“Quasi-Formal Housing” in the United States: Rethinking Tiny House Villages as a Response to Housing Insecurity

Abstract

Housing insecurity in the United States continues to deepen, with conventional housing policies failing to meet the needs of unhoused populations. In response, tiny house villages (THVs) have grown as a grassroots solution, offering small, community-based dwellings. THVs sometimes operate outside conventional zoning and building regulations, reflecting a less formal mode of housing. Scholars have conceptualized similar arrangements using terms such as gray spaces, semi-formal housing, and hybrid urbanisms to describe similar forms of informality. Building on this literature, we employ the concept of quasi-formal housing to describe housing practices that have not yet been fully integrated into or recognized by formal urban planning frameworks. THVs can exemplify this in-between status and demonstrate how communities respond creatively to crisis and systemic exclusion of low-income classes. We argue for a more intentional integration of such models into housing policy to support equity, dignity, and inclusion.

Introduction

Housing insecurity in the United States has reached crisis levels, with homelessness persisting as a deeply entrenched issue in cities across the country (National Alliance to End Homelessness 2024; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2024). Despite decades of policy interventions, the supply of affordable housing remains critically insufficient, exacerbated by rising rents, stagnant wages, and structural barriers that exclude the most vulnerable populations from stable housing (Galster and Lee 2020). Although housing policies exist, the affordability crisis has only worsened over the past few decades, with conditions escalating dramatically in recent years (Anacker 2023). In response to this crisis, alternative housing solutions have emerged, including tiny house villages (THVs)—self-contained clusters of small dwellings designed as transitional or permanent housing for unhoused individuals (Evans 2020; T. Harris 2018). THVs have grown in number across U.S. cities as a response to homelessness (Kpeebi and Evans 2025b), yet their legal status remains ambiguous in many instances. In this commentary, we argue that such ambiguities are central to understanding THVs as forms of urban informality ¹ and call for planning scholarship and practice to acknowledge their role and relevance in a time of unprecedented housing need. While THVs are often framed as an innovative response to homelessness, they also embody characteristics of informality, sometimes operating outside traditional planning frameworks and housing regulations.

Standard zoning and housing regulations often deem tiny houses illegal, particularly tiny houses on wheels (THOWs), as ambiguity lies with how to define, regulate, and insure such structures (Evans 2018; Strachan 2018). Despite the fact that THOWs encounter more significant barriers to legal urban integration compared to tiny and small homes built on foundations, existing land use policies often create difficulties for incorporating various types of small housing into urban neighborhoods (Evans 2021). Situated within this context, this paper examines THVs through the lens of informality, arguing that they represent a pragmatic, albeit imperfect, pathway toward housing equity in a system that has failed to meet the needs of its most marginalized residents.

The term informality has long been at the center of global scholarly discussions. Finn (2024) maintains that the study of urban informality has skyrocketed following Hart’s theorization of the term “informal sector.” However, this growing interest in informality has largely focused on the Global South, reinforcing a spatialized distinction between “formal” and “informal” urban development (Finn 2024). This has led to a rethinking of urban planning policy and practice globally (Cobbinah 2023), as cities across different contexts grapple with housing precarity, uneven development, and the limitations of formal urban planning. Yet, discussions of informality in the Global North remain comparatively underexplored.

We situate THVs within the wider theoretical discourse on informal housing practices, while acknowledging the contextual differences between the Global North and South. Although self-organized settlements in the Global South often emerge from conditions of acute housing scarcity and state neglect, parallels can be drawn with emerging alternative housing models in the Global North, such as THVs, which similarly sometimes operate outside conventional planning frameworks and respond to systemic housing exclusion. These villages embody many of the characteristics traditionally ascribed to informal housing, including self-governance, incremental development, and legal precarity. Like informal settlements in the Global South, they often arise through grassroots mobilization, filling critical gaps in housing markets that fail to accommodate marginalized populations. The emergence of these models brings to light the tensions within formal urban governance, particularly in reconciling rigid regulatory systems with the realities of housing precarity. Yet, despite their functional similarities to informal settlements, THVs occupy an ambiguous legal space. They are sometimes embraced as experimental solutions to homelessness and housing affordability but are often criminalized or restricted through zoning codes and building regulations (Fowler et al. 2019).

Drawing from urban informality literature, this study frames THVs as a less formal mode of housing that arises in response to exclusionary housing markets and remains largely unrecognized by conventional zoning frameworks. These villages often function within legal gray areas, depending on piecemeal regulatory concessions, philanthropic support, and grassroots advocacy rather than comprehensive state endorsement. Evans (2018) discusses how restrictive zoning laws, minimum lot size requirements, and rigid building codes pose significant barriers to THV integration. These constraints demonstrate that informality in the U.S. housing sector extends beyond spatial arrangements to include policy exclusions that systematically limit access to affordable housing. In this context, THVs materialize as both a reaction to and a workaround of these exclusions, revealing the structural rigidity of formal housing systems and the creative resilience of marginalized communities. Scholars have described similar housing arrangements using a range of terms. Yiftachel (2009) refers to such in-between spaces as gray spaces, which are areas tolerated by the state but excluded from full legal rights. Payne and Majale (2004) uses semi-formal housing to describe dwellings that operate with partial legal recognition. Roy (2005) discusses hybrid urbanisms that challenge the binary of formal and informal, while other scholars have drawn attention to elite informality (Azunre 2024; Roy 2005; Roy and AlSayyad 2004) to describe how privileged actors similarly operate beyond or around planning regulations.

We build on Yiftachel’s (2009) theorization of gray space to conceptualize what we term quasi-formal housing, a modality of state-mediated partial legality in contemporary urban planning. While gray space theorizes tolerated informality and the politics of permanent temporariness, quasi-formal housing describes how planning institutions actively produce and manage partial formalization. Through conditional zoning, temporary ordinances, and delegated forms of regulation, the state no longer simply tolerates informality but transforms it into a controlled instrument of policy experimentation. These spaces are bureaucratically sanctioned, yet, ontologically unstable, legalized in planning discourse but excluded from the enduring protections, rights, and permanence associated with full formalization. Through this lens, quasi-formal housing embodies a shift in governance rationalities where informality ceases to be tolerated at the margins and becomes actively organized as a mechanism of spatial management within neoliberal urbanism.

Against this backdrop and drawing from Cobbinah’s view on the indispensability of informality, in this contribution, we argue that THVs for the homeless could serve as a starting point toward more equitably addressing homelessness. Cobbinah suggests that informality should be seen not as an aberration but as an integral part of urban survival and resilience (Cobbinah 2023). In light of the foregoing, we argue that integrating this housing solution into mainstream housing policies and urban planning efforts could result in greater housing equity, as it delivers not only shelter but also a sense of community, basic essential services, and dignity and privacy to marginalized groups (Evans 2020). Our work also seeks to expand on the seminal contributions of Margier. His scholarship sheds light on how urban governance shapes housing practices and exclusions in the Global North. His work is particularly relevant in the context of the ongoing housing crisis in many American cities, which has led to the proliferation of informal housing settlements. In our work, we draw parallels with his findings by examining how THVs represent a form of grassroots innovation that responds to structural exclusions within the mainstream housing sector.

Locating THVs for the Homeless within the Informality Discourse

Over the past several decades, the concept of informality has occupied a central place in urban planning discourse and research (Azunre 2024). Scholars describe informality as a layered and evolving concept that holds different meanings depending on the context (Finn and Cobbinah 2022; Roy 2009; Yiftachel 2009). Contemporary studies increasingly apply the concept of informality to a broad spectrum of practices, from housing and settlement formation (Banks, Lombard, and Mitlin 2020; Roy 2005), to the delivery of essential services and the deregulation of territorial management (Roy 2009). In addition, informality is often discussed in relation to modes of governance, political processes, and alternative legal or spatial arrangements (Miraftab 2009; Roy 2005; Yiftachel 2005).

Roy (2005) identifies two dominant schools of thought within this discourse. One, represented by Hall and Pfeiffer (2000), views informality as a governance challenge that results from rapid urbanization, weak institutions, and state incapacity. The other, led by De Soto (2000), sees informality as a space of entrepreneurial innovation, where communities construct alternative systems in response to exclusionary legal and economic structures. Despite their differences, both perspectives rely on a binary distinction between formal and informal systems, positioning informality as something external to the state. However, as Roy (2005, 2009) argues, informality is not simply the absence of regulation but a product and instrument of state power itself. It is a strategic tool used by planners and authorities to selectively govern urban life. Roy points out that informality is not limited to the marginalized; it is present across all social groups in the city. Elite or “entitled” informality, for example, is often normalized and legitimized through mechanisms such as zoning variances and exceptions, which allow affluent actors to bypass formal planning constraints. These forms of informality are seldom labeled as such, in contrast to the greater scrutiny and criminalization directed at informal strategies adopted by or for the urban poor (Azunre 2024; Yiftachel 2005). This regulatory double standard demonstrates that informality is not peripheral but is a central and unevenly distributed aspect of urban governance in the United States.

THVs do not fit neatly into either category. They are not entirely informal, nor are they fully integrated into formal housing systems. Instead, they occupy a less formal or best described as quasi-formal space, shaped by both grassroots innovation and partial regulatory recognition. While some THVs operate outside conventional zoning frameworks and housing codes, they are often supported by nonprofit partnerships, philanthropic funding, and piecemeal regulatory allowances. As Margier (2023) notes, although some THVs often begin as informal, community-led responses to exclusion, they are increasingly adopted by municipalities as controlled and spatially bound tools for urban management.

This dual position invites a rethinking of informality as a continuum rather than a binary. On one end, THVs reflect grassroots responses to structural exclusion, exhibiting characteristics such as legal precarity, self-governance, and reliance on volunteer labor. On the other, their partnerships with state actors and their confinement to approved sites distinguish them from unregulated settlements. In this sense, THVs resemble what Yiftachel (2009) calls “gray spaces,” which are tolerated but not fully protected by the state, or what Kombe and Kreibich (2000) describes as “semi-formal housing,” which functions with partial legal recognition. Roy’s (2005) framing of “hybrid urbanisms” also applies here, as THVs disrupt clear distinctions between formal and informal practice.

The flexibility of THVs positions them as a pragmatic response to gaps in the housing system. While not a panacea for the extensive housing crisis, they offer low-cost, rapidly deployable shelter that meets immediate needs (Evans 2020). A core aspect of their less formal character lies in their legal ambiguity. Evans (2018) explains that zoning laws and building codes in many U.S. cities fail to accommodate small dwellings, particularly THOWs, often classifying them as recreational vehicles. This classification limits access to utilities, financing, and long-term tenancy. NIMBYism (Not-in-my-Backyard sentiment) and community resistance further marginalize these arrangements (Evans 2018), reinforcing their uncertain status.

Some THVs have moved toward what Margier describes as “institutionalization” and have been incorporated into official city housing strategies (Kuhlmann 2021; Margier 2023). However, they are frequently authorized only under emergency provisions and remain absent from long-term housing policy. Two early Portland cases, Dignity Village and Right 2 Dream Too (R2DToo), illustrate how THVs operate within contested legal and spatial frameworks. As Margier (2023) discusses, Dignity Village was established in 2000 by homeless advocates who faced repeated eviction threats until the Portland City Council authorized the site in 2004 as a transitional housing campground under a state statute. This legal designation allowed the village to remain on a city-owned parcel in North Portland, housing roughly sixty residents each night. Margier notes that while the village has retained a strong ethos of self-governance through resident-developed bylaws and responsibilities, its legitimacy ultimately depends on ongoing municipal authorization. R2DToo, by contrast, emerged in 2011 as an unsanctioned encampment on a vacant private lot in downtown Portland. Its central and highly visible location functioned as both a protest against exclusionary housing policy and a refuge for approximately seventy unhoused individuals. Margier explains that the city initially imposed zoning fines until the group challenged its legal standing by claiming the village served as transitional housing. After years of negotiation and opposition from business interests, R2DToo signed a space-use agreement in 2017 and relocated to city-owned land in Northeast Portland. Like Dignity Village, it is governed through collective self-management, but its authorization remains conditional and subject to periodic renewal.

Margier discusses the formalization of informal homeless villages like Dignity Village and Right to Dream Too in Portland, Oregon. These villages were initially unauthorized and informal, created in response to the lack of shelter and as a protest against housing policy. Over time, they gained limited, conditional recognition from the city, often under specific state statutes or emergency declarations. However, they have not been fully integrated into mainstream, long-term housing strategies. Roy’s (2009) concept of informality as a state of exception is useful in understanding this. She argues that informality is often a deliberate outcome of planning systems that suspend or selectively enforce rules to manage populations deemed marginal. In the case of THVs, their temporary approval reflects political decisions about whose housing needs are considered urgent and whose are deferred. While the Portland examples demonstrate how informal initiatives can achieve partial formalization through negotiation and advocacy, other cases reveal the instability that can accompany THVs. The Licton Springs Tiny House Village in Seattle, for instance, was established in 2017 with city approval and operated under a formal permit as part of a sanctioned homelessness response program. Despite its initial legitimacy, the city declined to renew the permit in 2019, citing policy shifts and neighborhood concerns, leading to the site’s closure and dismantlement (Walters 2018). This illustrates the precarity that can accompany informality. Even when formally sanctioned, quasi-formal housing depends on unstable political conditions, short-term regulations, and administrative discretion that can rapidly change. Although discussed in the different context of vehicle residency, this reflects what Pruss (2023) terms the settlement bias within housing policy, where legitimacy is tied to permanence and fixity. THVs similarly navigate this bias through adaptive yet precarious forms of dwelling that challenge dominant notions of home.

More and more U.S. cities are embracing THVs as responses to homelessness, though governance models and land-use frameworks vary significantly (Kpeebi and Evans 2025a, 2025b). In Seattle, the city has formalized transitional encampments through ordinance processes and nonprofit partnerships (City of Seattle 2023). In Portland, transitional campground statutes and negotiated space-use agreements continue to guide village authorizations (Margier 2023). Sacramento has piloted sanctioned encampments and safe ground sites that include temporary cabin shelters, though these have faced political and community pushback (Nicholas 2023). Oakland operates Community Cabin programs under emergency provisions managed by service providers (Operation Dignity 2024). Los Angeles, on the other hand, has expanded a network of THVs since 2021 through site-specific approvals and nonprofit contracts (Hope the Mission website). Despite their varied governance, THVs share a common temporality of inclusion: they are permitted yet often provisional. Herring and Lutz (2015) argue that encampments emerge from the combined forces of criminalization and welfare neglect. We agree with this framing and contend that it sheds light on why THVs, despite their promise, often remain precarious, temporary, and unevenly institutionalized across different cities.

We argue that THVs should not be dismissed as temporary or makeshift interventions. Their less formal structure enables flexible, community-based responses to housing exclusion and opens space for rethinking planning norms that privilege permanence, property ownership, and market-driven solutions. As Cobbinah (2023) contends, informality should not be treated as a deviation from urban order but rather as a necessary and durable response to systemic inequalities. Drawing from African cities, he emphasizes that informality has become indispensable to urban survival and resilience, offering housing, employment, and services where formal systems fall short. Though THVs arise in a different context in the Global North, they reflect similar dynamics, operating within constrained regulatory environments while addressing urgent needs through collective action, self-governance, and spatial adaptability. When supported by inclusive policy frameworks and sustained investment, THVs have the potential to become foundational elements of a more equitable and flexible housing system, rather than exceptions or stopgaps.

Unpacking the Debates Surrounding THVs for the Homeless

In recent years, THVs have gained growing recognition across the United States as grassroots responses to the country’s deepening homelessness crisis. Unlike conventional forms of temporary shelter or transitional housing, THVs aim to combine immediate shelter with elements of community, autonomy, and integrated support services. Kpeebi and Evans (2025a) argue that THVs offer a unique model that not only provides individual dwelling units but also fosters a sense of belonging and stability through shared governance, basic healthcare access, and proximity to transit infrastructure. For many unhoused individuals, THVs serve as low-cost, dignified, and non-institutional alternatives to congregate shelters, which are often characterized by overcrowding, surveillance, and strict behavioral requirements (Gowan 2010; Leickly et al. 2024).

Despite their promise, the legal and political status of THVs remains highly precarious. Many operate in a regulatory gray area, shaped by zoning ordinances that do not recognize nontraditional housing forms, and by funding mechanisms that privilege large-scale housing developments over community-led interventions. As E. Harris and Nowicki (2020) note, THVs are frequently subject to temporary land use agreements, discretionary municipal approvals, and shifting political will, which makes them vulnerable to closure or relocation. These uncertainties contribute to the continued marginalization of THVs within urban housing systems and limit their potential to scale. The debates surrounding THVs reflect broader tensions in contemporary urban planning: namely, the question of whether informal or community-based housing solutions can be institutionalized without losing their radical potential. Proponents of THVs argue that they offer rapid and adaptable responses to rising homelessness, particularly in contexts where the state has failed to provide sufficient affordable housing (Evans 2020; Sparks 2017). In cities like Portland, Seattle, and Oakland, THVs have become visible manifestations of housing activism, often emerging from coalitions of nonprofit organizations, unhoused individuals, and local advocates who challenge exclusionary land use and property regimes.

However, critics contend that THVs risk functioning as “band-aid solutions” that alleviate symptoms of housing insecurity without addressing its structural roots. These roots include disinvestment in social housing, the financialization of real estate, and racialized dispossession (Herring and Lutz 2015; Willse 2015). From this perspective, the institutional embrace of THVs may reflect a broader shift in urban governance, where responsibility for shelter provision is increasingly offloaded onto civil society and philanthropic networks, while systemic reform is postponed.

These debates also engage with theoretical concerns about informality and the production of urban space. Roy’s (2009) notion of informality as a “state of exception” is particularly useful in understanding how THVs operate within and are constrained by planning systems that selectively suspend or enforce regulatory norms. Rather than existing outside the law, informality, as Roy argues, is often produced through planning itself. In this view, THVs are not merely grassroots innovations but are also products of selective governance. They are tolerated or embraced when politically expedient but otherwise dismissed or dismantled. Their legal ambiguity does not reflect the absence of planning but instead highlights its contingent and uneven application, a process Roy refers to as “calculated informality” (Roy 2005; see also Yiftachel 2009).

Empirical examples bear out this analysis. In Portland, Oregon, Dignity Village and Right to Dream Too (R2DToo) began as unsanctioned protest encampments but were later formalized through negotiated agreements with the city. While their existence was initially contested, continued political pressure and legal action eventually led to their recognition and partial funding by public authorities (Margier 2023). However, as Margier notes, the process of institutionalization brought with it new constraints. These included requirements for oversight by service providers, regulatory compliance with building codes, and the imposition of managerial protocols that limited resident autonomy. What had begun as acts of spatial resistance were increasingly integrated into a system of managed care and containment. This evolution points to a key challenge: how to preserve the equity-enhancing aspects of THVs, such as resident self-governance, affordability, and adaptability, while also navigating the institutional pressures that often accompany formalization.

Informality, in this context, is not a barrier to be overcome but a terrain of negotiation. As Boudreau and Davis (2016) observe, informality can be both a survival strategy and a mode of grassroots innovation that challenges dominant urban logics. THVs, by virtue of their informality, open up space for alternative models of land use, collective ownership, and cooperative planning that are rarely accommodated within traditional housing frameworks. Moreover, the rise of THVs raises fundamental questions about who has the right to produce urban space. Drawing on Lefebvrian theory, one could argue that THVs represent an enactment of the “right to the city”—a right that extends beyond access to housing to include the ability to shape urban futures collectively and democratically (Purcell 2002). THVs do not merely respond to a housing shortage; they confront the institutional and spatial logics that produce housing exclusion in the first place. Their emergence outside conventional planning frameworks is thus not a deficiency but a form of resistance that demands new planning imaginaries centered on care, solidarity, and redistribution.

To fully realize their potential as equitable housing solutions, however, we maintain that THVs be integrated into broader housing strategies in ways that preserve their core values. This requires planning institutions to move beyond tolerating THVs as emergency shelters or transitional homes and to instead recognize them as legitimate and lasting components of the housing continuum. It also demands policy frameworks that support land access, infrastructure provision, and long-term funding without displacing community control. As Sparks (2017) and Stuart (2016) argue, the tension between safety and autonomy is central to the lived experience of unhoused individuals. Effective THVs must be places where both are possible, where housing is not only provided but also co-produced.

THVs as an Equitable Housing Solution

The home offers a dependable space for activities such as rest and renewal. Without such spaces, homeless persons experience unfortunate levels of instability and anxiety in their lives that housed individuals are spared from. The precarity and instability associated with homelessness make it challenging to meet everyday functions such as finding work and healthcare. It is here that we argue, along with other housing scholars, for a universal right to housing (Bratt, Stone, and Hartman 2013; E. Harris 2019, 66–87; E. Harris and Nowicki 2020, 591–99). Housing practices need to change in order that all may have housing as a basic tenant of equity. Clearly, the ever-increasing number of individuals on the streets attest to the fact that the “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality is but a myth achieved by few in an era of growing income inequality and an increasingly constrained housing market. What is needed is an impactful shift in how we address housing for the lowest income bracket. And with well over half a million individuals experiencing homelessness on any given night in the United States alone (National Alliance to End Homelessness 2024), this paradigm shift can’t happen soon enough.

We suggest that greater informality is needed in housing policy in order that the extreme deficiency in low-cost units be addressed. Specifically, we argue that embracing THVs with less regulatory barriers as a means of addressing the housing crisis is something that needs to happen nationwide, and now. The first THVs were used to address homelessness, and this remains the most common application of the THV. The drastic uptick in such villages over the last few years offers promise to advocates of housing for the homeless (Kpeebi and Evans 2025a, 2025b). However, the number of existing villages is disproportionally small in comparison with the overwhelming need. For example, most THVs for the homeless have extensive waiting lists.

THV supply remains constrained due to land use and policy barriers such as minimum lot and house size requirements, non-conducive zoning regulations, and NIMBY opposition (Evans 2018, 2021, 2022). Every action should be taken to dismantle such barriers at a time of housing and homelessness crises. Some housing advocates argue for other strategies to increase housing supply, for example, refurbishing derelict properties, forming greater partnerships with important low-income home building organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, and creating land banks and trusts (National League of Cities and American Planning Association, 2024). As the housing crisis is a multi-faceted wicked problem, it is agreed that a myriad of strategies are needed to address the issue. However, the acceptance of greater informality, primarily through the facilitation of THVs, offers the possibility of producing a significant amount of housing in a relatively short period of time.

There is an emerging literature which questions the social responsibility of promoting tiny dwelling as a solution to the housing crises (E. Harris 2019; E. Harris and Nowicki 2020). Advocates of this view contend that small living quarters, such as tiny houses and micro apartments, normalize substandard housing conditions rather than solving the need for adequate housing (E. Harris and Nowicki 2020). They argue that the marketing of “better than nothing scenarios” aims to compensate for truly inequitable solutions. While we agree that tiny living should not be seen as a completely acceptable panacea to poor planning and government policy that especially harms poorer classes, the magnitude of the housing and homeless crisis requires an immediate approach. Embracing greater informality will allow for the housing of more individuals. Only then, when all have the opportunity for housing, can any level of equity truly be pursued.

Conclusion

This paper has argued that THVs for the homeless occupy a critical, though often overlooked, position within the broader spectrum of urban informality. Far from being ad hoc or transitional responses, THVs reflect a form of negotiated informality that emerges from and responds to the systemic exclusions embedded in formal housing markets and zoning regimes. Drawing on theoretical insights from Roy (2005, 2009) and Yiftachel (2009), we have shown that THVs blur the boundaries between formal and informal urban systems by functioning as both grassroots innovations and, increasingly, state-sanctioned interventions. It is within this space of partial legality that we conceptualize quasi-formal housing, and we use the term to theorize housing practices that occupy an intermediate position within the formal–informal continuum. Their hybrid status, informal in origin yet partially institutionalized, exposes the limitations of rigid planning frameworks in addressing urgent housing needs and points to the importance of more flexible, equity-oriented approaches. As housing insecurity reaches unprecedented levels in the United States, the potential of THVs to deliver low-cost, community-driven, and dignified shelter calls for serious attention from urban planners and policymakers. Rather than dismissing these villages as temporary fixes or planning anomalies, there is a growing imperative to support their capacity to advance housing justice. Recognizing THVs as part of a broader continuum of informal housing strategies allows for more inclusive urban planning, where shelter becomes a right that should be equitably accessible to all.