As for the residents of the houses, rent is kept at 30% of income, which means the large majority of residents pay a maximum of $200 — including all utilities and internet — every month.
How are they planning to sustain this long-term?
Surely, someone is paying for the difference. Unless I totally missed it from the article 🫣
He donated money to pay for the housing units, possibly the land. So that’s probably all paid off. There are still taxes and utilities to pay for, which is probably where the rent is going.
You’re one of today’s lucky 10,000! Landlords typically charge even more than the cost of building and maintaining the house, and then just pocket the rest as profit. It’s bonkers!
I get that he’s financing it, but that’s not sustainable if you want to implement something similar around the country.
I love the idea, and the tiny house village looks amazing! But if it relies on a millionaire to voluntarily subsidize the project, I can’t see it lasting too long.
Now, that brings us to a wonderful new option: tax the rich more than we do.
The top 5 billionaires could fund 1000s of these tiny home villages with just a fraction of a percent increase on their hoarded wealth.
I love the idea, and the tiny house village looks amazing! But if it relies on a millionaire to voluntarily subsidize the project, I can’t see it lasting too lang.
Which is why this needs to be a government task, and the rich shouldn’t be begged for voluntary charity, they should be taxed.
Yeah, I don’t want them to be profitable, but sustainable.
Even if taxpayers are paying for it, you can’t rely on the (struggling) general population to lift people out of homelessness. Let the rich carry that burden. They are the ones who’ve hoarded money that should have gone to everyone else.
No it isn’t? Usually it just means owning stock in a company, that others want to buy. That stock isn’t “stolen”, neither is the value that others assign to it.
These places are tiny at 240 square feet. There’s not going to be much $$ tied up in them for material and utility costs can’t possibly be that hught because the homes are so compact.
If each home cost $40k, which is probably generous, over 30 years that’s $111/mo. Internet is probably a commercial line to the site and then a local network type setup. The real question is how much the land cost.
Rent might not cover everything 100%, but it would be close. It wouldn’t surprise me if some money from the locality was involved since people living on the streets isn’t free and simply providing housing can be a massive first step to getting people reintegrated back into society.
I would estimate their construction cost is closer to $100k CAD than $40k. Maybe somewhere in the middle. Construction costs can be very high for a tiny home, which is what these are. They are built on a trailer.
“Lowest cost for a Canadian tiny home: $80,000 to $150,000” (SOURCE)
Yes, probably less if they are building them all themselves, but $80,000 seems to be the norm for temporary tiny homes. Uxbridge priced tiny homes made from trailer containers at $80,000, too.
I think they could be sustainable as far as electricity (solar) and even water and heating (propane), so that’s not a bad thing.
But how is the land being paid for? Taxes? etc.
Every tiny home project I’ve heard about has these barriers that get in the way. What needs to change so we can build more of these, instead of single, detached homes with massive yards??
There is no way you can’t cut that 80k number in half if you’re actually trying to build something with the goal of being affordable. Those are companies that are trying to make a manufactured home sound hot and trendy for profit, not an organization trying to make affordable housing.
I have done zero research, but that figure seems crazy. I could see it holding up if you were trying to build a single tiny home as each of the contractors will want to ensure a full day’s worth of income. However, if you’re build 100 units the piece cost should fall substantially. 240 square feet is truly tiny, so it should be pretty fast to assemble and wouldn’t take much raw materials. One other possibility for keeping costs down is volunteer labor, similar to habitat for humanity. That type of model won’t scale, but it can help keep prices low for a handful of jobs.
You would be surprised. There are a lot of fixed costs for building tiny homes, you have all of the appliances that need to be installed, trailer bed, plus framing, siding and roofing trades that need to happen.
Plus there is sitework, sewer, electrical water, and development fees.
Hopefully they got economies of scale to work here but they still can be a bit pricey.
I contribute to the OpenStreetMap project, and there are a lot of detached homes here. Some areas have like 20 homes in a space that could house thousands of people. It’s pretty disgusting, actually.
We should be building up, and not contribute to sprawl.
But tiny homes are a great solution for keeping land space confined, while still offering functional homes in very little time.
How are they planning to sustain this long-term?
Surely, someone is paying for the difference. Unless I totally missed it from the article 🫣
He donated money to pay for the housing units, possibly the land. So that’s probably all paid off. There are still taxes and utilities to pay for, which is probably where the rent is going.
This is just an educated guess though.
You’re one of today’s lucky 10,000! Landlords typically charge even more than the cost of building and maintaining the house, and then just pocket the rest as profit. It’s bonkers!
It’s why the tech millionaire financing this isn’t a tech billionaire.
I get that he’s financing it, but that’s not sustainable if you want to implement something similar around the country.
I love the idea, and the tiny house village looks amazing! But if it relies on a millionaire to voluntarily subsidize the project, I can’t see it lasting too long.
Now, that brings us to a wonderful new option: tax the rich more than we do.
The top 5 billionaires could fund 1000s of these tiny home villages with just a fraction of a percent increase on their hoarded wealth.
Which is why this needs to be a government task, and the rich shouldn’t be begged for voluntary charity, they should be taxed.
Sure it is. You have to have government fund it, like a normal social democracy would do.
Any examples?
Public services don’t need to be profitable to be sustainable. You just need to tax base to be okay with it.
Yeah, I don’t want them to be profitable, but sustainable.
Even if taxpayers are paying for it, you can’t rely on the (struggling) general population to lift people out of homelessness. Let the rich carry that burden. They are the ones who’ve hoarded money that should have gone to everyone else.
That’s not how money works?
Yes, because hoarding billions means it was stolen from someone else. Either through low wages, low taxes, loopholes, or unethical business practices.
Nobody should ever be able to accumulate billions of dollars. We have people who will be trillionaires in our lifetime. Unjustifiable.
No it isn’t? Usually it just means owning stock in a company, that others want to buy. That stock isn’t “stolen”, neither is the value that others assign to it.
These places are tiny at 240 square feet. There’s not going to be much $$ tied up in them for material and utility costs can’t possibly be that hught because the homes are so compact.
If each home cost $40k, which is probably generous, over 30 years that’s $111/mo. Internet is probably a commercial line to the site and then a local network type setup. The real question is how much the land cost.
Rent might not cover everything 100%, but it would be close. It wouldn’t surprise me if some money from the locality was involved since people living on the streets isn’t free and simply providing housing can be a massive first step to getting people reintegrated back into society.
I would estimate their construction cost is closer to $100k CAD than $40k. Maybe somewhere in the middle. Construction costs can be very high for a tiny home, which is what these are. They are built on a trailer.
“Lowest cost for a Canadian tiny home: $80,000 to $150,000” (SOURCE)
Yes, probably less if they are building them all themselves, but $80,000 seems to be the norm for temporary tiny homes. Uxbridge priced tiny homes made from trailer containers at $80,000, too.
I think they could be sustainable as far as electricity (solar) and even water and heating (propane), so that’s not a bad thing.
But how is the land being paid for? Taxes? etc.
Every tiny home project I’ve heard about has these barriers that get in the way. What needs to change so we can build more of these, instead of single, detached homes with massive yards??
We need more of these!
There is no way you can’t cut that 80k number in half if you’re actually trying to build something with the goal of being affordable. Those are companies that are trying to make a manufactured home sound hot and trendy for profit, not an organization trying to make affordable housing.
I have done zero research, but that figure seems crazy. I could see it holding up if you were trying to build a single tiny home as each of the contractors will want to ensure a full day’s worth of income. However, if you’re build 100 units the piece cost should fall substantially. 240 square feet is truly tiny, so it should be pretty fast to assemble and wouldn’t take much raw materials. One other possibility for keeping costs down is volunteer labor, similar to habitat for humanity. That type of model won’t scale, but it can help keep prices low for a handful of jobs.
You would be surprised. There are a lot of fixed costs for building tiny homes, you have all of the appliances that need to be installed, trailer bed, plus framing, siding and roofing trades that need to happen.
Plus there is sitework, sewer, electrical water, and development fees.
Hopefully they got economies of scale to work here but they still can be a bit pricey.
Canada doesn’t have the single family zoning problem that is prevalent in the US. Lots of Canadians live in high rise apartments.
This is proby a smaller community though.
I contribute to the OpenStreetMap project, and there are a lot of detached homes here. Some areas have like 20 homes in a space that could house thousands of people. It’s pretty disgusting, actually.
We should be building up, and not contribute to sprawl.
But tiny homes are a great solution for keeping land space confined, while still offering functional homes in very little time.