US The Great Compression - Thanks to soaring housing prices, the era of the 400-square-foot subdivision house is upon us.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The Great Compression
The New York Times (archive.ph)
By Conor Dougherty
2024-02-17 10:05:25GMT

pod01.jpg
Many small houses sit side by side in the Elm Trails subdivision from Lennar Homes in San Antonio.Credit...Josh Huskin for The New York Times

Robert Lanter lives in a 600-square-foot house that can be traversed in five seconds and vacuumed from a single outlet. He doesn’t have a coffee table in the living room because it would obstruct the front door. When relatives come to visit, Mr. Lanter says jokingly, but only partly, they have to tour one at time.

Each of these details amounts to something bigger, for Mr. Lanter’s life and the U.S. housing market: a house under $300,000, something increasingly hard to find. That price allowed Mr. Lanter, a 63-year-old retired nurse, to buy a new single-family home in a subdivision in Redmond, Ore., about 30 minutes outside Bend, where he is from and which is, along with its surrounding area, one of Oregon’s most expensive housing markets.

Mr. Lanter’s house could easily fit on a flatbed truck, and is dwarfed by the two-story suburban homes that prevail on the blocks around him. But, in fact, there are even smaller homes in his subdivision, Cinder Butte, which was developed by a local builder called Hayden Homes. Some of his neighbors live in houses that total just 400 square feet — a 20-by-20-foot house attached to a 20-by-20-foot garage.

This is not a colony of “tiny houses,” popular among minimalists and aesthetes looking to simplify their lives. For Mr. Lanter and his neighbors, it’s a chance to hold on to ownership.

Mr. Lanter, who is recently divorced, came back to central Oregon from a condominium in Portland only to discover that home prices had surged beyond his reach. He has owned several larger homes over the years and said he began his recent search looking for a three-bedroom house.

pod02.jpg
Robert Lanter outside his 600-square-foot home in Redmond, Ore.Credit...Ivan McClellan for The New York Times

“I did not want to rent,” he said after a five-minute tour of his “media room” (a small desk with a laptop) and bedroom (barely fits a queen). After being an owner for 40 years, the idea of being a tenant felt like a backslide.

And after living on the 17th floor of a Portland condominium, he had ruled out attached and high-rise buildings, which he described as a series of rules and awkward interactions that made him feel as though he never really owned the place.

There was the time he sold a sofa and the front desk attendant scolded him for moving it down the elevator without alerting management a day in advance. Or the times he came home to find someone parked in the spot he owned and paid property taxes on. Try to imagine a random driver parking in a house’s driveway, he said — there’s no way.

A single-family home means “less people’s hands in your life,” Mr. Lanter said.

He wanted the four unshared walls of the American idyll, even if those walls had minimal space between them and were a couch length from his neighbor.

A Chance at Ownership
Several colliding trends — economic, demographic and regulatory — have made smaller units like Mr. Lanter’s the future of American housing, or at least a more significant part of it. Over the past decade, as the cost of housing exploded, home builders have methodically nipped their dwellings to keep prices in reach of buyers. The downsizing accelerated last year, when the interest rate on a 30-year fixed rate mortgage reached a two-decade high, just shy of 8 percent.

Mortgage rates have fallen since, and sales, especially of new homes, are beginning to thaw from the anemic pace of last year. Even so, a move toward smaller, affordable homes — in some cases smaller than a studio apartment — seems poised to outlast the mortgage spike, reshaping the housing market for years to come and changing notions of what a middle-class life looks like.

“This is the front end of what we are going to see,” said Ken Perlman, a managing principal at John Burns Research and Consulting.

Extremely small homes have long been an object of curiosity and fodder for internet content; their tight proportions seem to say large things about their occupants. On social media and blogs, influencers swipe at American gluttony and extol the virtues of a life with less carbon and clutter than the standard two-car suburb.

Now, in the same way décor trends make their way from design magazines to Ikea, mini homes are showing up in the kinds of subdivisions and exurbs where buyers used to travel for maximum space.

The shift is a response to conditions that are found in cities across America: Neighborhoods that used to be affordable are being gentrified, while new condominiums and subdivisions mostly target the upper end of the market, endangering the supply of “starter homes” in reach of first-time buyers. That developers are addressing this conundrum with very small homes could be viewed as yet another example of middle-class diminishment. But buyers say it has helped them get on the first rung of the housing market.

“They should help out more people that are young like us to buy houses,” said Caleb Rodriguez, a 22-year-old in San Antonio.

Mr. Rodriguez recently moved into a new community outside San Antonio called Elm Trails, which was developed by Lennar Corporation, one of the country’s largest homebuilders. His house sits in a line of mini dwellings, the smallest of which is just 350 square feet.

On a recent evening after work, neighbors were walking dogs and chatting along a row of beige, gray and olive-green two-story homes of the same shape. The development has a pond where residents picnic and catch bass and catfish. The houses do not have garages, and their driveways are wide enough for one vehicle or two motorcycles — proportions that pushed the sale prices to well under $200,000.

“I wanted to own, and this was the cheapest I could get,” said Mr. Rodriguez, who moved in this month and works at a poultry processing plant in nearby Seguin, Texas. He paid $145,000 and hopes the house can be a step toward wealth building. Maybe in a few years he will move and rent it out, Mr. Rodriguez said.

Homes under 500 square feet are not taking over anytime soon: They are less than 1 percent of the new homes built in America, according to Zonda, a housing data and consulting firm. Even Mr. Lanter, who evangelizes about his newly low heating bill and the freedom of shedding stuff, said he would have preferred something bigger, around 800 square feet, if he could find it.

While these floor plans might be an edge-case offering reserved for certain kinds of buyers — “Divorced … divorced … really divorced,” Mr. Lanter said as he pointed to the small homes around him — they are part of a clear trend. Various surveys from private consultants and organizations like the National Association of Home Builders, along with interviews with architects and developers, all show a push toward much smaller designs.

“Their existence is telling,” said Ali Wolf, chief economist of Zonda. “All the uncertainty over the past few years has just reinforced the desire for homeownership, but land and material prices have gone up too much. So something has to give, and what builders are doing now is testing the market and asking what is going to work.”

pod03.jpg
Elm Trails subdivision from Lennar Homes in San Antonio.Credit...Josh Huskin for The New York Times

Builders are substituting side yards for backyards, kitchen bars for dining rooms. Suburban neighborhoods have seen a boom in adjoined townhouses, along with small-lot single family homes that often have shared yards and no more than a few feet between them — a kind of mash-up of the suburb and the urban rowhouse.

The great compression is being encouraged by state and local governments. To reduce housing costs, or at least keep them from rising so fast, governments around the country have passed hundreds of new bills that make it easier for builders to erect smaller units at greater densities. Some cities and states — like Oregon — have essentially banned single-family zoning rules that for generations defined the suburban form.

These new rules have been rolled out gradually over years and with varying degrees of effectiveness. What has changed recently is that builders are much more willing to push smaller dwellings because they have no other way to reach a large swath of buyers.

“There is a market opportunity and people are using it,” said Michael Andersen, a senior researcher at Sightline Institute, a Seattle think tank focused on housing and sustainability.

A Big House on a Little Lot
American homes have long been larger on average than those in other developed countries. For most of the past century, the country’s appetite for size has only grown.

The iconic Cape Cods in Levittown, N.Y. — often considered the model post-World War II suburb — were typically about 750 square feet, roomy for a one-bedroom apartment but small for a free-standing house with two bedrooms. Today, though, the median American home size is about 2,200 square feet, up from around 1,500 in the 1960s. Lot sizes have remained more or less the same, which means the typical home is built to maximize the size of the kitchen and bedrooms even as its yard contracts and its proximity to neighbors increases.

The expansion came despite a profound shift in household composition. Over the past half-century, America has gone from a country in which the predominant home buyer was a nuclear family with about three children to one in which singles, empty nesters and couples without children have become a much larger share of the population. Meanwhile, housing costs shot up in recent years as cities around the nation grappled with a persistent housing shortage and a surge in demand from millennial and Gen Z buyers.

This has created a mismatched market in which members of the Baby Boom generation are disproportionately living in larger homes without children, while many millennial couples with children are cramped into smaller houses or in rental apartments, struggling to buy their first home.

Even buyers who are willing to move across state lines are finding that affordable housing markets are increasingly hard to find. In the Bend area where Mr. Lanter lives, housing costs have been pushed up by out-of-state buyers, many from California, who have flocked to the area to buy second homes or work there remotely.

The influx of money has helped raise the median home price to almost $700,000 from a little over $400,000 in 2020, according to Redfin. Driving through the downtown on a snowy afternoon recently, Deborah Flagan, a vice president at Hayden Homes, pointed left and right at storefronts that used to be boarded and are now part of a vibrant ecosystem of retailers that includes numerous high-end coffee shops, a “foot spa” and a bar where people drink craft beer and throw axes at wall-mounted targets.

The upscaling extends well beyond downtown to adjacent neighborhoods, where the small-footprint “mill houses” that once served a blue-collar work force now sit on land that is so valuable they are being slowly erased by two-story moderns with seven-figure sales prices. Toward the end of the snowy driving tour, Ms. Flagan pointed toward one of those old mill houses — a compact, ranch-style home with fading yellow paint and a white picket fence pocked with broken boards. She estimated it was no more than 800 square feet, and framed it as an example of the small and affordably priced housing whose stock needs to be rebuilt.

“What we are doing now is what they were doing then,” she said.

Four Walls, Close Together
pod04.jpg
The view from the front entrance of Mr. Lanter’s small home.Credit...Ivan McClellan for The New York Times

Hayden builds about 2,000 homes a year throughout the Pacific Northwest. Its business model is to deliver middle-income housing that local workers can afford, Ms. Flagan said, and it does this by skipping larger cities like Portland and Seattle in favor of lower-cost exurbs like Redmond (where the company is based).

Like a lot of builders, Hayden has spent the past few years whittling back sizes on its bread-and-butter offering of one- and two-story homes between 1,400 and 2,500 square feet. But because its buyers are so price-sensitive, it decided to go further. After rates began rising, Hayden redesigned a portion of Cinder Butte — the Redmond subdivision where Mr. Lanter lives — for homes between 400 and 880 square feet.

Most of Cinder Butte looks like any subdivision anywhere: A mix of one- and two-story homes that have faux exterior shutters and fill out their lots. The corner where Mr. Lanter lives is strikingly different, however, with a line of cinched homes that front the main road into the development and have driveways in a back alley.

The alley is where neighbors say hi and bye, Mr. Lanter said. And because nobody has much space, people often throw parties in their garages.

The smaller houses sold well, so Hayden has now expanded on the idea. It recently began a new development in Albany, Ore., in which a third of the 176 homes are planned to be under 1,000 square feet. “Our buyers would rather live in a small home than rent,” Ms. Flagan said.

A decade ago, Jesse Russell was a former reality TV producer looking to get started in real estate. He had just moved back to Bend (his hometown) from Los Angeles, and began with a plot of two dozen 500-square-foot cottages sprinkled around a pond and common gardens. When he pitched it at community meetings, “the overwhelming sentiment was ‘nobody is going to live in a house that small,’” he said.

Then the units sold out, and his investors nearly doubled their money in two years.

Mr. Russell’s company, Hiatus Homes, has since built about three dozen more homes that range from 400 square feet to 900 square feet, and he has 100 more in development — a thriving business. How does he feel about subdivision builders getting into a product that used to belong to smaller companies like his?

“I love it!” he said. “I hope that at some point a tiny house just becomes another thing. It’s like, ‘Oh, that’s a duplex, that’s a townhouse, that’s a single-family house, and that over there is a cottage.’ It just becomes another type of housing you get to select.”
 
Tokyo doesn't seem to have these problems.
It's strictly an American, and more specifically, a DEMOCRAT problem.
Because Tokyo, for the most part, lacks niggers.

It's a NIGGER problem as to why high density leads to third-world conditions.
 
>Be hip white (obese) near-40 urban bughive dweller

>3k rent, but the views! Walkable Ethiopian!

>Eating $35 Ubereats tendies while looking at your spaceman toys

> The chickens were cut up by a 22 year old homeowner
 
That price allowed Mr. Lanter, a 63-year-old retired nurse, to buy a new single-family home in a subdivision in Redmond, Ore.
Mr. Lanter, who is recently divorced
After being an owner for 40 years, the idea of being a tenant felt like a backslide.

Damn dude. His wife took his house, all his assets, and left him destitute. Either he was formerly married to the most cold-hearted bitch west of Colorado, or he had the stupidest divorce lawyer in history.
 
To my eye, it looks like the developer realised it wasn't going to make money on a project after the roads and utilities were laid out, but rather than tear it all up and start again, decided to sub-divide existing lots, so they could squeeze three houses into the space of one. It would explain why the things are so uselessly narrow. If they were planning smaller houses from the start, the roads would have been closer together to allow for more buildings in the same area and the plots would have had a wider, shorter footprint.
The developer probably bought the land with the hopes of getting the land re-zoned to build high density apartments, terraced or semi-detached but then got fucked over by nimby groups and the zone kept as low density single family suburban.

I'm willing to bet these units were built to meet the absolute minimum requirements necessary to meet zoning requirements, while still being lower cost for the abundance of people that simply cannot afford a standard single family home.

Government bureaucracy is the only explanation that makes sense of the utter retardation of the interior and exterior layout of these units.
 
These remind me a lot of the post-war housing that was built in early suburbia. A number of them still exist in places like Akron, or just outside of cities. The only difference being that they were spread apart more, and had bigger yards. Itty-bitty front family rooms, tiny kitchens, a bathroom, and two bedrooms- one of which might’ve been just under the roof.

They were “starter homes”. Most guys straight out of WWII didn’t immediately buy huge houses, hell those weren’t even built yet. But a husband and wife could live in one of these little houses, then either sell and move to a larger one, or had enough land around it they could build additions on.
Things like this:
IMG_1436.jpeg

These are a bad design for the space, and crammed in so tight there’s no chance of additions.
 
Damn dude. His wife took his house, all his assets, and left him destitute. Either he was formerly married to the most cold-hearted bitch west of Colorado, or he had the stupidest divorce lawyer in history.
Sounds like he was caught off-guard by the divorce.
 
I think this is great. Beats living with the 'rents.
I've given every single one of you faggots autistic ratings because you all deserve it. You know nothing about real estate and it shows.

There's a reason suburbia grew the way it did. There's a reason you don't see many neighborhoods like these that are outside of ghettos anymore. These homes are the fucking pits and wastes of time and money. You have no equity making capabilities. These homes are essentially cars that will just endlessly depreciate in value with no way to recoup it. The boomer take of your house is your main asset is a bad take as it is; a tiny house that cannot be built up in any way, shape, or form, as an asset is an even worse take. You might as well pay a landlord for an apartment. At least you'll have SOME benefit from it. Any profits you might potentially make will be gouged to hell by HOA leeches so that by the time you sell, you won't recoup the money you spent from inflation. You can't prove your house is worth more than the house next to it when they're virtually identical. You can't build equity against your mortgage when you have neighbors 3ft from your front door. You can't sell your home for more than you paid for it when your house ages and no reasonable equity has been built other than basic maintenance and the house down the road is selling for less and is virtually the same. This is also all assuming you're lucky enough to move before niggers and street shitters move in and plummet the value of the neighborhood.

You might think you're getting away from Mom and Dad's basement, but all you're walking into is a cuck shed designed to milk you for all you're worth and leave you with nothing in the end. If you really want a tiny home, purchase your own land and build it yourself. These communities are traps and they always have been.
 
I get wanting to have a yard, but since these barely have a one what's the point of a 400 sq ft house over something like a studio condo?

The developer probably bought the land with the hopes of getting the land re-zoned to build high density apartments, terraced or semi-detached but then got fucked over by nimby groups and the zone kept as low density single family suburban.

I'm willing to bet these units were built to meet the absolute minimum requirements necessary to meet zoning requirements, while still being lower cost for the abundance of people that simply cannot afford a standard single family home.

Government bureaucracy is the only explanation that makes sense of the utter retardation of the interior and exterior layout of these units.

You're probably right, zoning is the main thing that holds housing developments back. If there's one thing from glorious Nippon we should adopt it should be their zoning laws that allow you to build housing pretty much anywhere.
 
If I wanted to live in half a house, I'd buy a duplex.

You're probably right, zoning is the main thing that holds housing developments back. If there's one thing from glorious Nippon we should adopt it should be their zoning laws that allow you to build housing pretty much anywhere.
And the general willingness to see housing as a good, not an asset. Shit isn't expected to last forever nor are you expected to live in the one place forever, gets redeveloped regularly instead. Helps avoid having fifty year old unmaintained nightmares being constantly half-reno'd when the zoning and regulations expect you to just tear it down at thirty when shit would start falling apart anyway.

Housing as an asset class is a scam. Owning a home is good, expecting it to endlessly appreciate in value and become your retirement fund is not.
 
When I was in my early twenties, I rented a 400 sq ft cottage in a lake town so I could bartend for the summer. It had two bedrooms, one bathroom, a tiny kitchen and living room that basically only fit 2 love seats. I shared the place with my sister.

The people I rented it from lived there with their two kids until the boys got too large, they literally couldn’t fit anymore.

I never had so much fun in my life. It had a huge deck and a hot tub. It’s fine if you don’t have a lot of stuff. If you are “outdoorsy” this can work.

I’m looking at building a cottage of similar size on my property ( but probably 600-800 sq ft) so I can take care of my parents when they are ready to retire, and maybe I’ll move there later if my kid wants to take over the main house if he has a family at some point.

There are still people living in the little wartime houses in my part of the world- some of them are still well maintained and cared for.

As usual, it’s economics though. My starter house was 900 square feet and I lived there happily with my husband for 10 years. The problem is: we bought a cheap crappy hovel during an economic downturn and later used the appreciation to get into our little piece of heaven. There are no cheap places to get started anymore, even when the economy sucks.

How did we get here? Immigration. Fake population increase without economic growth to support it. This will end in tears.
 
And they're still clearcut hellscapes.

If I ever have the ability to buy a house I refuse anything that doesn't have as many trees as possible
 
You know you're dumb when Android Raptor knows more about real estate than you do.
Trees are important and there's no reason not to have them unless you live in the desert or some shit. They clearcut just because it's the cheapest way to cram as many shitboxes onto a lot as possible, subdivisions weren't always built like that and it's one of the few thing we need to retvrn with.

Especially since no shade isn't fun when you live in the south and it's going to get even less fun as climate change progresses.
 
I can't say I'm too surprised given the OP clearly states that house prices are absolutely astronomical in this Pacific Northwest Area where costs of living are already sky high. I'd love to know how much these small houses sell for after the article stated, "Each of these details amounts to something bigger, for Mr. Lanter’s life and the U.S. housing market: a house under $300,000, something increasingly hard to find."

Living in one of these small houses isn't a bad idea in and of itself - especially for a single person or a couple with no kids who don't want an excessively large residence to buy and maintain. However, these houses need to built in areas where the cost of living isn't too bad (in order to be affordable), and people have to want to live in the neighborhood.

In my region of Kiwi Land, these small houses that were both affordable and built in an area with various places within walking distance sold very quickly. Those built in an area notorious for its crime, poverty, and lack of community resources largely went unsold or ultimately became abandoned/scrapped, leading to those units being torn down and the project being seen as a huge failure after being touted as a way to revitalize the area.
Agreed.

In my area it's homes.from the 1960s-1990s that have at least quadrupled in value so enjoy $500,000 for 1400 square feet or tacky Zero lot line 3,000+ square feet McMansions sold to H1b visa holders or their kids for $800k

That's IT. No starter homes, nothing under $350,000 unless it's a termite infested shit hole with a cracked foundation.
My Gen-X godfather said the only good thing about the younger generations was we didn't share his gens love of McMansions and other over-sized garbage.
Yeah. Give me 1200-1600 square feet and I'm happy.
 
Back
Top Bottom