Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-09-2017, 06:28 AM
 
21,884 posts, read 12,976,511 times
Reputation: 36899

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookspage View Post
To see if you would like it, try living in a small portion of your current home.
I'm actually doing just that. I have a twin mattress down in the small living room (for reasons too complicated to go into here) and basically live on that: read, watch TV, eat, sleep. I run into the bathroom for those purposes (washing up, showering, toileting, brushing teeth) and the kitchen for those purposes. But I barely cook, I use only a dorm-sized fridge/freezer and microwave, and could afford for those rooms to be MUCH smaller than they are. I do plan to RV in the future, so this is sort of "practice," and I'm fine with it. We really don't need all that "air" around us, IMHO, unless we're claustrophobic!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-09-2017, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Colorado
4,032 posts, read 2,717,319 times
Reputation: 7518
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
When I had my house, it wasn't quite 1000 sq ft. The only rooms I used were the kitchen, living room, bathroom, and bedroom. I figured that to be a little under 800 sq ft and that was more than enough for me. It was the biggest bedroom I'd ever had, so that space sure didn't seem small. I've seen 400 sq ft homes I could live in forever, but I probably wouldn't want to get much smaller than that.

What's interesting is so many of our parents raised their families in houses that were only about 1000 sq ft. They probably can't understand why a couple living in a 2500 sq ft house today complain about not having enough room. I really don't think it's about the sq ft, I think it's more about what people are used to. If larger houses had never appeared on the market, most of us today would be perfectly happy living in much smaller living quarters than we currently are.
My dad and I actually had this conversation, because he and my mom raised three kids in a 1000 square foot home. My first house was 1000 square feet, my sister came out to live with me, and the house was too small, so I moved us to one that's a bit shy of 1700 square feet.

But when I got to thinking about the house I grew up in and my first house, there were several things that popped into mind:

Parent's house is a one-level ranch. The *living* part of the house is 1000 sq. feet, but there's also a full unfinished basement that runs under the entire length of the house.....so another 1000 sq. feet. So while the basement was primarily where the furnace, water heater, and washer and dryer were, there was *still* plenty of space to store things, or for us kids to run around and play, such as that. My first house was a three-level townhouse, so the layout didn't 'flow' as much as my parents' house does, plus, we lost some space to the staircases. And while we had a 'basement', it was 150 sq. feet, with most of that space being taken up by the water heater, furnace, and washer and dryer. So we had *some* storage space, but not as much as my parents' house does.

But that's something I've noticed overall with a number of houses I've seen built from the mid 1980's onwards is the layout, to me, seems 'chopped up'--you might have a lot of space, but to my eyes, a lot of it is 'dead space', where you can't really do anything with it. I've seen a number of 'front rooms' for example, that are so small that you can only get a few chairs in it, and I have to admit I really don't see the point. Give me a large living room that you can put sofas, chairs, coffee tables, and a TV set in and I call it good. (Which is what I have, and I'm thrilled with.)

I think a smaller space can work well, if the layout is good. If the layout is poor, then even a large space is going to feel like it's too small.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 12:40 PM
 
370 posts, read 447,056 times
Reputation: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by HP48G View Post
Notice that all the marketing for tiny houses , show the units in isolation, in beautifl natural settings.

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...es_alpha_1.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...4010dd1e63.jpg

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/is...c7cbdbede4.jpg

This is the reality when tiny houses are parked in lots in the city or in clusters . Not very nice looking.

http://archive.alleghenyfront.org/si...?itok=ag2TUF9S

http://www.denverpost.com/wp-content...9410.jpg?w=497

http://boryanabooks.com/wp-content/u...lympa_WA-2.jpg

This is a failed tiny home community project in Cleveland
https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and...ty-much-failed
WAIT! I HAVE BEEN TRICKED!

After paying $55,000+ for a tiny house...

you must then buy the beautiful wooded lot with a mountain stream that features baby rabbits and Bambi?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 12:41 PM
 
21,884 posts, read 12,976,511 times
Reputation: 36899
The term SHANTY TOWN comes to mind, which is why most municipalities won't allow it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
24,201 posts, read 19,215,171 times
Reputation: 38267
Quote:
Originally Posted by otterhere View Post
I'm actually doing just that. I have a twin mattress down in the small living room (for reasons too complicated to go into here) and basically live on that: read, watch TV, eat, sleep. I run into the bathroom for those purposes (washing up, showering, toileting, brushing teeth) and the kitchen for those purposes. But I barely cook, I use only a dorm-sized fridge/freezer and microwave, and could afford for those rooms to be MUCH smaller than they are. I do plan to RV in the future, so this is sort of "practice," and I'm fine with it. We really don't need all that "air" around us, IMHO, unless we're claustrophobic!
Many of us do a lot more than that in our homes on a regular basis though. Many people like to cook and bake for ourselves, for enjoyment and to entertain others, they like to do crafts and hobbies and play games, dance and exercise and play an instrument, have an indoor garden, keep pets, and any number of things that aren't popping into my head immediately that use that "air" around us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 01:34 PM
 
Location: Washington state
7,029 posts, read 4,898,284 times
Reputation: 21898
Quote:
Originally Posted by HP48G View Post
This is the reality when tiny houses are parked in lots in the city or in clusters . Not very nice looking.

http://archive.alleghenyfront.org/si...?itok=ag2TUF9S

http://www.denverpost.com/wp-content...9410.jpg?w=497

http://boryanabooks.com/wp-content/u...lympa_WA-2.jpg
If you take the city skyline away from those tiny homes, they'd look perfectly fine. And considering a lot of cities are now building apartment buildings with units as small as 200 sq ft, I'd far rather live in a tiny house like that with a bit of green around it. Put all those tiny homes in a small park like a mobile home park, plant a few trees and add flowers, they'd look adorable, even all in a line.

Maybe someone who has rented apartment space in Hong Kong or in some cities in Japan could weigh in here with how they feel about tiny houses.

The thing is, if the tiny houses aren't going to go anywhere, there's no reason to put them on wheels and that makes them much better looking as well. A couple miles from where I live, we have a planned community of small houses and the layout is with each house having its own small front yard and they all face a common green. I've been there and it's lovely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 01:34 PM
 
21,884 posts, read 12,976,511 times
Reputation: 36899
"Many of us do a lot more than that in our homes on a regular basis though. Many people like to cook and bake for ourselves, for enjoyment and to entertain others, they like to do crafts and hobbies and play games, dance and exercise and play an instrument, have an indoor garden, keep pets, and any number of things that aren't popping into my head immediately that use that "air" around us."


I do things, too, but elsewhere (I exercise outdoors or in a studio), I dance but with groups (in a hall or ballroom), I have pets (but they stick pretty close to me anyway). My experience with people who think they need a huge kitchen with a professional-grade oven for baking and a giant house with many guest suites for entertaining is that they end up NOT using those spaces, instead eating out most of the time!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 02:00 PM
 
Location: SLC, UT
1,571 posts, read 2,817,497 times
Reputation: 3919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indigo Cardinal View Post
But when I got to thinking about the house I grew up in and my first house, there were several things that popped into mind:

Parent's house is a one-level ranch. The *living* part of the house is 1000 sq. feet, but there's also a full unfinished basement that runs under the entire length of the house.....so another 1000 sq. feet. So while the basement was primarily where the furnace, water heater, and washer and dryer were, there was *still* plenty of space to store things, or for us kids to run around and play, such as that. My first house was a three-level townhouse, so the layout didn't 'flow' as much as my parents' house does, plus, we lost some space to the staircases. And while we had a 'basement', it was 150 sq. feet, with most of that space being taken up by the water heater, furnace, and washer and dryer. So we had *some* storage space, but not as much as my parents' house does.
I agree - the storage space is a really important thing. I live in a 1630 square foot house, but actually, half of that is the basement - it's just that it's been finished, so it can be included in the overall square footage. That said, my daughter and I don't use it day-to-day - we don't really like going down there (the staircase is super narrow), and while there are windows in all the rooms, it still feels like a basement. So we live entirely on the main floor (two beds, one bath, eat-in kitchen, and living room). It's plenty of space. It could even be smaller and still plenty comfortable. But if we didn't have the storage downstairs, even with just the two of us, it would feel far more crowded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 02:49 PM
 
2,509 posts, read 2,498,135 times
Reputation: 4692
Quote:
Originally Posted by otterhere View Post
I'm actually doing just that. I have a twin mattress down in the small living room (for reasons too complicated to go into here) and basically live on that: read, watch TV, eat, sleep. I run into the bathroom for those purposes (washing up, showering, toileting, brushing teeth) and the kitchen for those purposes. But I barely cook, I use only a dorm-sized fridge/freezer and microwave, and could afford for those rooms to be MUCH smaller than they are. I do plan to RV in the future, so this is sort of "practice," and I'm fine with it. We really don't need all that "air" around us, IMHO, unless we're claustrophobic!
That's a good way to practice. Maybe not to the same extent, I would love to do something like in this 4000 sf monstrosity, just to see how much we really use
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2017, 02:54 PM
 
630 posts, read 658,160 times
Reputation: 1344
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
If you take the city skyline away from those tiny homes, they'd look perfectly fine. And considering a lot of cities are now building apartment buildings with units as small as 200 sq ft, I'd far rather live in a tiny house like that with a bit of green around it. Put all those tiny homes in a small park like a mobile home park, plant a few trees and add flowers, they'd look adorable, even all in a line.
.
That is the point. When you park those structures in the context of a city where most people need housing, they look bad and depress property values around them, like a trailer park does. That's why zoning authorities dont like them. Resale value of those tiny houses is poor given all the zoning and transport limitations.

Instead of parking tiny trailers in cities, it's a better use of space and resources to allow construction of low to midrise apartments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top