Georgia's first Tiny Home Neighborhood Offers New Homes for $100k (Clarkston: to buy, calculation)

[jeoff]

Originally Posted by AtlJan

Yes it actually does--a normal-size condo at this price would allow you to have a roommate = saves you money.

or you could use the living room for your art studio, band practice area, kid's birthday party = saves you money.

The only reason to buy this tiny over-priced house in Clarkston is if you really, really don't want your mom to stay with you when she comes to visit. That could be worth it.

These *might* work for healthy retirees with not much in savings. You can live independently without worrying about rent going up, and pay minimal property tax (if they go down in value, even better—less property tax). Even a cheap condo can have fees that can get pretty obnoxious. With any luck you live out a nice long life there, and die in your sleep, never worrying how much the place is worth. If you end up going to a home—your minimal savings are going to disappear anyway, so who cares what the place is worth.

[DreamerD]

Originally Posted by AtlJan

The only reason to buy this tiny over-priced house in Clarkston is if you really, really don't want your mom to stay with you when she comes to visit. That could be worth it.

Words of wisdom!

[CaliDreaming01]

Originally Posted by AtlJan

The only reason to buy this tiny over-priced house in Clarkston is if you really, really don't want your mom to stay with you when she comes to visit. That could be worth it.

Truer words have never been spoken. I have a large extended family and the fear of uninvited guests crashing my place on a whim played a big role in us deciding on a house with less square footage.

[wasel]

I think part of the "value" question is resale value. Most people who buy their first home are trying to get on the property ladder, using a home as a way to build wealth over their lifetime as they progress economically. I can't see the market value of these homes increasing all that much through the years because the pool of buyers for these would be pretty small. If you want to buy a home to stay in for decades it's a different story.

[jsvh]

Just to be clear. No one can name another example of new housing this affordable anywhere in the metro, right?

Maybe you don't see the value. But pretty bold to say there is no value to be offered in the most affordable housing in the metro.

You don't like it, fine. No one is trying to deny you the ability to pay more money for a larger home. But we still got to update our zoning laws to make these things legal all over. People deserve the option of affordable housing like this if they choose.

[sciblue]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Just to be clear. No one can name another example of new housing this affordable anywhere in the metro, right?

Maybe you don't see the value. But pretty bold to say there is no value to be offered in the most affordable housing in the metro.

You don't like it, fine. No one is trying to deny you the ability to pay more money for a larger home. But we still got to update our zoning laws to make these things legal all over. People deserve the option of affordable housing like this if they choose.

I believe the issue is you seem to be equating value with affordability. They are not the same.

[jeoff]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Just to be clear. No one can name another example of new housing this affordable anywhere in the metro, right?

Maybe you don't see the value. But pretty bold to say there is no value to be offered in the most affordable housing in the metro.

You don't like it, fine. No one is trying to deny you the ability to pay more money for a larger home. But we still got to update our zoning laws to make these things legal all over. People deserve the option of affordable housing like this if they choose.

This product *could* work out for some people, but you keep comparing to traditional housing (show new houses this cheap in the metro...)—it is the same sort of logic that shady folks use to sell time-shares in Orlando. And, I know that you have good intentions, but, if there is no resale market for these, or if banks won’t finance the resale of these, folks that expect for them to hold value or appreciate like traditional homes could be hurt. These could become a very ugly way to prey on low income folks trying to get ahead—sort of like super-high-interest payday loans, or the “predatory” loans that occurred in the last real estate bust.


https://tinyhousetalk.com/do-tiny-ho...lue-over-time/

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by sciblue

I believe the issue is you seem to be equating value with affordability. They are not the same.

No, but they are similar and have a lot of overlap.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by jeoff

This product *could* work out for some people, but you keep comparing to traditional housing (show new houses this cheap in the metro...)—it is the same sort of logic that shady folks use to sell time-shares in Orlando. And, I know that you have good intentions, but, if there is no resale market for these, or if banks won’t finance the resale of these, folks that expect for them to hold value or appreciate like traditional homes could be hurt. These could become a very ugly way to prey on low income folks trying to get ahead—sort of like super-high-interest payday loans, or the “predatory” loans that occurred in the last real estate bust.


https://tinyhousetalk.com/do-tiny-ho...lue-over-time/

It is true that our banking systems and regulations need to stop pushing people to spend more and more and allow people to purchase less expensive homes.

Also, your link is talking about houses on wheels that do not own the land.

To quote your link: "Land is What Appreciates in Value Over Time, NOT Structures and Dwellings"

So, if you have a larger house and don't own the land you are losing value even faster.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Just to be clear. No one can name another example of new housing this affordable anywhere in the metro, right?

No. Just to be clear, we are clarifying what “value” means. Would you pay $75,000 for 100 square feet with no utilities? If not, why not? It’s more affordable! But it’s not a good value. You don’t seem to understand what value actually means. $100k for a house is affordable. $100k for a 250 square foot house is not a good value. It’s affordable, not a good value.

Just like $800,000 for 2,000 square feet in Clarkston is not a good value.

Maybe you don't see the value. But pretty bold to say there is no value to be offered in the most affordable housing in the metro.

If it costs much more per square foot than typical construction, but doesn’t offer anything more than typical construction, then it’s not a good value. It’s affordable, but not a good value.

Costing less /= good value.