So much input! Thanks.
The vibe I get from most of you is that you don't care for the idea, or perhaps just not for you. Some think it is an idea worth pursuing, which we will.
Some comments of my own.
Jan and I have looked at many dozens of floor plans, spoken to a builder friend, a realtor friend, and a few others. Our "tiny" house really does not fit the current definition of Tiny as most TV and books define it - they are almost always under 400 sf, often under 250. I make no claims to being able to live THAT small. My idea of tiny is under 800 sf, and the plans I favor are all in the 675 - 800 range.
Many good points made about the loft, though I don't quite understand the remark about Jan's bad knees not allowing her to clean up there. Don't you think I can clean house too?
The loft, should we decide on one, will be for storage, my computer, and a very occasional guest. However, the loft might not work because of a code issue. More on that later.
As for the "Not So Big House" books, very nice, if you have the money and believe a "not so big house" means under 2500 sf! Really, the not so big houses in her book rival some of the largest in my town! She does give a lot of good advice on storage and multi-use options, but you can't fool me. A house twice the size of the one I am living in can't be described as "not so big" with a straight face.
Essentially, we are looking for a very low maintenance, low utility cost space comprising of 1 bedroom, 1 or 1 1/2 baths, a place for a washer and dryer, a workable kitchen space (no little galley with zero counter space) a great room with seating for 4 and an area for a table and chairs (likely a gate leg or other space saver. A breakfast bar would meet our needs for when it is just the two of us. I could go with a separate building for the shop/garage, but would rather not. It would mean an additional wall, plumbing, electrical, etc. Besides, we want to be able to get to the cars without having to deal with the weather.
I have checked with the local building department and they are trying to stay ahead of the tiny house boom. They have adjusted some requirements as to allow them within city limits. Now, sub divisions will have their own requirements for size, number of bedrooms, etc., but outside of the subdivisions that is all changing. You can build a 1 bedroom home as long as the bedroom is at least 78 sf, no problem. Lofts are OK, but there is a minimum headroom, an egress window if it is used as a sleeping area, and it must be reached via a code compliant staircase. That kind of defeats the loft idea.
The deeper we look, and the more we discuss it, I believe we can downsize by 30% without much trouble. The upside is much lower utilities, lower mortgage, and, if properly designed, very low exterior maintenance.
Note to Rob - There has been no other person I have spoken to that has expressed any fears of the tiny house bringing down values or multiplying into shanty towns. That having been said, the city allows them to BE BUILT in the city limits, not rolled in. For the tiny house manufacturers who build on steel frames and wheels, well, not inside the limits.They are considered mobile homes. Also, if you pick up most of the tiny house books available at the library you will see what can only be described as hippie shacks, cobbled together from cast away materials that are fire traps at best. That is not where I am going, and I agree with Rob in that case as they would certainly have a detrimental effect on values.
So, what we are looking at is not a tiny house, by definition. It is a small house, under 800 sf. I think its doable.