This comment deserves to be higher. People just think you can put these anywhere but you need water connection, sewer connection, electrical, telephone line/cable, permits and red tape, by the time you're done it'll be double. And I don't think these solve any of our housing affordability problems, the land in a desirable area will be far more expensive than what's on top.
So my question is, if you had a piece of land, concrete foundation, electrical, water and sewer connection, is it possible to get something better for 50k?
Absolutely possible. 50k for a 400 SF house that's built to modern code given those things you mentioned are already in place. To be specific, that's a full kitchen, with decent appliances, a full bath, 1 bedroom (though you _could_ fit 2 in 400 SF), a living room and some storage space.
Not that it helps to write checks you have zero way of cashing, but we just built this: https://imgur.com/gallery/KbPlbPR/comment/2099542904. We're still working on the interior, but this design, if we increased its size to 400 SF, and given the things you mention being in place, could be had for 50k or less even, and it would be built better than most homes in the US.
Just one guy's take, but my friend and I are trying to realize the dream of building more affordable housing that doesn't compromise on quality and design. We're just starting with this one project, though, so obviously a long way to go!
>If you are willing to do a lot of work yourself and value your time a $0 and aren't in a hurry, probably.
I wish I could vote you up more than once. If they are taking advantage of economies of scale they should be able to obtain for higher quality materials (and in looking over their materials this is not stuff they are buying at Home Depot). Couple that with the advantages of building all this stuff indoors, sheltered from the weather while under construction and that they can afford to create specialized jigs and tooling to not only speed the construction time but also produce far more consistent and higher quality results they should be able to do things that you simply can't do on site in the field.
Transportation of prefabbed housing has always been the major issue, which is why they spend so much time talking about how they are solving that :)
People should be free to buy the land they want with the money that they've earned or otherwise legally acquired. It's just a basic principle. The principal below that principle, is that you have autonomy over your own body, and your own labor, and you have a choice as to how you apply. And you have a right to the fruits of your labor and creativity and entrepreneurship. And you can spend those fruits, and all the ways that are legal, including buying land, including buying expensive land in desirable places. And that kind of land is expensive. Not everybody can buy it.
Back in 1600 someone declared they owned all the land in a valley. Their descendants still own it, or have benefited from selling it off at various points.
It seems wrong that a decision 400 years ago has bearing on people today.
In the UK it's even worse -- much of the land is still owned by the families that were mates with William the Conquerer back in 1066. About 1500 years ago the king fell out with some landholders (monasteries) and confiscated it, giving it to his mates, who still own it.
Land should not be owned, it should be rented from the people. You improve its value? Great, you shouldn't be charged for that, but the unimproved value of that land is something that should be of benefit to society as a whole.
How would you feel if companies started to divide the available drinking water or breathable air? That rich people controlled who can drink or breathe? And that inheritance determined your odds of survival, not based on genes but on access to basic resources?
It is OK if hard work is rewarded with money.
However, it is not OK if people use that money against the rest of us, who made different life choices.
Since land is a limited resource, there is a problem there.
What if we flip the problem around, and figure out how to distribute high quality lifestyles, like the ones offered in the big cities, to the outskirts where land is plentiful and cheap?
There is no shortage of cheap land. There is however a desperate shortage of land on which you can legally build. And that of course is due to zoning regulations.
There's a lot of buildable land. It's just not highly desirable. The land is good, and green, and the neighbors are agreeable, but it's not close to a major city.
EDIT: Case in point, my first purchase in 2017 was 5 acres of buildable land 30 minutes from a tertiary city, with an existing 900 SF manufactured home and 400 SF garage. Total price: $30,000
One of the only real bright stars from the COVID fiasco of 2020 - large swaths of people realizing they can work from home as effectively, if not more, from home. I think we are on the cusp of seeing a population migration that will make the post-WWII suburbanization move look tame in comparison.
I was totally about to agree with your post based on the first part (needing a better way to distribute land). But I don't feel that idea and the idea of prefab homes are mutually exclusive.
