▲ 158 points
back
174 comments
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.
>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).
A long time ago a real estate mogul that I'm related to told me this: "Trailer parks are section eight housing for White people. They are to be fought against as hard as we fight against section eight housing."
That stuck with me. Right or wrong, I'm under the impression that a lot of people agree with that statement.
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.
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.
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.
Something like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJJ75IBV1hU
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.
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.
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.
Prefab homes are very popular at Scandinavia and Finland. Eg Honka https://honka.com/gb/en/dream-plan-build/custom-home-path/
That's unattainable quality for USA/Canada. Here are such home here as well, but they are not referred as 'manufactured' normally.
We mean something quite different when we talk about prefab homes in the Nordic countries that they mean in the US.
It's not just more expensive one off homes that are prebuilt in Finland - Over 50% of Finnish homes are now built offsite (or more accurately constructed from 'parts' built off site). This includes both single family wooden homes and concrete apartment buildings.
Precast concrete has been used since the 1950s: https://www.elematic.com/learn/what-is-precast-concrete/
This is probably a result of: 1) Construction companies are larger and are building on multiple plots with the same concrete apartment building or 10-20 identical or similar wooden buildings 2) The Finnish love affair with family lakeside summer cottages has got people used to ordering a building 'off the shelf'
I think Älvsby 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.
Those Honka houses do look really impressive, but the national average cost per square meter to build a home in the US is approximately €400 which is 4x less expensive than the stated costs on honka's site.
Holy shit! That looks fucking gorgeous. Probably >$250 a square foot which people would rather just pay 2x as much for stickbuilt in CA.
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.
you need to install insane numbers of electrical outlet to prevent some nonexistent fire risk
I used to live in a 1940's home and was frustrated with the lack of outlets - I used extension cords (some under carpets) so I could put things where I wanted them instead of near one of the 2 outlets in the living room, neither one located in a convenient place. And it had a single outlet for 15 feet of counter space... if you want to plug in a toaster at the far end of the counter, you'd have to run an extension cord all along the counter (and behind the sink).
Multiple outlets are cheap to add in new construction but quite expensive to add in later, most people wouldn't add a new outlet unless they were doing remodeling (circuits are more expensive, AFCI/GFCI breakers aren't inexpensive).
A failing exterior or flange doesn't usually kill you in your sleep.
My outlet spacing is to code, but I’ve got plug strips all over the place holding chargers.
When building a new house, electrical outlets are cheap. That is a strange hill to die on.
The total cost of wiring a new home is insignificant compared to the overall cost. The cost of all the appliances the electricity feeds is more. The cost of making homes safer, more storm resistant is a lot more.
What's wrong with a PVC toilet flange?
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.
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.
> 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...
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.
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.
> 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.
Lots of traditionally manufactured homes have the same issues you mentioned, it’s just people cutting corners for cost.
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.
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.
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.
The biggest problem was and continues to be lot rent combined with the absolute unresalability.
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.
Prefabs are rising in popularity in Europe. Especially as passive houses.
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?
Why are manufactured homes not more popular in American cities with very inflated housing prices? I read that they are unpopular because the cost per square foot is actually more than stick-built, but that is for the average cost around the country. In an inflated market, I would expect buying a vacant lot and putting a really nice manufactured home on it would be vastly cheaper than buying an existing house, and much quicker than waiting for a contractor to have a schedule opening.
Here in Southwestern VA I’ve seen an interesting trend: people are buying yard barns. Sometimes very large yard barns and are converting them into living quarters. These are folks that don’t have a ton of access to capital or financing but they can scrape together enough for a barn, insulation, a window AC, and plumbing. They’re getting by with them because they’re not sold as livable structures but who knows how safe they are. Mobile/Manufactured homes are too expensive I guess.
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...
> (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".
Has anyone thought to create a portable factory that can be set up near a new housing development to mass produce components for the houses being built? You’d basically just need a big tent with something to do the assembly on like large roller tables like they use for trusses. You wouldn’t need huge cranes for assembly since you could do smaller segments.
I am impressed by the potential of 3D printed housing, great video here of a sizable one developed using concrete printing.
Warren Buffett owns Clayton Homes the largest builder of manufactured housing and modular homes in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Homes
California has infrastructure (water, sewer/ waste treatment. power etc for 20m people and a population of 40m, one of the big reasons more 'affordable housing' (including the mobile home rip off) does not get built there, but other parts of the US have large numbers of very lucrative mobile home parks
They don't look cool that's the problem. They look flimsy and poor quality. I am personally partial to converting shipping containers
Tangentially related. TIL Elon Musk is living in a $50,000 prefab on SpaceX property: http://boxabl-homes.com/
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.