Tiny Houses!

January 7, 2008 at 12:18 pm (amazing things, art)

I have a weird soft spot for tiny houses. I think this is because tiny houses lie at the intersection of green and adorable, or this one does anyway. Really awesome.

These very small, very beautiful houses (via) aren’t all particularly green (though smaller is nearly always greener), but they’re still a lot of fun to look at. That link is to a slide-show with twelve different tiny prefabs, including a cute cottage built for victims of Hurricane Katrina*, pods for tsunami victims, and more than one than can be set up on stilts in a body of water.

Many of them are super expensive, like tiny little luxury homes, but I was surprised by the fair number that are sort of cheap.

* Speaking of housing for Katrina victims. So the school I’m going to this year was an army base in WWII, some kind of infirmary I think. Part of the land around the edge of the campus is still owned by the government — it’s just a weird fenced-off lot filled with old government vehicles and stuff. Recently I noticed that amongst the vehicles are out of use FEMA trailers. How do I know they’re FEMA trailers? They say “FEMA” on the sides in Sharpie.

Advertisements

11 Comments

  1. robertjerome said,

    Where I live the homes are ridiculously huge and ugly (and affordable). This is because there are a lot of Catholics in my city. No attention seems to have been given to economy of space when these homes were designed either. Often a large home will be 1/3 garage or it will have an entryway that rises to the second floor (hence, unusable space) and tiny family and dining rooms in the front of the house. It is almost like the developers wanted to make the houses LOOK palatial without actually BEING palatial. Furthermore, most of these homes have Chevy Suburbans and double-wide pickups with four rear tires parked in the driveways. It is a little bit disgusting the way these fat asses live.

    I think it would be fun to live in a tree house.

    http://www.robertjerome.wordpress.com

  2. Steph said,

    I tried to talk Matthew into buying land and hooking up a couple of these – just too sweet. But no go.

    They really seem to use space well!

    RJ, not sure what your swipe at Catholics is supposed to mean. Big families need big houses, OK, are they ugly because Catholics have no sense of aesthetics? Or what are you saying? I’m Catholic, and my house is small (under 1200 square feet, for a family of four) and really adorable.

  3. Daisy said,

    I’m quite sure that being a consumerist with no regard for the planet or for aesthetic decency is unrelated to the size of one’s ass.

    Poor design is definitely one of the biggest problems we’re facing now. There’s just no valid reason to make stuff to be crappy, disposable, unusable, but companies do it anyway because it’s faster cash.

  4. Daisy said,

    Steph, thank you for your comment there — consumerism is also unrelated to Catholicism, as are ugliness and poor design.

    And I’ve seen that Tumbleweed house before! So cool. Why is Matt against them? I think they’re awesome. Though I do see how one might not be big enough.

  5. Elaine Vigneault said,

    I love tiny house too :)
    I have fantasies of having tiny houses all over the country and playing a sort of musical chairs game with family members. We’d move between tiny houses every so often, that’s the idea.

  6. Emily said,

    Aw, Elaine, that sounds like so much fun.

  7. robertjerome said,

    Sorry, I was kind of in a bad mood when I wrote my first post. My beef with Cahtolicism goes beyond the size of their houses, sport utility vehicles or their asses. Maybe it’s their delusional religion that I detest…anyway, I’ll save that argument for another day.

    Anyway, I think the big, aesthetically-unattractive homes all over the northeast may have something to do with the cold weather. I have noticed that a lot of homes–not just in upstate New York, but also as far south as Virginia–are cubical, box-like structures. I’m not sure if this has something to do with retaining heat, but it seems plausable.

    The homes in California, I think, are more interesting looking and have much more variety than the prefab slabs of cookie cutter squares that developers build here in the east. I would move back to CA in a second if I had the resources and if I didn’t feel a deep connection to New York City, but I guess for now I have to endure unnattractive, poorly thought-out residential monstrositiies that mar the rustic landscape all around.

    http://www.robertjerome.wordpress.com

  8. Daisy said,

    Catholicism isn’t any more delusional than any other religion, and this blog isn’t a place for stereotyping/detesting Catholics (or any other group).

    I actually find most of the houses in CA less attractive than the ones I see in New England, probably because I have a weakness for that colonial/Victorian style. McMansions are ugly in any fashion, of course.

    Interesting idea about the heating — I’m curious about that. Most of those cookie-cutter houses are horribly inefficient because they refuse to make use of what’s already there — i.e. sunshine — but I’ve read that the old Victorian-type houses do some very sophisticated things that make big differences, like angling the eaves to let sun in in winter, keep it out in summer.

  9. Steph said,

    RJ, for God’s sake, don’t become Catholic if you feel that way. Don’t. Seriously, PUT DOWN THAT RICA FLIER – IT’S NOT FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    (I hope I caught him in time.)

  10. Daisy said,

    I’m sorry about him, Steph, and about my slow reaction time. Any other comments in the Catholic-bashing vein will be deleted.

  11. Steph said,

    Ah, not for my sake! No worries.

    :-)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: