In terms of the environment, smaller is typically better with buildings—both in terms of resource consumption in building them and operating energy. Recently, we’ve seen booming interest in tiny houses (roughly less than 500 sq. ft.) and along with them, village models that rely on a central common building to provide essential services to occupants, often special or at-risk populations. This post is an examination of where this phenomenon came from and what is driving interest in it, within the housing market and broader demographics.

In the last 60 years, middle class, single-family homes in the United States have changed a lot. Most of all, they’ve gotten much larger, increasing from an average of 983 square feet in 1957 to 2,250 square feet in 2017. Compounding that change, the average number of occupants has also dropped—from an average of 3.2 people in a single family dwelling in 1957 to 2.3 people in 2012. Not only are we creating far more space per occupant today, but even more of our houses stand vacant! In 2012, one in seven homes in the U.S. was empty, due to a glut of second homes and overbuilding, and a subsequently vast number of foreclosures during the 2008 recession. That housing stock has struggled to get back into the market both because there is so much of it to manage and move, and it isn’t what today’s market is asking for.

Here in Southern Vermont, we know we face a demographic challenge, and the housing market reflects it. Many young people move away to urban centers to find opportunity and develop skills that they wouldn’t otherwise find where they grew up. If a young family does wish to make-a-go-of-it in this area, the housing market they find is very tough to manage. Often the same starter home that they seek, is similarly sought by the downsizing empty-nesters and retirees who wish to have a “town-life” with access by foot to major services, etc. For most landlords, when faced with the student debt and uncertainty of a young adult or couple compared to the credit score and equity held by someone recently retired or down-sizing from a larger home, the safer choice is clear. This combines as well with a larger shift nationally, as Boomers retire and leave their larger family homes, and Millennials try to find their first home. These are the two largest generational swells in recorded history, and they’re shopping for the same house.

Additionally, over the past 40 years, the United States has painted itself into a corner, when it comes to regulating housing at the lowest tiers of the market.There used to exist a network of  “single-room occupancy” rentals, boarding housings, and other smaller options that served these populations.These groups include those who are just entering the workforce or just barely avoiding shelters, homelessness, transiency, etc. However, starting roughly in 1970, efforts to improve standards of living (and to create more lucrative business for those in the building materials industry) drove the establishment of mandatory minimums, bathroom/kitchen requirements, and other steps that now make “SRO”-like housing unattractive and difficult as a business venture. It also means that there is very little to offer people these days who are just getting onto their feet, and why some have turned to the tiny village model as a new tool in the toolbox of emergency/transitional/affordable/workforce housing.

In Vermont, the emergency housing problem manifested most clearly through the voucher program used in the winters by the state’s Department of Children & Families. When shelters are full and there are no more options during the coldest parts of winter, the state has provided people with vouchers to low-cost motels across the state. Gathering people together who are similarly struggling to find stability tends to make things worse for everyone involved, and there hasn’t been good access to social services in such situations in the past.

That has begun to change with projects like the Great River Terrace here in Brattleboro. Similar to the tiny house model, it is a hub-and-spoke design, with a social service agency (Groundworks Collaborative) running the central facility, while the overall development of the real estate is led by Windham & Windsor Housing Trust. This development was retrofitted from a motel in town that had previously hosted emergency voucher guests in the past. Similar efforts at creative solutions are being tried out elsewhere in the state, after $785,000 in grants was distributed in 2016 in search of alternatives to the motel system. Tiny House villages could have a role to play in this puzzle.

Clustered development is desirable for a number of reasons, resiliency not being the least. Ultimately, the tiny house movement and tiny village model provide a new, modular option for people from a wide range of backgrounds to consider, and a new way to plan clustered development. The very design of these hubs with shared common space provides cores of resilience that can persist and self-sustain in many adverse circumstances. Additionally, this model offers a town official the ability to create valuable in-fill and creatively repurpose spaces that would otherwise be difficult to redevelop.

Over the last 10 years, there have been at least 67 attempts at creating villages such as these in North America, mostly aimed at addressing homelessness and a lack of suitable facilities in the U.S. West and South, where homelessness has boomed since the recession. Of the 67 identified projects, 46 have successfully raised some funds for a structure, and 35 have successfully built and sited at least one structure, and many have whole villages erected. They have succeeded due to an ability to bring together local planning officials with social service experts and a property developer who is willing to take on a unique challenge.

When there is a specific problem to solve in the community, such as chronic homelessness, there tends to be more political will to find ways through the regulation and code restrictions that often hamper tiny houses in general, let alone a whole village. Most successful villages have a focused mission and clear population they serve, be it single-mothers, people in recovery, veterans, transgendered people, or youth. Once built for special populations, this has helped set precedent in those localities for establishing other tiny village developments for people such as the starter-home young adults, the retirees, and down-sizing empty-nesters mentioned earlier.

A key ingredient for a successful tiny village project is the ability to leverage the (ongoing) donation of local expertise, materials, money, and labor to both see the project to completion and maintain operation in the future. For smaller communities, a multi-million dollar capital campaign to develop a Section-8 multifamily housing development may be out of reach, but the scale of these tiny house village projects feels more attainable to the impassioned layperson. Local construction firms, or even unskilled volunteers are often willing to donate materials and/or their crew for a day of service. Often, the social service management comes in the form of a faith-based nonprofit which serves as a ongoing fundraiser for the village’s operations, once constructed. As one of the least religious state’s in the union, Vermont may be challenged to rely on this aspect of the typical success model. Building it is one step, maintaining it financially and providing ongoing service is the critical challenge. Otherwise, without access to services or resources for personal/professional enrichment, occupants may as well be back in a motel or RV park.

The final obstacle to surmount with these projects is NIMBYism—the “not in my backyard” syndrome. Anytime there is discussion of homeless housing, it seems that everyone likes the idea of them being housed, but no one wants them as their neighbor. Ultimately, it is often the occupation of public spaces and “the woods behind the supermarket” by tent cities that provokes a community to finally push through the (sometimes painful) decision-making process that identifies a suitable location. For many communities this is a multi-stage process, with much push-back, and many sites considered before finding a solution. Also, it’s clear that villages serving populations with broad popular appeal (such as veterans or mothers) are more readily welcomed in communities, and experience less NIMBY push-back.

Upon reflection, the Resilient Design Institute has become interested in the fact that only a handful (8) of these village projects have occurred in a cold climate. Since Alex’s visit to Austin and our support from the Jeffery Cook Charitable Trust, we have been pursuing an answer to the question: If we were to build a resilient tiny house village, with qualities of being passively survivable through major outages and suited to a cold climate, what would be the best design for the sleeping pods and central building? Is there a way to make it locally? Affordably? Manufactured as pre-fab/kit/panelized? 

On June 25th we held a design charrette to pursue this and related questions in partnership with Donna Paley and Peter Temple of Keene State College’s architecture program. This event, which I’ll provide more detail on next week, brought together planners, architects, engineers, developers, and social service experts to consider what solutions may best solve these challenges how can those ideas be applied to our region. Stay tuned for further updates.

Stephen Dotson works part-time as project manager for RDI’s Tiny Houses for the Homeless initiative. He can be reached at swillisdotson@gmail.com