Is tiny home living POVERTY APPROPRIATION?

July 27, 2020

111 views

3 min read

I recently came across an article called the Troubling Trendiness of Poverty Appropriation by July Westhale. At first, I was quick to dismiss Poverty Appropriation as yet another “woke” term but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that there’s some truth to it.

The glamorization of poor culture is evident in various industries. Designers like John Galliano for Dior and Kanye West’s Yeezy fashion line have been inspired by the homeless and the impoverished, presenting torn and shabby clothing as fashionable statements.

This trend is not limited to fashion; it has found its way into the food industry as well. Foods that were once associated with poverty, like lobsters and quinoa, have been transformed into luxury items through clever marketing.

Interestingly, this poverty appropriation extends to the construction and housing industry. Composting toilets, considered repulsive in developing countries, are promoted as environmentally friendly solutions in developed nations. Even tiny living spaces, like the “coffin homes” in Hong Kong, are rebranded as design marvels, increasing their prices exponentially.

Tiny House Movement

Notably, the tiny house movement emerged as an architectural and social phenomenon, advocating for simple living in small homes under 400 sq ft. The movement gained traction after the 2008 recession, offering affordable and eco-friendly housing options. Media exposure through HGTV shows, YouTube channels, and social media contributed to the glamorization of tiny homes, making them highly desirable despite their higher cost per square foot compared to other alternatives.

While the tiny home movement may not intentionally appropriate poverty or hurt lower-end communities, it is essential to recognize this phenomenon and be mindful of the language and attitudes we use when discussing different living situations.

Humans often desire what they don’t have, leading to the belief that the “grass is greener on the other side.” Individuals who grew up in small spaces may aspire to own larger homes with yards, while those who experienced homeownership may be drawn to the simplicity and freedom of tiny living. Both lifestyles contribute to the diversity of the building construction industry and the economy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the tiny home movement is not an intentional act of poverty appropriation, and it does not seek to harm any specific demographic. Embracing both tiny home living and larger housing options allows for innovation and keeps us excited and engaged. We draw inspiration from various sources, and in this case, the inspiration can be traced back to alternative living choices that appeal to many. Let’s appreciate the uniqueness of each lifestyle and continue to foster innovation in the building construction industry.