Submitted by sheila9165milo t3_10w3xgc in newhampshire
apd56 t1_j7l253b wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Dover builds tiny home neighborhood by sheila9165milo
I think some people would be attracted the idea of renting a stand alone unit. These specifically are targeted towards young individuals or couples opposed to families.
riffler24 t1_j7mvlj1 wrote
Well speaking as a young individual (I hope I can still say that), what I want most of all is to own something I can afford, not rent. $1200 for a ~500 Sqft apartment is about average for the area, but it's still not a good deal. The novelty of your apartment being its own independent building would quickly wear off and you'd have to come to the conclusion that you're essentially overpaying to rent someone's in-law suite, or that you could probably have saved money if these were built as a single building instead of 44 individual ones.
The whole point of a tiny house is to own something compact and low-footprint to save money while still owning your own home, renting kinda takes that away.
apd56 t1_j7mwccv wrote
I mean I don’t know what to say to that. There’s obviously a massive shortage of housing in the seacoast, whether it’s comparatively affordable rental units or homes for purchase. I think this project gives a new option to people who would be interested in this specific style of housing.
For a private developer to build housing and guarantee that the rent will be regulated to be “affordable” is pretty rare. They easily could have purchased the property, subdivided it into individual lots and then sold those at a prohibitive price point and made a lot more money in a shorter time.
riffler24 t1_j7mza06 wrote
Nah, I get it, it's just that as someone who previously rented in Dover, this feels like grabbing a 5 gallon bucket of water, emptying out 2/3 of it and then trying to dowse a big bonfire with it. It's already a steep enough challenge to solve the problem with just the 5 gallons of water, but you didn't have to make it harder by purposely dumping out most of the water beforehand.
[deleted] t1_j7ndk6x wrote
[deleted]
riffler24 t1_j7nfp3o wrote
I don't feel it's really any more predatory than normal renting (which is to say, still REALLY predatory), it's just obnoxiously inefficient. You could fit probably 3x the apartments if you made a complex, and even if you are vehemently against that, you could probably fit more people by making them duplexes. Tiny houses are the least efficient way to do rental properties, it just comes across like a PR stunt or something
[deleted] t1_j7ng1ko wrote
[deleted]
riffler24 t1_j7ngk18 wrote
Yeah, it fails the sniff test all around.
Also like...what's the point of a tiny house that you don't own, isn't the whole point that it allows you to own property without having to put a ton of money down on an overly large house that you can't afford?
pullyourfinger t1_j7sl8pa wrote
it is a stunt.
pullyourfinger t1_j7sl4dm wrote
no they couldn't. The zoning would never support that. and the "Affordable" part is BS. They are renting these to their own employees, so it's more like the "sold my soul to the factory store" type of situation where your boss is also your landlord, etc.
averageduder t1_j7nmjln wrote
I don't think you're going to find better than this for $1200. Ridiculous as it is - that seems like a great price for this and the location. I mean Dover alone has 800 ft 2 bedrooms for ~2000-2500.
riffler24 t1_j7npm9f wrote
Like I said, it's about average for its size. And like you said, it is ridiculous that that's the average.
but again, this would be cheaper if they skipped the tiny house aspect and just made a complex of apartments of the same size and amenities.
Tai9ch t1_j7msmei wrote
There's very little practical benefit to a stand-alone building if it's six feet from the next building over. Basically it's spending a couple hundred dollars a year in heating costs to save a hundred bucks in sound proofing.
59000beans t1_j7mvzqg wrote
I would take a standalone living space over a shared building any day. Yes, a neighbor might be 6ft away in a building next door, but not having loud noises all around you inside your own living area is worth it....and being free from all the smells.
Tai9ch t1_j7n274g wrote
The alternative would be rowhouses (or even just duplexes), which could easily be better at both noise and smell insulation than these things.
Psychological-Cry221 t1_j7pd8sj wrote
Row houses or duplexes, both of which would share a wall, would be better on noise and smell than detached units? Have you been eating paint chips again?
Tai9ch t1_j7pid87 wrote
Yes, replacing two walls with windows in them with one wall with sound insulation and a vapor barrier means less noise and smell transmission.
I take it you've never lived in either a decent duplex or a closely spaced single family.
[deleted] t1_j7nbn7r wrote
[deleted]
Cantide756 t1_j7nc9mz wrote
40 years is about 4 times more optimistic than you should be with these
Psychological-Cry221 t1_j7pddja wrote
The rent on these is set at fair market (FMR) and they lease for $1,200 month. What do you pay for rent?
pullyourfinger t1_j7sldqn wrote
hopefully they won't be. they are ugly as shit and should be torn down now, FFS.
Own_Clothes9361 t1_j7nhax2 wrote
One fire and they’ll all go up.
pullyourfinger t1_j7slf65 wrote
and nothing will have been lost.
Cantide756 t1_j7nc4za wrote
Not to mention the reduced likelihood of pests getting through the walls
Own_Clothes9361 t1_j7mxnoh wrote
Open those windows and guarantee you’ll smell your neighbors burnt pizza airing out or hear them laying pipe on a Friday night.
apd56 t1_j7mu8qk wrote
Some people might prefer this style of housing. Whether it has downsides in efficiency or not. Also worth noting that due to zoning, large multi-family housing structures aren’t permitted to be constructed in certain areas.
Tai9ch t1_j7n40g0 wrote
> Some people might prefer this style of housing. Whether it has downsides in efficiency or not.
That's true, and if that's really their preference then more power to them.
> Also worth noting that due to zoning, large multi-family housing structures aren’t permitted to be constructed in certain areas.
That's more my problem here. If rules like that influenced this project then the rules should be fixed, because people who do want the higher efficiency / cheaper option should get to choose that.
But then we live in a state where most places have 5 acre lot size minimums but no frontage minimums, which lead to ridiculous strip lots that make no sense unless specifically to frustrate future development at the cost of every other consideration.
prestigious_delay_7 t1_j7p5lpa wrote
I suspect lot size regulations were not the case here, but I'm curious where in Dover these homes were built.
rahnster_wright t1_j7poiuc wrote
They're on Back River Road, near the intersection with 108.
apd56 t1_j7prbbf wrote
On Back River Road, permitted uses do not include multi-family housing. Maximum 2-family dwelling.
itsmckenney t1_j7ms9ts wrote
Yeah, but from the looks of it they're still only ten feet away from their neighbors.
ThunderySleep t1_j7n7lfh wrote
I don't plan to move unless leaving, NH, but I'd go for something like this just to have a small amount of outdoor space, and not worry about disturbing neighbors on other floors if I'm up and about at odd hours.
The51stAgent t1_j7nmcih wrote
We need so much more of this. Single people and childless couples get the shaft when it comes to housing development. All thats built, especially around here seems to be 3 or 4 bedroom homes and up. I personally do not want or need anything beyond a 2bedroom home with a garage. But developers don’t care because it wont bring them as much money
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments