View Topic

This was an interesting story I watched recently, where the city of Detroit is building tiny homes (houses smaller than 400 feet) for poor people who otherwise couldn't afford a house. The houses are rent to own, meaning they pay $1/month for each square foot, and they are required to attend educational sessions on personal finance once a month. If they meet those requirements after seven years, they'll own their houses outright. So far 7 houses have been built and occupied by families, and the city is planning on building 18 more.

How do you feel about tiny houses for the poor? Or tiny houses in general?

This is a great idea. People like the idea of tiny houses because it forces you to live simply and not in excess. Since poor people by definition cannot live in excess, it seems like a perfect fit. Poor people are able to live in these snazzy little houses that allow them to finally be able to own a house when they most likely wouldn't ever be able to.

Yeah, if enough of these were made, it would be a great, affordable way for people to get above the poverty line. It would be a good transition while trying to find a well-paying job, and the personal finance class would be very helpful to those poor people who don't know how to spend their money. Without that, some poor people might try to immediately spend any excess money that comes their way because they think it's a good idea, but in actuality, it's not. $300-$400 per month is definitely not bad, and the houses are sufficient for everyday life, even if they have little storage space.

The only thing is that I don't see how this would be reasonable unless it's a nonprofit that makes these houses (and not much more than 25 are going to be made if it's just nonprofits making them).

They purchased 25 lots for $15,000, which means $600 for each house. Each house costs them $40,000-$50,000. Even taking the cheaper end and the largest size, that would mean the inhabitants are paying $400 per month for a house that cost the organization $40,600. That would take 102 months for them to make a profit, which is 8.5 years. After 7 years, they own their houses outright, like Wintermoot said. So there's no way they could make a profit. And that $40,000-$50,000 per house was with donated supplies and volunteer workers, so they would cost even more usually.

If things were cheaper, this would be a great idea to have a very large amount of these tiny houses throughout the states (and other countries, I guess). Although, it might work if you had to rent for, say, 10 years to own.

I think the idea is that even if they take an initial loss, the city as a whole will make money in the long run by having people with stable jobs and housing able to pay taxes and stimulate the local economy. We have to remember that these are blighted neighborhoods and people who are able to afford housing aren't going to want to live there...so really, not only are they helping these people directly, they are revitalizing these neighborhoods, probably in the hopes that it'll attract others to them. And if we're going to take a loss in an effort to stimulate the economy and give people decent jobs and wages, I'd rather the money went directly to the people that needed it than giving the money to the rich and having faith in them to provide (trickle-down economics).

I am surprised at how much they cost to build though...I'm wondering if that includes the cost of demolishing old, dilapidated structures that were there before.

As for tiny houses themselves, I've been a fan of them ever since I first heard about them about ten years ago, not only because the houses themselves are neat and the designers find ingenious ways to bring all the amenities of modern living to a small structure, but because it represents a simpler, less materialistic lifestyle. From what I've seen, people who want to live in tiny houses want to focus on experiences and doing things instead of just buying more and more stuff...when you live in a tiny house, you have to make sure the stuff you take with you is the stuff that really matters, because that's about all that will fit. It's a great contrast to the American tradition of buying bigger houses and buying more and more stuff to put in them.

I always thought it'd be awesome to have neighborhoods of tiny houses, perhaps a community neighborhood of friends in tiny houses with some central locations like a market/convenience store and a meeting hall for like gaming and stuff. It's awesome to see at least the neighborhood part become a reality.

Coincidentally, this topic popped up in New Zealand news last night. The earthquakes in Christchurch (2011) still have repercussions, one of those being areas where there's a lot of damaged buildings (the main one being the red zone). Tiny houses are being proposed as a way to make use of the land again as tiny houses don't have foundations, don't impact the ground too much, don't cost too much, and are compact enough to rebuild a community. It's less about the poor and more about revitalizing the area, but it's a thing. Goodness knows we aren't using the land otherwise. =D Aaaaaand once again Elbbsas brings up her country! Sorry all.