Proposal to amend
February 23, 2010 · Print This Article
Proposal to amend IRC Code Restricting House Size:
Analysis:
Environmental Costs: The International Residential Code dictating how small our homes can be has helped make our houses the biggest in the world—four times the international average. At well over 2000 square feet, the average American house now emits more than 18 tons of greenhouse gasses every year, consumes a quarter acre of forest in its production and dumps seven tons of construction waste into our landfills.
Economic Costs: Excess and economy are mutually exclusive. We can have exorbitance, or we can have the serenity that a sensibly sized home affords, but we cannot have both. Like anything else that is not essential to our happiness, extra space just gets in the way. It requires maintenance and heating, and ultimately demands that we exchange a portion of life for the money needed to pay for these extras. Mortgage payments can appropriate thirty to forty percent of a household’s income not counting taxes, insurance, or maintenance expenses.
Social Costs: In 2008, a used house in the U.S. averaged $244,000. That is far more than the average American can afford. By prohibiting all but the most extravagant housing, current size standards have effectively eliminated housing for everyone but the most affluent Americans. By demanding all or nothing from our homes, current restrictions ensure that the have-nots have nothing at all. The U.N. Declaration of Universal Human Rights (of which the United States is a signatory) holds shelter to be a fundamental human right. Yet, in the US, this right is guaranteed only to those with enough money to afford the opulence.
Double Taxation: Our economy can no longer sustain the burden of imposed excess. American citizens have subsidized banks and the housing and insurance industries for decades as we are often required to buy more house than we really need. We are then expected to bail the same banks out when this blatantly unviable system fails. Allowing citizens to live beyond their means is one thing. Mandating that citizens live beyond their means then taxing them again at the back end to cover the inevitable damage caused by such unsustainable policy is clearly another.
Constitutionality: We should be allowed to determine the size of our own homes- large or small. Some of us prefer to devote time to our children, artistic endeavors, spiritual pursuits, charity, or relaxing. Others would rather spend their time generating and spending disposable income. Some enjoy living simply, while others like taking risks. Every American should be free to choose a simple or an extravagant lifestyle and a house, to accommodate it. Depriving citizens of this liberty is both un-American and unconstitutional.
Erosion of Standards: As long as codes ignore justice and reason, then just and reasonable people will ignore the codes. Countless thousands of Americans are living beneath the radar in structures commonly regarded as too small to meet code. This, of course, does nothing to ensure that other codes that actually do protect health, safety and general welfare are met.
Bad Design: So long as our houses are designed in accordance with relatively arbitrary regulations, rather than with what is truly necessary to their occupants, they will lack the utility and beauty of good design. Good design can produce small spaces that function and feel like large ones, while bad design can make any mansion confining and insufficient.
Issues:
Maintaining Safety: The amendments proposed here account for safe egress as defined by The American National Standards Institute. Smaller structures afford more fire safety and earthquake readiness, as exits tend to be closer at hand and structural integrity is increased as spans are decreased and the ratio of sheer to force is multiplied.
The Property Value Myth: Contrary to widespread rumor, little houses have not been shown to lower the values of neighboring large residences. In fact, the opposite holds true. When standard-sized housing of standard materials and design goes up next to smaller, less expensive dwellings, for which some of the budget saved on square footage has been invested in quality materials and design, the value of the smaller places invariably plummets while that of the relatively derelict mansions is raised.
Universal Accessibility: Just as a well-designed public space accommodates everyone, good home design puts the occupant’s needs first. No house has ever been built that will suit everyone perfectly. Those designs that try ultimately fit no one in particular. These amendments will not produce houses that are universally accommodating any more than current codes do, but the heights and widths proposed here are calculated to fit a person 6’6” tall and 200 pounds (maximum) comfortably and safely. Egress is calculated to offer safe passage to the same sized firefighter with an oxygen tank on his back and to a mid-sized wheelchair.
The creators of our International Residential Code have spared no expense in serving those Americans who are in the 98.7 percentile in terms of height and girth, a portion of the estimated 8.2 percent of us with a condition limiting basic physical activities, the building and insurance industries, banks and countless Americans who do want bigger houses at any cost. Meanwhile, the rest of our needs have been sorely ignored and, ultimately, sacrificed.
Prohibition: As long as there are Americans who enjoy large houses, large houses will continue to be built. These amendments do nothing to prohibit the construction of large houses. They only loosen current prohibitions on small structures. They stand to serve all of us, particularly those who wish to live within modest means, those with physical disabilities better served by efficient design, those with environmental concerns, with respiratory ailments, with mental psychological disorders exacerbated by an unnecessarily complicated and taxing lifestyle, the homeless, folks opposed to more bank bail-outs, and those of us who wish to give more of ourselves to causes other than maintenance and mortgage payments.
Recommendations:
Protecting public health, safety and general welfare is the stated purpose of The International Residential Code that shapes much of America’s built environment. By prohibiting the construction of small homes, these regulations clearly circumvent their own alleged goal. Amendments to the codes must be made so that our built environment can provide more safety and a higher quality of life. The proposed amendments listed here are based on safety standards and anthropometric data developed by The American National Standard Institute.
1. As it stands now, 2006 International Residential Code states that each single family home and duplex shall have at least one room of no less than 120 square feet (section 304.1). All other habitable rooms (that is, those rooms intended for living, sleeping, cooking or eating purposes) must contain at least 70 square feet with no vertical dimension within being less than 7 linear feet (section 304.2,3). Kitchens and non-habitable spaces, such as hallways, bathrooms, closets and utility areas are exempt from this rule.
Amendment 1: Delete Sections 304.1, 2 & 3. They serve no entity other than the banks and insurance industry and the building industry that is largely responsible for their creation. Public demand for functionality will ensure that our homes are of adequate size and design far better than regulation can.
The IRC requires that habitable spaces and corridors have a minimum ceiling height of 7′-6″. Bathrooms, kitchens, storage and utility rooms (including laundry areas) must have ceilings of 7′ or greater (section 305.1).
Amendment 2: Change Section 305.1 to read as, “The ceiling height of every habitable room and corridor shall be 6’ 8” or greater. Open-sided alcoves of 40 square feet or less, closets and lofts of 400 square feet or less are exempt.”
Beyond these so-called “general habitability” requirements there are a number of size standards pertaining directly to egress. An exterior door of no less than 3’ x 6’ 8” with at least 32” free and clear is needed in every unit (311.4.2). Hallways (311.3) and stairwells (311.5.1) must be 36” wide. Stairs must provide no less than 6’ 8” headroom (311.5.2, 311.5.8.1), treads no less than 10” deep with accompanying risers between 4 and 7¾” high (311.5.2, 311.5.1). A landing 3’ deep x the width of the stairs or adjacent doorway is generally required inside and outside egress doorways and at the top and bottom of interior stairways (and to break up any vertical run of stairs that is 12’ or more)(311.5.4). Spiral stairways are allowed as egress for an area of up to 400 square feet. Spiral stairways must be 26” wide with 6’ 6” headroom and 7-1/2” deep treads, measured 12” out from where stairs meet the center post (311.5.8.1).
Every bedroom requires an emergency escape and rescue opening of no less than 5.7 square feet (5.0 is ok if it’s on the first floor) (310.1.1, 310.1.1X). This opening (usually a window) must be of at least 20” in width x 24” in height (310.1.2,3), and it must be within 44” of the floor (310.1).
Amendment 3: Change the required door width in Section 311.4.2 to 32” free and clear.
Amendment 4: Change Section 311.3 to read as, “Hallways shall be at least 30” in clear width above baseboards.”
Amendment 5: Change Section 311.5.1 to read as, “Stairwells shall be at least 21” in clear width at the handrail and no less than 24” wide above and 22 ½” wide below the handrail.”
Amendment 6: Consolidate 311.5.2 & 311.5.1 to read as, “Riser height shall be between 7” and 12”. Minimum tread depth to riser ratio (that is, the maximum pitch) shall be determined by use of the following formula:
Tread Depth = 20” minus 4/3 Riser Height
Or
Riser Height =15” minus ¾ Tread Depth”
Add to this, “Ladders are permissible for access to a loft space of 400 square feet or less. Such ladders shall have 12” wide (minimum) rungs spaced at 10” to 14” o.c. apart. Ladders must support a minimum of 200 pounds. When in use, the angle of a ladder shall stand between 70 and 80 degrees. Lateral movement of the ladder shall be no more than 1” for every 5’ of rise.”
Im all for these awesome small homes !!!!! It is all very appealing to me !!!!!! We are a ‘free’ country ?? Yea right ………. Screw the codes and be free to build what you want to live ib as long as it doesnt affect others in a negative way !!!!!
Reply to this comment
huzzah! thanks for writing this up. (Though there is no author noted.)
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 2:34 pm:
Thanks, Hillary. I wrote it. I love it when people use the word, “huzzah”.
Reply to this comment
Um, YES?
Thank you for putting this into writing. Even if the IRC can’t be changed, this will be a great tool for amending the building codes in tiny-house-friendly towns.
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 2:35 pm:
So true, Katy. I was thinking the same thing.
Reply to this comment
Hear hear! Seriously, what else is there to say? Can’t wait to read your “I Have a Tiny Dream” speech, Jay. Please post it after the meeting!
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 2:37 pm:
I think I’ll be presenting it tonight at Ignite Sebastopol. I think it’ll go to Youtube when they’re done with post production of the video.
Reply to this comment
yes jay! this needs to be brought out into the open. there are so manny people in this country who seem to think the present building codes were handed down by god!!! those same people are uasly void of the truith on every other subject as well. this country and the so called american dream has always been a conderdiction .what realy gets me is the denial.its clear that excess and greed brought the houseing industry to its knees and right now the building of new houses around the country is allmost non egzistant. event though the clear answere to houseing the masses is to build lots of small,energy smart,cost effective houseing ,our answere is to have adults liveing with there parents,whole familys liveing with friends and relatives and the homeless liveing under bridges..may be thats why they want more highways ? i think you might have herd about the guy in ohio who bulldozed his house or the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building in texas? what ever the details to the problems these people had are,it only stands as an exsample of how complicated it is to keep a roof over your head in the richest country in the world. only in america.. now theres millions of empty homes standing in this country and millions liveing on the edge or on the street..whats rong with this picture??????? LET THEM HAVE IT JAY! and if theres any action on this front in central florida let me know,i will be there.
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 2:41 pm:
Right on, Frank. Thanks for the passion and the reason.
Reply to this comment
Add to your wonderful Tiny Dream the need to update outdated sewer requirements. We are using a Separrate composting toilet (separates the liquid gold from the solids) and have abandoned our septic system with our greywater now keeping our plants healthy….Why waste drinking water in moving poop around? Go get em Jay!
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 2:46 pm:
Good point, Greg. I have a hard time with paying lots for an inferior system when composting has been shown to work better anyway. I suppose this would be had for municipalities to capitalize on though.
Reply to this comment
Don’t forgot ADA (American Disability Act) I think they have doors required now at 36″ for wheelchair access on newer homes!
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 2:48 pm:
Oh, I did include a provision for that. I spent 3 months in a wheelchair myself last year and became very familiar with what is needed.
Reply to this comment
Also, an amendment is needed to permit the construction of a house without access to the electrical grid. 12VDC Solar Powe wirth battery back-up should be allowed as the only power source.for your house designs. Neither should Air Conditioning be required in new houses.
Reply to this comment
G. Rooney reply on February 24th, 2010 8:26 pm:
Hi Jay, I am a member of SHS, Resources for Life and Tumbleweed Newsletter. I am ‘with it’. But I have several comments.
1. Don’t worry about Waco. Worry about being IGNORED. Again! You may get some news coverage but your big push will be on U Tube and your friends who pass on your video. So be careful what you say.
2. With this ‘Obama Socialist Agenda thinking’ that is so prevalent in the news, I think that you should mention, again, in your speech, that people who have the resources to build larger homes and maintain them responsibly are not in the cross hairs (think Bill Gates, Geo Bush ((yes, he has solar on his Crawford ranch)) and Al Gore, well maybe…)!
It is those of us with the financial resources, who wish to downsize, and the poor, who need a voice. Just don’t turn this into another gridlock.
3. I think that the measurements for homes has grown as the American population has. I think that the building corporations ‘got it’ way before the medical, auto, or airline communities ‘got it’! Yes, it is about wealth, prestige, and equity when we used to buy houses. But in the last 20 yrs, or so, also weight and girth! No obese person could navigate a tiny trailer or loft ladder!
Fight for people who can or want to try. (not to hurt any feelings)!
4. Finally, I am really impressed with your research and knowledge. Best of luck and I will pray (hold good thoughts)for you. And, these are just my suggestions so do what your heart tells you.
It has to start somewhere!
Yours, Gerrie
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 2:49 pm:
So true. So much to fix.
Reply to this comment
G. Rooney reply on March 5th, 2010 8:00 pm:
Your personal charm and compassion is half the battle! You are an excellent spokesman for our group. Ger
Reply to this comment
Its TIME for a change! FREEDOM, really. We are living in a country where you are only as free as you have $ to be! Time for true freedom again! We Americans have gave it up, its easier to give it up and let someone else do all the worrying and thinking. Then we don’t have to take the blame for our own failure, just blame the man. WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE ITS TO LATE! We need change, and we need it now. I totally see why the rest of the world hates us, just look at how we live and how much we waste daily. I’m guilty of it as much as the next American, but I am working to change that every day now. I am cutting back on waste, energy consumption and trying to make a real change. Thanks for taking a stand! You my friend are part of the solution. You are either part of that, or part of the problem. Which will YOU choose to be AMERICA?
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 2:53 pm:
Thanks for the inspiration, Chris. Just when I was cooling down, you’ve got me all pissed off again, just in time for my presentation tonight. I’ll use it well.
Reply to this comment
Under the Economic section you could mention that a mortgage is NOT an investment. In actuality the “homeowner” will pay for the house 2-2.5 times the mortgage amount.
Debt, whether mortgage or credit card(s), makes the borrower a slave to the lender.
A few editorial suggestions, if I may:
1. If you are wanting to raise grass roots support, each of your categories needs a good one-two sentence picture using active verbs. For example [under Social Costs]. The average income in the US is $60K(?). A mortgage for the average US home with 10 percent down is $XXX,000 or $X,000/month. How’s the average American going to do that on a take home of $X,000/month? That’s XX percent! This one-two sentence could be a pic in the corner of your PowerPoint slide, too.
2. Reconsider the order [and naming] of your categories according to the average American’s priorities. I don’t think the average American would put Environment first when trying to balance his/her personal budget. If the environment is helped secondarily, great.
3. Ask questions to keep your listener/reader’s mind engaged. For example [Constitutionality]: (Last sentence) What liberty does an American have for housing options under the current code? Is this the American way of choice? Is this constitutional? You can use the question method to cover facts, too.
4. Your points are fine, just stuffily written [my opinion]. I’m missing the charisma, the passion, the “I have a dream…” You are a front runner in this arena. Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse again. Rehearse in front of a camera. Business casual [no tie] dress. Eye contact with the camera. Practice timing/pauses/emphasis, all of it.
I’m in your court. Hoping to finish and begin living in my tiny house on an 18′ trailer about May 1.
Yours for good success!
~ Judy
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 2:57 pm:
Now, Judy, this is exactly the sort of feed-back I was looking for. I will be using your tips, though, as a slow learner, they may not turn up in tonight’s presentation as much as I’d like.
Thank you.
Reply to this comment
You’re not saying risers can only be between 7″ and 12″, are you?
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 3:02 pm:
Actually, I am. That’s what ANSI recommends, and I’m trying to stick with their highly-respected prescriptions. Right now, risers are required to be 7 3/4″ (as I recall). This makes most stairwells bigger than my entire house.
Reply to this comment
Jay,
I haven’t had time to read through this yet–but it’s “Amend” and not “Ammend.”
Reply to this comment
Steve with Tumbleweed reply on March 2nd, 2010 9:03 pm:
Oops, it might be two late to amend that (ha ha on the word to, too).
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 3:05 pm:
I guess spell-check when Spell-Check fails me, readers will come to my aid.
Thanks, David
Reply to this comment
You could, as some suggest, offer these as a model ordinance for cities or towns to adopt when they pass similar models that adopt the code itself. Since these “standard” and “international” codes are all adopted by reference, nothing stops a city, county or town council from adopting the code with reservations or caveats as you propose. (Unless the state has done differently, but that’s somewhat unusual, as far as I know.) A model ordinance would be a good tool for advocates to give to their representatives.
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 3:09 pm:
Thank you so much, Scott. I’ve just cut-n-pasted your idea into my new “Great Ideas for the Good Fight” document along with a few others posted here.
Reply to this comment
thank you so much jay. this work is extremely valuable to all of us in the tiny house movement. kudos to you for taking it up a notch, and sharing your journey towards more active activism with the rest of us. we all benefit from it!
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 3:10 pm:
Thank you, Aaron.
Reply to this comment
I like most of what you have to say; I was fearing that you would be too negative. But here are a few suggestions for your presentation.
1. First I think it is too long.
2, Second, I think you should let your product speak for itself – sell people first on how great these tiny spaces are by flashing photos of your homes during your presentation.
3, Thirdly, discuss how your homes vary from code by showing a slide, and discussing what changes needed to be made in order to meet the needs of the space, and how this differs from the required building code. Just stating requirements in inches and feet, gets tedious to listen to, but coupling it with a photo gives a great visual. Further I wouldn’t go into too much detail about all the code variances, just some of the highlights then supply a detailed written document of all the codes that would need to be changed to make tiny homes available for folks – around the world.
4. Compare your homes to the standards applied to mobile homes and ask that those be applied to homes that are not mobile!
5. Good to mention that people have the right to choose a giant home or a small home. I liked how you detailed all the additional costs associated with owning a larger home. However, I wouldn’t go on and on.
Less is more – you should know this by your example.
Your speech will have far more impact if kept to 5 minutes and just focus on how great a small house is and what’s required to make that happen legally!
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 3:15 pm:
As a slow learner, I won’t be able to assimilate all of your great ideas before I go on tonight, Fiona (I should read and respond to these comments more quickly). But, as fate should have it, I’m only allowed five minutes anyway, and that pretty much made my presentation match what you prescribe.
Thanks.
Reply to this comment
I hope things go well for you on the soapbox! Don’t worry about editing too much. Opinions will vary, and ultimately any presentation will sound better if it’s your words and and your voice that you’re speaking with. I wish I could be there; and I would be if not for the 3,000 miles between us. I’m only 24 and still a kind of poor, but when I get my dream house someday it’ll be a tumbleweed. I hope that when that time comes things will be a bit easier for those that dare to dream small.
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 3:17 pm:
Thanks, Mike. Yeah. If I don’t use my own words it never works well for me.
Reply to this comment
I think you should not mention Waco again. Very bad impressions. I know you are trying to show passion and determination, not fanatical obsession. love the small house and we should be able to live in them if we choose.
Good luck with it.
Ken
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 3:18 pm:
Good point, Ken. It’s so loaded it detracts from the subject at hand.
Reply to this comment
Support you 100% Jay!!!! I hope to build a Tiny House starting this spring, if code will allow me to park it on my daughters property. Very hopeful that things will go alright, if not i am prepared to fight the code if i need too. It makes me sick when i see 2 people living in a 3,000 sq. ft. house, wasting space, when all i want and need is around 100 sq. ft. Thank you for the insperation on what hopefully will be my ” biggest” adventure yet. “My Tiny House” Wish me luck and good luck to you too!
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 3:20 pm:
And to you, Susan.
Reply to this comment
Sorry to see you are wasting your time with infusing intelligent, resourceful designs into building codes and trying to do things “the right way”.You obviously have never went down this road before or you would never attempt it twice. Your smart, you’ll learn.
I’m the guy with the advice couple months back on getting away with this, and if you listened to the point, it’s making sure you do not get identified and classified as the problem that the county deals with in certain way.
So, to get away with it when the county says, ” you can’t live in a little house, here!”, you have to avoid being identified as: ” a little house”, “living in”, or “at here”. And since county’s are complaint based systems, don’t get complained about in the first place to avoid the whole problem. Find out the county’s definition of a “little house” and build yours just under it’s sq.ft qualification. Find out the numbers of days to be considered occupying and be a registered occupier of another address somewhere else. Keep tags on trailer/houses current to avoid unregistered RV county problems and periodically move it, even on the same lot, to reinstate it’s quasi-RV unqualifiable state. If they can’t give it a name, they can’t tell you what you have to do with it.
Constantly refer to it only as your office, never admit to living in it.
Try not to be in it or answer the door between 8:30am to 4:30 pm, weekdays, when the county offices are open.
Don’t call attention to yourself, or brag.
Mr. Tiny House Friend,please think before you go. As soon as you go to the IRC and define your special use house, all the counties are going to ban the use of the IRC code R9999.9.9 “special use trailer/house definition” you helped to create. Watch out, your tiny creations ability to exist for customers has much to do with their undefineability. Think about it.
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 3:27 pm:
I have, and will continue, to give this serious thought, Rob. It may be that we have to sacrifice still more liberties in the process of gaining in the long-run. Or, as you suggest, we could just lose liberties in the process and never see those freedoms again. I will ponder and try to do the best thing possible in the end. Feed-back and concerns like yours are greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Reply to this comment
Didn’t you mean “amend”?
Reply to this comment
Jay Shafer reply on March 3rd, 2010 3:27 pm:
Yeah, I can’t spell worth a tinker’s cuss.
Reply to this comment
Morgaine reply on June 18th, 2010 8:39 pm:
Jay, Einstein could not play the violin for beans, but he did, enjoyed it and found it to be relaxing. Ignore the critics, and spell check police, while continuing to be your brilliant shining self, lighting the way…..without ever feeling the need to apologize for living your truth! I had not heard of tiny house, until Lyme Disease turned my life upside down, and I considered making a tiny shed, like a beautiful tiny pool-side cabana that I saw, with lots of windows, to park in my daughters back yard. Affordable! I felt kind of lost, and did not follow through, concerned over a conversation with the building inspector. Yet here I am, a year later, needing housing, so I am now embarking my own little house project, with wheels, which was the missing key! So, selling the BMW with high miles, possesions that are useless cluter at this point in my life, and wanting a quiet space, with a truck to tow.
Will be able to get a frame on bed, and do the rest myself. Adding things over time. I actually wanted to live in a yurt or teepee for many years, but could not find anyone up for it. Laughing/Smiling. Things have changed, Not alone in my journey any longer. Thank you from my Heart and Soul! Lotta Love!
Reply to this comment
Jay:
Thanks for being so involved. I am in support of your efforts and look forward to hearing more. Would love to help and get involved in any way I can be of value. I am personally caught in a quagmire of having property and not being able to build small the way I want. Ditto to the comment that there should be no restriction to not hooking up to the grid for new construction, or otherwise. Here in No. California, people have been prevented from living in their own homes if their power is shut off. That’s crazy. There are many who lost their cabins to fire in Butte County a couple of years ago, that are having to give up on their property because it considered illegal to rebuild off-grid, no septic and small. Wacky laws.
Reply to this comment
Crazy, nasty laws. My friend Bill Wheeler’s beautiful house was bulldozed to the ground because it didn’t satisfy such requirements. I’m telling you. This stuff just pisses me off.
Reply to this comment
I’ve got one more thing to add to your list in favor of tiny houses: urban sprawl. As part of the Growth Management Act in Washington, builders are now being allowed to build cottage communities in some residential areas. These communities have homes that are under 1000 sq ft with communities that share common grounds that range from just parking space to gardens and multi-purpose buildings. My only beef with it right now is the restriction that the main floor has to be 2/3rds of the total living space. It makes it impossible to build a small home where the first and second floors share the same area. You can read more about it here if you’re interested:
http://www.mrsc.org/GovDocs/S42CottageHousDev.pdf
Reply to this comment
Jay, way to go, I only found the Tiny House movement and your involvement about 6 months ago, now I cant get enough. I am almost 50 years old and have owned my own home for 20 years now, well the bank has owned it anyway with my help, 3 years ago I suffered a severe spinal injury and can no longer take care of my large home, I didnt know what I was going to do….then I found a solution one day when I landed on the Tiny House Blog, this is a life style that could actualy increase the quality of my life the way it is right now! I am not in a wheel chair, but have severe moblity issues now, the Fencl is my dream home! Keep up the fight, you have a lot of support behind you Jay!!!! Tim
Reply to this comment
Just have bookmarked your website, and waiting for the next interesting post
Reply to this comment
I have recently watched a documentary a couple months ago called “Who Will Stand,” which chronicled the stories of veterans returning from overseas with post-traumatic stress disorder, and the treatment (or lack thereof) that they received towards recovery for psychological well being, as opposed to physical surgeries which treated some, but not all the wounds during combat.
Most of the documentary focused on that, however, I was surprised by the statistics that were mentioned at the end of the film regarding many of these veterans’ homelessness status. It stated that, to my dismay, over 300,000 veterans in the United States are homeless. As your book states that oversized houses have exorbitant property costs as the #3 cause of homeless after mental illness and substance abuse, I would like to know if there could be a program could be started that could connect homeless veterans with Tumbleweed or other small house building projects that could employ out-of-work residents and citizens to renovate partially abandoned or neglected neighborhoods.
For example, the city of Detroit has recently made plans to demolish over 6,000 of 10,000 abandoned and homes in what is probably becoming the largest urban prairie in the United States. If leaving the prairie alone to allow the city and the environment to recover itself, then perhaps a “tiny” house rebuilding program might not be a good idea there. But I do not support the further development of natural land for the purpose of building small houses. Rather, I am in favor of the systemic (in terms of fluidity of parlance) and systematic (in terms of legislative and building constructive privileges) downsizing of of unsustainable housing subdivisions over time. If for example, a very flexible amendment to the international building code was made that allowed small 1000 square feet+ neighborhoods, then foreclosed and abandoned lots could be purchased and used for tiny homes that would slowly replace the large homes, by reusing some of their materials (except where can you fit a jacuzzi in a tiny home ? Kidding
. This alternative would be slightly better in terms of environment, because a) not everyone wants to live rurally, and b) just because this movement is literally on the spatial fringe doesn’t mean we have to be the primary group culpable for the expansion of land development for housing, when suburbs have already done the bulk of this infringement onto farmland for much of the 20th century and to this day.
In summary, I am interested in two main things, which are connected:
1) An employment program that could provide opportunities for the large homeless population that would be interested in transforming the urban and suburban landscape towards urban renewal in a similar way that FDR did with by restoring rural areas and national parks with the Civilian Conservation Corps. This would be done by replacing foreclosed and inefficiently constructed homes with a smaller one or left clear for urban or suburban prairie renewal. To be clear, I am not in favor of additional housing development into rural lands any more than a sustainable ecology can handle. And, with today’s population, I would like to be cautious on favoring any type of expansion that would not be sustainable in the long term.
This could solve America’s unemployment problem, meet sustainable standards of living, and improve neighborhoods by even reducing the need for excessive commuting (by removing roads that are no longer needed) if development can be planned to serve local needs first in a wonderfully downsized, fit, and apt ecosytem.
Reply to this comment