Tiny house

Look MO doesn't claim Cape Girardeau.

Sorry Tuna.

In reply to tuna55:

Have seriously looked into it for years. Still looking. Lots are very expensive where we want to be right now, but after the kids are living elsewhere.. I intend to live in 600 sf or less. Wife is on board with this, which makes it great

drainoil wrote: Instead of price per sq ft maybe I could have said overall cost to purchase? What is the advantage to the pocket housing that was linked? Please learn me.

I don't see any links to pocket neighborhoods (my personal favorite) in this thread. I mentioned them, and the work of Ross Chapin.

I see 3 links- one to the work of Sarah Susanka, one to Tiny the Movie, and one to a realtor link for a bungalow for sale.

A pocket neighborhood typically emphasizes land use and close neighborhood development. It's not about the house, but the houses typically range between 600 and 1200 SF. Houses are built in small clusters, often facing a central courtyard, which may be a garden, common area, or other feature. Usually no garages. The concept can be applied to new development or existing neighborhood redevelopment.

Tiny Houses are an extreme genre. They are all about the house, rarely built in neighborhoods, and often put on wheels to skirt building code regulations (too small). They rarely exceed 320, and can be smaller than 100. Usually a heavy emphasis on reclaimed materials and DIY construction. Sometimes lack luxuries like a toilet.

Sarah Susanka emphasizes smart and efficient smaller house design, but does not get as extreme as Tiny Houses.

The bungalow house linked is typical of 1950's construction, and a very good deal for people seeking small spaces. That one even has a garage, a reall rarity for small houses.

Sarah Susanka is great. She emphasizes and demonstrates how to get real architecture into a modestly-sized house, instead of what is considered "architecture" by the generic house-buying masses. That's the stuff like giant 2-story entrance halls, useless formal rooms, massively oversized bedroom suites, etc - stuff that real estate agents and McMansion builders love to prattle on about.

I'm raising 4 kids in a 1400sf 3 bed 1 bath. It's fine.
My opinion? The "stuff" thing has more to do with number of rooms and storage opportunities than square footage. Closets, attics, basements, garages and spare bedrooms are what cause you to accumulate. You don't need a tiny house, just an efficient one.

singleslammer wrote: That is barely half an hour from Columbia, which is where the University of Missouri is located, along with 3 large hospitals, the home of Carfax, a huge branch of Statefarm, and the primary location of Shelter Insurance. Hardly bumb berkeley, you east coast snob

Having lived in the hills of Northern Georgia, I can call where ever I damn well please "bumble-berkeley". If I had my way, the entire world would be "bumble-berkeley".

I see this turning into one of those "holier than thou..." threads. Some people like living in large houses. That's their choice. It is not my place or for anyone else to criticize them.

Collecting "stuff" is a different subject all together.

I'd do a small house in the mountains somewhere. Honestly, to me 600 sq ft would be claustrophobic, partly because I like king size beds. But that's me.

There's a company which does factory assembled panels that are then assembled on your lot and foundation, they have a 1250 sq foot that's to me just about perfect for 2 people. Gimme a 2 car shop and I'm happy.