Skip to content

LETTER: Tiny homes not the solution for Nelson

Local builder Joern Wingender has misgivings about move towards smaller houses
8288720_web1_copy_170825-KWS-TinyHouses

It was interesting to read in the Aug. 25 issue of the Nelson Star that the city’s affordable housing committee is looking into the tiny house building model to solve the affordable housing shortage.

Tiny houses appear to be the architectural extension of our ever expanding digital connectivity combined with increased social isolation. It begs the question if it is in the city’s best interest to support this cultural development.

As much as anybody should be applauded for reducing their housing footprint and supporting recycling, it has to be acknowledged that recycling is only a band aid solution for the problem of widespread centralized production of goods, particularly food, that creates large amounts of waste. This is not to mention our, at times, questionable purchasing habits of consumer goods in general.

Partial recycling of building materials perpetuates a continuous cycle of disposable architecture that has been fuelling the deforestation of our landscape for a long time. Tree farms replacing naturally evolved ecosystems, also known as forests, are turning out to be an inadequate substitution.

Most energy efficient buildings designed for latitudes like Canada showcase a multilayered insulation envelope 10” or thicker, depending on the choice of materials.

Local, natural materials that require minimal processing should be the first choice because they tick all the boxes for environmentally friendly construction. As a bonus this ecosystem based approach to building creates extremely healthy living environments as long as they are configured to the laws of physics that govern moisture and air movement.

This can be a limiting design factor and, as usual with human cleverness, we have developed building materials using mainly petroleum based products that bend these rules with negative results on many levels: environmental degradation, increased waste “sick building syndrome” to mention a few.

The argument that a tiny house does not require a lot of heating energy does not come through in the numbers. Heat loss is calculated on the overall envelope performance, not just the size of building.

Typically built on trailers tiny houses have a more rectangular footprint. This increases the amount of exterior wall surface required for enclosure in relation to available floorspace. A more efficient building features a square or close to square building footprint.

The goal of a smaller overall footprint is often achieved by keeping walls thin. Decreasing wall thickness raises the issue of dew point location within the walls (laws of physics mentioned above). Anybody who has spent time in a camping trailer during winter has experienced this issue.

Introducing plumbing and electrical into the exterior walls, due to the lack of interior walls, can also compound the problem. A well thought out envelope with a high insulation value is the best longterm investment for a building owner, regardless of size. Multi-unit buildings follow the old adage of economy of scale, which still applies to architecture.

Building a village of tiny houses is simply adding another trailer park to the landscape with a poor ratio of city services provided in relation to living space created.

Affordable small footprint units are needed for sure but they should be stacked. Arranged in rows we see what urban architecture looked like pre-urban sprawl. A tried and true model of apartment buildings which could be improved upon by adjusting the configuration of the units. Up to four storeys tall they are efficient to build and can create small communities that foster social interaction. All on a single city block.

Almost like the sadly lost Kerr building.

Joern Wingender