News Flash:
I just got off the phone with my oldest friend, who lives in San Diego. She has a new friend who lives in a mobile home that he parks on the streets of San Diego. This guy has Asperger's, so, although he's a real nice guy, he has some problems relating to people and a little paranoia. His income is low, from disability. His mobile home is about the size of a step van, my friend said. He parks it in one place as long as he can, then moves elsewhere. San Diego evidently has a law prohibiting parking in one place for more than 72 hours, but this law is sporadically enforced. Currently he's parked near a Holiday Inn, and there are at least a couple other people with mobile homes parked nearby. My friend said a lot of people do this in San Diego.

I thought this topic was purely hypothetical, but evidently it is a practical solution that some people are already trying. I have more information if anybody is interested.

My answer is this: If it is not wildly popular then there should be plenty of street space and if it is wildly popular than there should be plenty of lots from abandoned homes available. The problem you point out only arises if mobile living becomes wildly popular AND people still want to hang onto fixed homes. I don't see how or why that situation would occur.

Obviously no alternative lifestyle will ever be appealing to those who have bet on the status quo, but that goes for all solutions, even miracle solutions.

What problems does this solution create? I don't see any problems other than legal roadblocks

Well, you're encouraging the waste of current housing. Houses use a *lot* of materials, and an incredible amount of energy to create. Even with the potential for recycling some of the components, massive amounts of energy will have gone into the production, removal, and recycling - and there are many components of a house that would simply be junked and not reclaimed at all. I personally believe that balancing that equation would take an exceptionally long time through the energy savings associated with closer proximity.

If people *don't* want these fixed homes, then they're wasted. If they *do* want them, then you're facing the forementioned scenario. Now the compromise that would work best in my eyes, would be to have those who the fixed housing serves well (proximity wise) take residence there, and those who would benefit most from your mobile housing scenario take up that route. There is simply *no* need to tear down housing when there could simply be a tenant whom the locale serves, and bringing people into the mindset of seeking closer services and jobs could make a lot of these houses viable as such.

Of course, you then reach the problem where the houses are still being used (thus, there are no empty lots to support the mobile increase), but you avoid the scenario of needing to demolish housing, remove 150 tons of material, and reshape the land to new purpose.

Simply put, on a relatively small scale that can work within the current average infrastructure, or a "reasonably" modified one, mobile housing has promise. This is also a more likely scenario, given the tendency of the North American to live large, not small.

News Flash:
I just got off the phone with my oldest friend, who lives in San Diego. She has a new friend who lives in a mobile home that he parks on the streets of San Diego. This guy has Asperger's, so, although he's a real nice guy, he has some problems relating to people and a little paranoia. His income is low, from disability. His mobile home is about the size of a step van, my friend said. He parks it in one place as long as he can, then moves elsewhere. San Diego evidently has a law prohibiting parking in one place for more than 72 hours, but this law is sporadically enforced. Currently he's parked near a Holiday Inn, and there are at least a couple other people with mobile homes parked nearby. My friend said a lot of people do this in San Diego.

I thought this topic was purely hypothetical, but evidently it is a practical solution that some people are already trying. I have more information if anybody is interested.

I have noted a certain "mobile home" in the Manassas, VA area that rotates between the Walmart parking lots. It is an older unit and quite distinctive. It typically spends about 3 nights at each one before moving on...maybe we have found a use for the hundreds of acres of abandoned WM parking lots?

Aaron:)

I could live in one of these if I were by myself:
http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/
but I would need a barn to keep my stuff in. Might as well live in the barn.

There's more to my life than eating, sleeping and working. Like cycling, for instance. Socializing and night clubbing don't count.

News Flash:
I just got off the phone with my oldest friend, who lives in San Diego. She has a new friend who lives in a mobile home that he parks on the streets of San Diego. This guy has Asperger's, so, although he's a real nice guy, he has some problems relating to people and a little paranoia. His income is low, from disability. His mobile home is about the size of a step van, my friend said. He parks it in one place as long as he can, then moves elsewhere. San Diego evidently has a law prohibiting parking in one place for more than 72 hours, but this law is sporadically enforced. Currently he's parked near a Holiday Inn, and there are at least a couple other people with mobile homes parked nearby. My friend said a lot of people do this in San Diego.

I thought this topic was purely hypothetical, but evidently it is a practical solution that some people are already trying. I have more information if anybody is interested.

Well, sort of. Yes he is living in a mobile home on public streets, but no he is not leveraging a mobile living arrangement to optimize his environmental footprint. I'm not surprised he isn't being hassled, but being at the mercy of police enforcement is no way for most people to live (ie people with families). Going against the grain of society is hard enough without breaking the law, even if you can get away with it.

Well, you're encouraging the waste of current housing. Houses use a *lot* of materials, and an incredible amount of energy to create. Even with the potential for recycling some of the components, massive amounts of energy will have gone into the production, removal, and recycling - and there are many components of a house that would simply be junked and not reclaimed at all. I personally believe that balancing that equation would take an exceptionally long time through the energy savings associated with closer proximity.

If people *don't* want these fixed homes, then they're wasted. If they *do* want them, then you're facing the forementioned scenario. Now the compromise that would work best in my eyes, would be to have those who the fixed housing serves well (proximity wise) take residence there, and those who would benefit most from your mobile housing scenario take up that route. There is simply *no* need to tear down housing when there could simply be a tenant whom the locale serves, and bringing people into the mindset of seeking closer services and jobs could make a lot of these houses viable as such.

Of course, you then reach the problem where the houses are still being used (thus, there are no empty lots to support the mobile increase), but you avoid the scenario of needing to demolish housing, remove 150 tons of material, and reshape the land to new purpose.

Simply put, on a relatively small scale that can work within the current average infrastructure, or a "reasonably" modified one, mobile housing has promise. This is also a more likely scenario, given the tendency of the North American to live large, not small.

The current housing won't last forever. I will eventually need to be renovated/rebuilt. I never said we should abandon all fixed houses today. I only suggested an alternative which could just as well be taken in lieu of building and/or rebuilding fixed housing, one at a time.

I feel that you are ignoring the economic realities of the situation here. There wouldn't ever be a mobile housing boom independent of current housing stock. If people ever would decide to move into mobile houses then they wouldn't demolish good houses to do it. They would do it as those fixed houses became unlivable.

Sheesh, how do you think demographics change in this country? For example, how do you think neighborhoods change between rich and poor? It's not like all the poor folks move out simultaneously to make room for all the rich folks to subsequently move in simultaneously. They each move one by one when it is financially feasible to do so.

The current housing won't last forever. I will eventually need to be renovated/rebuilt. I never said we should abandon all fixed houses today. I only suggested an alternative which could just as well be taken in lieu of building and/or rebuilding fixed housing, one at a time.

I feel that you are ignoring the economic realities of the situation here. There wouldn't ever be a mobile housing boom independent of current housing stock. If people ever would decide to move into mobile houses then they wouldn't demolish good houses to do it. They would do it as those fixed houses became unlivable.

Sheesh, how do you think demographics change in this country? For example, how do you think neighborhoods change between rich and poor? It's not like all the poor folks move out simultaneously to make room for all the rich folks to subsequently move in simultaneously. They each move one by one when it is financially feasible to do so.

Please don't try to pull a switch based on information i've provided and spin it against me. If you were interested in making this arguement, you would've done so at the start rather than fervently defended your suggestions throughout the entire thread as the viability was doubted rather than doing so now. Now, there is a potential for making a degree of shift as space opens up, this has always been: downtown housing being torn up for apartments, for example, something which happens here in Calgary several times a year.

Of course urban decay and redesign occurs. At the same time however, I could also propose another type of redevelopment: if there is the eventuality of reconstruction, why not simply design more work facilities and necessary utilities to work with current urban developments? What I mean to say is, rather than bringing 500 people closer to the office, bring the office farther out and decentralize the design of the city in regards to businesses that do not *need* a centralized location.

I'm not ignoring *any* economic realities of the situation. When the time for redesign comes, can you provide a reason to promote mobile living as a primary means of housing in a society which largely has an issue not of needing to chase a moving office building, but rather being too far from the forementioned structure?

And when it truly comes down to making progress in the efficiency and design of a structure, fixed structures have a far advantage over most mobile ones: you can take advantage of natural design elements such as underground construction, environmental lighting design that takes advantage of the sun's free energy to provide warmer winters with less need to generate heating, opportunities to take advantage of vertical profiles (building up!), I could simply go on.

In regards to fixed structures becoming unlivable, well made ones become so after 100+ years of service which considering the energy put into them isn't all that impressive to me, however this is counting archaic construction technologies. We're living in a time where the opportunity for redesigning the modern house is beckoning to be explored, pioneers like Buckminster Fuller demonstrated that living structures could be designed with 1/10th the materials and 3 times the lifespan.

Please don't try to pull a switch based on information i've provided and spin it against me. If you were interested in making this arguement, you would've done so at the start rather than fervently defended your suggestions throughout the entire thread as the viability was doubted rather than doing so now.

I'm sorry if my argument hasn't been clear, but my intentions have been the same all along.

Of course urban decay and redesign occurs. At the same time however, I could also propose another type of redevelopment: if there is the eventuality of reconstruction, why not simply design more work facilities and necessary utilities to work with current urban developments? What I mean to say is, rather than bringing 500 people closer to the office, bring the office farther out and decentralize the design of the city in regards to businesses that do not *need* a centralized location.

Because that's not something that can be accomplished with individual initiative. Our society values individualism and if dynamically allocated home locations allows us to preserve that value while achieving all the same goals then it's a better choice.

I'm not ignoring *any* economic realities of the situation. When the time for redesign comes, can you provide a reason to promote mobile living as a primary means of housing in a society which largely has an issue not of needing to chase a moving office building, but rather being too far from the forementioned structure?

Yeah, mobile living solves the problem of being too far. Instead of putting off moving closer to your job because it's too much trouble to pack up and move or because there aren't any homes for sale in the area you can just move your home closer almost as easily as you move your body closer every day. Problem solved. How's that for a promotion?

And when it truly comes down to making progress in the efficiency and design of a structure, fixed structures have a far advantage over most mobile ones: you can take advantage of natural design elements such as underground construction, environmental lighting design that takes advantage of the sun's free energy to provide warmer winters with less need to generate heating, opportunities to take advantage of vertical profiles (building up!), I could simply go on.

So what? We don't need to use most of them, we only need to use the best ones and when it comes to the best I don't see how a fixed structure would necessarily have any advantage in efficiency. Mobile structures can use natural design elements (in fact, they can even use the best element for each season, ex southward facing windows in the winter and northward facing windows in the summer). Mobile structures can go underground. Mobile structures can use environmental lighting and solar energy. And, looking out my window at all the cars in parking garages, mobile structures can obviously take advantage of vertical profiles too.

In regards to fixed structures becoming unlivable, well made ones become so after 100+ years of service which considering the energy put into them isn't all that impressive to me, however this is counting archaic construction technologies. We're living in a time where the opportunity for redesigning the modern house is beckoning to be explored, pioneers like Buckminster Fuller demonstrated that living structures could be designed with 1/10th the materials and 3 times the lifespan.

And does applying those concepts to mobile designs make them any worse?