Tiny Houses: Niche or Noteworthy?

By Anne Wyatt

Tiny houses — loosely defined as abodes with less than 500 square feet — are on a roll. Cool and often over-the-top cute, they star in a number of television shows and documentaries. The first National Tiny House Jamboree (Colorado Springs, August 7–9) drew 40,000 participants. Hardly a day goes by that a tiny house photo doesn't show up in a news feature or my inbox. Advocates call their fascination a "movement," even.

Getting at just how many there are is difficult. Many people live in tiny houses of the not-so-cute variety — toolsheds, parked RVs, and other under-the-radar, small structures used as dwellings — and they tend to keep mum about it. Perhaps the appeal of the simple life ties in with living quietly, especially if you don't want to tangle with code enforcers.

But interest is increasing. One indicator is the experience of Ross Beck, of Tumbleweed Tiny Homes in Sonoma, California: He says that the company had received 19,000 inquiries about tiny homes as of last October.

The tiny house movement is definitely worth a closer look. Tiny house living offers a wealth of potential benefits and solutions to a range of housing challenges; they are more economical and sustainable than conventional housing and add to the range of housing choices available.

This tiny house has one bedroom, one bath, one floor, and 404 square feet. Courtesy Tumbleweed Tiny House Company.

A niche for women and millennials

"I might rather have a composting toilet than a mortgage," says enthusiast Rachel Carrigan, a single woman in her 30s who is constructing her own home in upstate New York. This explains some of the appeal, especially to women buyers, less willing or able than their male counterparts to assume debt. (According to the information services company Experian, men carry 4.9 percent more loan debt than women.)

That jibes with what tiny home builders say. Bo Bezdek reported in an April 2015 article in Austin Woman Magazine that 80 percent of his home buyers are women; Beck, at Tumbleweed in Sonoma, reports a 65 percent or higher rate of female buyers.

Jan Burton, owner of Rhino Cubed, a company that converts shipping containers into tiny homes, says only 28 percent of owners of tiny homes have mortgages, compared to more than two-thirds of other home owners. The lower cost of the smaller homes helps; while frugal self-builders boast of homes constructed for under $20,000, most manufactured homes sell from about $20,000 — for a no-frills unit — to $80,000 for more amenities.

Millennials have different ideas about housing than their elders. The website of the Millennial Housing Lab (www.millennialhousinglab.org) at Harvard sums up changes: "We are trading stability for experience ... seeking community ... delaying marriage, career tracks and all other forms of settling down ... following our dreams, building the future, living an authentic life, and having a purpose greater than ourselves." The tiny house fits into this paradigm. Lab students have created two models, which can be rented nightly for tiny house living trial runs.

Heather Stewart at her home in Containertopia, a village of 160-square-foot shipping containers, in Oakland, California. These containers and tiny houses on wheels are making a mark in a city where rents are rising with an influx of newcomers. Photo by Jim Wilson/The New York Times.

Dreams and reality

The tiny house movement can't float endlessly in a vacuum. Talk of eco-friendly simplicity merges with practicality, and brings reason for concern. Infrastructure, zoning, minimum size requirements, and community issues — often missing in the jargon — need consideration.

Tiny home dreamers may be less enthusiastic after actually living in one. Hauling water in, wastes out, and scrimping on electrical appliances or going without because small solar arrays are underpowered may not be the dream they'd imagined. My own experiences living in tiny houses off and on over the last 20 years (before the marketing and the movement, we called them toolsheds) suggest, especially for short periods, that they can work well in good weather, in good health, and with adequate common infrastructure nearby.

But doing physical chores in less than robust health, feelings of isolation if far removed from others, and the constraints of small spaces in poor weather conditions may become challenging. And then there's the infrastructure issue: Photographs of tiny homes often depict them placed alone in natural settings, as if roads, garages for storage, water tanks, and other supports can be dispensed with.

As planners, we're not always quick to adopt useful trends. Trained to think critically, anticipate consequences, and mitigate problems, we should be asking questions and considering all options.

Do tiny house dreamers have their heads dangerously high in the clouds? Already, a number of tiny houses sit empty, with nowhere to legally house residents. There's one parked in a church parking lot near my house in San Luis Obispo, California, constructed by the nonprofit Hope's Village, which aims to start a small community nearby. The irony of the home's emptiness struck me, as it sat empty by the church — which itself served 30 clients nightly as an overflow homeless shelter — in a county with amongst the highest percentage of homeless individuals in the nation.

Are we being cautious for good reason or impeding a movement that offers solutions to some of our greatest challenges — diversity of choice, affordable housing, and sustainability?

Notions about houses

For now, questions outnumber answers. This doesn't mean we shouldn't keep asking them. Adjusting our codes and our notions of safe, decent, and suitable housing may be what it takes to get more of our unhoused into homes. Micro living spaces stretch our notions, conflict with existing codes, and bring up liability issues.

Safe, decent, and suitable housing

The Housing Act of 1949 set forth the federal goal of "a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family." Since then, quality standards in local, state, and federal codes (e.g., fixed heaters, running hot water, waste disposal, electricity, permanent foundations, so much square feet per resident) have quantified notions of "decent" and "suitable" — often invoked as "public safety" in terms of policing powers.

Infrastructure and utilities

Where are the heated water and electricity going to come from, and what's going to happen to the wastes? Codes generally mandate these in every housing unit. In tiny house villages serving extremely low-income occupants, such as Portland's Dignity Village, these are provided in common areas, similar to a campground. Could we accept this?

Size and crowding

Small houses are contrary to the usual assumption about size — that more is better. Noise, moisture accumulation and condensation, smells, and accessibility for the physically impaired underlie notions of "crowding." Community rules of conduct, clever design, and more single-person households can eliminate or mitigate these challenges. Some people specifically seek tight spaces. Is it really in the public interest to force people into larger spaces?

Zoning and building codes

These are how we define allowable versions of "home" in our jurisdictions. Local codes protect not only safety for residents but also property values. This means keeping certain residents and home types out. A survey of codes shows that most have minimums that would make small houses illegal.

Room width and ceiling heights have a clear relationship to the height of most Americans. Anybody who's bumped a head on a low ceiling or had to try to sleep curled up can understand this. A safety argument in requiring large lot and home sizes and excessive widths of homes, however, is weak at best. As planners, we may want to question our implicit roles and conflicts in protecting property values over provision of decent housing for all Americans.

Other sticking points include requirements for permanent foundations. Part of the appeal of tiny houses for many is that they are mobile. Requiring permanent foundations defeats this. Grid-tied utilities requirements are another hurdle. This makes the additional goal of off-grid (decentralized) living impossible in many jurisdictions.

Community and camping

Tiny houses offer options for community connectivity while still maintaining privacy and options for mobility. Think about camping: Americans pay upward of $30 a night (which translates to nearly $1,000 monthly) for a small patch of ground on which to pitch their own tent and park a car. Campers happily share bathroom facilities and cook outside. Why is it we frown on and often exclude people who choose to extend their happy camping experience to regular living? Camping spaces can be livable with necessary services, Internet reception, safe access roads, and mailboxes.

What next?

We can help ensure that tiny house living is practical and actually works for people who choose it — as well as for their surrounding communities. Broadening our perspectives as planners and working past our own skepticism will be a start.

Inventory our own prejudice, assumptions, and status quo bias

Are our assumptions about minimum home and room size evidence-based? Small spaces are probably a step up from sleeping on sidewalks for many and are clearly spaces many now choose — even Americans who are not economically challenged. Should these people effectively be locked out of houses in many jurisdictions?

Survey places where tiny home communities work

Dignity Village (Portland, Oregon, since 2001); Quixote Village (Olympia, Washington, 2013 (see more about this community in "Housing for All," page 34); and Opportunity Village (Eugene, Oregon, 2015) have proven the concept's success. Mark Lakeman, an architect and planner involved with founding Dignity Village, offers a few suggestions for success: "Build community facilities first." It gets harder to build them, he says, if individual homes are constructed first. "Minimize car parking spaces and other spaces where junk can pile up. If it can, it will." Finally, "It took some hand holding," but Lakeman says it was gratifying to observe many village residents — initially unskilled in community building and management techniques — become highly skilled with training and assistance.

Consider the tiny house movement within a broader context

Thoreau's story of building his small house on Walden Pond is one of our most enduring narratives. Walden speaks to appreciation of nature, simplicity, intention, and self-reliance. Today's tiny house movement shares similar values, even if many homes are not site-built by hand but are a type of manufactured home.

Recognize life cycle and evolving housing needs

Thoreau lived on the pond for only two years. As with other housing types, there may be times in the life cycle when small homes work and times when they don't. Singles may enjoy their single-bed lofts and tight quarters; couples may need more separation; families with children may find it challenging; elders may be unable to climb stairs to reach their loft beds; and individuals may need proximity to nature and to community at different times. As planners, we can consider trade-offs and evolving needs.

Do a cost-benefit analysis

Weigh potential risks of action against cost of inaction. Are we meeting our stated public policies — providing safe, decent housing to all Americans? A bold rethinking of our codes and attitudes may be warranted, particularly given the increasing numbers of unhoused and housing-challenged persons in the U.S. The shared bathing and cooking facilities of inexpensive tiny home villages work for many and compare favorably to having no such facilities on the streets.

Consider use of emergency powers

People filling shelters and sleeping on our streets because they have no options for housing is a state of emergency. Los Angeles, recognizing this, declared a state of emergency in response to increasing numbers of homeless residents. Emergency powers could allow the issuance of temporary permits to nonprofit groups seeking to place tiny houses on designated plots of land. Nonprofit oversight bodies could ensure safety of residents and adjacent neighbors.

Revisit building and zoning codes

"Get rid of minimum home sizes," Ross Beck of Tumbleweed Homes says, when asked about necessary code revisions. Shrinking minimum lot sizes, home widths, and room sizes could also help make smaller abodes legal.

Adjust public facilities fees

In many jurisdictions, fees for small homes and larger ones vary little. This penalizes those who aim to keep their footprint small.

Allow campgrounds and camping

Movable homes on wheels may never meet the definitions of "home" in some jurisdictions. Allowing legalized campgrounds in communities could provide access to housing. Fees, such as transient occupancy taxes, could be collected from residents at such sites to help defray public costs associated with additional residents.

The tiny house movement offers opportunity for planners to look at some of the planning assumptions and status quo factors that make tiny houses challenging to locate and live in. With active participation we can minimize risk and better meet more of our housing goals.

Anne Wyatt is a housing policy planner based in San Luis Obispo. She can be reached at a.reneewyatt@gmail.com.

Resources

"Tiny Houses, and the Not-So-Tiny Questions They Raise," Zoning Practice, November 2015.

American Tiny House Association: www.americantinyhouseassociation.org

Tiny House Jamboree: www.tinyhousejamboree.com