When it comes to surviving a fire, egress is key. The closer you are to a good exit the greater your chance of making it out of a burning building alive will be. In the event of a fire, you’re more likely to make it out of a smoldering cottage, where windows and doors are never far from reach, than out of a smoldering Hearst Castle or high rise. Beyond proximity (and ensuring a door or window will actually open during a fire), an exit’s size is also clearly important. Until new testing proves otherwise, the tried and true rules pertaining to safe emergency egress, as tested and prescribed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), should be adhered to. But our current building codes mandate egress (window, door, hallway and stairway sizes) more than twice ANSI/NFPA minimum recommendations. The variations seem to be as unsubstantiated as they are arbitrary (see ANSI A119.5 and NFPA 1192 minimums vs. the International Code Council’s 310.6.2, 310.6.2&3, 310.6.1, 310.1.1, 310.1.2 &3, 311.4.2).
Shear Audacity
Most earthquake-related deaths are caused by the collapse of structures, and large buildings tend to fall more often and harder than small ones. An article on Haiti’s 2010 earthquake published by Incorporated Research Institutions on Seismology and The University of Portland reports that, the death toll in Haiti would have been higher if the structures there hadn’t been so small. ***
Another study by The World Bank and The New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID) has shown that larger buildings are more easily toppled by a quake while “Buildings that are not too heavy, modestly proportioned, with good connections and properly attached to their foundations will remain”.
In addition, with the relative capacity to resist the shear forces posed by earthquakes, small buildings are also more resilient to the shear forces of hurricanes and other strong winds… as long as they’re fastened to the ground, of course. Greenwashing
Houses of 15,000 square feet and larger are being built in accordance with the ICC’s new International Green Construction Code. The good news here is that America’s mansions are now likely to be built for more efficiently and with fewer harmful materials. The bad news is that, by lionizing such consumptive projects, these incentives may mitigate the construction of truly sustainable homes. What’s more, by attaching the term “green” to its prohibition on small houses, the ICC may be doing more harm than good. Promoting the use of more of its backer’s ostensibly sustainable products may be what a member focused association should be doing, but presenting undue consumption as safer, more affordable, more efficient and “green” is clearly not.
At 2,300 square feet, the average American home now emits 18 tons worth of greenhouse gasses annually. It increases deforestation and fossil fuel consumption, and it perpetuates our dependence on foreign oil. By lifting the current ban on smaller houses, this degradation could be significantly reduced.
Jay Shafer is Tumbleweed’s founder and designer. Jay’s self published “The Small House Book” has changed the way the world sees small homes. In addition, he has created over 20 small house plans, and teaches people how to build a house at his many workshops.
*** “A simple shack’s collapse is likely to cause less damage to human safety than a multi-floor building that collapses”. -Architect, John McAslan, who has been working on a project linked to the Clinton Global Initiative in Haiti
“To be earthquake proof, buildings, structures and their foundations need to be built to be resistant to sideways loads. The lighter the building is, the less the loads”. - Rollo Reid C Eng FIStrucE, Director, Reid Steel.
It seems the party may be over for proponents of America’s prohibition on small houses. A lot of folks have been enjoying the upside of a ban on diminutive dwellings for decades, but the end is neigh. The short-term prosperity afforded by requiring people to live in more house than they really need was as clear from the beginning as the inevitable consequences should have been. Those who once profited from this country's legislated drive towards ever-bigger houses (banks, municipalities and the housing industry in particular) are now facing its not-so-profitable outcome. New home construction and home financing are showing about as much promise right now as a McMansion for sale.
A Brief History of America’s Mandatory Consumption Laws:
Since its inception in 1994, the International Code Council (ICC) along with its corporate members and underwriters have been developing and maintaining the minimum size standards originated by some in the insurance industry decades earlier.* By dictating how large American houses have to be, these building codes have helped make our homes some of the largest in the world (four times the international average). States and municipalities have eagerly adopted and enforced the codes as law. When you consider the immediate revenue generated by oversized houses thru permits, construction materials, labor, infrastructure development and land costs, as well as the lingering profit to be made thru heating fuel, property taxes, remodels, inordinate maintenance and (perhaps most notably) mortgage interest, it’s no wonder the regulations have been so popular with state and corporate groups alike. By requiring American’s to pay for larger houses than many of us really need, it almost seemed that sponsors of the code would enjoy prosperity without end. And they may have, if the citizens supporting them hadn’t run out of money.
Double Taxation
Like the building department, American banks generally require borrowers to buy houses of a minimum size. The long-term cost of such seemingly unviable policy becomes clear when borrowers are, predictably, unable to make payments on their oversized investments. This little glitch was successfully mitigated in 2008 when it was announced that the same borrowers, along with every other American taxpayer, would bailout the banks in order to sustain the unsustainable system for just a little while longer. For now, at least, it’s back to business as usual.
Zoning
Where our codes and banks fail to generate unwarranted consumption, zoning laws often pick up the slack. Modern zoning was developed back when over-consumption was considered an American virtue. What we now view as wasteful sprawl didn’t happen by accident. It’s the product of a conscious design to drive up consumption and increase revenues. Consider the enthusiastic prediction of pioneering urban planner, Le Corbusier, “The cities will be part of the country; I shall live 30 miles from my office in one direction, under a pine tree; my secretary will live 30 miles away from it too, in the opposite direction, under another pine tree. We shall both have our own car. We shall use up trees, wear out road surfaces and gears, consume oil and gasoline. All of which will necessitate a great deal of work… enough for all”.
Zoning has traditionally entailed dividing our built environment into different zones according to their primary intended function (commercial, residential, industrial, etc.), thereby creating more places you’d need a car to get to. Zoning has further limited efficient design by dictating how many people can live on your property, if you can put a granny unit in your backyard and if you can legally turn your garden shed into an extra bedroom. With regard to mandatory consumption, zoning ensures that you can’t simply escape the laws by selling your house and living in a trailer in a friend’s backyard.
There’s Madness Behind This Method
I recently contacted the ICC to ask what purpose limiting minimum house size serves. I also asked what, if any, testing has been done to show that the limits achieve their intended purpose. Steve Daggers of the ICC’s public relations team had this to say, “The specific purpose of the International Residential Code is to establish minimum requirements to safeguard the public’s safety through affordability, structural strength, means of egress (exit) facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment”. “Based on building science, technical knowledge, and lessons learned from experience, the purpose of a building code is to establish minimum requirements necessary to provide safety, guard public health and reduce property losses”. ** (Steve’s full response can be found below).
The regulations governing the size of America’s homes are, reportedly, intended to protect us from the untold dangers of small houses. We’re told they exist to guard public safety and provide affordability and energy efficiency. These longstanding claims are, allegedly, based on building science and lessons learned from experience.
Without more substantive detail, it’s hard to know what this really means. The most independent studies clearly show that smaller houses are actually much safer, more efficient, healthier and more affordable than their larger correlate. And the collective experience of hundreds of folks who design, build and inhabit houses of just 50 to 500 square feet suggests the same.
Jay Shafer is Tumbleweed’s founder and designer. Jay’s self published “The Small House Book” has changed the way the world sees small homes. In addition, he has created over 20 small house plans, and teaches people how to build a house at his many workshops.
* In accordance with the International Residential Code, current laws mandate that all newly constructed residential structures have no less than one habitable room of at least 120 square feet (§303.3); Every kitchen must be no less than 50 square feet (§303.4); Other habitable rooms shall be no less than 70 square feet (§304.2,3); Rooms shall maintain a minimum ceiling height of 7 feet. The required height shall be measured from the finish floor to the lowest projection from the ceiling (§303.6). Habitable space is defined as: Any space intended for living, sleeping, eating or cooking.
Here are our responses, in easy to understand language not technical terms.
Thanks for your inquiry.
What's the stated purpose of these codes?
The International Codes, or I-Codes, published by the International Code Council provide minimum safeguards for people at home, at school and in the workplace. The International Council is a member-focused association dedicated to the development of codes and standards used by the building industry to provide safe, sustainable, and affordable structures. The I-Codes are a complete set of comprehensive, coordinated building safety, fire prevention and energy-efficient codes. Building codes benefit public safety and support the construction industry’s need for one set of codes without regional limitations. The specific purpose of the International Residential Code is to establish minimum requirements to safeguard the public’s safety through affordability, structural strength, means of egress (exit) facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment. The International Residential Code provides safety to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The International Residential Code is in use or adopted in 49 states at the state or local level, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Legislative bodies are not obligated to adopt model building safety or fire prevention codes, and may write their own code or portions of a code. A model code has no legal standing until it is adopted as law by a legislative body (state legislature, county board, city council, etc.). When adopted as law, all owners of property within the boundaries of the adopting jurisdiction are required to comply with the referred codes. Because codes are updated every three years, existing structures usually are required
What, if any, testing has been done to show that the codes achieve their intended goal?
Based on building science, technical knowledge, and lessons learned from experience, the purpose of a building code is to establish minimum requirements necessary to provide safety, guard public health and reduce property losses. Model building codes provide protection from man-made and natural disasters. Safe buildings are achieved through proper design and construction practices in concert with a code administration program that ensures compliance. Model codes actually keep construction costs down by establishing uniformity in the construction industry. This uniformity allows building and materials manufacturers to do business on a larger scale—statewide, regionally, nationally or internationally. Larger scale allows cost savings to be passed on to the consumer. Codes also help protect real estate investments, commercial and personal, by providing a minimum level of construction quality and safety. Many construction materials are reviewed for code compliance by the ICC-Evaluation Service.
Steve Daggers VP Communications International Code Council
This post is going to show you 13 ways that you can save $378 or more by living in a tiny house. And that’s just the beginning because some families are saving much more than that but for now, let’s get right into it.
1. Little to no mortgage
Making the decision to build a tiny house on a trailer so that you can live in means you most likely won’t have a mortgage. Actually, banks don’t normally finance little homes like this even though they will help you with an RV most of the time. We’ll see if someday we can easily finance our tiny houses on trailers. Even if you could somehow manage to get a 30 year mortgage on a tiny house, it would only cost you $366 a month if you had to pay 7% interest, had no money to put down, and you paid $55,000 for it. This would obviously mean that you did not do any of the labor yourself. Not too bad, right? It gets better...
2. Miniscule heating and cooling bills
I’m not sure what you currently pay for your utilities but I think you’ll be impressed with how efficient a little home is. Most people having to heat or cool their tiny homes pay just $10 to $35 a month for all of their utilities. Most people that I know pay an average of $120 a month for utilities, but it can easily be much more.
3. Easy and relatively cheap to build
Costs for materials for the average tiny house on a trailer that’s less than 200 square feet is about $21,000 if you buy everything new through a retail store like Home Depot or Lowe’s. This, of course, does not include labor for anything you don’t feel comfortable doing. You can always attend a Tumbleweed workshop to prepare yourself for your first project. Later, we’ll talk about how much you can save using reclaimed materials.
4. You don’t have to buy your own land
It turns out that most people who’ve built and now live in their own tiny house end up working something out with someone who already owns land. In these situations you can either pay a little bit of rent (as little as $100 a month) or exchange a service for your stay. You can provide care for an elderly person or labor for a small farm. Or you can simply park in a friend or family members rural backyard. And when the time comes to move, you don’t have to worry about land ownership.
5. Park it in your backyard and rent out your big house
If you’re lucky enough to already live in a location where you can park a tiny house on a trailer or an RV- or maybe you can build on a foundation as a shed, pool house, cabana, guest house, or accessory structure- you can start your project right away, or look for the right property to buy. I remember hearing a story of Jay Shafer when he had purchased a normal house, parked his tiny house in the back, rented the big house out, and lived “mortgage-free”. He was allowed to “camp” in his tiny house in his backyard for X amount of days in a row (I don’t remember exactly). So every so often he’d go spend a night at a friend’s house or a hotel to keep it legal. I love stories like these.
6. No more high rent or mortgage payments
I don’t know about you, but I pay about $900 every month in rent as I write this. That’s $32,400 every three years. I wouldn’t mind parting with that, or at least turning it into something I can own free and clear someday. Some of you pay less, and some of you pay more but either way it’s one of our largest expenses. If you’re paying a mortgage do you think you could rent your house out and cover all of your costs, if you wanted to? This way you’d turn your current home into an asset that pays itself off while you live mortgage-free in a tiny house. Now that would be smart, wouldn’t it?
7. You can use reclaimed materials to build your tiny home for cheap
I’ve talked to people who have built their own tiny house on a trailer for as little as $3,500 because they took the time to find free or cheap reclaimed materials like doors, wood, windows, siding, and more. It can save you a lot of money up front to dedicate an extra two or three months just for finding the right materials to suit your design. It also helps to be open to changing your design as you find cool stuff to use for your build. Whether you end up spending $16,000, $7,200, or just $5,700, you’ll have a one-of-a-kind home that’s fully paid for!
8. You can do the labor yourself
There are now several stories out there of everyday people, like you and me, with no previous carpentry experience, building their own tiny houses. Many of them end up recruiting the help of friends and family and others hire help when they need it (like for plumbing and wiring, for example). If you’re new to construction or just the idea of building tiny and/or on a trailer, you might want to consider one of Tumbleweed’s tiny house workshops.
9. No space for oversized and overpriced furniture
In a tiny or small house, there’s only so much room for furniture. Most people who are living tiny just have a couch (usually built in), a bed, entertainment center, and a table. That’s about it. There’s also built in bookshelves, closets, and other storage. That means you’ll never really see that Rooms to Go bill again just to fill all of that space in an oversized house, condo, or apartment. You won’t need a huge dining set, side tables, and an enormous desk, either.
10. No space for constant new clothes
Living small usually means cutting down on your wardrobe. In a tiny house, studio, or even in most apartments there’s just not that much closet space. Especially if you share the place with someone else. In a tiny house, there’s only room for what you love and personally, I like that. If you love your clothes, you can always adjust your design or choose one of Tumbleweed’s tiny house plans that includes the right amount of closet and storage space for you. But the point is that in a tiny home you’re less likely to go buy new clothes every forty days or whatever. Instead, you’ll probably buy a few really nice, high quality outfits that you really love wearing (you know, your favorites). That’s what I do to stay happy with less clothes (but I’m a guy, so what do I know).
11. Less repair and maintenance costs over time
Owning less means dealing with less. Isn’t that nice? So over time you’re going to save on all kinds of repair costs in money, time, and stress. Need to paint the house again? No big deal. Time for a new roof? No problem. Need to fix something? That should be pretty simple (especially if you were the one who built it, right?).
12. Less room for children
This is my least favorite money saving benefit because I love children. And when I’m older, I probably won’t be able to live in a tiny house anymore for this reason alone. But for those of you who don’t want kids, or already have them, it’ll save you money either way which leads us to the next, and last, money saving benefit for living in a smaller home.
13. Less storage space for excessive children’s toys and gadgets
Most kids who live in small spaces end up find creative ways to meet their needs instead of depending on the latest and trendiest toys and gadgets which can get really expensive for parents. These kids tend to play outside more and interact with other kids. But maybe with all of the money you save on everything else, you can afford to buy the family an iPad for everyone to play with! My niece and nephews love this thing more than most of their toys because of all the available interactive games you can play on it and it hardly takes up any space in your house.
If all of the above adds up to a savings of just $378 a month for you, you would end up with an extra $13,608 in your pocket after only three years. But I believe that most of you would get to save a lot more than just $378 a month by moving into a tiny house. The main challenge is coming up with the money to build it or buy it up front or getting financing for it. But if you look around, you might find that you can come up with enough money to start by letting go of some of the possessions you have around you. Just maybe, because not all of us have that option. But if you wanted to, could you? Would it be fair to your family? If not, then don’t. Your family is more important than saving money. Maybe you can ease them into the idea over time instead.
But the fact is that most of you can save a lot more than $378 a month by downsizing in some way. One young family, who I won’t name, is getting to save an entire full-time salary by moving from their big house to a tiny one that they built mortgage-free. They’re getting to put away at least $1,745 a month, but probably more.
Can you imagine that? That equals to $62,820 after just three years time. Wouldn’t you agree that that could be very powerful for an individual as well as a young family? That’s how to get ahead relatively fast. With that kind of money, you can buy a more comfortable home for a growing family, start your own business, pay for an education, or pay off your debt completely in just a few years.
Alex Pino promotes tiny houses and other small spaces through Tiny House Talk. He currently lives in a 600 square foot apartment and has been downsizing since 2007. In the summer of 2012, he’s going to be traveling through the United States after pairing down to what fits in a backpack.
You will love this video of Dee Williams, produced by the National Building Museum for their "House and Home" exhibit. If you are planning to go to the Santa Fe workshop, Dee will be showing the video and letting you in on all the behind-the-scenes goodness. Why not join us in Santa Fe?
Mendocino, CA Mendocino is like Disneyland for claustraphiles, like me, but without the long lines. This one's an e-ticket ride.
Jay Shafer is Tumbleweed’s founder and designer. Jay’s self published “The Small House Book” has changed the way the world sees small homes. In addition, he has created over 20 small house plans, and teaches people how to build a house at his many workshops.
