• corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I’m of two minds.

    • shitty bungalows are what is killing infrastructure costs and perpetuating urban sprawl. We have a generous home in a hyper-dense housing area and - thanks to triple paned windows and concrete - no claustrophobia.

    • tiny homes for people returning from homelessness may be a good idea. The unfair concerns are mitigated by very repairable units separated from neighbours.

    We need to keep these as transitional housing, though, and a feeder into a “starter” unit in proper dense mixed-use: every block (hectare) taken for tiny homes is 3 million cubic meters of space taken from a land budget we’re already overdrawn on.

    • blackfire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I think thats always the hope that they are first steps of stability to move up. None of the projects like this I’ve seen have been intended to be life time residence.

      • turtlesareneat@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 hours ago

        There are tiny-home dwellers but they’re often highly educated professionals who decide to live Buddhist for a while. Some of them wind up enjoying it.

        The better analogy for homeless folks would be living in cars, aka the invisible homeless - is this better than that? Fuck yes. Even if it WAS permanent it’s better than that.