for five solid years and loved it. Has a bedroom downstairs and A spare bed in the loft.
I'm single, and it's plenty of space for me. I'm not big on lots of "stuff," but it had everything I needed and nothing I didn't.
I had to move away for work, and it's up for sale. No, it's not flying off the market, and I will probably take a loss when it does sell. I had the shell built on post and piers and did the interior myself. About $20,000 in total, excluding my labor.
There was certainly never any "trashy mess" outdoors!
I also have an 8x10 shed for implements and so forth.
Never saw any of these shows, though I've heard of them, no TV.
So, not for everyone, but I love the place, and would still be there if there was work for me.
That's California not the entire country. Explains why when I see Flip or Flop and they say a house is huge at 1400 sq ft. That's NOT huge in NY. We have thousands of Victorian homes. Many over 3000 square feet. Even the historic brownstones around NYC are far larger than 1400 sq ft.
Never seen any of the cable shows... but there was a huge building boom here in the 1920's followed by wartime housing and then post war boom in the 1950's...
Never lived in any other state other than California and Washington... domestically.
These little 1920 Bungalows that sold new for $3200 are now pushing as much as a million in some Bay Area locals... incredible and even more so as they were a third or less as recent as 2012,,,
I would spend time at a friends cabin his grandfather built... very simple... living and kitchen together... one bedroom and a bath and a ladder to the loft for kids....
Some fantastic times at Tahoe and the foot print was 20 by 30... as many as 10 of us sometimes...
You keep talking about spaces that are twice or more the size of the "tiny houses" being discussed here. Apples and oranges. We're taking about spaces the size of an efficiency apartment.
I mentioned 450 square feet in my posts and my brother living in 160 square feet and then 250 square feet.
What is the definition of a tiny house if 160 square feet is too large?
I've read is 400 square feet is tiny for some up to 600 and over up to 1000 is small...
A few of my friends are getting into the 'tiny house' movement. One of them, it makes complete sense and I can see her doing this. The other....I'm not so sure this is a best fit, but it's her decision.
But I did look at some of the floorplans they showed me, and I was wondering what people generally think of this. I could see the appeal of a 450 sq foot tiny house over an apartment the same size (more windows, for example, plus it would sit on land, so it would feel bigger without having to be bigger). And it does look like a lot of them are mobile, so if you wanted to move, you could do so without the hassle of finding another house/place to rent, starting all over on payments, not having to get rid of things that might not fit in a new house, so on and so forth. And it does seem it would make the residents more efficient/less wasteful, since they only have so much space.
But on the other hand, it does seem like it'd be very cramped (admittedly, I'm a bit of a claustrophobe) and in some ways, inconvenient/PITA--trying to make a bed that's pushed up against a wall, for example (been there, done that), it seems most of them have shower stalls only (personally, I love baths), and I saw a number of them that the bedrooms are in a loft that you have to climb a ladder for, which seems could be a problem if you have bad knees/ankles, or break a leg/arm (temporary, but mobility is still limited), or if you're sick and have to go up and down a ladder to get from your bedroom to the bathroom.
Just wondering on people's thoughts on this?
Others have probably answered, but a reasonable tiny house on private land sounds like a good idea to me. The only issue I have with it is that some locations don't allow you to live 100 percent off-grid, and, for me, that's a major part of the appeal. You aren't bound to anything, including public utilities; you can just take whatever mother nature gives. You can also build in places you normally wouldn't want to due to prohibitive costs of traditional structures. For instance, a partially underground adobe in the Midwest.
Oh ok. That's what I thought. I have a backyard but I can't let someone live on it in a tiny house
On HGTV, most of people seem to mooch off their friends and relatives and put them on their land
Why do you think it's "mooching"? There is nothing wrong with living collectively and helping friend
I personally, could not last more than a week in one. But I do understand the appeal of having one as a guest house, or letting your newly wed children live there while saving for a larger house.
They are so cute and we have a large piece of property and an older home. From what I have seen, they can make them look like older homes.
All in all it's an interesting idea. I do need to agree with the posters who said that they were just really upscale trailers.
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.
