Tiny houses can have big tickets; this 466 square foot house in London is under offer (tentatively sold) after only two weeks on the market for 450,000 pounds (US$ 756,630). It has been in every newspaper as if that was something ridiculous and out of line. In fact, it's a bargain by London standards; it has a great location near a tube station and it has a big private backyard.
And it is narrow, although it is significantly wider than some shipping container houses, given that a container is eight feet outside dimension and this is 8'-3 inside, that's as much as a foot wider.
But really, 466 square feet is not that small for a one bedroom apartment, it's freehold, it has lots of light and cross-ventilation. It looks quite comfortable inside. Admittedly a bit tight, but a ten or twelve foot version of this could sell like hotcakes.
The price isn't so high either at $US 1624 per square foot; the average price of an apartment in all of New York City is $1324, with luxury apartments going for $ 6890. In London, luxury apartments go for $9360 PSF. I'd rather have this.
Instead of gawking and laughing, home designers and planners should be emulating this; stack them two high like they do in Montreal and you are building at over 100 units per acre. Put it on reasonably priced land and you have a high density house form at probably lower cost than apartments.
Once again I ask Ed Glaeser and others calling for highrises everywhere, why can't you see that there are other ways to get density without knocking everything down and putting everyone into towers. There are viable alternatives and density comes in different forms.