Why build tiny houses when we can build apartments?

[Sam_Stone]

@Danger_Man

To put it another way, what makes tiny homes so cheap, other than being tiny? Compared to a regular detached house.

Cheaper property, no foundation or basement, lower or no property taxes, avoidance of some building codes or high cost labor, some amount of factory construction like a modular home, and fewer materials in general because of the small size.

@Danger_Man

I think what I am trying to say is that you are trying to make it so small and efficient, but what would make it even more efficient is to make an apartment.

Okay… That assumes the primary goal is efficiency. Even more efficient would be to live in an aprtment with another family. You can always find ways to be more efficient. But homes are a tradeoff between many factors, only one of which is efficiency.

I lived in apartments for the first decade I was on my own. It was fine when I was young and single, and was out a lot and had an active social life and all the rest.

You couldn’t pay me to live in one now. I had a friend who bought a condo, in part because the fees were a low $199 per month. It turned out that the fees were so low because the building owners weren’t maintaining the place properly so they coild keep the fees low to sell the units. Within a couple of years the fees went from $199 to $399, then $599. Plus special charges for specific repairs like new roofing. High condo fees also drive down the value of your property.

My mother lived in a trailer park. Over the years they raised the lot rent so high that no one would move in. She lost 60% of the value of her home when she was forced to sell.

Another friend in an apartment recently had the upstairs neightbor leave water running when they went out, which caused a flood whicb leaked down into her apartment wrecking the flooring and some of her stuff. Then she had to find a place to live while they repaired the damage.

In the cheap apartments I lived in, you could hear loud-ish conversations through the walls, it was always too hot or too cold, and you got to smell what everyone was cooking for dinner. God help you if an asshole moved in next door.

Lots of people don’t want to live like that, and will pay a healthy premium to get away from it. If you can’t afford a full sized house or don’t want the maintenance of a large place, a tiny home can fill the gap between house and an apartment.

[LSLGuy]

@Do_Not_Taunt

(*) I’m somewhat fuzzy on how this works. My fire alarm only went off when I was burning something in my kitchen and during the annual testing. It never went off when a neighbor was burning something in their kitchen, which I’m sure happened from time to time when I was in the building. So there’s some threshold before your alarm triggers others in the building. But I do know that they are designed to do so, and this is one of the things tested for annually.

Underlining mine.

Do you mean fire alarm or do you mean smoke detector? Two different things in most communal installations. It’s common to wire the in-unit smoke detectors into building power and to connect all of them within each living unit to each other for triggering, but to not rig it so one unit’s smoke detectors trigger other units’ smoke detector noisemakers nor the central fire alarm.

As a separate matter you may have heat detectors in the units and you will have heat and smoke detectors in the common areas. Those typically will trigger the whole building’s alarms if any one anywhere detects danger.

[LivingGhost371]

Okay… That assumes the primary goal is efficiency. Even more efficient would be to live in an aprtment with another family. You can always find ways to be more efficient. But homes are a tradeoff between many factors, only one of which is efficiency.

Yeah, this is really the answer to the question: Efficiency isn’t always the only goal, the primary goal, or even necessarily any kind of goal of housing. After all Biltmore isn’t an especially efficient form of housing and I doubt efficiency was Mr. Vanderbilt’s primary goal.

You could ask the question "Why are we building apartments and tiny houses when building pole barns and filling them with triple bunk beds would be more efficient? The answer is many people would find such accommodations horrific, just like many people find apartments horrific. Tiny houses are one of the cheaper alternatives to not having to live in an apartment (or a condo or townhouse or whatever).

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Danger_Man

As I said in another thread, I keep confusing condos with apartments. If you own a condo you do tend to keep better care of it. Also, if people are very poor, they tend to take worse care of it.

[Bolding mine]

Do you have a cite for this?

[Lord_Feldon]

Tiny homes are for, well, a tiny segment of the market. They don’t and aren’t meant to compete with apartments as a general solution to people’s need for housing. It’s like asking why they build dune buggies when we can build a station wagon. The people who buy them are buying them because they aren’t normal; they don’t want normal, they want their weird thing, and so long as there are enough other weirdos to support their weird hobby, it will be a viable business.

[nelliebly]

@Chronos

No, that’s exactly why it’s much cheaper than a few tiny houses. If you have one apartment building, you need one building with plumbing, electrical, and so on. When you have ten tiny houses, you need ten buildings with all of those things.

I’m sorry, but this is simply incorrect. I can see why you’d think that way, but your statement seems to be based on assumptions. The average apartment costs about $125 per sq. foot to build, so a 100 sq. foot apartment would cost about $12,500. By contrast, a 100 sq. ft. tiny house costs $2,000-$2,200.

6 unit apartment building: $75,000
6 tiny house, built and installed: <$13.000.

The reason so many cities are building tiny house communities for the homeless is that they ARE so much more cost-effective, not just to build but to maintain.

The Seattle Human Services Department has documented the village’s cost effectiveness: “Spaces in tiny home villages represent approximately 12.5% of all shelter beds and safe places the City supports and make up less than 3% of all homelessness response investments made by the City of Seattle.”

I don’t think the mayors of all the cities building tiny house communities for the homeless and the non-profits promoting tiny house communities are wrong. I think it’s highly likely they did their homework. If you have data to the contrary, I’d sincerely like to see it. I bet they would, too.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@nelliebly

By contrast, a 100 sq. ft. tiny house costs $2,000-$2,200.

That’s not what DavidNRockies’ link says above. It says tiny house costs are more like $300/sq-ft, making your 100 sq-ft tiny house $30,000.

Your own link says this:

Hundreds of dedicated students, volunteers, churches, and businesses have built and donated over 325 tiny houses at an average cost of $2,500 each for construction materials.

Fine, if labor is free, you can build the houses for cheap (though at $2500 each, I imagine they’re getting bottom-of-the-barrel materials). But that doesn’t seem sustainable at a large scale.

[nelliebly]

From my research, prices of tiny houses built for middle-class people are higher because the houses are usually larger and fancier, often including bi- or multi-level interiors and other luxe touches you won’t find in a tiny house for the homeless. Also, you won’t get volunteer labor to build an Architecture Digest tiny house, but you will for a tiny house meant for the destitute.

The costs per tiny house vary by style and location. The figure I used was for tiny houses in one Seattle community. Most I saw were $2,000-$2,500. YMMV, but they won’t be pricier than apartments.

As for sustainability on a large scale, I think that is doable. Community First, outside Austin, TX, currently has about 220 tiny houses for the homeless, all built by volunteers, and is expanding to 1,900. People won’t volunteer to build an apartment building, but they will sign up to build houses for the needy.

[Elmer_J.Fudd]

A “tiny apartment” sounds a little to close to “prison cell” for my taste.

[Dewey_Finn]

@nelliebly

The reason so many cities are building tiny house communities for the homeless is that they ARE so much more cost-effective, not just to build but to maintain.

That link about Seattle’s tiny house program doesn’t seem to be clear but it sounds like the shower and kitchen facilities are shared among all the tiny homes in one area. Presumably apartments would be built with individual showers and kitchens. In other words, the two situations aren’t equal.

[Dangerosa]

If your city allows for micro apartments, they may not have a kitchen and may share a bathroom (that seems less likely) They are often sold with a microwave and a small fridge - its like dorm living - and you may have access to a shared kitchen. A lot of for profit student housing is being built on this model now. Again, it really depends on what you are building and why.

[Saintly_Loser]

@jaycat

When you live in an apartment, you’re at the mercy of the landlord/owner. If they decide to sell it, or raise the rent exorbitantly (both have happened to me a few times), you are SOL.

Unless you have the good luck to live in one of NYC’s dwindling number of rent-stabilized apartments. You’ll have the guaranteed right to renew your lease, even if the building is sold, and rent increases are regulated (to a point – once the rent hits a certain number, the apartment becomes deregulated).

Why that is such a terrible thing is beyond me, but obviously real estate companies hate rent stabilization, and have been lobbying for decades (with a fair amount of success) to roll back or eliminate rent regulation.

Which leads to building apartments –

Tiny homes are obviously not workable in NYC – they would be an insanely inefficient use of space.

There’s a huge need for tiny apartments, though. Kind of like the SRO’s of a couple decades ago, but nice places. Developments consisting of small, rent-regulated studio apartments would dramatically change NYC’s housing situation for the better.

[Gatopescado]

@Lord_Feldon

It’s like asking why they build dune buggies when we can build a station wagon.

Pretty much this, but more like “City Bus”. I can’t even wrap my head around this question.

[puzzlegal]

@Saintly_Loser

Unless you have the good luck to live in one of NYC’s dwindling number of rent-stabilized apartments. You’ll have the guaranteed right to renew your lease, even if the building is sold, and rent increases are regulated (to a point – once the rent hits a certain number, the apartment becomes deregulated).

I once lived in a rent-stabilized apartment in NYC. And the annual increases led to it hitting that “market value” threshold, but the law left it rent controlled as long as we held the lease, and only freed the rent when we left.

We had just signed a 2 year lease when I got a job offer in another city, and we decided to move. I told the landlord I intended to move, and that while we were willing to keep our end of the contract, and sublet it until the lease was up, we would prefer to end the lease early, if they would let us do that.

“On what day would you like to move out”, was their reply. And they treated us very well until the day we moved out, and then returned our full security deposit. (we did let them show the place to potential new renters before we left. We had strangers traipsing through as we were packing up boxes. I doubt the place was empty for longer than it took to clean and paint it.)