Tiny Houses - Paul Smith's College



Tiny HousesA Step Toward Conserving Natural ResourcesByTimothy H. BakerandFalon L. NeskeMay 2, 2015A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelors of Science in Natural Resources Management and Policy at Paul Smith’s College.AbstractThis project examines the potential to downsize America’s current living style in efforts to conserve natural resources and adapt to the changing world. The average home has increased to an excessive size over the years. As a result, abundant amounts of timber are desired, pollution is produced, and homeowners are buried in financial debt. A possible relief to these issues is the tiny home. Many tiny house advocates allegedly stated these structures require fewer materials to construct, lessening the need for natural resources. To confirm these ideas, a study was implemented through extensive research on small living, followed by a survey and the construction of a tiny house model. The results showed many American’s with large homes cannot justify the need for the excess space. Therefore, downsized to a tiny house may be a good choice for many citizens. These structures proved to require fewer materials at a more cost efficient price. So if the tiny house is both livable and affordable, what does this mean for the future of the tiny house? AcknowledgementWe would like express our appreciation to William Neske, for his guidance and real world knowledge of building construction. The tiny house model would not be possible without his contribution of materials and experience in home design. William made himself available through the entire project as a resource for any information desired. We cannot thank him enough. Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Abstract PAGEREF _Toc418335861 \h IAcknowledgement PAGEREF _Toc418335862 \h IITable of Contents PAGEREF _Toc418335863 \h IIIList of Tables PAGEREF _Toc418335864 \h IVList of Figures PAGEREF _Toc418335865 \h VList of Appendices PAGEREF _Toc418335866 \h VIIntroduction PAGEREF _Toc418335867 \h 7Literature Review PAGEREF _Toc418335868 \h 11Methods PAGEREF _Toc418335869 \h 20Research PAGEREF _Toc418335870 \h 20Survey PAGEREF _Toc418335871 \h 20Tiny House Model PAGEREF _Toc418335872 \h 21Results PAGEREF _Toc418335873 \h 25Survey PAGEREF _Toc418335874 \h 25Tiny House Model PAGEREF _Toc418335875 \h 29Discussion PAGEREF _Toc418335876 \h 31Survey PAGEREF _Toc418335877 \h 31Tiny House Model PAGEREF _Toc418335878 \h 33List of References PAGEREF _Toc418335879 \h 36Appendices A. PAGEREF _Toc418335880 \h 37Appendices B. PAGEREF _Toc418335881 \h 40Appendices C. PAGEREF _Toc418335882 \h 43Appendices D PAGEREF _Toc418335883 \h 45List of Tables TOC \h \z \c "Table" Table 1. Board footage for the rough framing of a 400 sq. ft. and a 1,200 sq. ft. home were calculated. The totals were used to predict the possible waste accumulated for both structures. PAGEREF _Toc418198579 \h 30List of Figures TOC \c "Figure" Figure 1. Dimensions (square footage) for residential dwellings were provided by survey participants. The results were placed in a size range to demonstrate the number of households within each group. PAGEREF _Toc418198591 \h 26Figure 2. Length of homeowners mortgage agreements represented in years. The data was split into five different ranges to display the most common mortgage length of the study group. PAGEREF _Toc418198592 \h 27Figure 3. Survey respondents whom owned a garage provided information on its primary use. The spaces were used for strictly vehicles, storage or both. Percentages of each category were calculated to find the most common usage. PAGEREF _Toc418198593 \h 28List of AppendicesTiny house survey…….………………………………………………..............................37Tiny house Material List…………………………………..…………….......................401,200 Sq. ft. Home Material List…………………………………………….................431,200 SQ. FT. HOME FLOOR PLAN……………..……………………………………………45IntroductionAs the World progresses into the 21st century, mankind is faced with new challenges which hinder the existence of natural surroundings. Global Climate Change is one challenge being reputed by scientists and politicians alike. Due to the increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, the earth’s surface continues to warm at an alarming rate. Though many efforts have been made to rectify this problem, such as enforcing new policies and regulations, the increasing human population is persistent on its contribution to climate change. Camilo Mora, a researcher for the University of Hawaii, states human population has reached 7 billion and may reach 9-12 billion by 2050 (Mora, 2014). In order to meet the needs of this growing population, more resources will be extracted out of necessity, leading to rapid depletion rates of said resources. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs model, the basic needs for human survival include but are not limited to water, food, air, and shelter (McLeod, 2007). While these are all clearly essential for survival, shelter for many modernized countries, seem to require the most energy and resources to produce. One country exemplifying this is the United States of America. All humans need shelter, but to what extent does shelter stray from being a necessity to an auxiliary for one’s lifestyle? Current population growth and higher standards of housing will continue to exhaust the earth’s natural resources unless an alternative can be attained. After the post-world war two economic boom, the US was forever changed. Soldiers returning from the war went to work, many furthering their education from the GI Bill to get higher paid jobs. Families could afford personal vehicles and with aid of the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act, were able to move from the crowded cities to the suburbs (Barlowe, n.d.). American households increased which drove the demand for more single-family homes, leading to suburban sprawl. This gave the “American Dream” a whole new meaning. Society as a whole fell victim to consumerism and were convinced to buy more and buy bigger. As the standards for living were raised, houses began to increase in size. Today, the average American home is much larger than ever before. Many of these homes now have extra bedrooms for guests, movie theaters, and private gyms. Unfinished basements and garages end up serving a solitary purpose of storage. The availability of space within these homes fueled the ever-growing habit of consumerism. In the pursuit of achieving acceptable living status, Americans failed to recognize the costs, both financially and environmentally. The residential building sector is one of the largest contributors to Global Climate Change. Wastes are produced throughout the entire life cycle of a house. Construction, maintenance, improvements, and demolition of an average American home can create several tons of discarded materials (Shafer, 2009). Residential dwellings are also responsible for the destruction of greenfields. A single home can be the cause of several acres of deforestation (Shafer, 2009). Making changes to housing design may be a way to mitigate the impacts residential dwellings may have on the environment. The tiny house has the potential to lessen the impacts of the housing sector. It is a downsized home which incorporates only what is truly needed for the resident’s lifestyle. The idea of living small has been reintroduced to the public in very recent years. As more humans recognize the economic and environmental effects of large-scale homes, tiny houses will become increasingly attractive. Tiny houses offer an alternative lifestyle for sustainability.Each tiny home may be customized to fit the lifestyle the owner intends to pursue. Tiny houses have been known to be built both on foundations and mobile trailers (Mitchell, 2014). Being mobile gives the owner the option to bring the home to a new location. The versatility of these tiny houses and customization is what makes them attractive to potential buyers. Currently, the Tiny House Movement is still in its growing stages. While there are tiny homes in various locations around the United States, there is not a huge quantity of them. With such a new idea, tiny house owners are still facing restrictions and obstacle such as zoning codes (Mitchell, 2014). Many argue more towns and cities should make changes to these outdated codes and allow more tiny homes to be built. The purpose of this study is to examine the potential benefits of tiny house living in US. As humans move into the future, the surrounding environment will continue to shift and change. Human needs will be forced to follow suite. The tiny house will likely be a positive change to the building sector, posing fewer impacts on the environment and economy. Literature ReviewBuildings are one of the main energy consumers and greenhouse gas emitters today. Modern American homes are requiring more natural resources to meet the needs of the American society. The demand for bigger and more luxurious homes has been fueled by the concept of the “American Dream.” According to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, the American Dream is defined as “a life of personal happiness and material comfort as traditionally sought by individuals in the US” (Flexner 1987, pg. 66). However, Americans fail to recognize they are responsible for the effects of achieving this dream. The environment is no exception to this responsibility and society must become aware that natural resources will become dangerously low if society does not change its standards of living. Large homes will emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to the Global Climate Change effect. Warmer temperatures will increase storm intensity, raise sea levels, and alter the environment. Preventing this problem may not be conceivable, but with the implementation of greener technologies and downsizing living standards it is possible to adapt to the future. Today, the building sector is the biggest consumer of energy in the United States. According the US Energy Information Administration, buildings account for 47.6% of all energy used in the US (Mazria, 2011). This makes buildings one of the top carbon dioxide emitters, mainly from the use of coal. About 74% of US electricity CO2 emissions come from the refining of coal to be used for energy consumption and the building sector consumes 75% of the electricity produced (Mazria, 2011). Other types of energy come from oil and natural gas but are expected to deplete within the next few decades. However, coal is still plentiful enough to replace the use of oil and natural gas. Unfortunately, coal emits 74.3% of CO2 emissions from electricity in the US, making it the biggest emitter of CO2 gas (Mazria, 2011). Currently, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 gas are at 397 parts per million (ppm) and is being increased each year by 2 ppm. Once CO2 gas concentrations reach 450 ppm, the Global Climate Change effect will be irreversible (Mazria, 2011). In addition to greenhouse gasses emitted by these buildings, “the average American house consumes about three quarters of an acre of forest and produces about seven tons of construction waste” (Shafer, 2009, pg. 21). Other direct environmental damages include water pollution, waste, and runoff occurring from oversized and poorly designed homes (Secretariat, 2013). In the United States today, the average sized home has nearly tripled in size as compared to past decades. In 1950, homes averaged to 983 square feet. The average size house now is 2,500 square feet (McLennan, 2013). One would expect this is due to an increase in household size but the US Census Bureau has reported the American family has decreased from an average household size of 3.8 people in 1950 to 2.6 people in 2013 (McLennan, 2013). This inverse correlation raises the question, “Why are house sizes increasing while household sizes are decreasing?” The answer lies within the current norms and values within the American society as it revolves around the concept of the “American Dream.” In the book “Tiny House Living,” author Ryan Mitchell describes this concept:“There is something about our culture where many of us feel the need to demonstrate that we have wealth, power, fame, and other qualities that many don’t have. It is a dreadful game of who can outdo whom when it comes to houses, cars, clothes, and so much more. How we got this way, I don’t know, but it enters us into a game that we will never win. Except for a few people on his earth, there will always be someone richer, more powerful, or someone with better status than us” (Mitchell, 2014, pg. 70).Jay Shafer, author of “The Small House Book,” has described American houses as “bloated warehouses full of toys, furniture, and decorations, and a lot of things we may never see or use” (Shafer, 2009, pg. 26). Society has been manipulated by the marketing and advertising industries to keep buying bigger and more. This not only puts stress on the environment and economy, but the buyer as well. Another major problem with the construction of these large homes is the use of inefficient materials and poor design practices. Many homes “are built by cookie-cutter developers who meet the market demand for square footage by compromising on design and material quality” (McLennan, 2013, pg. 4). Homes are not built to suite their owners and often times incorporate unneeded space. However, problems can occur with the actual placement and design of many houses. For instance, developers have to have to clear-cut forests in order to construct houses and roads (Mitchell, 2013). Another issue common with poor design practice is suburban sprawl. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation has given input to this problem:“Beyond individual buildings, poor patterns of building development often lead to congestion and inefficient use of land, resulting in greater energy consumption and travel time, loss of productivity, polluted runoff to surface water and wastewater treatment systems, loss of agricultural lands, fragmented habitats, and fiscal stress to local communities” (Secretariat, 2013, pg. 3).The lack of poor planning and involvement of interdisciplinary builders, architects, and engineers can lead to the type suburban sprawl in America today.Building such large homes creates wasted space, high costs, and consumes too much unneeded energy. Many of the large houses in America contain rooms rarely used. Jay Shafer makes this analysis on wasted space:“As prodigal as this may seem already, even a space capable of meeting extravagant living and storage needs is not always enough. We still have to worry about impressing a perceived audience. Entire rooms must be added to accommodate anticipated parties that may never be given and guests who may never arrive. It is not uncommon for a living room to go unused for months between social gatherings and, even then, quickly empty out as guests gravitate toward the informality of the kitchen” (Shafer, 2009, pg. 26-27).Ryan Mitchell has referred to these seldom used spaces as “outlier” spaces. Common outlier spaces include guest bedrooms, living rooms, and formal dining rooms (Mitchell, 2013). Home owners must then pay the costs for these spaces to heat, cool, and clean them as well as fill them with more possessions (McLennan, 2013). Homeowners continue to purchase more “stuff” and fill available space within the house to achieve the perceived happiness of the “American Dream” concept. Unfortunately, the accumulation of stuff creates clutter and a need for more space. UCLA Center on Everyday Lives of Families found only 25% of the homeowners surveyed could park their vehicle inside the garage. However, some homeowners require more space outside their home. It was found one in eleven Americans use self-storage containers for their possessions (Mitchell, 2014, pg. 16). These costly spending habits have brought about much hardship on American homeowners. The average income for Americans is about $51,000 a year. Of that income, 33% to 50% will go towards housing (Mitchell, 2014, pg. 16). This, combined with other loans and bills, accumulates to a large sum of money a homeowner must pay. The average mortgage debt for US households as of December 2014 was $155,192 (Chen, 2014). The American homeowner is forced to deal with these inconveniences which may prevent them from leading a full and happy life. A possible relief to this debt is to downsize to a tiny house.A tiny house is defined in several different ways depending on how one builds it. Many people believe the square footage dictates whether the house is considered tiny or not. This may apply to mobile tiny houses where the house is “built on a wheeled trailer that conforms to the maximum trailer sizes that govern shipping containers and RVs” (Murphy, 2014, pg. 54). Typical tiny homes built on trailers range from 100 to 400 square feet (Tiny House Movement, 2015). However a tiny home can be built on a foundation as well, lessening the size restrictions. Mitchell has defined a tiny house as a house which uses its space effectively, implements good design for the needs of its residents, and fits the lifestyle the residents wish to pursue (Mitchell, 2014). Since these houses are downsized from the average 2,500 square feet house, the materials required and pollution given off by them are lessened. Shafer gave two of his tiny houses as an example:“The two largest of my three, hand-built [tiny] homes were made with only about 4,800 pounds of building materials each, less than 100 pounds of which went to the local landfill. Each produced less than 900 pounds of greenhouse of greenhouse gases during a typical Iowa winter. And, at 89 square feet, it would plus porch and loft, each fit snugly into a single parking space” (Shafer, 2009, pg. 21).Tiny houses not only require fewer resources, but they also grant builders to choose different material grades. Since the price for quantity of materials is decreased, it creates room to focus on quality and efficient materials with a minimal overall price increase (Mitchell, 2011). However, resources and energy consumed can fluctuate for each tiny house.This trending movement has become known as the American Small House Movement, which is a “countermovement of redirecting our housing toward more thoughtful and sustainably sized home design” (History of the Small House Movement, 2011, pg. 1). Sarah Susanka, author and architect, is credited with starting the movement with her minimalist living philosophy through her book, Not So Big House (History of the Small House Movement, 2011). However, living small has been implemented throughout American history during times of war and progression. During the 1950s and 1960s, American values began to change and standards of living increased (History of the Small House Movement, 2011). It was not until the late 1990’s, with Susanka’s philosophy and the increased concern over global climate change, did people start taking notice. Today, many Americans are aware of tiny houses through media and the internet. Tiny houses can be the answer to help reduce pollution and conserve natural resources while allowing people to live a simple, comfortable, and financially sound life.The environment is one reason many look into downsizing their living space. Traditional homes use a large amount of resources and damage the environment in the building process. Tiny houses, on the other hand, “consume fewer resources, to heat, cool, and power…” (Mitchell, 2013, pg. 36). Some homeowners can go as far as having net neutral (no environmental impacts) or net positive (improves environment) homes. The practices used by these homeowners “produce more energy than they consume, and they capture materials from waste streams instead of sourcing new materials” (Mitchell, 2013, pg.36). An example of this would be the use of reclaimed lumber. Downsizing a home is a good step towards sustainability “but house size alone does not always relate to responsible resource use” (McLennan, 2013, pg. 3). In order to reduce energy use and conserve natural resources to the fullest, smart building techniques are essential. These techniques include sustainable architecture and green construction. According to the US Green Building Council, green building “reduces energy use by 30 percent, carbon emissions by 35 percent and water use by 30 to 50 percent, and generates waste cost savings of 50 to 90 percent” (Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 2013, pg. 3). This includes using proper insulation, low-energy lighting, and recycled materials. Other new technologies such as solar energy can help mitigate energy consumption as well. Green building is a great way to reach sustainable housing in America but one must take care not to be fooled by greenwashing tactics some companies will use. Greenwashing is a marketing scheme used by organizations to convince consumers that their product is environmentally friendly, when truthfully it is not. The building sector is contributing more each year to global climate change through the construction of inefficient homes to meet the excessive demands of the American people. However, with the implementation of tiny homes and proper building practices, humans can reduce their consumption of natural resources as well as the overall influence of climate change. The alternative of living a minimalist existence is evident and should be considered the logical choice for the good of the planet.MethodsResearchInformation for this study was collected through extensive literature research. Book and online sources (e.g. journal entries, periodicals, news articles, websites, and blogs) provided both background and current information on Tiny Houses. All of these sources were accessed through the Joan Weill Adirondack Library and the database. Personal interviews were also conducted in person and over the phone. Historical and current data was collected on homes within the United States. The average home size gathered through the survey was used to compare with the national house size average. Information on square footage, land acreage, building costs, energy consumption and carbon footprint have all been collected. This data aided in the comparison of tiny houses. Empirical data for the study was collected through phone calls and an exchange of emails with local tiny house builders (e.g. Tiny House Inc.). Positive and negative information was given about real life experience with tiny houses. SurveyThe subject for this project was a small population of homeowners within the northeast, however some were located elsewhere within the US. To collect this data a survey was administered through an online source, Survey Monkey?, which allowed long distance individuals to take part. Questions in the survey asked about age, home size, household size, purpose of extra rooms, and need for external storage. For extra storage space, the survey asked if the participant had a garage and what purpose did they use it for. Once enough people had taken the survey, house sizes were averaged in order to determine the mean square footage of the study group. Data on the purpose of extra rooms was analyzed to determine whether or not people were using them for the declared purpose. The information gathered for use of garage space was also averaged for those whom used it for vehicles, storage, or bothAt the end of the survey, participants were asked if they were aware of tiny houses and if they would consider living in one. The results gathered were averaged into categories of those who and who not live in a tiny house. Reasoning for the denial or acceptance of tiny house living was also taken into account when the information was analyzed.Tiny House ModelA scaled-downed model of a tiny house was created in order to represent a 400 square foot home. The model was constructed with the helpful guidance of a building contractor using salvaged materials. The scale was sized as 1 foot = 1 inch. The square footage, converted to inches, of the model house was 16”x20”, with a 16”x5” loft for a bedroom. Stilts were constructed for the foundation of the tiny house. The interior included a loft style bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, living space, and porch. All of the essential parts of an actual size home were included (e.g. floor joists, studs, siding, rafters, and ridge beam). The model was then used to draw up a real life materials list. A rough frame materials list was created for the 400 square foot home. Dimensions were calculated by measuring all aspect of the model. These numbers were then converted for a life size home in order to determine the actual amount of supplies needed. Lumber, roofing, windows, doors, insulation, and all other materials were gathered and priced from internet sources and personal phone calls. All rough framing constituents were supplied by Home Depot, Lowes, and Curtis Lumber. Product information and prices were then organized into a list. The materials list was designed in an excel spreadsheet. First, various sections were created to keep all information neat and organized. These include, but are not limited to, flooring, wall framing, roofing, and siding. All lumber products were kept separate from supplementary building supplies. Second, materials were listing under the sector of best fit. For instance, studs and sill plates were placed under wall framing. Third, dimensions, type, and cost of each material were logged. The dimensions of the material (e.g. 2 inches by 6 inches by 12 feet) aided in computing the amount of each product desired. Lastly, the amount of materials needed was multiplied by the price to determine the over-all cost of each product. Product totals were compiled to define the full cost of materials to purchase for the 400 square foot home. Merchandise purchased in bulk often leads to wasted materials. In order to determine the amount of framing waste accumulated from the tiny house project, board footage was calculated. Timber products were individually plugged into the board footage formula and then multiplied by the quantity needed. After each piece of lumber was accounted for, the over-all board footage of the rough framing was computed using simple addition. The average range for framing waste was repented as a percent and the two end points were used to calculate the excess material. Board footage was first multiplied by 15% and then 25% to determine the possible range of framing waste produced by the tiny house. A similar process was complete for a larger scale home. A materials list was drawn up for a 1,200 square foot home. The floor plan for the home was collected from an internet source. With the help up a contractor, a brief merchandise list was created for the rough framing. The excel spreadsheet was divided into four sections which contain lumber products and two sections with other materials. Lumber sections include 1st floor, 2nd floor, roofing, and siding. Dimensions, cost, and quantity were listed for each product. The whole cost of each material type was calculated and later used to determine the grand total for the rough framing. Possible waste production of the 1,200 square foot home was calculated by duplicating the process used for the tin house by using the board foot formula. This board footage of this home was also used to determine the 15% and 25% waste production. Results from both the 400 square foot tiny house and 1,200 square foot home were analyzed to see which building had high cost, board footage, and waste production. ResultsSurveyThere were 213 survey responses collected for the study. Depending on the individual’s home, certain questions were unanswerable and therefore omitted. Of the 213 participants, 155 had experience with homeownership. There were no distinctions made between those who purchased a home in the past and individuals who currently own a home. Some responses were also based on the participator’s family residential dwelling. Information regarding home dimensions, layout, room usage, and storage were collected. Results showed the home sizes of the study group ranged from 205 to 23,000 square feet. The majority of the answers obtained were 6,500 square feet or less. Three outliers were identified in the data, which were between 20,000 and 23,000 square feet. In order to obtain the average home size of the study group, the outliers were strategically removed. Figure 1 below indicates most of the dwellings were concentrated between 801 and 2400 square feet, but does not include the outliers. Calculations provided an average home size of 1,895 square feet. Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1. Dimensions (square footage) for residential dwellings were provided by survey participants. The results were placed in a size range to demonstrate the number of households within each group. Survey respondents provided an interior room count. Some households claimed to have up to eight bedrooms and seven bathrooms. Two or more living spaces, kitchens, and dining rooms were common for the study group. Rooms not listed in the survey, but mentioned by the participants include: library, pantry, sunroom, office, laundry room, home theater, dressing room, and billiards room. Of 168 participates who provided an interior room count, 53% claimed to have one or more unused rooms. Mortgage agreement lengths were provided by each individual homeowner. Contracts ranged from 0 (meaning the home was paid for in cash) to 40 years. Out of 150 respondents, nine were able to purchase a home with cash. More than half of the participants spent 20 or more years making payments on a home mortgage (Figure 2). Although figure 2 displays a large number of respondents under the 30 to 39 age range, the average mortgage length of the study group was about 22 years. Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 2. Length of homeowners mortgage agreements represented in years. The data was split into five different ranges to display the most common mortgage length of the study group. A question was asked to determine whether or not homeowners had a garage and how each individual utilized it. 131 respondents said yes to owning a garage within property lines, whether attached or detached from the home. While garages had room for one to four cars, the majority of participants owned a two car garage. Many of these are used for various purposes (e.g. storage, vehicle parking, both). As shown in figure 3, only 10 respondents claimed to use the garage strictly for vehicle parking, which represents eight percent of all garage owners. Of the remaining 121 responses, 57% of the individuals declared the use of the garage was for both storage and vehicles. 35% of the individuals used the garage primarily for storage (Figure 3). Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 3. Survey respondents whom owned a garage provided information on its primary use. The spaces were used for strictly vehicles, storage or both. Percentages of each category were calculated to find the most common usage. Responses provided insight into the popularity of tiny houses with the public. About 84% of the survey participants claimed to already be aware of the tiny house movement. Many of which heard of the structures through the media (e.g. television, radio, magazines), college courses, and the internet. If respondents were not aware of what a tiny house was, the survey provided a small amount of information on the subject. Participants were then able to declare whether or not tiny houses were personally livable. Out of the sample of 213, 56% determined tiny house living to be a positive movement. All of these respondents would live in a tiny house without any question. 32% believed there is no feasible way to live in a tiny house. This is due to either family size or the amount of possessions one had. The remaining 12% of individuals claimed it was dependent on future plans (e.g. kids move out, retirement, sale of personal belongings). Tiny House ModelMaterial lists were drawn up for the rough framing of two structures. The first building was the tiny house model, which was built to scale. 1 inch on the model was equal to 1 foot on a life size home. The second is a two-story 1,200 square foot home. The list allowed prices, board foots, and possible framing waste of each to be calculated. The cost to build a 400 square foot tiny house was computed. The materials list demonstrates the rough framing estimate and was found to be more expensive than previously expected. To purchase timber for the flooring, wall framing, and roofing, one could expect to spend over two thousand dollars. This includes wood products of all different dimensions (e.g. plywood, planks, and studs). The total lumber cost for the project came out to be roughly over seven thousand dollars (see appendix B for actual materials list). Other material costs were calculated. Roofing was found to be expensive, reaching over one thousand dollars. The grand total to put together the rough framing of the tiny house was $14,826.71. Hardwood flooring appeared to be the most expensive item, but does not have to remain permanent. The larger 1,200 square foot home proved to be more expensive than the tiny house. To make an equal comparison of the tiny house to the 1,200 square foot house, the same essential materials were used. The total lumber cost of this home exceeded twenty thousand dollars (see appendix c), more than twice the amount used for the tiny home. After adding in other materials such as house wrap, shingles, and insulation the grand total was $50,523.04 (see appendix c). The lumber materials were utilized to calculate the total board footage and potential waste for both projects. The tiny house rough framing had an estimated 7,036.7 board feet. This number can also be represented as 7.0376 thousand board feet (MBF). The 1,200 square foot home board footage was computed at 24,303 board feet or 24.302 MBF. Table 1 below demonstrates a 15% and 25% waste production estimate for both structures. The larger home may produce three to six times more waste during the rough framing stages of the project. Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 1. Board footage for the rough framing of a 400 sq. ft. and a 1,200 sq. ft. home were calculated. The totals were used to predict the possible waste accumulated for both structures.400 sq. ft. Rough Frame1200 sq. ft. Rough Frame Board Feet:7036.724302MBF:7.036724.302Waste at 15%:1055.53645.3Waste at 25%1759.26075.5Discussion SurveyThe tiny house survey conducted provided information about the current housing situation in the United States as well as insight for the future of tiny homes. Results for the study groups average sized home were very close to the national average, reiterating the fact that housing size has increased from past years. However, the average square footage does not point out the range of housing types. Three survey respondents claimed to live in 20,000 square foot mansions, while others lived in homes around 300 square feet.Regardless of the range in square footage, the average proves houses go beyond ones needs. The survey revealed many homeowners have excess rooms which are not being utilized. More than half of the survey group claimed to have underutilized space which suggests that home buyers do not need guest bedrooms, finished basements, and multiple living spaces. However, the survey did not take into account past or future use of such rooms. For instance, family members may have moved out, leaving behind vacant bedrooms. Social gatherings may not be as frequent anymore leaving spaces such as formal dining rooms vacant. On the other hand, young families planning to have children may have unoccupied rooms for future use. The survey also gave an estimation of how survey participants utilize personal garage space. It was discovered most people had 2 car garages and while some used the area predominantly for vehicles, typically the main use of space was for storage. Stored items could consist of lawn equipment, tools, toys, clothes, and other personal belongings. These findings provided insight into the idea that people are paying for storage. The unused interior space and garages are primarily used for neglected personal belongings. The average mortgage contract of the study group was 22 years. These mortgages incur interest, causing homeowners to owe hundreds of thousands of dollars extra once payments are complete. A smaller home which provides only essential space will prove to cost less in the long run. Tiny houses were said to be attractive to the majority of survey respondents. A few already claimed to live in one, proving it is possible to live in such small living quarters. For those who say they would possibly live in one, determining factors seemed to be number of children, personal belongings, and guests. The survey responses suggested tiny houses as viable living options mostly for single people and couples (young and/ or retired). If these tiny homes are what people want, why aren’t more homes built with this modest scale in mind? Tiny House ModelUsing two homes of different scale to compare pricing, board footage, and waste production allowed for their differences to be quantified. By looking at the grand total of materials for both homes it was apparent the larger home was going to cost more. Board footage and waste products were also inevitably going to be much more for the 1,200 square foot home. However, there are various factors which may skew these figures. One may assume the larger home in the study will cost more in material just by looking at the size. The study results prove this assumption to be true. The smaller the square footage the less material required to build a home. Interior walls are a major price addition for the 1,200 square foot, 2-story home. This house included several bedrooms, two bathrooms, living room, and kitchen. The more rooms in the interior of a home, the more walls need to be constructed. Big ticket items associated with both structures are additional reasons large homes come with bulky price tags (e.g. hardwood flooring, windows, and doors). For example, the larger home in the study required 10 more windows than the tiny house. These few items add a hefty dollar amount to the total. However, in a real life situation, the family purchasing the home has a significant impact on the cost. Different types of materials can be used for flooring, roofing, windows, and doors. Often times, homeowners of a large house will purchase more elegant materials such as French doors (W. Neske, personal communication, April 4, 2015). Depending on the home owner’s personal taste, material prices may fluctuate. To figure out the amount of waste, the board footage for each home was calculated. The results show the tiny house will produce one third the amount of waste of the larger dwelling. The 1,200 square foot home is composed of a greater number of interior walls, a second story, and observably more square footage of flooring. Contractors will estimate the number of additional stud required by placing four boards every four feet (W. Neske, personal communication, April 14, 2015). This estimate was used for the interior walls of the 2-story home. Simply due to its size and interior design, the tiny home has a smaller volume of lumber. The main floor is composed of an open floor plan with a living space and kitchen. The bathroom was connected to this area. The upstairs consists of a loft which required no additional interior walls. Possible waste production of the two residential dwellings was calculated for the rough framing. All waste calculations were based on board footage and the average percentages of waste produced during home construction. According to the study results, the tiny house will produce less waste. This is ultimately based on the fact that the home is constructed with less material. This may be true, but there are several reasons for which it is not. The first determining factor would be the work habits of the building crew. Incorrect measurements, material storage, and reluctance to implement previously cut lumber into framing are all examples of possible behavior. “The majority of lumber waste [could be] caused by carelessness of negligence practiced by the crews during construction” (Merchant, pg. 27, 2007). Another factor which may skew the amount of waste produced by a building would be recycling. Many contractors would rather not be bothered with recycling excess lumber. This is typically due to the costs associated with the process such as labor and a recycling fee (Merchant, pg. 27, 2007). Any material which is not recycled is often tossed into a dumpster. Lastly, some excess materials may be reused. Fragments large enough in size can be used for future building projects or fire kindling. Some builders will bring home extra pieces of lumber to implement into personal projects (W. Neske, personal communication, April 14, 2015). These salvaged pieces of lumber are essentially no longer considered waste. List of ReferencesA Short History of the Small House Movement. (2011). Retrieved March 27, 2015.Barlowe, B. (n.d.). How Did Urban Sprawl Begin? Retrieved April 14, 2015, from , T. (2014). American Household Credit Card Debt Statistics: 2014 - NerdWallet. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from , S. (1987). The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (2nd ed., p. 66). New York, New York: Random House.Greenfield. (n.d.). Unabridged. Retrieved April 13, 2015, from website: , E. (2011). Problem: The Building Sector. Retrieved March 27, 2015, from , J. F. (2013). Large Houses Cannot Be Eco-Friendly. In R. Espejo (Ed.), Opposing Viewpoints. Eco-Architecture. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.McLeod, S. (2007, September 17). Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Retrieved April 14, 2015.Merchant, Z. (2007). A study of lumber waste handling practices on residential construction sites. Cost Engineering, 49(1), 25-30. Retrieved from , R. (2014). Tiny House Living: Ideas for Building and Living Well in Less Than 400 Square Feet. Blue Ash, Ohio: Betterway Home Books.Mora, C. 2014. Revisiting the environmental and socioeconomic effects of population growth: a fundamental but fading issue in modern scientific, public, and political circles. Ecology and Society 19(1): 38. , M. (2014). Tiny Houses as Appropriate Technology. Communities, (165), 54-59.Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). (2013). Eco-Architecture Benefits the Environment. In R. Espejo (Ed.), Opposing Viewpoints. Eco-Architecture. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.Shafer, J. (2009). The Small House Book. Sebastopol, Calif.: Tumbleweed Tiny House Company. What Is The Tiny House Movement? (2015). Retrieved March 27, 2015.Appendices A. Appendices B.Appendices C.Materials List- 1,200 Sq. Ft. Home1st Floor?????Interior Shoes/ Plates2 x 4 x 16$8.22 14 $ 115.08 Interior Studs2 x 4 x 92-5/8$3.66 80 $ 292.80 Floor Span LVL1.75 x 11.75 x 14'$4.74 144 $ 682.56 Floor joices, rim joice2 x 10 x 16$20.63 73 $ 1,505.99 Subflooring OSB3/4"$19.12 22 $ 420.64 Exterior wall studs2 x 6 x 92-5/8$5.79 150 $ 868.50 Exterior Shoes/ Plates2 x 6 x16$13.61 30 $ 408.30 Exterior Wall OSB7/16"$10.45 45 $ 470.25 PT- Sill Plates2 x 6 x 16$17.54 11 $ 192.94 Headers2 x 10 x 8$10.97 20 $ 219.40 Total: $ 5,176.46 2nd Floor?????Ext Wall (Gable Ends)7/16"$10.45 47 $ 491.15 Floor Joices2 x 10 x 16$20.63 64 $ 1,320.32 Subflooring OSB3/4"$19.12 32 $ 611.84 Interior Shoes/ Plates2 x 4 x 16$8.22 16 $ 131.52 Interior Wall Studs2 x 6 x 92-58$5.79 140 $ 810.60 Exterior Shoes/ Plates2 x 6 x16$13.61 24 $ 326.64 Exterior Wall Studs2 x 6 x 92-5/8$5.79 130 $ 752.70 Ceiling Joices (attic floor)2 x 6 x 16$13.61 58 $ 789.38 Total: $ 5,234.15 Roofing?????Rafters2 x 8 x 16$16.67 60 $ 1,000.20 Ridge Beam2 x 10 x 12$14.84 3 $ 44.52 Roof Sheathing Plywood1.2" 4 x 8$22.36 38 $ 849.68 Total: $ 1,894.40 Siding?????Corner Posts5/4 x 4 x 16$13.94 9 $ 125.46 Cedar Siding1/2 x 6 x 10$13.46 624 $ 8,399.04 Window Framing5/4 x 4 x 16$13.94 5 $ 69.70 Total: $ 8,594.20 Lumber Total: $ 20,899.21 ??????Door (1st Floor Bath)1$168.00 $168.00 Windows30 x 4215$145.00 $2,175.00 Patio Slider1$725.00 $725.00 Exterior Door1$859.00 $859.00 Ice and Water Grip Rite4$59.69 $238.76 Felt Paper4.32 sq. ft. 6$22.20 $133.20 Drip Edge15$5.89 $88.35 House Wrap9 x 1004$89.99 $359.96 Sheath Tape1.89 x 555$10.89 $54.45 Doors (2nd Floor)5$168.00 $840.00 R-19F Fiberglass Insulation15 X 9443$42.35 $1,821.05 R-19U Fiberglass Insulation15 X 9414$42.08 $589.12 Asphalt Composite Shingles39 (bundles)$33.30 $1,298.70 Total:$9,350.59 ??????VOC Subfloor Adhesive24$4.49 $107.76 10D common nail5$33.29 $166.45 8D common nail5$27.09 $135.45 10D Split less Ring Nail4$28.59 $114.36 Total:$524.02 Materials Total: $9,874.61 ??Grand Total: $ 50,523.04 Appendices D1,200 Square Foot Floor Plan ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download