Unsettling distinctions and liminality. These are the phrases that have been on my mind and in my mouth recently in conversations about tiny houses.
How can we step away from systems we depend on when we recognise that those systems are flawed or harmful? I have spent six and a half years in higher education, and I think this is one of the big questions that has underpinned my work throughout that time.
Last week myself and some of the team from OpHouse spoke at York Science Conference, the largest student-led science conference in Europe, where we explored how permaculture can lead us through sustainable urban development and what benefits the 15 minute city might bring. You can watch it here.
Physics is often thought of as the most rigid of the material sciences. Qualitative, or text-based data which focuses on opinions, beliefs, and relationships between people shares much in common with physics.
For many women, the home is a bad place to be.
How often do you have house parties?
I am a devout hedonist and even I only manage four per year.
Is it worth everything that it costs for a brick house in order to have enough indoor space for my four house parties per year? I’m not so sure.
Tiny houses have been heralded as a radical and creative way to address a lack of affordable housing, as well as reducing living costs and shrinking our carbon footprint. But are they as radical as they could be? Who can access them, and how?
“A safe and settled home is the cornerstone on which we build a better quality of life.”, so says Jake Eliot, head of policy for the money advice service, and many would agree. And now, homes have also become our “first line of defence against the COVID-19 outbreak”, according to the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Housing, who goes on to state that “Home has rarely been more of a life or death situation.” Hasn’t it?