Towards a better tinyhouse

Inventing to freedom?

Exterior cosmetic veneer

leave a comment »

So anyway, just as an idea to improve appearances or mimic an expensive look without as much cost, I went looking for “exterior veneer”. It looks like it is available, both in wood and stone, and I wonder if there are other materials, too.

Looks like it could hep a bit with the cost/performance ratio… Also, it seems like it could be interesting to use stone veneer, I don’t know how thick it is, but if you could get some thin stuff maybe it wouldn’t be too heavy. Who expects something that is apparently be made of stone, to be portable?

As mentioned in the note on the right, the zoning barrier to practical tinyhouses is really the doozy. Based on what I have read in some papers including that one about garden suites I think I posted on this blog (I’ll try to get that up again here later, I have a draft post with a bunch of reading material on the zoning issue for ya in the works), people make gut instinct decisions when they see a garden suite, or other tinyhouse-like thing, and will end up objecting to it if they don’t like the appearance of it. Let me be clear here, too, that when they object, they don’t say “It no look pretty! No like!”, no doubt partly because it is obvious that you shouldn’t really be preventing progress based on such a trivial concern, and so they don’t want to admit it.

But there is more to it. Even people who will are decent enough to agree that appearance shouldn’t be a major issue, that there are more important things in this world, will still have a problem with it. They will likely come up with post-hoc rationalizations about why they don’t like it, like “introduces transience to the community” etc. etc., and good luck trying to tell people that these don’t really make any sense. Even if you do, they might just come up with an endless supply of vague objections, or over-value any legitimate ones. And fat chance telling them they are just being irrational – and if they, at the end of the day, don’t like it, and other people are like that too, and can’t practically be convinced otherwise, let’s face it, it doesn’t really matter that there are not being reasonable. They no like, they no like, and there aren’t anywhere near enough protections in our country – or rather I should say culture, perhaps – against this sort of thing. Plus it could still lead to a legitimate concern, namely reduction in property prices “values” (though tinyhouses can increases property prices plenty, too sometimes (including due to density increases), and even when it does decrease it, that is usually a very small amount, like $5000 on a whole house, which frankly is just part of normal fluctuations anyway – if you can’t handle that, remember tampering with the market to artificially prop up prices is only going to lead to disaster, as it is doing now, as reality must catch up to you eventually).

So I think the cosmetic appearance is really quite an important feature for a tinyhouse, until they are fully permitted, as the MedCottages have been in Virginia, for instance. And improving public perception would help with that a good deal. Frankly the tumbleweeds would never have been featured on yahoo news, or in glamor-mag, or whatever it has been, if they didn’t look so positively charming.

But, to me, the good news is that there are already a lot of people focused on appearance, and great stuff being done there – hell, “design” to most people, means cosmetic design.

Advertisements

Written by gregor

October 18, 2010 at 08:09

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: