How many here could live in a "tiny house"?

[OutBy40]

I don't get the appeal of having a tiny house just to have a tiny house.

I wouldn't get the appeal of having a tiny house "just to have a tiny house" either.  But MOST people who have tiny houses probably have more legitimate reasons for living in them.  I don't live in a tiny house, but my wife and I are considering it not only because of the reduced cost of ownership, but also due a reduced maintenance requirements.  Less house = less to maintain.

And most of all, we just don't need some 1500 sqft house.  Our needs are relatively modest.

[Johnez]

If it had a yard to grow stuff and I could also own a workshop with enough room for all my tools and projects it might be doable. As it is now, I'm a packrat though and keep everything which makes simple living kind of hard. Must throw crap away.

Thinking about this tho had me realize there IS another option for independence beside regular home ownership. Owning a home in Southern California AND early retiring is impossible on most salaries here, but hell renting a small place in a decent city is doable enough with a small shop on the side. Thanks for widening my horizons!

[Spork]

so... I'll throw this out there from our experiences living in the shed:

* The secret is in planning to the Nth degree.  I might even say get help from someone that makes tiny house plans professionally.  They've worked through the problems of optimizing space.   Our tool shed house was not thought out well.  Oddly shaped rooms, poorly thought out sizes/shapes and no real thought to convertible space.

* Our kitchen was bad.  Or, as the wife would say: our "kitchen" was bad.  Just a few tweaks would have gotten us more cabinet space.  Cooking/cleanup was a juggling exercise.  There was no ventilation and the AC didn't really make it there, making it very hot with the refrigerator dumping heat and the stove running.

* Our AC was undersized.  We had 2 window units on either side of the house.  They were cheap Home Depot brand and didn't last.  They were also powered by 120v, making them very inefficient.

* There are times it would be nice to have at least a second half bath.  But: we lived.

* We did have lots of storage.  I think this is important.  It was a 1200 sqft shop building and 600sqft was converted to living quarters / 600 left as raw shop.

I will say: I very fondly look back on this time as one of the best times in my life.  We were living very low and having a whole lot of fun.  While I would do it differently in retrospect: I DO NOT regret doing it.

[nereo]

* The secret is in planning to the Nth degree.  I might even say get help from someone that makes tiny house plans professionally.  They've worked through the problems of optimizing space.   
(snip)

This reminds me of something Sarah Susanka mentioned in The Not So Big House; (paraphrasing) Several people can live harmoniously on a well-designed sailboat while a couple can feel cramped in a poorly designed 2,000+sqft house.

After living on a sailboat I concur.  Smart design is everything - a tiny house can feel more spacious and function better than something twice its size if it is done well and reflects how the users actually live. 

[OutBy40]

so... I'll throw this out there from our experiences living in the shed:

* The secret is in planning to the Nth degree.  I might even say get help from someone that makes tiny house plans professionally.  They've worked through the problems of optimizing space.   Our tool shed house was not thought out well.  Oddly shaped rooms, poorly thought out sizes/shapes and no real thought to convertible space.

* Our kitchen was bad.  Or, as the wife would say: our "kitchen" was bad.  Just a few tweaks would have gotten us more cabinet space.  Cooking/cleanup was a juggling exercise.  There was no ventilation and the AC didn't really make it there, making it very hot with the refrigerator dumping heat and the stove running.

* Our AC was undersized.  We had 2 window units on either side of the house.  They were cheap Home Depot brand and didn't last.  They were also powered by 120v, making them very inefficient.

* There are times it would be nice to have at least a second half bath.  But: we lived.

* We did have lots of storage.  I think this is important.  It was a 1200 sqft shop building and 600sqft was converted to living quarters / 600 left as raw shop.

I will say: I very fondly look back on this time as one of the best times in my life.  We were living very low and having a whole lot of fun.  While I would do it differently in retrospect: I DO NOT regret doing it.

Out of curiosity, did you have a loft for your bed, or was it all on the same level?

[chouchouu]

When we lived in London we lived in a single car garage converted into a studio apartment. It was doable but not a lifestyle that appeals to me. Every time we had a dinner party we had to move furniture outside so everyone could fit. I much prefer having defined living spaces and room to entertain without thinking about logistics. I also think everyone needs their own room eventually, a room of ones own to be creative. My preference is for an oversized apartment, I love high ceilings, a bath and a big pantry to store all my bulk grocery purchases. I imagine there isn't much natural light in these tiny houses because wall space is at a premium. Our garage/studio had high windows and only one small window low enough to see anything, I much prefer an abundance of natural light. I see no reason for going so small with minimal savings and a significant decrease, for myself, in standard of living.

We currently live in a two bedroom apartment with our twin daughters. I love the big living space where my kids can build their train tracks and mini towns. They can let their imagination go wild and its not in anyone's way. I can entertain a large number of people just by moving the dining table up against a wall. If only it had a big pantry it would be perfect but that's more an issue of poor design than lack of space.

[Spork]

Out of curiosity, did you have a loft for your bed, or was it all on the same level?

All on the same level.  Bedroom was an odd, long room that we also had an "office" space in.  There was a loft, but the ceilings were so lo as to not be usable.  It went to storage and cat litter box.

The area was built out by previous owner.  He built the loft for a grand daughter, so it was of munchkin proportions.

[OutBy40]

Out of curiosity, did you have a loft for your bed, or was it all on the same level?

All on the same level.  Bedroom was an odd, long room that we also had an "office" space in.  There was a loft, but the ceilings were so lo as to not be usable.  It went to storage and cat litter box.

The area was built out by previous owner.  He built the loft for a grand daughter, so it was of munchkin proportions.

Gotcha.  Munchkin proportions actually sounds like a good size for my wife and I (even though I'm 6' even, about 210 pounds). 

[YK-Phil]

I don't get the appeal of having a tiny house just to have a tiny house.

I could give you dozens of reasons why I prefer a tiny house over a regular-sized house (whatever it means in your necks of the woods), and none of them has anything to do with keeping up with the Jones or status, and everything to do with being mustachian and living a balanced and sustainable lifestyle where things don't matter as much -or not at all for a fact- as experiences. At this moment, my wife, 18-year old daughter and myself live in a 790 sq. ft. condo, and we have more space than we need in order to live a pleasant and convivial lifestyle and to store all our "stuff".

Well I wouldn't call 790sqf condo a tiny home that is just a little bit smaller than my home. So I guess it's all in definitions because I don't consider my house tiny at all.

If you read what I wrote, I said we are currently living in a 790 sq. ft. condo. I never said it is a tiny house, but I said clearly that it is more space than we need, even with a 18 year-old daughter. This was a follow up response to my original post above which says that I am in the process of designing a tiny house of about 200 sq. ft more or less similar to this one.

http://tinyhousebuild.com/

[oinkette]

I have no problem with the tiny house portion.  My problem is having to be dependent on a larger home base for electricity, water, land, etc. That makes it no different than an RV. I also don't like that most of them involve some sort of loft bed.  For various reasons that wouldn't work for me.  Otherwise it would be ideal!

[boognish]

I currently live in a 270 sq ft studio and there's plenty of room. I suppose things would change if there were more people in the equation.

I do eventually want a garage/work space. Right now it's difficult to work on my car/bike/projects without a dedicated space. Would be nice to protect my car from the elements too.

Space for a small garden would be great too.

[astvilla]

In my imagination, I would live in a much smaller space than currently. Living with parents in 3300 sq ft does have benefits as in they are far away from me it's like I'm not living w/them. And having a lot of space to walk around in is plus and minus.

Moving out I would definitely live in smaller place but maybe not in those tiny homes I watch alot on Youtube. Those homes would be more a vacation cabin or getaway/emergency house for me if anything. Ideally a condo/townhouse or small sf home is enough for me.

I think long-term tiny homes are definitely worth it. You save money on furniture, heating, cleaning, property tax, the house itself (no mortgage likely and no interest). You save time because it forces you to be more organized, not having so many places to put things like in big house would make things easier to find. I always thought of tiny homes as pretty Mustachian, only taking the essentials you need in life. Of course w/family or spouse, it becomes a lot more difficult. Tiny homes IMO make good college dorm rooms, post-grad working but not married dwellings at least.

[rocksinmyhead]

Seriously how would you have sex in a 200sqf home if you had a kid???

I'm glad I'm not the only person who wonders this EVERY time I see a family living in a tiny home!

In my alternate life, where I'm not married and have only 1 pet, a nice tidy cat, I live in a tiny 500 sq ft house with a huge garden. IF it has a basement, all the better.

But that's just fantasy. DH comes with hundreds of sq ft of stuff, so we have to  live where we can accommodate that. He's got tools and tool and tools, plus he never gets rid of things so he's got items from his high school days.

Basically this. By myself, I could totally do it as long as I had good outdoor space. I like the idea of simplicity, not spending so much time cleaning, not spending time looking for items because you just can't have that much stuff. I do not think my boyfriend would be at all happy in a tiny house, so it will never happen :)

[AgileTurtle]

I am in the minority around these parts but i think they are stupid and no way would I willing live in one. I like my space, I dont like clutter, I want room to work on projects, I like to have guests over and room to sit. It is dark and winter here4 months of the year and I stay inside for the most part.

[starbuck]

Nope, couldn't do it long term. Our house is 1600 sq ft, and I know we could easily cut it in half and be fine. Our old apartment was 1000 sq ft and we didn't even use all of that space. Smaller than 800 sq ft and I'd go batty.

Small house? Yes! Tiny house? No!

[RetiredAt63]

I am with AgileTurtle - I am cooped up so much in the winter that I need some space.  There is a reason people used to get cabin fever!  The down side of being retired is that you are not heading off to a job every day, where you have a change of scenery and people to interact with.  If I didn't bestir myself I could stay home for a week without seeing anyone.

Plus at this point the fewer stairs the better - no way would I want to sleep in a loft.

I know my present house is too big, but it is almost impossible to find anything much smaller around here.  Even old farm houses are bigger - and all the stairs!

A summer cottage, on the other hand, would be fine if small - but summer cottages attract visitors (welcome ones), and the weather is not always perfect, so there is still some square footage needed just to have some place to put the bodies on a bad weather day.  A screened porch helps, but is not enough.

[Carlsky]

My wife and I would like to do it but with 3 kids under 4 years old, we think it will be too difficult as they grow up.  But full time RVing does sound interesting.

[YK-Phil]

I am in the minority around these parts but i think they are stupid and no way would I willing live in one. I like my space, I dont like clutter, I want room to work on projects, I like to have guests over and room to sit. It is dark and winter here4 months of the year and I stay inside for the most part.

It is fine not to want to live in a tiny house because they don't fit your lifestyle, but at the very least, you should refrain from using the word "stupid" to describe what a lot of people on this forum like. We may have different tastes and opinions, but stupid is not a way to describe these differences.

[AgileTurtle]

I am in the minority around these parts but i think they are stupid and no way would I willing live in one. I like my space, I dont like clutter, I want room to work on projects, I like to have guests over and room to sit. It is dark and winter here4 months of the year and I stay inside for the most part.

It is fine not to want to live in a tiny house because they don't fit your lifestyle, but at the very least, you should refrain from using the word "stupid" to describe what a lot of people on this forum like. We may have different tastes and opinions, but stupid is not a way to describe these differences.

I wasnt calling any person stupid, I was calling tiny houses stupid. I know some people on here like them, that doesnt mean I dont think the houses are dumb. I think the whole idea of them is a fad. Most the ones I see pic of look like trash. I also think it would be anti-mustiaian to go with it just because others are. I have family that live in small houses, trailers, and shacks out of necessity and it is far less glamorous than the internet lets you think. I grew up in really tight quarters and it sucked.

[OutBy40]

Nope, couldn't do it long term. Our house is 1600 sq ft, and I know we could easily cut it in half and be fine. Our old apartment was 1000 sq ft and we didn't even use all of that space. Smaller than 800 sq ft and I'd go batty.

Small house? Yes! Tiny house? No!

Tiny homes can be built around 1000 sqft.  When we talk "tiny house", it doesn't necessarily mean that you're living in a 250 sqft shack.

[AgileTurtle]

I think long-term tiny homes are definitely worth it. You save money on furniture, heating, cleaning, property tax, the house itself (no mortgage likely and no interest). You save time because it forces you to be more organized, not having so many places to put things like in big house would make things easier to find. I always thought of tiny homes as pretty Mustachian, only taking the essentials you need in life. Of course w/family or spouse, it becomes a lot more difficult. Tiny homes IMO make good college dorm rooms, post-grad working but not married dwellings at least.

I partially disagree with this. Tiny houses do not exist free unless they are mooching off someone. Also, you are not forced to buy furniture for your house, you can have a house with as much furniture as your tiny house.  Home furnaces running on natural gas are far more efficient than almost all the heating sources of tiny houses.

[OutBy40]

Most the ones I see pic of look like trash. I also think it would be anti-mustiaian to go with it just because others are. I have family that live in small houses, trailers, and shacks out of necessity and it is far less glamorous than the internet lets you think. I grew up in really tight quarters and it sucked.

Lol.

I don't know what pictures you're looking at, but whatever they are, they don't represent what a tiny home can look like.  You may be looking at homes built by the homeowner to the best of their ability. 

[Overseas Stache]

Nope, couldn't do it long term. Our house is 1600 sq ft, and I know we could easily cut it in half and be fine. Our old apartment was 1000 sq ft and we didn't even use all of that space. Smaller than 800 sq ft and I'd go batty.

Small house? Yes! Tiny house? No!

Tiny homes can be built around 1000 sqft.  When we talk "tiny house", it doesn't necessarily mean that you're living in a 250 sqft shack.

OK we really need to get a solid definition of a tiny house because according to your 1000 sqft number I live in a tiny home and that is just not possible because I am Anti-Tiny home. :).

[AgileTurtle]

Nope, couldn't do it long term. Our house is 1600 sq ft, and I know we could easily cut it in half and be fine. Our old apartment was 1000 sq ft and we didn't even use all of that space. Smaller than 800 sq ft and I'd go batty.

Small house? Yes! Tiny house? No!

Tiny homes can be built around 1000 sqft.  When we talk "tiny house", it doesn't necessarily mean that you're living in a 250 sqft shack.

OK we really need to get a solid definition of a tiny house because according to your 1000 sqft number I live in a tiny home and that is just not possible because I am Anti-Tiny home. :).

Im with you. If we are calling 1000sqft tiny houses. I lived in a whole neighborhood of Mustachians. Tiny homes, used cars or no car, some even temporally retired.

[nereo]

OK we really need to get a solid definition of a tiny house because according to your 1000 sqft number I live in a tiny home and that is just not possible because I am Anti-Tiny home. :).

yes, we certainly need some sort of definition here or we're all arguing about different things.  According to "Mr Google" there's no agreed-upon definition, but one builder lists their tiny homes as between 117-874 sqft.  Most of the ones that I am seeing are in the range of 300-500 sqft, but a few fall under the 300 sqft mark, and I've encountered a few listed as a "tiny house" that are around 900 sqft.
The median sqft of a single-family home in the US is 2,384, so even something that's 800sqft is about 1/3 of what a 'normal' sized home is.  For me that fits the definition of a tiny house.  Others will be more extreme, refusing to call a 596sqft house "tiny" even though it's 1/4 of the size of the median new single-family home in the US.

[OutBy40]

OK we really need to get a solid definition of a tiny house because according to your 1000 sqft number I live in a tiny home and that is just not possible because I am Anti-Tiny home. :).

It is not my place to "define" how big tiny homes can be.  If you look at tiny home offerings from builders and blue prints that can be bought through a variety of services, tiny homes come in all different types of shapes and sizes, anywhere from 100sqft to 1000sqft.  I am not aware of any upper limit cutoff where a tiny house graduates to "small house" stature.  :)

MOST tiny homes are considerably smaller than 1000, but they don't have to be 200sqft, either.

[LiveLean]

I not only could, it's part of our FIRE plan to live in a Dodge/Mercedes Sprinter Van -- 25mpg diesel, 120 or so square feet. We'll sell the house when the kids head off to college and live sporadically in our beach house rental property when it's not occupied. (It rents on a weekly basis mostly between May and October). 

[OutBy40]

I not only could, it's part of our FIRE plan to live in a Dodge/Mercedes Sprinter Van -- 25mpg diesel, 120 or so square feet. We'll sell the house when the kids head off to college and live sporadically in our beach house rental property when it's not occupied. (It rents on a weekly basis mostly between May and October).

Okay, now that's taking the concept of a tiny home to a whole new dimension.  :)

[AgileTurtle]

OK we really need to get a solid definition of a tiny house because according to your 1000 sqft number I live in a tiny home and that is just not possible because I am Anti-Tiny home. :).

yes, we certainly need some sort of definition here or we're all arguing about different things.  According to "Mr Google" there's no agreed-upon definition, but one builder lists their tiny homes as between 117-874 sqft.  Most of the ones that I am seeing are in the range of 300-500 sqft, but a few fall under the 300 sqft mark, and I've encountered a few listed as a "tiny house" that are around 900 sqft.
The median sqft of a single-family home in the US is 2,384, so even something that's 800sqft is about 1/3 of what a 'normal' sized home is.  For me that fits the definition of a tiny house.  Others will be more extreme, refusing to call a 596sqft house "tiny" even though it's 1/4 of the size of the median new single-family home in the US.

I always thought tiny homes were non permanent structure homes built on trailer frames. If we are calling a 900sft brick house a tiny house I am all for them. But there is no way that is the same thing as a 250sqft wooden box secured to a trailer frame.  A 900sqft house isnt even that small or out of the ordinary. Half the houses were i grew up were around that size and no one talked about it like it was weird.

[mak1277]

OK we really need to get a solid definition of a tiny house because according to your 1000 sqft number I live in a tiny home and that is just not possible because I am Anti-Tiny home. :).

yes, we certainly need some sort of definition here or we're all arguing about different things.  According to "Mr Google" there's no agreed-upon definition, but one builder lists their tiny homes as between 117-874 sqft.  Most of the ones that I am seeing are in the range of 300-500 sqft, but a few fall under the 300 sqft mark, and I've encountered a few listed as a "tiny house" that are around 900 sqft.
The median sqft of a single-family home in the US is 2,384, so even something that's 800sqft is about 1/3 of what a 'normal' sized home is.  For me that fits the definition of a tiny house.  Others will be more extreme, refusing to call a 596sqft house "tiny" even though it's 1/4 of the size of the median new single-family home in the US.

I always thought tiny homes were non permanent structure homes built on trailer frames. If we are calling a 900sft brick house a tiny house I am all for them. But there is no way that is the same thing as a 250sqft wooden box secured to a trailer frame.  A 900sqft house isnt even that small or out of the ordinary. Half the houses were i grew up were around that size and no one talked about it like it was weird.

Tiny homes aren't necessarily built on trailer frames.  As I understand it, some jurisdictions force you to keep them "mobile" if they are under a certain square footage, but that's not true everywhere.  I watched an episode of House Hunters last night that showed three tiny homes (all under 700 sq. ft) and none of them were "mobile".

[nereo]

I always thought tiny homes were non permanent structure homes built on trailer frames. If we are calling a 900sft brick house a tiny house I am all for them. But there is no way that is the same thing as a 250sqft wooden box secured to a trailer frame.  A 900sqft house isnt even that small or out of the ordinary. Half the houses were i grew up were around that size and no one talked about it like it was weird.

Well there you go :-)  My grandfather used to say that half of all disagreements faded away once you carefully defined what you were talking about.
No, I don't consider tiny homes to be non-permanent structure homes on trailer frames.  While those certainly apply, I think it's a small subset of the total number of 'tiny homes'.  Those certainly take a special sort of person and mentality to live in that even a lot of mustachians might find difficult.  But there are lots of permanent designs as well.  My former residence was a free-standing structure that was right at the 500sqft mark.  It was incredibly well designed and 'felt' bigger than most places I've lived, despite the diminutive square footage, largely because of the windows and outdoor spaces. My landlord built the place himself from a set of professional plans, and it cost him something like $50k. 

[OutBy40]

Well there you go :-)  My grandfather used to say that half of all disagreements faded away once you carefully defined what you were talking about.
No, I don't consider tiny homes to be non-permanent structure homes on trailer frames.  While those certainly apply, I think it's a small subset of the total number of 'tiny homes'.  Those certainly take a special sort of person and mentality to live in that even a lot of mustachians might find difficult.  But there are lots of permanent designs as well.  My former residence was a free-standing structure that was right at the 500sqft mark.  It was incredibly well designed and 'felt' bigger than most places I've lived, despite the diminutive square footage, largely because of the windows and outdoor spaces. My landlord built the place himself from a set of professional plans, and it cost him something like $50k.

You wouldn't happen to have any pictures of that design, would you?  Just curious.

[Thegoblinchief]

Family of 5 in 740 sqft and a basement. The basement gives us storage, utility space, and some living space. If you count all of it to make the full house 1400 sqft we are not tiny house territory, but with the current layout it's "just about right". With a better layout it could get smaller, but then you're consuming materials and destroying others for a net benefit of...what, exactly?

So my answer to the OP's question is yes. I don't need huge amounts of living space, even with kids still in the equation, but count me as one who also needs a garage/shop and yard. I'd also love to have a greenhouse or atrium. I'd also really want a basement or some other subterranean structure to function as root cellar / longer term food storage.

I think allowing "tiny house" up to 1,000 sqft is rather silly. IMO the rule of thumb should be not much more than 250/person.

[homehandymum]

To elaborate on my 'nope' up above,  I could not be comfortable or happy in a small space in the current phase of my life.  Heck we just doubled the space of our home and I am LOVING it.

Having said that, my (older, half-) sister and her partner live in a caravan for the summer months, and a 2-room house they own for the winter, and rent out over summer.  They live in a fairly popular tourist part of the country, so have no trouble renting out the house, and also the winters are jolly cold, and their caravan was not much fun the first time they tried to winter in it.

She LOVES the caravan, says it feels like she's on holiday all summer, even though she goes to work each day, and she loves how little cleaning there is to do in the place.  They have storage in the garage of their house.

But: no kids, no pets, no space-taking hobbies, just the two of them in a permanent site at a caravan park, with a deck and a tiny garden around them.  And only for the good-weather half of the year.

For me: almost 4 kids, quilter (thus fabric stash, machines, works in progress...), gamer husband (thus, many board games and shelving for MtG), homeschooling (thus books and more books, and all the kids' works in progress...) I say 'no way'.  But we won't always be at this life stage, and who knows what we'll choose once the kids have flown the coop?

[Silverwood]

I love that small house bliss site. I lived in a 700 sqft home and now I'm in 800 sqft with a basement.  I like this home better because I like the design better. What I like about the tiny homes is that you get to design it for YOUR needs. From what Ive read its seems that everyone finds something lacking so they then build their own.   My favorites are the one already listed and the minim home (http://minimhomes.com/photos/) You can build tiny homes that dont have loft bedrooms.  Building these looks like fun. It is something that you can do with little skills and learn as you go along. It also makes you question the things you own.

I go back and forth on owning a small condo or a tiny cabin with acres of land. There is also just staying put in the house I have now.  A condo with a balcony to grow a few things lets me travel without worrying about maintaining my yard while I'm away. A tiny cabin with lots of land and not worrying about bothering the neighbors would be nice too. For right now its just something fun to think about while bored at work.

[redbirdfan]

I really want to live in a tiny house (the 200 sq. ft. built on a trailer variety).  I don't want one just to have one.  I want one because theoretically it's a way to substantially reduce my main expense (housing) while living a minimalist lifestyle.  Over time I could save and invest a higher percentage of income which would in turn allow me to reach FIRE earlier.  I've done a ton of research and sadly I just don't think there's a way to make it work here.  The space isn't the problem...the small space is one of the benefits in my opinion.  You can design your own home to suit your needs and some of the designs are ingenious.  Plus, the tiny house would be too small for any rampant consumerism.  The problem is finding a place to put it (where you're not still subject to huge rent increases for the use of the land).  In Seattle you'd also be at the mercy of being reported since there is no way to legally live in a mobile tiny house within the current building code framework.   For me it doesn't make economic sense to buy a $300k+ piece of land just to have a place to put a <$25K tiny house.  At that point, you'd be better off buying a small condo in the city.     

[pbkmaine]

Not the ones with ladders. At 58, I need to get up and pee in the middle of the night and I DO NOT want to climb down a ladder or pee in a pot to accomplish this. Some of the tiny houses that are all on one floor would suit me fine, but DH needs room for his electronics equipment, which would require its own not-so-tiny house. Right now we are at 1800 sf, which is too big for me and too small for DH. So, in the spirit of compromise, it must be just right.

[highcountry]

With two of us living in just under 140 square ft. there are definitely some trade-offs.  The advantages are amazing (affordable homeownership in an expensive area; control of our own living space; it's lovely..).  The disadvantages are that even with an excellent layout and plenty of storage, it is a little small.  In an ideal world we would have another 100 or so square ft. plus a shop that was bigger then the house.  We talk about building additional free standing units as our lives and needs change, but I would not be at all surprised if we live in our little house for a very long time. 

In my mind a tiny house is probably less than 350 sq ft, but not necessarily built on a trailer frame.  A small house is less than ~700 or 800, and anything bigger then that is huge. 

So much of the drive for larger spaces seems to come down to how much stuff a person owns.  There is a certain cultural minimum where you have enough space to get away from each other, cook, and not trip over anything essential when trying to get to the bathroom, but beyond that point it seems like its all a culturally constructed, self reinforcing "need".  For the two of us, I suspect the comfortable (luxurious?) minimum is close to 250 square ft. with a loft, and the 140 we have is quite doable if sometimes slightly awkward.  We have had to let go of some possessions that we cared about to do it, but holding onto piles of books and pretty things does not feel like a legitimate need when compared to the benefits that our house has given us.

Edited to add:  redbirdfan:  you may want to reconsider.  Our response when we posted an advertisement looking for a place to park was extremely positive.  We are not in Seattle, but we are not exactly rural either.  We rent a spot and are more visible then I would like by a long shot.  It is possible we will have problems in the future but if we do I suspect we will be able to find another spot pretty easily.  Mentally, it helps that we are in the area that I grew up, so if it becomes harder to fly under the radar  we would still have a pretty good network of possible parking places that would welcome us. They would come with longer commutes then what we currently enjoy though. 

[robotclown]

Where does one put a tiny house?  It has to go somewhere; do you buy a plot of land someplace?  You can't really put in in a neighborhood because everybody would surely freak out.

I could do the RV thing though, definitely.  There's a million free places to camp if you don't mind being out in the middle of nowhere, and all my stuff fits comfortably into my car anyway. 

[babysnowbyrd]

I am in the minority around these parts but i think they are stupid and no way would I willing live in one. I like my space, I dont like clutter, I want room to work on projects, I like to have guests over and room to sit. It is dark and winter here4 months of the year and I stay inside for the most part.

It is fine not to want to live in a tiny house because they don't fit your lifestyle, but at the very least, you should refrain from using the word "stupid" to describe what a lot of people on this forum like. We may have different tastes and opinions, but stupid is not a way to describe these differences.

+1

Stupid for one situation maybe but genius for others.

I consider myself in a "tiny house"--mine is a 2003 Alfa Gold 5th wheel. I believe it's 398'. It's got a TON of windows in the living area which is wonderful! It's plenty roomy enough for one. That being said, there are some definite design issues. Someday I'd like to completely redo the bedroom and make it more of a creative space than a room that the bed fills up most of the way. That and I could tear out the TV from the desk area to open it up. I don't watch TV much, but it would be fun to have a white screen to pull down in front of the desk and a projector for inviting people over for movies.

Won't do any kind of renovations until it's paid off though.

[mrmoneycleanshaven]

Lived in hotels for two years straight, and I thought living in a camper trailer would be a cakewalk, but then I visited friends who live in one. Nope can't do that, not that I really have the choice.

[Thegoblinchief]

Lived in hotels for two years straight, and I thought living in a camper trailer would be a cakewalk, but then I visited friends who live in one. Nope can't do that, not that I really have the choice.

Any particular reason why you say that? Just curious.

[kib]

I'm surprising myself when answering this question, but no, I don't think so, I don't think I could live in one of those 8*12 gingerbread house on wheels houses, even though I think they're amazing.  I don't need a lot of stuff, and I've spent a lot of time designing small spaces.  I used to have a summer cottage that was an excellent 140 feet.  But ... I really, really like the feeling of space.  Cozy comfy quiet inside private soft carpet and big windows space.  I had a studio condo that was 450 sq. which was good for just me, could have used some garage-type work space though. My friend in NYC had a 300 sq space that Might have worked because the ceilings were so tall.  But living in a home much smaller than that full time would get on my nerves, I think. I hated RV living.

[babysnowbyrd]

Lived in hotels for two years straight, and I thought living in a camper trailer would be a cakewalk, but then I visited friends who live in one. Nope can't do that, not that I really have the choice.

I think it depends on the RV. When I was looking for one to live in I immediately disregarded cramped-looking ones. Mine doesn't have the fold-down table/bed and it has a lot of extra storage up high. I'm not sure how high the ceiling is in it. Maybe 9'? I'm pretty short, so I need a ladder if I really want to get into the high cupboards, but even an average-size person would have a bit of a reach.

Most people are surprised how nice it is when they come in. Everyone basically says some version of the same thing when they walk inside.

Here's a couple pics:

[Zarya]

I think people are attracted to the "tiny house" because of its minimalist aspect as well as the "cool gadget" aspect (folding tables! beds that disappear into walls!), not to mention the privacy of it being your own house and not a unit in a multi-unit building.

Having lived in small European apartments for years, though, I can tell you that the space must be truly well-designed in order to be comfortable instead of simply crowded or non-functional. Our family of five lives in 775 ft2 (2 bedrooms, 1 bath) and we do our best to minimize having furnishings that have to be moved or changed around on a daily basis (sofas that get turned into beds every night, etc.). No matter how cool as they look in the plans, after you've had to keep up with these things for a while they start to be annoying. Also, having lots of furniture and narrow spaces means that cleaning is tricky. I saw a "tiny house" plan once that had a kitchen counter that folded down over the stairs up to the loft bedroom. Perhaps this would work for some people, but it just seemed like a nightmare to me (you'd have to wash your dishes just to move the counter so you could run upstairs and get the book you left up there).

A small place does promote tidiness and not accumulating too much stuff (because there's no place to put it), but with three active kids it can be a challenge, and I wouldn't want to go any smaller until all the kids are out of the house.

Edited to add: I also think if a "tiny house" isn't well designed you'll end up paying a lot for utilities despite the small size. A unit in a multi-unit building is likely to be a lot cheaper in that regard.

[aj_yooper]

Fun topic!  We are older and retired and find our current 2500 sq ft too much.  We would feel comfortable in a well designed 1000 sq ft place, (2 BR 2baths + garage) but no smaller due to our hobbies, visiting family, and entertaining.  I think design is very important as is the ability to borrow space, like an outdoor area or interesting places to walk to and enjoy.  We have lived in well designed tiny apartments at universities and that worked well for us as did (for me) lake cottage summer vacations.  I like the discussion as it gets at the cultural norm of space and whatyougottahave thinking.

[Abe]

I've decided the amount of space I need to have is related to how much time spent at home. In North Carolina, the weather was usually good and I spent most of my time outside on the porch. We ended up using half of our 2000 sq ft house. Now in Chicago we spend a lot of time indoors and found 1000 sqft somewhat crowded for no other reason than "cabin fever". Moving to a new place with high ceilings seemed to make a big difference psychologically, and even though it is about 1500 sqft, we only use half of the total space.

[Michael792]

For the last few years I've lived in dorm rooms, rented rooms in houses owned by others, and in barracks rooms. When I get out of Active duty I'll be moving into a van. So yeah, I guess you could say I'm cool with a tiny house.

[Miss Prim]

I could live in 900 to 1000 sq feet.  I need 3 bedrooms.  One for my husband and myself, one for guests of which we have frequently and one for my sewing room.  Other than the 3 br, I don't need a big living room or kitchen.  But, I don't think I could live in a 500 sq foot  or less tiny home.

[OutBy40]

For the last few years I've lived in dorm rooms, rented rooms in houses owned by others, and in barracks rooms. When I get out of Active duty I'll be moving into a van. So yeah, I guess you could say I'm cool with a tiny house.

Damn, your living expenses definitely put the rest of us to shame, I bet.