Tiny homes will not fix the housing crisis
They might be cute, but they don’t work in urban centers
Minimalist and compact with every bit of space well-organized and thoughtfully designed; tiny homes have become increasingly fetishized by lifestyle sections and design blogs over the past few years, selling the fantasy of simplicity and decluttered space to the masses of people who feel trapped by mortgages, large homes, and the never-ending accumulation of pointless possessions which provide an instant of joy and a lifetime of baggage.
More recently, the compact size of tiny homes and their tendency to be quickly assembled has led some to propose them as the solution to the housing crises plaguing large cities the world over. But this proposal misses the fact that tiny homes do not work well in urban space, where land is constrained and denser, transit-oriented development is what’s truly necessary.
Researchers in France are exploring possibilities to make 3D-printed social housing, while a team in Denmark wants to create open-source plans for micro-homes that can be easily assembled with plywood and “digital fabrication” techniques. Their prototypes look sleek and modern, but their small, single-level design does not fit into an urban landscape — which may be why the Danish prototype seems to have been assembled in a forest.
There isn’t room in cities for micro-homes of this sort because even though they’re small, they would still require much more land per unit than denser forms of development, like rowhouses or apartment buildings. In California, which has the most dire affordability crisis in the United States, the value of land is a major factor driving higher prices due to its scarcity. The state’s big cities are struggling to increase transit ridership, despite significant transit investments — particularly in Los Angeles — because housing development around transit hubs has consisted of condos targeted at higher income groups, pushing lower income people who rely on transit even further from the core.
There’s a further problem that “affordable” micro-homes aren’t necessarily even all that affordable. Tiny homes at a site outside Austin, Texas had leasehold fees nearly 50% higher than the rents at a trailer park that was about the same distance from the city center — that’s without considering the cost of the home itself — and, unlike houses, tiny homes are more like cars in that they’re financed at higher interest rates and tend to depreciate over time, though with a much smaller resale market. Micro-homes are not the solution to the affordability problem, but nor are other new housing solutions like shipping containers or nano-apartments.
People deserve a home that provides them with dignity and has enough space so they don’t feel imprisoned — but many of the new housing solutions do no such thing. Paul McKay, an associate at architecture and design firm PMDL, does not have kind words for his time in Hong Kong’s container dwellings.
A windowless shell, dependent entirely on artificial light and mechanical ventilation, it was oppressive in summer and frigid in winter. It didn’t meet any of the criteria that I would have for a ‘home’.
Hong Kong has one of the most expensive international property markets, and is always trying to cram more people into smaller spaces with some of the most compact apartments in the world. However, environmental psychologist Dan Kopek says that people who live in the city’s nano-apartments often “feel trapped and want to flee,” while psychiatrist Layla McCay believes developers are not doing enough to “mitigate the risk of mental health problems” for these residents, such as providing access to quality communal spaces where they can socialize and escape their confined living quarters.
Is there room for creativity in thinking about what the future of housing in major cities will look like? Of course there is. Proposals for more communal living complexes, where people have their own small living space and share communal kitchens and lounge spaces with other tenants may be part of the solution — though it’s worth noting that most of these are currently not much more affordable than a regular market-rate apartment.
Vancouver has had success densifying areas with a lot of single-family homes through the approval of accessory dwellings, but they’re nothing like tiny homes which are generally much easier to uproot. The reality is that tiny homes, shipping containers, drain pipes, and these other interesting housing proposals are not workable at a large scale; instead, they serve as distractions from what’s truly needed: a major commitment to the construction of affordable, public housing in major cities.
Leaving housing to the private market has been an abject failure. In growing cities, developers are incentivized to build high-priced condos to reap maximum profit from their investments — affordable units simply aren’t a priority for private, profit-driven companies, regardless of government attempts to boost numbers through inclusionary zoning and other policies. Tiny homes will not effectively fill that void, and will instead take up energy and space that would be better used for truly affordable public housing that can provide shelter for many more people.
