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.
There is a double wide mobile home in my neighborhood on private land. it's about 2000 square feet and only a 2/2
I have a small 3/1 that is 840 sq ft, that mobile home is a bad use of space. they could have 5/3 easily, also there is a fourplex of 1 bedroom apartments on the next block that is 2000 square feet also, that's 4 bedrooms, 4 baths, 4 living and kitchen areas in the same space as a 2/2.
Unless you own property where the zoning laws allow them, they seem rather impractical to me. It's just another fad like the McMansions of a few years ago. Lot rents where I live where you might be able to put them are over $400 a month. So whatever you are saving money-wise is being thrown away in lot fees. Unless the whole point is to leave a smaller carbon footprint I don't see how it benefits most people.
Now if you do own some acreage, aren't into personal possessions and spend a good deal of time outdoors or at work it might work. These women that do it must not be into clothes or shoes which is fine but personally I can't imagine living in anything less than 600 sq. ft.
Last edited by chiluvr1228; 06-04-2017 at 08:40 AM..
Reason: added a sentence
One of the house hunting shows I saw came into mind on this - it was a family with 3 kids. The house had bunk beds in the 2nd "bedroom" (Sleeping loft) - but two beds for 3 kids. They planned to use a trundle bed that pulled out from the bottom bunk for the third kid, which meant that when it was out, there was basically zero room to walk in that bedroom.
They would be one family that I'd love to see the follow up on just how long they lasted in that situation.
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.
It is mooching if they are living there rather than just taking short vacations. Even if the homeowner doesn't consider it mooching, they might be overloading sewer or septic, water supplies, electric capacity, etc etc. Those affect people beyond the moochee. If the property is not very large and private, it also impinges on the privacy of neighbors to have higher density than the lot was zoned for.
I don't have subscriber TV, but when staying in motels I have watched some of the tiny home shows. None of the tiny homes featured were on the tiny's own land. It was always a relative or friend allowing the tiny home to be there "temporarily." Uh huh, yup, tempory, sure.
In the town where we used to live, one tiny home must have been noticed by Code Enforcement (or reported by an angry neighbor), because the tiny's owner posted a CL ad saying he or she had just moved in but had been told to leave before the month was over because it was illegal. So, what did this person do but try to find another free or dirtcheap "rental yard", likely also illegal.
I know the houses look cute, but they are glorified trailers really. Most of them are not constructed from material that will weather well; within a few years, I would expect some major problems with roof and wall rot. Given the choice, I'd much rather have a decent trailer than a tiny house.
One of the house hunting shows I saw came into mind on this - it was a family with 3 kids. The house had bunk beds in the 2nd "bedroom" (Sleeping loft) - but two beds for 3 kids. They planned to use a trundle bed that pulled out from the bottom bunk for the third kid, which meant that when it was out, there was basically zero room to walk in that bedroom.
They would be one family that I'd love to see the follow up on just how long they lasted in that situation.
Yes. IMO, a house that requires reconfiguring a main room for anyone to eat or sleep is too small for more than one person.
I have a summer cottage that is about 65 square meters = 700 square feet: big living room, small bedroom, bathroom with shower, big kitchen eating, sun room. It's great for 2 people.
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?
I'd lose my ever-lovin' mind in a place that small.
I have seen a you tube video on a woman that lives in a tiny house.
You can have it. I found it to be more trouble than it is worth.
You cant just plop a house down anywhere you feel like. It has to be a RV campsite, to get water, electric, sewer, etc.
It isnt as easy and just driving along and parking cause you like the view.
They are ridicoulosly too tiny for me to even conceive.
Id rather a studio in an apartment building, but that is just me.
I couldn't be connecting this tube to that tube, and inserting this wire into that plug, way too much for me to do.
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.
Talking about the TV show....a lot of the folks act so high and mighty for going tiny. But actually they are just using the resources of their friends or family. It wouldn't be possible for many of them to do it without that. Living in a trailer on your mom's land is fine, but it's not an accomplishment
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.
