In the United States, the average house size is 2,500 square feet, but Jay Shafer prefers to live in a 96-square-foot house, in Sebastopol, California (watch video). Jay built the house in 1997 while teaching art at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. It took some 400 hours to build the house in two months time, with a bit of help from friends. Two years later, Jay created the Tumbleweed Tiny House Co., which he runs from his tiny house.
Jay himself has meanwhile built ten small houses from the ground up. Most Tumbleweed homes can be built for less than $50,000, while the smallest home (70 square feet) will cost about $40,000.-. Jay also has plans on his website that he can supply to people who want to build their own small house.
In 2000, Jay and some friends founded the Small House Society. Gregory Paul Johnson, President of the Small House Society, lives in a 140-square-foot house in Iowa City (see photos top and watch video). Gregory actively promotes R&D into affordable and ecologically-responsible small houses.
Shay Salomon, another founding member of the Small House Society, has built six homes under 500 square feet over the last few years. Shay is also the author of the book Little House On A Small Planet.
Dee Williams (main photo top) lives in such a small house. She spends $5 a month on propane gas in winter, for heating and cooking. The house has a solar panel on the roof, but Dee can put it on the ground to position it to catch more sun (watch video).
Obviously, such small houses don't need much in terms of furniture and further content. There can be some further financial benefits. Adding a permanent structure to an existing property could violate city codes, but these tiny houses are built on a trailer. That means one can also avoid paying property taxes. Property taxes differ across the country - in a place like New york, one may pay over $7,000 in property taxes annually.
These small houses are mobile, they are effectively caravans and you can keep them in your backyard or take them to your holiday destination. Once many such small houses come together in a field, they can form a small town or village, with the important difference that such small houses need few facilities. They can have composting toilets and tanks to catch the rainwater off their roofs. With solar panels, they can generate much of the power to run their appliances, and for lights, heating and cooking. Importantly, they don't need much land and are therefore ideal for communities without roads and without car parking facilities.
Indeed, a lot of such houses can fit onto a small piece of land. In communities without roads, people could live closer together, preferably around one or more larger community buildings. Small houses could form a ring around such a center, leaving plenty of space on the outside for gardens, orchards, courtyards and greenhouses.
Concerns about the environment and global warming should make all of us rethink the suburban topology and consumerist character of today's society. Communities without roads offer an alternative lifetyle that could also be more social and healthy. People could walk from their small houses to nearby restaurants, to meet over diner or breakfast. Many activities that people now do inside their homes, such as watching TV, exercizing, eating and preparing food, could become social activities. Jointly walking to schools and restaurants, or using bicycles to visit others or to go shopping is also more healthy. It could reduce obesity and prevent diseases such as diabetes.
References:
Video of the house of Jay Shafer
http://www.oprah.com/videochannel/videochannel_player.jhtml?video=289&category=15
Video of the house of Gregory Paul Johnson
http://wqpt.org/lifeandtimes/littlehouse.html
Video of the house of Dee Williams
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZM2G-PfEbc
Living Small - by j. poet
http://www.americanprofile.com/article/20947.html
Tumbleweed Tiny House Company
http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com
The Small House Society
http://www.smallhousesociety.org
Little House On A Small Planet - by Shay Salomon
http://astore.amazon.com/samcarana-20/detail/1592288685/104-8710511-2516751
Books on small houses
http://astore.amazon.com/samcarana-20/104-8710511-2516751?%5Fencoding=UTF8&node=7
Communities without roads - by Sam Carana
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977128488
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Version 18247, "Zach"; Copyright © 2013 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.
Comments: 127
Walk to the community center, go to the gym, visit friends, do some gardening, etc.
Bruce: "What if it is raining outside for more than a week?"
The vegetables and flowers in the gardens would be very pleased with that. Your excellent harvest would buy you a good raincoat and umbrella.
Bruce: "How do you do your laundry?"
At the laundry service, or you could put a washing machine outside your tiny house and hook it up to your bicycle - that would be great exercise too!
Bruce: "What if you live with someone?"
The house will fit two.
Bruce: "..sustainable way for people to live ..vertical integration, as in highrise.."
High rise comes with a lot of extra space and cost, due to joint entrances, stairways, elevators, fire exits and space for facilities like sewerage, water, electricity, lights, telephone, computer and security cabling. All that requires maintenance, and people pay for janitors and gardening as well. Small houses like that will mean that a lot more people can live close together at very low cost.
Bruce: "..not everyone is cut out for them."
Sure, but even you might consider keeping one in your backyard, Bruce, in case your mother-in-law wants to stay over for the weekend.
> The house will fit two.
Did you watch you own video link ... the guy could barely set up his table in that house. Now imagine someone has to use the bathroom. Face it, this is a house for losers who otherwise would be moving in with their parents because they cannot afford to live any better. I suppose if I had no money or job it would be one step up from being homeless ... but I'm not sure I would not rather be homeless. That thing would be a burden if you could not find a place to park it. What will people come up with next?
My house is 1500 or so square feet, and it seems pretty small sometimes.
Oh, and it only cost us $37,500. And it was in perfectly livable condition. The only work we've done to it since we moved in, was cosmetic. We put in ceiling fans, some new shelves, etc.
Imagine an alternative lifestyle that didn't need all that. Imagine how much time and money one could save when there was no need to daily commute by car to school and work. Imagine how much more healthy and friendly life could be if one would walk to nearby friends, shops and restaurants. This is a lifestyle choice and, though not everyone's favorite choice, it should be seriously considered, if not for yourself, then for many others, perhaps even members of your own family. Without more political action against greenhouse gas emissions, many of us may be living like this within decades and be happy to do so.
If large numbers of people started to abandon the suburbs for such alternatives, who is going to look after the maintenance of roads and all the existing infrastructure, and who is going to pay for all that?
I buy in bulk to save money and transport cost for goods that don't spoil, but would have no where to store these goods. But I do wish my neighborhood had more community. We know each other, but don't actually socialize and think that is something missing.
Have you given any thought to those of us who suffer from claustrophobia? Life in an elevator just seems to have a not quite right ring to it!
You mention schools, shopping and theater but what about if one want to actually go somewhere? I live in a small city of about 80,000. To be effective, your population centers would have to be at least that big. One can still put a lot of miles on just getting to the services here. The retailers cannot afford multiple stores closer to me because there would not be income commiserate with the investment!
How big would a lot be? Two cemetery plots perhaps?
Interesting article!
It's a very interesting idea, but not for the faint of heart or those with claustrophobia! I've been in hospital rooms that I could not stay in because of size. My family including our three youngest kids moved into a mobile home with about 900 square feet. The loss of privacy and being in each other's way was such that we wanted out of there in the worst way after a period of time. We were there for ten years but not by choice.
How about those of us who live in places where the weather precludes you having a washing machine outside? Water doesn't take too good to -30 degrees F! We are talking about an 8 ft by 8 ft building and calling it a house! The outhouse where I grew up was about half that. I have a small camper with much more room and I can tell you that I couldn't live with anyone in it. By myself, perhaps.
The best part of these is you could build them with a lowering ceiling and after you died you would have a built in coffin!
Appreciate your active imagination and your writing about it, Sam!
This is certainly food for thought and one more positive contribution to sustaining our world. Thanks for sharing the in-depth information.
Good point, James. Let's face it, we live in a throwaway society. You can buy jeans, sock, bags, shoes and T-shirts for next to nothing at Wal-mart and throw them out for something new next month. It actually costs more in terms of cupboards and wardrobes to keep them than to throw them out and buy new ones.
The problem is that we still are gatherers and collectors, stocking our houses with clothes, shoes, bags, jewelry, furniture, books, records, paintings, cars, food, appliances, equipment, etc. We're stacking ever more items in ever larger houses. It is this kind of consumerism that is challenged by communities without roads.
Look at how many young people live. They have grown up with iPods and with cellphones that double as photo-cameras and much more. They will store their content on tiny USB-sticks and on the Internet. No need for books, photo-albums, audio and video-cassettes, CDs, DVDs, or - for the old folks - vinyl records. Why buy expensive paintings, if you can have wallpaper on you notebook? They don't need to store much food, instead they prefer to go to cafes and restaurants. Being under-age, they don't have a car, so they'll walk or have a bicycle. They don't have the money to buy a conventional house. Many young people will fit in easily in communities without roads.
If you buy few clothes, if you don't have a car, if you live in a small house and if you eat at restaurants, you'll never visit a lot of retail outlets. So, the centers in such communities can do without a large part of the retail outlets that are so common elsewhere. Need a specialist? In communities without roads, many people will work from home; they will come and visit you in your house, if you like, or you can walk to their house, or you'll have contact over the Internet. Some will grow vegetables, perhaps as a hobby, and sell their produce to restaurants, which should buy them a good meal there. What more would they want?
James: "How big would a lot be?"
Towards the center, things will get more crowded, with houses located very close together. For thopse who need more space, there will be plenty of room for bigger houses in the outer areas, including plenty of space for gardens, courtyards, orchards and greenhouses. Market mechanisms can sort out the details. If one community doesn't arrange things attractively, people will move to other communities.
Well, if it gets that cold, it makes even more sense to take a small (well-insulated) house, such as an igloo. Wikipedia says that, when on the outside temperatures are as low as -45°C (-49°F), inside the igloo temperatures will range from -7°C (19°F) to 16°C (61°F) when the igloo is warmed by body heat alone, and even up to 20°C (68°F) when lined with hides.
More seriously, I see such communities first emerge in areas with a milder climates. Also, I see no reason why such houses couldn't accommodate washing machines and water tanks. Alternatively, if you do want a separate laundry in a cold area, you'll build a small room somewhere close to your house. It makes sense to keep it small, so that an electric heater can heat things up in a few minutes, shortly before you let the water flow into your laundry. Such a laundry could have a washing machine, dryer, heater and lights, which could all be easily powered from a battery that is recharged by solar panels, given that you only need to use the laundry for, say, half an hour at the time and that you use the equipment sequentially (heater, lights, washing machine, dryer). Still, I believe that many will prefer to have their laundry done by a service specializing in cleaning. If you save that much money, you can afford to outsource many activities.
Eating in restaurants makes much more sense, that would save you the trouble of getting all the food into your house, store it in fridges and cupboards, prepare the meals, wash the dishes and put out the garbage, and for what? For this 10-minute sensation of eating on your own? Why not enjoy your meals in the company of friends? Sharing a meal is one of the best opportunities to have a good conversation with others, asking advice and helping others out.
Many will also want to prepare their own meals and they should have plenty of opportunity to do so at such restaurants. If they're good at making and baking things, they may also earn money by letting others share their cuisine. The point is, they don't need to store all the food at home, while both the preparation of food and eating it could be turned into a social activity, as opposed to the sad fact that more and more people now prepare and eat their meals on their own. You can indeed have your cake and eat it too!
I can sympathize with smaller being better. My house is a 1BR. It seems about right, except when I clean it somehow it seems enormous. I liked the Buckminster Fuller idea of the dymaxion house something really well built and engineered for human habitation. Even these or mobile homes take up a lot of land.
I just ask, what is wrong with townhouses or apartments, or even a big house with multiple kitches, bathrooms and living rooms with many people living there? Mostly the problem is the people. People do not do well together in most cases, we all want and need our space, preferably not a jail cell.
I do think that the best thing for all people would be a "space" of their own. There are too many people who bully and dominate other people causing depression and social problems. Think of the women who are stuck with abusive men in marriages, or minors stuck with abusive parents. The sooner people live in the real world and have to be responsible for their own environment and lives the better.
Many people will join such communities for the financial benefits, but what's even more important is the shared vision of a lifestyle that is better for the environment, that is more social and that is better for your health. I therefore believe that a lot of people who do think about these things will join, and that they will be more social and health-conscious, precisely because those are the reasons why they joined, next to the financial benefits.
I loved the dymaxion house the first time I saw it, but it's rather outdated in many respects. At the time, aluminum was new and held the promise of mass manufacturing of such pre-fab houses. But nowadays it doesn't make much sense. For starters, it is expensive and it takes a lot of power and water to make aluminum. While the round shape of the dymaxion house looks good, if you want to put a lot of houses close together, it makes more sense to make them square.
Here's a more modern version of such a pre-fab house, the TS1-project. It's built from materials that are carried along a footpath. Each component weighs less than 45kg and you can set it up yourself in a matter of hours. If 45kg is too much to carry, you can use a trolley.
Bruce: "I do think that the best thing for all people would be a "space" of their own. There are too many people who bully and dominate other people causing depression and social problems. Think of the women who are stuck with abusive men in marriages, or minors stuck with abusive parents. The sooner people live in the real world and have to be responsible for their own environment and lives the better."
All that seems to be an argument in favor of such communities, Bruce! Why not let everyone who wants that have their own little house?
Sam, am I saying people who want to should not buy their little shoebox? I am not against this, I don't want one and I predict not many others will either, and the ones who do are the loner, oddball, outcast, losers. The non - loner, oddball, outcast, losers that try this will soon see who is living around them and get out, and then the community will fall flat. That is just my prediction. Lots of people who do not think things out go and do things like this because they have a vision.
Like you TS1 link. UGh ... if I wanted to live in a storage container I'd rather buy and old schoolbus and drive it to whatever site and live there. There are any number of oddballs who will try things, but there is a reason that things are the way they are. Houses as we make them now are about as cheap, light easy to build and maintain as we can get, or they would be different. It's not like no one ever tried this kind of thing before ... thousands have... it has not worked yet, but who knows, maybe someone will find the magic ingredient.
If I honestly wanted to live a different way, from what I heard the houses that the Indians built from bark and skins was about the most technologically superior dwelling one could make. In the 1700's when Europeans were living in filthy dirty infested cities, and even the richest among them lived in cold drafty unhealty buildings, the native Americans were living in huts that we warm, watertight, and comfy. They ate better and lived better than the Europeans did.
I think a redo of the dymaxion house would work, but it looks a lot like an Airstream trailer now. Here is a good one to check out in terms of multi-dwelling neighborhoods ...
the Futuro House.
You know, human beings have tried almost every possible combination of things out there. The old saying that there is nothing new under the Sun is not just a truism. Doubtless there are some simple wins out there still, but there is a reason why things are the way things are, and people do things the way they do them. Changing for aesthetic reasons of to save a little energy at the cost in something else is not always that great of an idea ... read about the reservations I and some people have over Compact Fluorescent lightbulbs.
When you consider that nature with just efficiency and survival as the tool developed flying, and eyes, and noses, and beaver dams, and beehives and millions of other things with no intelligence behind them at all, you start to see that an obvious win sometimes is not so obvious. There is a reason people do not live in small plot of land in little tiny houses. Search the web and there are experiments and things people have tried since long ago.
Do people need to live differently ... I think so. I imagine you do too. But people are not going to solve these problems until they absolutely have to, and their lives depend on it. Sad to say that global warming is probably going to ravage the planet until 90% of people live in the extreme north and south. And the luxury of having a plot of land like these guys living in these little houses is extreme. Imagine a development of these people ... what do they do with all their sewage? Where do they get their water. Before long they have to solve all those problems .. and they will end up with exactly what we have already now.
In our own stupid way human beings are a lot like nature, we are not stupid we just do not waste energy doing things we do not absolutely have to. It will be a very rare development in human evolution indeed if we do anything in the next 50-100 years that is sensible to stop climate change. What will do do will probably just make some group really rich, or take takes taxes from millions of people and waste it giving jobs to some green elite goofballs who may end up making the problem worse.
What further steps can we take? For many, walking or cycling to work is a far from pleasant trip. On the noisy roads, they are accident-prone and they have to inhale fumes. For many, even driving to work or driving the kids to school takes more than half an hour. Communities without roads could help out in this regard.
What I propose is a 10% emissions tax, with the proceeds used to subsidize better alternatives. What should be taxed are things like fossil fuel, with the proceeds used to subsidize safe, clean and renewable energy. We should tax fertilizers and use the proceeds to subsidize agrichar. Thirdly, we should tax meat and the proceeds should be used to subsidize vegan-organic restaurants in communities without roads. That should get things started.
Lora: "I don't like the sorta Communist-type scheme of things."
The contrary! I believe that public roads have something inherently communist. They are planned, named and administered by government bureaucrats and they come with public utilities. Public roads have poles or underground cabling for electricity, telephone, pay-TV and Internet. They have pipes for water supply, and for sewerage and rainwater collection. They have streetlights and sometimes traffic lights and road signs. There is curbside waste collection and there is a mailbox on the corner, while postal delivery may reach each door. Cars on the road must be registered, insured and drivers must have a license. Police enforces traffic and parking rules, as well as public order on the street. All such services are supplied on a monopoly basis, typically by a government agency.
By contrast, communities without roads can select private service suppliers to provide, e.g. postal delivery services. More likely, people will have PO Boxes at the community center, which should result in cost savings, as opposed to having to pay extra for such a box. People will have cell phones, WiFi or WiMax connections, so there's no need for telephone or computer cabling. People will catch rainwater in tanks and there will be wells. Places that use a lot of water, like restaurants, will be likely to pump up water from ground water or underground aquifers.
Bruce: "what do they do with all their sewage?"
Composting toilets will be common, while biowaste and recyclables will be collected in carts and burned by means of pyrolysis to produce both agrichar and hydrogen. This collection is likely to be profitable, so there will be no need for fees, yet I propose a tax on fertilizers that will generate money to subsidize local supply of agrichar. The agrichar will be used to enrich soil, while the hydrogen can help out those who need more electricity than the solar panels and wind turbines supply. Surplus solar and wind energy can also be turned into hydrogen for this purpose - once there is sufficient demand to do this on a commercial basis, this would be another opportunity for someone who wanted to start a business. Many people will find work in such communities, working as carers and tutors, and working in gardens, cafes and restaurants.
You were going on about solar and wind power in another article. if you look at the cost of heating or cooling all the surface areas of these little houses it is way more than having a larger house with more people in it with less surface area per person. At the scale we do things now things fit together and make sense. I can just imagine the guy who has his little trailer under the solar panel, in earshot of the windmill, and downwind of the "composter". Silly is just silly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_sanitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composting_toilet
http://www.uridan.com/default.asp
http://www.compostingtoilet.org/faq/index.php
People will look at how various communities handle things. Privacy and quality of life can be enhanced by good insulation and by talking things over with neighbors, so they'll adopt better practices. The very fact that people are more mobile will also contribute to avoid and resolve disputes.
If odors are a problem, separation of #1 and #1 can help out. Small containers can be used that are sealed after use and deposited in carts. As I said, I expect biowaste and recyclables to be collected in carts and collection could well be profitable, so there will be little or no fees. Carts can be locked, if problems emerge, while those who collect them using hotel keys.
People will make comparisons - if things are things better elsewhere, they will move to another communities or to another location within the community, perhaps a more outward-located house with more facilities. Of course, there are advantages and disadvantages with anything, and everyone will weigh them according to their own priorities, so some will not like to live in such communities at all. This is a lifestyle choice - while it may not be your favorite choice, it should be given more attention, for its numerous benefits.
Surface area isn't much of an issue with good insulation. The large open spaces that are so common in suburban houses require huge amounts of energy to keep cool/warm and they may take a long time to warm up/cool down. A tiny house can be warm within a few minutes using just a tiny amount of energy.
Surface area is an issue. As volume increases the ratio of surface area to volume decreases. Try calculus.
Sam you are a blind fucking idiot. The cost of insulation is another issue as well as heat loss ... because of physical principles of the universe ... try to open you tiny brain to some mathematic principles. Like in a large house you open the door and maybe lose a tiny bit of heat or you can have an entry room ... in one of these you have to reheat the whole thing. You are really unpleasant to talk to beause you never learn - you do not even respond on any kind of intelligent level ... just keep beating your head against the wall. I hope someday you reallize how much less pain it is to not do that.
Another thing is that people have learned how various communities and people have responded to things ... its called reality ... and it is built into the way we do things today, and it is not so easy to improve on that someone that does not know calculus or engineering can turn things upside down by acting like a wacko in a trailer is the next Frank Lloyd Wright. Sheesh!
If you leave or enter such a small house, simple mathematics tells me that you'll lose less heat than when you open the door of a larger room, Bruce. More importantly, as said, the large open spaces that are so common in suburban houses require huge amounts of energy to cool/warm and they may take a long time to warm up/cool down. By contrast, a tiny house can be warm within a few minutes using just a tiny amount of energy, even if you did let all the heat go out.
Reality? Try global warming, obesity, people dying alone in their huge mansions due to a lack of care, to be found days, sometimes weeks after their death. People are afraid to even walk home alone because their suburb is deserted during the day, as most people have gone to work, shops or school, driving over an hour a day to get there. Imagine people who are so devoid of social contact that they go shopping for therapy. Imagine people working hard all their lives to pay off their mortgage, only to see the value of their life investment collapse. How's that for reality, Bruce?
Not very good Sam, you always use the outliers as your take on reality. Why would you think that someone living in a smaller house has a greater chance of being missed on their death? You want reality, try taking some calculus and physics classes.
I agree with you in one sense that our society is becoming hollowed out and alienating adn that it works to the benefit of big business turning us into just faceless labor and markets to be manipulated. Those are human problems, and the humans that face them need to step up and take the power to fix them. Pension fund catastrophes have little to do with housing that I can see, and I don't think anyone wants to work all their life and end up in a trailer ... and if they do it should at least be comfortable enough that they do not have to pull down a ladder to go to bed at night.
So, what are you worried about, Bruce? That a handful of people will choose this lifestyle? That some people will gravitate naturally such a lifestyle?
Bruce: "a lifestyle that they want everyone else to live in based no their fantasies and backed up by their misconceptions.."
These communities are inherently voluntary, Bruce, people join them by choice and it's quite easy to leave them too, without being burdened by a huge mortgage and a house that you cannot sell. Are you perhaps afraid that such communities will open up people's eyes for the way our society is currently in the grip of power cartels like the alliance between the military/industrial complex and the nuclear and fossil fuel industries? Are you perhaps afraid that a bunch of people who start living this way will expose the way people are currently coerced by taxes and regulations to maintain the position of such cartels? Is that it? Are you afraid that such communities will expose the fact that the design of cities and the way land is now designated for residential and agricultural purposes forces people to buy cars and contribute to the wealth of those who run these cartels?
Bruce: "Only people with no money would live like this.."
As I told you before, Bruce, many people will join such communities for the financial benefits, but what's even more important is the shared vision of a lifestyle that is better for the environment, that is more social and that is better for your health. I therefore believe that a lot of people who do think about these things will join, and that they will be more social and health-conscious, precisely because those are the reasons why they joined, next to the financial benefits.
Bruce: "why would everyone else want to commit large amounts of land with no roads that could be put to more productive use?"
The amount of land needed for such communities pales in comparison to the amount of land needed for suburbs, roads, agriculture, offices, car manufacturing plants, parking spaces, etc. I'm trying hard to find rational arguments in your comments, Bruce, but your comments don't seem to make much sense.
If I was forced to have an agenda I would say it is to challenge you to analyze why you seem to have so much anitpathy for the way things are now, and so much faith in ideas which seem to have nothing going for them other than that they are different Sam.
Why would not having a road that leads to my front door somehow make my life better, or giving up all kinds of space .. which by the way, having moved from a 3 BR 2BA house to a 1BR 1BA house in the last year I know a little something about.
Camping is camping, but most people do not want to live that way forever.
My only agenda is to point that out because there are a lot of articles and products and ideas hyped that really do not help anything and are not the panacea solution to many people's problems. I think there are big problems with the plan as you outline it ... and maybe you could explain your agenda here ... what is it that you think is good about this?
Bruce: "What if you want to exercise?"
Walk to the community center, go to the gym, visit friends, do some gardening, etc.
Bruce: "What if you want to have people over for dinner."
Go to one of the restaurants that are within easy walking distance of everyone who you would like to share dinner with.
Are you seriously suggesting that your perceived shortcomings in communities without roads made any sense?
It's a pity you don't explain in more detail what you're trying to say, Sue. The comparison with tenements is unfair in many respects.
Tenements are typically permanent and fixed structures, attached to land. I selected these examples of small houses for their mobility.
Tenements are typically rented or leased, whereas these houses are so cheap that one can more easily buy them.
Tenements are often ill-maintained, overcrowded units. By contrast, these small houses are typically not inhabited by large families, but by people who own them and who will therefore take great care to maintain their houses.
As to safety and sanitation standards, this is a big issue and inhabitants will take great care to address concerns, including environmental concerns.
> are only interested in perpetuating their grip
> over things
I just feel like you are talking about political things
and trying to find material answers to them.
You know there are a lot of tenement houses that
were well taken care of, and great places to live.
Many Italian, Jewish, Polish, etc families lived in
tenement buildings and had great lives Sam, it
depends on the society and the culture.
The problem we are facing in my opinion are not
due to the size of houses we live in, but the energy
we invest in our own country and people. It is
fashionable, or at least what we see in the media
is youth oriented egotistical reality-denying stuff,
because that is what many young people will
respond to.
People have to change and see through this stuff
and decide not to buy into it.
As far as sanitation and environment, the problem
is no one wants to have to devote lots of time to
that. Sewage ... who wants to lug a big pot down
to a central collection area ... no one.
I keep repeating there is a reason why we do things
in housing develpments the way we do ... if done
right and following code, they work very well.
In communities without roads people can live close together, within walking distance of each other, each in their own small houses at very low cost. People will also be able to find plenty of things to do in such communities, including looking after waste and improving health care and safety.
Question is who is going to pay for all the land needed for roads? Who is going to patrol and maintain all the roads, cars, offices, tenement buildings and all the other infrastructure that is associated with your lifestyle, once large numbers of people have left and live happily in communities without roads?
Since building costs where I live are about 250-300 per square foot, why is this so expensive? The reason is most likely profit. Why put so much capital into building something that is so idiosyncratic that few would want to live there, ... a limited market, another reason price is high. The economics of this do not make sense, or rather will make sense but only to a very small specialized group that is willing to pay so much for an emotional point. If I was going to pay a premium like that I'd want to live a much nicer life in a much nicer place. If poor people have $40,000 they would do better to invest it, or build a nice conventional house in a conventional place and live together, at least they could sell it if they wanted later.
"It could reduce obesity and prevent diseases such as diabetes."
W H A T ? ? ? ?
Feel welcome to discuss such things, Sue. In communities without roads, people walk instead of taking the car. Here are some links to studies that found an association between urban sprawl and obesity:
Urban sprawl and risk for being overweight or obese
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15333317
Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=13677962
Sure, Bruce, walking keeps people fit and should be encouraged. That's an argument in favor of communities without roads.
Bruce: "These little houses even if they are on wheels (and the title of your article is perfect for communities without roads - how?) are not efficient in any real way I can think of except they are small. The best utilized environment in the country is probably NYC. It brings the most things to the most people in the least space, and yes there are roads."
A house on wheels is easy to fit in somewhere and to move elsewhere if you want to. Jay's tiny house only takes 96feet², or 8.919m². You can add some space in between houses and for footpaths. But that's still less than the over 100m² people need in NYC. Even Manhattan has 25,846 residents per km² or 38.7m² per resident. It could also save a lot in terms of the cost of land. Cost of buildings in NYC and property taxes is high. A price of $17,224/m² was paid at Park Avenue in July, while $15,888/m² was paid in June at Madison Avenue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan
Also, NYC imports huge amounts of food and other supplies from elsewhere. Barges and trains move 90% of the city's 12,000 tons of residential trash out of NYC daily.
NYC residents take an average of 38.4 minutes to get to work each day. The longest commute times are for the Bronx (41.8 minutes), Queens (41.4), Richmond (Staten Island) (41.2) and Kings (Brooklyn) (39.9).
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/001695.html
Of all people who commute to work in New York City, 32% use the subway, 25% drive alone, 14% take the bus, 8% travel by commuter rail, 8% walk to work, 6% carpool, 1% use a taxi, 0.4% ride their bicycle to work, and 0.4% travel by ferry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_City
Citywide greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 8% since 1995 and are set to increase another 25% by 2030. Yet, New York has set the goal of reducing its citywide carbon emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. In 2005, 79% of New York City's greenhouse gas emissions were caused by the consumption of energy by buildings in the City.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/ccp_report041007.pdf
How can improvements be achieved? Since buildings are the biggest cause of emissions, it makes sense to consider communities without roads. That could also save a lot in travel time (and the associated energy) and cost of land, buildings and other infrastructure.
If your "jokes", your failure to come up with arguments that stick and your use of offensive language are representative for the way you want security and safety issues to be handled regarding your preferred nuclear alternative, Bruce, then every post of you constitutes a big warning why we should ignore your suggestions.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-prevention/how-to-prevent-diabetes.jsp
I like Bruce K's runner analogy.
In the meantime, I hope these mobile trailer house parks stay in CA.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-prevention/how-to-prevent-diabetes.jsp
It's not that important that you understand this.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-prevention.jsp
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-prevention/how-to-prevent-diabetes.jsp
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-prevention/exercise.jsp
Interesting article Sam...
> be encouraged. That's an argument in favor of
> communities without roads.
Sam, ever lived in a big city? You completely ignored
my point before that people in the city parodoxically
and in counter to your point get more walking exercise
than those who live in the subburbs. When there is
something closeby to walk to people walk. I don't think
that low density houses as you describe them are going
to be rich enough in customers to sustain buisnesses or
social places that people will want to walk to. The best
you offer is that they have to "manage their waste" a
kind of euphemism for they will have to walk to carry
their crap far enough away so they do not smell it.
Not a very exciting life.
an even keel by repeating the same things over and saying
nothing new. Putting out so much text that it is hard for
someone not following closely to realize that you are ignoring
facts that go against you. The object of your writings from my
point of view always seems to be to convinvce someone of
the most absurd thing you can while sounding pleasant and
easygoing, and trying to make your argument by seeming
more pleasant than the other person ... in short depending
on the defects in your readers understanding an attention.
To me, people who are convinced by style over facts are
not worth making an argument to, they will just change
their minds the next time they want some kind of validation
for being stupid.
Face it like your energy ideas, this idea of a house on wheels
being some kind of healthy and rich lifestyle for human beings
without roads ... but with paths (talk about Monty Python)...
well, I would not hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
From your premises it is healthier to be homeless and live
in a cardboard box, and you use less resources and you get
a lot of walking done, gee the perfect environmentalist.
Get real and admit you just put these articles up for
attention.
Gee, thanks a lot Sue, California already has the fruits and
the nuts, now you want to send all the losers to live in a
concentration camp as well ... without roads even. Sheesh! ;-)
As I replied, Bruce, it takes NYC residents an average of 38.4 minutes to get to work and only 8% can walk to work. Most travel by car or by public transport.
Bruce: "I don't think that low density houses as you describe them are going to be rich enough in customers to sustain buisnesses or social places that people will want to walk to."
Low density? Jay's tiny house only takes 96feet², or 8.919m². You can add some space in between houses and for footpaths. But that's still less than the over 100m² people need in NYC or the 38.7m² per resident in Manhattan.
As I told you before twice, Bruce, many people will join such communities for the financial benefits, but what's even more important is the shared vision of a lifestyle that is more social and better for the environment and your health. Therefore, a lot of people who do think and care about these things will join, and they will be more social and health-conscious, precisely because those are the reasons why they joined, next to the financial benefits. Given the many cost savings, people will have plenty of money to spend on food in good restaurants, on health, education and personal development. So, there's plenty of scope for such services and there will also be many local people who seek to be occupied in such services. The time savings will also be attractive for people who do business online. In short, there will be plenty of business opportunities.
As you know, I also propose a nationwide tax on the sale of meat, with the proceeds used to subsidize vegan-organic restaurants in communities without roads. That should also help to get things started!
If the financial benefits are there Sam, why don't these places exist now. What are they going to do for entertainment or work? I think on a rainy day while I can go into my garage, or do something in my house, these people will be stuck in a cage devoping diabetes. Where do these people put their cars ... and how do they get to these restaurants? Nice try ... tell me how you like it when you move there.
In the meantime take a math class and learn about how things scale in 2 and 3 dimensions.
I've written numerous articles, Bruce, on a wide variety of topics. If your comments don't make sense, and if you keep repeating the same thing, then don't blame me for repeatedly pointing out that your comments don't make sense.
Bruce: "..sounding pleasant and easygoing, and trying to make your argument by seeming more pleasant than the other person..."
That's not the point, Bruce, you have made it crystal clear that you dislike what I write. The point is that you fail to come up with arguments that stick. The more you keep using "jokes" and offensive language, while adding arguments that don't add up, the more you undermine not only your own credibility, but also any cause that you may stand for. If your conduct is representative for the way you want security and safety issues to be handled regarding your preferred nuclear alternative, Bruce, then every post of you constitutes a big warning why we should ignore your suggestions.
Do I need to explain that any further, Bruce? Imagine someone with your attitude handling a nuclear emergency: "Shall I push the red or the blue button to save those idiots, hell no, I've got no good argument either way, what a joke, let's push both of them..." Is that the kind of attitude you promote, Bruce? Don't you understand that this sends out all kinds of warning signs, Bruce, making people feel that your views cannot be trusted? Your attitude is the worst enemy of whatever you propose. No, that's doesn't sound pleasant and it's sad that I have to say it, but I do hope you realize this and that it will make you change your ways.
No, Bruce, I just presented the facts as well as ideas to improve the situation we're in. By contrast, you come up with .. (should I repeat it all again?)
Bruce: "Have you ever been to New York City. I have and I lived their for a bit. You walk a lot, and you go up and down a lot of stairs in most cases. Even when people take public transport, they are walking a lot."
As said, it takes NYC residents an average of 38.4 minutes to get to work and only 8% can walk to work. All this travel requires a lot of energy. Furthermore, 79% of New York City's greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 were caused by the consumption of energy by buildings in the City. Citywide greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 8% since 1995 and are set to increase another 25% by 2030. By contrast, communities without roads can be much more environmentally-friendly.
Bruce: "If the financial benefits are there Sam, why don't these places exist now?"
Society currently forces so many people to live in a suburban setting and it's hard to even sell your house. But once things are explained, people will join such communities for the financial benefits, as well as out of social, health and environmental considerations. And as said, what will also help is a nationwide tax on the sale of meat, with the proceeds used to subsidize vegan-organic restaurants in communities without roads.
Bruce: "What are they going to do for entertainment or work? I think on a rainy day while I can go into my garage, or do something in my house, these people will be stuck in a cage developing diabetes."
Many will work from home, in gardens, visit other people, work at restaurants, shops, etc. There will be less separation of work and entertainment. Instead of working purely for the money, people will take up activities partly for social reasons, as hobbies, for self-development and similar interests. They can do so when it's dry as well as on a rainy day. After all, a short stroll will get you to most places and an umbrella is cheap. Gardeners will love the rain and many will set up greenhouses and go into hydroponics.
Bruce: "Where do these people put their cars.."
They don't need cars.
Bruce: "... and how do they get to these restaurants?"
They'll walk, use bicycles or scooters.
Bruce: "Nice try ... tell me how you like it when you move there."
You still haven't made any comment that makes sense, Bruce.
Bruce: "In the meantime take a math class and learn about how things scale in 2 and 3 dimensions."
Another insult? If you have problems with the calculations, tell me and we can go through the figures again.
Sure, Bruce, let's allow market mechanisms to decide what works best. Just don't come back and demand that taxpayers should pay for your roads, trains, nuclear plants, etc.
"The point is that you fail to come up with arguments that stick."
Sam any one who has debated you on most any subject knows that facts and valid arguments are immaterial to you, they just don't matter.
Bruce could come up with the greatest, most concrete argument and you wouldn't accept it.
> calculations, tell me and we can go through the
> figures again.
Sorry if you're feeling inadequate to discuss your
ideas without playing games like this.
It's a bummer that you feel such ego attachment
to such a objectively unworkable and undesireable
idea. That says a lot about your personal
integrity.
Lots of people try to force their bad ideas on the
rest of us using what they think are clever insults
and rhetoric to trick instead of facts and numbers
and vision to inspire.
As you well know, Dan, I do tend to illustrate my arguments with facts. Posting such nonsense doesn't add to your credibility.
Dan: "Bruce could come up with the greatest, most concrete argument and you wouldn't accept it."
If someone could point out ways to improve the situation, I would be delighted to hear from it, adjust my position and thank to person for that contribution. The problem with both you and Bruce is that you fail to bring up anything that makes sense.
Bruce actually advocated dictatorship in an earlier comment, in violation of the most basic democratic principles. Similarly, you advocate a more dictatorial society. And what is the argumentation? Distortion of facts, twisting my words and resorting to abusive language and personal attacks? Are you seriously expecting me or anyone else to accept that?
The environment is not an issue that I personally dreamed up, Bruce. We have to act on greenhouse emissions and this is one way of doing so. By contrast, your suggestion to appoint a dictator to extort money from people to pay for nuclear plants, that seems more like something you have personal interests in.
"I do tend to illustrate my arguments with facts."
And you ignore any other facts that contradict the ones you have decided to accept.
This is exactly what I am talking about, when you don't like the facts, when they don't fit into what you want you call them a distortion, it's easy to dismiss facts that contradict your position that way.
But I would rather discuss your "small houses" idea.
I think the small houses idea is great! I think this type of community could have great appeal to many in our society.
I remember a few years (maybe twenty) we came across a company building R.V.s (trailers) which looked a lot like small cabins, a bit bigger than the ones you have exhibited, they even had a two story model, they were really charming and provided "just enough space" for 1 or maybe 2 people.
I liken your "small houses" communities to elaborate mobile home parks without the driveways and a throw back to the 60s/70s communal living thinking.
Which if that's your bag then more power to yah!
But even though I don't think it would hold great appeal generally across our society I don't think we should regulate against it. For some it works.
All in all a great article Sam.
Like who Dan? Don't change the parameters of the discussion to larger homes or homes that are not on wheels, and to communities with roads, which is what Sam put out there. And no one ever said it should be regulated against, except in terms of water, sewage, electricity, and a myriad of other unsafe reasons it would be, which is a reason why we do not have shanty towns in the US.
It seems, as most have been able to grasp, that these small houses are about changing the concept of living in a community. Sort of like striking out and being pioneers in order to live the way a group of people would like to live, emphasizing those things which they feel and see as important in their lives... exploring new ways to live, driven by their desire and feeling for the need to go there...
So... I would suppose, given that the label of "loser" was placed on those wishing to journey and explore that way, that the Pilgrims were "Losers" for wanting to strike out across the Ocean Blue (I Know, that's the Columbus Rhyme, isn't it?) to seek new ways to live... Why would such "Losers" want to live for several months under such conditions (have been to the Mayflower replica? They couldn't even stand up completely straight below decks... I guess they were shorter back then... But how many people did they pack in the small space... Yikes!!! What "LOSERS" !!! You pegged that Nail on the Head Bruce!!! And then, when they got to the "New World" that place where they were willing to strike out and find a new way of living... on their own terms... Have you seen reproductions of Settler Cabins!!! They were the size of some folks' Home Entertainment Systems today....!!! What Freaking "Losers" ... Absolutely Right Bruce!!!
And then there are those who will travel some day to those first out-posts on Mars (well the Moon first, then Mars)... Do you know what kind of conditions those "Losers" will have to live under just to get there? And then... What sort of conditions they will have to live in once there? Can you say Teee-Incy? Teeeny Weeeny??? What "Losers" Good Call Bruce... Good Call... ;)
Once again... Sharpness is your name...(Well, actually it's Bruce, right? ... but you know what I mean... aye???) ... ;)
Best,
Such communities without roads will to a large extent be self-regulating. Some may even demand a substantial deposit, to ensure that compensation can be paid when there are complaints about, say, odor. Generally, market mechanisms are best to sort out the details.
By contrast, people elsewhere seem less prepared to mitigate or compensate for the problems their emissions of greenhouse gases cause. We need a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, with proceeds used to support local supply of clean and safe alternatives. Market mechanisms can and should further sort out what works best where.
Bruce, the more dictatorial society that you seek will not eventuate; people dislike dictatorship, while it also does not make sense from an economic perspective.
Sam, sorry you haven't a clue. Putting people so close together with no roads, but paths, and who owns the paths? You talk about self-regulation, but the reason we have such a complex world is that self-regulation never works. When you aks for money as a deposit you fall under certain legal contraints that are regulated as in common developments or rents. This is not so easy as you seem to think, and again you ignore that all of this has been tried before and is the reason we have the houses and laws that we do.
Sam, I am also getting tired of your silly naive attacks on me trying to imply that somehow I am advocating dictatorship. I can see you have no other points to argue, but you are just making it about your ego when you have make up statements and then accuse me of them.
People are not "put" there by dictatorial government, Bruce, they move there by choice, because the very absence of roads allows people to live closer together, i.e. within walking distances from each other and connected by paths that can easily be maintained by the people who live there. This makes that ownership is not much of an issue, but there could be all kinds of arrangements, e.g. to keep them clean.
Bruce: "self-regulation never works"
What works best is to tax harmful practices in order to subsidize better alternatives, e.g. taxes on greenhouse gas emissions, with proceeds supporting local supply of clean and safe alternatives. Market mechanisms can and should further sort out what works best where. If a deposit turns out to work best, it can be regarded as a membership fee, rather than as rent for property.
Bruce: "..I am advocating dictatorship.."
You are, since you advocate outlawing such communities without roads. It seems to me that you are dictatorial and that you seek a more dictatorial society, i.e. with your as self-appointed and ill-informed dictator. Your concluding remarks at The Nuclear Delusion on October 30, 2007 were: (Bruce) "Your ignorance and closed mindedness scares me Sam, to be honest, as well as your ability to attack something helpful and neccessary for emotional reasons. Your kind of thinking is going to cause the necessity for a centralized dictatorial society because you break democracy by not being an informed citizen to the point that at some point those who know what to do will be forced to do it anway."
Don't tell me my math doesn't add up, I got A's all through university electrical and computer engineering, if you don't understand maybe you should take a math class, but I'm sure it's much easier for you to call me names.
Thank you for your interesting article.
Lauri Ward, author
Downsizing Your Home With Style
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977103249
Bruce: "It is unlikely that most people will be able to afford to live in stand along houses with land or yards if we decide to save nature - that is unless we decide to lower population to about 10-20% of what it is today ... and like Global Climate Change, nothing we start to do today will even make a dent for a long time."
Well, the above article proves that people can have houses with gardens and reduce emissions. And what did you put forward to uphold your false belief that there was nothing we could do about climate change?
Bruce: "..Water vapor has about 30x the affect of heat trapping as CO2 and is much more plentiful .."
Looks like you didn't do the maths, Bruce! Have a look at this article about Climate myths and also look at the image at the top with the IPCC's factors that alter the climate.
Yes, our system is wasteful, but you apparently do not know much about construction or principles of environmentalism either.
It is not more efficient to have people living in what amounts to an isolate prison cell structure without a bathroom or shower, without roads, plumbing or even a bed one does not have to climb up a ladder to get to.
If you compared you 6 bedroom house that you grew up in with 6 individual little prisons cells I wonder if you really believe your childhood would have been better.
Of course not, your ignorant post defending a bad idea so you can be nice to Sam is really the basis for the kind of corruption our country faces right now ... ie. people who do not have the judgement in thinking to do the right thing, or the intelligence and tools to decide what that right thing is.
But I do agree with you on one things... that a trailer would make a hell of a better, cheaper and more efficient place to live than these little prison cells Sam is bent on extolling, but you have to also remember, a trailer can make use of roads to, but Sam is against roads as well. But I hope you get the chance to sink your money in a house like this, and then find out you hate it, or do not like your neighbor and carrying out your poop everyday and trying to find a place to dump it for your daily exercise.
Geeze, you two should move in together.
Ruth, a very appropriate, and interesting comment. Ignore Bruce's attack. You were not addressing him and you were not 'snide'.
I do see a bright future for them. Clearly, not everyone will want to live in a tiny house and the houses described in the article are merely examples of how far one can go in terms of downsizing. But even within a single community, there will be a variety of housing choices, with the smallest ones likely to be closest to the center, while houses away from the center can be larger and can also have greenhouses, gardens and more.
Close to the center, there will be no roads, but whether there will be roads on the outsides is an interesting question. A study by the University of California estimates that US governments spend over $100 billion on roads a year, while tax and fee payments by motor-vehicle users fall short in paying for that by approximately 20–70 cents per gallon of all motor fuel. In other words, tax subsidizes roads and this kind of money buys a lot of small houses. If you add up further subsidies, such as for fuel and for other infrastructure, wouldn't you rather see your tax money pay for a house in a community without roads? Or a personal airplane? Or, at the least, some air travel for the rare occasion that you wanted to travel over longer distances? Read my article Wild Green Yonder for more details on clean ways to fly!