Tiny homes

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

So-called “tiny homes” – and my God, tiny they often are – are all the craze in the “Western” world, it would seem, right now, in the second decade of the 21st century, and many families with children even downsize to those small and tiny dwellings which, in many cases may not be a bad idea. There are even, though primarily at present only intended for homeless (single) people, tiny homes villages – communities – springing up in some places with communal buildings, launderette, etc.

At the same time, however, almost everyone seems to be up in arms about the fact that Roma families in Eastern Europe “have to live” in small homes where all the kids, sometimes together with the parents, sleep in one bed and there are but a few rooms, if not just one, in the house.

A little like when the Gypsy caves in Sacramonte and Quadix were condemned by the authorities as “unfit for human habitation”, the Gitanos forced into apartment complexes, which did not suit their lives, and the caves then sold off to non-Gypsies as holiday homes and some even for permanent use. Just saying.

I am not against small homes, the opposite rather, as I can also clutter up a large one, and I think that many homes, in the USA and elsewhere, have gotten way too big and their footprint, both literal and environmental, also.

Most people, however, still see it the way that if you have a small house and your children have to share a room or, oh dear, they may have to share a bed or even the bed with the parents then you are poor, very poor, and, oh no, this can't possibly be, especially not when it is working class families or Gypsies. This goes especially for countries such as the USA, Britain, and some other places. Some of those tiny homes today, however, are taking tiny to the extreme. Small, even one-roomed, cabin kind of house is one thing but some of those are about the size of a sheepherder's wagon.

In those tiny homes into which many people downsize, even entire families with two or three kids, this is, shall I say once again, the norm, namely the family bed, with all sharing. But, hey, those are the modern well-educated folks and that's OK.

I am all for smaller homes and, yes, even, like in China and other places in Asia, for the family bed but what I cannot stand is the way that some people who live in small homes, whether out of choice or often not, and the whole family sleeping in the same bed, being told that they live in homes that are too small for them, and so on.

I am even and especially for the small homes communities – as some of those tiny homes are really a little too tiny that are in use there – for co-housing of larger extended families and intentional communities where the homes are mostly for living and communal kitchens and other common areas are also available. They would reduce the footprint in all aspects greatly. They are a great idea and far too many homes today are far too big.

My peeve is only with that the world seems to measure with two different kinds of scales here. When it comes to the hipsters and such like then downsizing to tiny homes is being applauded, even when this is with children. However, people who, to some extent by force of circumstances, are living in small homes, such as many Rom (Gypsies) then they are being castigated for living in such small homes.

Small homes are the way to go, I very much believe, and therefore rather than condemning the Rom (Gypsies) and their small homes maybe people could learn from them and, at the same time, help those Rom to better small homes. How would that be?

The family bed (more about the family bed in another article) is also very hip today among many of the “modern” families while not so long ago the very idea was being held as an anathema and people where the co-sleeping of parents and children is common were portrayed as backwards, such as in many Asian countries. In China this is still very common today for everyone to pile into the same bed of an evening, even among the urban dwellers, and for many a Chinese mother having their children sleep in separate beds, let alone in rooms away from the parents would be an anathema and a cause for mental anguish.

© 2018

Britain does not have a housing crisis but an empty homes crisis

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Thousands of homes in Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire left empty, the Gazette reported on November 24, 2017.

Despite concerns about the lack of housing in the area, almost 3,000 homes are registered as being unoccupied and while the number of empty homes has fallen since 2010 Gloucestershire saw a rise over the last 12 months. Figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government show that there were 2,464 homes in Gloucestershire left empty and 321 in South Gloucestershire.

Well, that is just in Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire. It can be safely assumed that the figure in other counties, towns and cities across Britain would, no doubt, show similar numbers or much greater ones even as, no doubt, would be the case in London.

Britain does not have any housing shortage. The crisis is that of homes being left empty, and that for a number of reasons, but none of the reasons is valid enough when we have homeless individuals and families.

If, in fact, all the homes left empty for the various nefarious reasons would be added together we could, as has been estimated some time back, house our homeless population several times over and that is not even counting those properties that, with very little work, could be turned into perfectly good homes.

There is no need to build more homes; we already have them. We just need to occupy them.

There will, without doubt, now people be popping up out of the woodwork saying that that may all be fine and good but that those homes are in the wrong place and not where people work or want to work.

But that would be rather disingenuous for where the new “affordable” homes are to be build jobs are also not close at hand either in the main which, again, means commuting. That is also true for the proposed – though it has gone rather quiet about it – new garden cities, once called eco-towns.

We do not need such, whether eco-towns or the other, but we need to refurbish old homes and building to be suitable and we must bring the empty homes back into use. If need be those homes – and other suitable buildings for self-conversion – must be taken over by whatever organization or the state and have people put in them.

Alas, we could not possibly do that as that would not give the Tory donor house builders any profits and that just cannot be allowed to happen now, can it. And no profits for the Tory donors would mean fewer and lower donations to the Tories.

© 2017 

What can rule-bending alternative builders teach us about smarter shelters?

Modern building codes and zoning regulations, while helping to set safety standards that can save lives, can also serve as big barriers to building small, sensible, and affordable dwellings with alternative materials and techniques.

The quest to build, or even just live in, a low-impact house of your own can be a challenging one, especially if you're on a budget and want to build a home with materials and techniques that are outside the norm. And if you live in an area with strict codes and zoning regulations, that challenge can be incredibly frustrating, and one which might lead you to consider moving to a less populated, and less regulated, part of the country.

Some rural areas of the U.S. still have no regulations, or very few, for building, and have attracted a number of "renegade" builders who are skirting the edges of legality while trying to build the smartest home for themselves and the environment.

In my neck of the woods here in southwestern New Mexico, I know a number of people who are living in alternative dwellings that would probably drive a city building inspector or code compliance officer absolutely nuts, but which fit their own needs perfectly. These homes range from converted school buses to adobe and cob tiny homes (casitas) to straw bale buildings and earthships and papercrete domes, most of which are not legal dwellings approved for residency. And as far as I'm concerned, that's perfectly fine, because those homes aren't meant to be rented or sold or used for anything other than the people who built them, and these houses fall under what I would call 'an acceptable risk' in the quest to build and live in your own shelter.

Read more here.

Hacker houses offer shared living for the young, green, and tech-obsessed

Matthew Oswald’s house in the outskirts of Seattle’s Capitol Hill harbors a peculiar breed of chaos. “Everyday there’s something new,” Oswald says. “It’s like a sitcom.” Just think: Big Bang Theory meets The Real World.

Oswald is a bearded, tattooed, proud New Yorker who first moved to Seattle for a job as an Amazon engineer. Now the 34-year-old lives and works at the IO House, the first manifestation of GrokHome’s business plan to provide long- and short-term communal living to whizzes and geeks who are looking to break into Seattle’s budding tech scene. It’s Oswald’s job to keep the eight-person hacker house filled with fitting residents — described on GrokHome’s website as “smart people working on interesting projects” — and then make sure it all runs smoothly as they go about indulging in geekdom together. Some days that’s easier than others.

On one of the more interesting days, Oswald came home to find a Mack truck parked outside. It contained 20,000 pillowcases, all of which belonged to 22-year-old resident Jordan Schindler. The blossoming entrepreneur had come up with a zany product idea: pillowcases infused with acne medication, so teenagers could work on their complexions as they slept.

“Don’t worry, I think I sold them all,” Schindler assured Oswald. Sure enough, about two hours later another truck arrived, loaded them up, and carried them over to Amazon. “And they sold 20,000 units within like, I don’t know, less than two hours,” Oswald says.

Cooperative housing — a.k.a. co-living — has become a hot topic for anyone thinking about the future of urban living. In late 2013, the hype about co-living was in full force; tales of millennials packing into Bay Area buildings sprang up everywhere from Gawker to NPR and The New York Times.

Read more: http://grist.org/living/hacker-houses-offer-shared-living-for-the-young-green-and-tech-obsessed/