Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

riffler24 t1_j7mvlj1 wrote

Reply to comment by apd56 in Dover builds tiny home neighborhood by sheila9165milo

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.

19

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.

12

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.

3

[deleted] t1_j7ndk6x wrote

[deleted]

5

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

5

[deleted] t1_j7ng1ko wrote

[deleted]

2

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?

4

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.

0

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.

8

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.

2