THE TINY HOUSE DECEIT

The question was: Can it be moved? The report in The Guardian told the story of the Council that wants to demolish a tiny home because it does not comply with the planning regulations. It was the matter of mobility that seems to have caused the problem: see -https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/10/matt-bruce-poured-his-life-savings-into-a-tiny-home-now-byron-bay-council-wants-to-demolish-it?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

It is a subject that has been written about previously: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2022/08/tiny-house-fashion-or-fad.html and https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2022/05/thoughts-on-tiny-houses.html.

We need to cease relying on the pretence of mobility in this matter, and face the facts of small places and their role in society. With the whole fashionable idea of this compact habitation being based on a trick, a cunning plan to overcome planning regulations, pretend mobility - see McCloud in : https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2022/05/thoughts-on-tiny-houses.html - we are left with developments of the concept that have outgrown the initial basic ‘bush retreat’ vision - the primitive hut; a man-cave - to become miniature mansions boasting about providing every facility and comfort available in any residence, while still using the same ‘caravan’ argument to avoid planning controls. The impacts of the essential issues of location, services, and the growing ambitions for the equivalents of permanence in tiny housing all seem to be ignored in favour of an enthusiasm for the original aim to sidestep the regulations.

Many tiny places are designed never to be able to be conveniently moved, and come in sizeable, heavy units fitted out with gardens, patios, decks, and storeys that all provide comforts comparable to those of the most delightful dwelling, while prohibiting convenient, ready mobility, or making this extremely difficult; yet these ‘tiny’ places are still being constructed on a chassis with wheels, or multiple sets of wheels, and a tow bar, as if the addition of these parts alone might make the no-so-tiny house sufficiently ‘mobile’ so as to trick the planners.

Hence the question: ‘Can it be moved?’ seems to be a reasonable one for a planner to ask. It is a question that comes with the unspoken words: ‘like a caravan or a mobile home can be moved,’ because anything, with the right equipment and sufficient effort can be moved, even if in parts or pieces. One can refer here to the astonishing ‘monster moves’ one sees documented on television programmes, where old churches and houses are relocated in one piece to another site. There seems to be no impossibilities when it comes to mobility, other than everyday convenience.

Just like a caravan?

The very first McCloud concept actually dug the wheels into a hollow in the ground to conceal them, to ensure that the artifice was continued, making the unit potentially immobile, standing in a swimming pool, able to be shifted in the same way as any house can be - with effort. Just how one might ever check the tyre pressure or replace a tyre was never explained. It really didn’t matter as everything below the floor was neglected, forgotten; out of view. The place might as well have been on blocks or traditional foundation walls. Once installed, the platform on the chassis became the beginning of the story, with any concept of mobility being ignored in the future construction and fitout: the place was spoken about as though it might be permanent.

Look! No wheels!

McCloud's man-cave.

Another McCloud programme did show the development of this same hut relocated to a cliff site. The process of moving the construction was suggested as being quite simple, but the whole process was never shown. The man-cave ended up on its new site, ready to become the set of another TV show, as though the process was as simple as towing a caravan. One wonders if this relocation had become necessary because of the uptake of similar deceitful strategies throughout the country. Was it to show that the structure was truly transportable; that it had to be?

The suggested process of relocation: did the tractor travel down the main road?

The relocated man-cave.

The comfortable, rustic feel has gone.

We need to be better than to have to struggle with visions like this; having to continually justify them. We have to be far more creative with tiny things and include them on the basis of wanting to, as well as needing to, rather than tolerating them on the basis of a cunning, clever trick, because the ploy will only trip itself up with time, intentions, and aspirations.

Accommodating tiny houses is potentially a big problem.

Councils are right to object to this uncontrolled mania; but they need to think a lot more about permanent tiny places, and how they can be incorporated into existing areas without creating new slums based on fantasy possibilities. All the issues will have to be reviewed and addressed. We need tiny places that fit into our existing patterns of settlement, enriching them, by addressing all of the inherent complications. We need to do away with the guile and grasp the challenge with a desire to improve everything for everyone. Any piecemeal planning approach that might attempt to overcome these problems is only going to continue the muddle that already exists.

We need to think about how tiny homes can be a normal part of our suburbs, towns, and cities.

We need to think more positively about this matter and offer real solutions for the betterment of all. Tiny places have a role to play in the pattern of things beyond the concept of a caravan park, a granny flat, or parking the caravan in a mate’s backyard. Likewise, we have to forget the promoted vision of ‘freedom,’ with the tiny house located in the wonderland of pristine nature, offering solace and contentment for no money at all. We must look closely at all the issues involved, question the requirement for mobility, and gauge how other functions can be properly managed, including planning issues and social/cultural/environmental matters. It is not a simple process, but it is an essential one that has to be undertaken carefully and thoroughly to overcome a potential shambles.

Freedom!

The challenge is greater than that of accommodating a quaint shed.