auntjess May 8, 2015 Share May 8, 2015 The two-trailer house in Austin looked livable.I was wondering why they didn't do the build on their lot? All houses require building, so I'd think zoning would allow it, and the area looked mostly commercial anyway. I'm inclined to like dog people, and they seemed likable.Zack really outdid himself on this one. (I am not responsible for the awkward wording of the title: that's how it was rendered.) Link to comment
SmithW6079 May 8, 2015 Share May 8, 2015 The two-trailer house in Austin looked livable. It looked livable, certainly, but was it "tiny"? Not by a long shot. I believe either John or Zach said if they wanted to move it, it would require a "wide load" or "oversize" sign. Like the couple are ever going to move it. Did it have normal water & sewer hook-ups? I don't recall them saying anything about a composting toilet, so I think it was hooked into the water & power grids. 1 Link to comment
auntjess May 8, 2015 Author Share May 8, 2015 Like the couple are ever going to move it. I was wondering though, the success rate for new wineries. If they did decide to move it, I'd think that you'd hire a professional, at least for the wide load section. Link to comment
CoolMom May 10, 2015 Share May 10, 2015 I think they said in the beginning of the episode that they wanted to be able to move it as they expand their business. Maybe they are planning to franchise and take the house as they go? But after I saw the completed house I thought there was no way that was moving from that space; there was a heck of a lot of "permanent" to the yard and the house. 1 Link to comment
paloma58 December 1, 2015 Share December 1, 2015 while the house was larger than most and looked pretty permanent, I think it may be my favorite. It seemed well laid out for what they wanted/needed and all the extras Zack put in where awesome. They had space and were not on top of each other. I loved the copper panels 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts