[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)