The current normalised notion of a minimum viable dwelling suitable for human habitation is of a static structure, erected on a dedicated plot of land, and valued as a single entity several times the median, let alone minimum, income. There are viable alternatives available, but they’re typically framed as esoteric anomalies in the context of social housing and welfare.
The concept below proposes an alternative system which builds upon two core components:
and three foundational principals:
A core function of this concept is to define a common, well known and well understood entity. Broadly, I propose this to be a structure sufficient to provide, at a minimum, subsistence shelter for an average, able-bodied adult citizen. The resultant dwelling should prove viable with no intrinsic time constraint.
A physical representation would fit within, or collapse down to, the dimensions of a standard 20' shipping container, 20’ long, 8’ wide, 8.5’ high. The rationale for this maps to the portability requirement, as doing so would leverage the extensive logistics infrastructure currently available to assist with and facilitate easy relocation as required.
The use of existing container designs is not intended as the stock to build the structures from, as the remediation required to restore structural integrity typically proves onerous, and complicates transportation. A starting point would however take advantage of existing platform or ‘flat rack’ designs, as they provide an open frame with the appropriate ISO 1161 anchor points. As the concept develops further and matures, iterations are expected to identify and incorporate standard conduit routing channels to facilitate plumbing, wiring and other functions.
The second major component defines how the plot should be prepared to be suitable for a dwelling. This would include a stable foundation, easy vehicle access or other mechanical handling for delivery and retrieval, common utility routing and hookup locations, and ease of maintenance.
The requirements will be varied depending on the situation, some examples may be:
I propose the modularity as broadly segmenting the container dimesnsions to be standard, interchangeable components, which will help facilitate reconfiguration to suit individual needs and use cases. These common components would also promote reuse, repair, trade and other dynamics.
Common modules readily lend themselves to take advantage of economies of scale. Where bespoke needs are identified, for example accessibility or to take advantage of site specific topology and resources, these can be developed and deployed in an as-needed basis, and still be incorporated with the rest of the common modules.
One proposal for dimensions is 12 equal segments along the length. The width and height are not currently defined.
The 12 divisions permit clean segments of 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12, and they would be around 500mm with special consideration for each end. A standard residential door frame of 820mm would fit in a 2x (1000mm) module.
Alternatively, evenly distribute 10x 500mm segments in both directions from the midpoint of a 20' unit, with the remaining space either used as A/B bookends, or a C pillar when installed in a 40' unit.
Common rooms would be implemented as complete or kit blocks, an example being a bathroom, where relevant wall, floor, ceiling, vendilation and amenities are included and configured to occupy an arbitrary space allocation within the larger living space.
Conduits would be part of the base specification to permit routing of plumbing, wiring, ventilation, and heat management infrastructure. This would include accessible service compartments in the structure’s base, guides for wall and ceiling elements, and standard quick-connect junctions to be used at the intersection of components.
Portability is crucial as the dwelling should not necessarily be bound to a single physical location. The design should be such that relocation be as easy as:
A key part of this would be the specification of a suitable site, which has been prepared in advance of the dwelling’s delivery. This would include:
There could be individual requirements based on whether the residence is expected to be in situ for a short, medium or long period. An example of each would be emergency accommodation during or after a natural disaster or domestic safety incident, seasonal work, or regular long-term residence.
The dwelling could be incorporated into existing and new static rental properties as a temporary extension, providing an additional room or function. Rental properties could be designed as largely empty shells, with the required amenities provided in the portable section, or they could be built to accept the modularised components.
A distinction between the dwelling and a typical caravan or tiny house on wheels (THoW) is there is no need to establish or maintain road worthiness of the structure. There may be requirements to certify the dwelling has been prepared appropriately for transport, but this would be incorporated to plans for relocation.
Should regular relocation or rapid redeployment be desirable, the base frame could remain on an existing skel or flatbed trailer while in use, or permanently incorperated into a similar chassis to permit coupling and towing by an appropriate prime mover in a semi-trailer or muiti-combination configuration.
Providing the realistic opportunity for a resident to eventually own their dwelling is a key motivation for developing this system. Ownership of the core component of one’s subsistence frees them from a tremendous stress associated with rental economic dynamics, and can instil a sense of pride which manifests as an incentive to take care of, maintain and upgrade their dwelling.
There already exist commercial instances of bespoke modified 20’ shipping containers that provide a dwelling similar to this proposal, which start in the order of AU$50-$60,000. With broader application and support, I’d argue it should be feasible to aim for AU$20–30,000 as a starting point, which would easily be attainable when what is currently allocated to rent is redirected to paying down the principal of a loan of this size. An added benefit, coupled with the modularity and portability, is once the loan is paid off, the funds previously allocated to rent could be applied to upgrades, expansion or relocation. Separating rent into dwelling and location also opens the opportunity of realistically saving to purchase a plot, completely eliminating exposure to rental dynamics.
A strong motivation for developing this concept is to minimise, if not eliminate, the exposure of low income individuals and families from perpetual rental economic dynamics. Providing a realistic path for those on low and fixed incomes to escape the tyrany of servitute implicit with deferring control of a crucial element of their subsistence should be a universal goal for any society which claims to espouse human rights as unalienable.
Further, responsibily servicing financial commitments is much easier when doing so is not tied to threatening one’s subsistence. Embedding this concept as both a stepping stone to higher asperations for housing, and a back-stop to help when the need arises, facilitates responsible economic development.
Policies which permit the threat or infliction of homelessness should be summarily denounced as untenable.
In cases where providing the cheapest option for land is warranted, the portable nature of the dwelling opens the possibility of temporary sites. An example would be if land is set aside for future development, be it a building, stadium, road, etc. it could be used as a temporary site, and the dwellings could be relocated as part of the preparation for the new development. This would help provide an additional financial relief for the residents in the form of reduced site rent, which they could choose to put toward the purchase of their own more permanent lot, which their dwelling could be easily relocated to.
In a more medium- to long-term context, when land is rezoned to residential, part of the requirements imposed on developers could be lots be made suitable to receive a portable structure if it has not been sold within a minimum period. These lots typically require services be made available eventually which a portable structure would need, which would make it trivial to terminate them in an appropriate standard manner. Deploying service containers could fill a gap in sections of a development site while permanent infastructure is rolled out.
Another concept which I see provides a great deal of symbiosis is Community Land Trusts, a new example of which is Grounded, which explicitly breaks apart ownership as described in the intro to this document.
The provision of services could take the form of on- or off-grid connections. For off-grid use cases, the standard container dimensions of the dwelling lend themselves to easy incorporation of a services container. This could be located below or above the structure, or elsewhere on the site. A suitably sized service container could be used for several dwellings within the same site, further reducing costs and improving efficiency. These containers would include a mixture of fresh, grey and/or black water tanks, with appropriate supporting processing machinery, as well as electrical equipment for ingestion of on-site generation or collection, storage and distribution. Any leftover physical space could be used for general storage as per a typical residential shed.
Locating electrical services near vehical parking areas would provide charging efficiency through DC transmission from batteries and solar panels, as well as permit bidrectional power flows which allow the vehicle to serve as the battery for the site.
There is also the possibility of positioning heat pumps within proximity of various service infrastrucutre to increase efficiency by capturing waste heat which would typicablly be discarded. This could include heat sinks from electronic equipment or mechanisms to harness heat generated from biological decomposition in grey and black water systems, or to preheat water fed into hot-water systems.