I looked seriously into going this route for temporary housing while I build my home. I got a agricultural exempt permit in my county for a 48x60 pole barn. I added up all of the costs to make the structure livable (swamp cooler, insulation cost - HUGE!, metal roofing,counters, concerete,etc) and the cost was huge- over 20k with me doing all of the labor. I am still going to build a barn, but just for hay storage and tractor/auto/boat storage w/o concrete floors. I just bought a 30' Yurt for less than $10k which included propane heating, insulation, windows, French Doors, 14' ceilings including the deck. Basically I can erect the Yurt within 4-5 days which includes re-assembly of the deck. This gives 706 sq feet of living space that is conditioned, and can be done fairly quickly. Plus, the yurt itself could be dissasembled in less than a few days making it a portable structure. I plan on camping in this while I still have a house and then moving into it when I start construction on my new parcel of land for the house to come. The yurt will have a built-in bathroom, and a kitchen area, including two bedrooms (one with a loft - for 3 small kids) Heck, this thing will save me about $2100 per month as I can rent out my house I currently live in when I make the transition. I plan on putting that money into property improvements before I have another mortgage again by doing electric gates, new fences, asphalt driveways, etc. It's too bad the damned permits and fees will add up to over 16K when I build the house here. It's amazing how much the government has encroached into our freedoms and land rights. They even want permits when you develop over an acre of land for agricultural use on your own land. This is not freedom. Brock

Rachelh, I know that it *does* depend on where you live. I'm in an urban area just outside Boston, and the cable almost never goes out. I can't remember the last time I had an issue with cable service. Many of my neighbors and friends use VoiP phones, and I never hear anyone complain that they lost service. I'm sure it happens somewhere around here, I've just been lucky. It's definitely a case of how risk-tolerant you are. I agree that the most risk-free course is to stick with a wired land line, but I'm not willing to pay $30 a month (for the cheapest phone service I could find, plus taxes and other charges) as insurance for the chance that both cable and cell phones will be out at the same time that I have an emergency. That insurance might be worth $5-$10 to me, at most. Even at that, I probably wouldn't buy it.:)

I'm in a rural area (think bugtussle...) and in a hurricane zone. the last round of hurricanes shifted the cell towers so that the previously excellent cell reception went to having to leave the property to get reception. stayed that way for 3 years. my sister who lives in the front of the property and gets the phone service through internet had to come to my house to use the land line. and to cook & bathe as I have propane for both stove & water heater. while I have phones that are not corded I keep an old style phone, base with receiver attached with cord, for the times that the electricity is out. somehow the phone works even if electricity is out... this is my 'go to' phone for those times. also I have dsl, so I need the phone connection. in this very rural area, 911 tracing calls from cell phones just doesn't work, unless you can give them the address. for those reasons, I'll keep the land line. even if internet connection changed in my life time...the land line stays. I have a friend nearby that had an aneurism. her husband called from the cell phone & was told to call back from the land line & leave phone off the hook. dunno why...but time was of the essence for his wife. for the nominal cost of a landline plus unlimited long distance...it is worth it to me. for peace of mind & internet. my old old friend who now lives in Miami called me last night. we talked for 5+ hours. on my landline, his cell battery gave out on one cell & we continued the marathon on his second cell phone. old school..yeah guess so. I'll keep the landline, but then I'm don't feel that I need a smart phone either. I'm perfectly capable of setting my tstat while in house. I'm a huge fan of keeping it simple in my own life/home. interesting thread.

Yes, you're right any humor bypassed me. No, I'm not suggesting that you put all your plumbing into one single wall; I'm trying to help you understand what goes into building so you can make your ideas more efficient. It's smart to consolidate your plumb lines. Maybe illustrations will help: This is a very basic 5x8 bathroom (40 sf) with all its plumbing lined up in one wall -- this, of course, is a simplification -- no one's suggesting that you downsize to a minimal bathroom: Now here's a 5x8 bathroom (again, 40 sf) with the plumbing divided into two walls: Both bathrooms include the very same fixtures, and neither is more "liveable" than the other; however, the second one will be more expensive because water will have to run through multiple walls to service the fixtures. Because the second bath has more plumb lines, the second bath is more likely to suffer a leak and need expensive repairs in the future. Most interior walls are 4" thick, but walls that contain water must be 6-8" thick, so the second bathroom will lose a few inches of usable space. If you're talking about one bathroom, maybe it doesn't matter ... but when you're doing the same thing across the whole house, it's adding up to real space. If one of the above baths fits into your plan better (scoots in next to the available space next to the closet, allows your entrance to be more spacious, or whatever), then you might sacrifice the bathroom's efficiency to get a larger closet, or to make your entrance work out more conveniently -- but that's not what's happening in your plan. Your plumbing is just scattered around without regard to practicality; it can be consolidated without sacrificing "liveability". If you REALLY want to be efficient, you can line up two rooms to consolidate water. For example, a bathroom might "back up against" a laundry room -- both rooms can be served with water with only one wall being 6-8" -- plumbing efficiency at its best: In contrast, look at your master bath layout: You'll be running water through three different walls to accommodate your water needs, and it's not necessary. By turning the toilet and the shower both against the exterior wall, you can have them share the plumbing. Numerous other options exist as well. Maybe you're thinking that lining things up will end up too simple or too dull. Here's my master bath floorplan -- note that the tub, sink and shower all "line up" on one wall ... and the washer is just through the wall in the next room. The toilet is in a separate wall to prevent the room from becoming too long and narrow -- but at the heart of it, this is just the super-simple bathroom from above ... stretched out to add a few extras. It's efficient and cost-effective.I hope this helps you understand the concept of consolidating plumbing, and I hope it helps you understand that efficiency is not the enemy of "liveability". Again, good luck on your project, and that's all I have to say about it.