No, I’m not opposed to anyone choosing to live like this. Whatever works for you. And hey, maybe it’s an excellent alternative to renting if you rent one or buying if you buy. It certainly adds a whole new dimension to the phrase “starter house.”
But the idea that it has everything you need in 300 square feet is subject to someone else’s idea of what you need. I once shared a roughly 300 square foot apartment with my lovely wife. That was cozy. But living any duration in such circumstances could be viewed as anti-growth and pro waste.
You can put much in it, ever, so you either disengage from future commerce or you dispose of what won’t fit to make room for new stuff.
What about those manufacturing jobs we’re trying to get back?
Having one kid meant new digs and more square feet. Three kids and we moved again. I can hear the Gaia-Cult cringing. THREE KIDS!? Sure, we need replacement value plus a bit of extra because, thankfully, most of you progressives are not procreating. And while that’s great for anyone swimming in the deep end of the gene pool if we don’t have enough taxpayers who will backstop all that bloated government welfare Ponzi-scheme you advocate?
Tiny Houses will not fix that.
Kidding aside (when and where I am kidding) it is kind of cute, and I can see some kids (at almost any age) playing “house” in one. Or maybe a few dogs. Or, how about some victims of the progressive race toward “utopia” shacked up by the Government in taxpayers backyards? For which you need both taxpayers and backyards, for those keeping score.
Everything you need in less than 300 square feet. @NHChronicle is touring #tinyhome vacation rentals at #TuxburyTinyHouseVillage in South Hampton this week. #nhchronicle #tinyliving via @sean_wmur pic.twitter.com/z8XcXEjRBY
— WMUR TV (@WMUR9) May 14, 2018