• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Minimum housing area

Should we abolish minimum housing area requirements?

  • yes

    Votes: 15 60.0%

  • no

    Votes: 6 24.0%

  • no but I have a different idea for how to address the housing crisis in some cities

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • other

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • Total voters
    25
Masterhawk said:
If you've been trending the internet lately, you will notice that tiny homes are becoming a thing. The reason for this stems from the idea of affordability. Some cities, particularly San Francisco, LA, NYC, and Seattle are seeing an increase in housing prices and rent. The reason for this all stems down to supply and demand. You see, a lot of people want to live in certain places so the demand for housing goes up. When demand goes up but supply doesn't, the price goes up. But price isn't the real issue but rather just a symptom of the real issue which is a shortage on housing. In normal circumstances, an increase in demand can be solved with an increase in supply. However, some things may keep the supply of housing from being met such as height limits, urban growth boundaries, preserved areas, and otherwise faulty zoning ordinances.

In cities experiencing a shortage of housing, tiny homes are one of many solutions. However, several cities have minimum area ordinances which keep houses from being built below a certain area. For example, Denver city code prohibits habitable rooms from having an area of less than 70 sq feet or less than 7 feet in any horizontal dimension (except for kitchens). But Denver is starting to see an uptick in rent and housing prices as people move there and housing struggles to keep up.
https://www.denvergov.org/content/d...and-development/zoning/other-regulations.html
Click to expand...

Tiny homes are really not the answer. The answer is higher density housing like more high rises. A high rise can house exponentially more people in given area than tiny homes.

That said, I am fine with a tiny homes, I just don't think it is a solution to the housing crisis in high demand areas.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, having central A/C (and heat), a real kitchen, living room (ours has two easy chairs and a sofa) and separate bedroom sure beats tent camping. Our current SUV (2002 Tahoe with a 5.3L v8) was well equipped for towing - all I had to add was an electric break controller and a stabilizing hitch (less than $400 total).
Click to expand...

That's awesome, man... I'm looking at an F150, simply because having a house in the country now gives me the justification I need to convince my wife we need a truck, and the Fords have good fuel economy on those eco boost engines...which I need to think about, as my commute is about 50 minutes each way. I figure that'll be able to tow something decent. :) We have a ton of gorgeous provincial parks within a 2 hour drive of us, so lots of options...have having a few on board luxuries sure makes it less of a compromise to spend all your vacation time in a camper. :) Since no one can afford a cottage up here anymore, unless they inherited it or are loaded, this is becoming more and more of a solid option.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Tiny homes are really not the answer. The answer is higher density housing like more high rises. A high rise can house exponentially more people in given area than tiny homes.

That said, I am fine with a tiny homes, I just don't think it is a solution to the housing crisis in high demand areas.
Click to expand...

Not if you need space for tools, a work trailer (or two) and/or like having a yard for pets, relaxation and a garden.
 
OlNate said:
That's awesome, man... I'm looking at an F150, simply because having a house in the country now gives me the justification I need to convince my wife we need a truck, and the Fords have good fuel economy on those eco boost engines...which I need to think about, as my commute is about 50 minutes each way. I figure that'll be able to tow something decent. :) We have a ton of gorgeous provincial parks within a 2 hour drive of us, so lots of options...have having a few on board luxuries sure makes it less of a compromise to spend all your vacation time in a camper. :) Since no one can afford a cottage up here anymore, unless they inherited it or are loaded, this is becoming more and more of a solid option.
Click to expand...

I agree that the newer F-150's are a good tow vehicle. I need more cargo space (for my work materials) than the new (smaller bed and larger cab) pickup's offer so, for us, a SUV (and work trailers) was a perfect option. The new Chevy/GMC trucks (and SUVs) with the 5.3L V8 get decent fuel mileage.

GM 5.3L Liter V8 Vortec LMG Engine Info, Power, Specs, Wiki | GM Authority
 
Last edited:
faithful_servant said:
The tiny home movement is great big bag of stupid. For the money these people pay for these tiny homes, they can buy a larger and better equipped travel trailer. Tiny homes are nothing more that the housing equivalent of man buns, pet rocks, parachute pants and vogueing.
Click to expand...

Travel trailers are made to fall apart in about ten years. That's the cutoff for most parks.

They also are nowhere near as well insulated.

Also, tiny home costs include things like solar power, etc. Which you would have to add to a trailer and might add problems as they're not designed for the weight etc. Might make the roof leak.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I agree that the newer F-150's are a good tow vehicle. I need more cargo space (for my work materials) than the new (smaller bed and larger cab) pickup's offer so, for us, a SUV (and work trailers) was a perfect option. The new Chevy/GMC trucks (and SUVs) with the 5.3L V8 get decent fuel milage.

GM 5.3L Liter V8 Vortec LMG Engine Info, Power, Specs, Wiki | GM Authority
Click to expand...

Thanks, man, I'll check it out. I'd rather go with a V8 than a V6, if it at all reasonable on the gas front...and my experience with GM has been awesome - my 2007 base model Impala has never let me down, and still has plenty of life in her at 150,000 miles (did the conversion to your wacky Imperial system, you're welcome...lolz). So I'd definitely look at a GM....though if I'm honest, I have wanted a truck for a long time, and I've always liked the F150's...like, since I was a kid. Not the whole reason to buy one, but it does factor in...hehe...

But definitely thanks for the link, man, you just made my lunch plans for me. :)
 
Lovebug said:
I am really surprised they aren't catching on more. It is so intriguing. Now and then we see one coming down the road, but it is not very often. Even those TV shows seem to have fizzled out. Not sure why.
Click to expand...

The real estate industry is fighting them hard.

The only solution they seem to be offering is the RV model where you pay an apartments rent for enough room to park it and then pay utilities on top of that.

Its all about keeping folks paying g 25% or more of their gross output for their entire productive lives.

"The market wants rentals".

Of course it does.

That way, everybody will just pay rent until they die. And the landlords will own all the property. Paid for by tenants.

Like the bad old days.
 
What if...? said:
The real estate industry is fighting them hard.

The only solution they seem to be offering is the RV model where you pay an apartments rent for enough room to park it and then pay utilities on top of that.

Its all about keeping folks paying g 25% or more of their gross output for their entire productive lives.

"The market wants rentals".

Of course it does.

That way, everybody will just pay rent until they die. And the landlords will own all the property. Paid for by tenants.

Like the bad old days.
Click to expand...

My expenses right now are $224 a year... $99 for the property tax and $125 for the HOA dues.

And I know people hate HOAs, but it was either that or go rent an apartment somewhere.

Also, they are hooking up water to my place for $600, the national average is $1400.

(I was actually planning on harvesting rain water, but if they want to hook up water for less than half-price...)

Something else, some of you mention not wanting to live in a tent, I mentioned only living in it "for awhile," not "forever," lol and remember that I am in western Wa, we don't get severe winters like the rest of the country.

At this point I would take pretty much any sized trailer, even a dinky one, as long as it's very cheap, for now I just need a handhold really, a dry place where I can begin to establish myself with the neighbors and utilize the property as a "headquarters," a jumping off point for the forest.

(And I am a prepper, but not a hardcore prepper, lol.)

Glad to see so many question the previous "McMansion for Me and Mine!" thinking of a few decades ago. :)

Thx :)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not if you need space for tools, a work trailer (or two) and/or like having a yard for pets, relaxation and a garden.
Click to expand...

Sure, I get that. However, a major city with a housing crisis is not going to solve it just by reducing minimum size requirements for homes and thus encouraging more tiny homes. They are going to have to eliminate the barriers to more high density housing like high rises and lofts. Often areas with high density housing (lots of high rises), will have community gardens, dog parks and so on.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Sure, I get that. However, a major city with a housing crisis is not going to solve it just by reducing minimum size requirements for homes and thus encouraging more tiny homes. They are going to have to eliminate the barriers to more high density housing like high rises and lofts. Often areas with high density housing (lots of high rises), will have community gardens, dog parks and so on.
Click to expand...

In the city nearest to me (Austin, TX) highrise housing is far from affordable and that is likely done on purpose - taxation is based on property value (cost) so it makes more sense (for the government) to have it as expensive as possible. Let the low wage help commute so that the wealthier current city residents don't have to put up with living near them - thus lowering their own property values. Zoning laws are designed to increase (not decrease) the value of the property currently owned.
 
Masterhawk said:
In cities experiencing a shortage of housing, tiny homes are one of many solutions. However, several cities have minimum area ordinances which keep houses from being built below a certain area. For example, Denver city code prohibits habitable rooms from having an area of less than 70 sq feet or less than 7 feet in any horizontal dimension (except for kitchens). But Denver is starting to see an uptick in rent and housing prices as people move there and housing struggles to keep up.
Click to expand...

I don't know it seems like there could be valid reasons for wanting these kinds of ordinances. Cities have legitimate reasons to be concerned about aesthetics. If you live in a nice neighborhood you don't want your neighbor across the street parking a couple of old shipping containers on a lot, and calling it their home. It's an eyesore, and it has the potential to lower the value of your home. To me, increased housing costs are a problem that a city can largely decide how to solve for itself.

I listen to Conservatives bitch and moan about walls because they want to use it to keep immigrants out. That's idiotic, but cities do have a right to protect against overpopulation and overcrowding. If limiting the number of houses available helps them accomplish that I'd say it's to a certain degree within their right. If you chose to move to an area because it was a bit more rural, and then all of a sudden a million people try and move there you have a legitimate reason to be bothered by it and have at least some influence over how many people can come to your town, as well as influence the quality of resident moving there.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
In the city nearest to me (Austin, TX) highrise housing is far from affordable and that is likely done on purpose - taxation is based on property value (cost) so it makes more sense (for the government) to have it as expensive as possible. Let the low wage help commute so that the wealthier current city residents don't have to put up with living near them - thus lowering their own property values. Zoning laws are designed to increase (not decrease) the value of the property currently owned.
Click to expand...

That is because builders have a much greater financial incentive to build large expensive high rise condos than smaller less expensive ones. The government incentives if anything go the other way as these projects often benefit from TIF because they are usually part of redevelopment efforts. The zoning laws are often due to typical NIMBY residents. People that benefited from the single house building boom of the 50s through the 80s like the fact that their housing is way over priced in high demand areas, and thus they fight efforts at building denser housing in their communities.

None of that changes the fact that if you have a major city with housing affordability issues, you can house a lot more people by building up rather than out.
 
What if...? said:
Travel trailers are made to fall apart in about ten years. That's the cutoff for most parks.

They also are nowhere near as well insulated.

Also, tiny home costs include things like solar power, etc. Which you would have to add to a trailer and might add problems as they're not designed for the weight etc. Might make the roof leak.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but those tiny houses are just plain dumb. Cost sq/ft is outrageous and their functionality is crap. I'm big fan of smaller houses (my perfect house would be about 1,400 sq/ft and that just to make sure that I have a living room big enough to host a dozen people and big kitchen), but there's a cut-off point where it becomes doing something just to be trendy. When you start trying to move a 3-4 person family into a 200 sq/ft space, you've crossed that threshold.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
After one has raised their family (kids are grown and living on their own) is the perfect time to downsize one's home. Tiny homes typically vary from travel trailers in that they are heavier, taller (often have lofts) and better insulated.
Click to expand...


I'm all for having a smaller place on a bunch of acreage, but, not something I have to climb a ladder to get to my bed. ;)

Plus, our grandkids would never spend the night again.
 
OlNate said:
That's awesome, man... I'm looking at an F150, simply because having a house in the country now gives me the justification I need to convince my wife we need a truck, and the Fords have good fuel economy on those eco boost engines...which I need to think about, as my commute is about 50 minutes each way. I figure that'll be able to tow something decent. :) We have a ton of gorgeous provincial parks within a 2 hour drive of us, so lots of options...have having a few on board luxuries sure makes it less of a compromise to spend all your vacation time in a camper. :) Since no one can afford a cottage up here anymore, unless they inherited it or are loaded, this is becoming more and more of a solid option.
Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:
I agree that the newer F-150's are a good tow vehicle. I need more cargo space (for my work materials) than the new (smaller bed and larger cab) pickup's offer so, for us, a SUV (and work trailers) was a perfect option. The new Chevy/GMC trucks (and SUVs) with the 5.3L V8 get decent fuel mileage.

GM 5.3L Liter V8 Vortec LMG Engine Info, Power, Specs, Wiki | GM Authority
Click to expand...

For towing the ecoboost engines are not great when it comes to fuel economy. Without towing the fuel economy can be very good. I have the 2.7 econboost crew cab F150 and get 22.4 mpg on average. Stay off the pedal with the 3.5 ecoboost and it would be good as well

Even though the light duty trucks might be rated to tow 11000-12000 lb from what I have watched, they are not great at it. The trailer can push the truck around (especially the lighter F150. What is great about the F150 is the room it has. 5 adults with great head and leg room
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
For towing the ecoboost engines are not great when it comes to fuel economy. Without towing the fuel economy can be very good. I have the 2.7 econboost crew cab F150 and get 22.4 mpg on average. Stay off the pedal with the 3.5 ecoboost and it would be good as well

Even though the light duty trucks might be rated to tow 11000-12000 lb from what I have watched, they are not great at it. The trailer can push the truck around (especially the lighter F150. What is great about the F150 is the room it has. 5 adults with great head and leg room
Click to expand...

Yep, it's best to have the tow vehicle weigh about as much as the trailer. A good stabilizing hitch (properly rated for the tongue weight) with sway control also helps.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Tiny homes are really not the answer. The answer is higher density housing like more high rises. A high rise can house exponentially more people in given area than tiny homes.

That said, I am fine with a tiny homes, I just don't think it is a solution to the housing crisis in high demand areas.
Click to expand...

I'll be touching on height limits in the near future
 
Tiny homes have a place but not right in the city. It's entirely reasonable to expect your neighbor will live in a tradeable home and pay reasonable property taxes. Tiny homes in such a situation are just sponging off everyone else. Maybe the answer is affordable housing several miles out of town and better public transportation.
 
I support people living the way they want but when I see these tiny houses all I can think about is how in the most culturally viable areas of the country, the real estate market is being used like the stock market. The result is that foreign money is pouring in and homes which are meant for living are now nothing more than places to stash money. It drives up the cost of buying and renting to obscene levels, driving desperate people to invent the tiny house.

We should really decouple major economic investment from housing, otherwise in less than a generation born Americans are not going to be able to afford to live in their own cities.
 
I don't know how feasible tiny houses are for everyone, but at the same time there is a market for them, so I could see an argument for zoning an area to allow it, or something.
 
WCH said:
After someone has raised a family in one of these, get back to me.
Click to expand...

And it's one thing to do so in a part of the country with good weather most of the year and you can be outside alot. I saw one family on HGTV that was in South Dakota and had kids. :doh

They were literally going to sleep 2 of them in giant drawers.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Tiny homes are heavier (and usually taller) and thus harder to move than a travel trailer (or fifth wheel). If you don't plan on moving it then a used (repo'ed) single-wide mobile home is likely a much better option. Another drawback to most tiny home designs is that they require climbing up into a loft to sleep - not exactly a desirable feature for many retirees.
Click to expand...

Totally hear you on the single-wides.

You get as much space or more than lots of tiny houses and they dont usually cost as much because tiny houses are trendy and tend to have tons of high end finishes and design. You can do all that high end organization in a single wide if you want.

What's crazy is...people sleeping in lofts with ladder access. Once you're out of your 20s or 30s...you'll be thinking long and hard about that. The bathroom is downstairs (down a ladder...while you're barely awake) and making a bed in a cramped space where you sometimes cant even stand up is brutal.

I know about making those beds, since I have a truck camper with the bed up over the cab. Brutal!
 
Lovebug said:
Tents and yurts worry me a bit in bear country. We looked at concrete dome homes. Can't come up with the name of the builder, but the ones we visited were hurricane and tornado resistant, anchored into a thick cement floor, had 2 br, 1 ba, sm kitchen and were about $ 25, 000, and felt very cozy and comfy.
Click to expand...

There's a whole movement...and designs...to use shipping containers as homes too. Bear-proof and hurricane-proof and earthquake-proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom