Well, this kind of makes sense to me...

My Dad is probably going to far outlive my mother and the house we are buying isn't big enough to live with an inlaw. We do have 2 flat usable acres but would have a hell of a time getting a building permit. I suspect he has more class than to actually live in a camper (although $100k campers are reaaaal nice) but a tiny house would totally work for him.

Now if our house sells before our new place is finished I'll actually be living in my 1984 Bonair 18' camper. I really hope the shower works, I never actually planned on using it when I bought it... just thought "Awesome, that's a perfect spot to store long guns and fishing rods." My serviced apartment in Japan wasn't much bigger despite the weekly rent being about what I paid for the camper.

I wonder how many people in this thread who would never consider a tiny house buy into manmade global warming hook, line and sinker.

Love these people with 3,000+ sqft., heated and a/ced, calling me stupid.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Not responding to anyone in particular but one thing to keep in mind is a tiny house in a warm climate is a lot different then one in a cold climate. In a warm climate you can have an outdoor living room for many months of the year.

Yup.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

What about The Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe? It was a shoe for crying out loud....doesn't get much tinier than that!

Yeah but she had so many children she destroyed the planet.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I lived in a 37 ft house boat for a summer with my two kids when they were small. What I learned is that I could easily live on a boat 24/7 if in an area where it is warm. But a tiny small house, no way.

The big one is not having to buy land.

I was curious to see how small 300 sq/ft actually is. We have a pretty large master bath so I was curious to see how many sq/ft it is. It's right at 265 sq/ft with both closets included. Maybe I can see how two people could make it work and not be too on top of each other all the time but a family of 3 or 4 living in my bathroom is rediculous.

I get it If you had to and that's all you could afford for the family to have a warm dry place to stay but just seems rediculously small for any other reason.

I wonder how many people in this thread who would never consider a tiny house buy into manmade global warming hook, line and sinker.

Love these people with 3,000+ sqft., heated and a/ced, calling me stupid.

Completely agree. For the most part I think concentrating on cars is "High hanging fruit". For the most part we have peaked and are only making miniscule advances in "cost of energy" for transportation. People aren't going to ride bikes and aren't safe doing 80 MPH in a car that weighs 1500 lbs. Electric cars are a small jump, but largely move the emissions from multi source to a single source. Better, but not a massive gain.

OTOH housing is generally oversized, easily shrunk, permanent which allows a plethora of other options where savings on heating, cooling etc is concerned. Efficient construction, different heating and cooling etc etc could make MASSIVE efficiency increases at a fraction of the costs to make similar gains in transportation.

I've been saying for a long time that we need to have an efficiency rating and consumption rating for houses like we do appliances.

~Matt

Maybe I can see how two people could make it work and not be too on top of each other all the time but a family of 3 or 4 living in my bathroom is rediculous.

That seems to be the dividing line, kids or no kids. You might be able to live in 250-350 sq feet by yourself and or your SO...not so much with a kid or two.

As others have said it also depends on climate.

I watched a few of the "Tiny house builder" series on Netflix. IIRC the one built were essentially a "Play house" someone had built in the woods on their own property behind their house, they had two kids. A couple that built on their farm they bought that had a condemned house with a large out door space and another couple. I don't recall anyone with kids in a cold weather area actually building one to live in.

~Matt

I don't recall anyone with kids in a cold weather area actually building one to live in.

I think they call those ice fishing huts in MN.

---

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man

OTOH, A lot of larger new houses are far more energy-efficient than drafty small homes. The biggest savings on transportation is not vehicle efficiency, but city planning which reduces the amount of driving one needs to do.

One of our local builders did a tiny house project for a Habitat for Humanity project recently. It was displayed in our downtown area once it was completed. Super small but he used really top quality materials to put this thing together. Looked great inside and out, I'm sure it made a great home for a family in need.

OTOH, A lot of larger new houses are far more energy-efficient than drafty small homes.

Absolutely agree and why I think an energy efficiency rating is a good idea. You can have a house like mine that is an efficiency nightmare that is not all that large consuming way more energy then a larger well built, green designed and using alternative heating a cooling methods.

The biggest savings on transportation is not vehicle efficiency, but city planning which reduces the amount of driving one needs to do.

Again don't disagree but this requires a massive life style change and long term changes. Condensing urban sprawl, moving more to smaller self contained communities etc.

I was talking to my business partner who grew up in the same area our shop is in. He's 73, essentially in a 6 block stretch in the neighborhood you had everything you needed. Grocery, doctors, lawyers, hardware, meat, bread entertainment and on and on. There was no need to drive. When I asked him why he thought this changed his answer was "The fucking malls" :-) They built a "Mall" in the 60's which condensed all the "retail" stuff into one area. Cloths, shoes, etc. No hardware store, doctors, lawyers, grocery. Then came the mega groceries and larger malls and pretty soon you had to drive from one location to the next to the next to the next. Since you were already driving you may as well live 5-10 miles from where any of this stuff was and you got Urban sprawl. Since you were no longer walking around in your neighborhood, the guy at the store was no longer your neighbor, pretty soon you no longer knew your neighbors....and you wanted to be further and further from them...and here we are.

I only say that to point out that reversing this trend is a much more arduous and long term project then improving the efficiency of buildings. We are talking 50-70 years to get to where we are and it will take at least that long to return to something similar.

~Matt

I think they call those ice fishing huts in MN.

I can't remember where I saw it but it was an article or show on fishing huts. You're pretty much dead on some of these are "Tiny houses". Decorated, decked out to the brim and often time passed down from generation to generation.

~Matt

We just had a home built last year 3200 sqft, this house is definitely more energy efficient than our last house which was 2100 sqft. Energy bills are pretty much the same give or take a few $ each month.

If one is set building a tiny house, I think they should go all in, solar power and whatever else it takes to be totally off the grid!

Right now I'm wishing I had pic's of 2 of the ice shacks that occupy our local reservoir. Lighting, TV, satellite, wood/propane heat, porta-potty on 3500 lb axle's.

or personal planning. I'm always amazed by the families that have to live in location X, which is 20 miles from where dad works, and son needs to go to school at School Y which is 12 miles in the other direction, and then daughter Z has to play soccer 16 miles in another direction because they have the best travel team...

Where I live, we have been reversing the trend of housing sprawl for ~10-20 years. Environmentalists who resisted multi-story developments for decades have pretty much made a complete about-face. The change is neither as massive as you outline, and it has been going in lots of areas.

Where I live, we have been reversing the trend of housing sprawl for ~10-20 years.

You live in one of the most high priced and over crowded areas of the country. The trend reverses naturally once you hit a certain point, look at Tokyo and other extremely densely populated areas of the world.

For the majority of the US the trend is still out of densely populated areas to the burbs.I don't think this trend will even begin to reverse naturally in most of the country as long as the utilities ad roads are still being built to support it.

Unlike CA most of the country can be in "Farmland" in 30 minutes or so.

~Matt

I don't think CA is as different in that regard as you might think.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I don't think CA is as different in that regard as you might think.

It takes 30 minutes to get 2 blocks in LA :-)

But yeah, it depends on where you're at in CA. Certain areas of the north east are just as bad or worse but much of the country has major cities that are still surrounded by generally flat and open land. Some of the more populated areas of CA are stuck between mountains and the ocean making access to the cheaper open land more difficult.

~Matt

Edit to Add: I thought oldandslow was in Palo Alto which is in a area that is surrounded by pretty densely populated areas for miles with very high real estate values. Essentially the conditions you need to force people to build up.