A1 Architects recently presented some small space designs at the Academy of Arts, Architecture and Design in Prague. Few of their designs are what I’d call tiny houses but it’s nice to see so many fresh ideas all in one place. It’s also refreshing to hear someone else point out that they are clearly thinking that sustainable architecture must be attainable and that (small) size really matters.
Here are some of the things A1 Architects say about this body of work.
“We decided to explore the theme of limitless living in a limited space, all the ideas are presented by models in scale 1:25 and there is also one model in scale 1:1.”
“‘Small’ for us does not mean uncomfortable, inadequate and especially not minimal.”
“We wanted to avoid the unachievable utopian dreams of architects.”
It seems like every time I look at sites like Dwell and Inhabitat all I see are expensive and fanciful futuristic concepts and very few sustainable homes people could actually build and own themselves. It’s like a lot of professional designers think that sustainable means high-tech and modern.
I’d challenge A1 Architects to take the concept they’ve begun to explore here even farther but I also want to commend them for helping to change the minds of what the main stream thinkers call sustainable and attainable. In other words any step in the right direction is a step in the right direction… and that IS worth something. Photo credit A1 Architects.
Again, I admire all these small houses to the hilt. They are fun, exciting, fascinating. The problem is what to do with them. I cannot for the life of me–unless you have a lot of land in the middle of nowhere–figure out where you would actually build one of the many houses on the site. No zoning board in the entire metropolitan Philadelphia area, nor the the surroundings for 40 miles out, would allow one of these gems to be built. And were one fortunate enough to have a million dollars worth of land, the house would be a plaything. Certainly no one would buy it, unless they’re a delightful eccentric, like myself, and with an awfully lot of money.
This to say: these houses, however delightful, do not offer the average aesthete (maybe all aesthetes are not average?) anything at all, except pretty pictures to stare at over the internet. For those fortunate souls who live in parts of New Mexico, Arizona, etc., and who have the money, perhaps. But for those millions of city and suburban individuals who want this kind of housing–they’re out of luck.
Sincerely,
Stephen H. Gatlin, Ph.D.
Thanks for that progressive commentary, Dr. Killjoy.
Sincerely,
Dr. Evil, Ph.D.
We have been trying for years to get Baltimore County to approve these tiny houses for people who wish to enjoy their waterfront property on the weekends without sinking a ton of money into it. Not a chance- we have succeeded in getting permits for sheds on lots but they say no water, to toilets. Yet, for some reason they will approve water, sewer and electric for the smallest of boats. No way they will put it on land. they will not even approve a shower house. Yet these houses would make so much sense for weekend retreats on small lots on the water. Painfully, it is a no win – and of course RVs are prohibited without a house on the lot.
Does anyone have any ideas???
Hi Zoning Guy,
I suspect there is a measurable difficulty curve for getting any construction project approved as population density increases. So waterfront property in Baltimore sounds like an highly regulated area.
But in general my regular advice is to find projects that are typically approved and then put your project in those terms, if possible. For example if you’re trying to build a small group of tiny houses and apartment buildings are commonly built describe the project as an apart building with detached units.
If there are no similar projects there may be other angles that can be worked that the planning department is currently friendly too. The ‘green’ angle might work if the county is becoming increasingly supportive of sustainable architecture.
In a nutshell I could describe what I’m saying by simply saying that the easiest way to help people understand and support what you want to do is by putting it in terms they already understand and support. By saying your project is new and unique often scares these people because they are not policy makers, they are policy enforcers. If you can show them how your project fits into the existing policy they allow it.
IMHO
Dr. Evil: No killjoy. Just experience. You show me how to make these toys fly in suburban Philadelphia and I’m all ears.
My real time is, in fact, Stephen Gatlin
I have been designing a small house that should walk around most of the legality problems. The plan is to build it as a live aboard barge. With no engine on it there should be no registration required. If you wanted to live on the water it could be towed by a small tug or towboat @ 16′or such, witch would be cheap to register. Built properly as a real “barge” one could live on land that is subject to seasonal flooding. Cost would be a bit higher than many small designs but you could live with almost no tax issues. email hidden; JavaScript is required P.S. mail welcomed
I`m with you Mr. Kudra !
We are planning something similar here in Australia.
It still seems “doable” here also , if you comply with black and grey water disposal requirements and legislation , and paying attention to the “details” …The plan is to meander along almost 2ooo km of the Murray River under self propelled barge.Most waste pump out stations are free to use.
We are relatively fortunate here, as registration costs little more than a car , and no other real taxes to speak of.
All in all , great idea!