A house that costs $20k • Hacker News Board

Re: A house that costs $20k

#101

Post by morganvachon » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 12:57 PM UTC

noja wrote: post #18

rgbrgb wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you design a home that someone living below the poverty line can afford, but that anyone would want—while also providing a living wage for the local construction team that builds it? Material is $14k.

The articles says "Originally, the project aimed for a house that would cost $20,000 in total, including construction, though they now believe that more money may be needed to provide a living wage for builders." So more than 20k. Plus land. How much does the land cost?

> Plus land. How much does the land cost?

According to the article[1], it's in a development area with "million dollar homes", so I'm guessing (based on similar developments near me, also in the Atlanta area) around $200k for a half-acre plot. So in reality, it's a $220k home for "poor people".

Granted this is the pilot program, but it's nearly impossible to find decent land in the right location and conditions to build a home upon for under $20k/acre, at least here in Georgia. So let's say you're lucky enough to find a five acre plot (the minimum for what this kind of home requires to comply with zoning laws near me) for $50k. You buy this kit for $20k, take a leave of absence from work for six weeks to build it (~$6k, if your blue collar job doesn't give you paid leave), hire a licensed electrician ($8k) and licensed plumber ($10k) to handle those jobs because it's not included in the kit and building permits require licensed work. Now we're at ~$94k for a home that will not be as nice as a traditional home that costs the same. Not to mention, $94k is at the upper end of what someone with a $50k/year income can afford.

I get the intention behind the program, but right now it's no different from any other "sustainable initiative" out there: It's a great theory but only applicable in near-perfect conditions or as a prototype.

All of that said, I'd love to tear down my house and build something like this, if only the zoning laws here would allow it.

[1] "The development near Atlanta might at first seem like an unlikely place to build the pilot homes—it's a lush planned community that includes million-dollar houses."

Re: A house that costs $20k

#102

Post by okc » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 12:59 PM UTC

tempestn wrote: post #83

okc wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When someone buys a house to let, they are making property prices more expensive for everyone. I do however agree with you, in essence. But I find it genuinly shocking you that you see a low cost portfolio as the road to ownership. Perhaps this is a uniquely American philosophy? The point of contention in this debate, probably boils down to if you see access to housing as a social issue or an investment opportunity.

I'm Canadian, not American, but perhaps? I honestly (literally) don't understand what shocks you exactly. Save money -> invest money to grow savings -> time passes -> eventually you have enough to buy a home, if you want. I'm guessing you're saying that homes are so expensive, most people could not reasonably afford one even with disciplined saving and investing. But at least as a long term state, that seems logicall…

Like I said, I think we have a similar view. My objection if any, is based on the idea of a risk based portfolio. But it seems you actually mean more generally: savings. All these issues are of course very local. Being English I probably have a very different perspective on what the issues are regarding the affordability of houses, let alone what our specific views are. Primarily I see housing as a necessity rather than a financial opportunity. Do you think people who own a house should be allowed to buy a 2nd one and push first time buyers out the market?

What this means practically for me is that societies using these rental and Lordship systems, should give preference to those seeking to buy a house over those who have one already. The delivery and form of this preference is obviously complex and very tied to local variables like employment and banking structures. Generally I think the renting system exploits the renter and benefits the landlord - esp when the renter has no other option. This is a big issue in England as the gap between house prices and peoples average savings has rocketed in the last 50 years - especially for those in the lower average salary bracket. What does society do when the average working person cant even with savings get a mortgage? In this scenario renting fuels the inequality.

Re: A house that costs $20k

#103

Post by timwaagh » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 1:21 PM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #60

DiabloD3 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent does not build wealth. Rent is the act of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. Rent is, essentially, theft from society itself, it leaves everyone poorer when most people rent. Rent in America today is identical to the serfs of old. The post-WW2 thing the Government did with getting everyone mortgages so they would be home owners that caused the eventual economic collapse 10 years ago? They had the rig…

> Rent is, essentially, theft from society itself, it leaves everyone poorer when most people rent. Not necessarily. It depends on whom you're giving the money to. If it's a profit-oriented company or investor or the like, then I'd tend to agree with you. On the other hand, I'm renting my apartment from a housing cooperative that I'm also a member of. The cooperative releases a yearly financial report detailing that…

in my country this is the most common form of renting. the cooperatives benefit from legal protections which prevent for profits from entering the market. however it means there is no competition and prices are artificially high. also a huge amount of corruption scandals involving the higher-ups of housing cooperatives.

Re: A house that costs $20k

#104

Post by lukasm » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 1:21 PM UTC

There was a company in Poland that was building houses like that - they went bust. The main problem is cultural. People look at it and see a shed and they want a "proper" house. "Can I retire here?" "Is it an investment?". What is more, there is a segway syndrome (you like a dork). You will be that weird guy that lives in this weird house. And there is a liquidity problem.

Re: A house that costs $20k

#105

Post by rwmj » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 1:27 PM UTC

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #92

rwmj wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK housebuilding companies are sitting on (by various estimates) 400,000-600,000 plots of land which have planning permission, but they haven't built on. That's about 3 years' worth of new houses. The reason is to hold up prices, and because (with "ever-rising" prices) if they build in the future they will make more profit. There are problems in the planning system, certainly, but at the moment we need an undeveloped…

A relative of mine is building a house right now. They bought a property and they need to start construction within 1 year, or else they loose that property. Not sure if it works that way everywhere in Germany.

The UK has time limits on planning permission too, but they are quite long - 3 years is the default. Also the limits only apply to the commencement of the work. You can (and people do) get around this by digging a hole or laying a small part of the foundations, and then they do nothing else. So with really a very small amount of effort, you can "land bank" indefinitely. The government shows no signs of wishing to fix this, since forcing up the price of houses to absurd new highs is policy.

Re: A house that costs $20k

#106

Post by iofj » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 1:32 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #61

luisramalho wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it float on magma? Do houses in Iceland really do that?

Magma is pretty dense (it's molten rocks, after all), so many things float on magma.

Very interesting discussion on the subject :

http://www.wired.com/2012/01/can-you-walk-on-lava-falling-in...

Re: A house that costs $20k

#107

Post by Brakenshire » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 1:43 PM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #36

rwmj wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK housebuilding companies are sitting on (by various estimates) 400,000-600,000 plots of land which have planning permission, but they haven't built on. That's about 3 years' worth of new houses. The reason is to hold up prices, and because (with "ever-rising" prices) if they build in the future they will make more profit. There are problems in the planning system, certainly, but at the moment we need an undeveloped…

The government is not at all interested in fixing this, because it would probably crash the housing market. Which people (both politicians, many of the people who elect them, and perhaps most importantly all of the people who fund their campaigns) think would be a Very Bad Thing. Seriously, it may be hard for young people to enter the housing market. But no-one wants to go for a solution that leaves the people who do…

The government also now has a direct liability to a fall in the housing market through Help To Buy.

Re: A house that costs $20k

#108

Post by NoGravitas » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 1:58 PM UTC

jensen123 wrote: post #58

I think it's really impressive that they were able to build a house like that for only 20K. The article mentions zoning laws and size requirements, which I found odd. Do many places not allow houses below a certain size to be built?

It's extremely common in the US.

Re: A house that costs $20k

#109

Post by alistairSH » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 2:05 PM UTC

creshal wrote: post #53

techsupporter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One facet of it is cultural: For a lot of people, someone isn't seen as a "real adult" until he or she owns a residence. (Obligatory "if you have a mortgage you're just renting from the bank and have to fix the water heater yourself" line here.) Another is financial: There are heavy tax incentives towards ownership, though this is lessened in the era of cheap money. (On the other hand, if a mortgage can be had for ch…

So, the US favours owning residences because renters have nigh zero legal protection?

Partly, yes. We also get to deduct interest paid on mortgages from our federal income taxes. This deduction can be used for primary and secondary homes.

The tax deduction alone is a massive incentive to buy a home. Particularly given the housing options available in most cities... we have massive tracts of suburban development where a mortgage typically costs a similar amount monthly as renting a large apartment downtown.

Re: A house that costs $20k

#110

Post by Loughla » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #27

It's kind of hard for me to tell whether the house is nicer than mine when there's so little detail in the article on the actual house. Look, i'm more than supportive of innovative design and doing things cheaply, but for an article that was heavy on "the house is so cheap", and "its built kinda more like a airplane", and "it uses all this innovative stuff", there's a startling dearth of information. Sqm, plans, insu…

Or what's the difference between this and a manufactured trailer? Those are very cheap and mobile, even.

It seems like just new marketing for old, low-income housing.

I wish someone would address that, at the root, this move to micro-housing is focused always on cost, and lack of available funds for young working people.