Tiny Interventions in a Big city
Tiny house initiatives in Dutch cities from a degrowth perspective
Name: Noor Duyts
Student number: 11904917
Date & place: 28/05/2021 Amsterdam
Supervisors: Crelis Rammelt, Jordy Willems, Katinka Wijsman
ABSTRACT
In the past few decades, there has been much pressure on the housing market and on cities in the ‘Randstad’ due to population growth and urbanization trends. As a reaction, many new ways of housing and settlements have been created. One particular, relatively new intervention is the tiny house movement. The tiny house movement is gaining popularity in the Western world. Tiny houses are a housing type appropriate for downsizing one’s lifestyle by decreasing consumption and land use. The ideas of this movement seem to fit those of the degrowth movement. The degrowth movement criticizes the growth of cities and the housing stock and pleads for a decrease in consumption and production in efforts to minimize the impact on the environment.
This research aims to clarify the relationship between tiny house initiatives in Dutch cities and degrowth principles of housing.
The research is executed by conducting interviews with stakeholders involved in three different case studies in Dutch cities: ‘Dakdorpen’ in Rotterdam, ‘Tiny TIM’s’ in Haarlem, and ‘Schoonschip’ in Amsterdam
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ... 4
1.1 Problem Definition and Social Relevance ... 4
1.2 Scientific relevance ... 5
Chapter 2: Theoretical framework ... 6
2.1 Degrowth housing ... 6
2.1.1. Social Justice ... 7
2.1.2. Simplicity and Sufficiency ... 7
2.1.3. Material and energy flows ... 7
2.1.4. Ecological impact of housing activities ... 8
2.1.5. Favourable to democracy ... 8 2.1.6. Time use ... 8 2.2 Tiny House ... 8 2.3 Case-studies ... 9 2.3.1 Tiny TIM’s ... 9 2.3.2 Dakdorpen ... 10 2.3.3 Schoonschip ... 10 Chapter 3: Methodology ... 11 3.1 Methods ... 11 3.2 Interviews ... 11 3.2.1 Respondents ... 12 3.3 Analysis ... 12 Chapter 4: Results ... 13 4.1 Social Justice ... 13
4.2 Simplicity and sufficiency ... 14
4.3 Material and energy flows ... 15
4.4 Ecological impact of housing activities ... 17
4.5 Democracy... 18
4.6 Time... 19
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion ... 20
5.1 Discussion ... 20
5.1.1. Recommendations ... 21
5.2 Conclusion ... 21
Chapter 6: References ... 22
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Problem Definition and Social RelevanceIn 2015 the United Nations Member States adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals to create peace and prosperity for people and the planet. One of these goals, number 11, is: ‘Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.’ By 2050 70% of the growing world population will live in cities (UN). The population in the Netherlands is growing as well, and due to urbanization trends, this growth is especially high in and around Amsterdam, Den Haag, and Rotterdam (also referred to as ‘the Randstad’) (CBS, 2020). Because of the
growing population and urbanization trends, there is a housing shortage in many cities in the Randstad (Kraniotis, 2021). All this puts a lot of pressure on cities to grow sustainably. Meanwhile, the degrowth movement criticizes the current growth and state of the housing sector. They argue that housing should be developed according to specific social, economic, and ecological standards, or there should not be any new development at all (Schneider et al., 2018). The construction industry is responsible for 60% of material consumption globally and 40% of waste in the Netherlands. More than 50% of this material consumption and the waste is for residential buildings (Metabolic, 2020). These material and energy flows put much pressure on natural resources. Principles of housing for degrowth can change the norm of housing in Dutch cities.
At the same time, the Tiny House Movement is becoming more popular in many countries across the globe. People who choose to live in a tiny house are mostly positive about their experience and find ways to inspire others through all sorts of (social) media (Harris, 2018). The tiny house movement has become rather popular in the United States of America, but it is becoming more popular in Europe (Crawford & Stephan, 2020). A tiny house seems to define itself by size. However, the philosophy behind the movement is leading (Schneider et al., 2018). According to a survey of Tiny House Nederland, most people living in tiny houses in the Netherlands prefer to live outside of (big) cities and close to nature (Jonker, 2018). It is therefore fascinating to research tiny houses located in big cities. The Tiny House Movement and the Degrowth Movement share some similar principles, but there is still much to
research about their relationship, especially in Dutch cities.
Thus, this paper will answer the question: How do guiding principles of Dutch urban tiny
house initiatives relate to degrowth principles? This will be done by researching three
different Tiny House initiatives in three different cities in the Randstad. The first case study is ‘Dakdorpen’ which is a project currently in progress in Rotterdam (Dakdorpen, n.d.). The second initiative is ‘Tiny TIM’s’ in Haarlem (Föllmi, 2017). The third is ‘Schoonschip’, which is the only project consisting of ‘normal’-sized houses (Schoonschipamsterdam). This third case study is compared with the first two to help answer the sub-question: “How does the small size of a tiny house affect its relation to degrowth principles?”.
Dakdorpen and Tiny TIMs are selected as case studies because both are examples of a tiny house initiative in a Dutch city, but both have a unique form and concept on which they are grounded. This makes them good subjects for researching different ideas, advantages, and
disadvantages. Schoonschip is selected because it is a housing initiative in a Dutch city that has many qualities tiny house initiatives have expected for the size. Therefore Schoonschip is very usable for comparison.
To be able to answer the main question, two sub-questions have been composed.
• What are the fundamental principles of ‘living tiny’ according to stakeholders of Dutch urban tiny house initiatives?
• How does the size of a house within a project affect its relation to degrowth principles?
The first question explains the principles of Dutch urban tiny house initiatives. Knowing its key values and characteristics will help give a clear picture of whether they can be defined as degrowth housing types.
The second question will clarify whether the tiny house initiatives fit the degrowth principles differently from a non-tiny house initiative (Schoonschip).
The results provide a clear overview of how the tiny house initiatives fit inside the degrowth housing principles' standards and whether both movements have similar aims. The outcome is helpful for future research about the social-economic and environmental value of different types of tiny house initiatives in Dutch cities.
1.2 Scientific relevance
There is quite a lot of literature available about the Tiny House Movement and its principles and potential for a rather new movement. However, there is not much written about tiny house initiatives from a degrowth perspective. The book ‘Housing for Degrowth’ by Nelson and Schneider contains a chapter dedicated to tiny houses in which April Anson discusses the potential of mobility and limits of tiny houses. However, little is said about the qualities of the overarching projects consisting of tiny houses like the case studies researched in this thesis. Also, she specifically focuses on the movement in North America (Schneider et al., 2018). On top of that, this research focuses specifically on tiny house initiatives in urban areas in the Netherlands.
Chapter 2: Theoretical framework
This thesis reviews principles of the degrowth movement and principles of the tiny house movement and explores the relationship between them. Thus these two movements are the leading concepts in this framework.
2.1 Degrowth housing
Society nowadays is formed by growth narratives exploiting natural resources and people and producing enormous amounts of waste in the process (Schneider et al., 2018). Degrowth is both a critique of this capitalistic growth contemporary society is stuck in and an attempt to achieving an alternative systemic reality. Degrowth is defined by Schneider (2010, p. 512) as: “an equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level, in the short and long term”. This movement has strong ideas about every aspect of society and has inspired various innovations for decreasing consumption patterns (Schneider et al., 2018). Both bottom-up as top-down actions are needed to transform society into one in which ecology, economy, and quality of life are most valuable.
The degrowth movement also has certain narratives regarding new housing. They state that the purpose of housing should, in the first place, be to fulfill fundamental human rights and social requirements. Everyone should have access to safe and sufficient housing. Although there are still many homeless people and there are housing shortages in many cities in Europe, there is no need to create new dwellings. In Europe, there is enough living space per person it is just badly distributed (Kees and Haffner, 2010). The solution then would be to re-allocate housing to those who need it. For example, many people have secondary houses that remain unused for the majority of the time.
There are five main goals to create degrowth housing. Firstly refuse certain unnecessary types of housing and forms of urbanization. Secondly, reduce the total urbanized area by reducing unused or barely used housing and luxury housing facilities. Thirdly preserve the compactness of a city and reshape its unused buildings to (shared) living spaces. Fourthly change urbanization forms to housing with a low impact on the environment and which reduces urban sprawl. Lastly, eliminate the image of a large house, improving the status and symbolizing success. This way, housing needs will more likely be satisfied (Schneider et al., 2018).
The fourth goal states that there are specific criteria for new housing. According to
Schneider (2018, p. 19), when developing new housing types, these are the key concepts for degrowth to include: “Social justice in housing, voluntary simplicity in living practices, reducing housing sector material and energy flows, reducing the ecological impacts of housing activities, encouraging housing settlement types favorable to deeper democracy, and changing how we perceive or use time and interrelate with one another.”
These concepts form the basis for degrowth housing principles in this thesis. They are further explained and specified in the section below.
2.1.1. Social Justice
Housing has become very expensive in Dutch cities. Both rental and owner-occupied homes have increased in price since the majority of housing is regulated by market forces (Montfort et al., 2014). Although the Netherlands has the largest social housing sector in Europe, it is no guarantee for affordable housing. The majority of social housing, however, is affordable and of decent quality, so changes should be made in constructing future-proof housing that is energy-neutral and suited to an aging population and seeking a more effective and fair way to distribute existing social capital (Schilder & Scherpenisse, 2018).
To summarize, the main values of social justice in degrowth housing are equity, affordability,
accessibility, quality, and sustainability (Mete, S., & Xue, J., 2020).
2.1.2. Simplicity and Sufficiency
The main goal for all housing is to provide shelter and fulfill basic human needs. However, many housing types exceed basic needs and try to make homes as luxurious as possible. Media market large homes as the ultimate dream and try to persuade people to buy more and bigger. The main principles from the degrowth movement are anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist, reflecting in the housing sector by advocating for simpler houses. They require houses to use innovation to make them sufficient and simple without facilitating unnecessary expectations. Another take on this is open localism. It advocates for reducing the distance between producer and consumer and focusing on the space and environment around you without constructing social borders or decreasing diversity. If simplicity becomes the norm, sufficiency will be easier met and will result in a reduction of housing
demand. Size, the efficiency of design, community, and open localism are important factors that can affect the simplicity and sufficiency of housing (Schneider et al., 2018).
2.1.3. Material and energy flows
This criterium refers to the materials and energy used in building, maintaining, renovating, and demolishing a house. The current metabolism of the housing sector is such that new materials are being used and created, energy from non-renewable resources is used for construction, renovation, and maintenance, and materials from demolished houses are rarely reused, creating enormous amounts of waste (Schneider et al., 2018). Especially cement, the material most houses consist of, was responsible for almost 10% of global carbon emissions and for most of the construction and demolition waste (Olivier et al., 2014). Thus there is a need for transition in housing design. Using regional materials and bioclimatic design as well as self-sufficiency in water and electricity can help tackle this problem of unsustainable housing metabolism. Whether material and energy flows contribute to degrowth or not depends on the type of materials used in the build, the number of materials used, the electricity and water provision systems in place, and otherwise related material and energy flows (Schneider et al., 2018).
2.1.4. Ecological impact of housing activities
The impact of housing on the environment is an important aspect when looking at housing from a degrowth perspective. One concept discussed in literature about this topic is de-urbanization. Growing urban areas often take up wildlife or agricultural land to develop neighborhoods. This is very costly to the environment. For example, it takes away the habitat of different flora and fauna, increasing heat stress. To reduce and prevent further urban sprawl, natural ecosystems should be incorporated into land planning, and new settlements should be located in compact city areas.
Those urban areas should be redesigned to accommodate multi-user and public (green) spaces (Schneider et al., 2018).
The type and location of housing and how it influences its (natural) surroundings are critical factors in its ecological impact. This research will assess this impact mainly on the scale of the neighborhood and the city.
2.1.5. Favourable to democracy
National politics facilitate and decide on specific housing, and housing projects are essential for upscaling degrowth housing. Direct democracy can help residents of an area participate in decision-making about their neighborhood which gives them influence and control. This can increase their feeling of responsibility for that neighborhood. Changing policies making it difficult for housing projects to integrate urban planning also relate to practices of
democracy.
In addition, the level of democracy within a community is also essential for degrowth narratives. Planning community activities and community meetings with other residents about the neighborhood meetings helps give residents a feeling of participation and responsibility (Schneider et al., 2018).
Keywords for democracy in this perspective are participation, community
activities/meetings, influence, control, and communication.
2.1.6. Time use
Due to the high housing prices, families have to work hard and long to have enough income to pay for rent, pay off debt and still have enough money for everyday expenses, let alone put money into savings. When housing is more affordable, and the norm moves away from having a large house and being able to afford all sorts of luxuries, people will need less income to pay for their monthly charges. When people need less income, they can work less and have more time for their family, friends, hobbies, and community. Overall less
production also leads to less working hours, and creating more technical innovations to renovate or develop more sustainable housing leads to more jobs in the ‘green’ sector. Ideally, degrowth housing decreases people’s working hours and increases their opportunity for different use of time (Schneider et al., 2018). Time, work, and relations are essential values in this aspect of degrowth housing.
2.2 Tiny House
The key concepts of degrowth are somewhat similar to those of the tiny house movement. A tiny house is typically a detached full-time dwelling, but it does not have one clear definition. ‘Living tiny’
generally refers to reducing one’s spatial footprint to limit one’s environmental impact and improve affordability (Ford & Gomez‐Lanier, 2017). Although the actual size of a tiny house depends on which source you consult, according to Tiny House Nederland, the maximum floor space is set at 50m2 (Tiny House Nederland, n.d.). Tiny houses are supposedly more sustainable than standard housing because they use fewer resources and energy for construction and usage. Also, they encourage people to reduce their material consumption (Crawford & Stephan, 2020). This encouragement comes from a strong philosophy behind the movement, which stems from the philosophy of minimalism. This philosophy, as stated by Mangold (2017, p. 3) encourages someone to: “… intentionally eliminate excess things in order to live a simple life which places focus on items of importance and value”. This idea of ‘less is more’ is also reflected in the degrowth movement principle of downscaling consumption. There are some apparent similarities between the degrowth and the tiny house movement. They stretch from social aspects to economic and ecological aspects to achieve simplicity and sufficiency (Schneider et al., 2018).
Concepts of tiny houses have existed since humans have created shelter. A Yurt, Igloo, or Tipi are examples of predecessors of tiny houses as to how they are known today
(Homestratosphere, n.d.). In 1980 -1990 in the United States, enthusiasts started writing about living tiny and gained some popularity. More people started writing books, blogs and started companies preaching about the tiny way of living. The housing crisis of 2009 in the United States and natural disasters caused many people to lose their homes, and the need for more affordable and smaller housing grew. This
helped the tiny house movement to become a lot more popular (Nonko, 2017). The movement made its way to the Netherlands and is gaining more support.
However, in the Netherlands, there is strict legislation noted in the building code of 2012 for housing to abide by to ensure safe and healthy living conditions. This makes it a bit more difficult for people to freely design and builds their own tiny house, but not impossible. Tiny houses can deviate from the standard rules as long as people can argue why
(Marjoleininhetklein, 2019). Finding a location to place your tiny house proves to be even more difficult. A tiny one has to have a minimum size to qualify as a permanent residence. On top of that, people need to have a permit to be able to build their tiny house on the lot they have bought. If they want to build or place their tiny house on the land of someone else, they can not register on the address because only the main house of the property owners can be the registered address (Duindam, n.d.).
Due to these strict regulations, most tiny house projects in the Netherlands are temporary. They serve as pilots or experimental projects, which allows them to be more flexible regarding the qualifications (Marjoleininhetklein, 2019).
2.3 Case-studies
2.3.1 Tiny TIM’s
Tiny TIM’s are tiny houses consisting of 90% of timber. They are self-sufficient and mobile. The floor plan is approximately 27m2. The project aims to create sustainable housing to put on temporary wasteland to tackle the housing shortage in cities. The first ten tiny TIM’s are located in Haarlem as a pilot project. They have an agreement with the municipality to be able to move around in the city for a minimum of ten and a maximum of fifteen years. When their current location is no longer available, they will be moved to the next wasteland area in the city (Föllmi, 2017).
2.3.2 Dakdorpen
Dakdorpen is an initiative in Rotterdam which aspires to densify and increase green space in the city. They aim to develop tiny house villages in combination with green space on
residential buildings and commercial buildings. As soon as they have a permit, the first pilot consisting of three tiny houses will be placed on the Kroon’s rooftop (Dakdorpen, n.d.).
2.3.3 Schoonschip
This project is a citizens initiative consisting of 46 floating homes on one of the canals in the north of Amsterdam. There are 105 residents who collectively realized the project in a time span of around ten years. The aim of the project was to create an ecologically and socially sustainable neighborhood. The houses are self-sufficient, and the project uses many other sustainable innovations. (Schoonschipamsterdam).
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 MethodsThe two sub-questions have been answered through means of semi-structured interviews. The first sub-question is: What are the fundamental principles according to stakeholders of Dutch urban tiny house initiatives? The interviewees have been questioned on the
previously identified principles of degrowth. From what the respondents said regarding those topics, conclusions have been made about the relation between the two movements. The second sub-question is: How does the size of a house within a project affect its relation to degrowth principles? To answer this question, the respondents from the third case study (Schoonschip), which is not a tiny house initiative, were questioned on the same topic. This way, the two tiny house case studies and the third case study could be properly compared.
Through semi-structured interviews, stakeholders have been asked questions regarding their ideas, values, and experiences whilst also leaving space for other relevant topics should the interviewee’s answer have led to that.
The interviews have been conducted with the stakeholders identified for this research. These are the inhabitants of the three projects and founders. Some respondents can be qualified as both. The reason for this choice of interviewees is that the inhabitants may have different experiences with the project than what the intention of a founder was. They have been questioned about degrowth values as well to get clear answers on how those values relate to their situation. The founders have been questioned about both movements’ principles as well as they have more insight into the vision of the project as a whole.
3.2 Interviews
The interviews were semi-structured. This means there were open questions put up, but space was left for open discussions and conversation. This way, there will be more detail and depth in the answers of the interviewees (Blee & Taylor, 2002).
The interviews have been conducted face-to-face, through Zoom, and on the phone. Due to the pandemic, the interviewees preferred to talk online or via mobile phone, and in some cases, it was possible to sit outside and at a distance. According to Halperin & Heath (2017), face-to-face interviews are the best way to collect data through open-ended questions. Ideally, respondents answer the questions of the interviewer directly, with the opportunity to ask follow-up questions. In addition, the interviewer can directly clarify a question when needed and resolve other issues. In total, there have been ten interviews, of which four were inhabitants from the Tiny TIM’s in Haarlem, two founders and one future inhabitant from Dakdorpen in Rotterdam, and three were inhabitants from Schoonschip in Amsterdam. In the case of Dakdorpen, it was not possible to interview existing inhabitants as the first project is not yet fully finished. However, it was possible to interview someone who, once the pilot can start officially, will live on a rooftop in Rotterdam.
The questions for each initiative’s stakeholder differ a bit to suit the specific set-up of the project. However, the general set-up of questions was as much as possible the same for each initiative to ensure that they were compared fairly. Because the interviews were
and relevant information could be gathered from the interviews. The topics were based on degrowth housing principles and can be found in the operationalization table below.
Beforehand the interviewees have been asked to consent to sharing their knowledge and to be recorded in the interview. The inhabitants of the projects have not been named to ensure anonymity. The two founders of Dakdorpen have been asked permission to use their names in this research. The recorded interviews have been pragmatically transcribed. This means that the ‘uhm’s and the other irrelevant sounds have not been transcribed.
Furthermore, the interviews have been conducted in Dutch therefore, the quotes will not be the original quotes but have been translated by me personally.
3.2.1 Respondents
Three residents of the Tiny TIM project in Haarlem have been interviewed. They will be referred to in the results as T1, T2, and T3. T1 and T3 live alone, and T2 lives with their partner. The fourth interviewee functions as a groundskeeper at the location and lives in a prototype of the Tiny TIM house with their two dogs. They will be referred to as T4. The first respondent from Dakdorpen is Laurens van der Wal; he is the designer and chief sustainability of the team. The second is Renée Rooijmans, who was the first rooftop
resident of the country and a city anthropologist for the Dakdorpen team. The last is a future resident; they will be referred to as D1. The Schoonschip respondents are three residents who are were also involved in the development of the project as it was a citizens’ initiative. They will be referred to as S1, S2, and S3. S1 and S3 live with their family of four (two children), and S2 lives with their family of three (one child).
3.3 Analysis
The three case studies have been assessed on how they relate to degrowth housing principles by looking at social justice, simplicity and sufficiency, material and energy flows, the ecological impact of housing activities, favourability to democracy, and time.
The interviews have been analyzed and compared to each other to see what the similarities and differences are. Coding has also been used to find relevant parts of information,
according to the theoretical framework (Bryman, 2016). In this research, codes are based on the main principles of housing for degrowth to be able to know what the stakeholder's ideas are about those principles.
While analyzing the interviews, I have looked for certain topics, phrases, and words about the criteria of degrowth. This operationalization table is deducted from the theoretical framework stating the main principles of degrowth housing and the keywords linked to those principles. The keywords will be used in analyzing the data to find relevant information about principles of tiny house initiatives. According to what the respondents say about these topics, conclusions can be made about the tiny house initiatives’ principles and how they relate to those of degrowth housing
Chapter 4: Results
The result of the data collection will be presented here. Each chapter will discuss the results of each case-study about one degrowth principle.
4.1 Social Justice
In both tiny house initiatives the tiny houses were owner occupied. In the Tiny TIM project the houses cost around €111.000,-. The residents could not get a mortgage loan because the houses did not qualify as real estate. Therefore they had to use savings and/or get a personal loan which has a significantly higher interest rate. Two residents said they were able to loan money from friends and family. According to one resident, this makes it less accessible for a lot of people: “There is a lot of enthusiasm, but people drop out because they cannot get a mortgage for this” (T1). In the case of Dakdorpen the tiny houses for the pilot will be owner-occupied because the project does not have a budget yet to develop housing themselves. This means the residents will have to bring their own tiny house. One of the residents stated that they currently own a house which they will sell to buy a tiny house.
There are also financial benefits to the tiny houses. According to all four residents from Tiny TIM, the monthly costs are low which was an incentive to join the project. Renée from Dakdorpen also said there should be more affordable housing available and both Renée and Laurens hope to also develop tiny houses for the project in the future to rent out. “It would be a shame if tiny living were only possible for one specific target group, especially if that group would be rich people.” (Laurens). Renée also stated that “In the current state of the housing market there is no possibility to facilitate a flow in occupation.” She said that a lot of people live in houses that are too small or too big for them because there are so few options to adapt a space to someone’s need.
As for accessibility there are some barriers Dakdorpen may have for older people (lots of stairs) and large families (not a lot of space). According to Laurens these are challenges they
Principles Key words
Social justice Equity, affordability, accessibility, quality Simplicity and sufficiency Basic needs, size, efficiency of design,
community, open localism, simplicity Material and energy flows Type of materials, amount of materials,
electricity and water provision systems, energy, waste
Ecological impact of housing activities Type of housing, location of housing, influence on surroundings
Democracy Participation, community
activities/meetings, influence, control, communication.
will try to overcome in the future by adapting specific projects to the target group that will be living there.
The Schoonschip respondents all found the whole project rather expensive as they not only had to buy the house but also pay for the placing, the jetties and other extra costs. S3: “Going into this we thought we could buy a house for a relatively low price but that turned out to be different in practice.” and “In the beginning we though the price would be around €250.000,- but the actual price was closer to €450.000,- .“ Another aspect was the
uncertainty of the success of the project which made it quite risky for the residents to invest in it: “We were at a high financial risk to make this possible.” (T1).
For all three projects more people applied to be part of them than there were places. Therefore all three projects had to make a selection of residents. This selective process was different in each case. Tiny TIM and Dakdorpen both selected mainly on a first come, first serve base. Two Tiny TIM residents stated they were admitted later on in the project because there were no places available. According to T3 this might be due to people withdrawing from the project because of Covid-19: “I got waitlisted but I waited patiently and then the pandemic started and I got a call that there were places available so I guess people withdrew from the project.” They also stated that they had to write a motivation letter as to why they wanted to join the project and what their vision of the project was. According to D1 there were not a lot of applicants for the Dakdorpen pilot at first: “When Renée posted a message looking for interested people, around five people came to the meeting.” Renée mentioned that she finds it important that the applicants they selected would match as they would be living together. In the case of Schoonschip all three residents explain that the group consists mostly of friends, relatives and acquaintances of the
initiators. There was also space for other people to join but they had to be selected. S2 claims that they were selected because they are a bit older than the average age of the group so that would increase the diversity a little bit and because they were already involved in sustainable living as they have a “green” childcare centre. However they said that the group is rather homogeneous as most people are in their thirties with young children, white and because the initiators work in television, most people work in that sector too. According to T2 the group of people at Tiny TIM is not very diverse either. The majority of the
community is female and white.
4.2 Simplicity and sufficiency
In most interviews with tiny house dwellers simplicity and sufficiency are mentioned as incentives to moving to a tiny house. T1 and T3 both stated they were looking for a smaller living space because they felt they needed less space to live than they were currently in and they needed less possessions to live happily. T3 told about a pilgrimage they walked with only a backpack: “Humans do not really need a lot to be happy”. They also stated that they enjoyed being outside for three-and-a-half months. They compared tiny living with
“luxurious camping”. T1 also said they do not need a lot of space of possessions to be happy: “It is simply big enough for me.” T2 and T4 were already familiar with living in a small space as they have experience living in a canteen and a camper respectively. T2 even said:“It (tiny living) was familiar to me and the canteen was even more primitive so this tiny house is kind of luxurious.” In the transition from a ‘regular’ sized house to a tiny house, three out of four residents declared they had to sell and give away most of their belongings. All of them also admitted they had some trouble with that but felt good about it in the end. T2 has a second
small house in France where they store some things and a workplace which also gives them extra storage. All four of the respondents claimed they have (almost) no trouble with not buying new things either because they do not need them and do not have space for them. Renée, who has experience living in a tiny house on a rooftop, stated she did not find it very difficult to live with less things but also admitted she had a shared workplace where she could store her belongings. D1 said they would not mind to sell or give away a lot of their possessions: “What do I do with all those things in my house? It makes me feel restless.” D1 also mentioned that they will likely purchase a Wikkelhouse as a tiny house because they are adaptable in size.
Because Schoonschip is not a tiny house project, the residents declared they did not need to ‘downsize’ when moving to this house. The three respondents live on an approximately 110m2. S1 said they would even have liked the possibility to expand in size in the future
should they have another child. S2 and S3 however said they find the space rather large and luxurious in size. Also S3 stated that they had to sell their car because there was no space for it.
Sharing certain possessions and utilities was also a commonly talked about in the interviews. At the Tiny TIM they already share tools and waste bins and T1 and T3 are talking about sharing a car together in the future. The Dakdorpen team also thinks that the pilot and future projects will share tools and utilities and the residents will share green space and hopefully have some space to cultivate crops on.
The Schoonschip project has electric cars and bicycles for residents to share. They also share a food garden. S3 said the group was however unwilling to share utilities. S2 stated that most people at Schoonschip are very invested in new and alternative ways to make their consumption more sustainable rather than to simply lower their consumption: “I think a lot of people here believe you can preserve your consumption pattern but make it ‘smarter’ with innovation and we do not agree with that.”
Furthermore, T1 and T2 of Tiny TIM preferred to buy their groceries from local farmers directly instead of from the supermarket. Both because it is more biological and because it produces less waste. T4 also mentioned they prefer food produced locally or at least in the Netherlands: “When I buy apples in the supermarket I see apples for example from Morocco and I think to myself, but we have apples too right? Why should an apple travel by plane?”. Moreover T1 has started their own vegetable garden to be able to provide for themselves.
4.3 Material and energy flows
The tiny TIM houses are made primarily of wood. They have a rainwater collection system. The water is then purified by a green wall of plants on the side of the tiny house. Inside the house there is a tank which purifies the water to make it usable for everyday use and a heat tank for warm water supply. Officially it is not considered drinking water because it is illegal in the Netherlands to make your own drinking water but it was tested and is save to drink. The water is heated with solar energy from the solar panels covering the south side of the tiny house. Everything in the house is electric and runs on electricity from the solar panels. There are small batteries to store the energy won during the day to also work at night. In winter the houses have some trouble with having enough energy to heat the house or water so the tiny houses have had to connect to the emergency plug for a few days and some of
them have a back-up radiator. The tiny house is well isolated and has large glass doors facing south which helps heat the house. T1: “Even when there was snow outside, the sun warmed the house through the glass doors and heated my house without a radiator to 22 degrees.” Additionally the Tiny TIM’s have a composting toilet. However it cannot be composted because the composting takes two years at least and there is no certainty that they will be able stay there for that long.
T2 mentioned they: “Really like experimenting with living self-sufficiently and it is a shame we are not yet fully self-sufficient all year long…” they refer here to being connected to the plug in winter “…but we are trying to find a way to fix that.” They also explained that living in a tiny house with two people instead of alone influences but does not double the energy use or water use. The other residents also declared they like being self-sufficient and it
contributed to their enthusiasm for the project but they also say they would have joined the project if the houses were not self-sufficient.
In addition to the emergency plug, the residents had some complains about the water system as are still many complications with its operation. T4 stated they: “have never seen a plumber come by this often.”
As for waste, they share a composting pile for regular compost. Two people stated they are careful with chemical waste and as said before they share garbage bins to separate their waste.
Lastly a few respondents said it would have been good if they were able to connect to the grid to be able to give abundant solar power back. However they also they understand that it would be too large of an investment to connect them as their location will likely be changing in the near future.
In the case of Dakdorpen, Renée explained it is important for the tiny houses to be
lightweight because the construction of the host building has to be able to carry the weight. D1 said that they find it important the tiny house is self-sufficient because it makes them feel more independent and free from their energy provider: “I feel like I have such little grip on the situation with a large company who just send you bills.” Laurens also mentioned that the project can have a positive effect on the host buildings’ energy use because a green roof functions very good as isolation and cooling. As mentioned before D1 will likely buy a Wikkelhouse which are made primarily of biodegradable materials.
As for Schoonschip there are different remarks about the material and energy flows. In general the project is self-sufficient in energy by using solar panels for electricity and heat pumps and an aqua-thermic system to heat the houses. The houses are also very well isolated and have a partial green roof for extra isolation. On top of that all the houses of the project are connected through a smart-grid which enables them to exchange electricity when needed. Between them they only have one connection to the national grid. All houses also have a battery to store surplus. Furthermore ‘regular’ sized detached houses clearly use more material than tiny houses.
S1 said they had a lot of choices they could make themselves about the design and materials of their house. This enabled them to choose sustainable materials. According to S3 it would have probably been more efficient and sustainable if it were one large building they shared together. S2 also stated they think the design, materials and energy systems could have been a lot more sustainable and efficient. Firstly, S2 said the regulations in place nowadays make it very difficult to make the most sustainable choices. Secondly, S2 mentioned the
construction the houses float on are made of concrete. Thirdly, according to S1 and S2 the systems are not working properly yet. For example the toilet has stopped working a couple of times already. Lastly, S2 believes the smart-grid system is more complicated than
necessary.
4.4 Ecological impact of housing activities
There are a few important aspects about the impact housing has on the environment. Firstly the location of the project is important to consider. Tiny TIM is located on wasteland. The school that used to be there was demolished and before the build of the next building starts the space is unused. Therefore, no new space was needed to place the tiny houses. Dakdorpen is similar because the space they use to place the tiny houses are rooftops which were not purposely being used before. Thus, the tiny houses will not take up any new space either. Schoonschip also does not take up new space on land however they use blue (water) space which may decrease the habitat of birds and other flora and fauna.
All respondents from all three case-studies declared to be very happy about being able to live in a city with green and/or blue space surrounding them.
Secondly, the type of housing is important. Tiny houses are by definition small and because they are small they take up less space. It is therefore easier to incorporate tiny houses into (urban) green space without taking away too much habitat for biodiversity, as is the case for Tiny TIM. Dakdorpen not only preserves urban green space by taking up non-green space, they will also increase urban green space by adding green roofs in between the tiny houses. This has a positive influence on biodiversity and on urban heat stress. Laurens stated that an important goal of the project is to: “Balance what you create for people and what you create for nature.” Schoonschip consists of larger but also more houses. Consequently they take up more space than the tiny house projects do. However all three project are or aim to be largely self-sufficient which decreases their ecological impact as well.
Thirdly, the three case-studies all have small projects which influence their natural environment as well. Tiny TIM has beehives on their land which the dwellers care for together. Dakdorpen aims to create shared rooftop gardens in addition to the green roof to be able to cultivate fruits, vegetables and herbs. Schoonschip is also working on creating good conditions for the biodiversity around them to thrive. S2: “We notice there are a lot of bee and wasp populations around us and the birds and bats are making nests in the niches we have created.”
Another way housing has had an ecological impact is through the consumption patterns and awareness of the residents. Whereas most respondents claim to have been trying to live consciously since before they were living in a tiny house or at Schoonschip, others say some aspects of their consumption patterns have been changed. T2 stated they have to be even more frugal with buying new clothing for example because they simple do not have room for more. S3 said they buy more things secondhanded and they are more conscious in general but they are not sure whether that is the case because of Schoonschip or if it is just a simultaneous development. T1 however claimed Schoonschip has been a positive influence on their consciousness. They explained: “The interesting thing about living in Schoonschip is that we are a large group of open minded people and everyone who lives here has their own passion and interest. Their knowledge about those interests is shared which is very inspiring and educational.” They continued to give an example of how they know more about the
fauna surrounding them. S2 said something similar about being inspired by the knowledge of some neighbours about the flora and fauna of the canal they are living on.
4.5 Democracy
As mentioned in the theoretical framework, there are rather strict regulations (tiny houses) need to abide by. Especially finding a location for a tiny house proves to be quite difficult. The Tiny TIM residents declared they were happy they were able to join a project that was already approved by the municipality and arranged a location for them.
Laurens from Dakdorpen said the current housing system is not yet properly facilitating projects like Dakdorpen yet. Renée declared there are many rules they have to follow and many permits they need to be able to realise the pilot. All those permits and their requests have to be handled by different people which makes it a time-consuming process.
There are also a lot of stakeholders involved in the project. Renée stressed the importance of proper communication between those people. In her opinion, inhabitants of the city should also have more participation in shaping the city. She thinks if people had the feeling that the city belongs to them rather than they just live in it, they will also have a greater feeling of responsibility. This can lead to better care of public space.
D1 also stated that: “It is time to give other types of housing a chance.” And “I think there are many people who have ideas with a lot of potential but the bureaucracy is stuck in the current system of developing large buildings wherever they can, which is a shame because I think there are a lot better solutions for tackling housing shortage.”
Schoonschip started as a citizens’ initiative and during the process more and more people participated. In total the project taken ten years to realise. S1 said that there were many learning curves along the way and they had to deal with a lot of fiscal affairs. In the end the project was the first of its kind so if they were to do it again it could have been more efficient and less time-consuming. In addition they said it was quite difficult to get more than a
hundred people on the same page.
The democracy within a project is very important as well. At Tiny TIM there are at the
moment 9 households with 11 people. Generally all four residents said the same thing about the dynamic of the group: they are happy to be part of a community and it is very helpful to have neighbours who are in the same situation as you are, but they are also happy about the freedom and privacy the give each other. For practical purposes they come together
sometimes to talk about the beehives, the shared living space and other activities related to the project but there are no obligations. According to T3 they are also “in the process of establishing an association to represent our common interests and also to save together for any costs of a relocation and such.” Additionally they imagine as they are all getting older, they can look out for each other and: “When I or someone makes a big pot of soup, we tell each other to be welcome to get a bowl.”
The pilot of Dakdorpen will consist of 3 houses and 4 people. It is considerably smaller which makes it even more important to make sure the residents match. Renée said she carefully picked out participants for their pilot who all fit the project but are also very different from each other. D1 admitted they find it very important to get along with the other dwellers because they share quite a small space and likely some utilities too. They have not met each other yet so D1 hopes they can get along well.
The community at Schoonschip is one of their most significant characteristics. There are 46 households and 105 inhabitants. S1 says there is a lot of communication between them. They have monthly meetings, several workgroups with a certain theme and one shared space to use for activities. According to S3 there are no obligations but enough opportunities for people to participate in activities. They did say that it is somewhat expected that at least someone from the household attends them. Additionally they said not everyone is equally involved. S2 also said the group is very social and almost everyone participates in at least one workgroup. They did however feel a bit controlled sometimes. There is no anonymity on the jetties but that also makes it very intimate.
4.6 Time
Time is experience differently by many tiny house dwellers. On the one hand, the tiny houses need more time to manage technically but there is less time needed for
housekeeping as the space is so small. On top of that T1 mentioned they are adapting more to the natural day and night time rhythm because of the solar energy. Some things they normally did at night they now do during the day because there is more electricity available during the day. On the other the residents declared they have a lot more free time. For some this also was an incentive to live tiny. They explained that when your monthly expenses decrease, you also need less income which gives you the freedom to work less and have more time for other aspects of your life. For T4 this has always been an incentive to live simple. They said they love their freedom and works as little as possible to have as much time as possible for their priorities in life. T1, T3 and D1 also stated they wanted to change from having to work all the time to be able to afford a living space that they did not need to having enough and having more freedom. T2 mentioned they were planning to work less but in reality they still liked working the same amount of time.
Renée, S2 and S3 mainly said that they do not necessarily have more time rather but they use their free time a little differently. For Renée the difference was spending more time outside and appreciating nature. For S2 the same applied and S3 said they spend more time participating in community activities and caring for their neighbourhood.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
5.1 DiscussionTo answer the question how the urban tiny house principles relate to degrowth principles, two sub-questions have been introduced. What are the fundamental principles according to stakeholders of Dutch urban tiny house initiatives? And: How does the size of a house within a project affect its relation to degrowth principles?
Regarding the first, it was expected that urban tiny house principles would be quite similar to those of degrowth and minimalism. That expectation was largely correct as the
respondents mentioned a lot of the same values about each topic as was explained in the theoretical framework about degrowth housing. Some results were unexpected. For all projects, it became clear they are still in quite an experimental phase. Especially the technical complications of energy and water systems became evident through multiple interviews. Additionally, the processes before the tiny houses are operational were, according to the residents of both cases and the team of Dakdorpen, very time-consuming and complicated.
The second sub-question compares the case studies. For this comparison, it was important that except for the size of the houses, the project would have to be quite similar. What was surprising was that the three respondents had very different opinions on some topics. This made it somewhat more difficult to compare the results with those of the tiny house cases.
There are some points to discuss the influence of the methods on the results.
Firstly, the respondents are representative of the tiny house project they are part of. However, it would have been more complete research if more or even all the residents of the projects would have been interviewed. Nonetheless, the residents were able to give sufficient knowledge and input to be able to draw conclusions. In addition, the respondents from Tiny TIM and Schoonschip were all residents. The respondents of Dakdorpen, however, were two team members and one future resident. Team members behind a project may envision a project differently than how residents experience the project. This may have reflected in their answers.
Secondly, the projects are all very much in the experimental phase and in the case of Dakdorpen, even not yet existent. This might have presented itself in the answers through preliminary conclusions or opinions of some residents. On the other hand, it would not have been possible to do the same research with already existing urban tiny house initiatives because other projects in the Netherlands are not much older than the chosen case studies. Moreover, residents from the different case studies framed the process as a learning curve that paves the way for new projects and potential upscaling of the same projects. This was an interesting finding as the respondents also claimed they experience a lot of enthusiasm for projects like these.
Thirdly, the comparison between the two tiny house case studies and Schoonschip. The case studies are all very different in form, location, and size. Schoonschip, for example has 46 households compared to the 10 and 3 households of Tiny TIM and Dakdorpen, respectively. Furthermore, Schoonschip is a citizens’ initiative that organizes itself a bit different than having an external team set up the project and later find residents who are willing to participate.
Lastly and most importantly: the household sizes between the tiny house initiatives and Schoonschip differ quite a bit. The interviewees from Schoonschip were two households of four and one household of three people. These were compared to the four households of one and one household of two from the tiny house projects. For some topics like material flows and sufficiency, this could affect the interpretation of the results. To elaborate: living on 110m2 is a lot more than living on 27m2. But if the first houses a household of four people, this is almost the same m2 per person as the latter house, which houses only one person.
5.1.1. Recommendations
For further research, it might be useful to research the same case studies a few years in the future. This could give interesting observations about the impact of urban tiny house initiatives in the Netherlands. Furthermore, it could examine the possibility and potential of upscaling the projects to more locations. Another potential research subject could be to compare tiny houses with other forms of degrowth housing. Lastly, it might be interesting to examine the effects of urban tiny house initiatives on the urban climate or densification.
5.2 Conclusion
To answer the research question: ‘How do guiding principles of Dutch urban tiny house initiatives relate to degrowth principles?’ conclusions have been drawn from the results. In general, there were similarities between degrowth principles and the principles of Dutch urban tiny house initiatives as stated by the stakeholders of the case studies.
Mainly on the criteria of simplicity & sufficiency, material & energy flows, and ecological impact of housing activities, the tiny house initiatives scored high. Simplicity was overall an incentive of the residents to live tiny, as was self-sufficiency, green space, and more free time. The latter is the result of having lower monthly costs and thus less need to work long hours. However, the purchase of a tiny house proved to be rather difficult, which has a negative influence on the affordability value of the social justice principle.
The communities of the tiny house projects were very much present but not as strong as degrowth housing aspires to be. In addition, there was a deeper democracy within the community but not on a larger scale.
Another remarkable result was that most of the residents had a recurring theme of consciousness in their lifestyle previous to tiny living. This adds to the similar simplicity & sufficiency principle and the time principle.
According to the comparison between the tiny house projects and Schoonschip, size is a definite factor in whether the initiatives’ principles are similar to those of degrowth. Especially the simplicity & sufficiency principle and the time principle were different
between the cases. The size of a house directly relates to the value of simplicity, and the low costs of tiny houses create the opportunity to work less and have more free time.
Additionally, people living in tiny houses seem to be more open to sharing possessions facilities and adhere to frugal consumption.
The one principle of Schoonschip, which relates to degrowth more than the tiny house projects, is democracy. The community of Schoonschip is more productive and operational than the tiny house communities.
Chapter 6: References
Blee, K. M., & Taylor, V. (2002). Semi-structured interviewing in social movement research. Methods
of social movement research, 16, 92-117.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press.
CBS, PBL, RIVM, WUR (2020). Wonen binnen bestaand bebouwd gebied, 2000 - 2019. Retrieved from:
https://www.clo.nl/indicatoren/nl2012-woningbouw-binnen-bebouwd-gebied?ond=20902
CBS. (2020). Waar groeit of krimpt de bevolking? Retrieved from:
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/dossier/dossier-verstedelijking/hoofdcategorieen/waar-groeit-of-krimpt-de-bevolking-
Crawford, R. H., & Stephan, A. (2020, November). Tiny house, tiny footprint? The potential for tiny houses to reduce residential greenhouse gas emissions. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science (Vol. 588, No. 2, p. 022073). IOP Publishing.
Dakdorpen (n.d.) Visualisatie voor pitch 2016 [illustration]. Retrieved from:
https://dakdorpen.nl/media-impressies
Dakdorpen. (n.d). Duurzaam verdichten & vergroenen van de stad. Retrieved from:
https://dakdorpen.nl/
Föllmi, H.P. (2017, 18 July). Tiny TIM Zomer Nieuws. Retrieved from:
https://www.tinytimhouse.nl/tiny-tim-zomer-nieuws/
Ford, J., & Gomez‐Lanier, L. (2017). Are tiny homes here to stay? A review of literature on the tiny house movement. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 45(4), 394-405.
Halperin, S., & Heath, O. (2017). Political Research. Oxford University Press.
Harris, T. (2018). The tiny house movement: Challenging our consumer culture. Rowman & Littlefield. Jonker, M. (2018, 17 Augustus). Uitslag Tiny House Nederland enquête 2018. Retrieved from:
https://tinyhousenederland.nl/uitslag-tiny-house-nederland-enquete-2018/
Kraniotis, L. (2021, 17 februari). Schreeuwend tekort aan woningen, wat moet eraan gedaan worden? Retrieved from:
https://nos.nl/artikel/2369109-schreeuwend-tekort-aan-woningen-wat-moet-eraan-gedaan-worden.html
Mangold, S., & Zschau, T. (2019). In search of the “Good Life”: The appeal of the tiny house lifestyle in the USA. Social Sciences, 8(1), 26.
Metabolic (January 2020). Assessing all materials consumed for building in the Netherlands. Retrieved from:
https://www.metabolic.nl/projects/assessing-materials-consumed-for-building-in-the-netherlands/
Nelson, A., & Schneider, F. (Eds.). (2018). Housing for degrowth: Principles, models, challenges and
Schneider, F. , G. Kallis , and J. Martinez-Alier . 2010. “Crisis or Opportunity? Economic Degrowth for Social Equity and Ecological Sustainability. Introduction to This Special Issue.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 18 (6): 511–518.
Schoonschipamsterdam. (n.d.) De meest duurzame drijvende wijk van Europa ontwikkeld door
bewoners. Retrieved from: https://schoonschipamsterdam.org/
UN. (n.d.). Sustainable cities and communities. Retrieved from:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/
Mete, S., & Xue, J. (2020). Integrating environmental sustainability and social justice in housing development: Two contrasting scenarios. Progress in Planning, 100504.
Tiny House Nederland (n.d.) Wat zijn Tiny Houses (niet)? Retrieved from:
https://tinyhousenederland.nl/ik-wil-tiny/wat-zijn-tiny-houses/
Kees, D. and Haffner, M. (2010) Housing Statistics in the European Union. September. OTB Research Institute for the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology. The Hague: Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations
van Montfort, C. J., Schulz, M., Metze, T., Wijdeven, T., Brandsen, T., Helderman, J. K., ... & Montfort, C. V. (2014). Voorbij de waan van de dag. Over mogelijke toekomsten voor de sociale huisvesting in
Nederland.
Schilder, F., & Scherpenisse, R. (2018). Policy and practice: affordable housing in the Netherlands. Den Haag: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving.
Olivier, J., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Muntean, M. and Peters, J. (2014) Trends in Global CO2 Emissions: 2014 Report. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Ispra: European Commission, Joint Research Centre.
Homestratosphere (n.d.) The History and Evolution of Tiny Homes. Retrieved from:
https://www.homestratosphere.com/tiny-homes-history/
Nonko, E. (2017, 19 July) A Tiny House Movement Timeline. Retrieved from:
https://archive.curbed.com/2017/7/19/15974554/tiny-house-timeline
Marjoleininhetklein (2019, 1 July). Tiny Houses en het Bouwbeleid. Retrieved from:
https://www.marjoleininhetklein.com/2019/07/01/tiny-houses-en-het-bouwbesluit/
Duindam, K. (n.d.). Waar mag je een Tiny House plaatsen? Retrieved from:
https://tinyhouselife.nl/waar-tiny-house-plaatsen
Chapter 7: Appendix
Results per case-study
Tiny TIM’s T1 T2 T3 T4
Social justice • Generally
more affordable • Low monthly costs • no mortgage possible because it is not real estate • around €111.000,- to buy • high interest for a personal loan • respondent had a lot of savings and got a loan from a friend • Low monthly costs • Not having to build it themselves • Like-minded group of people • More vulnerable to crime • Selective process of getting into the project • Loans from friends • Low monthly costs • No monthly costs due to complications • Prototype tiny house • No security of housing in the near future
Simplicity & sufficiency • Enough space • A lot of outside space • Selling/giving away belonings to “downsize” • Having no more than needed • Not buying new things • Sharing for example tools with neighbours • A lot of experience with alternative living • Need for less
space due to 2nd house in
France • Great location
in the city near water
• They rent a workspace to store and use electricity when needed • Getting rid of heritage belongings • Old things have to make place for new things
• Not needing a lot, easy to live with few things • Make life simpler • No need for luxury • Had to sell and give away most possessions • Hopes to share cars • No desire to get new things • No need to buy new things (so often) • Peaceful and quiet location • Is used to living in a camper • Lot of storage • Does not have/need a lot of belongings
Material & energy flows • Rainwater collection • Electrical water purification system for rainwater and recycled water • Solar panels • Composting toilet (which cannot be composted because it takes at least 2 years • Not able to give surplus “back” • Good isolation • Large glass doors facing South • Happy about having their own power • Difficult in winter to have enough power • Tiny houses can be put on an emergency plug in winter • Still some trouble with the water installation • Probably some maintenance for the exterior (wood) • sceptical about condition of the house in 10 years • After two weeks no batteries yet for the solar power • When it does
not rain they have no water • Set lay-out • Sharing
waste bins
• Did not have water • Toilet is not operational • Plumber visits the tiny houses a lot • Thinks water system is more complicated than necessary
Ecol. Impact Housing activ. • Composting green waste • Winter need for a back-up radiator • Creating own vegetable garden • Buying food directly from farmers nearby • Beekeeping • Does not take up new space • Careful with (chemical) waste • Living with two increases the usage a little bit but not twice as much • Buying food directly from farmers nearby • Putting on warmer clothes in winter instead of radiator • Bee-keeping • No washing machine • No chemical waste (in water) • Very good location: city and close to the sea • • Wants to go back to local economies • Is quite handy so can do a lot of repairing himself
Democracy • Min. 10 and Max. 15 years security of location • Neighbours helping each other with technical issues • Working together to create living space • No obligations within the group • Choosing
place for tiny house within area on FCFS base • Having your own space • No obligations • Potential for spontaneous activities together • Helping each other with problems related to the tiny house • No nuisance • No need to discuss everything • Difficult to find
place for tiny house • • Not like a commune • In the process of establishing an association to represent our common interests and also to save together for any costs of a relocation and such • Potentially eating together • Is the unofficial groundkeeper • Group of people in the same situation Time • Spending more time outside • Working less • More free time for hobbies • Adapting to tiny house timetable • More time to play music • Plans for working less and retirement • Less time working • More time to spend outside • More time spend caring for the house, less time for housekeeping • More time alone • Has always valued free time and freedom more than working hard and having a lot of money
Dakdorpen Renee Laurens D1 Social Justice • Potential for
upscaling living space in Rotterdam • There should be more affordable housing
• Need for change in housing occupation • Helping decrease housing shortage • Better accessible to max. of two people for one tiny house • Less accessible if
people have to bring own house because
expensive • Rooftop is less
accessible for older people
• Great location in the city • Have to buy own house • Wikkelhouse is only
groundfloor which is good for older age • Stairs to rooftop might
be a problem later on • Selling current house to
pay for the wikkelhouse
Simplicity & Sufficiency • Shared her belongings with others • People need to bring/buy own tiny house • Wikkelhouse: adaptable to need
• Sharing the green space, facilities, etc. • Smaller households need less space • Architectural downsizing is uncommon • Sharing facilities
• Do not need so many possessions
• Too many belongings give unrest
• Less monthly costs
Material & Energy Flows
• Tiny houses need to be lightweight • Focusing on existing buildings • Increasing value of existing buildings • Using sustainable materials • Buying a Wikkelhouse which are made from cardboard and they are adaptable in size
Ecol. Impact Housing Activ.
• Increasing green space in the city • Green roof
positive effect on energy use of the host buidling
• Increasing green space in the city, increasing living space and generating income for rooftop owners • Positive influence biodiversity • Balancing creating space for people and nature
• Hopes to be energy self-sufficient to be more independent
Democracy • A lot of different
stakeholders involved in the project
• Need for good communication with them • Feeling of responsibility for the city • Living in a community together on a rooftop • Dependent on other parties • System is not facilitating these projects easily yet
• Important to get along with other residents • Prefers small group • Important to make
agreements
• Time to give space to these kinds of projects
Time • Feeling
connected with nature and the city
• Taking care of living
environment
• More peace and quiet • Working less
• More time for
Schoonschi p S1 S2 S3 Social Justice • Quite expensive • Many investment s • High risks • Lower monthly costs • Had to be selected for the project based on lifestyle and motivation • A lot of the same
people: around 30, white, working in television or architecture • Had to know the
initiators to get into the project
• Plan was to make it partly more
affordable
• Got into the project via friends
• Thought it would be less expensive
• Collective costs
• Would feel guilty to have a large house due to
shortage
Simplicity & Sufficiency
• Location in the city and water • Still a lot of space • would have liked to be able to expand in the future • no yard • a lot of outdoor space
• Turned out larger than planned • Frugal use of
products
• No need for a lot of things
• People are so busing trying to find ways for alternative consumption instead of less/no consumption
• Attracted to sustainable living, water and own design, in the city • Had to sell car
• People did want to have own household facilties (washer)
• Quite luxurious housing still
• Buying less new things, still more than needed
Material & Energy Flows • Maybe not as efficiently as possible because it is the 1st • Many choices about material and design • Almost self-sufficient • Sustainable materials
• Could have been a lot more
sustainable • A lot of
complications with energy and water provision systems
• There is a shared space for activities or meetings • Obvious to prefer
sustainable housing • But there are many other
more sustainable housing types
• Give electricity back to the grid Ecol. Impact Housing Activ. • Sharing things with neighbours • Car sharing • Be aware of chemicals and the water
• Shared food garden
• Car sharing out of necessity
• More conscious about consumption
