Green Calgary

Smart But Illegal?? - Small House Living

Reader Question

Hi Ashley,

My husband and I have become infatuated with small, or in some cases tiny, houses. The prospect of having a small, yet livable, freestanding home with a yard that was actually affordable is something that we’re sure most people haven’t dreamt of. We sure hadn’t. There are plenty of interesting stories and blogs on tiny houses out there but most are American and we certainly haven’t seen anything for Calgary. We understand that in some places it’s illegal to build a house under so many square feet – usually something like 1,000 – but do these restrictions apply to Calgary or the rest of Canada? If so, why would anyone care what size of house you wanted to live in?

Hoping to live tiny,

Amanda and Curtis

Ashley's Answer

Hello Amanda and Curtis,

There isn’t a topic in this world (perhaps other than war) that better demonstrates our astonishing ability to misallocate resources than housing. How something as fundamentally simple as shelter could be implicated in an economic and ecological crisis is hard to imagine, but from the greedy banks and ill-sighted governments that created the sub-prime mortgage collapse to the shoddily-built resource-hungry over-priced houses plopped down in neighbourhoods only accessible by cars, we’ve arrived in this place. But in all this chaos and confusion, we discover a silver lining – the tiny house movement.

Now before I launch into a discussion about tiny houses I think it’s worth noting some interesting, if not peculiar, trends with regards to housing over the past 70 or so years. We’ve seen a steady drop in family size since WWII, yet according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., the average Canadian house size has increased from 800 square feet in 1945 to well over 2,200 today. And somehow or another, Canadians are also supporting an $8 billion a year self-storage industry to store the toys and knick-knacks that won’t fit in their growing houses. This, I think it’s fair to say, is a little ridiculous given our current financial and ecological debt crisis.

When it comes to evaluating our ability to live within the natural limits of our planet, there is no better measure than the ecological footprint, which, according to the Global Footprint Network, is the measure “how much land and water area a human population requires to produce the resource it consumes and to absorb its carbon dioxide emissions, using prevailing technology.” When it comes to housing, the ecological footprint is overwhelmingly influenced by two main factors – house size and location. Think about it. The bigger a house, the more materials it takes to build - more lumber, more wiring, more plumbing, more shingles, more everything. It also takes more energy to heat and cool them, light them up, and, without question, it’s going to take a heck of a lot more stuff to make them feel “homey”. When you consider the location of a house – both relative to amenities and work, and to the sun – you begin to see how this factors into energy use. The fewer trips made by car the less gasoline you’ll burn. And when you have a well-insulated house with windows facing the sun and mass to absorb that heat, you begin to see how this might affect how much natural gas you need to burn to stay comfortable. Houses that face the street regardless of where the sun rises or sets is simply ludicrous, and I’d argue irresponsible, in an age of climate change and peak oil.

So this is where we get back to one possible solution – smaller houses. Seems logical enough, doesn’t it? But as you said, Amanda and Curtis, in many places, particularly in so-called developed nations, there are restrictions on how small a house can be; not how big a house can be but how small. Protecting public health, safety and accessibility is the stated purpose of the National Building Code of Canada that shapes Canada’s residential construction. It contains such rules as, “Living areas within dwelling units, either as separate rooms or in combination with other spaces, shall have an area not less than 13.5 m2 (145.312 ft2).” The Code also stipulates minimum kitchen (3.7m2/39.83ft2), bedroom (9.8m2/105.49ft2), and dining room (7m2/75.35ft2) sizes and notes that space must be made for a toilet and shower and/or bathtub in the residence.

It’s important to note that the National Building Code of Canada is just the minimum building requirement and in many cases there are other factors that limit a person’s freedom to build a smaller home. For example, in the Calgary community of Britannia a caveat exists that states, “…Each single family dwelling house shall occupy a ground area of at least 1,400 sq. ft…” These caveats vary from place to place and are major barriers to building small, sustainable housing.

The question remains, why does anyone care what size of house a person wants to live in? And how does having a 105.49 square foot bedroom protect a person? And how does limiting a person’s freedom to build a small home increase accessibility – a stated objective of the National Building Code of Canada? While much that is written in the code is good practice, limiting the size of a home seems only to help maintain the status quo, while protecting banks from the “liability” associated with a small house in the event a person defaults on his or her mortgage. These inane limitations have driven many people seeking healthy, sensible, and affordable housing to come up with some innovative ways to get around these restrictions.

Jay Shafer, founder of Tumbleweed Tiny House Company, has been leading the charge in the tiny house movement. Living in an 89 square foot home on wheels – a common tactic to get around crippling building restrictions – for 12 years, Jay has inspired a new way of thinking about housing, space and affordability. Built with all the modern-day amenities of a typical home, these tiny homes can be built for as little as $20,000. Jay writes, “The simple, slower lifestyle my homes have afforded is a luxury for which I am continually grateful.” He sells plans for both small and tiny homes, gives seminars on how people can take a step in this direction, and he’s also encouraging others to help him challenge the restrictions on house size imposed by the International Building Code and other governing bodies. The tiny house movement is truly revolutionary and even if the majority of people aren’t keen on the idea of living in 89 square feet, it challenges the status quo and raises the question, “How much is enough?”

This is a precarious time in human history and we are facing many confounding challenges. It would seem that we need as many solutions as we muster and limiting creativity through excessive building codes is only making a recovery more onerous. Let’s band together and support, even encourage, this type of positive activity. If we are to vilify anything it should be excess, not simplicity!

For those wanting to learn more about tiny homes and tiny living, visit tinyhouseblog.com. I’d also highly recommend the book Little House on a Small Planet: Simple Homes, Cozy Retreats, and Energy Efficient Possibilities
 by Shay Salomon. It’s full of creative ideas and case studies for those looking for a little inspiration.

In support of small,

Ashley

Post to Twitter Share on Facebook