SFF Houses

[iFreilicht]

Oh yes, please do, I'd love to see what stuff you come up with!

The portability can be extremely nice, but many TH are built on wheels to escape building codes (storm ratings, electrical codes, etc) vs being truly portable.

Ah I didn't know you could actually open loopholes that way, that's probably quite specific to each region.

To be road legal in the US there are many constraints (limited width and a certain length, max weight that can be towed with a regular drivers license, etc). Portable houses (in the hook up and tow them sense) usually must be a dedicated thing that is started in the planning phases to keep the weight under 10,000 lbs etc. The other thing a lot of people don't account for is having to utilize a large truck (which are usually pretty expensive in their own right, easily $25-30k+) to move it, which can mean ditching your smaller gas friendly car. A good portion of TH can't even be legally towed by a normal truck and get into needing someone with a commercial drivers license to move them, which cuts into the mobility of it.

Yeah that's the case in Germany as well. I think building a tiny house on wheels that you could actually move yourself might be quite hard to do unless you are able to sacrifice a lot of space, because the total maximum the trailer+car are allowed to have with the normal "B" license is 3500kg. And the bigger the house, the tougher of a car you'll need. Me personally, I don't rely on a car and don't plan to, so I'd just rent a stronger truck or borrow one from friends/family for the move.

Though to be fair, it's relatively easy to get the extended trailer license "BE", would cost a couple hundred bucks. That way the whole trailer is allowed to have 3500kg, and from what I've seen most builds don't go above that limit. And really, having it on wheels is already useful if it's just for building the house in a different location from where it will be standing in the end. Especially when building with wood, it can be very useful to build in a place that's protected from the elements, especially when you're DIY and can only work on it during the weekend.

One very legitimate use I saw for THs on wheels is earthquake-proofing. Having your house on a well-suspended trailer can do wonders for that, apparently.

From the SFF living perspective, I think I have a pretty good exposure to that.. I already mentioned living in an RV for a year+, have done a mobile home several times, and in the military SFF living is a way of life! By order (if you're curious) you get like 90 square foot per person, usually resulting in 2-3 per 200 square foot room with a shared bathroom for the first couple years.

That's a whole different level of SFF living With a TH, you're alone, but living together in a space like that must raise the potential for conflicts an awful lot. At least you're around people with a similar mindset, I guess.

Finding a spot to park your TH can also be problematic - much like living out of an SUV . If you're using a composting toilet this is easier (somewhat) but if you are tied to a septic system then you're looking at an RV lot or a mobile home pad, and those can be a decent chunk of change per month many people don't plan for initially. If you have land, then it is fine, but many times you could get the same cost savings (or even more, factoring in expensive mini-DC only appliances) by planning a small house from the beginning - hay houses, packed earth, etc.

Oh yeah absolutely, but I think it also gets a little easier to find some bit of land by having a movable home than finding a piece of land to build a permanent one on. Really, you only need something the size of a parking space, and there are quite a few pieces of land that belong to farmers which they can't really use, so if you search you're bound to find something that works for you.

Moving off-grid for water and power should be very doable, for me it's the internet access I fear most. Satellite internet has terrible roundtrip times.

I think if you already have land, building a small house without wheels might be a much better option in many cases.

 

[BirdofPrey]

It's usually not building codes people are trying to escape, and, in fact there are still codes that mobile structures have to adhere to regarding electrical and fire safety, etc. Usually people who build a small house on a trailer frame are trying to circumvent zoning ordinances that specify a minimum building size since a trailer isn't technically a building.

As for having multiple people in a tiny house, it comes down to what makes a well designed one work in the first place: each person can only be in one room at a time, so you can have a lot of functionality in a small space by having different functions share that space and letting you reconfigure as necessary, mainly by having folding furniture; though some also utilize movable partitions. Of course, this isn't just something small houses use; even regular sized houses can have stuff like a murphy bed in the home office to allow its use as a guest bedroom, and I've also seen neat stuff like a table that tucks under a kitchen island that can be pulled out as a full sized dining table. The main difference is in larger houses this is to accommodate guests while in tiny houses its an every day thing. The main issue then becomes handling use conflicts. It's hard to make the living room the bedroom if two people tend to sleep at different times, for instance.

 

[iFreilicht]

in fact there are still codes that mobile structures have to adhere to regarding electrical and fire safety

That is true, but when building on wheels, you can make all the power in your house DC, which doesn't require an electrician to work with and is much safer in general. Not something anyone would really consider when building a stationary house, even when it's a tiny one.

Though as @Ceros_X said, DC appliances are often more expensive, so it can be useful to get an inverter at least for those.

The main issue then becomes handling use conflicts. It's hard to make the living room the bedroom if two people tend to sleep at different times, for instance.

Jup, very good point. With multiple people living in one home like that, I'd probably want the bedroom to be separate. Even if you just need a bit of separation, having a second room to close the door to will help a ton.

 

[Ceros_X]

Trying to get two bedrooms in a tiny house almost always results in lofts being used as bedrooms. I know I don't have a problem scaling a ladder, but it is a major concession for most people and is a very big branching design point. Going to write up an OP hopefully tonight!

 

[BirdofPrey]

Trying to get two bedrooms in a tiny house almost always results in lofts being used as bedrooms. I know I don't have a problem scaling a ladder, but it is a major concession for most people is a very big branching design point. Going to write up an OP hopefully tonight!

I'd say it depends on what bounds you put around the term 'tiny house'. If you cram a few bedrooms where normally would be just one (or none at all), you might still be able to call it tiny. granted, I'm sure there's going to be plenty of people who want to be pedantic and put an absolute floor area maximum on it.

Still, as far as beds go, there's a few ways of going about it.
The most basic is effectively just a studio apartment as a stand-alone structure (and if we redefine things from tiny houses to tiny homes the studio or small 1 bedroom apartment is something of a benchmark), and I wouldn't say a tiny home CAN'T have a (small) bedroom.
There's the loft bed which comes in two main flavors. The first being just an upper loft level that more or less holds a regular bedroom. And, then, there's the loft bed as a piece of furniture with something else below it like a desk or a seating area. These are only going to be viable with a higher roof/ceiling (admittedly, I've seen a few concepts that only maybe raise the bed to shoulder or head height and use the space under as a sort of basement storage area).
The last is the bed that folds or tucks away whether that's a standard murphy bed, one that drops down from the ceiling or one that slides under some other piece of furniture.

You can also combine them, so I would say you could have a "2 bedroom" tiny home with a loft and a folding bed or even just two folding beds.
I've seen smaller homes that use sliding partitions and folding beds to allow for an open living space by day and a bedroom and guest room by night, but it would be feasible to have that be a second permanent bedroom by having a proper bed.



When it comes to tiny homes, though, I think the most critical features IS the partitioning more than anything. They tend to use storage as partitions instead of wasting space with walls that are mostly empty, and there's a tendency to use curtains and sliding doors since there's less of a requirement for leaving an open space for the door to swing.
Beyond that; I tend to thing reconfigurable space makes smaller spaces more livable in general. I see these fixed tiny homes that fit on the trailers and they have a tiny kitchen with a miniscule table in order to cram that regular couch and seating area in, and I'd say the best designs I've seen are studio apartments where you can pack up the bed or to sofa or whatever and be left with most of the space for whichever function is being used at the time. Maybe they aren't quite as small as the tiny house on wheels, but they are still of a diminutive size with ideas of merit.

 

[Ceros_X]

Interesting points!

I was speaking strictly of the tiny house vs tiny home (although I find it fascinating that you phrased it as house vs home, that is exactly how I was thinking about breaking them down!).

I think important distinction isn't so much on floorspace as it is distinguishable 'rooms'. In real estate, a bed room is defined as a room that has a door, a closet and a window (this article talks about it a bit more in depth). I think maybe there should be a convention similar to a 'home' having 2 or 4 'beds' vs bedrooms, perhaps? Pedantic, but it is a distinction to make.

The whole bed vs bedroom discussion reminds me of Shadowrun. Ever read any Shadowrun? Specifically the coffin motels that are sometimes mentioned which are actually a thing in asia.

 

[iFreilicht]

I agree, we shouldn't just talk about floorspace or strictly set a maximum limit, being pedantic like that is of no use to anybody.

Yeah multi-purpose and reconfigurable space is quite a biggie when it comes to tiny home (which seems like the better term, actually).

Personally I like the idea of having a loft bed under the roof anyway, but I can see how that is relatively inefficient. I think that people want to reduce the amount of movable furniture because of the perceived effort you have to take just for basic actions. Especially with a bed, having it in a fixed location so you don't have to fold it down or draw it out when you're tired or coming home drunk from the bar gives it a more stable feeling, it's something you can rely on being there.

Actually, I've yet to see tiny homes that do have movable walls. Most just use all the space they can for storage, and the ones I've been looking at are so small that you don't really want a wall anywhere if you can avoid it.

 

[Thehack]

Love me some tiny houses. I think for me 300sq feet would be good enough. I don't care for a modern living room. Bed, hobby area, kitchen/dining is what I need.

I think the most important thing about tiny houses is that they are the means to an end. Most of the people interested in that lifestyle are so because they want to shred debt. It is because debt reduces your ability to make personal choices causing your life to revolve around a steady paycheck. Living in a tiny house, though expensive per sq foot, allows you to be self-sufficient, unshackled by loans, and kind of forces you to downsize your possessions.

Yeah I thought about that as well. Even something like the LZ7 would probably seem like a waste of space in such an environment. Best bet is to mount it higher up on the wall. Also, if you want to live off solar, you'll really have to cut down on the power of your rig, so ideally you'd power it via DC directly, skipping AC/DC conversion. Using a high-end gaming laptop is probably better than having an actual PC as well.

An off-point, you have to weigh in the benefit of a DC system vs an AC system. For most purposes, using a AC system and then AC-DC at the point of usage is more efficient. It costs more to distribute high current DC, than it is to have lower current AC. This is due to physics of it all. Voltage drop, power transmission, heat, wiring to handle high current, etc. It is also simpler and more cost efficient to have AC appliance.

 

[iFreilicht]

An off-point, you have to weigh in the benefit of a DC system vs an AC system. For most purposes, using a AC system and then AC-DC at the point of usage is more efficient. It costs more to distribute high current DC, than it is to have lower current AC. This is due to physics of it all. Voltage drop, power transmission, heat, wiring to handle high current, etc. It is also simpler and more cost efficient to have AC appliance.

Even in a tiny home? I mean, AC is more efficient over large distances, but when you get your power from solar or batteries and the maximum distance a cable can go is like 7 meters, it seems the benefit of skipping DC to AC and AC to DC conversion would outweigh the the lower power loss per meter.

Though I would agree on appliances with you, much easier to get AC ones. I think that's one of the reasons why many off-grid tiny homes use propane stoves instead of electric ones.

 

[Thehack]

Even in a tiny home? I mean, AC is more efficient over large distances, but when you get your power from solar or batteries and the maximum distance a cable can go is like 7 meters, it seems the benefit of skipping DC to AC and AC to DC conversion would outweigh the the lower power loss per meter.

Though I would agree on appliances with you, much easier to get AC ones. I think that's one of the reasons why many off-grid tiny homes use propane stoves instead of electric ones.

Propane actually cooks a lot better as well. Being able to instantly modulate heat is important in some cooking, but that's beside the point.

There are other benefits as well.

1. It doesn't make sense to have two grids, one AC and one DC since that increase complexity and cost. However, a small scale 12V may make sense in a mobile home size.

2. In a DC grid, to power your PC, assuming you use a ~20V you'd have to use at least 10A. for a 6A for a work station. 12V you would need double that. But that grid wouldn't be for just that computer, it'd be tied to a distribution point, where you'd have to make sure all your voltages match. Increase complexity and speccing your appliances.

3. In case of component failure, you'd be shorting a lot of current. For a example, a small distribution point of 400W at 12V you will short 33A. With AC, you'd be shorting 3.3A. Amperage is more dangerous that voltage (usually).

4. Isolation. Certain equipment works best with isolated power vs direct power.

5. 7M is not 7M since you can't just wire in a straight line.

So there's lots of issues with using DC distribution. I'm sure there's scenario you can come up with where it make sense to use DC distribution, but for most part, it's best to have an inverter and reduce the headache.

Though this applies to a regular tiny house, not necessarily tiny house on wheels (THOW). A THOW can be built like an RV, where a 12V distribution system makes sense, or built like a house (high power electronics, mobile home-like).

 

[Ceros_X]

A lot of the iny homes I have seen use dual systems. They'll have fridges, lights, etc powered directly off DC battery banks, and then have inverters for normal loads. Inverters are inherently inefficient and on average you drop 10% in the conversion.

 

[Thehack]

A lot of the iny homes I have seen use dual systems. They'll have fridges, lights, etc powered directly off DC battery banks, and then have inverters for normal loads. Inverters are inherently inefficient and on average you drop 10% in the conversion.

Yup.

But another advantage if you are tied to a grid and you produce excess power, you can sell it back.

 

[Ceros_X]

SFF House: Smallest of closets

It came to light in the General Thread that just as many of us share a passion for smaller, more space efficient computers, a lot of us are also at least passingly interested in small living spaces. This is generally referred to as the 'Tiny House movement’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_house_movement, and while somewhat of a fringe movement at its conception it has lately been gaining increasing exposure and momentum.

As with computers, what exactly constitutes a 'tiny' house is up for interpretation. The general consensus seems to be a house between 100-400 square feet, with some insisting that 500 square or less qualifies. Interestingly, just as in the Intel developer spec for computer form factors, below average size houses are segmented into different groups based on size: tiny houses (400 sq feet or less) and small houses (400-1000 sq feet). For our purposes, it doesn't really matter much - much as with SFF PCs, if you consider it small, that's all that matters.

Why Tiny Houses?
There are a lot of converging interests and philosophies that converge on the tiny house movement. For some, tiny homes are seen as a way of economically owning a home. For others, it may be about minimizing their environmental impact and carbon footprint, upcycling, etc. To some, it may be more of a minimalist philosophy or about having the freedom to travel.

Tiny houses are usually split up into two categories - tiny houses built on a foundation and tiny houses that are built to be mobile (either easily moved, such as a container house , or on wheels/a trailer). This is by no means a definitive split, but much like computer systems are predominantly split among AMD and Intel camps, tiny houses are often split between mobile and non-mobile.

Tiny Homes - Mobile:
Made to be easily moved, tiny houses can often be built on wheels for reasons other than mobility. A prime example of this is that there are different regulations (zoning codes, building codes, etc) for mobile dwellings than there are for houses. For example, some areas have areas have local ordinances that dictate a house must be over 1,000 square feet - usually these regulations are created in an attempt to keep property values high.

There are many different types of vehicles in this area:
Car/Van Dwelling - Living out of your vehicle (unconverted)
Van conversions
Skoolies
Tiny House (on trailers)

Tiny House - Stationary:
Stationary Tiny houses aren't designed to be easily moved (with the possible exception of container houses, by virtue of being easily loaded as cargo). The tiny houses listed below cover some of the more popular types and build styles, although there are too many to list.

Wooden framed
Container house
Umbrella (underground housing)
Yurt
Straw -bale construction

As you can see, there is some eco/conservation crossover. While not all straw-bale housing will be tiny house, the majority of them will be pretty small. Etc.

RVs vs Tiny Houses:
Recreational Vehicles (RVs) are designed with mobility in mind. They are often built with materials that make them extremely light weight, however they are much harder to customize and do it yourself (although you do find some people refurbing old RVs).

This chart (source) sums up the Pros and Cons of each:

Main Pros/Cons of Living in a Tiny House
Pros

• Stick-built “homey” feeling and look.
• Feels a lot better than living in a travel trailer or other kind of RV.
• You can still pretty easily (in most cases) move it to another location when you want to move.
• You can build it exactly how you want it.
• If you’re into living healthy you can design/build it free of toxic materials.

Cons

• Weights a lot more than most RVs so it’s not really fun (or cheap) to tow.
• They’re also not very aerodynamic so not the best for you if you want to travel a lot with it.
• They’re pretty challenging to find a place to park and live in (but it’s possible).
• Tiny homes attract a lot of attention on the road.

Main Pros/Cons of RV Living
Pros

• Aerodynamic and lightweight compared to tiny houses.
• Easier to get around in so great if you want to travel.
• Blends in with other travelers so doesn’t attract too much attention compared to a stick built house on wheels.

Cons

• Doesn’t look and feel like “home” as much.
• Not as great for full time living (needs more insulation, etc.)
• Materials inside many times contain toxic materials and off gassing.

The key 'Con' to note for the RV is that they are often not equipped with insulation to handle snowy winters. The key Pro is much better support (RV camp grounds) makes it easy to find a place to park, and being lighter and more aerodynamic makes it easier to tow. I'm not saying RVs aren't Tiny Houses, just differentiating the two types.

Problems with Tiny Houses:
Now that we've given the run down, there are of course drawbacks to living in a tiny house. Although a tiny house can be cheap, you may often find that prebuilt tiny homes can be more expensive per square foot than a 'small' house. While there are thousands of home builders, tiny home builders are much more limited in quantity (although the numbers of builders are increasing) so there isn't as much competition. In the US it isn't uncommon to shop for tiny homes out of state if the pickings are slim in your area. Another issue can be financing - because many tiny homes are built on wheels to escape the 'house' classification, many lending institutions won't let you take out a home loan to purchase a tiny house. This is improving (through manufacture financing, peer to peer loans, etc) but you may find yourself looking at financing via credit card or being forced to take out an RV loan (which comes with taxes and higher interest rates than normal). If you go the fixed foundation route then you will find yourself needing things like sewer, passing zoning and building codes, etc in order to get a loan. There is also the price of land to consider.

Another issue can be specialized appliances. If you are running off of solar then looking for DC-based appliances can save you energy but cost a lot - most of us know the power inefficiencies of having to convert from AC to DC. You may find yourself looking at portable appliances, marine or camper appliances, etc - most of these items are more expensive than their standard AC counter parts. Solar power, while having come down in many years can still be very expensive to get started when you add in 100+ watt panels, battery banks, power inverters, etc.

Finding a place to park can be problematic as well. Some RV parks will not let you park a tiny home. Some places will not have ready access to septic hookups (and you may not want to go with a composting toilet!).

This is just a brief introduction to Tiny Houses, if you have information to add to the OP feel free to message me with it and we'll look at adding it. Thanks for reading!

 

[BirdofPrey]

I do find it rather strange I haven't seen much in the way of actual houses with movable partitions. I saw a video on one house in Madrid, but it's more of a small house than a tiny house (iirc they said it used to have 3 or 4 small bedrooms, but the common areas were necessarily small because of it. It belonged to the owner's grandparents, so is only really small by modern standards.)

I think that's part of why I tend to find microapartments more interesting in general. Tiny houses seem to still be built from the ground up in the mold of larger houses where you have these specific rooms, they just happen to be smaller and fewer in this case to the point stuff like bedrooms can't be called proper rooms anymore. On the other hand studios and microapartments have existed for quite a while and consist of a bathroom and everything else, and so they've turned to just making the furniture more adaptable.

In general, microapartments seem to have more going on where it comes to adaptable, multi-use spaces where as much space as possible can be used for a given function at a given time, and tiny houses seem to be better at utilizing vertical space and allowing for fixed functions (most commonly the bed loft) to exist without taking away from the general space.


Speaking of vertical space, it doesn't get talked about as much as the actual horizontal space, but it's an important factor for squeezing things in. In standing spaces, higher ceilings can help alleviate the claustrophobic feeling of a smaller space, but in non-standing areas is less critical. It's this that lets you do stuff like a loft bed (defined in this case as furniture rather than structure) with a desk or sofa underneath it where each use has limited headroom (enough to sit up with some space left over above your head). This can actually make slightly higher than average ceilings an advantage by giving good vertical in the common areas for a more open feeling and stacking functions elsewhere for more space efficiency.

 

[EdZ]

One important consideration is the base structure you are working with: If you have a plot of land you can build a small house on, you have a lot of flexibility in what you build and how it is built and assembled (from cast-in-place insulated concrete preforms, to wooden beam, to brick, to pre-fab modules assembled on site). But if you have an existing structure, you may be extremely limited in what you can do depending on how that structure is constructed.
In locations where there are no free plots of land and existing structures are old (e.g. London) most internal walls will be load-bearing, so you are faced with either total demolition (may not be possible if terraced) or working within a fixed room plan, which generally was laid out a century or so ago (e.g. kitchen that accomodated hearth and chimney). Often you will find that attempting to modify such structures will expose their current state of repair (or lack thereof) and end up close to the cost of total demolition and rebuilding anyway to rectify.
Depending on your location this may be much less of an issue. In the US for example, land is a lot more available and plots are generally larger, with existing construction tending to be wood-frame and relatively new (decades). In Europe, a lot of construction may be much older (plenty of rebuilding occurred in urban centres after WWII, but otherwise buildings 100+ years old are not in any way unusual), and the tradition of brick and mortar construction has held with framed buildings being less common.

 

[Ceros_X]

Often you will find that attempting to modify such structures will expose their current state of repair (or lack thereof) and end up close to the cost of total demolition and rebuilding anyway to rectify.

This is very true. Opening up the walls in a building that is older is literally rolling the dice. When you go to sell the home, there is a lot of things you can answer 'No' on in the seller declaration because you don't know if it is true or not. For example, does the house contain lead based paint, or is the wiring up to code. If you open the walls up and see that the wiring isn't up to code, you're pretty much forced to fix it because you know about it at that point. (And because you must declare it, the bank underwriting the mortgage can refuse to underwrite the load until it is fixed..)

IRT movable partitions, I rarely see that in tiny homes. I thing that is because usually a curtain will suffice just fine, and a wall is going to take up much more space (square footage wise) as well as being harder to stow completely out of the way. I saw a video earlier where someone used a motorized projector screen (raised and lowered on command) to both watch movies and screen off the bedroom from view, in effect using it as a partition.

 

[Phuncz]

On my search for house projects, I got a link to this manufacturer: http://www.coodo.com/our-models/

Interesting although I've yet to see any mention of materials or most specs.

 

[Commander Mushu]

 

[Kmpkt]

We should group fund one of these and make our own SFF village...

 

[Phuncz]

The question would be, where would we start that village ? I vote New Zealand, @confusis is always going on about how much better it is than other countries.