Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Tiny houses entice budget-conscious Americans (AFP)
In a country that nearly always believes bigger is better—think supersize fries, giant cars and 10-gallon hats—more and more Americans are downsizing their living quarters. Welcome to the world of tiny homes, most of them less than 400 square feet (less than 40 square meters), which savvy buyers are snapping up for their minimalist appeal and much smaller carbon footprints. The tiny homes revolution, which includes those on foundations and those on wheels, began a few decades ago, but the financial crisis of 2008 and the coming-of-age of millennials gave it a new impetus. The proliferation of home improvement shows on networks like HGTV fueled the trend, inspiring customers ready to personalize their own small living spaces.
Cost is one of the driving factors—a tiny home of just over 200 square feet with a customized interior can go for about $50,000—a massive savings over a McMansion in the suburbs.
[...] Despite the advantages, the tiny homes movement is far from widespread. Rough estimates put the number of tiny homes in the United States at a little more than 10,000. The first sticking point is financing—would-be homeowners are finding it impossible to get traditional loans for non-traditional houses. Banks are instead offering medium-term loans of up to seven years—at significantly higher interest rates than regular loans. But the main obstacle is a legal one: most municipalities and towns ban residents from living year-round in anything on wheels, and often have statutes requiring homes to be at least 900 square feet.
[...] To vault over the many legal hurdles, many tiny home buyers are setting up their places without permits from local urban planning officials. But others are opting for tiny house communities, which are on solid legal footing and are sprouting up all over. Tiny Estates in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania took over a former campground and obtained the necessary permits to accommodate tiny homes on wheels. "It's important to go to your town meetings, your borough meetings and just say, 'Hey, here's what they are'," says Berrier. "It's not some clandestine little sketchy thing. These are beautiful tiny houses, well designed. If anything, they add property value to things."
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday June 20 2019, @12:11PM (2 children)
Personally I just like a smaller house (small is relative but for me about 60 m^2 -- or 650 feet^2) cause there is just less to clean -- which is important cause cleaning is boring as hell. It's a comfortable amount of space for one person.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 20 2019, @02:46PM
We're a family of 4, and we've settled around 2100 square feet as our preferred size. We had the larger 3000+ square foot houses, and the extra space was more extra work and maintenance expense than it was extra enjoyment.
On the other hand, we have acquaintances with 4000+ square foot houses for 2 and 3 people, and they use the space to house their stuff - because he who dies with the most toys wins, in their minds.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 21 2019, @12:54AM
Our primary residence is a to-me spacious 75m2 attic flat downtown, which is way more than my partner and I need (now or for ever, we're childfree). We use the previous flat as our office, that's just 42m2, and being ground floor is probably the one we'll keep for retirement. 42 is definitely cosy, 75 is definitel large. We don't have much in the way of chattels, which helps. Small is beautiful.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves