Hacker News Reader

Comment by Arainach | Hacker News Reader

If you don't want to live in a tiny house, then don't. It's good to have options for people who can't afford otherwise. Clearly the author of the article prefers living in Oakland (in a tiny house) to living somewhere cheaper in a larger house. The author explicitly states that they can't afford a larger apartment, but this is the tradeoff. There are tradeoffs in everything.

View on HN

The primary cost in housing is not the size of the house, but the cost of land. I don't understand this tiny house obsession -- frankly condos are 'tiny houses' and they are mostly insanely priced in hot markets.

Tiny house is not a movement about affordability. It's an aesthetic movement. One mostly participated in by people of higher income.

Depends on where you are in the country, actually. In suburban areas of the midwest, the plot of land with a 3000 sqft house is much cheaper than the actual house.

I don't think tiny house is black-and-white 0% about affordability and 100% about aesthetics. To me it's basically a way for people who perceive themselves as middle class to live cheaply in housing that is a step above trailers, and it's caused by the very high rents in certain urban areas like Toronto, Seattle, and the bay area. You probably don't see a lot of millenials living in tiny houses in Des Moines, Iowa or Cincinnati, Ohio.

Also, not sure how familiar you are with the bay area housing issue, but a lot of it is due to lack of supply + zoning. The state of california recently passed legislation allowing some zoning requirements to be circumvented allowing people to build ADUs - accessory dwelling units - in their backyards, which constitute the vast majority of tiny houses in the bay area (again partly due to zoning... there are very few places in commuting distance of the jobs centers where you would be allowed to build just a tiny house, or a collection of tiny houses, on a plot of land).

Around here tiny houses are priced similarly to similar-sized studios, with some benefits and drawbacks of living in an ADU compared to a studio (detached, usually in quieter residentail areas, less amenities than an apartment building might have, often cheaper). Affordability is a huge part of why people live in ADUs over here

> In suburban areas of the midwest, the plot of land with a 3000 sqft house is much cheaper than the actual house.

I think the same holds true for most of the US outside of major urban areas. When 1/2 acre costs $30,000 any house you build will cost more than the land.

Most condos are in ultra-expensive-to-build high-rises. You don't see them as much in the 2-3 story buildings that are actually cheap to build.

I'm in favor of people being able to build tiny houses. Especially, a situation any reasonably safe structure that can built would be legal to build is desirable - IE, toss zoning ordinances in the fire.

But I don't think a tiny shack, uh, house, should be called a "good option". It's an adequate option under limited circumstances. The problem is calling it a good option makes "we spent five years fighting for the right to our tiny shack" sound like a reasonable thing rather than one more absurd winkle in the development of this country's housing situation.

I agree with you, but I don't understand so much disdain for tiny houses. I spent a few months basically living in capsule hotel in Japan and it was great time, actually.

When I was a kid my parents had a Westfali and we'd take extended road trips. That was also great.

If you don't like it, just don't do it.

These tradeoffs aren't laws of nature and they can be changed. Discussing them, the economic and social forces behind them, and what remedies might exist is reasonable and worthwhile.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com