Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Communities with a low-cost/affordability focus

[William New (wnew]

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:39:39 -0400, Sharon Villines <sharon [at] 
> sharonvillines.com> wrote:
> 
> a tiny house village posted a few weeks ago that was built for homeless people

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/21/tiny-houses-aim-help-homeless/14411661/
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/08/tiny_houses_as_affordable_hous.html
http://kxan.com/2014/08/27/50346/

I am aware of two of such tiny house “villages” in Portland (plus soon Eugene) 
and Austin, with a number of other US towns following their positive results.

A recent economic analysis showed that the highest “cost" of a tiny house is 
the land (urban = expensive, rural = affordable) versus the transport cost 
incurred to get to shops, schools, jobs, medical care, etc.  The constructed 
cost of the tiny house itself (if built on flat-bed trailer wheels) is largely 
independent of the site, especially using solar electricity, composting 
toilets, propane cooking/heat. Urban sites allow bicycles and easy public 
transport; rural sites require a car or similar transportation.  The most cost 
effective alternative all-weather personal transportation will likely be the 
Elio:  www.eliomotors.com 

Truly low-cost tiny houses are feasible for rural co-housing groups who are 
largely self-sufficient:  retired, self-employed, work-from-home employment, 
etc — best examples being pensioners, authors/artists, software developers, 
Internet-based workers — who have gardens for their primary food supply, and 
UPS/FedEx service from Amazon/etc to deliver goods ordered online. 
Home-schooling also works extremely well with Internet access (satellite-based 
in rural areas).

The biggest challenge in general are zoning issues along with utility permits, 
though off-the-grid self-sufficiency plus flat-bed trailer (read, state motor 
vehicle jurisdiction) obviates most of these obstacles in unincorprated 
non-municipal locales. The most practical approach is to find an older rural 
farm home (+ barn/sheds) to renovate as the commons house, then add tiny houses 
one by one as needed.  If worse comes to worse, one can simply roll away the 
tiny houses to another site, though if the co-housing cluster is invisible from 
a public road (typical zoning requirement) and invisible to neighbors (easy in 
wooded area), most municipal authorities are content to live and let live.

Finding inexpensive older rural homes suitable for renovation/commons use, with 
ample acreage for gardens and woodlot, is fairly easy in moderate climates with 
minimal snow (Oregon, Northern California, Vermont, Arkansas, North Carolina, 
etc).  Tiny houses can be site-built, or manufactured elsewhere and transported 
to the property.  With sun and water, nearly any “invisible” site works well.

Low-cost/affordibility is indeed a substantive challenge, especially in/near 
cities.  But small rural towns with ageing populations where youngsters have 
left for city bright lights are very hospitable to those looking for a 
sustainable lifestyle.  

=== Bill

——

William New MD
StillCreek Commons
Santa Cruz, CA
94062-0951
wnew [at] stillcreek.net