If National wins ...

[artemis]

Regardless of which party is in power the Government of the day needs to start thinking outside the square as other countries have done. Not everybody needing a house needs a 2 or 3 bedroom traditional style house. There are plenty of single people (both young and old) who would be very happy with a “tiny house.” .........

What is stopping people building or buying a small place right now? Like a studio apartment. Why does the government need to be involved? If people don't have a deposit or cannot afford repayments, would you expect the government to step in? How? (Why?)

[fungus pudding]

What is stopping people building or buying a small place right now? Like a studio apartment. Why does the government need to be involved? If people don't have a deposit or cannot afford repayments, would you expect the government to step in? How? (Why?)

The gummint shouldn't have anything to do with it as you say.

[justakiwi]

What is stopping people building or buying a small place right now? Like a studio apartment. Why does the government need to be involved? If people don't have a deposit or cannot afford repayments, would you expect the government to step in? How? (Why?)

The government is the one saying they will commit to building x number of new houses over x number of years. I’m just proposing that some of that new house build could be tiny houses rather than traditional (larger than some people need), expensive houses. They could be purchased or rented by potential occupiers. It really doesn’t matter. The point is they are an alternative housing option for some people, than traditional 3-4 bedroom houses. If space in Auckland or wherever else in the North Island is at a premium, surely building 4 or 5 tiny houses on the same land area as one traditional house, makes sense. Maybe these would be council houses - I don’t know. I’m just saying there are alternative options to trying to squeeze more and more houses into cities that are apparently already full to bursting.

Am I the only one who can see the logic in this as an option? Maybe this is just the wrong forum.

[ratkin]

The government is the one saying they will commit to building x number of new houses over x number of years. I’m just proposing that some of that new house build could be tiny houses rather than traditional (larger than some people need), expensive houses. They could be purchased or rented by potential occupiers. It really doesn’t matter. The point is they are an alternative housing option for some people, than traditional 3-4 bedroom houses. If space in Auckland or wherever else in the North Island is at a premium, surely building 4 or 5 tiny houses on the same land area as one traditional house, makes sense. Maybe these would be council houses - I don’t know. I’m just saying there are alternative options to trying to squeeze more and more houses into cities that are apparently already full to bursting.

Am I the only one who can see the logic in this as an option? Maybe this is just the wrong forum.

Most big cities around the world build up, rather than out. Plenty of those "tower blocks" have one bedroom flats. Many have a bad image of them, lifts not working, junkies in the stairwells etc, however they do not have to be like that. Some work very well when done properly.

[artemis]

Most big cities around the world build up, rather than out. Plenty of those "tower blocks" have one bedroom flats. Many have a bad image of them, lifts not working, junkies in the stairwells etc, however they do not have to be like that. Some work very well when done properly.

There is high demand for 1 bedroom social housing, which will be medium to high rise flats in Auckland. In the social housing register - June 2017 - 2408 of the 5353 on the register are for 1 bedrooms. So single adults or couples and actually nearly all singles. Many singles / couples who are accepted for social housing will have issues, some complex and some intractable. That will not work in a mixed environment - say an apartment block with social / affordable / market properties - which is what is being promised.

[Joshuatree]

One person houses are the answer
Baby, where are the fine things you promised me?

[justakiwi]

There is high demand for 1 bedroom social housing, which will be medium to high rise flats in Auckland. In the social housing register - June 2017 - 2408 of the 5353 on the register are for 1 bedrooms. So single adults or couples and actually nearly all singles. Many singles / couples who are accepted for social housing will have issues, some complex and some intractable. That will not work in a mixed environment - say an apartment block with social / affordable / market properties - which is what is being promised.

So set up tiny house villages instead. Low cost, fast build option that can give these people a “home” with enough space for a small garden so they can actually have a life outside of the four walls they would get in a high rise apartment. Because there are many tiny house designs people can retain their individuality and independence while at the same time they can be part of their tiny house village “community.”

I read an article recently about a local council in the US doing exactly this. Residents went into their tiny house and paid rent (rent varied according to the size of their house as some were bigger than others) and after x number of years the house became theirs. These houses were valued at around $40,000. In this particular case the houses were for homeless people but it could work equally as well for anyone.

What we have been doing in terms of housing, hasn’t worked. It’s not working now. I struggle to understand why people are so “anti” suggestions for alternative ways to improve the situation. I’m out suggesting we only build tiny houses. Of course there will always be a need for traditional housing but this idea could be a practical, workable solution for a significant number of people in a very short time frame.

[elZorro]

So set up tiny house villages instead. Low cost, fast build option that can give these people a “home” with enough space for a small garden so they can actually have a life outside of the four walls they would get in a high rise apartment. Because there are many tiny house designs people can retain their individuality and independence while at the same time they can be part of their tiny house village “community.”

I read an article recently about a local council in the US doing exactly this. Residents went into their tiny house and paid rent (rent varied according to the size of their house as some were bigger than others) and after x number of years the house became theirs. These houses were valued at around $40,000. In this particular case the houses were for homeless people but it could work equally as well for anyone.

What we have been doing in terms of housing, hasn’t worked. It’s not working now. I struggle to understand why people are so “anti” suggestions for alternative ways to improve the situation. I’m out suggesting we only build tiny houses. Of course there will always be a need for traditional housing but this idea could be a practical, workable solution for a significant number of people in a very short time frame.

It does sound feasible, quite similar to holiday cabins that are popping up around marinas. I know of a couple living in a motorhome while completing degrees as returning students, and a full-time employed person living in a station wagon. For them, the rent trap is something they either cannot afford, or want to avoid. Tiny homes should be a useful option. Maybe Labour will fit something like this into their KiwiBuild plans.

[craic]

A number of people have built tiny houses on truck chassis. Such small buildings come within the regulations as they are moveable. They can be registered as trailers and moved on the roads. I have seen costs of around $20,000 quoted.

[justakiwi]

A number of people have built tiny houses on truck chassis. Such small buildings come within the regulations as they are moveable. They can be registered as trailers and moved on the roads. I have seen costs of around $20,000 quoted.

Exactly. The problem is for many people, me included, we need somewhere to “park” our tiny home. The kind of community I’m proposing could also cater for people with existing mobile tiny houses who need somewhere to call home (they would pay rent for their serviced site). There are so many ways of doing this.

I belong to a number of NZ motorhome/caravan forums/online groups. You would probably not believe how many retired couples and singles are selling up their homes and buying motor homes or building tiny houses. There needs to be places established around the country for people with homes on wheels to park up. Aside from anything this category of people is freeing up traditional housing for someone else.

If I ever win lotto I will do exactly that. Buy some land in a decent location, set up individual sites large enough for the biggest tiny home design, put services in to each site. Provide a community building where residents can (if they wish) socialise with each other, hold community BBQs or whatever. People would pay a minimal rent for the long term use of their site. Maybe they actually buy it - who knows. The problem is I’m not likely to win lotto, but that doesn’t mean its a bad idea.

Dreams are free