SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:00PM (8 children)
Okay, I somewhat understand the wheels thing -- parking your RV or mobile home somewhere is not a permanent residence. And, as other comments have noted, not owning the land a structure is parked on often creates other issues for both towns and residents.
However, a strict ban on homes under 900 square feet? Why? While I don't live there now, I spent a significant chunk of my adult life living in apartments under 900 square feet, and I was perfectly happy, with plenty of space. You throw in a few kids and it could get tight, but lots of adults choose not to have big families or to live alone.
So, if I prefer a smaller living space with all its advantages -- less to clean and maintain, better energy efficiency, lower initial cost, few stupid "storage" areas that most people just use to accumulate junk they never use throughout their lives -- what are my options? I have to live in an apartment/condo and share walls and noise and annoying neighbors all around? What if I just want a normal plot of land in a town, but a nice space around me like most people who own houses enjoy, but not pay for space I don't want?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:27PM (2 children)
Why? Because then the building suppliers wouldn't be able to sell you twice as much material as you want. Really though, the major reason is the entire system that is stacked so heavily against affordable housing. In this case, "property values" need to be defended. If you build a small house next to a somebody else's house, "there goes the neighborhood". Historically, smaller houses were occupied by the poors. Oh no honey, we've got to move. Them n****** is moving in! Even though it's illegal to put it that way now, that's what they're still thinking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @07:03PM
I see many openly non-racist people suddenly change their tune once they own property. Say Agatha's kids got into trouble in the big city. She sends them off to old Aunt Millie living by herself in a safe neighborhood so that they "stay out of trouble". Problem is, they create the trouble, and once the rival gang they cheated out of a deal sprays the house with machine gun fire, you don't want to be the last person holding on to your property there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @09:16PM
Funny, I think about 98% of the people on these HGTV shows are white.
Housing discrimination is a real thing, but you're way off the mark here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @09:02PM (4 children)
Because 900 square feet is about the minimum size for a viable house. It's enough for a living room, two bedrooms, a bathroom, and a kitchen - all small, but large enough to hold normal sized appliances and furniture.
Anyone trying to build a "house" smaller than that is most likely trying to abuse the system and do something that properly requires industrial or agricultural zoning, or is a land speculator, or something. The city also knows that extremely odd buildings, even if built in good faith, tend to depress property values. Nobody wants that.
Even if you don't care about the resale value of your property, the city does. Nobody wants to buy a tiny house. The few people who want one generally want to design them for their specific needs. When those change in five years, there will be a house that's useful to absolutely nobody, and it will have to be torn down.
Construction costs are not the whole story of homeownership. Property tax, upkeep, landscaping, utilities, etc. If the difference between 300 square feet and 900 square feet is keeping you from buying, you should be renting.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 21 2019, @12:46AM (2 children)
Someone needs to get up from the computer and go see the world.
Would you like to guess how many billions of people in this planet hopelessly dream of living in more than 900sqft ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2019, @01:00AM (1 child)
Because most American cities aspire to be the slums of Mumbai?
I think you've proved my point.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 21 2019, @01:06AM
Mine was that stating a house was only viable above 900 square feet is absolutely and demonstrably stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2019, @06:03AM
My first home was 550 square feet. It was more than enough for my parents, siblings, and myself. It also had normal sized furniture and all the rooms you mentioned. Just because you can't imagine a house like that being functional, doesn't mean they aren't. I, personally, don't understand how families of 5 need 1500 square feet. From my point of view, it is just more room for their junk, as opposed to being room to live in. And I can barely process the stories I see childless couples living in 2500+ houses. If anything, I believe there should be maximum sizes of homes in neighborhoods to help prevent McMansion Hell.