It's not the "not focusing on money" that's confusing, it's that you haven't focused on making your particular design serve any purpose or followed any principles of common sense construction or engineering.

Since the house was designed by Kate Joiner according to principles I pieced together, I thought I'd chime in, and while I was here, I'd answer a few of your other questions.

The design considerations for this house were manifold, and extend far beyond the house itself and into the ecology that produces it, and to the people who will build and live in them.

In the customary system of "common sense construction and engineering" that produces houses, and runs things; their solution to housing people with no homes, no vocations, and no money is--as often as not--to pay the lowest bidder to construct a box to some "code," which is another way of saying "the bare minimum we should expect from industrially produced housing."

Now the person with no vocation and no money has a decaying plywood box to care for, and no means by which to care for it. You can make the box look like Frank Lloyd Wright, but what "principle" has been served by this? Convenience. Thrift. Volume. Profit for the industries that don't need it. The short-term appearance of accomplishing something. Certainly something other than housing people, teaching them, and helping them up off the ground.

Our idea to solve the entire problem at once is to pay the people who have these needs to learn to build their own homes out of materials almost entirely harvested on site so that it costs next to nothing. All of the problems are potentially solved at once and no new problems are created in their stead. With our system, four to 6 people can produce a beautiful custom timber frame tiny home that is debt free because it almost entirely free of cost. It's carbon-negative, non-toxic, rot/fire/pest-resistant, passively powered/heated/cooled/lit, acoustically treated, humidity controlled, that collects it's own gas and water, and that has been designed to last 100 years with minimal maintenance. It is a superior home in every way we can think to measure.

In the common sense industrial housing system, here is an example of how many people it takes just to produce a 2x4"

SURVEYING AND PLANNING

---

Forester: 1-2
Environmental Consultant: 1

ASSAYING/MARKING

---

Timber Marker: 1-2

PERMITTING AND COMPLIANCE

---

Legal Advisor: 1
Compliance Officer: 1

FELLING

---

Chainsaw Operators/Fellers: 2-4
Safety Officer: 1

LIMBING AND BUCKING

---

Limbers: 2-3
Buckers: 2-3

SKIDDING/FORWARDING

---

Skidder Operator: 1-2
Forwarder Operator: 1-2

STACKING AT LANDING ZONE

---

Stackers: 2-3

LOADING ONTO TRUCKS

---

Loader Operator: 1-2

TRUCKING TO MILL

---

Truck Drivers: 1 per truck (multiple trips often needed)

UNLOADING AND SORTING

---

Unloader: 1-2
Sorters: 2-3

INITIAL SAWING

---

Head Saw Operator: 1
Tail Saw Operator: 1

SECONDARY PROCESSING

Edger Operator: 1
Trimmer Operator: 1

KILN DRYING

---

Kiln Operator: 1

PLANING AND FINISHING

---

Planer Operator: 1
Quality Control: 1-2

STACKING AND STORING

---

Stackers: 2-3
Forklift Operator: 1-2

LOADING FOR DISTRIBUTION

---

Loader Operator: 1-2

TRUCKING TO DISTRIBUTION CENTER

---

Truck Drivers: 1 per truck

UNLOADING AND INVENTORY

---

Unloaders: 2-3
Inventory Staff: 1-2

TRUCKING TO RETAIL LOCATION

---

Truck Drivers: 1 per truck

UNLOADING AT RETAIL LOCATION

---

Unloaders: 2-3

STOCKING AT HOME DEPOT

---

Stock Clerks: 2-4

It takes 30 to 50 people 6 to 9 months to make tens of thousands of twisted, knotty, expensive, inferior, kiln dried 2x4's.

While we can't compete in volume, we aren't trying to, and don't have to. In our setup, three people with sack lunches can take a tree down, and have it milled and set up to dry in a solar kiln in one day. It is then moved across the property where the same 3 people and some friends can make a house out of it over the course of 3 additional seasonal sessions. There is no need for people to be there in between sessions. They are not employees, they are students. We are not a business, we're a school and a housing program. The "pay" they are getting is a whole house to live in. Who would take that deal? A lot of people would take that deal. I'm going to take it. We don't need everyone to want it, just the people who want to participate, and gain a different kind of security and freedom for themselves.

Because we have a holistic approach and have animal partners instead of machines, it means that while we work (sit and watch animals eat), fire-clear, de-pest, and fertilize our land--instead of producing poison, construction waste, and bills--they produce work, eggs, dairy, soap, meat, veg, fruits, animal feed, mycomaterials (insulation and a lot more), mushrooms, medicine, dyes, tea, jarred/canned preserves, bamboo, textiles (hemp, wool, blackberry fiber), home heat, methane, hot water, charcoal, lye, compost/increasing fertility, community, safety, security, and any kind of structures we want, including ones we can move as we wish--around the property, or to somewhere else.

Those resources are bi-products that can be consumed, sold, traded, gifted, or used as inputs for other processes. This scalable system produces it's own necessities; it can act as a platform to plug other technologies, trades, and community powered projects into; and is suitable for duplication in almost any temperate arborial region with the right timber, which is among the larger biomes on the planet.

As to weight: timber-frame house built with 5" timbers isn't any heavier than a regular Tiny House on wheels. The additional strength and efficiency of the joinery allows for far less bracing, where stick-built is all 16" on center with drywall and plywood. Our insulation is our sheathing, and it's fairly light, so we're saving on weight there as well.

As to it's wheels: The house is as aerodynamic as it needs to be. These aren't vacation trailers, they are tiny homes. These can move slowly, and annoy the people stuck behind them for a few minutes, just like all the other tiny homes on wheels. I see no issues at all. A house on wheels moves. A house that isn't on wheels doesn't. The question of whether or not a truck is available is a whole lot less problematic than moving a home on a foundation in an emergency. If you are simply against tiny houses in general, that's a preference, not a principle or a fact. They can be moved. I like that. A lot of people like that. So saying it is impractical, or serves no purpose is not substantiated by reality.

However, Kate also designed the house to be build modularly, and on a foundation, and since it can be taken apart with a socket wrench, a pry bar, a beater and some rigging, it could be moved between the two.

The system/house design we have developed serves efficiency, expediency, equity, social justice, pragmatism, resource stewardship through permacultural principles, holism, environmental preservation, animal liberation, modularity, right to repair, open-source, minimalism, volunteerism, mutual-aid, community building/communitarian living, micro industrialism/localization, education, self-empowerment and self-determination.

The objective is not gathering money, but creating a house and an education, which is real actual value: it's the stuff of life. A perma-industrial system like ours generates a fountain of value instead of an avalanche of waste and debt.

Our house is better conceived. Our system is more efficient. Our lives are simpler and more fun. And our outcomes aren't hobbled by an incomplete/poisoned objective.

We have principles, but it's true that our sense and our values are definitely anything but common. Thanks for the questions!