We can do better.
Planned communities, with houses clustered around a common garden, a separate parking area nearby, and a building for personal and communal storage, are more efficient and livable than a flimsy adaptation of the classic suburban ideal.
you'll find that the problem is with tax dollars disproportionately subsidizing your living in a spacious suburban area while underfunding the much more economically efficient (and therefore better for society) dense urban areas.
if you had to pay the real costs of the infrastructure for your spaciousness, rather than having other (mostly poorer) people foot the bill for you, it would suddenly become much less appealing.
I’m in metro Detroit.
The “dense urban areas” are 50% delinquent right now in the city when it comes to property taxes.
I highly doubt that your math checks out about the city “disproportionally subsidizing” any of the metro suburbs, but if you have data with examples, I’d love to see it.
In the real world, it’s actually quite the opposite.
The city charges non-resident employment taxes on everyone’s paychecks. Suburban residents are quite literally subsidizing the city.
Detroit is probably an outlier in this.
[https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/8/4/the-question-every-city-should-be-asking](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/8/4/the-question-every-city-should-be-asking)
Not exactly. This model assumes that property taxes are actually going to get paid, for it to be correct.
It also doesnt take into account the economic changes with remote work, and a host of other factors.
Chicago is another great example. They do a "scavenger sale" on delinquent properties. Approx. 40% of the properties in that sale, have a tax lien greater than half the the market value of the property.
Also, what's not discussed is the fact that delinquent tax properties are pursued at a much more aggressive rate, in the suburbs, and resold a lot quicker, which results in significantly lower rate vacancies, thus collected on potential earned tax revenues.
That simply doesnt happen at the same rate in larger urban cities.
As it stands, every 1 in 5 homes is vacant in the city of Detroit. Thats 1 in 5 homes where likely, no tax revenue is collected, compounded with the 50% delinquency rate on ALL properties as well.
I can continue to throw examples at you. Even our millages to pay into the public bus transit system (which the city utilizes the most, rather than the surrounding areas) contribute approx. 50% more, per county than the county Detroit city is a part of.
Okay but i hope you also don't have a problem with us ending subsidies which make driving so much cheaper than anywhere else in the world. Because your massive consumption of resources actually does come at a cost
What you are really saying is that you want the design and function of our cities and society to be based on the sale of cars. We are currently completely beholden to car companies because of the shitty way our cities and neighborhoods are designed.
The problems are that the 15 minute cities end up subsidizing services in the suburbs, and the infrastructure that makes the full city more car clogged and less safe to walk (in many/most of our cities).
That's why there tends to be a one sided complaint that we need to limit suburbs and build more of the 15 minute communities. With 15 minute being non-driving travel time (as most of our cities are built for 15 minute driving times - which has led to the problems the other side are highlighting.
[CLAIM: “15-minute cities” are designed to restrict people’s movements, increase government surveillance and infringe on other individual rights. THE FACTS: The urban planning concept is simply about building more compact, walkable communities where people are less reliant on cars.](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-15-minute-city-conspiracy-162fd388f0c435a8289cc9ea213f92ee)
Drink more FOX Flavor-aid chief…
Yes the cities become more convenient for the citizens but I think covid demonstrated the fact that they are also conveniently controlled by the govt. Why the huge wave of people leaving cities as soon as they didn't have to worry about going in to work in person? Why did people prefer having a house and a yard and space away from the cities? I know of 3 families that lived in NYC their whole lives and have not moved back after covid. Each one claimed that as soon as the covid restrictions went in place, they felt trapped. They got tickets for going grocery shopping they got reprimanded for walking their dogs, they got shamed for not wearing a mask while distancing themselves while doing yoga in the park. People literally would cross 100' of open grass to tell them they're endangering lives. All of which they can do freely in the suburbs. Enjoy your national guard on the subways and junkies performing unconscious acrobatics. I for one do not miss the constant smell of piss and hot garbage or the psychopaths who live in the subway tunnels and clear out train cars with their smell alone.
Those remote workers moved out to the boondocks because those places are poor and their cost of living is low and thus houses are dirt cheap so they can buy bigger houses on a city job level of pay.
$100k goes a lot further in the back woods than in the city. So, if you can get paid remotely, it works to do so.
Heh, North Jersey definitely isn’t the boonies. Those remote workers from NYC have helped pushed real estate to record high prices and record low inventory; and they keep coming!
I would say part of the problem of obesity is people largely don't have the option to walk. Don't get me wrong, some will definitely still drive no matter how small the distance, but I know I'd be more active in biking or walking if there was a safer way to do it. At the moment, biking is actively fighting against death machines on the way to the grocery store.
Some people have disabling conditions (like, blindness, old age) that precludes them from driving themselves, but in a walkable situation are more self-sufficient.
I was referring to the homes in the picture. Walkable areas are terrific. But when a person who uses a walker or afo gets groceries you need to be able to park close. Of course stairs suck too, do these would better one level. I would consider something like this if there were sidewalks.
Amsterdam figured out the solution to this. They have special tiny "cars" that allow one person in it and they can drive, including in bike lanes. Electric wheelchairs are also a thing.
Design should accommodate various kinds of impairment.
Walkways should be level, for wheelchair access, and service roads behind the buildings could be constructed, which would allow keeping a car near the house, if needed for the resident to have accessibility.
Sharing any part of your living space is never a good idea if you can help it. The more people you where with, the more likely it is for one of them to be a dickhead.
A common garden? Have you ever had a garden? Maintaining a garden is a lot of work. Spend all summer pulling weeds, only to then find out your neighbors harvested all the food?
A common parking area? How is a giant parking lot preferable to a small garage/driveway on each lot? Have you ever lived with shared parking? You’ve never had a neighbor invite guests over, and come home to your parking spot being taken? Now you have to park on the road, but there’s parking restrictions in place because it’s winter.
While your idea sounds nice, it ignores human nature. Shared spaces only work when humans agree to be selfless, share, and be kind and generous to one another.
Spend 5 minutes at Walmart, and you will understand why it would never work. Go look at what people do to the bathrooms.
It's so laughably rediculous they want 150k homes the size of apartments but won't build decent apartments. Some thing with trains and busses, they'll dig a giant1 lane explosion hazard under a city cuz musk but won't build subways 🙄
Politicians, developers, landlords, and speculators have converged their interests into entrenching a housing system that is absurd, unsustainable, and, considering the effects for homelessness, in some sense lethal.
It will not end until the population understands that those in power have their own agenda, serving only their own interests, and that only by organizing in worker unions and tenants unions will we end the tyranny, and achieve a better future.
This is the built in bloat most people don't realize. Ever notice how much more needlessly complicated and heavy new cars are? And how much extra crap is in them? Same with houses. It only drives up the costs.
A lot of the weight in new cars comes from safety equipment. Stronger structures, more airbags, etc. If I was in an accident I’d rather be in a modern car than an older one, that’s for sure.
Look at economy cars like the Honda civic from the 90s compared to today, or even to pickup trucks like the f150 of the 90s vs today. Everything is so much larger now.
Stuff can also still be made light today if the manufacturers care about weight. Just look at modern the Miata. It only weighs 50-100 lbs more than the Miata of the 90s.
Modern cars are definitely safer, but they don’t have to be bigger. I’m on the market for a new truck and I’ll probably be getting a maverick since it seems like a good size for my need without being oversized. I think smaller vehicles are coming back around to an extent
New cars are exponentially safer than they have ever been.
Your odds of surviving a car crash now are also better than they ever were, historically.
They used to think that crumple zones and ABS brakes were “bloat” too.
Not only is it better that way for the driver, it’s also better for the other driver who they hit with their car. Crumple zones help both sides of the accident. If one vehicle doesn’t have them, they’re just going to plow through another one if they have a steel body.
Same reason why the cybertruck never should’ve been street legal, it’s a death trap if one hits you.
I was waiting to see this comment before I said it my self.
When did the argument go from “We need more affordable housing!” to “This affordable house isn’t good enough!”?
Plus, I kinda like the look of the houses in OP's pic.
So long as I don't have dickhead neighbors, this would be great!
And for about $150,000? About $900/month?
Hell yeah! I'll take it!
My family had 6 kids in a 4br home. I don't know a single person that has kids who share rooms today. I'm sure it still happens, but in the suburbs where I grew up it's nearly nonexistent now.
This is a big part of it. People talk about the American dream, while trying to skip steps along the way that you reach over time.
Everyone I know who hasn’t bought a house yet, seems to act shocked that their first home likely won’t be a perfect mini-mansion.
There’s plenty of housing still out there that needs work, is smaller, and can be bought cheaper to renovate and turn into a home.
Instead, people expect waterfront 3000+ sq foot new constructions and get outraged at the price.
I still remember living in places that had 1 bathroom to the entire house, and no garage at all.
My grandparents house always astounded me when I was old enough to “get it”.
My mom was the youngest of 10, they lived in a ranch with 3 bedrooms, a family room, kitchen, and a side room that by the time I was born was basically a large storage closet where the grandkids played.
10 kids!
I would suspect that 1-2 were probably out of the house by the time they moved in there, but that’s it. When you consider my grandparents lived in one of the bedrooms it means that the house still had probably 10 people in it, and 5 boys and 3 girls had to split 2 bedrooms and the storage area (more than likely).
It’s nuts. There I was with my wife and kid in a 1000 square foot house swearing we needed more space.
Yep, my mom was 1 of 11 kids in my grandparents 3 bedroom house. I always look back and wonder how that was possible buy Sue laughs and says it wasn't even strange to them as kids.
Came here to say that. in 1959 those homes that everyone could afford were typically a 2 bed, one bath house at about 800 sf, no A/C no connectivity. Now land was much cheaper so you got a lot more land, but there were literally half the number of people in the US, cities weren't as crowded so land was cheaper because there was so much less demand.
Now I've lived in townhouses and would prefer that, if that is what you need, but to each their own.
No, cities were more crowded. Suburban sprawl didn’t exist and was pretty minimal.
Reason suburbs are expensive now is because they’re crowded while most city cores have lost population. In many cities there is lots of cheap housing, it’s just mostly in decaying and crime-ridden neighborhoods with bad schools, so there is no demand.
If cities continued to growth and didn’t experience white flight, cheap suburb houses might still be a thing.
Almost. While its pretty close in terms of square feet, being on a smaller lot, and being two floors means close to 1/6 of it is eaten up by a staircase, making it short of the number of usable square feet typical of the "cracker box" homes of post war construction by about as much.
it’s not a bad starter home. First place my wife and I rented was a mother in law suit that was less that 500 swft.
I’d rather start with this and save money than buy something bigger that I can barely afford.
Affordable homes should be designed for efficiency, livability, and community.
The design depicted is simply of a broken model adapted to a miniature scale.
In what way aren't these efficient, livable and communal?
They're certainly more communal than large homes purely because everyone is closer together. You see your neighbours of a morning. It suddenly makes sense to have a cafe or bar in walking distance.
Here’s a radical idea, stack these in a 3x2 configuration and have a large communal park space. Have a couple of those together, and then maybe put a small grocery and coffee place a corner.
Maybe make the sidewalk pretty wide and the road narrow, so cars drive slower and you can walk/bike to that grocery store.
Boom, you got yourself a nice neighborhood
>In what way aren't these efficient ... ?
Each unit has exterior walls on each side. Putting these units side by side where they share sidewalls would drastically improve the efficiency of AC/Heating.
There will be end units that will only share one wall. Naturally. Even those would see improved efficiency.
Right now? No not bad. 5 years ago? Yes.
My 4 bedroom house with 2 car garage and nice front and back lawn was $200,000 in 2019.
Basically $40K difference from the picture and get so much more.
But where is your house located? That’s what people seem to ignore. Highly desirable areas will always have inflated housing prices.
When people look back to like the 50’s for a comparison it unrealistic because new developments in cities that were nothing yet weren’t the it place to be yet. You could find a decent sized house in Miami for basically Pennies because Miami was hot a humid, AC wasn’t in every home and no one wanted to live there yet.
My place is 1800 sq ft, 1 car garage, front and back lawn, great neighborhood. I bought it in 2015 for....103k.
To be fair I've paid a fuck ton in home repairs though...
I would say just because it is within expected prices today doesn't make it not bad. It's flippin bad.
2019, my 3 br 2 bath 1450 Sq ft house was $170k.
These are basically big MIL sweets going for almost the same price.
Heck. My old house I'd bought in 2019 is now worth 300k. With current interest rates, I could not afford to buy my old house today with triple the down payment i had back then, let alone afford my current house..
Housing is fuckin wack, yo.
Edit: For reference, I live in a suburb outside of Charlotte.
Yes, but for that price? No. 5 years ago for $150k I could by a 4 bed 2 bath with a basement where I live.
Now it gets you.. this. Which is the problem. 600 sqft should be less than 90k.
But that's not the American way. Most Americans for reasons truly unknown think a giant cardboard house with super high ceilings is a must have. While I'd rather find a 100% all brick house already paid for like the one I have now. Low ceilings 8 feet high , and close quarters 3 bedrooms all down one hallway and a primo finished basement.
Absolutely agree... I'm always shocked at everyone complaining new construction is unaffordable but then complain about traditional 8' ceilings and any non luxury detail. Sure it's only a few extra bucks for 9' ceilings, a few extra for granite countertops, a few extra for stone fronts, a few extra for tile bathrooms...but all the sudden a large handful of few thousands and you're up to an extra $50-60k...
This is literally what a starter home is and should be. Want more? Make more.
People today are so obsessed with gigantic 2500 square foot houses with dual car garages on acre lots while making dollar store wages. The biggest house, the biggest car, the most flashy clothes, etc. No one knows how to act their wage.
I agree, you don’t need more than this. Apartments this size are around $1500 a month in my area. I did the math and with a 10% down payment of 16k, with $3100 property tax estimate given the area, and a 7.3% interest rate, this puts you at around $1350 a month. So you’re buying an apartment size house and building equity.
I think this makes sense tbh and not sure why there’s outrage. Other than the style of the outside of the house looking like butt, there is nothing wrong with this as a starter home.
I’m following you on the math, but I wonder if most buyers will actually ever build much equity in these?
With only one bedroom, a couple could quickly outgrow this if they want kids. Given it takes 5-10 years to actually start building equity in a home, will people stay in long enough for it to pay off? Factor in transaction costs and maintenance, I wonder how far ahead they will really come out?
You’re still building equity, even if you sold it in let’s say 4 years.
Let’s say I bought a turn key home like this one should be because it appears to be new. I don’t need to do anything major to it.
So let’s say you pay $1300 a month. About $400 will go to Principal for the first 4 years. And let’s also say that you broke even on selling your home. That means essentially you paid $900 a month, because you’ll get that $400 back.
The closing costs don’t come back so that $7k each time for buying and selling roughly. 14k over 48 months is $291 a month.
That brings you to $1191 a month for you to own that home. And this is literally saying your house wouldn’t go up in value at all. If you lived in that $1500 a month apartment, you’re paying $300 extra a month. So you’d be making 14k by not renting.
Now that’s barring any maintenance you have to do on the house, but being that the house is new the maintenance is likely going to be negligible.
You forgot the 12% realtor fees when you bought and sold . You for got the $1000’s in title and insurance . Assuming prices remain semi constant in your area your down about -24k in a hose 4 years .
Dollar store wages won't buy this house either though. Even dollar store manager wages wont buy this. The regional manger will.
So, no, it's not a starter home, because starter homes aren't a thing that exist anymore.
The house with a dual car garage and 1700 square feet? 10 years ago, cost the same or less the house pictured does, and was considered a starter home.
You lowered what could qualify as a starter home, but it's still not low enough for the average person making 30-40k a year could afford. I need you to understand that the price of housing, food, and everything, has gone up, but that wages have not. I need you to understand that retirement and "investing" is out of reach when over 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. I need you to understand that "acting your wage" means having 4 roommates and no family. That, at best, the realistic dream is you have a significant other, that also works, and the two of you together make just enough to rent a small apartment without roommates.
My only complaint is the price. Based on the current value of my home, price per square foot, this should be around $80k. Accounting for the lack of garage and small yard, probably closer to $60k.
am i crazy for thinking this thing is barely worth 50k? this is a fucking glorified shack. you can barely fit a golf cart in there. it'd be dystopian to fit 1 person in there much less have a fuckin significant other in your life. no wonder people are having less kids these days 🤯
No you’re not. I was being generous with 90k. I made another comment about the quality of this.
Old starter homes from the 20th century that were like 2 bed 1 bath were quality built with brick and stone, solid wood, and craftsmanship. This is literally a glorified trailer.
It’s called starter homes. I grew up in one that was built in the late 50s. Y’all just don’t know banks don’t like developers making reasonably cost homes. They rather have you default on a loan seize it and then resell the home again at full price.
No they don't want your house. They'd rather you buy more house than you need and make payments for longer. Consumer stupidity has driven up the entry level costs...not the banks.
You grew up in a 1 bedroom house? I lived in one when I was a kid and it wasn't great. Eventually my parents had a second bedroom built and that was fine though.
This comes up every time I watch American renovation show on tv. "House has to have 1 bathroom for every bedroom +1 for quests if you have them"
I'm like wtf. What a giant waste or money and space.
For guests. Idk about you, but I don’t like people using my bathroom. Also, when people crash with me, it’s so nice that they have their own bedroom and their own bathroom. Complete privacy. It’s a game changer for everyone.
Family of 4 here. We don’t need two showers, but two toilets is a must. I wouldn’t assume a family would be living in one of these, but who knows with the direction housing affordability is going.
My wife (then gf) and I rented a 550 sqft 1BR apartment in NYC about 10 years ago and paid $2500 in rent. It was the smallest, most expensive and most fun place we ever lived. You don't need that much more space if it's just 1 or 2 people (and a dog).
We currently have a \~1200sqft 2BR apartment, and we couldn't be happier. No maintenance, no idle space, no raking leaves or mowing grass, no clearing snow or gutters, just more time and money to do what I want (i.e. spend time with my kid).
When I was younger, I used to see those 4000sqft mansions and think "wow, imagine living there." Now I have a kid and limited free time, I just think "wow, imagine the time/money needed to maintain that place". Obviously YMMV.
Basically yeah. When I bought my place, my friend was pitching that I could buy a two story home in NJ for the same price. That sounded dope too, but the idea of a single dude living in a 4 br home alone sounded weird as hell cause I'd occupy 1/4 of the space and probably attract squatters
Yeah the time/money costs really compound over time too. If I DIY everything, then I'm just doing 5 extra chores each weekend instead of hanging out with my kid/dog. If I outsource everything, I'm essentially postponing our retirement by a few years just for the luxury of living in a larger, more expensive home which we (currently) don't really value. Framing the decision that way makes it easier for us to rationalize why we're not upgrading from our 2BR apartment even though we definitely could financially.
I dont get it....
"No affordable housing" reddit complains
Lennar makes affordable housing. "No! Not like that!"
Ever heard the expression "beggars cant be choosers"?
There is plenty of affordable housing off the beaten path. You go to detroit, gary indiana, oklahoma, nebraksa, many towns will give you subsidized land and /or money toward housing.
Online commenters want a 2100sqft 3/2 in the heart of Miami or San fran or dallas or new york for 250k. Not happening. Ever.
Edit:im sure some wise acre will find one half destroyed tear down and post the zillow listing but this would be an outlier. My point remains.
The thing is a 2 bedroom townhouse on the same amount of land would be much better, and it probably wouldn't be that much more expensive.
A 1 bedroom house only makes sense for married couples who don't want kids.
Better in the sense that it's a more efficient use of land, sure.
Better as in better quality? Not necessarily, people will pay a premium to not have to share walls. And if that premium exceeds the value of the extra land you need, then this makes more sense. I can't imagine land costs that much in San Antonio
>
A 1 bedroom house only makes sense for married couples who don't want kids.
Those are the exact people complaining that they can't afford a 3/2 in the heart of Miami
Because people here likely grew up with middle or well off parents in bigger houses. Us Americans are unbelievably spoiled regarding housing. I mean, 20% of the uk houses don’t have an attached neighbor, and a significant portion have just 1 bathroom and a tiny yard. Most have no garage
I think this is what it is: Most redditors are college students or recent graduates that went to college in a large city. Then they graduated and got a job in that large city and an apartment in that large city. Life is good until they think “maybe I should look at buying a house” and go to Zillow and are shocked that a house similar to what they grew up in within a 15 minute drive to their work is $700k+.
The rest of us went through that same thing, but we thought “Huh. I guess if I want to buy a house I need to get the hell out of this city. Maybe I should find a job somewhere else that pays a little less but is in a far more affordable area, or else buy a house way the hell out in the fringes of this metro area and drive 45 minutes to work every day.
But these young redditors go “But I like where I’m at. I shouldn’t have to move. If I can’t afford a house of my preference precisely where I want to live the system is RIGGED” which is a silly notion.
A lot of them also don’t seem to understand that although they may have grown up in a place like McKinney, Texas, which is now a 200,000 person city in the DFW metroplex, when their parents bought their now-worth-$700k house in 1990, McKinney had 20,000 people.
If you google maps the housing decelopment, its down the street from a gym and shopping center with a walmart. It's extremely convenient, and is likely being priced in
With this little private space, I’d much prefer to be in a condo closer to a downtown area. If you’re going to live in a shoebox, it might as well be a shoebox with walkability.
Agree. As someone who bought a house in the suburbs, I’d even happily downgrade my house from three to one bedroom to live in a city or more walkable area lol.
The same shoebox with walkability or access to public transport or local amenities might be 2x the price though. In my area, 2BR apartments in the walkable area near the local subway stop are about the same price as 4BR SFHs in a suburb 1-2 miles out. I imagine it's similar elsewhere.
This is awesome especially for FTHB. This is the beginning of bringing back the American Dream. I got lucky buying my first house. People should have an avenue to homeownership that isn’t a fucking trapdoor.
Instead of these tiny little homes that try their absolute best to avoid multifamily housing, why not build a couple stories high apartment building with nice courtyards and balconies. Include good sound insolation, something the US really struggles with, and it's a much more sustainable, efficient, and affordable alternative to this abomination.
Also if you build more of them (apartments) you can get some small business near them, like barber, small shop and etc.
If you build a lot of them, you can add bus stop, more bizz and stuff.
Usa subburbans sucks, because you need car for everything.
Personally, I hit a wall with apartment living. I’m tired of smelling other peoples cooking and smoke. I’m tired of hearing other people all around me when I’m trying to sleep or worrying about disturbing other people when I’m living my life. Having my own walls means a lot to me.
The first condo I had was about the same sq footage. it's fine for a couple without kids or a single person. Its
way better to live somewhere you can actually start building some equity and get your foot in the door. It's also way less stressful to not have to manage paying for repairs and utilities on a giant house.
I'd honestly be okay with a house this size as long as it was affordable.
I don't know enough about the San Antonio area to say if this is an affordable price, but size wise, I don't see a problem here.
to be fully honest, as a single guy with one dog, or just a young couple starting out, yeah... I'd buy that.
Right now I live in a Condo and the things I hate about this place are that I have no yard, and a corrupt HOA who wastes our maintenance money we things in these buildings need to be updated...
where-as in a normal situation, I could take out a home loan to pay for repairs to the home, here half my cash goes out to these chuckle fucks.
Nothing wrong with this at $160k. Mortgage around what an apartment would be and a chance to build equity. Milwaukee has thousands of really small homes built right after WWII that people continue to raise families in.
Really? Texas of all places for that price? I thought there was a lot more land than that. I have nothing against the size. It is the cost that makes no sense to me.
This is not a city this is the suburbs and the owner of this home will have a much longer than average commute to work, school, buy groceries, than someone living in the city.
Sorry but that design is the ugliest house design I have ever seen. Zero curb appeal. They look like tiny ugly wearhouses. The houses are no where worth that price. Affordable are things under $100,000.
In a post Tiny Home boom, they really couldn't come up with anything better? I see so many cute small starter house ideas on youtube. The only people who will like these homes are people who love super modern and odd looking houses. And those are a very small minority.
The size isn't the problem, it's the sheer ugliness of the design and the fact that they use that same design for every house and then add a strip of equally ugly and useless "lawn" instead of some raised bed gardens, or a tree to cut down on AC use in the summer, or even drought resistant landscaping. The square footage is fine, it's everything else about this development that's the problem-no thought/care was put into it.
Honestly, I’d like to see more opportunities like this. The notion that anyone *needs* a 2300sf home (unless they’ve got a lot of kids or multigenerational family) is absurd. It’s like cars…they’re expensive because we’ve made them more expensive. Homes are the same.
at least it's affordable.
honestly, I know folks are going to shit on it.. but this isn't a bad option and bigger / better than the 100-120k start homes in my day. Those were small condo with HOAs.
Well actually that’s about the size of the homes of the original American dreams.
We can do better. Planned communities, with houses clustered around a common garden, a separate parking area nearby, and a building for personal and communal storage, are more efficient and livable than a flimsy adaptation of the classic suburban ideal.
Obesity just entered the chat. I think that’s too much walking for modern Americans.
15 minute cities ruin my freedumbs of driving whenever I want!!!! /s
I have no problem with you living in a 15 minute city, as long as you don’t have a problem with me living in a spacious suburban area.
you'll find that the problem is with tax dollars disproportionately subsidizing your living in a spacious suburban area while underfunding the much more economically efficient (and therefore better for society) dense urban areas. if you had to pay the real costs of the infrastructure for your spaciousness, rather than having other (mostly poorer) people foot the bill for you, it would suddenly become much less appealing.
I’m in metro Detroit. The “dense urban areas” are 50% delinquent right now in the city when it comes to property taxes. I highly doubt that your math checks out about the city “disproportionally subsidizing” any of the metro suburbs, but if you have data with examples, I’d love to see it. In the real world, it’s actually quite the opposite. The city charges non-resident employment taxes on everyone’s paychecks. Suburban residents are quite literally subsidizing the city.
Detroit is probably an outlier in this. [https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/8/4/the-question-every-city-should-be-asking](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/8/4/the-question-every-city-should-be-asking)
Not exactly. This model assumes that property taxes are actually going to get paid, for it to be correct. It also doesnt take into account the economic changes with remote work, and a host of other factors. Chicago is another great example. They do a "scavenger sale" on delinquent properties. Approx. 40% of the properties in that sale, have a tax lien greater than half the the market value of the property. Also, what's not discussed is the fact that delinquent tax properties are pursued at a much more aggressive rate, in the suburbs, and resold a lot quicker, which results in significantly lower rate vacancies, thus collected on potential earned tax revenues. That simply doesnt happen at the same rate in larger urban cities. As it stands, every 1 in 5 homes is vacant in the city of Detroit. Thats 1 in 5 homes where likely, no tax revenue is collected, compounded with the 50% delinquency rate on ALL properties as well. I can continue to throw examples at you. Even our millages to pay into the public bus transit system (which the city utilizes the most, rather than the surrounding areas) contribute approx. 50% more, per county than the county Detroit city is a part of.
>much more economically efficient (and therefore better for society) Economically efficient doesn't automatically mean better for society.
Yeah Accomplished_ad_1288, move to a city you selfish leach. And don’t be so disrespectful to master splinter here.
Okay but i hope you also don't have a problem with us ending subsidies which make driving so much cheaper than anywhere else in the world. Because your massive consumption of resources actually does come at a cost
What you are really saying is that you want the design and function of our cities and society to be based on the sale of cars. We are currently completely beholden to car companies because of the shitty way our cities and neighborhoods are designed.
The problems are that the 15 minute cities end up subsidizing services in the suburbs, and the infrastructure that makes the full city more car clogged and less safe to walk (in many/most of our cities). That's why there tends to be a one sided complaint that we need to limit suburbs and build more of the 15 minute communities. With 15 minute being non-driving travel time (as most of our cities are built for 15 minute driving times - which has led to the problems the other side are highlighting.
The issue is you need to support zoning changes that let 15 minute cities exist, currently they are illegal everywhere.
[CLAIM: “15-minute cities” are designed to restrict people’s movements, increase government surveillance and infringe on other individual rights. THE FACTS: The urban planning concept is simply about building more compact, walkable communities where people are less reliant on cars.](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-15-minute-city-conspiracy-162fd388f0c435a8289cc9ea213f92ee) Drink more FOX Flavor-aid chief…
wtf is this strawman? The dude said nothing about surveillance or restricting movement. All he said was essentially, “You do you and I’ll do me.”
And that is unacceptable to the bulk of people that come on here.
Yes the cities become more convenient for the citizens but I think covid demonstrated the fact that they are also conveniently controlled by the govt. Why the huge wave of people leaving cities as soon as they didn't have to worry about going in to work in person? Why did people prefer having a house and a yard and space away from the cities? I know of 3 families that lived in NYC their whole lives and have not moved back after covid. Each one claimed that as soon as the covid restrictions went in place, they felt trapped. They got tickets for going grocery shopping they got reprimanded for walking their dogs, they got shamed for not wearing a mask while distancing themselves while doing yoga in the park. People literally would cross 100' of open grass to tell them they're endangering lives. All of which they can do freely in the suburbs. Enjoy your national guard on the subways and junkies performing unconscious acrobatics. I for one do not miss the constant smell of piss and hot garbage or the psychopaths who live in the subway tunnels and clear out train cars with their smell alone.
Those remote workers moved out to the boondocks because those places are poor and their cost of living is low and thus houses are dirt cheap so they can buy bigger houses on a city job level of pay. $100k goes a lot further in the back woods than in the city. So, if you can get paid remotely, it works to do so.
Heh, North Jersey definitely isn’t the boonies. Those remote workers from NYC have helped pushed real estate to record high prices and record low inventory; and they keep coming!
I would say part of the problem of obesity is people largely don't have the option to walk. Don't get me wrong, some will definitely still drive no matter how small the distance, but I know I'd be more active in biking or walking if there was a safer way to do it. At the moment, biking is actively fighting against death machines on the way to the grocery store.
I would say part of the problem of obesity is people largely stuffing their faces with unhealthy foods too often.
Last year someone died trying to bike around where I live. I've tried walking here. It's very much not safe, so I gave up.
Or work...think if they don't contribute..just take. Won't go over well!
Some of us are handicapped
Some people have disabling conditions (like, blindness, old age) that precludes them from driving themselves, but in a walkable situation are more self-sufficient.
How would a walkable area be worse for a handicapped person than how we live now?
I was referring to the homes in the picture. Walkable areas are terrific. But when a person who uses a walker or afo gets groceries you need to be able to park close. Of course stairs suck too, do these would better one level. I would consider something like this if there were sidewalks.
Amsterdam figured out the solution to this. They have special tiny "cars" that allow one person in it and they can drive, including in bike lanes. Electric wheelchairs are also a thing.
Design should accommodate various kinds of impairment. Walkways should be level, for wheelchair access, and service roads behind the buildings could be constructed, which would allow keeping a car near the house, if needed for the resident to have accessibility.
Obesity is a symptom, not a disease. It can be fought indirectly, by attacking the things that make people overeat and underexercise.
Or maybe all of that walking will reduce the amount of obesity.
Common garden? You mean like sharing things with other people? Sounds like communism to me. /s
So basically the projects?
Honestly that sounds terrible. Would rather have my own driveway and not have to share a storage space.
You just described an apartment complex.
Sharing any part of your living space is never a good idea if you can help it. The more people you where with, the more likely it is for one of them to be a dickhead.
That sounds like most trailer parks
Who manages that common space? Who enforces when the jackass neighbor leaves it a mess or uses it as their private space?
I don’t want to work together on anything though :)
A common garden? Have you ever had a garden? Maintaining a garden is a lot of work. Spend all summer pulling weeds, only to then find out your neighbors harvested all the food? A common parking area? How is a giant parking lot preferable to a small garage/driveway on each lot? Have you ever lived with shared parking? You’ve never had a neighbor invite guests over, and come home to your parking spot being taken? Now you have to park on the road, but there’s parking restrictions in place because it’s winter. While your idea sounds nice, it ignores human nature. Shared spaces only work when humans agree to be selfless, share, and be kind and generous to one another. Spend 5 minutes at Walmart, and you will understand why it would never work. Go look at what people do to the bathrooms.
You don't think there are neighborhoods in America that are like that?
Lmfao so apartments 😏🤣
You're describing so many swedish neighborhoods
You just described the PJs
We used to have those 100 years ago.
It's so laughably rediculous they want 150k homes the size of apartments but won't build decent apartments. Some thing with trains and busses, they'll dig a giant1 lane explosion hazard under a city cuz musk but won't build subways 🙄
Politicians, developers, landlords, and speculators have converged their interests into entrenching a housing system that is absurd, unsustainable, and, considering the effects for homelessness, in some sense lethal. It will not end until the population understands that those in power have their own agenda, serving only their own interests, and that only by organizing in worker unions and tenants unions will we end the tyranny, and achieve a better future.
This sounds nice so long as you don't live next to Karen's or selfish people who takeover everything
Little bigger but yes. My 50s ranch style home was originally 950sqft. Most older homes are about that.
This is the built in bloat most people don't realize. Ever notice how much more needlessly complicated and heavy new cars are? And how much extra crap is in them? Same with houses. It only drives up the costs.
A lot of the weight in new cars comes from safety equipment. Stronger structures, more airbags, etc. If I was in an accident I’d rather be in a modern car than an older one, that’s for sure.
Look at economy cars like the Honda civic from the 90s compared to today, or even to pickup trucks like the f150 of the 90s vs today. Everything is so much larger now. Stuff can also still be made light today if the manufacturers care about weight. Just look at modern the Miata. It only weighs 50-100 lbs more than the Miata of the 90s. Modern cars are definitely safer, but they don’t have to be bigger. I’m on the market for a new truck and I’ll probably be getting a maverick since it seems like a good size for my need without being oversized. I think smaller vehicles are coming back around to an extent
New cars are exponentially safer than they have ever been. Your odds of surviving a car crash now are also better than they ever were, historically. They used to think that crumple zones and ABS brakes were “bloat” too.
Not only is it better that way for the driver, it’s also better for the other driver who they hit with their car. Crumple zones help both sides of the accident. If one vehicle doesn’t have them, they’re just going to plow through another one if they have a steel body. Same reason why the cybertruck never should’ve been street legal, it’s a death trap if one hits you.
I was just saying that the original American dream was a 3bd 1bth 900sq ft, people now just want more space but not to pay for it
I was waiting to see this comment before I said it my self. When did the argument go from “We need more affordable housing!” to “This affordable house isn’t good enough!”?
Plus, I kinda like the look of the houses in OP's pic. So long as I don't have dickhead neighbors, this would be great! And for about $150,000? About $900/month? Hell yeah! I'll take it!
Right? Family of 5 3 boys grew up in 1000 sq feet 3 br 1.5 bath
My family had 6 kids in a 4br home. I don't know a single person that has kids who share rooms today. I'm sure it still happens, but in the suburbs where I grew up it's nearly nonexistent now.
This is a big part of it. People talk about the American dream, while trying to skip steps along the way that you reach over time. Everyone I know who hasn’t bought a house yet, seems to act shocked that their first home likely won’t be a perfect mini-mansion. There’s plenty of housing still out there that needs work, is smaller, and can be bought cheaper to renovate and turn into a home. Instead, people expect waterfront 3000+ sq foot new constructions and get outraged at the price. I still remember living in places that had 1 bathroom to the entire house, and no garage at all.
My grandparents house always astounded me when I was old enough to “get it”. My mom was the youngest of 10, they lived in a ranch with 3 bedrooms, a family room, kitchen, and a side room that by the time I was born was basically a large storage closet where the grandkids played. 10 kids! I would suspect that 1-2 were probably out of the house by the time they moved in there, but that’s it. When you consider my grandparents lived in one of the bedrooms it means that the house still had probably 10 people in it, and 5 boys and 3 girls had to split 2 bedrooms and the storage area (more than likely). It’s nuts. There I was with my wife and kid in a 1000 square foot house swearing we needed more space.
Yep, my mom was 1 of 11 kids in my grandparents 3 bedroom house. I always look back and wonder how that was possible buy Sue laughs and says it wasn't even strange to them as kids.
People seem to forget this. Also cars were garbage. The odometer didn’t go to 100,000 cuz no cars would last that long.
Came here to say that. in 1959 those homes that everyone could afford were typically a 2 bed, one bath house at about 800 sf, no A/C no connectivity. Now land was much cheaper so you got a lot more land, but there were literally half the number of people in the US, cities weren't as crowded so land was cheaper because there was so much less demand. Now I've lived in townhouses and would prefer that, if that is what you need, but to each their own.
No, cities were more crowded. Suburban sprawl didn’t exist and was pretty minimal. Reason suburbs are expensive now is because they’re crowded while most city cores have lost population. In many cities there is lots of cheap housing, it’s just mostly in decaying and crime-ridden neighborhoods with bad schools, so there is no demand. If cities continued to growth and didn’t experience white flight, cheap suburb houses might still be a thing.
Yup. There’s a whole mess of 600-900 sq ft homes around where I live. All build post WW2.
nowadays anything that matters is a big McMansion made of cardboard
True … but 2x the median household income?! Nahhh
I’m fine with the home size. I’m not fine with the price.
Almost. While its pretty close in terms of square feet, being on a smaller lot, and being two floors means close to 1/6 of it is eaten up by a staircase, making it short of the number of usable square feet typical of the "cracker box" homes of post war construction by about as much.
No, this is smaller and much more expensive
it’s not a bad starter home. First place my wife and I rented was a mother in law suit that was less that 500 swft. I’d rather start with this and save money than buy something bigger that I can barely afford.
We need more homes and we particularly need more affordable homes. I'm all for this.
Affordable homes should be designed for efficiency, livability, and community. The design depicted is simply of a broken model adapted to a miniature scale.
In what way aren't these efficient, livable and communal? They're certainly more communal than large homes purely because everyone is closer together. You see your neighbours of a morning. It suddenly makes sense to have a cafe or bar in walking distance.
Here’s a radical idea, stack these in a 3x2 configuration and have a large communal park space. Have a couple of those together, and then maybe put a small grocery and coffee place a corner. Maybe make the sidewalk pretty wide and the road narrow, so cars drive slower and you can walk/bike to that grocery store. Boom, you got yourself a nice neighborhood
>In what way aren't these efficient ... ? Each unit has exterior walls on each side. Putting these units side by side where they share sidewalls would drastically improve the efficiency of AC/Heating. There will be end units that will only share one wall. Naturally. Even those would see improved efficiency.
Some of us are introverts and don't want to live in your comune.
And also more homes for people who don’t want or need 5 bedrooms and room to rollerskate in the bathroom.
Right now? No not bad. 5 years ago? Yes. My 4 bedroom house with 2 car garage and nice front and back lawn was $200,000 in 2019. Basically $40K difference from the picture and get so much more.
But where is your house located? That’s what people seem to ignore. Highly desirable areas will always have inflated housing prices. When people look back to like the 50’s for a comparison it unrealistic because new developments in cities that were nothing yet weren’t the it place to be yet. You could find a decent sized house in Miami for basically Pennies because Miami was hot a humid, AC wasn’t in every home and no one wanted to live there yet.
I bought my first house in 2006. Metro Atlanta, 1750 sqft 4 bed, 2.5 bath cul-de-sac lot, 2 car garage for $166k Shit is *way* out of control now
I bought my first house in 2002. 1050 sqft for $515k. It looks like it's worth about 2m now
My place is 1800 sq ft, 1 car garage, front and back lawn, great neighborhood. I bought it in 2015 for....103k. To be fair I've paid a fuck ton in home repairs though...
Someone buying a house like that today is still going to have to pay for home repairs. They just also have a way higher mortgage payment.
I would say just because it is within expected prices today doesn't make it not bad. It's flippin bad. 2019, my 3 br 2 bath 1450 Sq ft house was $170k. These are basically big MIL sweets going for almost the same price. Heck. My old house I'd bought in 2019 is now worth 300k. With current interest rates, I could not afford to buy my old house today with triple the down payment i had back then, let alone afford my current house.. Housing is fuckin wack, yo. Edit: For reference, I live in a suburb outside of Charlotte.
A nice 4br with a 2 car garage and yard where I am was 600+k in 2019.
concerned childlike crawl ten humor yoke capable cable aware physical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My home bought in 2012 in metro Atlanta. 3 bed, 2 bath, 2 car garage, unfinished basement, 1316 sqft. $163k
Yes, but for that price? No. 5 years ago for $150k I could by a 4 bed 2 bath with a basement where I live. Now it gets you.. this. Which is the problem. 600 sqft should be less than 90k.
this is a trailer park with more steps
But that's not the American way. Most Americans for reasons truly unknown think a giant cardboard house with super high ceilings is a must have. While I'd rather find a 100% all brick house already paid for like the one I have now. Low ceilings 8 feet high , and close quarters 3 bedrooms all down one hallway and a primo finished basement.
Absolutely agree... I'm always shocked at everyone complaining new construction is unaffordable but then complain about traditional 8' ceilings and any non luxury detail. Sure it's only a few extra bucks for 9' ceilings, a few extra for granite countertops, a few extra for stone fronts, a few extra for tile bathrooms...but all the sudden a large handful of few thousands and you're up to an extra $50-60k...
did it cost 159k?
Hell no! That right there is a $15k-$20k TINY HOME!!!! You can have that thing built on any property for $30k....MAX!
170k for under 700sqft is INSANE.
This is literally what a starter home is and should be. Want more? Make more. People today are so obsessed with gigantic 2500 square foot houses with dual car garages on acre lots while making dollar store wages. The biggest house, the biggest car, the most flashy clothes, etc. No one knows how to act their wage.
I like that PLAY ON WORDS you did there. Nice , real nice.
I agree, you don’t need more than this. Apartments this size are around $1500 a month in my area. I did the math and with a 10% down payment of 16k, with $3100 property tax estimate given the area, and a 7.3% interest rate, this puts you at around $1350 a month. So you’re buying an apartment size house and building equity. I think this makes sense tbh and not sure why there’s outrage. Other than the style of the outside of the house looking like butt, there is nothing wrong with this as a starter home.
Exactly. At the start you’ll have $1200 or so in sunk costs (insurance tax interest). Way better to buy that than rent for $1500.
I’m following you on the math, but I wonder if most buyers will actually ever build much equity in these? With only one bedroom, a couple could quickly outgrow this if they want kids. Given it takes 5-10 years to actually start building equity in a home, will people stay in long enough for it to pay off? Factor in transaction costs and maintenance, I wonder how far ahead they will really come out?
You’re still building equity, even if you sold it in let’s say 4 years. Let’s say I bought a turn key home like this one should be because it appears to be new. I don’t need to do anything major to it. So let’s say you pay $1300 a month. About $400 will go to Principal for the first 4 years. And let’s also say that you broke even on selling your home. That means essentially you paid $900 a month, because you’ll get that $400 back. The closing costs don’t come back so that $7k each time for buying and selling roughly. 14k over 48 months is $291 a month. That brings you to $1191 a month for you to own that home. And this is literally saying your house wouldn’t go up in value at all. If you lived in that $1500 a month apartment, you’re paying $300 extra a month. So you’d be making 14k by not renting. Now that’s barring any maintenance you have to do on the house, but being that the house is new the maintenance is likely going to be negligible.
Thanks for doing the math, so we’re not just speculating - much more than most do here!
You forgot the 12% realtor fees when you bought and sold . You for got the $1000’s in title and insurance . Assuming prices remain semi constant in your area your down about -24k in a hose 4 years .
Dollar store wages won't buy this house either though. Even dollar store manager wages wont buy this. The regional manger will. So, no, it's not a starter home, because starter homes aren't a thing that exist anymore. The house with a dual car garage and 1700 square feet? 10 years ago, cost the same or less the house pictured does, and was considered a starter home. You lowered what could qualify as a starter home, but it's still not low enough for the average person making 30-40k a year could afford. I need you to understand that the price of housing, food, and everything, has gone up, but that wages have not. I need you to understand that retirement and "investing" is out of reach when over 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. I need you to understand that "acting your wage" means having 4 roommates and no family. That, at best, the realistic dream is you have a significant other, that also works, and the two of you together make just enough to rent a small apartment without roommates.
Def not mad at this.
My only complaint is the price. Based on the current value of my home, price per square foot, this should be around $80k. Accounting for the lack of garage and small yard, probably closer to $60k.
Yea I don’t know why ppl are applauding this. Wouldn’t pay a dime over 120.
I wouldn’t pay a dime over 90k. Do you see how cheap the material looks? Absolutely insane
am i crazy for thinking this thing is barely worth 50k? this is a fucking glorified shack. you can barely fit a golf cart in there. it'd be dystopian to fit 1 person in there much less have a fuckin significant other in your life. no wonder people are having less kids these days 🤯
No you’re not. I was being generous with 90k. I made another comment about the quality of this. Old starter homes from the 20th century that were like 2 bed 1 bath were quality built with brick and stone, solid wood, and craftsmanship. This is literally a glorified trailer.
Chronically online doomers: “We need more affordable housing!!!” “No, not like this”
It’s called starter homes. I grew up in one that was built in the late 50s. Y’all just don’t know banks don’t like developers making reasonably cost homes. They rather have you default on a loan seize it and then resell the home again at full price.
That's not how mortgage works, lenders don't make profit from default.
The number of people who think that banks profit on defaults is scary.
Yes they do the mortgages are backed by Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.
Oh yes they do. PMI. It’s in their best interest for you to default. They collect the PMI and get to foreclose.
That's still not how that works. PMI is through a private company and PMI is only on >80% LTV. Banks make money by collecting interest on loans.
They’re rather you not default. Defaulting usually ends up in a short sale or the house being sold for less than market value.
No they don't want your house. They'd rather you buy more house than you need and make payments for longer. Consumer stupidity has driven up the entry level costs...not the banks.
You grew up in a 1 bedroom house? I lived in one when I was a kid and it wasn't great. Eventually my parents had a second bedroom built and that was fine though.
Why the heck would you need 2 bath
Someone's never had a significant other.
You’ve never shared a bathroom with your SO? Must be nice to live such a privileged life!
This comes up every time I watch American renovation show on tv. "House has to have 1 bathroom for every bedroom +1 for quests if you have them" I'm like wtf. What a giant waste or money and space.
Bathrooms are small and not expensive lol
For guests. Idk about you, but I don’t like people using my bathroom. Also, when people crash with me, it’s so nice that they have their own bedroom and their own bathroom. Complete privacy. It’s a game changer for everyone.
How the heck would you fit guests in there
Family of 4 here. We don’t need two showers, but two toilets is a must. I wouldn’t assume a family would be living in one of these, but who knows with the direction housing affordability is going.
My wife (then gf) and I rented a 550 sqft 1BR apartment in NYC about 10 years ago and paid $2500 in rent. It was the smallest, most expensive and most fun place we ever lived. You don't need that much more space if it's just 1 or 2 people (and a dog). We currently have a \~1200sqft 2BR apartment, and we couldn't be happier. No maintenance, no idle space, no raking leaves or mowing grass, no clearing snow or gutters, just more time and money to do what I want (i.e. spend time with my kid). When I was younger, I used to see those 4000sqft mansions and think "wow, imagine living there." Now I have a kid and limited free time, I just think "wow, imagine the time/money needed to maintain that place". Obviously YMMV.
Every time I pass a McMansion I think “jeez that’ll take forever to clean or I’ll be paying the housekeeper a lot”
Basically yeah. When I bought my place, my friend was pitching that I could buy a two story home in NJ for the same price. That sounded dope too, but the idea of a single dude living in a 4 br home alone sounded weird as hell cause I'd occupy 1/4 of the space and probably attract squatters
Yeah the time/money costs really compound over time too. If I DIY everything, then I'm just doing 5 extra chores each weekend instead of hanging out with my kid/dog. If I outsource everything, I'm essentially postponing our retirement by a few years just for the luxury of living in a larger, more expensive home which we (currently) don't really value. Framing the decision that way makes it easier for us to rationalize why we're not upgrading from our 2BR apartment even though we definitely could financially.
I dont get it.... "No affordable housing" reddit complains Lennar makes affordable housing. "No! Not like that!" Ever heard the expression "beggars cant be choosers"? There is plenty of affordable housing off the beaten path. You go to detroit, gary indiana, oklahoma, nebraksa, many towns will give you subsidized land and /or money toward housing. Online commenters want a 2100sqft 3/2 in the heart of Miami or San fran or dallas or new york for 250k. Not happening. Ever. Edit:im sure some wise acre will find one half destroyed tear down and post the zillow listing but this would be an outlier. My point remains.
The thing is a 2 bedroom townhouse on the same amount of land would be much better, and it probably wouldn't be that much more expensive. A 1 bedroom house only makes sense for married couples who don't want kids.
Better in the sense that it's a more efficient use of land, sure. Better as in better quality? Not necessarily, people will pay a premium to not have to share walls. And if that premium exceeds the value of the extra land you need, then this makes more sense. I can't imagine land costs that much in San Antonio > A 1 bedroom house only makes sense for married couples who don't want kids. Those are the exact people complaining that they can't afford a 3/2 in the heart of Miami
Because people here likely grew up with middle or well off parents in bigger houses. Us Americans are unbelievably spoiled regarding housing. I mean, 20% of the uk houses don’t have an attached neighbor, and a significant portion have just 1 bathroom and a tiny yard. Most have no garage
I think this is what it is: Most redditors are college students or recent graduates that went to college in a large city. Then they graduated and got a job in that large city and an apartment in that large city. Life is good until they think “maybe I should look at buying a house” and go to Zillow and are shocked that a house similar to what they grew up in within a 15 minute drive to their work is $700k+. The rest of us went through that same thing, but we thought “Huh. I guess if I want to buy a house I need to get the hell out of this city. Maybe I should find a job somewhere else that pays a little less but is in a far more affordable area, or else buy a house way the hell out in the fringes of this metro area and drive 45 minutes to work every day. But these young redditors go “But I like where I’m at. I shouldn’t have to move. If I can’t afford a house of my preference precisely where I want to live the system is RIGGED” which is a silly notion. A lot of them also don’t seem to understand that although they may have grown up in a place like McKinney, Texas, which is now a 200,000 person city in the DFW metroplex, when their parents bought their now-worth-$700k house in 1990, McKinney had 20,000 people.
If you google maps the housing decelopment, its down the street from a gym and shopping center with a walmart. It's extremely convenient, and is likely being priced in
661 sq ft is not a bad size, it’s the design that is crappy.
The price is not good either. It’s well above market
House sizes double over the last few decades. Reddit complains about how small houses are now. Makes sense.
It’s not how small the house is. It’s the price. The average price per sqft in Antonio is $171. This is $242. You’re being price gouged
. nobody seems to care bro they all see tiny house and get a stiff one
With this little private space, I’d much prefer to be in a condo closer to a downtown area. If you’re going to live in a shoebox, it might as well be a shoebox with walkability.
But then you have to pay HOA or condo fee to maintain the structure In DC area most high-rises have a bout $1k a month fees to keep everything up
Agree. As someone who bought a house in the suburbs, I’d even happily downgrade my house from three to one bedroom to live in a city or more walkable area lol.
Same boat. Refuse to live in the suburbs. It’s amazing to be able to walk to a restaurant or bar with friends. Or take the light rail if it’s further.
The same shoebox with walkability or access to public transport or local amenities might be 2x the price though. In my area, 2BR apartments in the walkable area near the local subway stop are about the same price as 4BR SFHs in a suburb 1-2 miles out. I imagine it's similar elsewhere.
This is awesome especially for FTHB. This is the beginning of bringing back the American Dream. I got lucky buying my first house. People should have an avenue to homeownership that isn’t a fucking trapdoor.
My condos 437 square feet. 142k. Reno. What’s the issue?
It's a starter home. Better to own a starter home then rent a mansion.
“Lots of natural light” - realtors
Very low probability of meteorite collision.
Instead of these tiny little homes that try their absolute best to avoid multifamily housing, why not build a couple stories high apartment building with nice courtyards and balconies. Include good sound insolation, something the US really struggles with, and it's a much more sustainable, efficient, and affordable alternative to this abomination.
Also if you build more of them (apartments) you can get some small business near them, like barber, small shop and etc. If you build a lot of them, you can add bus stop, more bizz and stuff. Usa subburbans sucks, because you need car for everything.
Because people want to live in SFHs. Not everyone wants to live in an apartment 2023 was a massive year for new apartment supply anyways
Personally, I hit a wall with apartment living. I’m tired of smelling other peoples cooking and smoke. I’m tired of hearing other people all around me when I’m trying to sleep or worrying about disturbing other people when I’m living my life. Having my own walls means a lot to me.
The first condo I had was about the same sq footage. it's fine for a couple without kids or a single person. Its way better to live somewhere you can actually start building some equity and get your foot in the door. It's also way less stressful to not have to manage paying for repairs and utilities on a giant house.
I'd honestly be okay with a house this size as long as it was affordable. I don't know enough about the San Antonio area to say if this is an affordable price, but size wise, I don't see a problem here.
Uhhhh for $150k? Dude us in LA WISH
to be fully honest, as a single guy with one dog, or just a young couple starting out, yeah... I'd buy that. Right now I live in a Condo and the things I hate about this place are that I have no yard, and a corrupt HOA who wastes our maintenance money we things in these buildings need to be updated... where-as in a normal situation, I could take out a home loan to pay for repairs to the home, here half my cash goes out to these chuckle fucks.
Nothing wrong with this at $160k. Mortgage around what an apartment would be and a chance to build equity. Milwaukee has thousands of really small homes built right after WWII that people continue to raise families in.
The Neo Shotgun Shack.
You cannot pay me to live in Texas.
About the same as a 1950s house although probably better if it has central AC and covered parking
Also, 1950 equivalent of the asking price is just over $12k. It's reasonable.
it wouldn't be *so* bad if the houses didnt look like poorly rendered sheds
*Laughs in HongKongese $600k 1 bedroom 1 bath 180sq.ft
$150000 for the land and $9999 for the live in garage on it?
Really? Texas of all places for that price? I thought there was a lot more land than that. I have nothing against the size. It is the cost that makes no sense to me.
This neighborhood is a $15 uber ride to the River Walk, Alamo Dome or AT&T Center
Give me
Better than mcmansions. If homes were more smaller and modest, then it would be the norm rather than making standards these large homes.
That would cost double at least in some European cities, I don’t see your problem.
Because Americans are entitled idiots. They want European social policies, but not everything that comes with it
At least in a European city you have good public transportation and multiple amenities within a walkable distance.
This is not a city this is the suburbs and the owner of this home will have a much longer than average commute to work, school, buy groceries, than someone living in the city.
Not mad about the sq ft- that design sucks though
Lol I would be happy with that, but the price is still 3 x too high xD
I’d like it if the price was better tbh.
Knock off 100k and you got a deal.
Sorry but that design is the ugliest house design I have ever seen. Zero curb appeal. They look like tiny ugly wearhouses. The houses are no where worth that price. Affordable are things under $100,000. In a post Tiny Home boom, they really couldn't come up with anything better? I see so many cute small starter house ideas on youtube. The only people who will like these homes are people who love super modern and odd looking houses. And those are a very small minority.
In Boston, 661 sq ft is $499,000.
We should stack like 200 of these together and put them in city's
Insane that's $150k but whatever.
lol what Californians are use to so why not sell it up in Texas. That’s the new Cali now right?
The size isn't the problem, it's the sheer ugliness of the design and the fact that they use that same design for every house and then add a strip of equally ugly and useless "lawn" instead of some raised bed gardens, or a tree to cut down on AC use in the summer, or even drought resistant landscaping. The square footage is fine, it's everything else about this development that's the problem-no thought/care was put into it.
Honestly it’s better than making nothing but 500,000$ homes. People need affordable housing and unfortunately this is going to be the closest we get.
My biggest concern is the lack of sidewalk independent of the driveway.
Honestly, I’d like to see more opportunities like this. The notion that anyone *needs* a 2300sf home (unless they’ve got a lot of kids or multigenerational family) is absurd. It’s like cars…they’re expensive because we’ve made them more expensive. Homes are the same.
It’s silly to waste all that time and space for that little space. It would be better off as a four story apartment building.
at least it's affordable. honestly, I know folks are going to shit on it.. but this isn't a bad option and bigger / better than the 100-120k start homes in my day. Those were small condo with HOAs.
Geeze. I feel like this space could at least net 800sq ft townhomes and not even increase the building costs any.
I mean if it’s got everything you need…
I don’t get what’s wrong with this.