Tiny Houses (Tiny Homesteads)

[PetrChelcicky]

Some thoughts from a German view:
Here the "tiny houses" are marketed as a progressive/woke idea in order to (a) solve our housing crises (housing becomes more and more expensive the more immigrants come) and (b) save the environment.
And both ideas are absurd. Tiny houses consume a lot of ground. From reasons (a) and (b) it would be much better to locate families in apartments in big apartment houses. Only, big apartment houses were the dernier cri in the Sixties when the GDR or France and others built complete settlements of them and people were enthused and did a run on them (Electricity! Water closets!). Then they got a bad name (Neighbour noise! Trash all over!) and nearly became a symbol for "slum". Sic transit gloria mundi.
Personally I am thinking about a "tiny house" underground in our garden, with windoows above. (We would never get permission to construct anything above the ground.) Have you heard or seen anything about this?

[temporal1]

Some thoughts from a German view:
Here the "tiny houses" are marketed as a progressive/woke idea in order to (a) solve our housing crises (housing becomes more and more expensive the more immigrants come) and (b) save the environment.

And both ideas are absurd.
Tiny houses consume a lot of ground.
From reasons (a) and (b) it would be much better to locate families in apartments in big apartment houses.

Only, big apartment houses were the dernier cri in the Sixties when the GDR or France and others built complete settlements of them and people were enthused and did a run on them (Electricity! Water closets!). Then they got a bad name (Neighbour noise! Trash all over!) and nearly became a symbol for "slum". Sic transit gloria mundi.

Personally I am thinking about a "tiny house" underground in our garden, with windoows above.
(We would never get permission to construct anything above the ground.) Have you heard or seen anything about this?

Regardless of housing type/description/cost, the mindset of residents largely determines success or failure.
Those who “are determined” to be moral and civil, conscientious, find ways to do so in adverse situations.
Those who aren’t, don’t. Deep remedies can be tough. Money, alone, doesn’t do it. Money is the relatively easy part.

If “all things are equal,” simple math quickly determines efficiency of practical cost+space, on paper.
Many hi-rises are desirable, even elite, others are slums. Same for single family.

It’s always difficult to compare the U.S. with European countries, one of the first differences is space.
Culture, politics, demographics, resources, geography+climate are all factors. Japan is a more difficult comparison, space, homogenous culture ..

The challenge is about when/where methods FAIL.
Peoples’ minds can’t be addressed by “simple math” on drawing boards. Or by fiat.
Heaven knows, it’s tried.

UNDERGROUND HOUSING (suggest a new topic) ..
Great topic! Many options. (not mobile)

Underground life is ancient. Lots of people live underground today, some under “gardens”/grasses, some under hi rise buildings, basement-level; sod huts/homes were used on the U.S. frontier, there was interest in the Cold War years ..
locally, i know of a few single family homes (still occupied) built wholly or partly underground (one in my neighborhood)!
Energy efficiency is a motivator. Passive solar.

Quick search results:

“underground home construction methods”
https://www.google.com/search?q=undergr ... e&ie=UTF-8

Per se, “underground” requires is a permanent physical footprint - which initially costs more.
From there, “building up” is where efficiency factors in. Every building requires some sort of foundation, or foot print, AND, roof. Adding levels in between begins to save money. (Many tiny houses on wheels have lofts, or more.) “Up” is efficient.

ohio jones may help out.

Build The Most Beautiful Underground House Villa by Ancient Skills


^^ “i’m a homemaker.”

[Ken]

Some thoughts from a German view:
Here the "tiny houses" are marketed as a progressive/woke idea in order to (a) solve our housing crises (housing becomes more and more expensive the more immigrants come) and (b) save the environment.
And both ideas are absurd. Tiny houses consume a lot of ground. From reasons (a) and (b) it would be much better to locate families in apartments in big apartment houses. Only, big apartment houses were the dernier cri in the Sixties when the GDR or France and others built complete settlements of them and people were enthused and did a run on them (Electricity! Water closets!). Then they got a bad name (Neighbour noise! Trash all over!) and nearly became a symbol for "slum". Sic transit gloria mundi.
Personally I am thinking about a "tiny house" underground in our garden, with windoows above. (We would never get permission to construct anything above the ground.) Have you heard or seen anything about this?

I've heard of people putting in basements where one did not previously exist.

But I've never heard of someone putting in some sort of stand-alone tiny house underground. I would think that would hugely increase the cost due to all the required excavating and if you have a high water-table you'd need to use a lot of sealants and waterproofing to keep it dry. Well, some people do that sort of thing but it is more for survivalist prepping sort of purposes rather than as a place to actually live.

[temporal1]

.. putting in some sort of stand-alone tiny house underground ..

PetrC may clarify, i don’t believe he was suggesting this.