111–120 of 212 posts
Material cost of houses is already 'cheap'. But you also need a place to build it. In The Netherlands ground prices range from $100 - $500 per m². Then you need sewage, electricity, gas, labor, and so on. I don't think you could make those much cheaper.
> How do you design a home that someone living below the poverty line can afford Why not rent a flat instead? Wouldn't that be much more economical (no property prices, lower heating costs, less maintenance work, less risk, not built on the cheap)? I don't understand the fixation on owning a house / living in a single-family house many americans seem to have.
America is big. Things are spread out in most cities and towns. When living in the city, one gets value in exchange for giving up the privacy of owning your own home and land. And, it is not realistic for people who are poor, or even middle class, to own a home in a major metropolis, and so they often do live in an apartment or townhome (a mini-house that shares walls with one or more other townhomes...somewhere betw…
Yep. To add to this. The right amount of space for me (raised rural) is so much that I can see neither see nor hear the neighbors unless I choose to. So, about 1/4 mile between us at a minimum. (Am currently working on purchasing property across the road from our home to avoid ever having neighbors.)
I think people forget just how incredibly massive this country is.
$20K (or even $30K) for a functional, well-designed, "tornado-resistant" house would be a big help to many in the rural and urban south.
It's kind of hard for me to tell whether the house is nicer than mine when there's so little detail in the article on the actual house. Look, i'm more than supportive of innovative design and doing things cheaply, but for an article that was heavy on "the house is so cheap", and "its built kinda more like a airplane", and "it uses all this innovative stuff", there's a startling dearth of information. Sqm, plans, insu…
They left out current building codes. I have a general contractor's licence. To build anything involves so many rules/codes it's rediculious. Every year the building department in your town/city usually includes the latest codes, and prohibits so many things. It all sounds great until you are paying someone to build something. The various building code manuals take up at least two feet of space on my shelf. Where I l…
- composting toilets are allowed, but you still need a sewer hookup available, just in case
- heating had to be automatic (thermostat + gas/electric), wood stove/insert only is illegal
- outlets every 6' and even more in the kitchen
- stairs cant be steep, even to lofted areas and so take up more space, more $
- minimum square foot requirements
Where we were and what we were trying to do would have cost significantly less if we were allowed to use composting toilets [1] and grey water and avoid sewer. Many states are coming around to grey water laws, but as of now I don't think any allow no sewer/septic, even if you don't have anything draining into them. You have to have them for 'backup'
In Appalachia, it is not uncommon for desperately poor families to live in shacks or horribly broken down mobile homes, on land that's been passed down for generations, sometimes predating US independence. So, this house helps to solve the safe, modern, cheap problem for housing in Appalachia. Also note that one of their goals is making it sustainable for contractors to build and providing lots of instructions--that's to help provide jobs. There aren't a lot of jobs in Appalachia.
So, this is why the house is not an apartment building. It's not built for Germany.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm Canadian, not American, but perhaps? I honestly (literally) don't understand what shocks you exactly. Save money -> invest money to grow savings -> time passes -> eventually you have enough to buy a home, if you want. I'm guessing you're saying that homes are so expensive, most people could not reasonably afford one even with disciplined saving and investing. But at least as a long term state, that seems logicall…
Like I said, I think we have a similar view. My objection if any, is based on the idea of a risk based portfolio. But it seems you actually mean more generally: savings. All these issues are of course very local. Being English I probably have a very different perspective on what the issues are regarding the affordability of houses, let alone what our specific views are. Primarily I see housing as a necessity rather t…
The issue of rentals adding inefficiencies to the market is also quite complex and tied to local variables. If supply is ok, I think there's not such a premium on rentals. Where I live (Indianapolis) it's generally cheaper to own, but not by a lot. The overall value greatly depends on local pricing, interest rates, and definitely on not moving around and paying closing costs very often. In such an environment, renters may be enjoying the value of extra flexibility for not too much premium while landlords have to work harder to extract efficiencies in maintenance and management. Consider me as a homeowner looking up a few contractors or appliance servicers in the phone book vs. a landlord who has the experience and the rolodex to know who to call for the best price and service for each problem?
Also, less money goes to financial servicing when landlords pay cash. Without knowing how many pay cash vs. use leverage it's hard to say if there is an overall effect.
I see your point on the fueled inequality, though, and have no naive market analysis for that.
The article doesn't mention this explicitly, but it sure seems as though this tiny house project is geared towards Appalachia and the rural South. Appalachia is generally the mountainous parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina (maybe some parts of Ohio, too). It has its own culture and dialect. It is also the poorest region of the United States; Appalachia is a huge com…
20K? Would love to see the itemised material costs, labour cost, adminstration fees for building this. Also have a projected on-going maintenance costs as well. At the end of the day, the aim of this house is "a home that someone living below the poverty line can afford."
The article pretty clearly states it's just material costs.
It's kind of hard for me to tell whether the house is nicer than mine when there's so little detail in the article on the actual house. Look, i'm more than supportive of innovative design and doing things cheaply, but for an article that was heavy on "the house is so cheap", and "its built kinda more like a airplane", and "it uses all this innovative stuff", there's a startling dearth of information. Sqm, plans, insu…
Or what's the difference between this and a manufactured trailer? Those are very cheap and mobile, even. It seems like just new marketing for old, low-income housing. I wish someone would address that, at the root, this move to micro-housing is focused always on cost, and lack of available funds for young working people.