It's a simple example of how the "tiny house movement" complements green living principles. What you have is an accessible system that helps a person take a contrarian view to "supersized" houses and go the other way by cutting down.
The result is the creation of small, ingenious, DIY-friendly, utilitarian and eco-friendly homes. I myself have built and lived in dozens of such tiny houses (micro houses) for up to a month.
They all had electricity, plumbing, biofuel for cooking and wireless internet. A lot of these settlements were in California, Arizona and Texas.
http://tinyhouse.ellsed.com
Once built, a house could last a hundred or even three hundred years so building new homes is already not green except that you have the choice to design in more efficient features at the start, one of which may be a small size. About 75% of a home's energy use is for heating and cooling so insulation helps a lot and that can always be retrofitted in. A factor that would be more important for being green would be the commute and this also has a significant impact on the stress you will experience in life.
I remember seeing a home of the month design in Popular Science back in the 70's or 80's where it was modular, you built a wing at a time, when completed, it was basically four buildings joined together leaving a courtyard in the middle.
I will say yes and no to your question. Yes because what Clearwater said above. No for practically, because a tiny house is just that, tiny. A better approach would be to have a little bit larger house in the 500 to 1000 sq ft range. A house this size is small enough to keep bills down and large enough to "grow" with the family. Clearwater, you stated that you've lived in one of these houses for up to a month, try living in one of them for a lifetime. I've camped in a tent for a month and that was ok but seriously doubt that any family would want to live in one for a lifetime.
Yees
They look like fancy dog houses.
no it is to show how your life is,worthless
