Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Today's favorite.

This company is in Quebec and says the houses can withstand the cold.



My 'lottery' fantasy is to revive the ERE city idea. I'd buy a large piece of land that had a fresh water source and build dozens of tiny home sites throughout the property. There would be several common buildings in a central location for use by everyone including one for laundry with craft and sewing equipment, a workshop/toolshed, an indoor/outdoor kitchen with canning supplies, a fish cleaning station, smoker, and fire pits for cooking, and a pavilion for larger gatherings with internet, TV, video games, and a library. I'd keep a handful of vehicles in different sizes for when someone needed one, but I'd have bike paths connecting all of the properties. I'd have fruit trees lining the paths and use berries and herbs for landscaping in common areas.There would be also be farmland divided into plots for each resident, and residents could lease their plots to others if they weren't interested in gardening.

I obviously think about this way too much.

@jennypenny No, you don't. I'd totally live in a place like that.

jennypenny wrote: My 'lottery' fantasy is to revive the ERE city idea. I'd buy a large piece of land that had a fresh water source and build dozens of tiny home sites throughout the property. There would be several common buildings in a central location for use by everyone including one for laundry with craft and sewing equipment, a workshop/toolshed, an indoor/outdoor kitchen with canning supplies, a fish cleaning station, smoker, and fire pits for cooking, and a pavilion for larger gatherings with internet, TV, video games, and a library. I'd keep a handful of vehicles in different sizes for when someone needed one, but I'd have bike paths connecting all of the properties. I'd have fruit trees lining the paths and use berries and herbs for landscaping in common areas.There would be also be farmland divided into plots for each resident, and residents could lease thier plots to others if they weren't interested in gardening.

I obviously think about this way too much.

Except for the garden plots, this exactly describes the campground I managed way back when. They've since added many more tiny trailerable cabins. http://www.pkscabins.com/. I'll bet you could easily do this without winning the lottery by watching for a good deal on a campground/trailer park with the basic infrastructure already in place and adding the tiny homes at one or two per season.

Edit: Here you go http://www.theforestlodge.net/. Asking price $395k. You and GandK can split that for pocket change.

Or you could go hog wild with the other one in the Poconos
http://thecampgroundconnection.com/park ... l&search=1

jennypenny wrote:Today's favorite.
My 'lottery' fantasy is to revive the ERE city idea. I'd buy a large piece of land that had a fresh water source and build dozens of tiny home sites throughout the property. There would be several common buildings in a central location for use by everyone including one for laundry with craft and sewing equipment, a workshop/toolshed, an indoor/outdoor kitchen with canning supplies, a fish cleaning station, smoker, and fire pits for cooking, and a pavilion for larger gatherings with internet, TV, video games, and a library. I'd keep a handful of vehicles in different sizes for when someone needed one, but I'd have bike paths connecting all of the properties. I'd have fruit trees lining the paths and use berries and herbs for landscaping in common areas.There would be also be farmland divided into plots for each resident, and residents could lease their plots to others if they weren't interested in gardening.

I obviously think about this way too much.

Sounds like a place I'd very much like to live!

Ego wrote: Edit: Here you go http://www.theforestlodge.net/. Asking price $395k. You and GandK can split that for pocket change.

Looks good! It's about half way between me and K, so maybe we should take a road trip this spring to check it out. I'm not sure how well two word nerds would do running a campground -- it sounds like the setup for a sitcom (or a Stephen King novel ).

@Carlos--You have to come so you can give sailing lessons.

@jennypenny

That would be a road trip worth taking.

Some tiny cabins, log homes, plans, prefabs, etc ... http://www.standout-cabin-designs.com/

I would call our cottage small. I don't know the exact measurements, or how it compares to you guys, but it would be less than 30 square meters.

A current example of the biggest problem I believe tiny or small homes have to contend with.

http://news.nationalpost.com/homes/tiny ... ts-illegal

There is no point in someone saying I would be happy living in a small home if they want to live in it in pretty much any city/town where building codes exist.

Even if the guy in the link had built a 398 sq. ft. small home to meet the city's minimum size regulation, you can bet he wouldn't have been allowed to build it where it is. He would then have come up against the minimum lot size you can build on and the minimum set-back from the property line the building must meet. The list goes on and on.

An interesting thread and I was keen to try my hand at converting a small shed into a tiny tiny house in the back garden. Only to discover that I need planning permission!

Seriously, an 8x4 shed needs a £200 application to my local planning department to be considered legal (as an example).

Ydobon, planning permission is necessary where I live as well. But only if it is greater than a specified size which is certainly not 8x4 unless you are talking metres. I don't know if you just used 8x4 just as an example or not.

What I did was to build (not really) in sections. That is, one half one week and call it completed and one half next week and call it completed. No permission required for the first half and no permission required for the 'addition'. In fact, if questioned, I can say I build a small shed originally and then added on two additional parts later on. Might work in your area as well.

Here is a picture of the shed mine was based on. You can see how you could say you built the first part, then the second and then added on the pergola and patio (in my case a deck rather than a patio).
http://www.theclassicarchives.com/image ... hed-01.jpg

I did the same thing when building a deck on the back of our house. It has 3 areas on 3 levels. Each was 'built' separately if asked and impossible to prove otherwise. Each section is smaller than the size that requires a permit.

That's lovely, would be well beyond my capabilities at this point!

I have checked and permitted development does allow me to build a reasonably sized outbuilding as long as it meets a few different criteria, none of which are *too* onerous.

In Oregon it's 80 square feet, or 8 x 10, before needing a permit.

This one is perfect for a bugout location.

Until someone decides to steal your firewood - waitaminute!!!!

EnigmaT, my shed is 9x8 plus 5x8 plus a deck area of 6x8. So each part fits within your 80 sq. ft.

That's clever. Maybe I'll make some peeled poles next spring. Make a vertical log shed.

enigmaT120 wrote:In Oregon it's 80 square feet, or 8 x 10, before needing a permit.

Think it's 200 sq ft these days in Oregon, though counties make the decision. Clatsop County, Multnomah County, & Clackamas County all say 200 sq ft before permit is required.

Where I live the cutoff for permits is 120 sq ft. However, they also stipulate that an unpermitted house can't be used for a primary residence (even under 120 sq ft). My husband doesn't agree with that interpretation, as we have an 8x10 building with an 8x10 add on porch and a 10x12 building. He has a friend who works for the city who did confirm that our housing is not according to city code. But, since he's a friend, he didn't report us or anything.

Rules are dumb. I realize the intention is that people live in houses that are safe, but when it gets arbitrary and expensive, I get irritated.

"Rules are dumb. I realize the intention is that people live in houses that are safe, but when it gets arbitrary and expensive, I get irritated."

LOL peerifloori, well first your two statements are contradictory. Or did you mean to say that rules that are intended to have houses that are safe, are dumb. That is in effect what your two statements are saying.

Second, they aren't 'arbitrary', they are all based on sound principles and past evidence. When nearly a whole city burns down as they have in the past, you pass a building regulation that says a house has to be somewhat fireproof or there must be a given distance between houses to stop the spread of a fire. Just what rules would you say are 'arbitrary'?

The comment 'expensive' is more revealing. What you mean is that when YOU think something is expensive. Now it's about YOU, not the rules. Any rule you are happy to comply with is no problem, only the rules that cost you money or inconvenience you in some other way should not exist.

Really all you are saying is that you like everyone else want things to suit you. As the saying goes, 'You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time'. The rules aren't 'arbitrary' or 'expensive' peerifloori, they're just the rules that work best MOST of the time for MOST of the people. I don't think anyone has ever come up with a rule for anything that suits ALL of the people ALL of the time.