Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
PaperclipPerfector
5hr ago
(text post)
193 thread views
Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
ICC (the International Code Council), in collaboration with THIA (the Tiny Home Industry Association), is in the process of developing a new standard for "small residential units and tiny houses", ICC/THIA 1215.
The IRC (International Residential Code) already defines "tiny house" as 400 ft2 (37 m2) or smaller.
The latest draft of this new standard (available through the "documents" link on this page) additionally defines "small residential unit" as 1200 ft2 (111 m2) or smaller.
The name of the committee is "Standard for Off-Site Construction Tiny Houses", and this collaboration with THIA is building on a previous collaboration with MBI (the Modular Building Institute). However, this new standard will apply, not just to newfangled off-site (wheeled, modular, and panelized) construction, but also to traditional on-site (stick-built) construction.
For ease of visualization, here are examples of "tiny" and "small" floor plans. (I still am waiting for you to post the plan of your dream house (1 2)—or your dream neighborhood.)
(Can we extend this progression? "Normal" ≤ 3600 ft2 (334 m2), "large" ≤ 10800 ft2 (1003 m2), and "mansion" > 10,800 ft2 (1003 m2)? ;-) Generally, for apartment buildings (occupancy R-2) made of wood with no special fire rating (construction type V), the IBC prescribes limits of 7000 ft2 without sprinklers (no longer allowed in new buildings), 21,000 ft2 with spinklers and multiple stories, and 28,000 ft2 with sprinklers and one story. But no such restrictions apply to houses (occupancy R-3).)
This interesting article covers how ICC was caught flat-footed by data centers' sudden rise in popularity. In what occupancy do they belong?
Business, like electronic data entry?
Moderate-hazard factory/industrial, like lithium-ion-battery assembly and usage?
Moderate-hazard storage, like lithium-ion-battery storage?
This has important ramifications for code requirements.
In the end (technically not finalized at the time of this article's publication), the responsible committee decided to put it in moderate-hazard factory/industrial. (See the committee's response to proposal G38-25, contained in the "report of committee action to CAH 1" document on this page.)
ICC is in the very early stages of developing a guideline on data centers. Nothing but a tentative outline has been published so far (in the "documents" on the linked page).
I don't think the tiny house thing is ever going to take off. I don't want to say it's dead, but several years ago, when they were becoming a fad, some group tried to build one in Pittsburgh as a proof of concept that they could be used as inexpensive housing for the homeless. The house they built cost double what they expected. The conclusion they came to in the postmortem was that the fixed costs of doing anything at all aren't increased that much by expanding the square footage, so making things smaller didn't save much money. One of the big unexpected expenses they talked about that caused the price to balloon was excavation costs. Essentially, building on a city lot in a distressed area is a bit of a crapshoot in that you don't know what you're going to find. Foundations of prior structures, rubbish, old utility tie-ins, etc. They also spent a lot of money on legal fees, despite the fact that city government was pushing the project; the zoning board didn't really know how to treat it.
A bigger part of the problem, though, was economic. It only makes sense to build that kind of house if you can get the land for cheap. But in areas where land is cheap, there isn't demand for anything that modest, and the cost of construction swamps what the house can be sold for. Shortly before the tiny house debacle, the local community development corporation built a regular house on a vacant lot in the same neighborhood for $237,000 but were only able to sell it for $143,000. I'm sympathetic to arguments for subsidizing construction to alleviate a housing shortage, but it makes more sense to do renovations or build normal houses.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link