• Bill Burgess
  March 9, 2021, 11:06 am

  The application of a mono-pod opens up a variety of site options as well as sizes. Using the simple Auger Foundation Systems the same effect can be used on almost any pristine local. Access and permitting are probably the only holdback. Engineering is the major expense in these projects and I was very glad to see a full-height upper floor. Not really a seniors-type structure but a single floor is well within possibilities and should be done soon for maximum coverage as it would also fit handicapped better.

  Reply Link
• Jeffrey Lee
  March 9, 2021, 12:17 pm

  The luxury tiny house is not a tiny house, it is the toy of the rich.

  Reply Link
  • David Pedersen
    March 11, 2021, 2:23 am

    It is not.

    Reply Link
  • Seth Amsel
    March 13, 2021, 9:18 am

    huh? Even if it was a “toy of the rich” how would that prevent it from also being a tiny house, given that, you know…. it’s 200 sq.ft. ..??!?!?
    Pro Tip — the size of an object isn’t determined by the socio-economic class its creation is targeted toward.

    Reply Link
• Jake
  March 9, 2021, 12:57 pm

  If Norway would let me in, I’d move here tomorrow! Beautiful.

  Reply Link
• Marsha Cowan
  March 9, 2021, 1:01 pm

  It’s exquisitely and remarkably made and quite beautiful, but sorry. . .uh-uh. . .I wouldn’t be able to hover over a deep ravine like that and still sleep at night. Sorry : ( The view is wonderful. . .maybe from a plane?

  Reply Link
• Theresa Perdue
  March 10, 2021, 12:55 pm

  I absolutely love it. But I would be too afraid to stay there. I can just picture even a tiny earthquake sending it souring into the abyss. I will leave it for the brave.😂

  Reply Link
• jerry dycus
  March 14, 2021, 6:58 am

  While interesting, why so narrow, 2 story and sitting on 1 expensive pole?
  A wider 1 story would be a lot better, more comfortable, flexible interior and blend into the forest better.
  Admiring the view while making the view worse for others is not cool.
  Structurally 2 lighter poles farther out and the other end bolted to the mountain beats the monopole.

  Reply Link
  • James D.
    March 14, 2021, 2:46 pm

    Well, multiple reasons… The wider the footprint then the worse the environmental impact, and they specifically wanted to keep their environmental impact minimal. Besides, it’s on a mountain and goes right into solid rock. So it’s plenty strong for such a small and light structure, and being on the cliff side of a mountain isn’t really for blending into the forest anyway…

    Wider single level structure would also limit the view and the ability to see as much of it at once from one viewing point, which is counter to the point of this being essentially an observation platform. Both the dining space and the bed on the second level allow you a pretty immersive view of the landscape that you wouldn’t get with a wider structure, which you would normally need a separate observation platform to get these types of views.

    While there’s also the logistics of where it’s located and getting it built on that cliff side, 2000 feet above sea level, on a mountain with rocky terrain, and keeping the design simple and efficient… And there’s no one else’s view being effected where they are located, it’s a remote location. So no reason why they shouldn’t try to get the best views they can get…

    Reply Link

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.