What in the dystopian hell?! 350-square-foot tiny homes…

“You can rent the homes out, cover your mortgage, and get income each month,” he notes. “Those homes can be leased out for a minimum of $1,300 a month.”

Mata says investors rushed in from all over the country, especially from California.

  • mayabuttreeks@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    23 minutes ago

    Goddamn. And what mostly kills me about “tiny homes” is that, like… prefabs exist! Mobile homes exist! They’ve existed for a long time! But the cultural divide and associated stigma that has been cultivated by dipshits like David Brooks and his ilk has led a huge number of people to believe they’re too good for “trailer” living, so they opt to pay thru the nose for very little additional benefit.

  • ORbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I built and lived in a tiny home for 7 years. It cost me 8,000 to build and I paid $500/m to rent the land it was on, all utilities included.

    This same outrageous pricing is happening all over the country. Business owners just see a way to squeeze us over and over.

    • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Damn, makes my £1300 mortgage+tax a month sound rather cheap for 60m² on the south coast. But our house was originally 3 bedroom, 1 being merged into making a larger living room means it’s only 2 bedroom since we got it.

        • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Its a bungalow which helps, no stairs taking up space from that 60m². Good loft space though, quite a few people around us have built up into it to get more space.

  • azimir@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I used to be intrigued by tiny homes. They’re enough room for one or two people, but not a place I’d try to raise a kid.

    I recently went from a 3k sq ft US home to a 1100sq ft apartment and this apartment feels big. The difference mostly centers around how much furniture and other home maintenance materials I used to have.

    It also helps that we moved to a European city so we don’t have a car and related support equipment.

    Looking at a 350 sq ft tiny home, if it was just down to myself and a partner, we could do it. The whole goal would be to not spent huge amounts of time at home, but to go to 3rd places and hobbies away from home. Rural or suburban living makes that harder than where we’re at now, but it’s doable.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    The homes run as small as 350 square feet.

    Mata, who says all the 12 tiny homes he repped sold in less than a year, tells Realtor.com that the typical buyer was a single individual, often a college student or downsizing older person.

    That’s small relative to US houses today, but even the smallest size they have there is 60% larger on a per capita basis, if there’s an individual resident, than houses were in 1900 in the US.

    https://www.windermere.com/blog/how-the-american-home-has-evolved

    Owning a home has been an American tradition from the start. But the home itself has changed dramatically over the years.

    For example, you may be surprised to learn how much the size of the average American home has increased since the turn of the 20th century—especially when you compare it to the size of the average family during the same time period.

    In the year 1900, the average American family was relatively large with 4.6 members, but the average home featured just 1,000 square feet of usable floor space. By 1979, family size had shrunk to 3.11 members, but the floor space they shared had expanded to 1,660 square feet. And by 2007, the average family size was even smaller still—just 2.6 members—while the average home size had increased by the largest amount yet—this time to 2,521 square feet.

    In 1900, 217 square feet per capita.

    • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It’s small relative to houses back then too. I don’t think there were many 217 sqft houses, we just had more people per household back then.

      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Per capita is a bit odd for measuring the space in a house too. 5 people don’t need 5 kitchens and bathrooms

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      If these were ADU’s or something similar, I’d respect them more. This just looks like typical suburbia but with tiny homes.

      I question why this couldn’t be a set of apartments.

      • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 minutes ago

        I question why this couldn’t be a set of apartments

        Zoning laws, these could still qualify as free standing single family housing, which in Texas is probably required for most suburbs.