Hacker News Reader

I have a few friends who are very enthusiastic about the tiny house movement. They are building a tiny house community, getting the zoning changed, etc.

At first I didn't get what problem they were solving. After enough discussions with them, I understand: The problem that tiny houses are solving is having the financial advantages of living in a trailer without the social stigma that comes with living in a trailer.

It's a class perception thing. In America, if you want to avoid living around the poor or being perceived as poor, you have to buy an expensive house. This is why people buy more house than they need - so they can live in the right kind of neighborhood.

Tiny house communities are a way for astrophysicists and programmers to live in trailers without having to live around the kind of people who live in trailers. It's a social hack to get around the signaling cost of expensive housing.

I told them that I didn't think it would work long term, that eventually tiny house communities would be perceived as just another kind of trailer park. They said sure, eventually that might happen, but by then their kids would have grown up and the next generation could figure out their own arrangements.

I think you're spot on with your analysis.

The hope (for me), is that some middle ground is reached. Make it ok again to build normal-size houses (1200-1500 sq. ft.) in nice neighborhoods with nice schools.

Exactly. I made the same conclusion. Most THers are middle class refugees.

The Tiny House is meant to serve as a backstop against "losing everything".

Doesn't say anything good about the economy, does it?

The other factor is that it is fun to learn stuff and geek out. You pick up some building skills which you may be able to apply elsewhere.

Tiny homes are about simplifying your life. You don't accumulate junk, and you tend to really enjoy the things you do own. If you keep a bunch of stuff in storage you're missing the point of the exercise.

Tiny homes are also a statement of individuality. For it to work you have to select or create a design that fits how you live. People frequently build aesthetic fixtures and storage into their tiny homes as well. Thus the space reflects you much more than a trailer/mobile home.

Finally, a large part of it is a desire not to be shackled in debt. Not having long term financial obligations is very freeing; on the other hand a mortgage is a hassle.

Tiny homes are definitely only a good choice for active people who like the outdoors or being publicly social. You should avoid pre-built or spec tiny homes if possible - for it to work the space needs to feel like an extension of you.

How is this different from the whole oh, shipping containers are so ubiquitous, they must be cheap and easy to move, and so let's live in them! movement, except from building materials instead of an ice cold box of metal?

Though I think getting zoning changed for high density is a very good thing.

It's the same movement. Shipping containers are just convenient big boxes.

I'm having a 'somebody is wrong on the internet' moment here bane.

> Most of the time when they're shown off, they're sitting isolated on some huge lot somewhere in the woods, so housing density isn't it.

Your thoughts here are of $ per sq ft. THs are definitely more expensive per sq ft. However the absolute number, the house price, is much lower. In my area I can build a TH (320 sq ft + loft) for 50k (to a high standard) and rent land for $50 a month.

> If I look for ones that are actually for sale, they just seem to be rebranded college apartments or RVs - except now the sellers are charging twice

The Tiny Housers agree!

The prices for THs are extortion because a large number of middle class people with no building talent whatsoever don't have the confidence to build for themselves.

A TH is at least 1/2 the price if you build it yourself, which is what most Tiny Housers I know are doing.

> They often come with advice for how to get them into RV parks or mobile home parks, but those can be very expensive

Also agree with that.

That is why most THs aren't in them. I only know one person who has done that.

Most people I know, are on cheap land rents, owned property (in the countryside), or on a piece of land owned by family or friends (in the cities). Some Tiny House people make TH communities but that is less common.

> Just like RVs and mobile homes, most of the shed-like tiny houses are terrible housing investments because the market views them as what they are, RVs and sheds, and depreciates them over time on average, while actual real estate tends to appreciate over time.

Few Tiny housers worry about resale. They just want somewhere to live.

They are also mostly constructed with the same or better quality house building materials and techniques. This means the average energy bill is very low. I've heard as low as $10 per month, but $50 is more common.

In an important way you're wrong about the depreciation curve. Larger houses cost more to maintain. A Tiny House is easier to fix and maintain. I must say the ones I've seen are often built to a much higher quality standard than normal houses.

Most of them aren't moved much, they don't have the same use case as an RV.

I expect the well built ones to last at least 60 years. They're built with the same materials (or better) as a normal house remember.

> you may as well just buy a used mobile home, they're much more comfortable to live in

Aren't most mobile homes are for 3 season living? Tiny Houses usually use 2x4 or 2x6 stick building which easily means R values of 20+, mine is almost R40.

> there are many long-term stories of tiny home dwellers who run away screaming because of how cramped their living conditions are, and all the unexpected external costs (like self storage for their actual stuff) that never seems to get into tiny house movement propaganda.

That is probably true for some downsizers who were wealthier before, but in my case the Tiny House is actually considerably larger than any place I've been able to afford before.

Also you made fun of it earlier but it really does matter how a space is organized. You can have a bigger space feel much smaller if it is cluttered.

> I feel like what they're actually trying to solve is the desire of apartment dwellers to "own" a home without having to go through the normal home ownership system, which they've been conditioned to view as a trap of some sort for reasons, and "hack" that system by coming at it from some non-traditional angle.

Come on. Do you think paying 30 year mortgages is actually normal in history?

My grandparents didn't pay for a mortgage. The average person paid 5-10 years of savings for a house. Tiny Housers are only trying to get us back to that.

> It's also interesting how pretty much all of the professionally designed and purpose built tiny homes

Like I said before this is mostly a DIY movement. People are putting their own labour into this. It is not free or easy but it sure beats the shite out of being in debt.

I'd like to make four final points.

1. No taxes as of yet.

2. The ability to move, to make an exit, that is a really powerful option that is underrated.

3. I've talked to two homeless people who see a Tiny House as an way to escape living on the streets. Their THs might not be high end but it is a huge improvement.

4. Having autonomy is very underrated. No debt. Ability to move. Not having to worry about rent or bills. Getting some skills and know-how that might help you again in the future.

I'm not totally convinced of many of your arguments, but I upvoted for the explanations. I think at this point it's just a wait and see thing. We'll see where it ends up in a decade or two.

I'm obviously projecting many of my own assumptions onto the movement, but willing to try to accept new information and reevaluate my position on it.

I still feel like it's at the nexus of some kind of misunderstanding of how property ownership works and some kind of hacking-the-system idealism. But maybe it'll come up with some good ideas.

I actually understand the micro-apartment movement more, because you're getting the convenience of city living along with it, and high density zoning, except that movement is also broken in ways that micro-apartments end up costing as much or more than regular old places.

Also, just as an FYI, the American style 30-year mortgage has been around since the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression and were designed to make housing more accessible.

Have you seen the 1920s Sears Catalogue houses?

http://www.searshomes.org/index.php/2011/07/03/oklahomas-fir...

That house would only cost $47k in 2016 dollars.

The TH movement is primarily about economics. I don't think it would exist if there were new quality houses available in that price range.

Pardon my french, but isn't it just fucking amazing how we've 'progressed' with automation in a century and many of us are still working for decades just to afford mere shelter? It's often not even to a high spec.

I sometimes look at that Primitive Technology guy and think "You know, that looks like a lot of work, but it only took him three days to construct that hut and he could rebuild it every year and it would still be way more cost effective per labour unit than anything we're doing right now!"

>Pardon my french, but isn't it just fucking amazing how we've 'progressed' with automation in a century and many of us are still working for decades just to afford mere shelter? It's often not even to a high spec.

Yes but why is it this way?

I think the best answer is that (in the US) the state has heavily restricted the supply of land available for development in desirable areas (through zoning, etc) and also heavily subsidized demand by nationalizing the mortgage market.

This has pumped up several large sectors of the economy (FIRE) which would otherwise be subject to ordinary economic supply and demand. They all profit from home sales, construction and insurance, and have made certain that the state guarantees their revenue.

Ordinary home buyers go along with the deal because they get cheaper loan rates and more loan principal than a purely private finance market would ever provide.

It's a similar tale of woe in the UK.

I suspect it is an overhang from the Cold War - preventing the spread of Communism by the 'property owning society'.

It's hard not to throw your hands up in the air, so much of the nonsense is legacy code. 'Going to Washington' is like fighting against quicksand.

Honest question here: What do you do when you want to have eight or ten or twelve people over for dinner?

In case anybody asks: yes, this is something I do on a regular basis.

1. You can eat out at a restaurant.

2. If you want to cater for a bunch of people regularly you can do a lot with an accordion window & deck. Like this:

http://tinyhouseswoon.com/tiny-house-basics/

http://www.windorsystems.com/another-tiny-house-uses-win-dor...

Thanks for the reply.

1. That removes all the joy of cooking for and hosting my guests. The point is to bring them into my home; to make them feel welcome and comfortable. Not to mention that picking up the tab for that many people would be prohibitively expensive.

2. That probably would work well in locations with a nice climate. In Texas, not so much. Maybe a couple of months out of the year. The 95ºF temperatures at 8pm don't bother me all that much because I grew up here, but a lot of people who recently moved here have a problem with it. Kind of a non-starter.

I really like the idea of tiny houses, but it's looking like, given my priorities, they're not for me.