The Tiny House Movement, and the Upside to Downsizing the American Dream

[IDemo]

It’s been two years since 34-year-old Jdimytai Damour was trampled to death by a crowd of Black Friday shoppers at a Long Island Walmart. The stampede is a twisted symbol of what’s become of the American Dream: We’ll apparently stop at nothing in the quest for more stuff.

But that wasn’t the holy grail that James Truslow Adams had in mind when he first coined the phrase “American Dream” in his 1931 book, The Epic of America. Instead he believed in “that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone … It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

Adams wrote that just as the Great Depression was beginning to swallow many Americans’ dreams — and their fortunes. Perhaps that time of financial instability helped him to see something beyond just the grasping for wealth. As Americans today are trying to claw their way out of our worst economic rout since the days of Adams, have we gained any similar insight?

The end of World War II ignited the spark of our consumer culture — one that reached a conflagration by the 1980s as spending outpaced the median income and has ended, for many, in catastrophe in recent years. As heartbreaking as the job losses and foreclosures are, there is also a bright side to the downward economy — Americans are beginning to see some value in the “less is more” adage.

http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/featured-news/the-tiny-house-movement-and-the-upside-to-downsizing-the-american-dream-039788



http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/
http://www.tinygreencabins.com/
http://tinyhouseblog.com/

[Lucinda]

1. Oddly enough I was just at all three links last night

and looking at small houses at Dwell. :hi:

[hobbit709]

2. I need a little more space than something smaller than some jail cells I've been in.

[rfranklin]

3. It's not so bad, you can open the door and leave if you want...

unlike those other accommodations.

[pipi_k]

19. That's true, but...

home shouldn't be a place where one feels uncomfortable enough to have to leave all the time.

[IDemo]

4. These would be a perfect fit for me (if it were just me, that is)

As is, I'm sharing 1100 square feet with my wife and our fur-bearing girl.

I think a major impediment to seeing a significant increase in tiny houses is zoning restrictions. I could see entire subdivisions using varied designs, plenty of walkways/bike paths, a central meeting house, and a shared garden space.

[leveymg]

5. Cute trailer, but shouldn't be considered an acceptable primary residence anymore than these:

It does a disservice to those who have lost homes to put a nice wooden veneer and a smiley face on poverty.

FEMA trailers:

[IDemo]

10. I think you'll find that most who embrace these are doing so by choice

Whether to make a statement about the environment and over-consumption, or just to simplify life.

Oh, and if you get rid of the asbestos, I'd be happy to take one of those trailers, and I'm not impoverished.

:hi:

[hobbit709]

20. My books take up more space than that.

And I'm NOT giving them up.

[leveymg]

28. Exactly.

But, there are those who want us to give up such things. Conform. Obey. Don't ask questions.

[IDemo]

30. Ridiculous

Please point out where I or anyone in the link is demanding you or anyone else to surrender your belongings or your lifestyle.

Again, I am seeing exactly the same tired nonsense that rears its head in absolutely every last article or blog post about electric cars: they do not fit my needs, so they are entirely unfit for anyone.

EV's and small houses are an additional lifestyle choice for you to make or not. No one at TinyHouseCorp is demanding your business. It is just another choice available for those who don't want to throw money away on a rental or get tied up in a 30 year mortgage. The choice is yours.

[leveymg]

35. Not for the the millions of us facing involuntary "downsizing" - not just a lifestyle choice.

Where did I say that you can't move into a 5X10 cube on wheels, if that's your choice? Please, be my guest. After college, I lived in a '71 VW van as I and my girlfriend drove cross-country from Boston, MA to Santa Cruz, CA. That was among the best experiences in my life. Just don't suggest that somehow this is an acceptable option for most middle-class people who live with families in houses. Now, that's ridiculous.

[IDemo]

39. Your statement -

"there are those who want us to give up such things" implies that you believe the freedom of choice is being taken from you, when of course it is not.

Nor have I suggested that it will be a good fit for most people; just for those who are comfortable with making the best decision based upon their own situation and lifestyle choice. To suggest there is a Great Conspiracy to force the choice on anyone is plain absurdity.

[leveymg]

43. Really? Read "Mortgage Default is a Patriotic Duty" - I didn't make this up.

See, http://housingstory.net/2010/01/12/default-is-a-patriotic-duty/

In our post-bubble world, foreclosures are the surest mechanism for creating affordable housing. Consumer advocates should now welcome this method of price correction. Those true to their mission will embrace a mass-foreclosure remedy.

In a credit bubble, the smart economist makes the highest goal a true reckoning with phony debt. The common man now has a chance to play the smart economist.

Let the house go back to the lenders. The bank will throw the mortgage in the garbage. Reality will return. Prices will fall – perhaps dramatically from our current 30% loss. Our goal should be to reduce systemic mortgage debt in the United States in amounts equal to the losses in real estate values. It’s trillions in the plural.

Default is an intelligent act. Take the right steps so we can beat the Chinese and the rest of the world. We need the jobs now. We need to get back to work now. We have to compete based on the price of our labor. We can’t charge less for our work while paying more for phony mortgage debt issued to buy a home at a phony jacked-up bubble price.

And, if you think that's just the thinking of one cranky mortgage lender, consider this:

Ben Bernanke made his name as an economist after he published a paper about the role of bankruptcies in recessions. In the June 1983 American Economic Review, the future Fed Chairman stated that a major reason the 1929-33 recession turned into systemic bank failure and a Great Depression was that bankers didn't have enough information about the returns they could realize from liquidating customer assets and defaulted mortgages. In other words, Bernanke's thinking is that the cure for America's housing problems are better bankruptcies and more efficient foreclosures. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/24/95327/3706

It's not a "Great Conspiracy" - it's macroeconomic policy.

[patrice]

67. 1+! . . . .

One sure does wonder about the intentions of some posts, or, perhaps, there are just an awful lot of people who are not accustomed to making qualified statements about their preferences, and ability to make free choices, relative to those of different others.

[MineralMan]

33. I'm moving my library onto a Kindle.

Seriously. I bought one just the other day, and have been busily downloading free books from the Gutenberg Project. Most of the ones I'm downloading are tough to find anymore, except at the antiquarian bookshops or online. For current books, I'll do what I've done for years: patronize my local library.

Before I moved to Minnesota, I had over 4000 books shelved in my 600 sq. ft. home in California. Just about every foot of wall space was floor to ceiling bookshelves. I sold the entire lot of them to a bookseller before we moved. I don't miss them. I had read them all, and rarely reread them. The ones I really want, I'm putting on the Kindle. It fits in a small space.

As Henry Thoreau said, "Simplify. Simplify." Wise man.

[pipi_k]

37. My book collection not as huge as yours...

although I would say the total numbers of books I've read, stored, and given away over the years would be close, but anyway...

I got my K3 in September.

I've been gleefully downloading free (and some pay) books whenever I can...there are 90 books and five word games on it right now.


All in one place. Ninety books (so far) that fit in my purse.


You can't get much cooler than that... :)


PS...

Pretty good forum here for lots of Kindle-related help and chitchat...

http://www.kindleboards.com/index.php

[MineralMan]

52. Thanks for the link.

If you manage your Kindle well, you can squeeze a couple thousand books on there. That's literally astounding! I used to collect books on various subjects, mostly non-fiction, and often from the 19th century and earlier. Contemporary stuff I've always just borrowed from the library for the most part.

It's that old stuff that is so interesting to me that's all available now for free. I'm so excited about having a library I can carry around with me. Technology has finally created this possibility, and I'm going to work it for everything I can. If you saw a list of my reading interests, you'd probably say WTF? It's beyond eclectic, and a lot of the books I've now downloaded are simply almost unavailable, except in expensive antiquarian bookstores. The Kindle is now my entry point into the next stage of my reading life. Woohoo! Did you know that the Kindle's fonts extend to the Russian language? That's fantastic, and I've got a long reading list in Russian that I've been dying to get to. I'll have to polish up some old skills, but it'll be worth it.

[pipi_k]

58. Hee hee...

I've been told my reading interests are "eclectic" too.

Last night I downloaded some books dealing with life among the Iroquois and Abenaki tribes of North America.



Have read "Shit My Dad Says", "The Coming Global Superstorm", An Englishman's Travels in America: His Observations of Life and Manners in the Free and Slave States", "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", and more.


And have in my "To Read" file classics like "Emma", "The Prince", "Little Women", "Dracula", "The War of the Worlds", "The Last of the Mohicans", The works of Edgar Allen Poe, and lots more

And all of them were FREE!


I didn't know about the Russian fonts. I'm only a single language speaker anyway, aside from some very rudimentary French and Spanish.

[MineralMan]

60. Nice list!

I have some of those on my reading list, too. The Gutenberg Project is wonderful!

My reading is mainly non-fiction. I used to have a collection of 19th-century and earlier etiquette books. I sold them for an amount of money that shocked me. Now, I've downloaded about a dozen that I haven't read, some dating back to dates I never could afford to buy. I also read a lot of 19th-century and earlier books about the sciences and medicine. Ancient books on cooking are another of my interests. Again, I've found a number that I never could afford on the rare book market. Stuff like that.

My wife thinks I'm stark, raving mad. I'll be sitting there, reading some arcane old book and chuckling to myself. "What are you laughing about?" she'll ask. Then I read her the quaint passage that caused me to chuckle. She doesn't get it, but she keeps trying to figure out why I'm amused. She loves me anyhow.

[Odin2005]

76. ACK, stay away from "The Coming Global Superstorm", it's complete Art Bell BS!

It's dreadful woo that makes those of us concerned about global warming look like crazies. It where the plot of "the Day After Tomorrow" comes from!

[Odin2005]

75. what happens when your Kindle is damaged and you loose all your e-books?

I'll have the real thing, even if they clog up my apartment.

You can't borrow finished e-books to others, either, unless you want the copyright pigs coming after you.

[Dappleganger]

116. Oh my, that would be awful!

I guess he'll have to read them from his computer then. ;)

[Honeycombe8]

120. You will lose them eventually, in Kindle, is what I read.

Amazon says people "own" the books, but in reality, they are housed on an online storage site, and Amazon has already wiped that site clean once. Amazon "owns" the site and the books.

If you want to really "own" a book, there's no way around it. You have to have physical custody of either a hard copy or an audio book. But it sounds like that's fine with you, since you sold all your hard copies, and you don't refer to the books again, once you read them.

[gauguin57]

61. Hear hear! (on the book question). That little thing wouldn't even hold half my books.

Perhaps I should build a house out of bookshelves, and get rid of everything else but a bed, a small sofa and a dining table. That's all I'd really need.

[Cleita]

72. I had a really hard time giving up my books too, but

instead I find there usually is a library close by to wherever you might be, so I kept a few favorites and some reference stuff and that was it. Then when the internet came along it solved a lot of the reference problem for me. Now I'm looking into kindle or something like that. It can be workable.

[leveymg]

21. If by choice, and back to the land, it's fine. But, a trailer is not acceptable as the "new normal"

for families in America.

We're being convinced by some very powerful economic and cultural elites that it's "okay" for the middle-class to accept a massive drop in living standards - it's even being touted as chic - but, that's just an attempt to keep us pacified while the American Dream is disassembled, stripped of all valuable content, and shipped overseas to build up a new wealth-generating platform.

We, and our kids, will be left as indentured servants. Not acceptable.

Nothing personal in any of this. :hi:

[baldguy]

36. And what of the millions of people who've chosen to live in mobile homes?

Tiny homes like in the OP aren't much smaller, and they're built better.

[leveymg]

45. Guess it beats a tent or a cave.

But, I think that's not by choice in most cases.

[wickerwoman]

78. It's not a conspiracy of the economic and cultural elites...

it's simply math and physics + ethics.

6.9 billion people x 2,330 sq foot homes for every family x 1/4 acre lots for every family x 2 cars x 3-4 TVs and computers per household x 3 meals a day each featuring meat = total environmental devastation, mass starvation and death, and the extinction of most other species on earth.

What gives you the right, simply because you were born in a rich country, to take up four times as much space, to use ten times as much energy and mineral resources, to eat three times as much, as someone born in a poor country? What gives you the right to build your "appropriately" sized home over some of the last green spaces in America threatening the habitats of endangered species? That's not the American Dream. That's complete disregard for inter- and intragenerational equity.

Having a detached home of whatever size is an unattainable dream for literally hundreds of millions of people on this planet. Most people in China will never in their lives be able to afford the house pictured above which you hold in such lofty disdain.

And I'm sorry, but that's extremely personal to the literally billions of people on this planet who can't even imagine the wealth that you take completely for granted.

[leveymg]

98. There were those who said the planetary ecosystem would collapse at 4 billion. But, the "green

revolution" worked. Now, we're at 7 billion, and there are those who say the vast majority must continue to live in squalid poverty, and today's American middle class must reduce their consumption to the level of today's underclass. But, that too will be proven to be a myth.

It's all a matter of allocation and division of resources. If the top 1 percent -- who are immeasurably more wealthy than they were a few decades ago before Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Obama -- were to simply reduce their share to what it was ten or fifteen years ago, and that money were to be invested here, in the US, on the sort of green energy decentralization that I wrote about above, we would all be far richer, happier, and healthier than we will be on the present trajectory, which truly is unsustainable.

If the emerging middle-classes of China and India want to live in detached houses and drive electric cars, that can work, too, if it's done it on a rational, sustainable basis.

It's sustainability that we should be concerned with, right? Or, is it a phony outrage at the American middle-class that only serves the interests of upward wealth consolidation by the globalized elites? Which side are you on?

Which side are you on?

[wickerwoman]

99. Sorry but that's a false choice.

I agree that the top 1% in the US need to drastically reduce the percentage of the world's wealth that they are currently hoarding.

But, in addition to this, the American middle class needs to get ready for the unavoidable fact that we are about to slam into serious limitations imposed by the finite resources on our planet, particularly potable water, arable land and energy. On top of these limitations, climate change will make it increasingly challenging to adequately feed the population we have now.

Maybe technology will emerge that will solve these problems and maybe it won't. I don't think it's ethically responsible to go on reproducing and consuming blindly at the current rate and trust for deus ex machina innovations to get us out of the mess. Particularly when such a large percentage of the world population is still struggling to secure clean drinking water, adequate daily calories, electricity, high school level educations, etc. Americans need to recognize that if you have those things you are, globally speaking, already in the top 5-10% and that the coming struggle over resources makes it very likely that the average level will settle below the standard that you currently enjoy.

There is no rational or sustainable basis on which 2.4 billion Chinese and Indian people can attain the standard of living that you insist is your right and the right of your children and grandchildren. So is it ethical to continue insisting on your right to live at the level of "want" at the expense of so many living at the level of "need"?

Finally, it's not a question of "taking sides". It's a question of looking realistically at what resources are there, of looking at genuine needs vs wants and preferences and asking "What's fair?" "What's right?" "What's just both for my neighbor and for my great grandkids?" "Is this Justin Bieber bobblehead worth driving a species to extinction that might have cured cancer?" "Would I rather live in a 2,500 sq ft house or let my grandkids enjoy a pristine wetland that would promote biodiversity and protect them from hurricanes?" "Is it a more productive use of oil to heat a house four times bigger than I need or to use to to produce solar cells to make four smaller houses energy independent?"

I don't feel outrage at the American middle class. I feel sorry for them because I genuinely don't think that most of them have the slightest clue about the kinds of sacrifices they are going to have to make over the next twenty or thirty years- not, fundamentally, because of a conspiracy of the elite, but because the world is nearly tapped out in several key areas and because, on a global scale, they *are* the elite. The US and Canada have 5% of the world's population and 35% of the world's wealth. Asia has 52% of the population and 25% of the wealth. As the struggle for resources heats up, what do you think is likely to happen there?

On the plus side, though, most people can be perfectly happy with a hell of a lot less than the average American has. So why not embrace a new way of living? Be ahead of the curve and save yourself some money. You'll be damn glad in twenty years that you're used to living in a smaller space, taking mass transit, eating more beans and that you saved all the time and money your neighbors wasted chasing a lifestyle based on an illusion of entitlement rather than genuine need.

[leveymg]

111. I agree with some of that, but I think you overestimate scarcity and underestimate human ingenuity

You mentioned scarcity of water as a reason the American middle-class must downsize. In most areas of the U.S., water is an abundant resource because of a favorable climate and lots of precipitation and the proximity of large bodies of water. We may need to rethink areas of the southwest where populations are not sustainable without diversion of water from other areas - but, that's the exception in the U.S.

Food production is also not a problem for the United States for the foreseeable future, which is largely self-sustaining with a large exported surplus. Again, this is because of the favorable land and climate.

As for oil, we will consume a hell of a lot less of it once industry gets prodded into adding extension cords and rechargers to automobiles. The vast majority of residences can be retrofitted into net energy producers by installation of solar and wind generators, and energy-efficient appliances. They aren't doing it now because of the death lock that the major oil and gas companies have on government and because of limitations on manufacture of next generation batteries extending the range of electric cars. But, each of these problems are surmountable, and are largely a political matter of reallocation of resources away from centralized energy production and distribution toward a diversified solar and wind electric grid.

The technological challenge of sustainability without a drastic change in the way people live is one that can be overcome, even with an improvement of living standards of ever-greater numbers of persons in the developing world. It will require investments of trillions of dollars to create a new sustainable green infrastructure and energy grid. This can only happen, however, if elites sacrifice their monopolies of control over finance and industry, and their reliance on hydrocarbon production as the basis for energy production, or are forced to radically change them. There's no incentive for them to change while immense profits are to be made by maintaining the status quo, and while the middle-class go along with their selfish and suicidal abuses of power and privilege.

Disaster capitalism approaches, such as putting large numbers of people in trailers, and propaganda to persuade the middle-class that its chic and socially-conscious to give up their homes, merely sustain the death grip of the elites. That's unsustainable.

[wickerwoman]

123. I still think you need to consider the global context.

The US may have sufficient food and water *now* because of climate but what happens in ten years when there is widespread famine and drought in Central America, Asia and Africa and another billion people to feed (according to conservative estimates)? Are the 15% of us in the developed world really going to (be allowed to) sit and watch 85% of the world starve? How are we going to stop the flood of refuges from countries that are not as fortunately situated as we are? And is blithe acceptance of major die-offs in the third world really an acceptable model of "sustainability"?

I agree that, in theory, the challenge of sustainability can be overcome. I'm just not willing to bet the house on it given our current level of technological understanding and the limitations and corruption of our political organisations. We *are* going to have to invest trillions on green infrastructure and the longer we wait, the more it will cost. Recent studies have shown that if we don't make this investment in the next five years, we are never going to be able to afford it. But who in Congress is making the case for urgent action on this? I agree that there are powerful interests arrayed against it but I'm slightly cynical about the possibility of those interests disappearing or being overcome within the very narrow window of possible effective action on the energy crisis.

And the unavoidable fact is that we are going to have to make serious decisions about how we use the last remaining cheap energy on this planet. And if our decision is to continue to hoard wealth and energy to support a lifestyle based on non-essentials at the expense of people who greatly outnumber us and are literally fighting for their lives, then we are setting ourselves up for a very rude awakening.

And there is certainly no harm in choosing a lifestyle focused less on consumption and more on human happiness. Why not make the effort to meet technology half way? A few thousand people choosing a less resource dependent lifestyle could be the difference between a discovery that solves the problem and one that falls short.

How your children and grandchildren live is not going to look like the way you live. That's pretty much a given. It's very likely that by your standards they will be "poor". And it's not even a bad thing. We can approach resource distribution, organisation and the way we consume in a *much* more thoughtful and ethical way than we currently do.

No one is trying to persuade the middle class to "give up their homes" and socially conscious people choosing to live in smaller homes has nothing to do with the "death grip of the elite". The people who are really in the death grip of the elite are the ones choosing to live in homes they can barely afford racking up credit card debt to pay for gas for their Hummers and steak on the table five days a week. When the shit hits the fan, they're the ones who are going to be eaten alive by the elite and their coping skills will be a lot worse than people who embraced a more sustainable lifestyle earlier.

[Odin2005]

126. Great post!

Another thing to add is that nanotech and related technologies (like that 3D printer I read about in an article posted here a few weeks ago) are coming along very well and will allow very efficient recycling of resources.

[CrispyQ]

114. You nailed it when you said the middle class is part of the global elite.

A few years ago I took one of those foot-print tests - with questions like, do you use public transportation? How big is your house? How often do you eat meat? Etc. And even in our tiny house & using public trans & not eating meat it took 1.8 planets to sustain our life style. By the standards of most of the people we know, we don't live large at all. Globally, though? We are definitely in with the Haves.

I know a woman who took the above test & scored 7 planets to sustain her family's life style. It was a badge of honor for her. She told her kids & they all said, "Cool." :banghead:

[Dappleganger]

95. There are thousands of people who have lived in trailers for years

and are quite happy. I'm sure they would tell you that you don't speak for them. Why are you making it like it's a mark of shame, because it's not.

[5X]

6. I had this idea before the katrina cottages

tho mine isn't quite that small.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Won't work for me

Got claustrophobia. Its cute though. Reminds me of the little play houses my daughters used to play with the Barbie dolls in a few decades ago.

Don

[BrklynLiberal]

8. there are some amazing sites and amazing ideas along this line..

more pics:
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/06/23/garden/20100624-chic-slideshow-3.html

full article
In the Catskills, Comfort in a Gingerbread House
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/garden/24cottage.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2




http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/category/uncategorized/

[otohara]

34. Cute House

making the bed must be a pain in the ass.

[patrice]

85. That looks like an expensive accessory. nt

[Hannah Bell]

104. That is a playhouse for a rich person. She doesn't live there.

[randr]

9. The tiny house movement only reflects what it is that has us in this mess

We are about to run out of the resources that have allowed us the privileges of this life that we share. One hundred people living in one hundred tiny houses use far more resources that one hundred people living in a well designed housing complex. One hundred people driving their own cars consume far more resources that one hundred people riding on a train. Rather than acknowledge the limitations of our dwindling resources and building wisely for the future, the tiny house movement hides the obvious behind the false idea of less is more. The solutions are in front of our faces if we would allow.
Mass transit requires giving up the personal freedom of controlling our own tiny space.
Living in housing complexes require us to rethink this same principle of individuality.
It is through sharing and wise use of resources that we will succeed.
We have arrived at the end of the limb of the fossil fuel era. It is time to find new growth before we go the way of the dinosaurs.

[cali]

13. sure, for people in cities and the suburbs. Not for the millions of us in rural areas.

A housing complex where I live is no solution at all.

[randr]

18. Same here

Rural living will need to be reassessed as resources dwindle. Farm workers will obviously be able to utilize advanced designs but the rest of us, for the time being, will need to up our conservation measures by applying appropriate technologies. Fortunately the larger masses of population already live in cities where most benefits can be realized by cooperative consumption.

[leveymg]

24. There is a green alternative to living in trailers or housing towers and riding mass transit.

Every house in America should be energy self-contained, and in most places can be. It would require a sizable investment in decentralizing the power grid and retrofitting every residence with energy-efficient materials/appliances and solar/wind electric generators, and replacing most gas-powered cars with plug-in electrics.

But, no, that money has all gone to prop up a bunch of dinosaur multinational corporations and zombie banks. That's the trade-off we made. We could have invested those trillions of dollars in rebuilding a green, decentralized infrastructure, but we didn't - we were sold out by the people we elected. Now, we're being told to "downsize" - f-ck that.

[jwirr]

46. Actually TinyHouse has plans for small apartment complexes. Or

at least they did.

As for me I wanted to move into a tiny house and my kids thought it would be better for me to live with them. NOT. As to the books - I would find places for them.

[patrice]

65. excellent points, hmmmmmm . . .

Just brainstorming here, but how about tiny houses designed so that they can link together around commonly held resources. Perhaps that DOES sound like an un-necessary luxury, but I'm thinking also about the ability to form appropriately modular working communities at appropriate times and places.

[cali]

11. I'm all for a reassessment of what the American dream is

and I'm big on little houses, but the tiny house movement is wholly impractical for most people.

[IDemo]

14. The same is said on virtually every electric car thread

If you live in an area of the country where either is simply unsuitable or you disagree with their 'green' factor, then don't buy one. But don't deny their usefulness for a great number of people with differing circumstances.

[cali]

16. no, it's not the same. It's simply not workable for the vast majority

of people. I know. I lived in a tiny house way, way before it became chic. Granted it was a house without running water (had a hand pump), but it is just not practical for most folks, and it will have little impact on getting people to "green" up.

[IDemo]

27. I lived in a ~500 sq. ft. house for several years

Which is actually fairly large compared to most of the tiny house designs. Eleven hundred square feet felt palatial back in 1988 when we bought this place.

I'm not sure that the "vast majority" would be ill-suited to small houses. The degree of practicality is relative. Beyond a family size of more than two and possibly guest entertainment requirements, it becomes a purely subjective measure. Most who have chosen to live this way report not a claustrophobic feeling but one of freedom.

On the green factor - while the small house movement may not provide impetus to society as a whole to rethink its impact on the environment, the lowered impact by those who live small is absolutely significant. In terms of energy use, building materials, paint and pesticide requirements and other factors, small houses are as green as it gets. Most designs are well suited to off-grid living via solar panels, rainwater collection and other means.

[cali]

31. tiny houses are NOT the same as small houses.

and yes, I know about the green factor. I've lived in nothing but green houses for over 25 years.

[IDemo]

115. Labels aside, it's just a matter of scale, isn't it?

There are plans available from various sources ranging from closet sized (no thanks) on up. Personally, if it were only me and not a wife and large dog, I would feel perfectly fine in a ~180 sq. ft. dwelling, about the size of the room I'm in now. For those who are comfortable with less, they have the option.

[MineralMan]

32. I grew up in an 800 sq. ft. house.

Two parents, three children, and a family dog. One bathroom. The two boys slept in one bedroom, my sister in another, and my parents in another. There was a living room and a kitchen large enough for a table that seated six.

We didn't feel deprived at all, despite some tension with a teenaged girl in a house with a single bathroom.

This was in the 1950s and early 1960s. It was a typical family home back then. We've expanded our expectations over the years...perhaps too far.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. I'm beginning to think that these, like the Prius, are just a different kind of ostentation. n/t

[Agent William]

87. I think you're right

I looked into this further and I reached the conclusion that many people are doing this out of a sort of pretentious need to. Although their goals of reducing environmental impact of housing is noble, their belief is rather misplaced. It will still require raw resources to construct and install. A better solution would be to retrofit existing houses in order to reduce energy consumption. At present ther exist many means of improving a homes energy efficiency that are relatively cheap, i.e. window glazing.

I could do $21,000 for this home seeing as that is three years of rent, but there are two huge downsides, one is where do I connect the shitter/water supply, and second where do I park the thing. I'm sure peripheral cost would mitigate any savings over the long term, still this is an intriguing idea.

[Hannah Bell]

105. if you look at the prices, they sure are. i can't imagine who would pay those prices.

[Skittles]

100. small is fine; tiny is ridiculous

[eridani]

103. Pushing the envelope is a good thing--it helps everyone think about possibilities

I have a friend who is so nuts about local eating that she won't use lemon juice because lemons don't grow in the Pacific NW. (She uses sorrel extract.) Few are willing to take a concept and run that far with it (not me, no way), but knowing about some of the things she does has motivated me to get a lot more local than I was.

[FreakinDJ]

12. I did downsize at the begining of the Mortgage Crisis

Actually I sold just as home values were starting to decline. Was very surprised the home actually "Bid Up" and was purchased by a VP of the local home town bank.

Months later as home values were "Beginning to Decline" I purchased a much smaller home - but with a large country lot. Down from 2400 sq ft to just over 1000 sq ft. A nice shop area where I house my machining equipment, (second income - in these depressed times) and 5000 sq ft of back yard for our many fruit trees and garden.

I never bought into the whole Yuppy mantra of more more more, and knew the housing bubble had to burst. I was able to place a +40% down payment on the new home and can still afford to over pay the mortgage every month

I'm not smarter then anyone else - just that thanks to DU, I just never bought into Wall St's BullShit

[TommyO]

15. Some of Tumbleweed's small house plans are very nice

The tiny houses are too tiny for me, but the small houses which are between 300 and 850 square feet have some nice features which could be rolled into a very nice abode for a single person.

[mainer]

17. Cute but VERY expensive for the square footage

unless you build it yourself.

If you're pinching pennies, a mobile home makes a lot more sense.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

26. incredibly expensive... n/t

[pipi_k]

22. Very cute, but another group they're not suitable for....

the elderly and/or disabled.


Mr P and I both have really bad knees. Any place tiny enough to require a loft bedroom would not work. Especially when one has to get up every two hours during the night to pee.

[mwooldri]

23. Each to their needs... but we don't all need McMansions.

Our "forever home" has 1100 square foot on one level. It's big enough for our family, and big enough to grow into and down to as well. Since we're in a rural area and the house has an acre of land, there is an opportunity to expand the house we have if the need does truly arise. Ironically we acquired this house as a bank repossession... I had ominous feelings but my dad did remind me that we lost our family home back in the early 90's to the bank (and the awful economic environment at the time plus being sold a dreadful mortgage). He told me to "go for it" and understand that there are two sides in the deal and this time our family was on the upside of the deal rather than the downside, and if the house is in good shape to go for it.

For some people, especially those who live on their own, maybe that small house is all they need.

If you live near enough to an Ikea, I would encourage you to take a visit (don't necessarily buy anything, well except the Swedish Meatballs in the cafeteria) and they have exhibits showing how one can have a wonderful house whilst living small.

Plus at age 36 my realisation is simple: it's not about how much you have, it is how happy life is. Money is money. Things can be better, things can be worse - much worse. I'd rather have a happy life than having that McMansion, filled with all the things and gadgets one could desire and being miserable.

Mark.

[MineralMan]

25. I love tiny houses.

My wife and I, and my former wife and I, lived in a 600 sq. ft. house over a period of 35 years. It was completely adequate for our needs, easy to heat, easy to clean, and unencumbered with things we did not use or need. Now, we live in a house with a total of 1600 sq. ft., including a finished basement. It's far bigger than we need and much of the space is unused most of the time.

It's a lifestyle choice, living in a small house. If you don't like a simple lifestyle, it's probably not for you. If you do live simply, it's the best choice.

[seabeyond]

29. i could live that easily, alone. but i need a bathroom and kitchen.

things dont do it for me. but someone said books.... that might be an issue, lol.

otherwise, those three issues. i could be there.

[TBF]

38. Unrec - why should the rest of us live in closets while billionaires have multiple mansions? nt

[timo]

40. dont be hater

Al Gore hates people like that!! when he tells YOU to trim your carbon footprint its for YOUR own good!!

[TBF]

41. Al says as he collects his dividends from Occidental ...

I personally don't like big houses - seems wasteful to me. But I especially don't like them for billionaires while the rest of us must fight over the crumbs.

[timo]

42. ohhh, i was teasing you

I just dislike gores bullshit on do as I say and not as I do, that and how wrong he was on nafta!!

[TBF]

53. I know - no problem - and I love being able to expose Al Gore's hypocracy whenever possible. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

44. You don't have to. It's a choice. Nobody's making you "live in a closet."

You can simplify as much as you want, or live in a McMansion, or something in between - whatever you can afford that suits you. What other people live in, and how much you resent their wealth, shouldn't have anything to do with how you decide to live. My own house is maybe 1,000 sq. ft. It is as big as I need, and the fact that Bill Gates has a much bigger house did not enter into my decision to live in this one.

[Better Believe It]

49. It's a p.r. campaign to have us embrace the attacks on our living standards. Less is better.

[Dappleganger]

96. I don't want their mansions.

I want their fucking healthcare and retirement security.

[B2G]

47. 39K for a 65 SQFT "house"?

Seriously?

[pipi_k]

55. Sort of outrageous...

from my own perspective seeing as how I bought my 900 sq. ft. house and 8.25 acres of land for 88K in 1996.



The house been added to since then.

[mainer]

56. It's for well-off people who want to think themselves green

The cost per square foot is astonishing.

[Odin2005]

77. Yup, scam for yuppies that need an indulgence for their wastefulness.

You don;t have to live in a hovel to be Green.

[patrice]

82. The trailers are a big part of it and I imagine there are zoning issues for permanent siting. nt

[Better Believe It]

48. Less and smaller is better. That's what the rich tell us as they attack our living standards

[TBF]

54. And build bigger homes for themselves. +1 nt

[Better Believe It]

59. Exactly

[Better Believe It]

50. The "tiny house movement"? How about the "the tent cities movement"?

What crapola.

The Wall Street sharks and CEO's will continue to live in mansions at our expense.

They will not be pitching tents or living in large closets.

[mia]

51. Yahoo group - small house society online

I recommend joining this group.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smallhousesocietyonline/

[Lorien]

62. I can't believe that people are attacking the OP or those who CHOOSE to live small

Now that some people are being forced into tent cities some of you are honestly seeing those who choose to live with as little as possible as being somehow "elitist"? WTF has happened top the Democratic party? Now consumption is mandatory?? I suppose that everyone here would then have attacked my stepsister for living in a car for several years when she didn't have to because she just didn't like owning things or being tied to a place? Would you attack my mom because she shares a 900 sq ft post war home (no basement, attic or garage) with another woman, several pets and often a third or forth long term guest? Her bedroom is only 6 x 8'ft but she's happy with it. People who choose small home living enjoy the freedom of not having much stuff that owns THEM or dealing with a lot of home maintenance. Plus, a small ecological footprint is a GOOD thing! It is! Honestly! Geezus, once upon a time Democrats gave a flying fuck about the planet we call home. But now that the Reagan revolution has finally swallowed our party Dems now think that living small by choice is somehow a bad thing. Fucking unreal.

[Odin2005]

79. I think a 900 sq.ft. house is just fine, it's the tiny hovels I don't like

You don;t have to live in a big closet to be Green, that's the point.

[patrice]

83. Thanks Lorien! Yeah, what's up with all of that? And THAT's what passes for "revolutionary"?????

Maybe people just need to learn how to make more qualified/conditional statements . . . ?

:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

106. i live in a shared house smaller than your moms. & i think tiny expensive houses

(that picture is of a house of about 65 square feet) are ridiculous if they're being touted as a liveable alternative for most people who work -- even singles. Just to keep a minimal work & non-work wardrobe would fill all the storage in that place.

900 sq feet is about 14 times bigger than the house in the op.

[Skittles]

107. hey, I live in a 610 ft apt

don't attack ME because the idea of living with two cats in half or quarter that space seems ridiculous....I already live very simply THANK YOU

[TBF]

112. Living small by CHOICE is not a bad thing, but how watching

folks decide they have NO choice while executives buy larger homes with their tax breaks is mind-boggling.

[Dappleganger]

117. I completely agree.

[patrice]

63. Very cool! But they need links to Home Down-sizing consultants, blogs & work-groups.

My first husband worked for a major corporation all of his life, but I always swore that his black Irish soul was from a Spanish Gypsy who decided to see the world on the Armada.

With the generous vacation policy of his employer, we traveled all over the U.S. on various motorcycles. I can just see some of these cabins in some of the places I have been.

.......................................

I imagine you encounter zoning issues if you wish to cite one semi-permanently anywhere.

[Codeine]

64. A grown man living in a space like that is going to make it stink.

I guarantee that upon walking into that crackerbox you'd be hit by a WALL of funk.

[dionysus]

66. i couldn't fit my drum set and guitars into one of those. but they are cool.

[Cleita]

68. My house on wheels is a little larger but what's

important to me is the acreage that it's on. When you have a nice outdoors to live in, you only need the indoors to sleep and keep your stuff. Also, it prevents you from hoarding and acquiring more possessions than you actually need for comfort and aesthetics.

[patrice]

69. A VERY salient point: WHERE is much more of a big deal with a house of this size. nt

[Prometheus Bound]

70. This is what we call a small home. 15 sq ft for US$200 a month

Hong Kong's Cage Homes Cost A Fortune
http://www.arkinet.com/articles/hong-kongs-cage-homes

[Cleita]

71. As awful as that looks, it's still better than a concrete sidewalk. n/t

[Prometheus Bound]

92. Apparently most of those guys prefer the sidewalk in HK.

The weather's always pretty hot and they set up under overpasses so the rain doesn't affect them. They choose nice leather couches and a decent table from the vast amount of furniture that is thrown out by the local residents. And of course the fold-out sleeper for at night. There were about four or five at the end of my street living like that for about 5 years, but in an effort to get them off the streets, the government sent garbage trucks to pick up the furniture of all the street sleepers, but the next day my group was back with a completely new set of used furniture. That was repeated several times, and they always ended back on the street. Their friends were there. They could get the occasional job. It was quite a social environment. I never saw women sleeping openly in the streets like that though.

When the newspapers would do stories on them they would always say they were much happier on the street than in cage homes. They claim their belongings are actually safer on the street than in the locked cage homes. Those cage homes look like hell to me.

[Odin2005]

73. Un-rec. Faux-Green used as a tool for Class Warfare.

Why should we live in hovels when the Rich live in their grand palaces?

[patrice]

80. What is revolutionary about just coveting what others have? Wouldn't real freedom imply more options

?

Some of us are attracted to the possibilities inherent in simplification.

[patrice]

81. BTW, the manufacturers are making at least a passing attempt at being green. Could probably be

improved, but it isn't zero. Please read some of the specs.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

88. How is refusing to live in a small house going to prevent rich people

from living in big ones? And I wouldn't call these "hovels"; in fact, they are relatively expensive for their size. If someone is truly poor and just needs a place to live, these houses are probably not for them. The market for them seems to be single people or couples who aren't poor but who want to live simply and with a minimum amount of "stuff." The houses are designed to be energy- and space-efficient. To me, that's a good thing, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the "grand palaces" of the wealthy. They will live how they want to live regardless of whether I live in a McMansion or a "tiny house." I will choose to live in a way that is not environmentally wasteful - I don't think I'd want to live in one of these very small houses, but my conventional house isn't very big and I wouldn't want it to be. And I am not eaten up with envy or resentment over the dwellings of the wealthy.

[Codeine]

124. +1

Faux-green indeed.

[Agent William]

74. I'd do it!

I say that as a 22 year old university student who is used to these sorts of accommodations. I figure that a home like this would be good up until I'm 30ish and I could always use it latter on as a guest cottage. That said I don't really buy into the environmentally friendly says pitch. The fact of the matter is that this home will still consume power and energy just like anythings else.

[patrice]

84. People could create co-operative communities out of them around shared alternative energy technologi

es, in which they all invest and even make some profit if possible. When the time is right for you, you could sell all or just the shared part of your investment and move.

[Agent William]

91. OK, fair point.

The only difficulty around that would be gathering enough people for a community of this type.

[patrice]

93. Various types of professional relationships would help, but location would perhaps be the prime

limiting factor.

Co-housing and collaborative living arrangements are not entirely new to the American social landscape:
http://directory.ic.org/
http://www.cohousing.org/
http://www.thegreenhouseproject.org/ (This one is specialized to elder-care and by potentially to child-care.)

[patrice]

86. and/or around shared business resources. nt

[Kaleva]

89. $32k for 208 sq. ft.?

[Cleita]

90. My house was only $26,000, but that was ten years ago.

It's a very livable 350 square feet with lots of windows. I have a bath and kitchen, utilities and everything I need. There is less to clean as well. My family put it up on their back acre, so I have a nice garden too and pasture and woods beyond the fence. Sometimes the neighbors pasture horses there so they are nice to have around as well. Every six months I have to go through and throw stuff out that I have accumulated, but I seldom miss those items. It's very liberating.

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. If it's got axles anyway...

... I'd renovate one of these

[Fumesucker]

110. That's pretty much what I'm doing..

I'm living in this unit set up on four wooded acres that belongs to a family member..

220 square feet of living area for $1200 off Craigslist, it's enough for me and my two small dogs, I still have a few things left to do but it's quite livable at the moment. Full bath with a smallish tub and shower, kitchen/living room with stove, oven, microwave, large fridge (for a camper) separate bedroom with queen sized bed and a surprising amount of built in storage.

I can tow it with a half ton pickup or a standard van since I got the adjustable load distributing hitch and adjustable sway bars included along with the trailer, the load distributing system takes some of the tongue weight off the rear wheels of the tow vehicle and shifts that weight to the front wheels (yes, it really works).

[lumberjack_jeff]

119. Good score.

Aluma-lites are good trailers.

And yes, the load distributing hitch works well - I have it on my equipment trailer.

[Dappleganger]

121. That's great!

The price, especially. How is it for heating and keeping cool? Do you have access to water and gas? Is this a temp situation or longer? Dh's brother has loaned out their small camper to a couple who's currently homeless, they have parked at a relatives home and are getting back on their feet (slowly, this is Tampa).

My ideal place would be a small one-room cabin w/ a loft in the woods with bottled gas and a well. We have friends who loan us theirs whenever we come up that way (Shenandoah Valley in VA) and I just love it. It's tiny but really one doesn't need that much space, and so easy to keep clean.

[Fumesucker]

122. I have electric and water (from a well), am hooked into the septic system..

There are two propane bottles for the stove, water heater is electric.. I'm using two small electric space heaters, it doesn't usually get much below freezing here (outside Atlanta) for long so all I have to do is shut the bedroom door and I can keep either the bedroom or the rest of the trailer at a reasonable temperature even when it's in the lower twenties.. I can keep the bedroom comfortable into the teens and possibly below with the electric heaters but not the rest of the camper.

The propane central heater is still in the trailer but needs some work, I have a 7500 btu window AC I plan on cooling it with, the roof mounted unit isn't working now, I'm going to look at that before spring though.

This time of the year there are some good deals on campers on Craigslist, it took me a couple of weeks of looking in my metro area to find a really nice one at the price I could afford to pay, I looked at some real junkers I could have got for even less money but I needed something to live in immediately. I found units all the way up to over 40 feet for under $2000 but wasn't sure they could be towed with the pickup I had to use, one of the reasons I picked this unit is because it came with the proper hitch and towing equipment (which run around $300-$400 to buy new).

I've about decided to make this a more or less permanent situation, I don't see that I'll have the money for another house or apartment any time in the foreseeable future.

Good on your DH's brother for loaning out their camper to someone in need.

[Dappleganger]

118. Love those!

If it was just me, dh and the puppies I would so do that!

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

97. Reductio ad absurdum

My Petition for More Space

Summary: "Try to imagine a book that mostly takes place in a waiting line. Hersey does it with this marvelous tale. It is the near future, when couples have to apply to have a child, and are allowed only one. (Patriotic teen males can agree to get a vasectomy.) Personal space for individuals is limited to an 8x12-foot painted square in a large warehouse dorm, and the only area in New Haven with grass and trees is walled off -- the mayor gets to mow it but others can only look at it through a window after waiting long hours in line. Thirty-seven-year-old Sam Poynter, who writes reports and is getting divorced, is in a line, four abreast, to get to the petition windows where he will ask the authorities for the unheard-of favor of a slightly larger living space." more

[devils chaplain]

101. Neat...

I think VOLUNTARY simplicity is great and does not necessarily equate to poverty. One can live extremely simply yet have still have a large savings account for emergencies, travel, etc.

[Vickers]

102. I'm not even sure if I could fit all of my guitars and amps in there.

And of course I couldn't practice my rock star moves in such a small space.

:(

I do dig the tin roof, though.

[Hannah Bell]

108. These houses aren't green at all; they're being constructed from new materials.

And the people planting them in idyllic little retreats are probably tearing up more green space.

It's more ecologically sound to just share already-existing housing. And there's plenty of it available.

Those are hobby houses for misanthropes with a few bucks.

[IDemo]

113. Misanthropes? Project much?

Many of these are in fact built using recycled and reclaimed materials. In any case, each uses much less construction material than any standard house. Their energy requirements and carbon footprints are a sliver of a "normal" house. Are the builders and buyers of any new home also misanthropic in your view?

[Hannah Bell]

127. Of course they use less materials than a standard house, being as they're

more than ten times smaller than an average house. So what?

Those aren't recycled boards & shingles. The recycled content in those houses is minimal.

I stand by what I said.

And what I said, unlike what you said, didn't include a personal attack on any poster.

[Violet_Crumble]

109. But my extensive wardrobe of clothes and shoes aren't Tiny!

I wonder if they do Tiny Renovations where Tiny bits can be added as needed? At a Tiny Price, of course!

I used to live in a 23foot caravan in my parents backyard when I was a teenager. I hated it. I imagine those shoeboxes on wheels would be even worse...

[Codeine]

125. My bass amp is probably bigger than the whole house. nt