THOUGHTS ON TINY HOUSES

Was it Kevin McCloud of Grand Designs who popularised the tiny home with his ‘man cave’ experiment – his Man Made Home?: see – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhhIc_uG4Zk; or was it George Clark of Amazing Spaces who subsequently seemed enthused enough to refurbish an old 1950’s caravan and turn it into a weekender in the Lakes District, complete with a fold-out wall/balcony similar to that of the ‘man cave’? - see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrRzofLLI5o. Whoever it was – maybe both have played a part – interest in tiny houses has grown. In Australia, the exponential growth in house prices over 2021/2022 seems to have stimulated interest in these little places that have been suggested as alternative options for dwelling, as well as extra space in the backyard for an office, a work area, a retreat, a granny flat, or whatever one might envisage or require. Reports of world-wide interest in tiny houses has supported the local enthusiasm in much the same manner as the international re-use of shipping containers adapted for similar purposes has.# The difference here is that shipping containers do not have wheels: see – https://www.autoevolution.com/news/20-ft-petrichor-tiny-house-has-a-certain-je-ne-sais-quoi-plus-an-electronic-cat-flap-189279.html.

Somewhat alarmingly, McCloud started his Man Made Home experiment with the idea that his little home would be built on an old chassis complete with wheels in order to overcome the local planning rules. While it would not look like one, his home would be a ‘mobile’ home, and, as such, would not have to get planning approval. To overcome the obvious problem with this ‘solution’ that might make this experiment for television viewers look just like a silly caravan, McCloud dug a hole so that the shed on wheels would look as though it was sitting on the ground, hugging place. This little shelter was going to have all of the trappings of the primitive hut, so it would be incongruous to have it sitting up on wheels.

The solution was cleverly shrewd, but it set a terrible example for everyone in devising a way to overcome planning regulations: see – https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2022/05/is-breaking-rules-clever.html. There is enough of a problem with rule breaking in the world today without having a ‘TV guru’ promoting the strategy as an acceptable solution to anything; a smart guise; or even something to boast about. One might have hoped for a far more responsible approach than this, because the tiny house movement that has become so popular, has followed the example and promoted the small house on wheels: a silly caravan. Perhaps Clark has been more open in maintaining his refurbishment as a caravan, albeit as a rather exotic extreme that will, ironically, probably prove to be less mobile than McCloud’s home. In a subsequent programme – did McCloud have to move his home, or was the idea to overcome the trickery? - the little hand-crafted home was eventually moved to be relocated on a clifftop, to have some more bits and pieces added to it. Perhaps this shift was only to perpetuate the TV series, to create extra programmes? Whatever it was, the structure was indeed transported, perhaps using its wheels for some of the move, if not all.

Not a very mobile addition.

It was immediately obvious that the idea of digging a hole for the chassis to sit in, so that the wheels would be hidden, was a silly idea. Would water pond under the house? How would a flat tyre be pumped up or replaced? How might the completed house be pulled out other than by carrying out extensive earthworks, effectively digging it out by creating a ramp for the extraction? Maybe a crane might be essential? It seemed to be a short-term idea, suitable for a TV programme set, but it was promoted as otherwise. It does not appear to have been a strategy that is followed by many, but the idea of concealing the wheels on these tiny homes that seek to avoid planning regulations, is being addressed in a variety of other ways. Low-to-ground decks, stairs, and balconies seem to be the most popular approach, but these are all usually not mobile. The fold-down wall/balcony of the TV experiments is not something that has been regularly reproduced; but one still wonders if the tiny homes on wheels one frequently sees in media reports come with a jacking system, or even a spare tyre. How ‘mobile’ are these places intending to be? The low decks seem to suggest some degree of permanence, leaving one worrying about how the tyres might be pumped up when required. The question is: are the wheels merely a planning solution, items that will never have to function? Could one consider these ‘decoration’? The idea makes one wonder about ‘wheel appliques’ – either plastic paste-ons; photographic image inserts; or ‘clip-on’ wheels, like clip-on ties and bow ties. Would the planners care? If they fall for the “Look, this is a mobile home; it has real wheels” trick, wheels that will never rotate, why would they be worried about decorative wheel additions? The situation turns planning into a farce.

Neither house nor caravan, just an awkward in-between.

The situation needs to be resolved by the planners, as it is currently just foolish, with small, permanent homes being considered ‘mobile’ in order to overcome the rules, just with the addition of wheels. Instead of having some sense of place and permanence which they obviously seek, these structures stand in the no-man’s-land of the between: they are neither a permanent little home, nor an efficient recreational vehicle or a caravan. If one really wants a good RV or a caravan, then there are many options to choose from already without building a permanent home on wheels, complete with every cliché one might hope for in a dwelling. Everything about these little places squeals out 'permanent home' – even the name: tiny house. Externally, they look like tiny traditional houses, with wheels added; internally, they seek to offer everything that one could expect in a permanent home: such is the intent. Mobility has nothing to do with things other than in accommodating the rules.

The interiors are "just like home."

Ironically, permanent low decks offer additional external space.

The rules need to be changed. Once this has been done, a whole new world of certainty and invention will arise. Once the rules for permanent tiny homes are established, then designers will be able to give attention to, not just the problem of fitting wheels onto the structure, and then worrying about how to hide them, but how to develop options for these little houses. One could see group little houses;# or add-on options, allowing little houses to grow into larger assemblies; or ideas on how these little places could be continued to be used alone in a backyard, or in the bush, without the hassle of proof of mobility, when sense of place can be assured. It has to happen if this present farce is to be overcome, and regard for planning regulations is to be regained. Currently all the energy is going into ignoring regulations, rather than in complying with them. The outcome has to be a shambles. We need to get back in control and devise ways to manage out cities, towns, and countryside. Currently we have nothing in the city fabric between a permanent house, and a mobile tiny home, an RV, and a caravan. The rules say that a permanent home has to be of a certain size, or be ‘mobile.’ This needs to be addressed.

One of the few folding decks.

One wonders about the number of wheels: does more mean more mobile intentions?

There might be some romanticism in the transience of a caravan park, but this deteriorates into a terrible shambles once it becomes permanent, and comes with some stigma. We need to give thought to tiny homes, what the rules need to be to allow these to become a part of our urban structure. We need to discern their role; how they can become adequate in providing not only real comfort, but privacy too. How might they successfully cluster and grow? What might the rules for privacy be – for noise; for vision? How is health managed, including mental health? What is the minimum space and distance needed for satisfaction and contentment? ‘Wheels’ seem a terrible solution to excuse anyone from considering these matters. The world has a big enough problem now with things labelled ‘fake,’ without promoting fake wheels as a way of solving housing problems. Surely change must be welcomed, if only to give respect back to our planners and their rules. We already have a large enough problem with enforcement without encouraging such a dismissive strategy.

George Bernard Shaw outside his 'mobile' home.

If we truly want mobile homes, then we should look to the example of George Bernard Shaw, who built a tiny retreat for himself that could pivot, allowing him to push it around to let it follow the sun. He wanted to be able to sit and write in sunlight all day. One can also look at the tiny places that have already been squeezed into cities, and be inspired to create rules to allow more and varied approaches to civic infill. There is a future here that needs to be grasped rather than ignored with a sleight of concept.

 NOTE:

Perhaps planning needs to become more of a performance description rather than seeking to prescribe by defining outcomes by type, form, and dimension. Better results could be achieved by deciding on requirements for sunlight; breezes; noise pollution; visual pollution; public open space; private open space; views; trees; shade; etc. Now one finds oneself in the world of Christopher Alexander’s A Pattern Language. Using something like this, in association with The Nature of Order, outcomes might be more humane; life-enhancing with an inner beauty, as Alexander once noted. Planning today gives us an horrendous set of conditions as outcomes, disguised in architectural style. It seems capable of accommodating anything. The matters listed above as starting points to be considered by way of example, are all ignored by planners who couldn’t care less if a space received no sunlight or breezes, was noisy and never private. There are numerous examples of such outcomes that have all received planning approval. It seems that anything might be better; but once one is dealing with tiny things, matters all become more critical – hence the importance of planning; of resolving the madness of the ‘wheel’ approval.

There is much to ponder.

23 MAY 22

See also: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/sowelo-tiny-house-is-one-of-australia-s-forbidden-fruits-you-must-wait-until-it-s-ripe-189051.html

Decks hide the wheels and the chassis, (at least on one side), to make it look like a real house.

#

24 MAY 22

POD VILLAGE

A village of shipping containers has been set up for those left homeless by the floods in Lismore, Australia, 2022: see - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-23/pod-village-flood-recovery-northern-rivers-welcomes-stability/101085672

What might a village of tiny houses look like?

 25 May 2022

If one really wanted a ‘mobile home,’ then something like this would be far superior than a box on wheels: see - https://www.autoevolution.com/news/eos-12-camper-trailer-brandishes-american-glamping-muscle-for-no-less-than-75k-189384.html

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/sowelo-tiny-house-is-one-of-australia-s-forbidden-fruits-you-must-wait-until-it-s-ripe-189051.html

27 MAY 22

See - https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/best-tiny-house/ - The 5 best tiny houses: Modern tiny homes for any space.

 29 MAY 2022

The tiny homes keep appearing. Here is yet another, the Grand Sojourner - a clever name meaning 'a temporary resident,' reinforcing the idea of mobility: see - https://www.autoevolution.com/news/versatile-tiny-home-grand-sojourner-boasts-a-spacious-interior-ideal-for-big-families-189814.html It clearly comes, like most of the tiny houses, complete with wheels and a tow bar, equipment one usually sees on a caravan; but will this tiny house ever be able to be registered to go onto a public road? It is all just too tricky.

Could one suggest that it is ‘living the lie’? What is the weight of this tiny house? What is needed to pull it along? What clearance has it for towing? What is its height? The farce needs to be resolved. At 2.5 metres wide, it is the maximum width for a caravan in Australia. Its length is said to be 9 metres, but it is not known if this is the total length that includes chassis and accessories. The maximum length for a caravan is 12.5 metres. The height is not given, but it seems to be about 3.6 metres plus ground clearance; perhaps about 4.0 metres. The maximum height is 4.3 metres, including all hatches and accessories. It is sized to fit within the caravan rules, has wheels and a tow bar, but it is not a caravan. One wonders how well it might tow to arrive at its next sojourn.

The Grand Sojourner

 30 MAY 22

And there is more: see – https://www.autoevolution.com/news/eone-is-a-tiny-home-designed-to-unlock-a-whole-new-world-of-glamping-wonders-189735.html. This article gives details of the weight of this tiny house – 5,443 kilograms. The towing capacity of a Subaru Outback is 1,200 kilograms; that of the Toyota Prado is 3,000 kilograms. We need to stop the pretence of mobility, and acknowledge that the game is all about cheating the planning regulations, nothing else, even though this tiny house called The eOne, is built by a company with a mobile-sounding name: Escape Traveler. It seems that this model will not see much travelling.

1 JUNE 22

A tiny house without wheels!! - see; https://www.designboom.com/architecture/first-3d-printed-tiny-house-europe-3dcp-05-30-2022/. What one needs to know is what the rules are for such tiny houses: there has to be a strict set of planning guidelines and rules if such places are to play a significant role in our lives beyond some fantasy of temporary/permanent tiny housing that is here further dramatised with 3D printing.

 4 JUNE 22

An advertisement for tiny homes (without wheels) - Granny Flats, Tiny Homes, and Cottages: see – https://www.containerdomesandshelters.com.au/product-category/all-products/portable-buildings/. The need for a comprehensive set of rules has become essential. The aesthetics of the tiny home also needs to be debated. Should they look like a replica ‘tiny’ traditional house; a stylish caravan; a modern ‘styled’ house; or a refrigerated box? Should they respond to context, or be the equivalent of a transient alien?

A new 'fold-out' cottage on wheels.

A Chinese folding house.

And another - The Dot House Is a Prefab Tiny Home With Spot-On Finishes:

see – https://www.dwell.com/article/dot-house-boano-prismontas-prefab-tiny-home-london-fa9b0072. The future could have tiny houses dotted all over the place, willy-nilly. One might be fine, and appear to be splendid; but many might make slums if we are not careful.

See also: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2021/04/wheres-granny-flat.html for the problem of multiples.

The Dot House.