|
|
|
|
|
by crooked-v
884 days ago
|
|
> absolutely not be a more efficient The listing you linked looks like a much more efficient a use of land and resource than the tiny homes from the article: about the same amount of land per unit but able to hold substantially more people per unit, plus all the economies of scale that go with shared utilities, heat conservation from shared walls, and so on. |
|
Housing units is what matters for solving homelessness, not number of people housed. These tiny homes aren't intended to house whole families. Yes, you could fit 8 to 10 unrelated homeless people in a single family home or townhome, but there's a reason why that's not pushed forward as a solution—people don't generally want 9 strangers as roommates.
I definitely agree that the economies of scale that come with the shared walls make a huge difference for general practicality, but I was only speaking of land use per housing unit.
Edit: Here's a link to the satellite image [0] so you can see the depth of the property. The unit alone is about twice as deep as it is wide, and then it has a backyard per unit in addition to that. My very rough estimate with the Google maps ruler suggests about 1000 sqft footprint per unit.
[0] https://maps.app.goo.gl/cqLLmbU3Rtufkfx78