A Better Alternative to Small Houses
benicetobears.com
benicetobears.com
Travel trailers are dirt cheap, once they reach a certain age, and they're shitholes, once they reach a certain age. There really isn't much you can do to fix up a really old travel trailer that isn't one of the "collectible" sort (Airstream, mostly, but there are some others with collector value). They don't cost too much to heat/cool, even if poorly insulated, because they're very, very small (a couple hundred square feet). They've also got wheels, so you can drive them south when it gets cold and north when it gets warm.
And, unlike tiny houses, you can park them in most RV parks, which provides the hookups you need to live comfortably (though the older and shittier your trailer is, the fewer parks will take you, but you don't want an expensive and fancy RV park, anyway, as that defeats the purpose of living in a shithole tiny house).
I say all this only half jokingly. I live in a 32 year old Avion travel trailer (one of the collectible sorts, all aluminum and very expensive when new); not quite a shithole, but not exactly pristine, either. I genuinely recommend it for folks who have the freedom to do so.
I work remotely, yes, but always have, even before traveling. Internet has gotten outrageously expensive in recent years, as no one offers unlimited data. I spend about $250 (sometimes as much as $300) a month on Internet (it used to be under $100) from two providers, and still often find myself out of data near the end of the month. So, you should budget for that, unless you want to spend a lot of time in coffee shops and libraries and such. I have friends who travel and spend much less, but they don't work from their RV as much as I do.
It's a pretty flexible lifestyle; one can, and people do, park the whole summer in one location and then move south for winter and spend the whole winter in the desert or southern California, or Mexico. Others travel nearly full-time. It's the benefit of having a fully self-contained home with wheels.
So my current plan is a Wifi Device from Verizon, plus Satellite Internet, plus lots of Solar and Batteries. This is not cheap, and I am pretty sure it will not resale very well.
The satellite dish alone is like $7,000 (http://www.rvdatasat.com).
But I know I'll be working remote for some time, and why not just go hit the National Parks for a bit. Of course, still need to pick and choose. Not sure I could rely on a view to a geo-sat from Yosemite Valley for example, but up high at Tuolumne Meadows should be fine.
I spend a lot of time in deserts, which have surprisingly good coverage, even quite far from civilization. Being flat, and all, makes it reach quite far from towers. Mountains are problematic, but even then, you can often find a place to park that's in a pocket of coverage...or you can hike or bike to a high point where you can get coverage. And, as you note, mountains are potentially problematic for satellite coverage, as well.
But, I use Sprint and T-Mobile. Karma is on the Sprint network, so the same network, but with slightly better prices. I have a 40GB plan from Sprint ($127/month, including the hotspot and the line fee), and 16GB spread across two devices on T-Mobile. And, yes, my phone can tether, but I have two hotspots, as well. I use T-Mobile for the Binge On feature, which is zero-rated Netflix, Pandora, Spotify, Amazon Video, YouTube, etc. So, when I'm streaming, I use the T-Mobile data, and for anything else I use Sprint.
And, yes, prices are outrageous. It wasn't always this way. Clear used to offer unlimited data for $40/month, and I had an unlimited data plan on my T-Mobile phone, as well. I kept the actually unlimited plan for many years, even after T-Mobile no longer offered an actually unlimited plan. But, then they started blocking hotspot usage (even on a rooted phone; not sure how they were detecting it was being used that way), so I had to switch to another plan, which was more expensive and much more limited.
Anyway, it works out to about $250/month; if I weren't sharing it with my girlfriend (who does a lot of streaming), it'd probably be plenty. I never used to use more than about 30GB/month when it was just me. I watch a lot less TV when it's just me.
One thing I noticed about budget RVs (newer ones at least) is that they aren't built to last. They are built with really cheap lightweight materials and probably won't last a few years of full time living, never mind water leaks and all of the other mechanical issues of having a home on wheels. The better built ones go up in price very quickly, to the point where you're at the price of a cheap home, but one which is guaranteed to depreciate quickly. A classic, well build RV might be a better bet. However, ultimately, a motorhome might not be a bad bet for some people's situations. Its certainly worth the experience!
I have never paid more than $100/night for an RV park, including in the most expensive cities in the country (Los Angeles and San Diego are in the stratospheric range of ~$70/night). Sure, there are "luxury" RV parks that are a bit more expensive, but the usual nightly rate is somewhere in the $30-$50 range. Weekly and monthly rates are much cheaper.
Boondocking is great, and there's tons of great options, particularly in the west. But, you don't have to do that, if you like having hookups. It's possible to live month-to-month in some great cities for $300-$600 per month. I have spent as much as $1650 for a month in an RV park (again, LA and San Diego), and I've skipped staying in RV parks in some cities because they're so expensive (Silicon Valley falls into this category).
"A classic, well build RV might be a better bet."
Yes, that's usually my recommendation, when I'm advising people. There have been well-constructed RVs in every era since the 70s, but newer ones are very expensive. If you have some tolerance for, or enthusiasm for, doing DIY repairs, an old, high end, RV can be a good value.
I've owned a motorhome and a travel trailer. I preferred the motorhome, but wouldn't have known it until I tried both...even having spent years in the motorhome. Now, I'm a year into living in the travel trailer, and have plans to get back into a motorhome, eventually. Motorhomes are a bigger initial investment and cost more to maintain, so, maybe not the best first choice for someone just starting.
All that said, it's freedom. I can live any hours I like, do anything I want and not worry about the consequences. I don't worry about the paint falling off the wall, the furniture that wobbles or the heating that randomly turns on. I would say I am living the life.
Shared accommodation but separate rooms.
It's coming off as sheets - I think there was some thin wallpaper underneath at some point. Either that or water got underneath the paint. I think it's coming off relatively cleanly all things considered.
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/LeadCheck-LC-2SDC-Disposable-Non-Stai...
The whole 'broken window syndrome' means that no one gives a shit about anything in the neighbourhood. People will literally shit on your doorstep. They will drunkenly crash their cars into their garage in the middle of the night. You will be awoken, many a night, because people are fighting.
Stay away from shitholes if you value sleep and your sanity.
In hindsight the burned out house next door was a definite clue!
One thing that comes to mind is that shitholes are also usually located in shit areas - the whole neighbourhood situation is there usually rather depressing and less secure.
The idea of a tiny house is that you can place it anywhere - at least in theory. And that allows you to choose an especially calm, quiet, peaceful environment.
I'd love to live in a tiny house - a shit hole on the other hand does not seem so appealing. Also b/c the additional square meters wouldn't be of much use. A nicer less is for me more than a shittier cheap more.
[0] - for the non-German speaker folks, this is the closes I can find on what a kleingartenverein is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotment_(gardening)
Sure you can get a shit hole, but then it's important to ask why it's considered a shit hole. Shitty housing in good areas aren't common (at least not where I've lived)
The implication of home != investment is that you get something you can afford.
On the other hand, I have a fairly significant fraction of my net worth tied up in my home, and a fair amount of equity at this point, so it would be fairly painful to lose it.
That being said, in hindsight I am almost certainly financially in a better position than had I been renting for the past 5 years (I say "almost" because appraisals aren't worth the paper they are printed on as far as I'm concerned; I don't know a single person in this town who has bought or sold a house within 10% of the appraised value in the past decade).
It seems like poor advice to not consider a home as an investment; investments come with risks, as well as opportunity costs. Particularly for smaller units, I've known places where renting was so much cheaper than buying that it should be considered a luxury to buy, and yet people just buy once they have a down-payment without considering the financial repercussions.
Maybe you really mean one must understand that a home is not a risk-free investment, in which case we are in agreement.
What does "you can afford" mean?
You know, so you don't get into financial trouble because there's a gas price rise or your dog needs to go to the vet.
My desired location is in an anomalous realestate market. Mortgage for the place I live in would cost me about $6k/month, rent is about $3.5k/month. Even if that wasn't the case, do I really want an illiquid investment that ties me down with a loan for 30 years when there are so many other investments I could make?
Just considering a downpayment of, say, $200k ... for that kinda money I could take 2 or 3 years off work and build a business that makes much more than that. Riskier investment, sure, but also a lot more profitable and more fun. Quicker returns too.
Dunno, the arguments for buying never made sense to me. Unless of course you have high leverage (can buy cash, but choose not to). Then it's a whole different game.
Makes complete sense to me: cost of living for your desired location is outrageously expensive!
Completely OT but just realized you're that guy[1]. =)
Call me "grew up at a time when getting loans sounded crazy and kinda still does"
> the arguments for buying never made sense to me
Well, there you go. I live in a market that's anomalous in the other direction: there's exactly one four-bedroom house advertised for rent in the city at the moment, and its price is about 20% higher than the mortgage would be.
(Mortgage >> rent implies a really strange market where the landlords must be experiencing negative ROI?)
Some people don't want to fully "mark to market" and are happy as long as the mortgage on their investment gets paid.
Landlords in California have a great reason not to sell - prop 13, a tax benefit for people and corporations who bought low.
It's a credit-driven world, and the damage done by defaulting on a mortgage can be quite massive. For a large chunk of the US population, losing your house almost certainly leads to losing your job[1], as seemingly backwards as that sounds.
Without going off on a pedantic tangent, I think the general notion behind treating a home as an investment is an overarching intent to sell for profit in the near future. Play space and risk considerations are very different for turning profit vs. laying down roots.
Consider home = sustainable commitment.
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/10/29/foreclosures.govt...
Try over 2 million employees between active duty and civilian workforce in the US Department of Defense[1] alone for which the discussion at hand is very much applicable.
The devil is in the details. You'll lose your job not because you defaulted on a mortgage, but because you failed to maintain a valid security clearance, which is predicated on--amongst other factors--an ability to faithfully satisfy debts.
What you read was a mere snippet of one study which reported 24 contractors in 2009 who appealed. What it doesn't touch upon is how many contractors simply accepted without appeal, and completely omits federal employees altogether.
Furthermore, security clearance reinvestigations are a lagging indicator, generally running on 5-15 year cycles depending on clearance level[2]. If defaulting on a mortgage doesn't bite immediately, it inevitably will when reinvestigation rolls around.
But even 2 million individuals is not "a large chunk of the US population" -- being less than 1% -- and that's assuming that all employees of the US DoD need to maintain a valid security clearance (which I'll just grant you for the sake of argument, although it seems unlikely to me).
Most of the time when they're shown off, they're sitting isolated on some huge lot somewhere in the woods, so housing density isn't it. I mean, clearly, just look at how they're positioned on the market -- 9/10 are in the woods or next to a lake or some such. A housing situation that's less sustainable than suburbs.
If I look for ones that are actually for sale, they just seem to be rebranded college apartments or RVs - except now the sellers are charging twice as much because they attached a solar shower to the back or something.
They often come with advice for how to get them into RV parks or mobile home parks, but those can be very expensive to dock a house in and can sometimes come with uncomfortable and very real externalities as you intersect with the transient and the poor (plus, if you're going to live in a mobile home park, you may as well just buy a used mobile home, they're much more comfortable to live in).
Just like RVs and mobile homes, most of the shed-like tiny houses are terrible housing investments because the market views them as what they are, RVs and sheds, and depreciates them over time on average, while actual real estate tends to appreciate over time.
And for the non-RV tiny houses, they don't solve the mobility question. They're just about as fixed as a normal home structure.
And notions about living less materially seem okay, but there are many long-term stories of tiny home dwellers who run away screaming because of how cramped their living conditions are, and all the unexpected external costs (like self storage for their actual stuff) that never seems to get into tiny house movement propaganda.
I feel like what they're actually trying to solve is the desire of apartment dwellers to "own" a home without having to go through the normal home ownership system, which they've been conditioned to view as a trap of some sort for reasons, and "hack" that system by coming at it from some non-traditional angle.
It's also interesting how pretty much all of the professionally designed and purpose built tiny homes seem to lead their sales pitch with all the tiny house movement awards they've won and really not much about the structure or the maintenance of the 20 acres the tiny house sits on.
Tiny homes are also a statement of individuality. For it to work you have to select or create a design that fits how you live. People frequently build aesthetic fixtures and storage into their tiny homes as well. Thus the space reflects you much more than a trailer/mobile home.
Finally, a large part of it is a desire not to be shackled in debt. Not having long term financial obligations is very freeing; on the other hand a mortgage is a hassle.
Tiny homes are definitely only a good choice for active people who like the outdoors or being publicly social. You should avoid pre-built or spec tiny homes if possible - for it to work the space needs to feel like an extension of you.
At first I didn't get what problem they were solving. After enough discussions with them, I understand: The problem that tiny houses are solving is having the financial advantages of living in a trailer without the social stigma that comes with living in a trailer.
It's a class perception thing. In America, if you want to avoid living around the poor or being perceived as poor, you have to buy an expensive house. This is why people buy more house than they need - so they can live in the right kind of neighborhood.
Tiny house communities are a way for astrophysicists and programmers to live in trailers without having to live around the kind of people who live in trailers. It's a social hack to get around the signaling cost of expensive housing.
I told them that I didn't think it would work long term, that eventually tiny house communities would be perceived as just another kind of trailer park. They said sure, eventually that might happen, but by then their kids would have grown up and the next generation could figure out their own arrangements.
The hope (for me), is that some middle ground is reached. Make it ok again to build normal-size houses (1200-1500 sq. ft.) in nice neighborhoods with nice schools.
The Tiny House is meant to serve as a backstop against "losing everything".
Doesn't say anything good about the economy, does it?
The other factor is that it is fun to learn stuff and geek out. You pick up some building skills which you may be able to apply elsewhere.
Though I think getting zoning changed for high density is a very good thing.
> Most of the time when they're shown off, they're sitting isolated on some huge lot somewhere in the woods, so housing density isn't it.
Your thoughts here are of $ per sq ft. THs are definitely more expensive per sq ft. However the absolute number, the house price, is much lower. In my area I can build a TH (320 sq ft + loft) for 50k (to a high standard) and rent land for $50 a month.
> If I look for ones that are actually for sale, they just seem to be rebranded college apartments or RVs - except now the sellers are charging twice
The Tiny Housers agree!
The prices for THs are extortion because a large number of middle class people with no building talent whatsoever don't have the confidence to build for themselves.
A TH is at least 1/2 the price if you build it yourself, which is what most Tiny Housers I know are doing.
> They often come with advice for how to get them into RV parks or mobile home parks, but those can be very expensive
Also agree with that.
That is why most THs aren't in them. I only know one person who has done that.
Most people I know, are on cheap land rents, owned property (in the countryside), or on a piece of land owned by family or friends (in the cities). Some Tiny House people make TH communities but that is less common.
> Just like RVs and mobile homes, most of the shed-like tiny houses are terrible housing investments because the market views them as what they are, RVs and sheds, and depreciates them over time on average, while actual real estate tends to appreciate over time.
Few Tiny housers worry about resale. They just want somewhere to live.
They are also mostly constructed with the same or better quality house building materials and techniques. This means the average energy bill is very low. I've heard as low as $10 per month, but $50 is more common.
In an important way you're wrong about the depreciation curve. Larger houses cost more to maintain. A Tiny House is easier to fix and maintain. I must say the ones I've seen are often built to a much higher quality standard than normal houses.
Most of them aren't moved much, they don't have the same use case as an RV.
I expect the well built ones to last at least 60 years. They're built with the same materials (or better) as a normal house remember.
> you may as well just buy a used mobile home, they're much more comfortable to live in
Aren't most mobile homes are for 3 season living? Tiny Houses usually use 2x4 or 2x6 stick building which easily means R values of 20+, mine is almost R40.
> there are many long-term stories of tiny home dwellers who run away screaming because of how cramped their living conditions are, and all the unexpected external costs (like self storage for their actual stuff) that never seems to get into tiny house movement propaganda.
That is probably true for some downsizers who were wealthier before, but in my case the Tiny House is actually considerably larger than any place I've been able to afford before.
Also you made fun of it earlier but it really does matter how a space is organized. You can have a bigger space feel much smaller if it is cluttered.
> I feel like what they're actually trying to solve is the desire of apartment dwellers to "own" a home without having to go through the normal home ownership system, which they've been conditioned to view as a trap of some sort for reasons, and "hack" that system by coming at it from some non-traditional angle.
Come on. Do you think paying 30 year mortgages is actually normal in history?
My grandparents didn't pay for a mortgage. The average person paid 5-10 years of savings for a house. Tiny Housers are only trying to get us back to that.
> It's also interesting how pretty much all of the professionally designed and purpose built tiny homes
Like I said before this is mostly a DIY movement. People are putting their own labour into this. It is not free or easy but it sure beats the shite out of being in debt.
I'd like to make four final points.
1. No taxes as of yet.
2. The ability to move, to make an exit, that is a really powerful option that is underrated.
3. I've talked to two homeless people who see a Tiny House as an way to escape living on the streets. Their THs might not be high end but it is a huge improvement.
4. Having autonomy is very underrated. No debt. Ability to move. Not having to worry about rent or bills. Getting some skills and know-how that might help you again in the future.
I'm obviously projecting many of my own assumptions onto the movement, but willing to try to accept new information and reevaluate my position on it.
I still feel like it's at the nexus of some kind of misunderstanding of how property ownership works and some kind of hacking-the-system idealism. But maybe it'll come up with some good ideas.
I actually understand the micro-apartment movement more, because you're getting the convenience of city living along with it, and high density zoning, except that movement is also broken in ways that micro-apartments end up costing as much or more than regular old places.
Also, just as an FYI, the American style 30-year mortgage has been around since the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression and were designed to make housing more accessible.
http://www.searshomes.org/index.php/2011/07/03/oklahomas-fir...
That house would only cost $47k in 2016 dollars.
The TH movement is primarily about economics. I don't think it would exist if there were new quality houses available in that price range.
Pardon my french, but isn't it just fucking amazing how we've 'progressed' with automation in a century and many of us are still working for decades just to afford mere shelter? It's often not even to a high spec.
I sometimes look at that Primitive Technology guy and think "You know, that looks like a lot of work, but it only took him three days to construct that hut and he could rebuild it every year and it would still be way more cost effective per labour unit than anything we're doing right now!"
Yes but why is it this way?
I think the best answer is that (in the US) the state has heavily restricted the supply of land available for development in desirable areas (through zoning, etc) and also heavily subsidized demand by nationalizing the mortgage market.
This has pumped up several large sectors of the economy (FIRE) which would otherwise be subject to ordinary economic supply and demand. They all profit from home sales, construction and insurance, and have made certain that the state guarantees their revenue.
Ordinary home buyers go along with the deal because they get cheaper loan rates and more loan principal than a purely private finance market would ever provide.
I suspect it is an overhang from the Cold War - preventing the spread of Communism by the 'property owning society'.
It's hard not to throw your hands up in the air, so much of the nonsense is legacy code. 'Going to Washington' is like fighting against quicksand.
In case anybody asks: yes, this is something I do on a regular basis.
2. If you want to cater for a bunch of people regularly you can do a lot with an accordion window & deck. Like this:
http://tinyhouseswoon.com/tiny-house-basics/
http://www.windorsystems.com/another-tiny-house-uses-win-dor...
1. That removes all the joy of cooking for and hosting my guests. The point is to bring them into my home; to make them feel welcome and comfortable. Not to mention that picking up the tab for that many people would be prohibitively expensive.
2. That probably would work well in locations with a nice climate. In Texas, not so much. Maybe a couple of months out of the year. The 95ºF temperatures at 8pm don't bother me all that much because I grew up here, but a lot of people who recently moved here have a problem with it. Kind of a non-starter.
I really like the idea of tiny houses, but it's looking like, given my priorities, they're not for me.
That only works if you rent. It's too expensive to own and not maintain a rundown home - you lose too much money on letting it decay.
And no, I don't understand the economics of how it's not worth it for a homeowner, but is worth it for a landlord to let property decay. But somehow it is.
I honestly can't figure whether this blog simply echoes the sentiments of a bachelor longing for days free from adult responsibility, or tries to be some hip justification for squalor conditions contrived by the outrageous cost of living in a high-density city.
If your reasons for choosing to live in a shithole are: 1. cost; 2. cost; and 3. laziness thinly paraded as character...more 1st-world power to you. I prefer to live frugal, which actually requires a bit of work to pull off.
A large(r) "shithole" requires more money for:
# Maintenance in general - things like water heaters, furnaces, roofs and kitchen appliances are not cheap.
# Heating. Older buildings have crap insulation, you're going to pay through the nose for that if you live anywhere cold.
# Property Tax. Depending on where you live it's a function of the square footage of the house.
# Things to fill it with. The bigger the living space, the more stuff you have.
1 x 15L Medical Wastebasket
1 x60x40cm Table
1 x Anti Slip Stickers
2 x 30x40cm Bamboo Cutting Boards
1 x 75cmx35cmx150cm Industrial Shelf
1 x 56cmx24cmx38cm Plate Rack
1 x 7W T5 LED Lamp
1 x T5 plug with switch
1 x 90cmx45cmx180cm Industrial Shelf
1 x 71cmx46cmx21.1cm Range Hood
1 x 15cm Range Hood Exhaust
1 x HEPA/Active Charcoal Filter Sheets
1 x Roll of Greaseproof Foil
1 x Induction Plate 2100W
1 x Pressure Cooker 1000W 70kPA
1 x 52cmx32.5cmx30.5cm Oven 1600W
1 x 182L Fridge
1 x Kitchen Scale
1 x Kitchen TImer
1 x Meat Thermometer
1 x Immersion Blender
1 x Coffee Machine
1 x Chefs Knife
1 x Cast Iron Skillet/Dutch Oven
4 x Lint-free Kitchen Towels
1 x Vegetable Peeler
1 x Paring Knife
1 x Silicone Spatula
1 x Ceramic Sautee Pan
2 x Large Mixing Bowl
8 x Small Prep Bowl
1 x Zester (Microplane)
1 x Silicone Bench Scraper
1 x Tongs
1 x Mesh Sieve
1 x Strainer
1 x Set of Measuring Spoones
1 x Ladle
1 x Can Openner (side open)
1 x Potato Ricer
1 x Waiters Bottle Opener
2 x Wooden Spoon
1 x Kitchen Apron
1 x Salad Spinner
1 x Sharpening Stone
2 x Pepper/Salt Mill
1 x Set of Tupperware 17pcs.
8 x Plates
1 x Pack of Chopsticks 20pcs
8 x Cutlery Set (Fork, Knife, Spoon)
8 x Highball Glasses
1+1 x 120cmx60cmx75cm Foldable Table
8 x Stackable Chairs
Edit: Living area is about 6sqm (3mx2m)
It's quite some space if you know how to use it.
Here you have a typical plan of block khruscheba: http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/volgodim/14339505/26623/26623... I've seen quite a few of those. 5.8 m^2 kitchen. All over Russia.
Here is an idea for you to save space, it's popular in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dish_draining_closet
Saves time and space.
Just in case of blockage I'd keep a bleach bottle (and no other cleaner in case of a bleach/ammonia reaction) and a sink strainer around.
Well, maybe. One shithole some friends lived in in Melbourne had had all the copper piping stolen, so the landlord had replaced it with garden hose. Touching the shower head or taps in the bathroom resulted in a mild electric tingle. Something wasn't right there I tell you. Probably electrical earthing and the absence of a residual current device.
Another shithole, this time in Adelaide, I lived in for a couple years, when it rained heavy one gutter overflowed and there would be a waterfall above the window inside the house.
Couple other shitholes I saw in my 20's weren't so bad.
Filth is fun when you're young.
Also, there's no way a lender will get in on you borrowing to buy a shithole.