[HN Gopher] The Rise and Fall of the Manufactured Home - Part I
___________________________________________________________________
The Rise and Fall of the Manufactured Home - Part I
Author : samclemens
Score : 117 points
Date : 2022-07-16 16:56 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (constructionphysics.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (constructionphysics.substack.com)
| xchaotic wrote:
| It's really simple- real estate is the only casino where you are
| almost guaranteed a leveraged payout in the long run. So as soon
| as houses became an investment, the way to maximise profit is not
| to go for the cheapest but for the most expensive house you can
| afford.
| baxuz wrote:
| Prefabs are rising in popularity in Europe. Especially as passive
| houses.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| What's a passive house?
| bjelkeman-again wrote:
| Simply said, a house with no or very limited heating system.
| But it is of course more complicated than that.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house#Space_heating_re.
| ..
| klodolph wrote:
| As far as I can tell, it's a standard which just means that
| the building needs very little energy for heating or cooling.
| It mostly comes down to making the building very insulated
| (as far as I can tell--not saying that's the complete story,
| but that's a big factor).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house
| nocubicles wrote:
| Passive house atleast here means a house that generates more
| energy then it consumes. E.g very well insulated house with
| solar power, ventilation that gives back energy etc.
| timbit42 wrote:
| They are designed to reduce energy requirements (especially
| heating and cooling) by at least 75% to 90% compared to
| regular homes and ideally by 100% by capturing and holding
| heat in the winter and blocking heat in the summer. They tend
| to have thick walls, triple paned windows, and be air tight.
|
| https://passipedia.org/basics/what_is_a_passive_house
| PontifexMinimus wrote:
| How easy is it for a prefab to be a passive house?
| hgomersall wrote:
| Much easier. I assume the GP means something like SIPs, which
| are machined, insulated panels which fit together super
| tightly, with precise holes for windows etc. Typically, once
| the groundwork is done, they can be easily assembled in a few
| days. They then make then look like normal houses with a
| suitable external facade.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| Prefabs in Europe is something completely different than what
| they are talking about in the US.
| baxuz wrote:
| I wasn't aware of that!
| danans wrote:
| The Palm Canyon Mobile club near Palm Springs, CA is an example
| of how you can make attractive and desirable mobile/prefab homes:
|
| https://www.dwell.com/article/palm-canyon-mobile-club-tiny-h...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z4vz5Ms0rE
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| None of those are mobile homes. They seem to all be
| manufactured or modular. They look pretty nice.
| danans wrote:
| If you watch the video, they explain that they are all
| designed to be moved if the owner wants to.
| bombcar wrote:
| The biggest problem was and continues to be lot rent combined
| with the absolute unresalability.
| rascul wrote:
| There is a market for buying and selling used mobile homes.
| I've worked on a few already this year, getting them ready for
| tenants after they have been bought and moved. Maybe not a
| large market, I don't know. And I'm sure it's very location
| dependent. Lot rents are (edit: mostly) only in (some) trailer
| parks, the vast majority of mobile homes that I see around here
| (southern Mississippi) are not in trailer parks.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Around here (DC suburbs out to Appalachia), it's a mix of
| both. The closer to the city, the more likely the mobile home
| is in a trailer park. Though there aren't many left - most
| that I'm aware of have been bought/closed/redeveloped.
|
| In terms of increasing the supple of affordable homes for
| people who are in suburban or semi-rural areas, mobile homes
| really are a mixed bag, for the reasons listed (which is then
| exacerbated by PE firms buying up parks and milking the
| residents dry).
| kube-system wrote:
| There's technically a market, but they experience insane
| amounts of depreciation. If they're sold with land, most of
| the value is in the land.
| cudgy wrote:
| For used mobile homes (caveat emptor), this can be an
| advantage if the structure is usable, since the buyer
| essentially gets a "free" or very low cost livable
| structure with a septic field included.
|
| Fast depreciation is an advantage to the used market buyer,
| since prior owners took the hit.
| 01100011 wrote:
| It's not uncommon to buy a piece of rural land and drop a
| mobile on it. I've even seen folks do it so they have a place
| to live while they build a traditional house.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I've even seen people go so far as to brick around the pre-
| built home to hide what it is or to comply with some sort
| of code. Sometimes, they'll match the brick on the house
| that was built, and keep the pre-built for an in-laws suite
| type of thing. One of those, "we already have this thing
| and we're not going to get much from selling, so what do we
| do with it now" scenarios.
| rascul wrote:
| > It's not uncommon to buy a piece of rural land and drop a
| mobile on it.
|
| This is the large majority of mobile homes I see and work
| on.
| topkai22 wrote:
| Yeah, I was going to comment the same thing. I've lived in
| multiple regions where there is plenty large, owner occupant
| lots where the structure is a mobile home. The mobile home
| park/ground rent model is definitely not the only model in
| use for these structures.
| galaktus wrote:
| > absolute unresalability
|
| That is not true. There absolutely is a market for resale.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| In some regions, you can purchase a lot and drop a mobile home
| down.
| 800xl wrote:
| This is true in a lot of areas of Texas. The mobile home
| dealer will even help you find land. You typically have to
| have a water well and septic system installed on the land.
|
| I see these mobile home land packages come up for sale on
| Redfin all the time. They do appear to appreciate in value if
| they are clean and taken care of, but not as much as a site
| built home. I have even seen some successful flips.
|
| I guess the main drawback is that they are typically located
| on less desirable land and the lifespan of the house just
| isn't going to compare favorably to a site built house, but
| at least they are affordable.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I just want them to start making shipping containers such that at
| their end of life they can be turned in to housing without a
| bunch of work. No toxic materials for the floors. Window and door
| spaces pre cut and bolted over rather than needing to be cut out
| after the fact, access panels to run electrical and plumbing. A
| whole system that is designed to be used first as a shipping
| container and later as a modular home.
| dougmwne wrote:
| I assume that a shipping container is only at end of life one
| it starts rusting and loses structural integrity. Not sure
| anyone would want to live in it at that point.
| lelandbatey wrote:
| Shipping containers just structurally aren't that great at
| being houses, I feel like. They're pretty much cardboard boxes
| made of steel; very minimal and purpose built. The basic
| structure isn't that vital to a house being a house, usually
| it's everything else (insulation, plumbing, flooring, etc.)
|
| Not sure pre cut holes would help a lot.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Steel seems a terrible material for a building shell because
| it conducts heat so well.
| WheatM wrote:
| towaway15463 wrote:
| You'd never recoup the extra cost
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The issue with trailers is that they are built to a different
| standard, basically designed to depreciate like a car. The
| modular houses that get assembled on site are almost
| indistinguishable from many traditional houses.
|
| On the flip, the regular building codes are insane and drive up
| costs to address risks that aren't there, while ignoring obvious
| deficiencies that are both expensive and long term dangerous.
| It's ok to glue the exterior of a house on or put a PVC toilet
| flange on new construction, but you need to install insane
| numbers of electrical outlet to prevent some nonexistent fire
| risk.
| ip26 wrote:
| A failing exterior or flange doesn't usually kill you in your
| sleep.
| wrycoder wrote:
| My outlet spacing is to code, but I've got plug strips all over
| the place holding chargers.
| edflsafoiewq wrote:
| What's wrong with a PVC toilet flange?
| abakker wrote:
| They are less durable than a bronze one, and, when your
| toilet flange goes wrong, you have a major problem.
|
| Personally, I like PVC for being light, easy to modify, and
| definitively waterproof.
| pram wrote:
| The peaks in popularity are super interesting because they line
| up exactly with my parents owning a manufactured home.
|
| They bought one as newlyweds in the 70s, and then a double-wide
| in the 90s. These were both on acre sized lots.
|
| We lived in regular suburban style houses too so I don't know
| what the appeal was. Some kind of weird Boomer romanticism?
| rascul wrote:
| From what I understand, the appeal is that it's quick and cheap
| to get a mobile home compared to having a house built.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| In the US, tract builders target houses to be built from the
| ground up in 100 days, assuming supplies and workers are
| available.
|
| If it was more economical to do prefab, DR Horton/Lennar/etc
| would be doing it.
| rascul wrote:
| When I first got into construction a couple decades ago, I
| was working for a roofing and siding contractor doing a new
| development. Houses were going up so fast that as soon as
| we finished one house, the next was one ready for us. My
| recollection is probably about 12 to 15 weeks start to
| finish, which is approximately in line with your 100 day
| number.
|
| Although, if you already have the land, you can potentially
| buy a mobile home, have it delivered and setup, utilities
| hooked up, and move in within a week, for a lesser overall
| price. There are a lot of tradeoffs, though.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Yeah but that's for a whole neighborhood, they gaun economy
| of scale.
|
| It entirely different to build one house, in 10 acres 2
| hours outside of a major city.
|
| It's like building a hot rod vs. A production car.
| ssharp wrote:
| In my area, I see a fair number of manufactured homes placed on
| permanent foundations on private lots come up for sale. For
| whatever reason, they almost never mention the fact that they are
| manufactured, which I guess must not be a legal requirement. They
| are pretty easy to tell apart -- vaulted ceilings that end up
| being very close to door height, strips that cover seams in the
| drywall, a very clear split down the center where the house was
| shipped in two parts, etc.
|
| I cannot believe people are either naively buying these homes for
| the price of a normal house or don't even realize it's a
| manufactured home.
|
| There is a lot you can do to make these homes nicer but coming
| from the factory, so much of the materials are sub-par. Most of
| the "cabinets" are just fronts placed onto thin particle board
| "frames" that are sloppily stapled together. The plastic plumbing
| fittings are very prone to wearing down quickly. A lot of the
| times the bathroom plumbing isn't vented. The windows are
| absolute garbage. The furnace and water heater are squeezed into
| a tiny cubby that would probably have to access from a small
| access door in one of the closets, or maybe two closets, where
| each side can access a certain portion of it. Sinks are made of
| thin, cheap plastic. Lots of things can also be built to a code
| that wouldn't be allowed in other construction -- the electric
| wires are 3-in-1 wires that snap directly into the outlets, the
| house's frame is thinner than normally allowed, drywall is
| thinner, etc. etc.
|
| I think all that is fine if you know what you're getting but I
| suspect a lot of people don't realize what they're actually
| buying.
| cudgy wrote:
| An inspection is required for most home purchases that are
| financed. The inspection report would clearly indicate the
| construction type. If buyers aren't reading their inspection
| reports, what can you do?
| zippergz wrote:
| I don't think this is accurate in the US. Yes, FHA loans
| require inspections, but they are WELL under half of all
| mortgages, and I am not aware of any other major lenders or
| loan programs that require inspections (there probably are
| some, but I have never encountered one in many home purchases
| and sales). Most do require appraisals, but an appraisal is
| very different than an inspection, and usually the buyer does
| not see the appraisal report (as the actual customer is the
| lender, not the buyer).
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > I think all that is fine if you know what you're getting but
| I suspect a lot of people don't realize what they're actually
| buying.
|
| They realize. They can't afford anything else.
|
| From the article:
|
| > Almost as soon as trailers appeared, they began to be used
| for year-round living rather than camping trips, typically by
| traveling salesman or other itinerant workers. In the 1920s and
| 30s it was estimated that between 10 and 25% of trailers were
| used for year-round accommodation. And as unemployment soared
| and housing starts collapsed during the Great Depression,
| trailer living became more common. By 1937, it was estimated
| that 50% of new trailers were purchased as permanent shelter.
|
| The "van life" trend should have been a huge warning sign...
| 01100011 wrote:
| There are, or used to be a few decades ago when I last checked,
| some surprisingly well built factory homes. They're not all
| mobile home quality.
|
| Concerning quality, my sister bought a tract home in WA state a
| few years ago and the quality was comparable to a mobile home.
| The appliances were as cheap as possible, cabinets were poor
| quality, and even the home placement on the non-rectangular lot
| was very odd. The back fence was about 2' from her rear door,
| despite having a huge side yard to the right and left.
| wincy wrote:
| Some of the things I wanted in a manufactured home are ILLEGAL.
| I thought it was extremely strange that I would have to get a
| ducted HVAC system. Under floor heating is for some reason
| literally illegal (unless you retrofit it) and I am still
| scratching my head as to why.
| danans wrote:
| > Under floor heating is for some reason literally illegal
| (unless you retrofit it) and I am still scratching my head as
| to why.
|
| Mobile homes generally have little no insulation of any kind
| underneath, and their subfloors are exposed to exterior air,
| so the heat would be quickly lost to the outside environment.
|
| You could in theory make a highly insulated subfloor on a
| mobile home (i.e. 2" of polyiso foam board) on which you
| could install electric or hydronic heating, but you would
| then lose a significant amount of already limited ceiling
| height.
| newsclues wrote:
| Lots of traditionally manufactured homes have the same issues
| you mentioned, it's just people cutting corners for cost.
| amluto wrote:
| > the electric wires are 3-in-1 wires that snap directly into
| the outlets
|
| I'm curious what these are. I've seen these, and they're quite
| nice and _more_ expensive than normal outlets:
|
| https://www.legrand.us/pass-and-seymour/plugtail
|
| They're convenient if you have a large electrical box and you
| need a pigtail anyway (e.g. you're jumping off the box to feed
| another outlet), but not really a win otherwise. If you buy
| them, get the stranded version for an extra dollar or so and
| consider using lever nuts to make installing it even more
| pleasant.
| ssharp wrote:
| That looks more sophisticated than what I'm talking about.
| This is more along the lines of what I've seen:
|
| https://mobilehomepartsstore.com/parts/230215.html
|
| These are "self-conainted" and don't go into electric boxes.
| They'll a hole gets cut in the drywall and the outlets have
| ears that push out to attach it to the wall. The wire goes
| through the back and then the back cover gets tightened and
| the pressure cuts into the wires to juice the outlets.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| I was told the following by a guy in central California who
| built his own little subdivision and put a bunch of double wide
| manufactured homes on 1 acre plots. This was a pretty rural
| area.
|
| He said that he effectively couldn't find the labor to build
| even a semi high quality home in that rural of an area. He said
| anything they'd stick build in that area would be of lesser
| quality than a decent manufactured home due to lack of good
| contractor availability.
|
| He also said, and my understanding agrees, that once you bolt
| it to a foundation, all done per code, there isn't really a
| clean way to say it's anything other than a house. If the while
| thing is made to code, meets the national and local building
| codes, is mounted to a code meeting foundation and utilities,
| it's a house.
|
| This applies to manufactured homes built as such, not things
| like travel trailers or destination trailers which people often
| conflate with true manufactured homes. Rvs amd destination
| trailers, things that never go off their wheels and often have
| lattice or other wood skirting around their base to hide the
| wheels and frame are regulated by RVIA amd meet their codes,
| not the national building codes. True manufactured homes meet
| the national and local building codes, it's just the assembly
| location is different.
| nimbius wrote:
| in america, I owned a trailer or what's called a mobile home.
| what killed it for me is the places you can put one (lots of
| NIMBY) and the lots you can lease for one have exorbitant fees
| for water/sewage and land. its all the worst parts of renting
| rolled into a $60k home.
| imtringued wrote:
| It's the land stupid.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| IMO the only good option for a manufactured home at this point
| is to drop it on a nice piece of acreage out in the sticks. No
| pesky zoning or NIMBY problems, and you can spend your money on
| the land instead.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| And those areas are harder to find unless you go waaaaay out
| there.
|
| Even then you need to invest in septic tank generally.
| antisthenes wrote:
| There is generally no free lunch when it comes to housing.
|
| It's just expensive in developed countries, unless it's in
| a dangerous/decaying area.
| gscott wrote:
| And after awhile you trailer becomes to old to accept into a
| new park so it is captive in the park you are at and they can
| increase fees on you forever.
| gumby wrote:
| I wonder if some of the quality and reputation issues could be
| fixed if the road constraint were removed. Then more robust
| building code rules could be required and enforced.
|
| The way to get rid of the road constraint would be airships, as
| discussed in a HN submission in the last week or so.
|
| If that worked, than manufactured housing could change the
| granularity: subassemblies would be worth building in a factory
| and moved onsite (imagine a stack of 8'x12' walls, already
| drywalled and with code compliant electrical fittings) or, on the
| other direction, multistory building could be transported the way
| doublewides are transported and then joimed _in situ_ today.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Airships?
|
| I feel like you glossed over that little detail.
|
| Even if the safety were better than cars, being physically in
| the air is terrifying to most people. That's not a deal
| breaker, but it's certainly a hurdle. If you've been next to
| someone on a plane who had to down a whole bottle of xanax
| (metaphorically) just to get through the flight, you realize
| how traumatic it can be for some people.
|
| And then you'll get stories like "mother of five perishes with
| all five due to airship failure". Tesla has had relatively few
| such horror stories, and look how much it's impacted them. (On
| the other hand, "how little it's impacted them" might also be
| accurate.)
|
| But I really want to know what you mean by airship. My mind
| immediately went to FF7 Highwind.
| mbreese wrote:
| I took it to mean transporting the pre made houses by airship
| instead of over existing roads.
|
| Less traveling public, more heavy transport.
|
| By removing the "must ship by road" requirement, you could
| have many more shapes and sizes for the prefabricated home
| components. Transport of the components by airship would be
| one way to avoid roads.
|
| (It brings a whole host of other issues too, so it's not
| something I find all that practical, but I'm not the parent)
| benoliver999 wrote:
| Airship to transport the house, not airship as a house
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| Now, lets not dismiss that idea...'cause that'd be rad
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Tethering fees bought up by private equity.
|
| $1000 per month for a steel loop in queens to tie onto!
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| ....I think they mean delivery and transport by airship,
| versus delivery by road.
|
| I don't see how that would work, given mobile homes weigh
| roughly 50 pounds per square foot, and that probably doesn't
| account for personal belongings and furniture. Even very
| large cargo helicopters seem to top out around 20 tons.
| toast0 wrote:
| Manufactured homes are usually moved only once, so no need
| to move it with belongings and furniture. Weight is still
| likely way too much though.
| gumby wrote:
| You just need the structures, not the fittings, but weight
| is indeed an issue where you can't easily find ballast to
| swap for your cargo.
| dqpb wrote:
| Lol. Next time someone criticizes an idea of mine, I'll try
| responding with: "Easy, we'll just use airships."
| gumby wrote:
| A fair and amusing point. But we may _finally_ be reaching
| the viability point of a return of airships (cf for example,
| last month's
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31592448#31593040 ).
|
| For large objects the road constraints are more significant
| so when the constraint space opens up new opportunities
| emerge. And a lot of housing is needed!
| brudgers wrote:
| Modular buildings tick all your requirements and are ubiquitous
| in the US.
|
| There are technical (aka, legal) differences between "modular
| building", "mobile home", "trailer", "motor home", and
| "recreational vehicle".
|
| "Manufactured home" is a trade association term and useful
| because a manufacturer might build both modular homes and
| mobile homes on the same assembly line and they may even be
| hard to tell apart because most of the difference is in the
| paperwork.
|
| As I said there's a legal layer.
| gumby wrote:
| Thanks!
| rootusrootus wrote:
| One thing I think they could do to make them more popular would
| be to ship units as modules without roofs. It would add some
| complexity to the logistics, but in my opinion one of the big
| weaknesses of manufactured home design is the limit on roof
| design resulting from the need to tow them down the road. If the
| roof was built on-site it would give them a more traditional
| design that would expand the appeal.
| chasil wrote:
| Clayton Homes is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, and I've seen
| them every time that I go to a shareholders' meeting in Omaha.
|
| https://www.claytonhomes.com/
|
| Clayton Homes has engaged in predatory lending, and this is one
| of the darker sides of the Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate.
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/korihale/2019/04/18/warren-buff...
| monkeydust wrote:
| I am impressed by the potential of 3D printed housing, great
| video here of a sizable one developed using concrete printing.
|
| https://youtu.be/qWBA-6NgIJg
| kube-system wrote:
| The big advantage of desktop 3d printing is that one machine
| can print infinite designs with no retooling cost in between
| design changes. This advantage is lost when the item you're
| printing is the too big to be moved, and assembling the machine
| is a significant construction project by itself. And
| customizable design is not a hard criteria for low cost
| housing.
|
| It's a neat demo, but I don't see how that process could be
| leveraged for cost savings as is.
| _jayhack_ wrote:
| 3D printing housing is exciting; I'm also optimistic about the
| future of modular architecture, in which walls (or even room-
| sized units) are manufactured and transported to the
| construction site, plumbing/electricity already included, and
| assembled like Legos. Nexii (https://www.nexii.com/) is working
| on something similar. It seems there are significant
| construction cost reductions, faster to build, and easier to
| repair, although the space of possible buildings is more
| limited than in the 3D-printed approach
| zabzonk wrote:
| I lived in prefabs twice - both RAF married quarters. Married
| people were my parents and this was back in the 60s.
|
| First was way out beyond the perimeter track at RAF Jever, in
| West Germany, the second at RAF Hemswell, in Lincolnshire. Both
| were actually quite cosy, and we got through the dreadful 1963
| winter at Hemswell with few problems. In fact I found them warmer
| than the brick-built married quarters we moved into at RAF
| Scampton, after Helmswell.
| cudgy wrote:
| Prefab is a different animal altogether in the US from
| manufactured homes. Prefabricated homes are many times built to
| higher standards than regular homes, and prefab homes are
| usually permanent with no intention of moving the structure to
| other sites over their lifetimes. Unfortunately, prefab homes
| are equal (if not more in some cases) in cost relative to
| standard "stick-built" homes.
| jollybean wrote:
| Why are people not talking about social views?
|
| 'Mobile Homes' are viewed as for 'White Trash' or 'Poor People'.
|
| Funny the decline in sales seems to have started with the
| 'Trailer Park Boys'? Obviously it's a coincidence, but these
| things matter quite a lot.
|
| I can definitely see an opportunity for such homes that are
| styled to be hip, with modern designs, tucked away in the forest,
| that kind of thing.
|
| Manufacturers and designers are going to have to create a new
| perception. If there is a direct economic advantage, they might
| want to work with city hall / planners etc. as well on this.
|
| It also could be related to the fact that regular homes are
| getting really nice and expectations much higher.
|
| Irrespective of the economic issues, 'Mobile Homes' are 'Off
| Brand' and that's at least 1/2 the problem.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| I'm in Eastern California, Nevada City.
|
| I'm pretty sure no new mobile home parks have been approved in
| this area for many, many years and I think that's true for many
| areas in California.
|
| Heck, even Paradise CA (North of me), which was destroyed by fire
| entirely and so had many displaced people a year or two after the
| fire, the city wouldn't approve any area for the siting of
| trailers to house those who didn't yet have homes.
|
| The primarily motivation for this, uh, bullshit, is home
| valuation. Home owners, not entirely falsely, believe that a
| trailer park near them will reduce the value of their homes (so
| they'll oppose a park even they don't personally think there's
| anything wrong with them). And there you have it, with home
| values being a gigantic part of the US economy, they wag the dog
| of other decisions.
|
| I mean, bless Construction Physics' heart for earnestly trying to
| find a technical solution to absurd home prices in the US (and
| some technical solutions are useful) but naturally they have to
| ignore or gloss over the basic _it 's all a racket, they want
| things this way_ part of current problems.
| jmspring wrote:
| Another issue is financing manufactured homes is often much
| more expensive than tradditional / stick built houses. I'm not
| sure how that applies to Lindle / other higher end pre-fab
| homes. A house on a foundation vs wheels/blocks is another
| factor.
|
| I agree the situation in Paradise was pretty messed up.
|
| I'm up the hill in Plumas County. Quincy and Portola have
| multiple trailer parks. Graeagle has lots with manufactured
| homes on them - but not trailer parks. Outside of a couple of
| RV parks with a few "full time" residents.
| kitcar wrote:
| I believe that is because when you finance a house you're
| financing the land+house combination, with the land making up
| the majority of value in most urban areas - when you finance
| a mobile home you are only financing the home, which
| depreciates (unlike the land component) - hence its a higher
| risk loan and therefore more expensive to finance.
| itcrowd wrote:
| > (One statistic you sometimes see is that at one point mobile
| homes made up 60% of total new houses - this is incorrect. At one
| point mobile home units were around 50% of the _number_ of single
| family homes built.)
|
| I understand this is just a footnote in the article, but could
| somebody explain me what the distinction is that the author is
| making here? I especially don't understand the italicized "
| _number_ ".
| giantrobot wrote:
| I think the emphasis was just too short. I think they're saying
| manufactured homes were 50% of Single Family Homes. Of all
| housing constructed some is Single Family Homes, a free
| standing detached residential building. This is distinct from
| attached residential housing like duplexes, condos, and
| apartments.
|
| If you build 50 duplexes and 50 SFHs you've got 150 residences.
| If 50% of the SFHs are manufactured homes then you've got 25
| manufactured homes out of 150. If the article is correct
| there's erroneous claims that manufactured homes are 60% of new
| "houses" which with my made up numbers would mean there's 90
| manufactured homes out of our 150.
| chrisgarand wrote:
| This is accurate. Here's an example of multi vs single family
| construction stats: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-
| quotidien/220509/dq...
|
| From the values of each, you can tell that multi-family units
| are a larger portion of residential construction. How much
| larger would require more research as on a per unit basis,
| multi-family units are cheaper per family than a single-
| family unit.
|
| Essentially, manufactured home in this case, even if they
| were 50% of single-family home construction, would be less
| than 25% of total family units constructed (single-family
| units + (singe units being construction in multi-family
| buildings).
| [deleted]
| ealexhudson wrote:
| I read it as statement about mobile units being half compared
| to built units - so a third of the total? But it's incredibly
| ambiguous what they mean, I agree - number vs total is a weird
| bit to focus on if the problem is just an apples/oranges
| comparison.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| Tangentially related. TIL Elon Musk is living in a $50,000 prefab
| on SpaceX property: http://boxabl-homes.com/
| helloworld97 wrote:
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-says-he-lives-in-a-50...
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| I'm confused. So he's not living in a $50,000 prefab made by
| boxabl on SpaceX property?
| jmyeet wrote:
| [deleted]
| moistly wrote:
| Manufactured homes are going up like gangbusters in BC, but
| they're not _mobile_ manufactured homes.
|
| IMO it's a brilliant system. Prefab the wall and truss structures
| off-site, where you can use CNC and jigs to build precisely.
| Wiring, plumbing, sheathing, siding, insulation, possibly
| roofing, all pre-installed. Erect on-site using a boom-arm
| delivery truck in one or two days. Do finishing work in a few
| days. Three three-person specialized crews building a new home
| every week.
|
| Many are on lease-hold land with strata expenses for water, area
| maintenance, plowing, etc. many others on small rural holdings.
| Sometimes in town, usually in a development with micro-sized lots
| and ~1000-1200 sq.ft. retirement/starter homes.
|
| Mobile homes are common enough on small rural
| acreages/homesteads. The new ones are quite nice. New mobile home
| parks are rare: regulations are undoubtedly a burden, and the
| cost:payoff too low. Old parks continue to go strong.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| There is a clear distinction between manufactured and mobile
| homes in the USA also. Also, what you are talking about is not
| called a manufactured home in the states, but a modular or
| prefab home.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| Something like this?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJJ75IBV1hU
| moistly wrote:
| That sort of thing, and one's where there are standard
| 2x4xOSB sheathing, flat-panel patterns, and they arrive as a
| package of walls to be fastened to a foundation or rim joist,
| and trusses to be placed on top. More or less plug and play.
| I believe most non-mobile prefab homes have gyproc installed
| post-construction, not the jointed fibreboard panels used in
| (older?) mobile homes.
|
| A local homeless transitioning apartment block appeared to
| use a very modular design, a crane lifting frameworks into
| place. Now that I think of it, I wonder if those were the
| same units an Albertan motel chain had been using, that were
| being constructed locally and shipped off on a flatbed.
|
| Most home construction is still done on-site, with framing
| being cut and nailed and clad per the blueprint, and various
| specialty crews coming through in sequence to housewrap,
| install siding, wire, plumb, insulate, sheetrock, trim,
| install windows and doors, lay flooring, roofing, etc. It is
| astoundingly quick when well-managed and there are no supply
| chain issues.
|
| And then there are ATCO units. I believe the Alberta oilpatch
| lives in their modular systems.
| robocat wrote:
| Nice 3 story home.
|
| It looks to be in an unpopulated area. Building offsite using
| prefabricated elements would make sense even it it were quite
| costly, because getting builders and tradies out to a wop-wop
| location to do an on-site build would be even more expensive.
| antupis wrote:
| Prefab homes are very popular at Scandinavia and Finland. Eg
| Honka https://honka.com/gb/en/dream-plan-build/custom-home-path/
| juhanakristian wrote:
| I think Alvsby houses in the Nordics are closer to what the
| article is talking about. Their houses are built from large
| pieces manufactured at a factory and later assembled at the
| site.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5fIqBGybi4
| crooked-v wrote:
| The article is about homes built as essentially a giant
| camping trailer. The entire home (sometimes in two pieces, as
| a "double-wide") is delivered to the property and semi-
| permanently installed, but can still (theoretically) be moved
| somewhere else after that.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Strange. In the USA, there is a strong distinction between
| manufactured, multilateral, mobile homes. You can't use the
| terms interchangeably. Double and single wides are
| manufactured homes, but trailer park homes are definitely
| in the mobile category.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| We mean something quite different when we talk about prefab
| homes in the Nordic countries that they mean in the US.
| betaby wrote:
| That's unattainable quality for USA/Canada. Here are such home
| here as well, but they are not referred as 'manufactured'
| normally.
| acchow wrote:
| Why don't they try to make this quality in California?
| There's certainly money for it.
| throwaway675309 wrote:
| Those Honka houses do look really impressive, but the national
| average cost per square meter to build a home in the US is
| approximately EUR400 which is 4x less expensive than the stated
| costs on honka's site.
| wrycoder wrote:
| $36/sq ft? Where can you build for that?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-16 23:00 UTC)