There’s a tiny house movement worldwide that aims to reduce carbon footprints and greenhouse emissions. Some of the homes are as small as 70 square feet. Most are under a thousand square feet, but are designed so well that they feel cavernous to those accustomed to larger dwellings. Learn more about space-saving and compact living from this info graphic.” – The Tiny House Movement [Infographic].
8 thoughts on “The World Is Catching on to the Tiny House Movement”
Comments are closed.
I love the idea of a Tiny House. I totally get it. But how do you find somewhere to put it?
This website can help with that: http://tinyhouseparking.com
The flip side of your question is, who are the people who are telling us not to put it in most places? Who are the people saying “No, you may not live in a smaller space!” and “No, you may not find housing independence for less than a lifetime’s savings!” The system recognizes the benefits of tiny houses and is trying to block them through zoning and regulations.
Yay -I love small houses! Cool graphic, reposted back to you.
I wonder what developing countries would have to say about this ‘tiny house’ idea, like they have a choice in the size of their houses. It kind of reads like a sick joke from that perspective: “closer family bonds”, “think of all the money you’ll save”.
I think the title should read “1st world people are finally realise that they don’t need houses to reflect their egos and could save even more money as well as ‘gain face’ by justifying the purchase of a smaller house as an environmental move.” Ok maybe a bit drawn out, but you get the idea?
I like your title, but it might be a little long.
Not sure what folks in developing nations think about the tiny house movement, probably lots of different things.
Towns charge.taxes on square footage. The money is needed to keep the town afloat.
Imagine the infrastructure change needed.
Tiny houses still don’t offer the benefits of communal apt living qs demonstrated in scandanavia.
It’s not just the house size, job type and location are involved.
A new elitist idea doesn’t make it doable for the masses.
Home ownership without debt is an elite idea and not doable for the masses? How do the ‘elite’ make any money if everyone learned to live without borrowing the ‘elite’s’ money? Why wouldn’t more people be able to reach the dream of home ownership if a tiny alternative were available?
I really hate that word ‘elite’ by the way. I actually like to think of them as people especially good at acquiring more than they need. In no way does that make them ‘elite’.
We totally support tiny communal living! Apartments can be tiny homes too… we don’t discriminate.
I don’t think the entire civilization is going to go tiny any time soon. But if they did maybe we wouldn’t need such an expensive infrastructure. Imagine communities learning to provide their own power, water, and use less energy intensive waste water systems. So maybe increasing taxes reflect waste in inefficient government? I think so.