What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknownFootball (CFL)
unknownBaseball
unknownBasketball
unknownSoccer
unknown💻 Universities
💵 Finance / Shopping
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social and Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
Housing is largely inadequate due to a reliance on the free market and voluntary philanthropy to supply it.
This wealthy individual used wealth derived from the free market for some voluntary philanthropy.
System working as intended: a problem reinforced through its own aenemic mitigation.
Honest title: Business owner sells business, uses proceeds to become a property developer and build a trailer park.
Honestly what's wrong with making a trailer park?
Nothing, but I find the framing of this project dishonest.
Edit: Well actually, there are a few things wrong with trailer parks. For one, the value of a house is the value of the land, and not the value of the house or trailer. Trailers are built on small plots, thus as the trailer gets older, the owner might not be building equity. Say if the land was worth 50k and the trailer 50k, after 20 years the value of the trailer might have gone to zero, but the value of the land might not rise over 100k meaning that the homeowner loses equity or doesn't build as much equity as they might have, with a 150k home on a decent sized plot. Especially since the value of a house will not go to zero over 20 years, and if limited renovation will actually increase.
I think this is great. You can argue he’s making money off it or benefiting in some way but as long as people get to live in these houses on an affordable budget, great. They get a place to call home, personal space, a community with similar struggles. Most people don’t need big spaces, they just need a space and shelter.
There’s a lot of negativity in this thread. I think people often forget that perfect is the enemy of good. Cheap housing is objectively a good thing.
How tiny are we talking? It's not a very detailed article.
The New Brunswick government site says 18m², and there are some pictures on https://www.12neighbours.com/
You know, the first thing I thought of is that you could build like 6x that many homes if you just didn't bother with the yards and added a second story. I mean, yes, what was done is nice, but it's basically just a trailer park. I bet that the land alone was like 70% of the cost if not 90% as well, so building the houses more densely would've provided for several times as many people for almost no extra cost.
Alternatively, a single mid-rise apartment building would've done the same thing on only a fraction of the land, and probably a lot more comfortable to live in, not to mention cheaper on amenities like heating and sewage.
On the other hand, you can throw one of these things together in a week, ensuring that people have homes sooner. You also don't have to worry as much about soil conditions, water pressure, and all the other complications of building large structures. If the choice is between space inefficient homes or no homes at all (because the cost is prohibitively expensive), then the one that makes homes wins.
But how long will that last? Are we talking about just making a few dozen homes one a week and call it a day after we've given homes to 1% of those who need it, and having used up all the space within 100km of anything decent? Those homes might be tiny, but they waste space like no tomorrow. Besides, building a low rise isn't expensive nor takes long at all, yet is far more space effecient. Especially if people don't mind such small homes.
For the space of four of those units, you could build a single building that could easily house a dozen. Hell, just build a normal house and give everybody their own room, sharing the kitchen and bathroom. It'll be a nicer place to live on top of housing far more people on a fraction of the land. It's basically just a college dorm house at that point.
he could build one a week, making housing people immediate, rather than the planning and bureacracy a full story apartmwnt with a real foundation would take. Some times gap measures are best, until there is better
I agree the bureaucracy is a huge issue. NIMBY is a scourge in the western world.
But still, while he could build one a week, he could also build a 40 unit low rise in a single year, occupying the space of only one block rather than fill a good hectare of wheelless trailers that all need separate sewage and heating systems, and have a total upkeep of only a small fraction of all the independant homes that'll probably only last for a decade or two without being rebuilt on a regular basis unlike the apartment that could last for 50+.
I agree it is not perfect but planning for that 40 unit build might take 5 years before breaking ground with the way cities work. If he is that rich maybe he could fund both , with the tiny homes as a gap measure. That lady that lost her husband and could no longer afford her previous living space did need immediate affordable housing.
The issue with your suggestion is that you're presuming that this guy can keep building more buildings, but he sold his company to be able to do this. It's a one-time deal, unless if he manages to start another company, raise it to a great value, then sell it off again. Even then, that's a decade venture at least. Planning as well doesn't take that long, it's the approval process that does. Planning can be over with in less than a month, and that's presuming he doesn't go for an existing plan.
There are always people on the verge of destitution, so either save a handful today, or save several times that many a year or two later. Low and mid-rise apartments are not only massively space efficient, but cost only a fraction to build compared to a hundred individual homes, as the single building shares many of the same components for all the units. Not only does it use less parts, but the amount of labour is only a fraction of so many houses.
By planning i meant getting the city to agree to run sewer or , water or power. They often have their own development agrenda that means a sewer won't extens to an area for 5 years, etc. I had a well for a long time, getting city water is something I wanted no matter the cost, but city would only run the line if every farm for 10 miles bought in, so they could run it once. This is the type of stuff you have to deal with when talking with City Planners
(not the downvoter) It's quite possible the person has no relevant skills around making and permitting complex buildings, but still they feel capable of building these sheds, and fundraising to continue expanding as small amounts of funds come in?
That's if mid rise is even allowed there - if it's "single family zoning", then maybe land division into small parts is their only option?
I seriously doubt the person built those things by himself. If he did, then I bet there's no electricity or plumbing, and it would've just been better to buy actual trailers as he could have a fleet of them delivered in a few weeks rather than spend years of hard labour building them himself.
I would imagine that fund-raising would work regardless as long as you're showing that this is a charity thing.
Of course, I bet any sort of joined home would be illegal there as it stands. Zoning laws are the absolute worst in most western countries, making anything but an expensive and space wasting single family house illegal to build in most housing zones. It's the single biggest reason why housing prices are so out of control, and will likely crash taking 30% of the entire nation's retirement savings with it in the next decade or so (since most people who buy houses and bet everything on being able to sell it at a massive markup for when they retire).
From the looks of them, about 1/3 of a typical singlewide mobile home, built of similar materials. Basically more of a shack.
why are they tiny and not regular
I'll play devil's advocate here ...
First is many homeless need an address to start receiving any monetary help at all (CPP, social assistance, disability, etc). This starts the process.
Second is many don't have jobs so wouldn't be able to afford the maintenance costs of a full-size house.
Third is this could be a starter home for some, where they could get a job and start saving for a down-payment on a home or a larger rental unit.
Honestly, like 200 sq ft. You don’t share walls with your neighbours. No stomping on the ceiling.
For free? Yeah, I could make it work and I’m not even homeless ffs.
It's not free. You pay 30% of your income (source is the video).
but presumably you’re getting social assistance, no? it’s sort of like a Basic Income
Only with an address. If you have no address you can't register.
That said there are a rare few agencies that allow people to use the agency address to start the process, but that's the exception rather than the rule.
I've always paid >50% of my income when I rented. Sounds good!
I think it's a decent solution for some. A small private space. I'll note though that it is rather inefficient in land use. Many of the residents will need a car as well as they get back on their feet. Building these is closer to suburban sprawl in the form of a mini-mobile home park, which is not terrible, as I said it will be a decent solution for some.
I'd be curious as to the construction costs and land use for 99 of these tiny homes vs. building apartment blocks/condos closer into transit and work. Granted I was curious and a quick Google show $800,000 for 880 ft^2 1 bed, 1 bath condo in Vancouver.
Yeah, people saying he should have built an apartment have never paid rent in Vancouver LOL. People paying huge rent for half a living room with a sheet hung from the ceiling for privacy. at least with these you have youe own kitchen, toilet, shower, and personal privacy
I don't think you understand the term "Devil's Advocate" as everything you're (rightly) stating is positive to the person doing this.
To play the Devil's Advocate, the person doing this is a Millionaire. I guarantee they are getting tax breaks out the ears for doing this and their accountants will ensure that this ends up being a money making venture for them. Pessimistically speaking, there's no such thing as altruism.
He is able to build one a week (with kitchen, toilet, shower) so it gets the people in fast. Building a regular home needs foundation and has lots of wasted space like hallways, etc. And not your own space if you have multiple tennants in a 4 bedroom , who want to be sel sufficient individuals
Larger homes cost more to build for obvious reasons, so with any given amount of money, you have to balance the amount of individual units you can build with the size of the units.
Which is to say that you can provide homes for more people if you make them tiny and not regular
Most of the cost of a home comes from the land sale itself, unless if you're building somewhere nobody wants the land (in which case there's nothing nearby to earn a living by as well). Considering that, building larger will only marginally increase the price. Doubly so if the larger building is for more than one resident.
A pair of townhouses can be built for almost the same cost of a single typical single family house, yet house two families on the same plot of land. A condo or apartment can house dozens for the cost of less than 10 normal houses.
Not to mention the reduced cost of plumbing and heating if you build one large building for a community rather than having dozens of separate systems for individual shacks.
This is true, yeah. I didn't know they were standalone units, which would be counterproductive with regards to saving money.
Maybe there's some zoning issue at hand, though.
Zoning is generally the #1 problem in regards to housing, though mostly as a result. It's the NIMBY movement as a root cause and the reason why such strict zoning is even a thing.
Dudes a millionaire, not billionaire. /S
What's the mix of singles and families in the group needing shelter?
What funds are available? Is it better to build 99 tiny houses or 50 regular but small houses or 25 moderately sized homes?
What land and services are available? Are there differences in permitting?
Are there differences in the construction process? Is it better to jumpstart a project returning nearly immediate results with a bunch of quick and easy to build tiny houses or to take much longer to build out?
What I'd like to see is the long term plan. Is this the beginning of something grand or just a bandaid. It's not that we don't sometimes need bandaids, but it would be nicer to see a longer term plan.
As a first step? Maybe it will prove to be a misstep, but at least someone is doing, not just talking. Learn as we go.
This project looks like a jump up from Seattle’s various tiny homes villages (Nickelsville, Othello, etc), which are around 120sq.ft each and don’t have running water, if I recall. Those are considered temporary housing, but this is a like a next step up.
Curious how these ones interact with building codes, etc, being more permanent.
Either way, people who haven’t frozen to death, been stabbed, or OD’d have more options for recovery and moving forward.
Yeah, these ones don't look far removed from the ones I've seen on YouTube that people with plenty of options choose to live in.
Ah, NB. I could tell it wasn't Ontario or BC because the municipal government didn't stop him.