Robert Lanter lives in a 600-square-foot house that can be traversed in five seconds and vacuumed from a single outlet. He doesn’t have a coffee table in the living room because it would obstruct the front door. When relatives come to visit, Mr. Lanter says jokingly, but only partly, they have to tour one at time.

Each of these details amounts to something bigger, for Mr. Lanter’s life and the U.S. housing market: a house under $300,000, something increasingly hard to find. That price allowed Mr. Lanter, a 63-year-old retired nurse, to buy a new single-family home in a subdivision in Redmond, Ore., about 30 minutes outside Bend, where he is from and which is, along with its surrounding area, one of Oregon’s most expensive housing markets.

Mr. Lanter’s house could easily fit on a flatbed truck, and is dwarfed by the two-story suburban homes that prevail on the blocks around him. But, in fact, there are even smaller homes in his subdivision, Cinder Butte, which was developed by a local builder called Hayden Homes. Some of his neighbors live in houses that total just 400 square feet — a 20-by-20-foot house attached to a 20-by-20-foot garage.

This is not a colony of “tiny houses,” popular among minimalists and aesthetes looking to simplify their lives. For Mr. Lanter and his neighbors, it’s a chance to hold on to ownership.

Non-paywall link

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m glad this option exists for buyers. There are people that happily exists in the space of a 1 bedroom apartment, but prior to this had no option of owning their home without getting a home much larger than their needs. This mean these people were stuck either buying way more house than they needed, or at the whims of landlords and markets rising rents.

    Ownership is so important because it (for the most part*), locks the cost of housing down to a mostly predictable 30 year rate.

    • yes property taxes increase over time, yes home maintenance costs can increase and roofs wear out, yes HVAC replacement costs are now on the homewoner, yes home insurance rates can rise over time
    • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      The issue is not the size but the price and rate of the loan. You could’ve always got a plot this size and built a kit house for 75k in the past.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure where you live, but most of the areas I know about in the USA that isn’t true.

        Single family home building permits usually require a minimum plot size as well as a minimum square footage.

        Here’s Los Angeles which wouldn’t allow what you’re describing even with newly implemented reductions from 2005:

        “The Small Lot Subdivision (Townhome) Ordinance is an amendment to the Los Angeles Municipal Code. The ordinance permits small lot developments in the form of detached townhouses. To accomplish this, the definition of “lots” was amended to specify that the 20-foot street frontage requirement would not apply to an approved small lot subdivision. Parking requirements were also amended; small lot developments are not required to provide parking spaces on the same lot, as is the case with all other residential zones, but are still required to provide two garaged parking spaces per unit.

        OPs article house would fail from the bolded part.

        Just for the opposite end of the spectrum, here’s rural Ohio:

        “Maximum building height: Forty-five (45) feet. H. Minimum main building size: 1500 square feet.

        So OPs article house would fail on minimum house size.

        The issue is not the size but the price and rate of the loan.

        As far as the price ($145k) and rate, what the person in the article paid and their rate is likely close to the same as I paid for both in 2004 (for an admittedly slightly larger house).

        If anything OPs article buyer paid less. The inflation adjusted I paid in 2004 would be $220k today.

        If you’re still claiming that someone could have bought the land, the kit, paid the labor, and was able to obtain building permits to have this house in the past, I’m going to ask you to provide some data to back that up.

  • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nothing wrong with small houses or apartments. But usually they are in urban areas and you have other spaces. My smallest house is in a very urban area and so it’s really just a sleeping pod. Walk out the front door and you have restaurants, shops, parks, everything. You have community areas with sports, pools, green space, etc.

    A suburban hellscape with a trailer sized house is never a good thing. America has a knack for finding the absolute worst of both worlds while charging more per person and trying to spin it as innovative and game changing for the better.

  • BigFig@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is nothing wrong with a tiny house. For single people, or couples who don’t want kids.

    Where I take issue is the severe lack of fucking land and space. they squish them up against each other leaving you with no privacy between you and your neighbors. If they had a neighborhood full of these homes, and each one on varying sizes of land from half acre to acre, that would honestly be wonderful for me.

    • ChexMax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I thought the whole point of a tiny house was to live outside, and your house is for cooking and sleeping!

      When my sister’s tiny house was in Texas, they lived on a huge stretch of land, and the closest neighbor was another tiny house with a horse. They didn’t need curtains. Now they moved back to our home state and their neighbor is 25 feet from them :(

  • fidodo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If this means being able to own a house earlier in life then absolutely go for this. There’s no greater theft of your ability to build wealth than rent.

    • Thoth19@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That doesn’t seem right if the taxes on a house in the area you where you work are higher than rent.

      • fidodo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure, but I’m not aware of anywhere where property taxes would be so high that they would be higher than rent. That doesn’t really make sense, landlords have to pay property tax so how are they making so much profit if it’s higher than rent?

        • Thoth19@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Renting an apartment is cheaper than buying a house. If there are no small houses but there are cheap apartments you end up with this problem. Sf bay area housing is a time.

  • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s actually called The Great Go Fuck Yourself, and it’s what the rich and propertied are saying to the rest of us. There’s only one answer.

  • BigFig@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fuck that, if I achieved that open freedom you’d have to cart me away dead before I gave that up