This House Costs Just $20,000—But It’s Nicer Than Yours

a reply to: St Udio

you still need a place to plop your yurt though, although i agree they are kind of nice.


InTheLight

the tiny homes are usually built on trailers, thereby bypassing the building restrictions.. or that is my understanding. but I am not sure if they'd be accepted in my area or not. personally, I don't think they should be acceptable in some areas, like tornado alley. Of course, I don't think mobile homes should be acceptable in tornado ally either.

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

Yikes on the land.

The problem is obviously land and restrictions.

A possible work around and would love to see: is these type of cheap buildings structure designed to float in oceans, rivers,etc to overcome the cost of having to buy land.

Obviously hurricane , tsunamis, and weather conditions are huge hurdles but I'm sure they can be overcome with ingenious designs.

As with all things, there will be big building concerns, with friends in the right high places to stop people building and living in, places that are so cheap. Even if they do comply with current regs, those can be changed in heartbeat when lost profits are concerned.

I think a lot of it comes down to the desire, created by trash TV and marketing men, to have everyone aspire to living the high life in huge homes, to show how "successful" they are. All part of the money driven greed that unfortunately runs society today.

a reply to: interupt42

no visual evidence of internet connection in that interior photo...

the 20k living space is sitting atop an Improved lot/plot of similar valued land...
so the increased 'value' to $40k is an illusion, a trick to beguile the unwary

a reply to: Indigent

Yeah that is its Achilles heel .

I say make them float and build water communities where land purchase is not required. Anchor and you are home.

see my previous post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: interupt42

See that is my question, its build for 20k, but the land cost way more so you end up paying regular prices for a house no?

It really depends, where do you want to live?
I bought 7 acres for 19,900. AR zoned.

Another 15,000 for prep, water well, and septic.

Not a steal, or dirt cheap, but it's my ideal dream situation. 15 mins from a great vibrant town, but feels very remote.

originally posted by: St Udio
a reply to: interupt42

no visual evidence of internet connection in that interior photo...

the 20k living space is sitting atop an Improved lot/plot of similar valued land...
so the increased 'value' to $40k is an illusion, a trick to beguile the unwary

Not necessarily, because if the land can become a sustainable farm and the home converted to off-grid (solar & wind), then I can see the value increasing.

One industry that I see benefiting from this right away, is people who already own acreage and are having their parents move in do to old age and financial stress.

Put one of these in the back of the house to maintain some privacy and space and walaa.

originally posted by: dawnstar
you still need a place to plop your yurt

That's T-shirt material, right there.

a reply to: interupt42

That looks real nice.

However I'm wondering how those would stand up to Miami-Dade County hurricane code.

I know that it could be built to code with some tweaks. Hell I have a shed that's built to withstand a hurricane.

But the price would go up I'm sure.

originally posted by: Britguy
As with all things, there will be big building concerns, with friends in the right high places to stop people building and living in, places that are so cheap. Even if they do comply with current regs, those can be changed in heartbeat when lost profits are concerned.

I think a lot of it comes down to the desire, created by trash TV and marketing men, to have everyone aspire to living the high life in huge homes, to show how "successful" they are. All part of the money driven greed that unfortunately runs society today.

Baloney!

There is no reason why anybody in the construction train that would want to stop tiny homes. More homes per area means more profits per development for the developers. More homes per area means more profit for builders. More homes per area means more tax income for municipalities. More architects. Etc, etc.

'Big building concerns' are the ones that have been pushing for higher densities per area, and have been met with resistance by the average home owner, not the other way around.

originally posted by: lavatrance
I got a better idea.... just build an off grid home of some sort. Build it free out of materials you gather from all over the place. Or just dig into the ground. It wouldn't be as good as that one but in some ways it would be better. ie: 20 grand more in your pocket.

Those are like something out of Mike Oehler's "The $50 And Up Underground House Book" (great read by the way). Only drawback is you can only do this away from local gov't regs.

Great post...

I was a real estate agent so I "look"'at spaces a tad differently.

On paper (and in the staged model shown) the Tiny House looks amazing. Then compare to how an actual human lives in a space (the photo above). There is no counter space, ergo no even dorm size microwave. Or space for a coffee maker or toaster. No real storage means many more trips to the store (which, if low income, probably no car). Lack of storage also becomes an issue if you live in a four season climate where heavier clothes (boots, etc)as well as lighter weight items are needed. Throw in no washer/dryer and now we're back to transportation issues to a laundromat.

In not disputing there is a market for "tiny" but I think in reality it's only a "tiny"'share of the market.

The RE firm I worked at had a lot of books on hand about housing. As a mom I was fascinated by the Levittown, NY suburban sprawl...and they many of those "houses of the future" were marketed as family homes (with only two bedrooms) and postage stamp sized kitchens, w/an avg of 800 sq ft. Many people of the small, post WWII homes in my area (that we listed/sold) were considered small at 1000 to 1100 sq ft. W/three bedrooms. Conveniences like microwaves, kuerigs, toaster ovens, dish washers became stumbling points that made homeowners feel they had to move on to get more space. Even small conveniences become game changers.

Just my two cents...I do enjoy reading about housing (and wish i still worked in RE).

a reply to: interupt42
I was born in the country and have lived most of my life in the country. I personally believe that living in high rise apartments is unhealthy and don't make for good neighbors.

Admittedly, some tiny houses do look a lot better than some apartments I have lived in, and are a lot cheaper, than apartment living, plus it is yours, (and the states).

I have never owned a home for show. My homes were all about comfort and enough space to adequately accommodate my large family, and a place were they and my friends feel welcomed.

I enjoy the outdoors so I don't need a lot of inside space. I would rather have a huge porch, than a huge living room. My back porch 2 to 3 times larger than all the other rooms in home and my front porch space total, is either larger or almost equal to the space in both my bathrooms.

I would have no problem with a little house as long as I had a nice sized porch and some private sized space between me and my neighbors on all sides.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Britguy
As with all things, there will be big building concerns, with friends in the right high places to stop people building and living in, places that are so cheap. Even if they do comply with current regs, those can be changed in heartbeat when lost profits are concerned.

I think a lot of it comes down to the desire, created by trash TV and marketing men, to have everyone aspire to living the high life in huge homes, to show how "successful" they are. All part of the money driven greed that unfortunately runs society today.

Baloney!

There is no reason why anybody in the construction train that would want to stop tiny homes. More homes per area means more profits per development for the developers. More homes per area means more profit for builders. More homes per area means more tax income for municipalities. More architects. Etc, etc.

'Big building concerns' are the ones that have been pushing for higher densities per area, and have been met with resistance by the average home owner, not the other way around.

I never thought of this, thanks for the perspective. I did notice that when researching for a variance, that it was nearby homeowners that would probably be the biggest obstical. However it wouldn't surprise me if realtors and such would not appreciate the lower cost home commissions, and also, banks mostly abstain from tiny mortgages, maybe it's the tiny profits?

A little know how can solve many problems.

a reply to: Glinda

Oooops! When I started typing my missive, I was referring to the photo of the man sitting and watching his tv. I was referencing HIS lack of counter/storage space.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Britguy
As with all things, there will be big building concerns, with friends in the right high places to stop people building and living in, places that are so cheap. Even if they do comply with current regs, those can be changed in heartbeat when lost profits are concerned.

I think a lot of it comes down to the desire, created by trash TV and marketing men, to have everyone aspire to living the high life in huge homes, to show how "successful" they are. All part of the money driven greed that unfortunately runs society today.

Baloney!

There is no reason why anybody in the construction train that would want to stop tiny homes. More homes per area means more profits per development for the developers. More homes per area means more profit for builders. More homes per area means more tax income for municipalities. More architects. Etc, etc.

'Big building concerns' are the ones that have been pushing for higher densities per area, and have been met with resistance by the average home owner, not the other way around.

That is not entirely true.

The costs increases are marginal to build larger and more luxurious homes over smaller cheaper homes relative to the price that the nicer homes can command. The more luxurious homes are more profitable.

I like the tiny house movement. However, I wouldn't confuse it with providing cheap affordable housing for the masses. We had that... trailer parks and housing projects. Most sane people wouldn't want to live in either because of the poverty culture that they breed.

On the other hand, there are a lot of innovative developments that tend to cater to wealthier buyers who are looking for something more sustainable and architecturally pleasing.

This community is one of my favorites. Serenbe. Not cheap but they embrace sustainable living, pleasing architecture, etc. The houses range from about $300k - $3 million.

I'd love to see smaller house community, but I think the trick is to stop it from becoming a glorified trailer park.

a reply to: Glinda
Great comment.
I think tiny/ small homes buyers of today are of a certain mindset. First one must come to the realization that all of that stuff is , for the most part, unnecessary. A shift in focus from life being about things accumulated, to experiences accumulated. Not that it's for everyone, but either you are self prepared or not. I agree though, if your client is buying tiny simply for cost and not prepared for the downsizing it may feel like a mistake. Small living is a dedicated way of life, not a whim.

a reply to: InTheLight
Also available...huriquake nails. Google, available everywhere! Good stuff!!!