@@heyhoe168 This ^ I'm not crazy about them, but the problem with 5-1 Apartments is more that they're being constructed as 'premium housing' than anything to do with their construction quality or 'character'. Brownstones, after all, were once considered 'cheap' 'mass produced' and 'lacking character' but they too were a solution to housing affordability based on cheap construction techniques at the time.
as someone who has lived in a motorhome with our family of four for nearly the last decade, I can say with some authority that the fun of "tiny homes" wears out _really fast._
I used to live in a house built on the footprint of a garden arbor with scrap bricks and cement my dad stole from the construction site he worked on in 80's. It was less than 30m2 for the three of us (my mom, my dad and I) and living there was quite something. I cannot stress how much happier I was when we finally could demolish it and build an actual house and not an outbuilding as it was legally classified bc it didn't meet the code. My current room with bathroom on the 2nd floor is the size of that house...
@@senritsujumpsuit6021 you have zero privacy, you're always cramped for space, you have to lower your head all the time, there's no "quiet" time/space, no storage, etc. It's doable but it gets old very fast.
"Towing houses with a Cybertruck is probably the most fuel efficient idea". Ah yes, nothing more efficient than towing a mobile home all day everywhere you go as you don't own any land to put it on. Also bet the Walmart will be perfectly okay with you keeping it parked in their parking lot at night.
When I used to be broke I used to live in a stealth camper van on the edge of a walmart parking, 2 years and noone noticed...or maybe noone cared because the parking was 90% empty all the time anyway?
I loled at the guy saying that Tesla products work so well together. He seemed to have forgotten that the main charging station for a Tesla is inside a stationary house.
Honestly my dream home is probably an apartment or a townhome with basically no lawn, but I do wish mobile homes were not socially stigmatized. Like it would be great if most young ppl had an affordable option to live alone on their own land if they want.
My college actually did this. Instead of having small shared rooms, they made a building where every room was a prefab room in a 40ft storage container. This meant that everyone could get a private room, and it was twice as big, for the same cost. Around $300 a month. Problem is, most adults can't live in a fucking single room storage pod like a college student who lives off of ramen.
This reminds me of the game CommonHood, glitchy mess, economics that make no sense but it basically has you designing increasingly modern rooms in a common area in a commune style. You make the rooms in a tiny house format so you can quickly move the commune between areas in a linear fashion deeper into the ruins of a huge factory retaken by nature. Also adults in Europe live like this quite a bit, apartments or houses cut up into private and collective areas, everyone interacting, it can be a real blast or a quiet place to crash, depending on the people and rules. Which can be either an amazing way to live or hell based on the people going by my time in shared apartments. Something like CommonHood could actually be an interesting housing concept in theory. Someone could build large empty areas either in a tower or underground. Bring in natural light with a reflectors system and basically have people living around an indoor park.
The funny thing about the "$50,000 shipping container home is that you can actually just build a house with that kind of money, the real barrier is the land to put it on, if you have a reasonable parcel of land to put a microhome on, with some proper planning you could probably cram a small real house on there
Problem is, that land is still taxed starting right from the moment it is purchased, on top of what was spent to build the home there in the first place. I'd rather pay the tax as is practiced in quite a few countries, to just live in an already existing home or apartment with plumbing, drinkable water, electricity, and WiFi/Internet/Data access, and access to goods and services instead of buying land far away from any goods or services, buying access to plumbing, water, and electricity, paying for the home I bought to be built or placed onto the plot that I paid for, only to continue having my finances suckered out of my bled-dry wallet. The concept of buying land to just place a small house on is the most inefficient use of space imaginable. Unless you plan on using all of the land around you for agriculture if the land is arable and the soil being fertile enough, you aren't seeing much benefit from what you paid for in terms of affordable living. This varies depending on location, but just using the land to just place a house in the middle of nowhere makes no financial sense in the slightest to me. I might be wrong, though.
it's crazy to me that we aren't making it illegal for investment companies to own homes after what happened 15 years ago. It's almost like we want it to happen again.
They don't own any homes, people who take out loans put up their homes as security. And it was the government who was the most responsible for the 2008 housing bubble. The government used Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to encourage banks to give out loans to people who didn't have good enough credit. You can blame the banks all you want, but what are you really going to do when the government has written a blank check for you, the housing prices just keeps rising and no one (not even the rating agencies) have picked up on the overvalued mortgages. It's honestly shocking that the government didn't bail out Lehman Brothers when they went under; the government did bail out the banks eventually though and even turned a slight profit doing so, which was definitely the best for everyone.
whatever pleases the shareholders for personal financial gain without a care for anyone else, they'd be willing to blow up earth if it jut put a little more money in their net worth
@@michaelsasylum It's not fraud, it's just a stacked system. It was easy to do in the past, easier nowadays, just here and there small support in say planning permission speed and suddenly you have a big company that can outbid everyone else. It's not necessarily a law that forbids competition, just small heads up in advance, and the system stays broken for ages. Then those companies can toss a donation here and there, find a useful idealist that will preach that it's not a system, it's you buying avocado on toast (and coffee, can you believe it?), but if you didn't and at the same time worked harder and longer it would be all fine. What I cannot believe is that in the XIX century and early XX, in London super-rich built housing in slums to improve the health and well-being of denizens of those. In XXI century the top 100 company in the UK is buying them from the local government, refurbishing and selling them for profit all that after securing a concession that affordable housing is anything that they sell at 80% of the market average. This is what we call charity, you could sell something for 40 times the average annual salary but you do for 32 average annual salary.
I believe I have a step-by-step process on how to improve the $10,000 home: -Put wheels on the bottom of the house. Maybe even metal wheels with flanges on them. -Add some rails underneath so the wheels have something to roll on. -Attach a bunch of the houses together through some sort of coupling mechanism. -Install an engine in the house at the front so it can pull the other houses. Or even add motors on all the axles and run them all as one unit. A "multiple" unit, if you will. -Add either another rail or an overhead wire to harness energy that will power the motors. -Remove all the furniture and replace it with rows of seats facing in the direction of travel. -Put a seat and a set of controls in the front and rear houses respectively, and hire someone to drive the houses. -Also hire someone to "guard" the houses, and make sure nobody is freeloading the service. If anyone else has any suggestions to improve upon this process, I'm happy to hear them.
To safely access the houses, there should be designated places where they can remain stationary for a brief time. We could call such places 'stations', if you will.
Who tf would want to live in a train??? Like cmon they are superior TRANSPORTATION method not place to live in. (yes i got the joke, but it sounds so bad i had to write this)
My grandfather told me stories of how you could buy entire houses from catalogs in the 30's and 40's. They'd ship right to your plot in pre-built sections that took about a day to put together with a small construction crew. The only problem was finding land to put the house and then getting water. Guess some things really don't change all that much.
Even far back as the 20s. In American history, the only thing that fixed anything was the baby boom of the 40s, and returning veterans needing homes for their families, that made companies build loads of houses and neighborhoods like crazy. This was the modern subdivision planning we still use today.
Sears sold kits for houses! They were actually quite nice and there are still some remaining that are still recognizable (haven't been extensively remodeled).
@@theowlfromduolingo7982 - For that matter, space isn't all it's cracked up to be either, we have a more hospitable environment here on earth in Antarctica.
The definition of "affordable housing" should also be changed to effectively be affordable. If I recall correctly, in UK "affordable" is defined as 80% of standard market rate. In a country where a two-bedroom can touch the 12 times the median income mark in some areas they should be called "discounted housing", not affordable.
only 12times? In my country ONE SQUARE METER cost 1 year salary, if you want to have a decent 120m^2 you have to work 120years :) And thats assuming you can put away all the money you make into a savings account and not use it on stuff like food So a normal person has to work like 700 years
Is _35 % of regional average total disposable household income for 2 person household for 60 m² adjusted for floor area and total disposable household income_ ok? The formula goes like this: N = √(f/60) × 0.35a × √(a/b) Where: N = maximum monthly rent f = floor area area of living space + ³/₂root of area of non-living spaces in m² a = average total disposable income of a 2-member household in the given region for the previous year; if it is higher than 120% of the national average, 120% of the national average is used b = total household disposable income
In my opinion, you missed the most crucial point against tiny homes; Insulation. The reason we build big houses out of wood or concrete isnt because some construction company wants to get rich. Its because metal and glass transfer heat like a champ. Its fine to run heating/cooling all day long if you dont have to pay the energy or care about the climate, otherwise - you build something well insulated.
Ever heard of vacuum insulated panels? You can insulate anything if you choose the right solution. That said, you can even run your heating all day long if you choose a heat pump or simply an AC unit which is basically the same thing and still save on heating compare to a bigger house. Insulation is not an issue for tiny houses.
@@Dionyzos Tiny houses are inherently energy-inefficient because they're all outside walls. Building a block of 20 apartments, each with the floor space of a tiny house, will always be more efficient. Making your tiny house of a dumb material like metal just means you either get even worse energy efficiency, or have to spend extra on expensive insulation solutions.
Tiny houses are just caravans /trailers, that the financially challenged have lived in for the past 50 years or more. But yes, i have done two UK winters living in a caravan. Somehow, unless you are actually pumping the heating at the time, they are colder inside than outside.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs Right, but it all depends on your situation. If your apartment doesn't have a good insulation between apartments, you're gonna hear your neighbors doing moaning late at night. (As it happens in Soviet blocks, from my own experience).
So these tiny houses are basically what we call granny flats in Australia. You build them in the backyard of a regular sized house and they are used for having other family members live with you while still being somewhat seperate and independent or some people rent them out to random people for a bit of extra income.
Huh, for once Elon Musk technically did nothing wrong. He did nothing at all and it was others that said he did something he never did or intended to do but still: easily Adam's most positive video on Elon ever!
It is both impressive and disgusting how bold those channels are to just make shit up like that. Maybe its all just clickbait and they clarify that within the first minute of the video, but for some reason I doubt it and don't want to give them so much as a single view to check.
@@steemlenn8797Oh, I'm sure he'll get right on it. Elon's a busy man! Why, right now he's in the middle of a heated negotiation battle with a gentleman named... .. dril. Sounds serious
As someone who loves tiny homes, designs them in my free time, and is perfectly happy in my $700 room, I was actually intrigued by the idea of these tiny $50,000 homes. Thank you for providing me with a reality check. Now, I'm just incredibly angry at these laws that make it difficult to build affordable housing.
"these laws that make it difficult to build affordable housing" - Nope. Rather, the lack of affordable housing is caused by thinking that capitalism will provide affordable housing. Capitalists don't care about affordable housing; they just want to build luxury units, because that's what will make them the most money. As the video explains: what is needed is state intervention: " _large-scale, state-run public housing construction projects_ " - i.e., "big government," or "socialism," as it is called by capitalist propagandists.
people preach that they want affordable housing built-- just not near them, because it will drive their property values down and put a bunch of low income people in their neighborhoods.
I would love a tiny home since any normal size of house is going to be way more space than I need, but I think I'm just going to have to put up with the potential for noisy neighbours in an apartment building.
@@karld1791 Not in every part of the world. Most because they can't afford one. Some out of idealism. And some because it's just impractical/unnecessary to own a car when you live in a big city
The only advantage of tinyhomes is that, since they are "glorified trailers", some places let you build them with far less paperwork/permits needed than a normal house. Elsehwere (like here in Germany) they've instead cropped up as rental units on campgrounds.
That advantage just becomes a disadvantage when you learn that paperwork sets you up for higher property taxes while decreasing your property value for the eventual sale.
They are taking down 2 tiny houses on the property beside us and moving them. Overpriced hot boxes 😂 My buddy built a 2 story cabin at less than half the price.
@@linusmlgtips2123 When they came up/became "trendy" they'd have an axle of some sort attached to the bottom so it counted as a non-permanent installation (similar to a parked camping trailer).
@@linusmlgtips2123 By the time you manage to get approvals for a foundation/permanent structure or want to hook it up to sewage/gas, and pay tax on it - you might as well go with the more affordable route and build it properly. These modules also have serious downsides.
"With five children from a previous marriage, you might be wondering how he manages to fit everyone into such a small house. The answer is simple--he's estranged from all them."
@@demo2823 so it's easier for them to make to too it. yelling "I love freedom" as they ejaculate in a Walmart parking lot they have parked their house in is much harder if there are sharp edges
@@demo2823 You wouldn't cast/forge the curved edges, you'd cut the curved profile off thick sheet/thin plate with waterjet and weld box tubing across for reinforcement. Fun fact, that "sweep" on Smart cars that's curved and typically of a contrasting color compared to the body panels is the rigid frame that gives the car most of its structural integrity. The curve wouldn't take away from structure's strength, it just creates unusable space because a rectangular prism will always give you more volume available for a given footprint.
This reminds me of the tiny house craze a while back, all these people talking about tiny house communities not willing to admit they were hipster trailer parks. Also, people never think about these places need proper sewage disposal even if you supply your own water and power, poops gotta go somewhere, so even if you get an affordable plot you'll need to plan for that expenditure, if the plot meets the requirements.
Seems like many here are intentionally missing the point. The biggest problem with all types of affordable housing is the residents. The middle class hipsters creating a community of only their tribe is exactly what everyone secretly wants. Kinda genius if anyone figures out how to pull it off.
@@linusmlgtips2123when the whole "claim to fame" is that the house costs 50k, but they leave out 18k for the septic and 15k for power... But in reality, a single septic field won't suffice if they are going to pack the houses densely. So you will need a waste treatment facility which is a prohibitively expensive endeavor. Full blown cities have gone bankrupt over dealing with sewage (govt loan subsidies need to get paid back)
I really hate minimum parking requirements. When I studied city planning in University I always struggled fitting enough houses within a certain plot of land. Even when I finally did draw a design I was happy with I had to fit in so many parking spaces that I basically had to start over.
A lot of US states (California is one of the bad ones) require parking for commercial spaces based on square footage, so places like Home Depot and Costco have vast parking lots that are never full. One of the bigger issues with modern cities is all the open asphalt space. Although CA is beginning to deal with that by doing solar parking covers. Shade, less blackbody thermal islands AND clean power...!
We have the opposite problem in the UK with new office buildings. Planning regs limit the number of parking spaces to a % of the number of workers that the office is designed to accommodate so it's illegal for there to be enough parking. It's meant to encourage people to use public transport but only really big cities have multiple train stations and busses are a joke, especially at rush hour. This leaves people parking all over the neighbouring streets.
@@bigchunguscultmember1267 and to the politicians who say "just take public transport" while refusing to expand it, we say "take public transport while being just 30 minutes out"
That’s the problem when your whole country has been organized around the interests of your national car industry. And it’s even more dramatic when your national car industry is crumbling down because its unability to meet the rest of the world’s standards (nobody outside the US buys american cars…)
The housing problem isn't lack of available homes (the US alone has literally hundreds of thousands of empty houses everywhere) the problem is the parasitic leeches known as landlords/property management companies.
A few years ago, my family was considering selling the family home and buying a plot of land to build log cabins on. We had worked out the feasibility and costing of getting water and utilities to the plot and it seemed like a good idea, but the local government planning department said no because that privately owned land was allocated to holding livestock... which it did not. So it was then sold to a local crime family who turned it into an illegal horse meat farm.
Casita just means a small house in Spanish. Also in California Casitas are typically mother in law units rented out to other people. Very common in larger backyard in more urban areas. So the product name is literally what it is. A small secondary dwelling for in laws or rental. PS. Also California often uses Spanish as a flare to make things feel exotic or trendy. It’s very common to see very white neighborhoods littered with Spanish place names. Calling their tiny home a Casita is definitely playing into that.
I mean... California formerly being part of the Spanish and then Mexican Empire for literal centuries may explain why Spanish is so popular. It's literally in the name.
@@hyperion3145 it doesn’t explain why there are half Spanish half English amalgamations naming the streets of modern developments. They also make Italian sounding names near wine country, Native names near tribal territories. But when a new development is named Rancho ______ and then is filled with white people it’s not because of the Spanish heritage. You sound like someone who has never been here
@@hyperion3145 Also look at our history. Very few places have kept their historical Spanish names. The ones that have are major cities. Even then, many cities with Spanish names were named such long after that. How does the city of El Dorado Hills, 2 Spanish words and an English word, formerly the post war town of Clarksburg Spanish fucking heritage when it was renamed in the 90s
Sadly, ppl thought affordable apartment complex as "neo-communist building". Singapore is doing so well in solving housing crisis while implementing government owned apartment complexes, and not being communist at all.
A good friend of mine got somewhat obsessed with the idea of tiny houses. Being someone with a brain, she started doing the math. In towns that are popular for summer cottages or skiing or things like that, the locals are being priced out of the rental market too. She *thought* maybe there was a market for small homes there... After a few years of research, it starts to look like Canadian federal and provincial building codes make tiny homes impractical in many ways and likely wouldn't solve SFA in the short term. Tiny homes really look to me like a solution only for disaster relief and as a way to "improve" some slums. IIRC, venezuela used to offer free sewer service and tax breaks to homes in the barrios if they built their homes out of brick, or something like that. These homes might mitigate some of the issues they have there. *might*.
Tiny homes are great for someone wanting to 'do it themselves,' especially if they want to build licitly or circumvent planning regs. They are great for living cheaply on an existing property, perhaps owned by a friend or relative. If mobile, they can be pleasant for a person travelling or on holiday. However they are no good for families or for most people. You need to make a lot of compromises to live in a tiny home, and in really cold or really hot conditions they are not easy to regulate temperature in. They can also be great for, as you say, disaster relief, extreme slums relief in developing countries, or indeed for quick housing and dignity for homeless people.
@@queenvagabond8787 Or you know the government could build lots of tiny houses next to each other and make some with flat roofs so you could stack these tiny houses on top of each other. Now we could get provide lots of people with housing that pay a monthly fee to life there so they don't have a prohibitively high upfront cost that homless people won't be able to afford. We could call this fee rent and the stacked tiny houses a apartment building.
@@Emiliapocalypse It is a democracy, never say never, but it's pretty complex to achieve. you essentially need coordinated action at all levels of government, and the rules exist for reasons, so they likely need a lot of nuance so that they don't become loopholes for cutting corners by unscrupulous developers.
Tiny homes are awesome in a suburban setting, with appropriate design of the community and infrastructure. In a walkable suburb with good public transportation (like streetcar suburbs in the late 1800s and early 1900s), small houses make better use of small plots, and they give people more incentive to go outside and interact with their neighbors, which has substantial benefits to health and safety. Wrapping blocks around small parks or communal walkways gives people room to stretch their legs without needing big lots, and creates a zone where a lot of people can keep an eye out. This in turn keeps burglars at bay and also gives kids a safe place to run around without strict supervision. Apartments and rowhouses can be designed to accomplish the same things, but if you're going to have suburbs, tiny homes on a grid dotted with parklets is going to be leaps and bounds better than McMansions packed onto spaghetti streets tangled up around cul-de-sacs. Pocket Neighborhoods by Chapin and Susanka is a great book on the subject.
tiny homes have already existed, they're called apartments. reinventing already well established and proven concepts are just dumb. well made video mr. Adam
Americans would rather live in a wooden barrel as long as it is a single detached barrel in a shitty suburb instead of move into a an apartment building in a mixed use neighborhood.
But Adam, what if we manufactured numerous housing pods and combined them to form a sort of apartment com-- I mean, Human Habitation Center in order to more densely house people? Also, windows can be omitted to make them even more environmentally friendly and modular
Is this like where he claimed he'd make tunneling 1000 times cheaper and in the end it was on the higher end of the average price and took a lot longer than it normal to do.
I always thought of tinyhouses as an option for a few people who like to move around a lot and either - like to live in remote areas with cheap land or - have a friend who allows them to use their estate or - are wealthy enough to own/buy a plot of land. I never thought of tinyhouses as a large-scale solution to the housing crisis, but of mobility as the main benefit.
For real, a tiny house might be an acceptable living situation for a single person (or the really rare close-knit couple) who spends nearly all their free time outdoors or at social gatherings (and they'd probably still need a rental storage unit for their outdoor equipment), but then if your home is literally just a place to sleep, a single room apartment would serve you just fine as well and at a much cheaper price (plus it probably comes with a storage compartment in the basement or attic). Anyone who believes that tiny houses are the future is simply a sucker for thr flashy, buzzwordy marketing. The mistake these people make is as old as Kickstarter: Just because an idea is "new" and challenges the established way of thinking ("more space = a better home"), doesn't mean it's a good idea!
I was fascinated by all the videos about tiny houses. They sure look neat! So, I checked out prices for ready made units. Then I looked at what a plot of land costs. Added it all up, remembering to account for a lower tax rate if you live in a house that has wheels even if you never plan to move it anywhere. Final price: About the same as a small house that is after all bigger than a tiny house. You could probably save some money by building it from scratch yourself, but I am no good with my hands. I could spend the same time doing what I'm good at and earn ten times what I could have saved by building the house myself. All in all a disappointing calculation.
I mean if you do most of the carpentry yourself, building a house is cheap as xxxx compared to what it ends up being worth. Why do you think literally any carpentry company builds any home ever?
@@ASDeckard The fun thing with carpentry is thanks to modern tools, it's become a lot less skilled than it used to be. With a few angled clamps, nailgun(hammer + nails can work too), a table saw(a handheld one will work too), and a tape measure(or yard stick), pretty much anyone with a functioning-enough body can build a decent shed. A house is that just with some more windows plus some utility lines ran to and with in it. Since those need to be inspected anyway, one who's too lazy to look up a video on how to do it will still learn how it's *supposed* to be done anyway. The *real* headache with cities(especially huge ones) is all the getting permission. That's why NYC had a parking garage collapse recently. Even if one wanted to fix it, they need permits to do so and those are an ordeal to get(especially in New York).
@@InfernosReaper Spoken like somebody who either doesn't know the actual work involved with that, or doesn't realise how little skill the average joe has with those tools. And that only works for houses mostly built of wood. So you can forget about that for most of Europe.
@@Llortnerof I've done construction. The tools aren't that expensive and measuring isn't that hard. As for Europe, why is wood out of the question there? Is that a building laws thing or a materials cost issue?
@@InfernosReaper Both. It's possible to build wooden houses, but they'd both be far more expensive than in the US and require much more knowledge of local building codes. And quite a few things *require* certified craftsmen, regardless of whether you are capable of doing the job. You're not allowed to.
I feel like Adam needs to go through a similar process for housing that he does for transportation. Something like this: "So, having small homes for each household seems like a good idea, but there's a problem with the land being expensive in cities. So let's crowd those homes as close together as we can. Still not enough, darn it. But cities have 3 dimensions, so we can stack the homes on top of each other, quite a lot of them, and provide some sort of elevator system for the people that live higher up. And it would help structurally if we connected the homes together into a single frame. And now we have a whole lot of small modular homes all in one single building, which we might call a 'high-rise', which is a totally unique modern thing that nobody ever invented before."
A good rundown of the actual economics of water-treatment would help too. Long-term, big picture, tiny-homes off-grid make real-estate *more expensive* for everyone, thus making over-crowding worse.
You can say sanitation worker. My brother worked at a garbage company (no, not Tesla) and he always laughed when someone said sanitation engineer. Garbage man is acceptable, but on the Internet, there might be issues. Great video! Thanks!
The issue in Seattle is they're taking single-family homes that are in an affordable range something that would have been called a starter house 40 or 50 years ago and then they tear them down and they put four condos in its place at all cost a million dollars each
Okay, but were the individual starter homes still reasonably prices before they were torn down? It's not the house that appreciate in value, it's the land underneath the house that appreciates in a desirable area.
owning a home isnt even a dream anymore. its just unachieveable, and even if you did buy a home, the costs associated with maintaining it are nightmare inducing
The main cost is the mortgage. Beyond that, all costs are way, way cheaper than renting. A 3 bedroom apt in LA is $5000+. There is no way in hell that house maintanance comes close to that.
In a number of cities in the US and Canada (looking at you Toronto!) the problem is the missing middle. Most of the city is zoned for single family homes so the rest of the land is expensive (and so is getting planning permission) so the developers tend to build large luxury apartments. If developers were able to convert existing single family homes into duplexes, triplexes and small apartment blocks a lot of todays problems would be solved.
@@michaelhill6451 Obviously denser housing needs to be supported by a properly working public transit system. Also, denser zoning would make it more affordable for the city to make better public transit, sparse car infrastructure is very expensive.
This is a real answer. For the United States of America we need more of that middle. Not large apartments / condos either luxury or government... 3 flats, 2 flats, town houses. We also need to consider building more medium sized cities built from the start to be walkable, bikable, and good public transport and cars will be present but not required. (Ideally put all the parking underground or on the first floor or two of the buildings.
@@michaelhill6451 This is only true if we insist on living in the same old cities. The Us has a ton of land. The Midwest has cities that are now depopulated. We need to revitalize these places with new industry, jobs, and just the sort of housing described. Not everyone can live in Lower Manhattan.
While we are at it maybe look at the fact that it's literally illegal to open a little grocery shop for the local community. I don't understand why someone cannot convert half their way too large house into a grocer that people who live in the area can just walk to in 5mins and get what they need. Canada is messed up.
Yeah, I looked into the idea of tiny houses a while ago, and the situation here in Australia is that it's basically impossible. In theory if you had a friend or family member with a big backyard who's willing to let you park your tiny home in it, you'd be set. Or perhaps you could rent part of someone's backyard for a reasonable fee. Unfortunately it's not that simple. Every local council has different rules about them. Some treat them as caravans, some as temporary structures, some as permanent structures, and whether they're allowed without notifying council, require rubber stamp approval of a simple form, require application of planning permission (submitting structural plans and complying with all building codes), or whether they're not allowed at all is completely random. One council might be fine with them, but drive down the road and they're completely illegal. The only sure-fire way is to basically buy your own block of land, and build a small house that complies with all normal building codes. And at that point you're spending not a lot less than if you just bought a normal (not new) house on a normal block of land. So basically there's no point.
It is still beyond me as a Ukrainian that you have councils telling you what to do on YOUR land. Like, here if you have land, you build whatever you want, as long as you don't break actual laws (so no Soviet flags). Why do your countries hate freedom? We also had government limiting what we can grow and how much we can build before 1991. It was called communism. Fucked up seeing it still be a thing in USA and Commonwealth. I heard about Homeowner Associations in USA, that's even worse... it's an absolutely Marxist nightmare where neighbours snitch on each other!
I DO like the pods as an idea, because there are cases where they're useful and practical. just.. not as housing. they're great sheds. if you have one of those japanese pods installed in a home, there's a lot of people that find the tiny space to be comforting. pods are usually light, and easy to carry. but.. well, shipping containers are also light and easy to carry, so that's not useful. sheds already exist so why turn them into pods? the only thing I can think of is using a tiny pod as a sleeping container. I like the idea personally. it sounds comfortable. but that's basically JUST me, and my dumb brain that likes claustrophobic spaces.
As Adam said in his video eviscerating the HyperPort: "Take something that's large and has excellent economies of scale, break it up into small individual pieces for absolutely no good reason, then make the individual things look like futuristic sex toys."
Hi Adam, I really like your entertaining videos. Your reasoning is always understandable and well backed by facts. As of this im a bit shocked you are advertising AG1, because its basically what you normally criticise. Its freaking expensive (about 100$/month) and if you research a bit the effects of the ingredients are not really backed by science and its like an unnecessarry elon musk product, overpriced and overadvertised. I hope you take another look at AG1 and i also know you need partners to run your channel but i think AG1 doesn't really fit in. Have a lovely day😊
Exactly! It's just super expensive greens that likely effects placebo more than anything. Without knowing the reasons for you choosing to advertise this, it feels misplaced in your videos, Adam! Thanks for entertaining videos though 😍
Agreed. If Adam takes and supports taking multivitamins, I'm glad he at least goes with something comprehensive that makes an effort to be based on whole ingredients. However it's definitely a lifestyle choice that does not fit the skeptical nature of the channel. Large scale, long term studies have never identified any discernible benefit to taking multivitamins. Most people only need your cheap pharmacy supplements for Vitamin D, B12, magnesium and, for pregnant women, folic acid only IF you do not already get adequate amounts from your diet and lifestyle. If your lifestyle lets you spend plenty of time outside and eat lots of fresh produce, you're completely fine according to current scientific understanding. Multivitamins are an expensive exercise in peace of mind: maybe they could provide you some benefit by covering a gap in your nutrition needs, but the chances are low and they are far more mainstream than they should be. You're much better off making a daily greens smoothie from non-powdered leafy greens. Athletic Greens barely even gets you any magnesium, and personally I'm not a huge fan of including protein isolate, even from peas, in a daily supplement marketed towards all demographics.
I knew the plot location was gonna come up. Seriously these people know nothing about land rights. Houses aren't just expensive because of the building but the land they're put on and how much is your property. If you have a tiny home but normal sized yard, you changed literally nothing; that's just as unsustainable as the bigger homes.
In terms of housing and transport, sure, but high intensity vegetable gardening or growing indigenous plants in the yard makes it sustainable in other aspects.
A tiny home uses less resources and you have space left to grow your own food. How is that not changing anything? Musks house is bs but tiny houses are not a terrible idea at all.
Hey tiny and small houses are a better use of land than villas, mansions, and suburbs. They just don't add a lot of value inside a city, except for filling a few underused gaps here and there. The real solution is high density city planning.
Adam is a socialist... he despises americans in suburbs or countryside. He wants everyone to live in cloned shoebox houses, get rid of personal cars and thinks everyone will dance like hippies around campfires sharing homemade food and sharing vegetables 🤣🤣🤣
Home Depot has a bare-bones 540 square foot kit home for $40,000. By the time you add plumbing, fixtures, power, etc, the price is over $85,000 or about $150 per square foot. That is as much as or more than $100 - $150 per square foot for traditional built homes. Cheap housing isn't cheap.
Adam, you're completely wrong. These minihouses *absolutely can* solve the housing crisis. They just need a few tweaks: - It's true, the cost of land is a major issue here. How about we alleviate this issue by pooling a large amount of minihouses in a single plot and then split the cost of plot between the tenants? - Of course cramming the small houses in a horizontal plane can only get us so far. In order to maximize efficiency, ideally we should stack the houses on top of each other, making 4-12 floors. - For safe traversal between the floors, we can add a stairway attached between the minihouses. - Modularity is a cool thing, but I believe it would be more efficient to simply merge the minihouses together into one continuous "mega-house". It would make a single building organized inside into multiple separate dwellings and a stairway. That way we can also install an elevator inside for added comfort. - Since people will be living in that mega-house for years, there's no point in making it mobile. Let's attach it to a concrete foundation, so that it's more stable and it's easier and cheaper to connect water, electricity, and sewage system. - At this point, we could also tweak the surroundings of the mega-house. Since there's going to be lots of people living in near proximity (even more so if there's going to be several mega-houses close to each other) I believe it would be beneficial to add some useful amenities in the area, like a school, a park, a couple stores, etc. I think we could also think of a better name. Maybe "mid-rise apartment", "flat", or something like that.
@@gdmango783 it still wont solve ur housing problems, europe ist full of smaller houses, smaller flats etc, still its hard to find housing in more popular areas.
Man it really does always come back to "better trasportational infrastructure" and "regulate greedy businesses". Almost like that could actualy be a good idea.
Correction: 'Better infrastructure'. Not necessarily transportational, sometimes instead housing, energy, production or other kinds of infrastructure (often a mkx thereof)
A good half of the video was dedicated to "deregulating greedy businesses." Shock: when you make it illegal to develop cheap through Etruscan zoning laws, parking minimum, and nuisance taxes, people don't develop cheap. (Adam is a bit of an anti-capitalist pessimist so he fails to address why public development is miraculously necessary *now*, when private developers loved making high density housing in the 20th century and only stopped as NIMBYs drove law changes.)
@@Bingo_Bango_ Yep, it must be that businesses suddenly decided to become more greedy lol. Of course, admitting that regulation is what's causing the housing crisis wouldn't suit Adam's ideological leanings, so he just omits it
Hi! I am from Eastern Europe. I lived in one of those large-scale apartment blocks without many parking spaces. First, the population density is so significant that you won’t solve the commute problem with just one or two tram stops. You will need a public transportation hub near each of such housing blocks. Second, because of the high population density, there is no way you find enough schools, kindergartens or just shops in the vicinity. Most of the people where I lived were driving their kids to school and were shopping in malls 10-15km away. Which means that a lot of people were buying cars and because of the lack of parking spaces all the empty space around those buildings became a giant parking lots without any room for people. We definitely need multi apartment houses. But they need to evenly spread across the city.
There's another thing you missed about rural property and that's utilities. Most (but certainly not all) rural property has electricity, at least somewhat nearby. But alot of it doesn't have water or sewer. Especially in the western US, water is sort of a big deal. In my area, it's not uncommon for a household well to run $20,000. A septic system is probably going to be similar. So, yeah, you can plop your tiny home on some plot in the middle of nowhere and it might not be too expensive as long as you only want lights. If you want a shower, sink, and toilet, well, that gets pricey quickly.
A while back, I went down a rabbit hole of tiny modular homes, and honestly I was all for it as a concept. Then I thought, wait, I really want good internet, I don't think that'd work well with no lines dug. Which is when I also questioned where the hell would I get plumbing. Those vids are still fun to look at for space-saving interior design ideas though. But yeah It's pretty clear now that these homes are novelties to people who could easily afford a regular house already.
8:50 - He sort of touches on that. "... lack of broadband internet, and possibly drinking water." Yes, he could have mentioned electricity... probably decided to trim it out for time or forgot to mention it or something. I will add that you don't always have to go far from town to be on a well. I live a 10 minute drive from town, and the sewer doesn't come anywhere near.
@@Esperologist I'm quite similar. I live maybe 10 minutes from an area where there's major shopping and I'm on well and septic. And there's people quite a bit closer too - like 5 minutes. Internet used to be a problem (thanks Centurylink for decades of not investing), but a local ISP got a grant from the state and now I have really good fiber to the home. In some really rural places, even electricity is hit or miss. There's areas where its cheaper to build your own off grid solar than get electricity run. That does tend to be areas that are more actual desert or deep in the mountains, but even my neighbor, when he subdivided his land, it cost $10k to get electric run to the new lots. But having said that, you usually can find reasonably priced lots with electricity readily available.
I have an idea to improve these tiny houses and make even more affordable housing: what it we stack a few of them on top of each other? And put a couple of these stacks right next to each other? I imagine tiny streets with tiny houses on both sides, several layers high.The upper layers of course could be accessed by pods that travel vertically. Each house could even have a tiny garden that sticks out to the side - they would just need some kind of safety feature to make sure people don't fall out. I imagine a kind of railing that borders the tiny gardens. To make costruction faster and easier the developer could build these "blocks" of housing all at the same time, and then find buyers for the individual tiny homes.
Yeah a balcony will never be a proper garden, especially for your dogs or children to run around in. Now if I can have a balcony that's 6 m wide and 15m long with grass, bushes, a tree or two and space to have a picnic on with a BBQ then sign me up.
@@wilberdebeer4696 I can´t really imagine dogs and children running around in your garden either, 6x15m is really timy when it comes to gardens. Apartments often have bigger balconies. Get the penthouse, those have the big terraces, with enough space for everything you mentioned, plus a nice view. The grass would have to be artificial and the trees and bushes put in planters though.
In Europe it used to be quite common for the govts to have huge public housing projects during the 70s-90s. Nowadays, this has nearly halted and on top of that, existing public housing is increasingly sold to investors - under value ofc, since it's just tax payer money that's being privatized here.
Location seems to be the prime cause of expense. Thats why people in the countryside can live in a big house that costs as much as a studio apartment in a condo in a town center
5 years ago I started studying Architecture because I got on board with the whole Tiny Homes trend. Now I find myself wanting to design Commie Blocks and 15min communities. Tiny Homes are really only useful at increasing density early one with secondary units in my opinion, but I still like the little things, I've never needed much space anyways.
In a city, tiny homes are fine for people who want to rent out a room to someone but don't want that someone in their house, *or* for someone who somehow got a plot of land in a city that's otherwise unusable, yet still accessible. In the countryside, they're okay vacation homes or as a temporary dwelling until you can build up a bigger home. As something hauled around the country(as some tiny home advocates do), they are godawful. They aren't built to withstand that kind of travel. The people who want *that* should consider a used camper trailer.
Commie blocks have a lot of hidden disadvantages. Trust me - I'm born and grew in USSR. It works well only if you have huge factory and living blocks around it where 90% of citizens works on this factory. Else you will have constant problems with transportation in rush hours. Second - all the citizens of these blocks should be relatively poor and have no property or cars. It simply no space there to store or use it. But when you have many poor people in the small area be ready to huge crime on it. In my childhood it was very dangerous to walk alone to another neighbourhood. Chance to be robbed was about 70%. And this was in the capital city with a lot of police and very tight government control. In the smaller cities crime cituation was even worse. Experiments with such "social" blocks was provided and failed in many countries starting from US and ending in Paris. In 90% you will have a ghetto with a huge crime after 10-15 years there. The best decision there IMHO is relatively low height apartments (5-7 floors) with a good green territory around and 100-150sq.m. size, underground parkings and proper transportation infrastructure. Very good example of such city is Munich in Germany. It green, safe, easy to walk or reach any place less then in an hour.
@@TomasSawer Yes, but this channel *hates* personal transportation and loves trains, rather than seeing the pros and cons of both and acknowledging that the can and should coexist where possible.
@@TomasSawer We're not saying they're perfect. They just seem like a more optimal decision than many others. I live in a good, relatively early Soviet neighborhood now and I love it.
Really appreciate the teardown on Elon's involvement (or complete lack of). Internet is a wild ride of misinformation and attention click seeking lol Awesome presentation, fun info with good comedy sprinkled in. Thanks as always for your efforts, it really is appreciated.
@@RazorsharpLT The difference is Adam actually takes the effort to inform us about the misinformation that has been going on and making us aware of content farms like the ones he showed. Additionally he offered potential solutions for the overarching topic of the video.
The annoying thing about this is that as a cabinet maker, I could make a really nice small house for less than USD 10,000. I'm just not legally allowed to.
I will never stop being fascinated with how in some countries making homes out of paper is considered... A thing. That exists. It's weird. Reinforced concrete, bricks, or wooden logs are the only materials that seem to be able to hold without collapsing in a slight breeze.
@@KasumiRINA: Wood is perfectly fine for a home, the problem is that most "industry standard" homes are absolute garbage. They intentionally make them minimalist and weak to ensure job security.
Don't forget the hyperloop! A tunnel!! Something humans have been building for hundreds of years. Wow what will he do next? A horse and buggy? A cheese grater? lol
Seattle eliminated parking minimums over 10 years ago. Didn't make any difference. Developers still run the show and the average rent has skyrocketed. All the parking minimum elimination did was mean the developers could make more tiny cardboard boxes for $3500+/month.
I'm surprised you glossed over the bigger issue of restrictive zoning codes in general. It's definitely the worst in the US, but it applies to places in Europe as well
Also, if you buy a plot of land in the nearest city or suburban area, often times zoning won’t allow you to drop a small home like that. There’s minimum square footage and building restrictions.
They usually don’t bulldoze it. They fine you enormous amounts until you pay to bulldoze it yourself. If you don’t bulldoze it or pay the fines, they will confiscate the land, THEN they will bulldoze it.
If you want a good idea of what happens when real estate developers get full autonomy look at Australia. People literally just horde houses and leave them empty in order to artifically deflate the supply, thus making the cost of owning a home skyrocket, which then increases rent. Real estate companies *are* the enemy.
Elon Musk is a marketing genius for an era of the internet that is over. Watching his brand wither, rot, and die, has been one of the few consistent joys for me in the past few years.
Yup, before I bought a house with my girlfriend, I looked into this. I found a couple areas where it was somewhat doable, but they didn't allow you to put a 50k-90k tiny house / vacation-home on it. It had to fit in the street image and required houses in the range of 500K - 700K.
Elizabeth Holmes: I lied to my investors too. Where are my YT fan page accounts?! Musk: You forgot to stutter. Homes: But I used low pitched voice. Musk: Hmm.. Did you plagiarize multiple ideas? Holmes: No. Just the one. Musk: There you go. You gotta "invent" new stuff so the investors never catch up to your lies.
My first thought when I heard about those 15000 dollar homes was "and where would I put that thing, given that I don't own any land? And then you delivered. You could inherit the shittiest house in the world and still sell it for good money if it's anywhere near a city or suburb simply because the land it stand on is worth a fortune. Like you said, if you can afford a plot of land, you can afford a better house than whatever these things are.
Sort of , the appeal of these houses is not just that its supposed to have a smaller price tag but that's it takes less labour and can be constructed faster. Speed is one of rhe reasons Americans love building wooden houses. Because if you took our a home loan to build a house and it takes you a year to build that house that means for a year you have to rent a house to live in until your house gets built( if there aren't delays). Now if your house can be put up un two weeks then you only need to rent for one month. That's already you saving 11 months of rent.
The Boxabl company stands to get a lot of business from places that will allow ADUs but won't allow Duplexes and above for zoning reasons. Or from areas that recently passed up-zoning (like California) who have a lot of people who can't or don't want to tear down their original property. The Casita can be a stand alone structure anywhere that will allow a house to be only 380 sq ft. Yes you could build your own, but do you really want to go to all that hassle? When you can build a concrete pad and hookups, and wait for them to deliver your new home, allowing your married child to have the main home. Basically, this company stands to make a fair amount of money treating the symptoms not the cause.
I think some of these portable housing companies were responding to code changes in California where you can add a small apartment in the backyard of your single family home. I don't think the intent was to make an entire neighborhood of of these tiny houses. That said, the code change in California is an interesting idea, but small tweaks to zoning here and there is also not going to solve the housing crisis. I think Adam's conclusion of needing more subsidized housing and rent control is the way to go.
a huge issue is zoning. A lot of places in the US are zoned to not allow high density housing. a lot of places only allow single family dwellings which means no affordable housing and urban sprawl, which means cars and shitty public transit.
@@CRneu Also in the places that do allow high density housing most of it is now being used for luxury condos, not affordable units. Downtown SF has tons of high-rise condos where entire floors are vacant because nobody can afford them and a rich person only bought them as an investment/tax write-off
Most of those people who add an ADU (backyard tiny house) aren’t actually going to rent to poor people. I know people with essentially a tiny rental unit behind their house (not a new idea) and they are priced competitively generally with apartments and room rentals in the area.
@@TheDawnofVanlife As others have said, the rule of the game is 'build baby build' each additional unit of housing expands the overall supply and thus reduces the equilibrium price. That's not to say you shouldn't spencifically incentivize affordable housing, but any significant increase in housing will help to an extent.
My sisters three bedroom one bath was built for about 17k in the 90s It's worth about 50k today in Canada. We built it so that helped the labor cost but still... That came with a septic system needing maintenance once a decade, a well that will never run dry because the ocean tides make the hole water table raise up 30 feet twice a day. And the land has fire wood fit for a lifetime+hunting and fishing. Basically the power bill is the worst of it. 300$ a month give or take.
@@ernstschmidt4725 they are absolutely desperate for young families so buying land is easy up there. However, in the next decade I suspect with the mass immigration coming in already that won't be the case for long.
I'm a private developer and put up luxury units. Couldn't get planning permission for affordable units. Honestly, local planning is backward... I'd make more money with cheap, high density but nope, they'll just not give you permission. Hell, it takes years even bending to their will.
@@bramvanduijn8086 And? I've been poor my entire 40 year life, and have lived in and around poor people this entire time. Only wealthy people give a shit about living near poor people, I certainly don't. It has been totally fine, no major issues at all in my entire life to live around poor people.
@@rdizzy1 that’s the problem though, rich people don’t want to be around poor people so they make sure every obstacle is created to keep them separated. I lucked out in life, my mom’s very working class but my dad’s affluent family came back into my life during my teenage years, paid for me to go to a good school, and I now am able to afford to live in a posh neighborhood in Boston. Now where I live is on of the six very dense old neighborhoods near the city center (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Fenway, South End, North End & Central Brookline) and it’s hard to build more housing in these areas given they’re already quite packed. But there’s a lot of wealthy neighborhoods near us (Cambridge, Newton, Chestnut Hill, Somerville, Jamaica Plain and the rest of Brookline) that have insane amounts of building restrictions to keep these areas low-density and absurdly wealthy, forcing Boston’s working class population further and further outside the city to protect the property values and horde educational, transit and healthcare opportunities for residents. It’s selfishness through and through.
A cool thing happening where I live is a scrap of bare pavement that used to be home to a derelict grocery store is now going to be a huge 4 story apartment building. The greatest part is that it's waking distance for all essentials including being right across from a community owned grocery.
As a student, I lived in a "village" of modified sea containers, like a 1000 in a neighborhood. 5 on top of each other, and something like 20 side by side. If the inside was made to last, it would be very nice
Most shipping containers aren't built to last and their structure makes it harder to insulate for various weather conditions. They're just horrible overall for building construction. Better to start with waddle and cobb if you want to be a hippie, at least waddle and cobb can be made rainproof with some paint while the material itself is a natural insulator against heat and cold.
Glad you covered it, I was literally coming here to say "Guys, I grew up in a trailer park. Trust me. You don't want that." (It also doesn't work because once land becomes valuable enough it gets sold, everyone gets evicted, then it all gets bulldozed to make room for the new luxury condos nobody local can afford.)
The other option is to return to extended families in larger homes, or a regular home with a decent backyard having one or more of these portable pod homes. That will definitely help.
The trailer park was better than any apartment I've ever lived in. The owner charged a very reasonable lot rent and only asked everyone to be quiet, clean, and not bothersome to their neighbors. Since the lot rent was low, everyone complied. I should have stayed there.
I've got an idea. What if we: 1: set up a big steel framework to stack a bunch of them together. 2: add a unified utility setup for water, electricity, and gas. 3: add a bus stop next to the framework, and a metro station, if there are none close by I'm not sure what to call it though... Each person gets a part of the steel framework, so maybe we could call it something like "A part, man!"
Your solutions section is missing some basics like "Legalize density where it's needed (basically every city in North America)" and "Public Transportation". Commuting up to an hour by train is really a lot less of a problem than commuting long distances by car and most households make decisions based on combined costs of housing and transportation.
I just want to add one addendum to what you're saying about tiny homes. My partner and I are actually looking into getting a tiny home(we actually DO want to place it on land, but that's besides the point) There are some areas where you can park your tiny homes either in tiny home villages or RV parks(though your tiny home will have to be RV certified). Basically it's possible to not need your own plot of land but you would have to factor in what ever the cost is of living in one of these places and depending on the cost of your tiny home this may not be affordable
@Demo not exactly. You still own the house on the land you just are renting the land. So TECHNICALLY you own the house, just not the land. It's almost like a hybrid ownership/rent thing. Mind you I think his answer is far better for city living for sure. A bunch tiny homes all over the place won't help much at all
8:56 you forgot access to sewage, so get ready to install a septic tank ($30k), be ready to install a heating oil tank, or install two heavy duty heat exchangers ($10-$12k), and you best have a grey and black water diverted or your septic tank will overflow by week’s end. So yeah you also need a sewage line plug in ($5k), and since you now have a plot of land with municipal services (barely), you need to pay property taxes. Say you wanna dig your own water well while you are at it? ($40k)
Well.....yes. But in this case; no. He actually didn't do anything concerning this particular topic. Just dickriders farming clicks with made-up bullshit.
Its still crazy to me that the solution people suggest to housing isn't "fix the problems with spreading out more" and instead it's "live in ready player one slums".
I really liked the super block idea from a while back. Converting existing areas to that model would be nice, but also developing new areas that way with better infrastructure to match it would be amazing.
Correct me if I am wrong but isnt Adam contradicting himself? In this video around 11 40 he talks about superblocks basically being great but then a few days ago he really tore apart Munger Hall. Sure Munger Hall isnt perfect but isnt it basically a superblock? Not sure why Adam had a problem with lack of sunlight. As he would snark, "just go downstairs, open the front door and you have all the sunlight you could ever want".
@@namename9998seems like you have no idea what a super block is so I’ll explain. A super block is not one building but a whole neighborhood that is closed to through car traffic and as such streets are totally open to pedestrians, bikes, and public transportation. There would be dense apartment blocks but unlike munger hall they would be designed like, well, apartments instead of windowless dorm rooms
@@au-198 Please provide sources. You could have a large building that takes up an entire block like the building in Lutsk (if you can go from one end to the other without going outside then its one building regardless of segments) or you could have many smaller buildings doing the same thing. Both would qualify as taking up an entire block. Where is the rule saying that all units in superblocks must have windows? Building codes probably require that bedrooms have windows but building codes probably havent defined what a superblock is. How is apartment defined compared to dorm room? There are micro apartments in NYC that dont have kitchens or bathrooms but arent dorm rooms. A dorm room is a residence on a campus such as military base or college campus. Apartments can be identical to dorms except theyre not on campuses. And you didnt answer whether Adam was contradicting himself. You dont have to like the windowless prison of Munger Hall but thats just one example of what a superblock could be.
Good video, as usual. I forget where I see things, but I remember this crucial difference between mobile homes and actual homes (either apartments or houses) and it is this: a home will mostly also function as an investment, because they tend to increase in value over time; a mobile home is more like a car, it will decrease in value. The price of a used mobile home drops dramatically at first when it goes from new car smell to used 2nd hand smell-lessness, and then continues to lose resale price more slowly as it moves from "barely used" to "old jalopy". It may be more sensible economically than living in a hotel, but it is still a dramatically worse deal than buying a small house. And obviously, it is the resort of poor people, because they always get the worst deals.
@@suddenllybah Well, of course. Speculation doesn't always work out. All things that people buy and sell as speculation has an ability to boom and crash. Also true for apartments. My point is that mobile homes are different in principle because, like cars, they always lose value. You buy one and things doesn't work out, you can only get some of your money back, never all of it, definitely never more than you put in. Edit: my borrowed point. I remembered where I picked it up. Last week tonight with John Oliver did a bit on it 4 years ago. Worth a watch.
@Dan Guillou The point is that it's not the house itself that gets value, it's the land underneath it. and it's not a given that land will increase in value. For example, the 2008 housing market crash reduced the value of land, since you can't buy a house without buying the land it is on in the US.
I've built these kind of portables at my last job. They were upmarket removable buildings for new estate offices (Victoria Australia). Building these things to last more than a few years is EXPENSIVE. The strain and stress of transport is much higher than what you'd get from a fixed structure. As such they need far more steel in their frames. You can use aluminium instead but that's even more expensive. You can retrofit shipping containers but they are commodity items that fluctuate in cost have significant size constraints and are not practical to be towed by anything smaller than a truck. Medium density zoning with new developments required to give some units to a public housing authority are the best solution. Tiny homes do have their place but they are far far from a solution to the housinf crisis. Edit: I see you cover the fact that these are not actually a cheap option.
"If we stack the tiny homes for maximum efficiency, we get.. an apartment complex?"
ikr? Also market issues ruins it way more then the building cost itself.
@@heyhoe168 This ^ I'm not crazy about them, but the problem with 5-1 Apartments is more that they're being constructed as 'premium housing' than anything to do with their construction quality or 'character'. Brownstones, after all, were once considered 'cheap' 'mass produced' and 'lacking character' but they too were a solution to housing affordability based on cheap construction techniques at the time.
That fool tries to reinvent the wheel, but infinetly shittier and more costly. Over and over again
Apartment complexes: the trains of the housing world.
@@braxbro6674 yes. However I bet someone powerful simply dont want prices to decline.
as someone who has lived in a motorhome with our family of four for nearly the last decade, I can say with some authority that the fun of "tiny homes" wears out _really fast._
is like living in a tent... fun for a weekend... after that, not so much.
how did it wear off those Bus Conversions with families of six look pretty dang comfortable
I used to live in a house built on the footprint of a garden arbor with scrap bricks and cement my dad stole from the construction site he worked on in 80's.
It was less than 30m2 for the three of us (my mom, my dad and I) and living there was quite something. I cannot stress how much happier I was when we finally could demolish it and build an actual house and not an outbuilding as it was legally classified bc it didn't meet the code. My current room with bathroom on the 2nd floor is the size of that house...
@@senritsujumpsuit6021 you have zero privacy, you're always cramped for space, you have to lower your head all the time, there's no "quiet" time/space, no storage, etc. It's doable but it gets old very fast.
@@CRneu you did not look at many conversions did you
"Towing houses with a Cybertruck is probably the most fuel efficient idea".
Ah yes, nothing more efficient than towing a mobile home all day everywhere you go as you don't own any land to put it on. Also bet the Walmart will be perfectly okay with you keeping it parked in their parking lot at night.
When I used to be broke I used to live in a stealth camper van on the edge of a walmart parking, 2 years and noone noticed...or maybe noone cared because the parking was 90% empty all the time anyway?
I loled at the guy saying that Tesla products work so well together. He seemed to have forgotten that the main charging station for a Tesla is inside a stationary house.
Honestly my dream home is probably an apartment or a townhome with basically no lawn, but I do wish mobile homes were not socially stigmatized. Like it would be great if most young ppl had an affordable option to live alone on their own land if they want.
a nonexistent elon product towing another nonexistent elon product loool
Walmart probably would, you can already park an RV there overnight
My college actually did this. Instead of having small shared rooms, they made a building where every room was a prefab room in a 40ft storage container. This meant that everyone could get a private room, and it was twice as big, for the same cost. Around $300 a month.
Problem is, most adults can't live in a fucking single room storage pod like a college student who lives off of ramen.
This channel are Asian, they can do over 100 in a container .....
Mad people here !
If you look at price of containers, container housing becomes expensive.
Speaking of prefabs. Panel housing is a thing and it's very cheap at scale.
This reminds me of the game CommonHood, glitchy mess, economics that make no sense but it basically has you designing increasingly modern rooms in a common area in a commune style. You make the rooms in a tiny house format so you can quickly move the commune between areas in a linear fashion deeper into the ruins of a huge factory retaken by nature.
Also adults in Europe live like this quite a bit, apartments or houses cut up into private and collective areas, everyone interacting, it can be a real blast or a quiet place to crash, depending on the people and rules.
Which can be either an amazing way to live or hell based on the people going by my time in shared apartments.
Something like CommonHood could actually be an interesting housing concept in theory. Someone could build large empty areas either in a tower or underground. Bring in natural light with a reflectors system and basically have people living around an indoor park.
The Tesla home had different rooms storage containers do not…
@@mrpumperknuckles1631 you mean one of the two which have never existed?
The funny thing about the "$50,000 shipping container home is that you can actually just build a house with that kind of money, the real barrier is the land to put it on, if you have a reasonable parcel of land to put a microhome on, with some proper planning you could probably cram a small real house on there
Or just get a camper
That's why you stack them like in ready player one lol
Zoning laws almost 98% of the time prevent small houses. Which is fuct.
@@NS-hs6lt i think you meant fucked.Sorry for being bit of a grammar uhhh... youtube will probably shadowban me for saying that word
Problem is, that land is still taxed starting right from the moment it is purchased, on top of what was spent to build the home there in the first place.
I'd rather pay the tax as is practiced in quite a few countries, to just live in an already existing home or apartment with plumbing, drinkable water, electricity, and WiFi/Internet/Data access, and access to goods and services instead of buying land far away from any goods or services, buying access to plumbing, water, and electricity, paying for the home I bought to be built or placed onto the plot that I paid for, only to continue having my finances suckered out of my bled-dry wallet.
The concept of buying land to just place a small house on is the most inefficient use of space imaginable. Unless you plan on using all of the land around you for agriculture if the land is arable and the soil being fertile enough, you aren't seeing much benefit from what you paid for in terms of affordable living.
This varies depending on location, but just using the land to just place a house in the middle of nowhere makes no financial sense in the slightest to me.
I might be wrong, though.
it's crazy to me that we aren't making it illegal for investment companies to own homes after what happened 15 years ago. It's almost like we want it to happen again.
True, big companies require big profits and hence big fraud.
They don't own any homes, people who take out loans put up their homes as security.
And it was the government who was the most responsible for the 2008 housing bubble. The government used Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to encourage banks to give out loans to people who didn't have good enough credit. You can blame the banks all you want, but what are you really going to do when the government has written a blank check for you, the housing prices just keeps rising and no one (not even the rating agencies) have picked up on the overvalued mortgages. It's honestly shocking that the government didn't bail out Lehman Brothers when they went under; the government did bail out the banks eventually though and even turned a slight profit doing so, which was definitely the best for everyone.
nooooooooooo waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
whatever pleases the shareholders for personal financial gain without a care for anyone else, they'd be willing to blow up earth if it jut put a little more money in their net worth
@@michaelsasylum It's not fraud, it's just a stacked system. It was easy to do in the past, easier nowadays, just here and there small support in say planning permission speed and suddenly you have a big company that can outbid everyone else. It's not necessarily a law that forbids competition, just small heads up in advance, and the system stays broken for ages. Then those companies can toss a donation here and there, find a useful idealist that will preach that it's not a system, it's you buying avocado on toast (and coffee, can you believe it?), but if you didn't and at the same time worked harder and longer it would be all fine.
What I cannot believe is that in the XIX century and early XX, in London super-rich built housing in slums to improve the health and well-being of denizens of those. In XXI century the top 100 company in the UK is buying them from the local government, refurbishing and selling them for profit all that after securing a concession that affordable housing is anything that they sell at 80% of the market average. This is what we call charity, you could sell something for 40 times the average annual salary but you do for 32 average annual salary.
I believe I have a step-by-step process on how to improve the $10,000 home:
-Put wheels on the bottom of the house. Maybe even metal wheels with flanges on them.
-Add some rails underneath so the wheels have something to roll on.
-Attach a bunch of the houses together through some sort of coupling mechanism.
-Install an engine in the house at the front so it can pull the other houses. Or even add motors on all the axles and run them all as one unit. A "multiple" unit, if you will.
-Add either another rail or an overhead wire to harness energy that will power the motors.
-Remove all the furniture and replace it with rows of seats facing in the direction of travel.
-Put a seat and a set of controls in the front and rear houses respectively, and hire someone to drive the houses.
-Also hire someone to "guard" the houses, and make sure nobody is freeloading the service.
If anyone else has any suggestions to improve upon this process, I'm happy to hear them.
To safely access the houses, there should be designated places where they can remain stationary for a brief time. We could call such places 'stations', if you will.
gommunism
What a revolutionary idea! We need these everywhere!
Who tf would want to live in a train??? Like cmon they are superior TRANSPORTATION method not place to live in. (yes i got the joke, but it sounds so bad i had to write this)
Strap on 33 raptor engines and make sure it belly-flops before crashing
My grandfather told me stories of how you could buy entire houses from catalogs in the 30's and 40's. They'd ship right to your plot in pre-built sections that took about a day to put together with a small construction crew. The only problem was finding land to put the house and then getting water. Guess some things really don't change all that much.
Even far back as the 20s. In American history, the only thing that fixed anything was the baby boom of the 40s, and returning veterans needing homes for their families, that made companies build loads of houses and neighborhoods like crazy. This was the modern subdivision planning we still use today.
A real house is made of bricks and mortar, not that wood and plaster american sh*t...
Sears sold kits for houses! They were actually quite nice and there are still some remaining that are still recognizable (haven't been extensively remodeled).
Yes, they’re prefabricated standardized steel houses. They sold I think around 10,000 or fewer of them in the US. It never caught on.
That’s what my grandma did in the early 2000s. We drove behind it and watched them put on the land. It was awesome
Born too early to explore Space
Born too late to explore Earth
Born just in time to witness wild housing prices, what a time to be alive
I agree 🤦🏻♂️🙇🏻♂️
Yes, I’m sure you would like to live in the 1800s or early 1900s. I’m confident that all your ancestors weren’t as well off as you are today
I think if you followed Elon musk you would know that you are born at the perfect time to go to space.
well i mean video games are pretty hot right now
@@theowlfromduolingo7982 - For that matter, space isn't all it's cracked up to be either, we have a more hospitable environment here on earth in Antarctica.
The definition of "affordable housing" should also be changed to effectively be affordable. If I recall correctly, in UK "affordable" is defined as 80% of standard market rate. In a country where a two-bedroom can touch the 12 times the median income mark in some areas they should be called "discounted housing", not affordable.
only 12times? In my country ONE SQUARE METER cost 1 year salary, if you want to have a decent 120m^2 you have to work 120years :)
And thats assuming you can put away all the money you make into a savings account and not use it on stuff like food
So a normal person has to work like 700 years
Is _35 % of regional average total disposable household income for 2 person household for 60 m² adjusted for floor area and total disposable household income_ ok?
The formula goes like this:
N = √(f/60) × 0.35a × √(a/b)
Where:
N = maximum monthly rent
f = floor area area of living space + ³/₂root of area of non-living spaces in m²
a = average total disposable income of a 2-member household in the given region for the previous year; if it is higher than 120% of the national average, 120% of the national average is used
b = total household disposable income
@@faustinpippin9208 What a time to be alive /s
@@faustinpippin9208what on earth is your country?
It should really be based on nth percentile of incomes, where n is small.
In my opinion, you missed the most crucial point against tiny homes; Insulation. The reason we build big houses out of wood or concrete isnt because some construction company wants to get rich. Its because metal and glass transfer heat like a champ. Its fine to run heating/cooling all day long if you dont have to pay the energy or care about the climate, otherwise - you build something well insulated.
Probably explains why most of the tiny houses are meant as auxiliary units or weekend/vacation homes
Ever heard of vacuum insulated panels? You can insulate anything if you choose the right solution. That said, you can even run your heating all day long if you choose a heat pump or simply an AC unit which is basically the same thing and still save on heating compare to a bigger house.
Insulation is not an issue for tiny houses.
@@Dionyzos Tiny houses are inherently energy-inefficient because they're all outside walls. Building a block of 20 apartments, each with the floor space of a tiny house, will always be more efficient. Making your tiny house of a dumb material like metal just means you either get even worse energy efficiency, or have to spend extra on expensive insulation solutions.
Tiny houses are just caravans /trailers, that the financially challenged have lived in for the past 50 years or more.
But yes, i have done two UK winters living in a caravan. Somehow, unless you are actually pumping the heating at the time, they are colder inside than outside.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs Right, but it all depends on your situation. If your apartment doesn't have a good insulation between apartments, you're gonna hear your neighbors doing moaning late at night. (As it happens in Soviet blocks, from my own experience).
So these tiny houses are basically what we call granny flats in Australia.
You build them in the backyard of a regular sized house and they are used for having other family members live with you while still being somewhat seperate and independent or some people rent them out to random people for a bit of extra income.
Huh, for once Elon Musk technically did nothing wrong.
He did nothing at all and it was others that said he did something he never did or intended to do but still: easily Adam's most positive video on Elon ever!
But it's strange that the copyright hordes have not invaded those channels for using the logo and spreading lies.
It is both impressive and disgusting how bold those channels are to just make shit up like that. Maybe its all just clickbait and they clarify that within the first minute of the video, but for some reason I doubt it and don't want to give them so much as a single view to check.
I don't know if that is entirely true, his mere presence caused this to happen, and that doesn't come from nowhere.
@@steemlenn8797Oh, I'm sure he'll get right on it. Elon's a busy man! Why, right now he's in the middle of a heated negotiation battle with a gentleman named... .. dril.
Sounds serious
But he destroys titter 😂
As someone who loves tiny homes, designs them in my free time, and is perfectly happy in my $700 room, I was actually intrigued by the idea of these tiny $50,000 homes. Thank you for providing me with a reality check.
Now, I'm just incredibly angry at these laws that make it difficult to build affordable housing.
"these laws that make it difficult to build affordable housing" - Nope. Rather, the lack of affordable housing is caused by thinking that capitalism will provide affordable housing. Capitalists don't care about affordable housing; they just want to build luxury units, because that's what will make them the most money. As the video explains: what is needed is state intervention: " _large-scale, state-run public housing construction projects_ " - i.e., "big government," or "socialism," as it is called by capitalist propagandists.
people preach that they want affordable housing built-- just not near them, because it will drive their property values down and put a bunch of low income people in their neighborhoods.
I would love a tiny home since any normal size of house is going to be way more space than I need, but I think I'm just going to have to put up with the potential for noisy neighbours in an apartment building.
@S S hey doesn’t virtually everyone use a car? … oh😢
@@karld1791 Not in every part of the world. Most because they can't afford one. Some out of idealism. And some because it's just impractical/unnecessary to own a car when you live in a big city
The only advantage of tinyhomes is that, since they are "glorified trailers", some places let you build them with far less paperwork/permits needed than a normal house.
Elsehwere (like here in Germany) they've instead cropped up as rental units on campgrounds.
That advantage just becomes a disadvantage when you learn that paperwork sets you up for higher property taxes while decreasing your property value for the eventual sale.
They aren't necessarily trailers, you can set them some of them on a permanent foundation like Boxabl
They are taking down 2 tiny houses on the property beside us and moving them. Overpriced hot boxes 😂
My buddy built a 2 story cabin at less than half the price.
@@linusmlgtips2123 When they came up/became "trendy" they'd have an axle of some sort attached to the bottom so it counted as a non-permanent installation (similar to a parked camping trailer).
@@linusmlgtips2123 By the time you manage to get approvals for a foundation/permanent structure or want to hook it up to sewage/gas, and pay tax on it - you might as well go with the more affordable route and build it properly. These modules also have serious downsides.
The most unbelievable part of that last Rewind video is that any of Elon's children would ever want to live with him.
"With five children from a previous marriage, you might be wondering how he manages to fit everyone into such a small house. The answer is simple--he's estranged from all them."
lol
Such fun
So sadness
Monkey life
They really missed their chance to call it the "Musk pod"
This was my first thought too: "oh god, they used the stupid pod idea for housing this time"
Yep, why do they always need to make the edges smooth so that it has no structural integrity unless it is made out of custom smelted steel frames?
@@demo2823 so it's easier for them to make to too it. yelling "I love freedom" as they ejaculate in a Walmart parking lot they have parked their house in is much harder if there are sharp edges
@@demo2823 You wouldn't cast/forge the curved edges, you'd cut the curved profile off thick sheet/thin plate with waterjet and weld box tubing across for reinforcement.
Fun fact, that "sweep" on Smart cars that's curved and typically of a contrasting color compared to the body panels is the rigid frame that gives the car most of its structural integrity. The curve wouldn't take away from structure's strength, it just creates unusable space because a rectangular prism will always give you more volume available for a given footprint.
This reminds me of the tiny house craze a while back, all these people talking about tiny house communities not willing to admit they were hipster trailer parks. Also, people never think about these places need proper sewage disposal even if you supply your own water and power, poops gotta go somewhere, so even if you get an affordable plot you'll need to plan for that expenditure, if the plot meets the requirements.
Ok and that's what, another 10k?
Seems like many here are intentionally missing the point. The biggest problem with all types of affordable housing is the residents.
The middle class hipsters creating a community of only their tribe is exactly what everyone secretly wants. Kinda genius if anyone figures out how to pull it off.
Considering how much crap techbros are willing to swallow, maybe this would be perfect for them ...
@@linusmlgtips2123 more than that. Also you water connection, power and maybe gas.. plan for at least 30k.
@@linusmlgtips2123when the whole "claim to fame" is that the house costs 50k, but they leave out 18k for the septic and 15k for power...
But in reality, a single septic field won't suffice if they are going to pack the houses densely.
So you will need a waste treatment facility which is a prohibitively expensive endeavor.
Full blown cities have gone bankrupt over dealing with sewage (govt loan subsidies need to get paid back)
I really hate minimum parking requirements. When I studied city planning in University I always struggled fitting enough houses within a certain plot of land. Even when I finally did draw a design I was happy with I had to fit in so many parking spaces that I basically had to start over.
A lot of US states (California is one of the bad ones) require parking for commercial spaces based on square footage, so places like Home Depot and Costco have vast parking lots that are never full. One of the bigger issues with modern cities is all the open asphalt space. Although CA is beginning to deal with that by doing solar parking covers. Shade, less blackbody thermal islands AND clean power...!
We have the opposite problem in the UK with new office buildings. Planning regs limit the number of parking spaces to a % of the number of workers that the office is designed to accommodate so it's illegal for there to be enough parking. It's meant to encourage people to use public transport but only really big cities have multiple train stations and busses are a joke, especially at rush hour. This leaves people parking all over the neighbouring streets.
@@bigchunguscultmember1267 and to the politicians who say "just take public transport" while refusing to expand it, we say "take public transport while being just 30 minutes out"
@@spankeyfish that vould be great if the public transport worked.
That’s the problem when your whole country has been organized around the interests of your national car industry.
And it’s even more dramatic when your national car industry is crumbling down because its unability to meet the rest of the world’s standards (nobody outside the US buys american cars…)
The housing problem isn't lack of available homes (the US alone has literally hundreds of thousands of empty houses everywhere) the problem is the parasitic leeches known as landlords/property management companies.
A few years ago, my family was considering selling the family home and buying a plot of land to build log cabins on. We had worked out the feasibility and costing of getting water and utilities to the plot and it seemed like a good idea, but the local government planning department said no because that privately owned land was allocated to holding livestock... which it did not. So it was then sold to a local crime family who turned it into an illegal horse meat farm.
Good on you. Selling your house is a terrible idea in this market!
How nice! A place to go and meet horses!
Oh wait, oh no
Which crime family & which area?
Sounds like a funny story to me 😂
@@paulstaker8861 Nice try but I'm not telling the horse mafia where I live XD
Casita just means a small house in Spanish. Also in California Casitas are typically mother in law units rented out to other people. Very common in larger backyard in more urban areas.
So the product name is literally what it is. A small secondary dwelling for in laws or rental.
PS. Also California often uses Spanish as a flare to make things feel exotic or trendy. It’s very common to see very white neighborhoods littered with Spanish place names. Calling their tiny home a Casita is definitely playing into that.
I mean... California formerly being part of the Spanish and then Mexican Empire for literal centuries may explain why Spanish is so popular. It's literally in the name.
@@hyperion3145 it doesn’t explain why there are half Spanish half English amalgamations naming the streets of modern developments. They also make Italian sounding names near wine country, Native names near tribal territories.
But when a new development is named Rancho ______ and then is filled with white people it’s not because of the Spanish heritage.
You sound like someone who has never been here
@@hyperion3145 Also look at our history. Very few places have kept their historical Spanish names. The ones that have are major cities.
Even then, many cities with Spanish names were named such long after that. How does the city of El Dorado Hills, 2 Spanish words and an English word, formerly the post war town of Clarksburg Spanish fucking heritage when it was renamed in the 90s
That last parts very true. Look at street names in Santa Clarita and then look at the demographics lol
@@creamwobbly LMAO 😭
Sadly, ppl thought affordable apartment complex as "neo-communist building".
Singapore is doing so well in solving housing crisis while implementing government owned apartment complexes, and not being communist at all.
A good friend of mine got somewhat obsessed with the idea of tiny houses. Being someone with a brain, she started doing the math. In towns that are popular for summer cottages or skiing or things like that, the locals are being priced out of the rental market too. She *thought* maybe there was a market for small homes there... After a few years of research, it starts to look like Canadian federal and provincial building codes make tiny homes impractical in many ways and likely wouldn't solve SFA in the short term.
Tiny homes really look to me like a solution only for disaster relief and as a way to "improve" some slums. IIRC, venezuela used to offer free sewer service and tax breaks to homes in the barrios if they built their homes out of brick, or something like that. These homes might mitigate some of the issues they have there. *might*.
Can the building codes be changed, or exceptions included?
Tiny homes are great for someone wanting to 'do it themselves,' especially if they want to build licitly or circumvent planning regs. They are great for living cheaply on an existing property, perhaps owned by a friend or relative. If mobile, they can be pleasant for a person travelling or on holiday. However they are no good for families or for most people. You need to make a lot of compromises to live in a tiny home, and in really cold or really hot conditions they are not easy to regulate temperature in.
They can also be great for, as you say, disaster relief, extreme slums relief in developing countries, or indeed for quick housing and dignity for homeless people.
@@queenvagabond8787 Or you know the government could build lots of tiny houses next to each other and make some with flat roofs so you could stack these tiny houses on top of each other. Now we could get provide lots of people with housing that pay a monthly fee to life there so they don't have a prohibitively high upfront cost that homless people won't be able to afford.
We could call this fee rent and the stacked tiny houses a apartment building.
@@Emiliapocalypse It is a democracy, never say never, but it's pretty complex to achieve. you essentially need coordinated action at all levels of government, and the rules exist for reasons, so they likely need a lot of nuance so that they don't become loopholes for cutting corners by unscrupulous developers.
Tiny homes are awesome in a suburban setting, with appropriate design of the community and infrastructure.
In a walkable suburb with good public transportation (like streetcar suburbs in the late 1800s and early 1900s), small houses make better use of small plots, and they give people more incentive to go outside and interact with their neighbors, which has substantial benefits to health and safety. Wrapping blocks around small parks or communal walkways gives people room to stretch their legs without needing big lots, and creates a zone where a lot of people can keep an eye out. This in turn keeps burglars at bay and also gives kids a safe place to run around without strict supervision.
Apartments and rowhouses can be designed to accomplish the same things, but if you're going to have suburbs, tiny homes on a grid dotted with parklets is going to be leaps and bounds better than McMansions packed onto spaghetti streets tangled up around cul-de-sacs.
Pocket Neighborhoods by Chapin and Susanka is a great book on the subject.
tiny homes have already existed, they're called apartments. reinventing already well established and proven concepts are just dumb. well made video mr. Adam
Here we go reinventing worse version of existing stuff again.
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 You talking about Musky Elon or the house-building teenager?
Isn't that right on brand though? "Invent" something that already exists, but somehow worse.
To be fair, tiny homes already exist, and they're called Tiny Homes
Americans would rather live in a wooden barrel as long as it is a single detached barrel in a shitty suburb instead of move into a an apartment building in a mixed use neighborhood.
But Adam, what if we manufactured numerous housing pods and combined them to form a sort of apartment com-- I mean, Human Habitation Center in order to more densely house people?
Also, windows can be omitted to make them even more environmentally friendly and modular
Maybe there is some novel mineral material that can be used for structural support. Or some mineral-metallic compound for extra strength.
@@alphakevin687 and to keep it safe, maybe add some sort of iron-steel wire, aligned vertically in fun diamond shapes around the perimeter
Munger hall called, they want to give back their windows.
And get this, we can put them all on a monorail and make them double as tram----------- TRANSPORTATION CAPSULES
@@heartdex Yes! And optimize governmental bureaucracy by posting a friendly officer in each aisle.
Ironically, a conventional 3 story house could be WAY more efficient than a tiny home. With a garage on the first floor, and living spaces above it.
Is this like where he claimed he'd make tunneling 1000 times cheaper and in the end it was on the higher end of the average price and took a lot longer than it normal to do.
Well if you hire 10 times less people and pay them 100 times less then you should, then math add up! Oh wait...
The tunnel was half the size, too.
Well, he /did/ recently unveil a new high-speed tunneling rocket.
Adam, you never fail to make me laugh at the insanity that surrounds us. Thank you.
we need more people who fight misinformation like you.
Only freaks here, mad channel it is !
people who fall for misinformation dont watch this kind of videos
@@GNMbg this says a lot about our society
@Srijith.Seetharaman many such cases. this says a lot about our society.
I always thought of tinyhouses as an option for a few people who like to move around a lot and either
- like to live in remote areas with cheap land or
- have a friend who allows them to use their estate or
- are wealthy enough to own/buy a plot of land.
I never thought of tinyhouses as a large-scale solution to the housing crisis, but of mobility as the main benefit.
For real, a tiny house might be an acceptable living situation for a single person (or the really rare close-knit couple) who spends nearly all their free time outdoors or at social gatherings (and they'd probably still need a rental storage unit for their outdoor equipment), but then if your home is literally just a place to sleep, a single room apartment would serve you just fine as well and at a much cheaper price (plus it probably comes with a storage compartment in the basement or attic).
Anyone who believes that tiny houses are the future is simply a sucker for thr flashy, buzzwordy marketing.
The mistake these people make is as old as Kickstarter: Just because an idea is "new" and challenges the established way of thinking ("more space = a better home"), doesn't mean it's a good idea!
makes sense to place them in suburban yards. good for young adults, elderly, or as a rental unit
I was fascinated by all the videos about tiny houses. They sure look neat! So, I checked out prices for ready made units. Then I looked at what a plot of land costs. Added it all up, remembering to account for a lower tax rate if you live in a house that has wheels even if you never plan to move it anywhere. Final price: About the same as a small house that is after all bigger than a tiny house. You could probably save some money by building it from scratch yourself, but I am no good with my hands. I could spend the same time doing what I'm good at and earn ten times what I could have saved by building the house myself. All in all a disappointing calculation.
I mean if you do most of the carpentry yourself, building a house is cheap as xxxx compared to what it ends up being worth. Why do you think literally any carpentry company builds any home ever?
@@ASDeckard The fun thing with carpentry is thanks to modern tools, it's become a lot less skilled than it used to be. With a few angled clamps, nailgun(hammer + nails can work too), a table saw(a handheld one will work too), and a tape measure(or yard stick), pretty much anyone with a functioning-enough body can build a decent shed.
A house is that just with some more windows plus some utility lines ran to and with in it. Since those need to be inspected anyway, one who's too lazy to look up a video on how to do it will still learn how it's *supposed* to be done anyway.
The *real* headache with cities(especially huge ones) is all the getting permission. That's why NYC had a parking garage collapse recently. Even if one wanted to fix it, they need permits to do so and those are an ordeal to get(especially in New York).
@@InfernosReaper Spoken like somebody who either doesn't know the actual work involved with that, or doesn't realise how little skill the average joe has with those tools.
And that only works for houses mostly built of wood. So you can forget about that for most of Europe.
@@Llortnerof I've done construction. The tools aren't that expensive and measuring isn't that hard.
As for Europe, why is wood out of the question there? Is that a building laws thing or a materials cost issue?
@@InfernosReaper Both. It's possible to build wooden houses, but they'd both be far more expensive than in the US and require much more knowledge of local building codes. And quite a few things *require* certified craftsmen, regardless of whether you are capable of doing the job. You're not allowed to.
I feel like Adam needs to go through a similar process for housing that he does for transportation. Something like this:
"So, having small homes for each household seems like a good idea, but there's a problem with the land being expensive in cities. So let's crowd those homes as close together as we can. Still not enough, darn it. But cities have 3 dimensions, so we can stack the homes on top of each other, quite a lot of them, and provide some sort of elevator system for the people that live higher up. And it would help structurally if we connected the homes together into a single frame. And now we have a whole lot of small modular homes all in one single building, which we might call a 'high-rise', which is a totally unique modern thing that nobody ever invented before."
A good rundown of the actual economics of water-treatment would help too. Long-term, big picture, tiny-homes off-grid make real-estate *more expensive* for everyone, thus making over-crowding worse.
You can say sanitation worker. My brother worked at a garbage company (no, not Tesla) and he always laughed when someone said sanitation engineer. Garbage man is acceptable, but on the Internet, there might be issues. Great video! Thanks!
@@debesys6306 I need to think about Java rn.
The issue in Seattle is they're taking single-family homes that are in an affordable range something that would have been called a starter house 40 or 50 years ago and then they tear them down and they put four condos in its place at all cost a million dollars each
Okay, but were the individual starter homes still reasonably prices before they were torn down?
It's not the house that appreciate in value, it's the land underneath the house that appreciates in a desirable area.
@@Bustermachine They were certainly more reasonably priced than the condos replacing them that's for sure
“A tesla burning bright in the night sky” omg this made my depressing week worthwhile thanks adam.
owning a home isnt even a dream anymore. its just unachieveable, and even if you did buy a home, the costs associated with maintaining it are nightmare inducing
fortunately the green communists are there to convince you it's completely unnecessary! remember that you have to save the Climate instead!
The main cost is the mortgage.
Beyond that, all costs are way, way cheaper than renting. A 3 bedroom apt in LA is $5000+. There is no way in hell that house maintanance comes close to that.
Get out of the big metro area and you can still buy a house on the median salary in the US.
Problem is that society has viewed housing as a investment as opposed to a need and aristocrats use housing as a game of hot potato
@@MERCENARYTAO1 finding work is hard out in the sticks, though. Not everyone can telecommute
In a number of cities in the US and Canada (looking at you Toronto!) the problem is the missing middle. Most of the city is zoned for single family homes so the rest of the land is expensive (and so is getting planning permission) so the developers tend to build large luxury apartments. If developers were able to convert existing single family homes into duplexes, triplexes and small apartment blocks a lot of todays problems would be solved.
@@michaelhill6451 Obviously denser housing needs to be supported by a properly working public transit system. Also, denser zoning would make it more affordable for the city to make better public transit, sparse car infrastructure is very expensive.
This is a real answer. For the United States of America we need more of that middle. Not large apartments / condos either luxury or government... 3 flats, 2 flats, town houses. We also need to consider building more medium sized cities built from the start to be walkable, bikable, and good public transport and cars will be present but not required. (Ideally put all the parking underground or on the first floor or two of the buildings.
@@michaelhill6451 This is only true if we insist on living in the same old cities. The Us has a ton of land. The Midwest has cities that are now depopulated. We need to revitalize these places with new industry, jobs, and just the sort of housing described. Not everyone can live in Lower Manhattan.
@@michaelhill6451 It's true though. Want a cheap house... you can find tons of utterly abandoned ones in some surprisingly large midwestern cities.
While we are at it maybe look at the fact that it's literally illegal to open a little grocery shop for the local community. I don't understand why someone cannot convert half their way too large house into a grocer that people who live in the area can just walk to in 5mins and get what they need. Canada is messed up.
Yeah, I looked into the idea of tiny houses a while ago, and the situation here in Australia is that it's basically impossible. In theory if you had a friend or family member with a big backyard who's willing to let you park your tiny home in it, you'd be set. Or perhaps you could rent part of someone's backyard for a reasonable fee. Unfortunately it's not that simple.
Every local council has different rules about them. Some treat them as caravans, some as temporary structures, some as permanent structures, and whether they're allowed without notifying council, require rubber stamp approval of a simple form, require application of planning permission (submitting structural plans and complying with all building codes), or whether they're not allowed at all is completely random. One council might be fine with them, but drive down the road and they're completely illegal.
The only sure-fire way is to basically buy your own block of land, and build a small house that complies with all normal building codes. And at that point you're spending not a lot less than if you just bought a normal (not new) house on a normal block of land. So basically there's no point.
It is still beyond me as a Ukrainian that you have councils telling you what to do on YOUR land. Like, here if you have land, you build whatever you want, as long as you don't break actual laws (so no Soviet flags).
Why do your countries hate freedom? We also had government limiting what we can grow and how much we can build before 1991. It was called communism. Fucked up seeing it still be a thing in USA and Commonwealth.
I heard about Homeowner Associations in USA, that's even worse... it's an absolutely Marxist nightmare where neighbours snitch on each other!
Tiny homes are really the pods of the housing industry. Futuristic, small and totally impractical.
I DO like the pods as an idea, because there are cases where they're useful and practical. just.. not as housing. they're great sheds. if you have one of those japanese pods installed in a home, there's a lot of people that find the tiny space to be comforting. pods are usually light, and easy to carry. but.. well, shipping containers are also light and easy to carry, so that's not useful. sheds already exist so why turn them into pods?
the only thing I can think of is using a tiny pod as a sleeping container. I like the idea personally. it sounds comfortable. but that's basically JUST me, and my dumb brain that likes claustrophobic spaces.
As Adam said in his video eviscerating the HyperPort:
"Take something that's large and has excellent economies of scale, break it up into small individual pieces for absolutely no good reason, then make the individual things look like futuristic sex toys."
Stupidity. Looks like a stationary rv lol
Hi Adam,
I really like your entertaining videos. Your reasoning is always understandable and well backed by facts. As of this im a bit shocked you are advertising AG1, because its basically what you normally criticise. Its freaking expensive (about 100$/month) and if you research a bit the effects of the ingredients are not really backed by science and its like an unnecessarry elon musk product, overpriced and overadvertised. I hope you take another look at AG1 and i also know you need partners to run your channel but i think AG1 doesn't really fit in.
Have a lovely day😊
Yeah, I was appalled by this too, so disingenuous.
he also did an ad read for masterworks, another well known scam website, he probably has to take whatever sponsorship money he can get
I wish he'd promote more ethical consumption.
Exactly! It's just super expensive greens that likely effects placebo more than anything. Without knowing the reasons for you choosing to advertise this, it feels misplaced in your videos, Adam!
Thanks for entertaining videos though 😍
Agreed. If Adam takes and supports taking multivitamins, I'm glad he at least goes with something comprehensive that makes an effort to be based on whole ingredients. However it's definitely a lifestyle choice that does not fit the skeptical nature of the channel. Large scale, long term studies have never identified any discernible benefit to taking multivitamins. Most people only need your cheap pharmacy supplements for Vitamin D, B12, magnesium and, for pregnant women, folic acid only IF you do not already get adequate amounts from your diet and lifestyle. If your lifestyle lets you spend plenty of time outside and eat lots of fresh produce, you're completely fine according to current scientific understanding.
Multivitamins are an expensive exercise in peace of mind: maybe they could provide you some benefit by covering a gap in your nutrition needs, but the chances are low and they are far more mainstream than they should be. You're much better off making a daily greens smoothie from non-powdered leafy greens.
Athletic Greens barely even gets you any magnesium, and personally I'm not a huge fan of including protein isolate, even from peas, in a daily supplement marketed towards all demographics.
"A tesla burning bright in the night, showing us the way".
Still laughing at that one.
Tech Bros proposing a technical solution to a social problem. A tale as old as time.
I knew the plot location was gonna come up. Seriously these people know nothing about land rights. Houses aren't just expensive because of the building but the land they're put on and how much is your property. If you have a tiny home but normal sized yard, you changed literally nothing; that's just as unsustainable as the bigger homes.
In terms of housing and transport, sure, but high intensity vegetable gardening or growing indigenous plants in the yard makes it sustainable in other aspects.
They don't know it shocking how their rich
A tiny home uses less resources and you have space left to grow your own food. How is that not changing anything? Musks house is bs but tiny houses are not a terrible idea at all.
Hey tiny and small houses are a better use of land than villas, mansions, and suburbs. They just don't add a lot of value inside a city, except for filling a few underused gaps here and there. The real solution is high density city planning.
Adam is a socialist... he despises americans in suburbs or countryside. He wants everyone to live in cloned shoebox houses, get rid of personal cars and thinks everyone will dance like hippies around campfires sharing homemade food and sharing vegetables 🤣🤣🤣
Adam unmasking musk again. Can't get enough of it. Unmusking so to say.
was about to write "unmusking" but you got there first lol
@@klaus7637 couldn't let that one slide ;)
He really knows how to dunk on apartheid musk
this time it's just his rabid fanboys
So it’s Musk’s fault if a clickbait channel uploads fake videos about tiny houses?
Great work, this should be played in primetime on tv. Thanks for your work
Home Depot has a bare-bones 540 square foot kit home for $40,000. By the time you add plumbing, fixtures, power, etc, the price is over $85,000 or about $150 per square foot. That is as much as or more than $100 - $150 per square foot for traditional built homes. Cheap housing isn't cheap.
Adam, you're completely wrong. These minihouses *absolutely can* solve the housing crisis. They just need a few tweaks:
- It's true, the cost of land is a major issue here. How about we alleviate this issue by pooling a large amount of minihouses in a single plot and then split the cost of plot between the tenants?
- Of course cramming the small houses in a horizontal plane can only get us so far. In order to maximize efficiency, ideally we should stack the houses on top of each other, making 4-12 floors.
- For safe traversal between the floors, we can add a stairway attached between the minihouses.
- Modularity is a cool thing, but I believe it would be more efficient to simply merge the minihouses together into one continuous "mega-house". It would make a single building organized inside into multiple separate dwellings and a stairway. That way we can also install an elevator inside for added comfort.
- Since people will be living in that mega-house for years, there's no point in making it mobile. Let's attach it to a concrete foundation, so that it's more stable and it's easier and cheaper to connect water, electricity, and sewage system.
- At this point, we could also tweak the surroundings of the mega-house. Since there's going to be lots of people living in near proximity (even more so if there's going to be several mega-houses close to each other) I believe it would be beneficial to add some useful amenities in the area, like a school, a park, a couple stores, etc.
I think we could also think of a better name. Maybe "mid-rise apartment", "flat", or something like that.
How about we just build more flats? Or in general, how about the 20 trillion dollar economy of the USA gets used a little bit more on housing.
your comment is genius and the greatest bait lmao
@@gdmango783 it still wont solve ur housing problems, europe ist full of smaller houses, smaller flats etc, still its hard to find housing in more popular areas.
@@NimanyuRajAgrawal I am a little upset that this comment isn't a giant thread yet. I love bait like this LOL
no, you can't do that.
"Let's not look the gift emerald mine in the mouth" Oooohhh I felt that.
Man it really does always come back to "better trasportational infrastructure" and "regulate greedy businesses". Almost like that could actualy be a good idea.
Correction: 'Better infrastructure'. Not necessarily transportational, sometimes instead housing, energy, production or other kinds of infrastructure (often a mkx thereof)
A good half of the video was dedicated to "deregulating greedy businesses." Shock: when you make it illegal to develop cheap through Etruscan zoning laws, parking minimum, and nuisance taxes, people don't develop cheap. (Adam is a bit of an anti-capitalist pessimist so he fails to address why public development is miraculously necessary *now*, when private developers loved making high density housing in the 20th century and only stopped as NIMBYs drove law changes.)
@@Bingo_Bango_ Yep, it must be that businesses suddenly decided to become more greedy lol. Of course, admitting that regulation is what's causing the housing crisis wouldn't suit Adam's ideological leanings, so he just omits it
Hi! I am from Eastern Europe. I lived in one of those large-scale apartment blocks without many parking spaces. First, the population density is so significant that you won’t solve the commute problem with just one or two tram stops. You will need a public transportation hub near each of such housing blocks. Second, because of the high population density, there is no way you find enough schools, kindergartens or just shops in the vicinity. Most of the people where I lived were driving their kids to school and were shopping in malls 10-15km away. Which means that a lot of people were buying cars and because of the lack of parking spaces all the empty space around those buildings became a giant parking lots without any room for people.
We definitely need multi apartment houses. But they need to evenly spread across the city.
There's another thing you missed about rural property and that's utilities. Most (but certainly not all) rural property has electricity, at least somewhat nearby. But alot of it doesn't have water or sewer. Especially in the western US, water is sort of a big deal. In my area, it's not uncommon for a household well to run $20,000. A septic system is probably going to be similar. So, yeah, you can plop your tiny home on some plot in the middle of nowhere and it might not be too expensive as long as you only want lights. If you want a shower, sink, and toilet, well, that gets pricey quickly.
A while back, I went down a rabbit hole of tiny modular homes, and honestly I was all for it as a concept. Then I thought, wait, I really want good internet, I don't think that'd work well with no lines dug. Which is when I also questioned where the hell would I get plumbing. Those vids are still fun to look at for space-saving interior design ideas though. But yeah It's pretty clear now that these homes are novelties to people who could easily afford a regular house already.
8:50 - He sort of touches on that. "... lack of broadband internet, and possibly drinking water." Yes, he could have mentioned electricity... probably decided to trim it out for time or forgot to mention it or something.
I will add that you don't always have to go far from town to be on a well. I live a 10 minute drive from town, and the sewer doesn't come anywhere near.
@@Esperologist I'm quite similar. I live maybe 10 minutes from an area where there's major shopping and I'm on well and septic. And there's people quite a bit closer too - like 5 minutes. Internet used to be a problem (thanks Centurylink for decades of not investing), but a local ISP got a grant from the state and now I have really good fiber to the home.
In some really rural places, even electricity is hit or miss. There's areas where its cheaper to build your own off grid solar than get electricity run. That does tend to be areas that are more actual desert or deep in the mountains, but even my neighbor, when he subdivided his land, it cost $10k to get electric run to the new lots. But having said that, you usually can find reasonably priced lots with electricity readily available.
As an architect this is my favorite channel that delivers the lols 🤣
I have an idea to improve these tiny houses and make even more affordable housing: what it we stack a few of them on top of each other? And put a couple of these stacks right next to each other? I imagine tiny streets with tiny houses on both sides, several layers high.The upper layers of course could be accessed by pods that travel vertically. Each house could even have a tiny garden that sticks out to the side - they would just need some kind of safety feature to make sure people don't fall out. I imagine a kind of railing that borders the tiny gardens. To make costruction faster and easier the developer could build these "blocks" of housing all at the same time, and then find buyers for the individual tiny homes.
You had me at vertical traveling pods
Yeah a balcony will never be a proper garden, especially for your dogs or children to run around in. Now if I can have a balcony that's 6 m wide and 15m long with grass, bushes, a tree or two and space to have a picnic on with a BBQ then sign me up.
@@wilberdebeer4696 I can´t really imagine dogs and children running around in your garden either, 6x15m is really timy when it comes to gardens. Apartments often have bigger balconies. Get the penthouse, those have the big terraces, with enough space for everything you mentioned, plus a nice view. The grass would have to be artificial and the trees and bushes put in planters though.
So micro Venice housing with elevators
During colder days the heat of your neighbors tiny house would even reduce your own need to heat!
In Europe it used to be quite common for the govts to have huge public housing projects during the 70s-90s. Nowadays, this has nearly halted and on top of that, existing public housing is increasingly sold to investors - under value ofc, since it's just tax payer money that's being privatized here.
Location seems to be the prime cause of expense. Thats why people in the countryside can live in a big house that costs as much as a studio apartment in a condo in a town center
Damn man how'd you figure that out
That´s why everybody and their mother´s dog wants a home office job nowadays.
5 years ago I started studying Architecture because I got on board with the whole Tiny Homes trend. Now I find myself wanting to design Commie Blocks and 15min communities. Tiny Homes are really only useful at increasing density early one with secondary units in my opinion, but I still like the little things, I've never needed much space anyways.
In a city, tiny homes are fine for people who want to rent out a room to someone but don't want that someone in their house, *or* for someone who somehow got a plot of land in a city that's otherwise unusable, yet still accessible.
In the countryside, they're okay vacation homes or as a temporary dwelling until you can build up a bigger home. As something hauled around the country(as some tiny home advocates do), they are godawful. They aren't built to withstand that kind of travel. The people who want *that* should consider a used camper trailer.
Commie blocks have a lot of hidden disadvantages. Trust me - I'm born and grew in USSR. It works well only if you have huge factory and living blocks around it where 90% of citizens works on this factory. Else you will have constant problems with transportation in rush hours.
Second - all the citizens of these blocks should be relatively poor and have no property or cars. It simply no space there to store or use it. But when you have many poor people in the small area be ready to huge crime on it. In my childhood it was very dangerous to walk alone to another neighbourhood. Chance to be robbed was about 70%. And this was in the capital city with a lot of police and very tight government control. In the smaller cities crime cituation was even worse.
Experiments with such "social" blocks was provided and failed in many countries starting from US and ending in Paris. In 90% you will have a ghetto with a huge crime after 10-15 years there.
The best decision there IMHO is relatively low height apartments (5-7 floors) with a good green territory around and 100-150sq.m. size, underground parkings and proper transportation infrastructure. Very good example of such city is Munich in Germany. It green, safe, easy to walk or reach any place less then in an hour.
@@TomasSawer Yes, but this channel *hates* personal transportation and loves trains, rather than seeing the pros and cons of both and acknowledging that the can and should coexist where possible.
Study engineering instead and develope a factory that produces home modules that could be stacked to multistory houses
@@TomasSawer We're not saying they're perfect. They just seem like a more optimal decision than many others. I live in a good, relatively early Soviet neighborhood now and I love it.
If you believe Elon Musk can solve anything, you would believe anything.
Really appreciate the teardown on Elon's involvement (or complete lack of). Internet is a wild ride of misinformation and attention click seeking lol
Awesome presentation, fun info with good comedy sprinkled in.
Thanks as always for your efforts, it really is appreciated.
So... now he makes fun of him for correcting people and saying the truth?
He's chasing the same bit of clout himself.
@@RazorsharpLT The difference is Adam actually takes the effort to inform us about the misinformation that has been going on and making us aware of content farms like the ones he showed. Additionally he offered potential solutions for the overarching topic of the video.
> new adam something video
"oh what stupid thing has elon thought of this time?"
this video wasn't really anything elon did
this time it was just the Elong Goblins screaming nonsense, so he's off the hook... for now.
@@godassasin8097 And it is good,for god sake. At least he is silent, before another terrible idea kicks in.
The annoying thing about this is that as a cabinet maker, I could make a really nice small house for less than USD 10,000. I'm just not legally allowed to.
“Whoa there, child! You were supposed to stop at building the kitchen bits! Are you mad?!?”
“Well yeah, a bit, just not the way you mean.”
I will never stop being fascinated with how in some countries making homes out of paper is considered... A thing. That exists. It's weird. Reinforced concrete, bricks, or wooden logs are the only materials that seem to be able to hold without collapsing in a slight breeze.
@@KasumiRINA: Wood is perfectly fine for a home, the problem is that most "industry standard" homes are absolute garbage. They intentionally make them minimalist and weak to ensure job security.
After reinventing trains and cars, he's moved on to mobile homes. Truly a visionary.
you forgot spaceships lol
Don't forget the hyperloop! A tunnel!! Something humans have been building for hundreds of years. Wow what will he do next? A horse and buggy? A cheese grater? lol
Actually in this case in particular, he didn't do anything, dickriders just created smt out of thin air
@@motherlove8366 exactly
Noone advertised with this shit
Seattle eliminated parking minimums over 10 years ago. Didn't make any difference. Developers still run the show and the average rent has skyrocketed. All the parking minimum elimination did was mean the developers could make more tiny cardboard boxes for $3500+/month.
I'm surprised you glossed over the bigger issue of restrictive zoning codes in general.
It's definitely the worst in the US, but it applies to places in Europe as well
Also, if you buy a plot of land in the nearest city or suburban area, often times zoning won’t allow you to drop a small home like that. There’s minimum square footage and building restrictions.
what gonna to the city if you just went ahead and put the shack? bulldoze it?
They usually don’t bulldoze it. They fine you enormous amounts until you pay to bulldoze it yourself.
If you don’t bulldoze it or pay the fines, they will confiscate the land, THEN they will bulldoze it.
If you want a good idea of what happens when real estate developers get full autonomy look at Australia. People literally just horde houses and leave them empty in order to artifically deflate the supply, thus making the cost of owning a home skyrocket, which then increases rent.
Real estate companies *are* the enemy.
10:15 When the cynicism gets too real....
A lot of US communities don't allow you to have any kind of tiny affordable home because they don't generate the same tax revenue as larger homes.
Airbnb is the single worst thing to happen to housing in the last several decades...
Elon Musk is a marketing genius for an era of the internet that is over. Watching his brand wither, rot, and die, has been one of the few consistent joys for me in the past few years.
Yup, before I bought a house with my girlfriend, I looked into this.
I found a couple areas where it was somewhat doable, but they didn't allow you to put a 50k-90k tiny house / vacation-home on it. It had to fit in the street image and required houses in the range of 500K - 700K.
Elizabeth Holmes: I lied to my investors too. Where are my YT fan page accounts?!
Musk: You forgot to stutter.
Homes: But I used low pitched voice.
Musk: Hmm.. Did you plagiarize multiple ideas?
Holmes: No. Just the one.
Musk: There you go. You gotta "invent" new stuff so the investors never catch up to your lies.
My first thought when I heard about those 15000 dollar homes was "and where would I put that thing, given that I don't own any land? And then you delivered.
You could inherit the shittiest house in the world and still sell it for good money if it's anywhere near a city or suburb simply because the land it stand on is worth a fortune. Like you said, if you can afford a plot of land, you can afford a better house than whatever these things are.
It's basically just a niche solution for rural millenials: they can move out without moving off their parents land.
@@bojangles5623 i wouldn't want to move so close to my parents if I move out. Then I can as well keep staying at my parents place.
Sort of , the appeal of these houses is not just that its supposed to have a smaller price tag but that's it takes less labour and can be constructed faster. Speed is one of rhe reasons Americans love building wooden houses. Because if you took our a home loan to build a house and it takes you a year to build that house that means for a year you have to rent a house to live in until your house gets built( if there aren't delays). Now if your house can be put up un two weeks then you only need to rent for one month. That's already you saving 11 months of rent.
The Boxabl company stands to get a lot of business from places that will allow ADUs but won't allow Duplexes and above for zoning reasons. Or from areas that recently passed up-zoning (like California) who have a lot of people who can't or don't want to tear down their original property. The Casita can be a stand alone structure anywhere that will allow a house to be only 380 sq ft. Yes you could build your own, but do you really want to go to all that hassle? When you can build a concrete pad and hookups, and wait for them to deliver your new home, allowing your married child to have the main home. Basically, this company stands to make a fair amount of money treating the symptoms not the cause.
Imagine calling out a sham product and then promoting AG1 in the same breath, definitely won't need irony supplements for some time.
I think some of these portable housing companies were responding to code changes in California where you can add a small apartment in the backyard of your single family home. I don't think the intent was to make an entire neighborhood of of these tiny houses. That said, the code change in California is an interesting idea, but small tweaks to zoning here and there is also not going to solve the housing crisis. I think Adam's conclusion of needing more subsidized housing and rent control is the way to go.
a huge issue is zoning. A lot of places in the US are zoned to not allow high density housing. a lot of places only allow single family dwellings which means no affordable housing and urban sprawl, which means cars and shitty public transit.
@@CRneu Also in the places that do allow high density housing most of it is now being used for luxury condos, not affordable units. Downtown SF has tons of high-rise condos where entire floors are vacant because nobody can afford them and a rich person only bought them as an investment/tax write-off
Most of those people who add an ADU (backyard tiny house) aren’t actually going to rent to poor people. I know people with essentially a tiny rental unit behind their house (not a new idea) and they are priced competitively generally with apartments and room rentals in the area.
@@TheDawnofVanlife As others have said, the rule of the game is 'build baby build' each additional unit of housing expands the overall supply and thus reduces the equilibrium price. That's not to say you shouldn't spencifically incentivize affordable housing, but any significant increase in housing will help to an extent.
So instead of living in your mom's basement you live in your mom's backyard ?
My sisters three bedroom one bath was built for about 17k in the 90s
It's worth about 50k today in Canada.
We built it so that helped the labor cost but still...
That came with a septic system needing maintenance once a decade, a well that will never run dry because the ocean tides make the hole water table raise up 30 feet twice a day.
And the land has fire wood fit for a lifetime+hunting and fishing.
Basically the power bill is the worst of it. 300$ a month give or take.
@@belliduradespicio8009 pretty much, Newfoundland. Port George.
how she got the land plot tho
PD: newfoundland?, that's remote to say the least.
@@ernstschmidt4725 they are absolutely desperate for young families so buying land is easy up there.
However, in the next decade I suspect with the mass immigration coming in already that won't be the case for long.
I'm a private developer and put up luxury units. Couldn't get planning permission for affordable units. Honestly, local planning is backward... I'd make more money with cheap, high density but nope, they'll just not give you permission. Hell, it takes years even bending to their will.
City government doesn't want the lower social classes moving in.
Yep, it became a game of chicken: The first municipality that puts up affordable housing will attract poor people from all over the country.
@@bramvanduijn8086 And? I've been poor my entire 40 year life, and have lived in and around poor people this entire time. Only wealthy people give a shit about living near poor people, I certainly don't. It has been totally fine, no major issues at all in my entire life to live around poor people.
"but what about our property valuations" or something like that
@@rdizzy1 that’s the problem though, rich people don’t want to be around poor people so they make sure every obstacle is created to keep them separated.
I lucked out in life, my mom’s very working class but my dad’s affluent family came back into my life during my teenage years, paid for me to go to a good school, and I now am able to afford to live in a posh neighborhood in Boston. Now where I live is on of the six very dense old neighborhoods near the city center (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Fenway, South End, North End & Central Brookline) and it’s hard to build more housing in these areas given they’re already quite packed. But there’s a lot of wealthy neighborhoods near us (Cambridge, Newton, Chestnut Hill, Somerville, Jamaica Plain and the rest of Brookline) that have insane amounts of building restrictions to keep these areas low-density and absurdly wealthy, forcing Boston’s working class population further and further outside the city to protect the property values and horde educational, transit and healthcare opportunities for residents. It’s selfishness through and through.
At 2:46 the woman furiously throws a giant spoon of green powder to the ground
"Don't look a gift emerald mine in the mouth." 😂
Long story short:
Make houses like you put lumber mills right next to forrests in AOE2
I think I said “a refugee camp” at the same time you said it and burst out laughing 😂
Quote of the Day: “Elon Musk fans will be the end of me.”
As a woman in STEM, that statement has been my reality since undergrad
@@darkartsninja I’m so sad to hear you had to go through that.
A cool thing happening where I live is a scrap of bare pavement that used to be home to a derelict grocery store is now going to be a huge 4 story apartment building. The greatest part is that it's waking distance for all essentials including being right across from a community owned grocery.
As a student, I lived in a "village" of modified sea containers, like a 1000 in a neighborhood. 5 on top of each other, and something like 20 side by side. If the inside was made to last, it would be very nice
Most shipping containers aren't built to last and their structure makes it harder to insulate for various weather conditions. They're just horrible overall for building construction. Better to start with waddle and cobb if you want to be a hippie, at least waddle and cobb can be made rainproof with some paint while the material itself is a natural insulator against heat and cold.
@@ryanh5568 it's wattle and daub
Glad you covered it, I was literally coming here to say "Guys, I grew up in a trailer park. Trust me. You don't want that."
(It also doesn't work because once land becomes valuable enough it gets sold, everyone gets evicted, then it all gets bulldozed to make room for the new luxury condos nobody local can afford.)
Eh, the local trailer parks here have been here for roughly 50 years so far, and this hasn't happened yet.
@@rdizzy1 Just wait until they make a hit TV show romanticizing your area and your community gets "discovered."
The other option is to return to extended families in larger homes, or a regular home with a decent backyard having one or more of these portable pod homes.
That will definitely help.
good old courtyard houses/family palaces/estates, like chinese siheyuans, spanish haciendas or moroccan riads.
Or just shoving multiple generations into commieblocks and apartments. One person needs at least a meter of space to live in right?
The trailer park was better than any apartment I've ever lived in. The owner charged a very reasonable lot rent and only asked everyone to be quiet, clean, and not bothersome to their neighbors. Since the lot rent was low, everyone complied. I should have stayed there.
I've got an idea. What if we:
1: set up a big steel framework to stack a bunch of them together.
2: add a unified utility setup for water, electricity, and gas.
3: add a bus stop next to the framework, and a metro station, if there are none close by
I'm not sure what to call it though... Each person gets a part of the steel framework, so maybe we could call it something like "A part, man!"
They do that in the Netherlands, i used to live in a 17m2 container stacked on top of other containers. They had all the necessary
Your solutions section is missing some basics like "Legalize density where it's needed (basically every city in North America)" and "Public Transportation". Commuting up to an hour by train is really a lot less of a problem than commuting long distances by car and most households make decisions based on combined costs of housing and transportation.
Yea, at least on a train you can do something else, train commutes would be far more pleasant
I just want to add one addendum to what you're saying about tiny homes.
My partner and I are actually looking into getting a tiny home(we actually DO want to place it on land, but that's besides the point)
There are some areas where you can park your tiny homes either in tiny home villages or RV parks(though your tiny home will have to be RV certified).
Basically it's possible to not need your own plot of land but you would have to factor in what ever the cost is of living in one of these places and depending on the cost of your tiny home this may not be affordable
That counts as rental property so it's not really relevant to housing ownershipm
@Demo not exactly. You still own the house on the land you just are renting the land.
So TECHNICALLY you own the house, just not the land. It's almost like a hybrid ownership/rent thing.
Mind you I think his answer is far better for city living for sure. A bunch tiny homes all over the place won't help much at all
Nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't help cities :)
0:52 A Tesla burning bright in the night... Hilarious 😂😂🤣🤣
8:56 you forgot access to sewage, so get ready to install a septic tank ($30k), be ready to install a heating oil tank, or install two heavy duty heat exchangers ($10-$12k), and you best have a grey and black water diverted or your septic tank will overflow by week’s end. So yeah you also need a sewage line plug in ($5k), and since you now have a plot of land with municipal services (barely), you need to pay property taxes.
Say you wanna dig your own water well while you are at it? ($40k)
"Promoting sustainability in all aspects of his life" when he uses a private jet like a car 🤣
Wait… Elon Musk is lying?!
🤣
Well.....yes.
But in this case; no. He actually didn't do anything concerning this particular topic. Just dickriders farming clicks with made-up bullshit.
Perhaps, but he has nothing to do with any of this, trying to pin this on him is lying
Its still crazy to me that the solution people suggest to housing isn't "fix the problems with spreading out more" and instead it's "live in ready player one slums".
I really liked the super block idea from a while back. Converting existing areas to that model would be nice, but also developing new areas that way with better infrastructure to match it would be amazing.
idk man, that idea sounds like communism
Correct me if I am wrong but isnt Adam contradicting himself? In this video around 11 40 he talks about superblocks basically being great but then a few days ago he really tore apart Munger Hall. Sure Munger Hall isnt perfect but isnt it basically a superblock? Not sure why Adam had a problem with lack of sunlight. As he would snark, "just go downstairs, open the front door and you have all the sunlight you could ever want".
@@namename9998seems like you have no idea what a super block is so I’ll explain. A super block is not one building but a whole neighborhood that is closed to through car traffic and as such streets are totally open to pedestrians, bikes, and public transportation. There would be dense apartment blocks but unlike munger hall they would be designed like, well, apartments instead of windowless dorm rooms
@@au-198 Please provide sources.
You could have a large building that takes up an entire block like the building in Lutsk (if you can go from one end to the other without going outside then its one building regardless of segments) or you could have many smaller buildings doing the same thing. Both would qualify as taking up an entire block.
Where is the rule saying that all units in superblocks must have windows? Building codes probably require that bedrooms have windows but building codes probably havent defined what a superblock is.
How is apartment defined compared to dorm room? There are micro apartments in NYC that dont have kitchens or bathrooms but arent dorm rooms. A dorm room is a residence on a campus such as military base or college campus. Apartments can be identical to dorms except theyre not on campuses.
And you didnt answer whether Adam was contradicting himself. You dont have to like the windowless prison of Munger Hall but thats just one example of what a superblock could be.
Good video, as usual.
I forget where I see things, but I remember this crucial difference between mobile homes and actual homes (either apartments or houses) and it is this: a home will mostly also function as an investment, because they tend to increase in value over time; a mobile home is more like a car, it will decrease in value. The price of a used mobile home drops dramatically at first when it goes from new car smell to used 2nd hand smell-lessness, and then continues to lose resale price more slowly as it moves from "barely used" to "old jalopy". It may be more sensible economically than living in a hotel, but it is still a dramatically worse deal than buying a small house.
And obviously, it is the resort of poor people, because they always get the worst deals.
the prices of homes increase only because we have housing crisis, get rid of it and house prices stabilize.
That's because real houses are also land speculation.
Land Speculation doesn't always work out.
@@suddenllybah Well, of course. Speculation doesn't always work out. All things that people buy and sell as speculation has an ability to boom and crash. Also true for apartments.
My point is that mobile homes are different in principle because, like cars, they always lose value. You buy one and things doesn't work out, you can only get some of your money back, never all of it, definitely never more than you put in.
Edit: my borrowed point. I remembered where I picked it up. Last week tonight with John Oliver did a bit on it 4 years ago. Worth a watch.
@Dan Guillou
The point is that it's not the house itself that gets value, it's the land underneath it.
and it's not a given that land will increase in value. For example, the 2008 housing market crash reduced the value of land, since you can't buy a house without buying the land it is on in the US.
I've built these kind of portables at my last job. They were upmarket removable buildings for new estate offices (Victoria Australia). Building these things to last more than a few years is EXPENSIVE. The strain and stress of transport is much higher than what you'd get from a fixed structure. As such they need far more steel in their frames. You can use aluminium instead but that's even more expensive. You can retrofit shipping containers but they are commodity items that fluctuate in cost have significant size constraints and are not practical to be towed by anything smaller than a truck. Medium density zoning with new developments required to give some units to a public housing authority are the best solution.
Tiny homes do have their place but they are far far from a solution to the housinf crisis.
Edit: I see you cover the fact that these are not actually a cheap option.
that AI generated voice at 2:25 is like nails on a chalkboard