More glorious nonsense from The Daily Mail:
This stunning tiny 28-foot-long [mobile] house could be a solution to the housing crisis using a space-saving design without losing any home comforts...
Those 'tiny homes' (as beautiful as they are) require a fair bit of land, maybe 50 sq yards. They're only 'cheap' if you buy or rent a bit of land in the middle of nowhere. Try buying or renting 50 sq yards of land where housing is expensive and you are back to square one.
A block of flats with several storeys only uses ten or twenty square yards of land per flat, ergo they are cheaper than 'tiny homes', despite being a lot bigger, once you factor in the price you have to pay for the land.
But that doesn't help people wanting to rent or buy a flat. If you build higher, that doesn't reduce the selling price/rental value of the flats, it just increases the price payable for the land.
Rinse and repeat.
Friday, 13 October 2017
"A cost effective solution to the nation's ongoing housing crisis". Not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
A 28 foot long boat would be a better bet, or even a caravan.
B,
1. The so-called 'tiny homes' are in fact caravans/mobile homes.
2. If you own a boat you need to pay mooring fees = rent, if you own a caravan, you have to pay pitch fees = rent.
Yes, but at least with a boat or a caravan you can move it easily to somewhere else, thus negating one of the disadvantages of renting, which is the hassle of moving home. Also with a caravan or boat, you can be thrown off your pitch/mooring, but not thrown out of your home.
B, yes, agreed, I was agreeing with you, I was just pointing out that these 'tiny homes' ARE caravans. You can hook them up and tow them.
Ah, sorry, I was distracted by the later story of the iKozie home being craned into a back garden.
B, a caravan or boat is preferable to an ikozie dumped in somebody's back garden.
I think we are both agreed on that. Me, I'd go for the boat anytime, preferably something seagoing.
Post a Comment