Took my Glamping idea and added a tiny house component to civilize things. I paraded my tiny design around 4 counties (Michigan Rural) and couldn’t find anywhere to put it. All jurisdictions have minimum square footage requirements that average 800 square feet for a 1 bedroom house. I can do something great for 2 people for 544 square feet. The other 3 bedrooms would be glamps, permanent tinsel fabric structures, which would be just as nice as the house. Can’t do that either, considered “tents” that can only stay up for 2 weeks at a time. I know it’s a round peg trying to fit into a square hole, but somebody needs to whittle the hole to make it round.
Housing needs to trend smaller - The average size of the American household has diminished by about one person over the past 65 years or so, according to new data from the US Census Bureau. The average population per household now stands at 2.55, down from 3.67 in 1948. If the trend is changing then so should zoning. Some are fighting this and I’m joining the fight. Met someone fighting in Steamboat Springs who is fighting with a petition. If you agree, then support by following the link and fight for our right to use our land - to fit our needs not theirs.
BTW - We all know this project and its 580 Square feet, won awards and has been published across the country - can someone tell me what’s wrong with this?
too small, how are you supposed to fit your cars, boat, rv, waverunners, tractor, large screen tv, surround sound, xbox, king size water bed, kegerator, full bar, sauna, spa, aquarium, bowling alley, wine cellar, shooting range, sex dungeon in that???
There is lower tax revenue for the cities and counties on small houses. Need tax money for the schools. Plus, if you live in a house like that you might not work a high paying job, you might do freelance or work for a non-profit or something and there is more tax revenue never realized.
Here "superstores" are limited to 15,000 sq.ft. but houses can go to 20,000. There was no limit until some asshole built one 66,000 sq.ft. + another 45,000 sq.ft. in accessories structures.
Tint, I know why, it’s the banks and tax collectors behind this. There are also those that connect square footage to wealth. I realize that no one wants shacks with lawn mowers and junk cars in the yard, but they think that square footage will solve this. I really don’t think that most zoning boards actually care about square footage. What they care about is esthetics and nobody has figured out how to zone that. I was chair of my local zoning board for over 20 years and we had minimums, but I abolished them. The other thing I abolished was the restriction to one dwelling unit per site. Here is an example of that from the same architect. What about guest suites, a place for mom & architectural vernacular? This is my design vernacular and I got away with it over the years by connecting with hyphens. Guess I need to move to Maryland or Louisiana where there is freedom.
keep in mind that most zoning laws are to protect the car-ownership+single-family-housing economy - so you're usually going to come up against one of those two or both. Think about that for a while...
on a side note - what I think is insane is that I can't legally walk across my own fucking street because there are no "marked crosswalks." I can hop on my bike and ride across the street and be protected by vehicular law - but if I were to walk across it and if someone purposefully mows me down with their car, it's my own damn fault for being in their way.
I know a young architect who was laid off in 2009 and he has been living on the road in an RV dumpster diving and doing freelance work since then. I'm jealous. I want to live in an RV or a tiny house.
I really like the small house movement but it is totally hampered by stupid zoning restrictions. Usually they just build them on wheels and call them mobile homes.
I'm pretty familiar with steamboat--by any and all means that tow is at lest a decade behind the national trends in walk ability, transit (their bus system is average), parking, zoning, land use, architecture and landscape. There are like two decent arch firms up there and they tend to do pretty typical mountain style mcranches over and over for the very average and nouveau riche upper middle class.
like our area, 'community housing' is typically considered cheapo rents, and sub $400k sales. We regularly subsidize million dollar sf detached homes with tax dollars.
We have proposed some tiny home/cottage/pocket neighborhoods as affordable alternatives to the typical attached quadplex shoeboxes that don't take advantage of solar gain and built poorly.
ive always thought, in a mountain community especially, that you could minimize infrastructure cost by consolidating driveways, parking and storage and letting the homes organize around commons...first question is always about groceries.
it seems to me there's a huge demand for in between scale housing--a balance of privacy, community, small, efficient homes located close to transit or trails so a car becomes unnecessary.
id love to wor with some lke minded architects so we don't have to keep drawing bad architecture ;)
I also might argue that living tiny becomes less relevant globally if you're building on a rural lot by yourself, with only 4wd access. I think the key is identifying missing teeth and holes in our small towns and ex urbs where we can cluster tiny communities.
there are quite literally road markings on steamboats Main Street that state' no pedestrian crossing' making the pedestrian walk at least 300-500 feet in my estimation, only to stand in wait at a crossing that hurries you across 5 lanes and 20 feet of parking.
ironically i was just complaining to my wife about how a nearby neighbor is hurting our property values with his 1,500 sq ft, no basement, p.o.s. house
Shuellmi, my point was, if someone wants a 1500sqft shed with no basement on your street, as long as it is legal in city's eyes, you have no right to say anything.
Hence, your property's value is not the responsibility of your neighbours. Rather simple.
I’m big on small – contemplating a new primary home to get out of my big into small. Found a cool tiny lot overlooking a ravine – in a small subdivision with just 9 homes. Want to do a high quality 1,000 square foot house, perfect for the crawl to the finish line. First question – “is there a S.F. minimum?” Answer was 2,000 S.F.! Figured out a solution, I’ll just add 5’ knee-walls over the 1st floor to set the roof on and draw in bedrooms that will never get built.
Went over there today to look at the house next door – a 3,000 S.F. piece of garbage…looks tired – I agree that massing is important when homes are stacked next to each other – but what is most important is design, aesthetics, quality and care in upkeep, not size – trouble is they can’t figure out how to make that law. I think the solution is to require all homes to be designed by an architect and forget all the rest.
My suggestion: Go talk to the zoning board. In most places, variances are given out fairly easily. If you want to make the house for you, and only for you to live in, you could probably negotiate with the zoning board, and set up a restrictive covenant that will keep you from doing the things zoning is meant to prevent (ie, rent out or sell an excessively small house without enlarging it compliance first).
Be smart.
That sort of things works fairly well in most places. Except major metros (ie, NYC examiners would just glare hard / laugh at you).
For years I've been tempted to apply for a permit for a below minimum square footage house and then sue the town for exclusionary zoning when it's denied.
"I think the solution is to require all homes to be designed by an architect and forget all the rest." no we're talking, although i would shoot myself if i had to deal with idiot homeowner clients all day
Zoning
Took my Glamping idea and added a tiny house component to civilize things. I paraded my tiny design around 4 counties (Michigan Rural) and couldn’t find anywhere to put it. All jurisdictions have minimum square footage requirements that average 800 square feet for a 1 bedroom house. I can do something great for 2 people for 544 square feet. The other 3 bedrooms would be glamps, permanent tinsel fabric structures, which would be just as nice as the house. Can’t do that either, considered “tents” that can only stay up for 2 weeks at a time. I know it’s a round peg trying to fit into a square hole, but somebody needs to whittle the hole to make it round.
Housing needs to trend smaller - The average size of the American household has diminished by about one person over the past 65 years or so, according to new data from the US Census Bureau. The average population per household now stands at 2.55, down from 3.67 in 1948. If the trend is changing then so should zoning. Some are fighting this and I’m joining the fight. Met someone fighting in Steamboat Springs who is fighting with a petition. If you agree, then support by following the link and fight for our right to use our land - to fit our needs not theirs.
http://www.change.org/p/routt-county-planning-department-stop-the-routt-to-elitism-ask-routt-county-colorado-to-stop-harassing-dalton-reed-and-other-pine-springs-property-owners?recruiter=171799839&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition
Prescriptive Zoning pisses me off. We know way too much about things to think that a broad brush approach is healthy.
minimum sf requirements...so dumb, how about minimum 3 car garage? had to deal with that once...McMansions for all, or go back to Russia!!!
BTW - We all know this project and its 580 Square feet, won awards and has been published across the country - can someone tell me what’s wrong with this?
there is no water near the dock.
too small, how are you supposed to fit your cars, boat, rv, waverunners, tractor, large screen tv, surround sound, xbox, king size water bed, kegerator, full bar, sauna, spa, aquarium, bowling alley, wine cellar, shooting range, sex dungeon in that???
There is lower tax revenue for the cities and counties on small houses. Need tax money for the schools. Plus, if you live in a house like that you might not work a high paying job, you might do freelance or work for a non-profit or something and there is more tax revenue never realized.
Here "superstores" are limited to 15,000 sq.ft. but houses can go to 20,000. There was no limit until some asshole built one 66,000 sq.ft. + another 45,000 sq.ft. in accessories structures.
Tint, I know why, it’s the banks and tax collectors behind this. There are also those that connect square footage to wealth. I realize that no one wants shacks with lawn mowers and junk cars in the yard, but they think that square footage will solve this. I really don’t think that most zoning boards actually care about square footage. What they care about is esthetics and nobody has figured out how to zone that. I was chair of my local zoning board for over 20 years and we had minimums, but I abolished them. The other thing I abolished was the restriction to one dwelling unit per site. Here is an example of that from the same architect. What about guest suites, a place for mom & architectural vernacular? This is my design vernacular and I got away with it over the years by connecting with hyphens. Guess I need to move to Maryland or Louisiana where there is freedom.
Govt loves development because it increases the tax base. This gives them more spending power and increases the bribes and payoffs.
keep in mind that most zoning laws are to protect the car-ownership+single-family-housing economy - so you're usually going to come up against one of those two or both. Think about that for a while...
on a side note - what I think is insane is that I can't legally walk across my own fucking street because there are no "marked crosswalks." I can hop on my bike and ride across the street and be protected by vehicular law - but if I were to walk across it and if someone purposefully mows me down with their car, it's my own damn fault for being in their way.
I know a young architect who was laid off in 2009 and he has been living on the road in an RV dumpster diving and doing freelance work since then. I'm jealous. I want to live in an RV or a tiny house.
I'm pretty familiar with steamboat--by any and all means that tow is at lest a decade behind the national trends in walk ability, transit (their bus system is average), parking, zoning, land use, architecture and landscape. There are like two decent arch firms up there and they tend to do pretty typical mountain style mcranches over and over for the very average and nouveau riche upper middle class.
like our area, 'community housing' is typically considered cheapo rents, and sub $400k sales. We regularly subsidize million dollar sf detached homes with tax dollars.
We have proposed some tiny home/cottage/pocket neighborhoods as affordable alternatives to the typical attached quadplex shoeboxes that don't take advantage of solar gain and built poorly.
ive always thought, in a mountain community especially, that you could minimize infrastructure cost by consolidating driveways, parking and storage and letting the homes organize around commons...first question is always about groceries.
it seems to me there's a huge demand for in between scale housing--a balance of privacy, community, small, efficient homes located close to transit or trails so a car becomes unnecessary.
id love to wor with some lke minded architects so we don't have to keep drawing bad architecture ;)
I also might argue that living tiny becomes less relevant globally if you're building on a rural lot by yourself, with only 4wd access. I think the key is identifying missing teeth and holes in our small towns and ex urbs where we can cluster tiny communities.
there are quite literally road markings on steamboats Main Street that state' no pedestrian crossing' making the pedestrian walk at least 300-500 feet in my estimation, only to stand in wait at a crossing that hurries you across 5 lanes and 20 feet of parking.
Maybe archinect can do a podcast on zoning (hint).
ironically i was just complaining to my wife about how a nearby neighbor is hurting our property values with his 1,500 sq ft, no basement, p.o.s. house
^and why is your property's value the responsibility of your neighbours?
not sure I understand, i think the idea that one's neighbors affect the property value of the entire neighborhood is pretty universally accepted
i agree that size does not equal per. ft. value and that homes can and should be well designed no matter what their size
Great timing for this thread to pop back up... I'm putting together a lecture on zoning and property regulation right now. Class is in two hours.
Shuellmi, my point was, if someone wants a 1500sqft shed with no basement on your street, as long as it is legal in city's eyes, you have no right to say anything.
Hence, your property's value is not the responsibility of your neighbours. Rather simple.
i see where your coming from and completely agree. That house was there when we bought ours so i really shouldn't complain
I’m big on small – contemplating a new primary home to get out of my big into small. Found a cool tiny lot overlooking a ravine – in a small subdivision with just 9 homes. Want to do a high quality 1,000 square foot house, perfect for the crawl to the finish line. First question – “is there a S.F. minimum?” Answer was 2,000 S.F.! Figured out a solution, I’ll just add 5’ knee-walls over the 1st floor to set the roof on and draw in bedrooms that will never get built.
Went over there today to look at the house next door – a 3,000 S.F. piece of garbage…looks tired – I agree that massing is important when homes are stacked next to each other – but what is most important is design, aesthetics, quality and care in upkeep, not size – trouble is they can’t figure out how to make that law. I think the solution is to require all homes to be designed by an architect and forget all the rest.
My suggestion: Go talk to the zoning board. In most places, variances are given out fairly easily. If you want to make the house for you, and only for you to live in, you could probably negotiate with the zoning board, and set up a restrictive covenant that will keep you from doing the things zoning is meant to prevent (ie, rent out or sell an excessively small house without enlarging it compliance first).
Be smart.
That sort of things works fairly well in most places. Except major metros (ie, NYC examiners would just glare hard / laugh at you).
For years I've been tempted to apply for a permit for a below minimum square footage house and then sue the town for exclusionary zoning when it's denied.
"I think the solution is to require all homes to be designed by an architect and forget all the rest." no we're talking, although i would shoot myself if i had to deal with idiot homeowner clients all day
....now we're talking....
Republican tsunami. Cheap gas. Big is back!
funny how people think we live in a "free country".
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.