Although interest in tiny and small house living continues to grow, proponents of downsized living face a myriad of challenges, from restrictive land use policy to current lending and finance practices. Through a comparative case study, this article examines the crafting of tiny house policy in Asheville, North Carolina, and Horry County, South Carolina. The analysis has resulted in a better understanding of driving factors behind tiny house integration measures, challenges to accommodating tiny and small homes, stakeholder concerns, and best practices. The findings may aid planners and policy makers interested in accommodating tiny and small home infill.
AnsonApril. 2014. “‘The World Is My Backyard’: Romanticization, Thoreauvian Rhetoric, and Constructive Confrontation in the Tiny House Movement.” In From Sustainable to Resilient Cities: Global concerns and Urban Efforts, 289–313. West Yorkshire, England: Emerald Group Publishing.
BignanteElisa. 2010. “The Use of Photo-Elicitation in Field Research. Exploring Maasai Representations and use of Natural Resources.” EchoGéo11. https://echogeo.revues.org/11622?lang=fr.
4.
BoudreauxPaul. 2011. The Housing Bias: Rethinking Land Use Laws for a Diverse New America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
BowenPatrick M.2015. Asheville, North Carolina Region Housing Needs Assessment. Bowen National Research.
6.
BrinigMargaret F.GarnettNicole Stelle. 2013. “A Room of One’s Own: Accessory Dwelling Unit Reforms and Local Parochialism.” Urban Lawyer45:519.
7.
CalfeeCorinneWeissmanEve. 2012. “Permission to Transition: Zoning and the Transition Movement.” Planning & Environmental Law64 (5): 3–10.
8.
ChapinRoss. 2011. Pocket Neighborhoods: Creating Small-Scale Community in a Large-Scale World. Newtown, CT: Taunton Press.
City of Asheville. “Open City Hall: Please Comment on the Following Considerations for Neighborhood-Compatible, Small-Scale Residential Infill Development.” Open City Hall. http://www.peakdemocracy.com/portals/239/Forum_687/Issue_3815 (accessed September 16, 2016).
CollinsChuckYeskelFelice. 2005. Economic Apartheid in America: A Primer on Economic Inequality & Insecurity. New York: New Press.
14.
ComstockWilliam T.2007. Bungalows, Camps, and Mountain Houses. New York: Skyhorse.
15.
CreswellJohn W.2012. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
16.
DuanyAndresSpeckJeffLydonMike. 2010. The Smart Growth Manual. New York: McGraw Hill.
17.
DuffShelly. 2012. “The Possibilities in Neighborhoods—Utilizing Accessory Apartments in Existing Homes to Address Social, Environmental, and Economic Issues.” Urban Design International17 (1): 33–44.
18.
EvansKrista. 2017. “Integrating Tiny Houses into the American Urban Fabric: A Comparative Case Study of Land Use Policy Change in the Carolinas.” Dissertation, ProQuest.
19.
EvansKrista. 2018. “Integrating Tiny and Small Homes into the Urban Landscape: History, Land Use Barriers, and Potential Solutions.” Journal of Geography and Regional Planning11 (3): 34–45.
20.
FischelWilliam A.2004. “An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for Its Exclusionary Effects.” Urban Studies41 (2): 317–40.
21.
FischelWilliam A.2015. Zoning Rules! The Economics of Land Use Regulation. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
22.
GauerJames. 2004. The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes. New York: Monacelli Press.
23.
GehlJan. 2013. Cities for People. Washington, DC: Island Press.
24.
GenzRichard. 2001. “Why Advocates Need to Rethink Manufactured Housing.” Housing Policy Debate12 (2): 393–414.
ListokinDavidHattisDavid B. 2005. “Building Codes and Housing.” Cityscape8:21–67.
37.
ManzellaJoseph C.2010. Common Purse, Uncommon Future: The Long, Strange Trip of Communes and Other Intentional Communities. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
38.
MaxwellJoseph A.2005. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach: An Interactive Approach, Vol. 41. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
PfeifferDeirdre. 2015. “Retrofitting Suburbia through Second Units: Lessons from the Phoenix Region.” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability8 (3): 279–301.
41.
RossBenjamin. 2014. Dead End: Suburban Sprawl and the Rebirth of American Urbanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
SandersWelfordMosenaDavid R. 1982. Changing Development Standards for Affordable Housing. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service.
43.
SchwartzAlex F.2014. Housing Policy in the United States. New York: Routledge.
44.
SilverChristopher. 2015. Separate City: Black Communities in the Urban South, 1940-1968. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
45.
TalenEmily. 2012a. City Rules: How Regulations Affect Urban Form. Washington, DC: Island Press.
46.
TalenEmily. 2012b. Design for Diversity. New York: Routledge.
47.
ThomaMark. 2016. “There’s a Conservative Bias in Economics.” The Fiscal Times, June25.
48.
WalkerLester R.2013. Tiny Houses: Designs for 43 Tiny Houses for Getting Away from It All. New York: Overlook Press.
49.
WegmannJakeChappleKaren. 2014. “Hidden Density in Single-Family Neighborhoods: Backyard Cottages as an Equitable Smart Growth Strategy.” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability7 (3): 307–329.
50.
WhittemoreAndrew H.2017. “The Experience of Racial and Ethnic Minorities with Zoning in the United States.” Journal of Planning Literature32 (1): 16–27.
51.
WrightGwendolyn. 1983. Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
52.
YinRobert K.2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed.Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
