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.
Christmas Day: readings for Year C
9 hours ago
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