this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
271 points (98.2% liked)

News

23266 readers
4311 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 100 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This seems like the worst of both worlds — we still get massive suburban sprawl that prevents walkable cities and the density needed for good public transport, but without the perks of a larger house.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 33 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Would it kill them to intersperse some retail space for a grocery store, café or conveince store?

[–] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 30 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They can’t because of zoning laws.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Zoning laws aren't the only thing holding back these things. Their just a tool used to create literal divisions between classes. Areas can remove our change zoning until the cows come home. But without the political and financial will to create environmentally sound, affordable, and community focused housing all you'll get is the exact opposite of your original goal.

[–] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Having read this the other day, it seems the lots for them are smaller so it’s still better than typical suburban sprawl, but yeah not by very much. It’s like duplexes, just without the shared walls.

At the same time, I totally understand the logic of the buyers. Condos and apartments really aren’t the same as having your own property that nobody really has say over but you. You can’t make big changes to a condo without approval of the building owner or whatever even though you “own it”, you share walls, and have no yard.

It’s just one more piece to the puzzle, it’s not meant to be -the-solution, just one of many.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 9 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Condos and apartments really aren’t the same as having your own property that nobody really has say over but you.

For a normal-sized lot, I agree — but based on the photo in the article, the lot is basically nonexistent. There's barely enough room for a lawn chair. This feels more like wanting the outward trappings of a detached house without any of the tangible benefits.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I mean, isn't that basically what a townhouse is?

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Yes, except these have none of the advantages of townhouses (higher density, lower construction cost) and to make up for the cost of those shortcomings they are far smaller than a typical townhouse. These houses are the residential version of Elon's Hyperloop — something that looks cool at fist glance but gets increasingly nonsensical the more you think about it.

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

At least these things are able to physically exist and function (though still not a great option), unlike Hyperloop.

I don’t like either one of them, but I feel like the distinction should be made.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago

Except this doesn’t even look cool at first glance.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago

Agreed. Just build an apartment at this point.

[–] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They got rid of side yards but have halfway decent back yards, according to the info in it, to smoosh them all together.

But also I’m down for that too. I hate mowing my lawn. I don’t use the lot for much, so what do I care if it’s tiny?

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 months ago (6 children)

If they had gone for proper rowhouses, they could've increased the size of the homes and kept the back yards, all for the price of sharing a wall with your neighbors' houses. Or maybe not even that, as there are rowhouses that have individual walls separated by a few inches while all sharing the same foundation.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

all for the price of sharing a wall with your neighbors’ houses.

Too high a price.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago

Maybe have one big communal courtyard in the middle

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 74 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Single-family home?

That's some propaganda spin isnt it

[–] Malcolm@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago

While I totally agree that there’s no way a family is living in a tiny one bedroom home and the term is deceptive, “single family home” is the zoning term.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 50 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This would be fantastic if it were arranged in a mixed-type development to include apartments, small homes, larger homes, and commercial. Plopping a bunch of little houses into a single space is just piling the less advantaged on top of each other so you don't have to look at them.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 8 months ago

Thank you, I came here to comment something similar myself. The real issue is the land these properties are on. If they're crammed next to each other like sardine cans, you're not giving them the opportunity to say have a yard and a dog. The idea of having a backyard barbecue at a place like that is likely out of the question as well.

The size of the house itself is perfect for some people, like me and my partner for example, but the size of the property likely is not. I'm okay with living in a small space, but I'd also enjoy having a small amount of privacy as well as a yard to grow vegetables and native flowers. Further, my partner needs a service animal desperately, but she needs a medium sized dog like a lab or a retriever to stay balanced, but we understand its unfair to try to live with a dog that size in a tiny apartment without a yard and the nearest park a few blocks away. As a service animal, its quality of life matters as well.

If we're just sardine-canning these places, they may as well be apartments or condos anyway.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 30 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 8 points 8 months 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 24 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 6 points 8 months ago

It is such a strange "worst of both worlds" approach to things.

[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 6 points 8 months 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 18 points 8 months ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Pls just build more medium density apartment buildings with 3 bedroom units

[–] PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Sure thing! Only $6000/month and they're the cheapest ones available. Also, the 400sq ft ones are $6000/month because fuck you.

[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago
[–] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ExLisper@linux.community 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It's 55 m^2 or a normal size apartment. Smallest apartment allowed in Europe (at least where I know such legal limits exist) is 25 m^s.

[–] Im_old@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

In some countries I think is 40sqm. But my first flat (built before such regulation) was 28sqm. When I moved in with my gf her flat was 100+sqm. All that walking around when I forgot something in a room was exhausting! 😂

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

It’s 55 m^2 or a normal size apartment.

yup; exactly the same size as mine

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Just build a fucking apartment block you cowards!

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But the shadows! The neighbourhood character! The traffic! The views!

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They tore out an entire line of trees along my street so they could pack a dozen new houses into a lot originally fit for only four.

Legitimately would have been better if they'd just built a mid-rise block and kept the green space, rather than turning half the street into a giant mud pit.

[–] BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Motherfuckers have to have their own yard even through it’s 3x10 feet

[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

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

[–] tiredofsametab@kbin.run 3 points 8 months ago

The house I rent in Tokyo now is 54 m^2 plus some loft space. I can reach out and touch my neighbors' houses from two sides. Also, what's a yard? All in all, it's been fine for two of us and I have one room as my office. I think people want a lot more space than they actually need.

That said, affordable housing in general is a big problem in the US.

[–] Chickenstalker@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Why don't you peope just build...upwards?

[–] DrunkenPirate@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] Vash63@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

These look even more narrow and way dumber. You could fit more, larger houses into the same space without the massive air gaps between them.

load more comments
view more: next ›