Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
But where you could put 48 tiny houses, you could house 400 people in a four story building! And you could build a lot higher than that.

Even in the most occupied areas of Southern California you have individual houses on 1/4 acre lots. We could easily afford buying 10 adjacent ticky tacky single story houses at over-market cost, tear them down, and put up a building that houses 1000 people. And that building would require much less heating and air conditioning than 250 individual houses.

We have done just that with public housing projects in the past. We can still do it, and supply modern security with video cameras and microphones in the halls and common areas. That stuff is dirt-cheap now, and you can hire some residents to monitor the cameras.

I'm not saying Tiny Houses aren't cool but they are very impractical unless you use them as a rural cabin. And then you might as well just build a cabin.

Well, first off, I WAS referring to a dozen here and a dozen there, forty eight IN TOTAL.
Putting up forty eight units together equals something called "low income housing".
In Los Angeles that equals, "da projects", and the projects are a very bad idea.
Now, put up a medium density building for twelve units here, and a medium density building for twelve there, and you have something.

But my original idea was to make use of temporarily empty land the kind which exists where I live, the former Caddy dealer, the teardown site for the greasy spoon, etc.
Read the ENTIRE post, I am talking about temp solutions for temp homeless. Long term homeless require a different solution but for working poor staying in homeless encampments, tiny houses set up on land which is going to lie fallow for three to five years is a great idea.
And when the land gets sold and the developers rush in, move the tiny houses somewhere else.

Hey, we're already doing this anyway, under a slightly different name...FEMA trailers.

"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD
deepfreezefilms.com