Saturday, August 18, 2012
Tiny status
Nice article in UK Guardian about the high-status attraction of Tiny Houses. I understand the basic appeal, since I've been cheaply and happily living in this 500 sqft cottage for 21 years. Distinctly small but not tiny by the proper definition.
Author touches an important point but doesn't quite hit it:
As usual the Greenies are backwards. When you own enough land for a farm but don't use it for farming or livestock, you're not Green. You're just another rich man engaging in Conspicuous Consumption. When you live far from town, unless you're strictly self-sufficient, you're using vastly more gasoline and other materials than you would in town. Number of rooms isn't the main variable when the energy has to be transported 30 miles to reach your house. The fuel and labor for the propane tank truck, the maintenance and resistance of the long single-user electric wire, and the electricity needed to pump and purify your well water, more than compensate for the rooms you're not heating.
The best way to use minimal resources is to live in a closely-built 'walkable' city with good mass transit. Apartment, semi-detached, or small house, equally good when you're not operating a car.
Some Greenies do appreciate that point, but not the Tiny-housers described above.
Another thought: Trailer-park living is pure Tiny-house, but the Tiny-housers refuse to recognize it. An 8 x 32 travel trailer is beautifully designed to make the best use of available space, and the trailer park uses land and utilities efficiently. Nope, doesn't count because it's incurably unfashionable. Associated with poor white Christians, thus unthinkable. In short, the Tiny-housers are reinventing the 5th-wheel, and doing a shitty job of it.
Author touches an important point but doesn't quite hit it:
I know I'm not alone in finding tiny homes so weirdly compelling. People have lived in very small spaces since the dawn of civilisation, of course, whether out of necessity or monkish self-denial. ... The rural wing of the tiny homes movement, meanwhile, is motivated primarily by environmental concerns. How much more lightly can you tread on the planet than by having only one room to heat, and no space to accumulate the detritus of the modern consumer economy?
As usual the Greenies are backwards. When you own enough land for a farm but don't use it for farming or livestock, you're not Green. You're just another rich man engaging in Conspicuous Consumption. When you live far from town, unless you're strictly self-sufficient, you're using vastly more gasoline and other materials than you would in town. Number of rooms isn't the main variable when the energy has to be transported 30 miles to reach your house. The fuel and labor for the propane tank truck, the maintenance and resistance of the long single-user electric wire, and the electricity needed to pump and purify your well water, more than compensate for the rooms you're not heating.
The best way to use minimal resources is to live in a closely-built 'walkable' city with good mass transit. Apartment, semi-detached, or small house, equally good when you're not operating a car.
Some Greenies do appreciate that point, but not the Tiny-housers described above.
Another thought: Trailer-park living is pure Tiny-house, but the Tiny-housers refuse to recognize it. An 8 x 32 travel trailer is beautifully designed to make the best use of available space, and the trailer park uses land and utilities efficiently. Nope, doesn't count because it's incurably unfashionable. Associated with poor white Christians, thus unthinkable. In short, the Tiny-housers are reinventing the 5th-wheel, and doing a shitty job of it.
Labels: Shack people - Cottage people
¶ 4:43 AM
