That article seems to read as if it is a market failure rather than people buying up properties just to keep them vacant: London developers keep building houses nobody can afford.
“Tiny houses” are one of those things that sounds good in theory but it takes a certain mentality and lifestyle to really be comfortable living in them even solo. Most of the “tiny house” enthusiasts who actually stick with it are people who spend a lot of time traveling or are basically living a ‘luxury vanlife“ lifestyle. The idea of jamming masses of people into tiny houses without some incentive (i.e. the appeal of living in Manhattan or San Francisco) is just not going to be palatable for the majority of people.
I’ll also make the point that ‘tiny homes’ that are not built from recycled/recovered materials (i.e. those built on a more production line form) are not really any cheaper than manufactured and ‘mobile’ homes and can end up being more expensive depending upon interior trim and amenities for a given square footage. And unless you are making them stackable (which has its own set of complications) it doesn’t resolve issues with the cost of available land.
Stranger
Yes, but that is irrelevant here, since it was comparing this form of investing to buying a home, which you also cannot do with $1500. Indeed, you usually need much more than that to start the “investment” of home ownership.
Well … mobile/manufactured homes (ETA: which you addressed) have been a thing for quite a while now, and stick-framed houses – just … smaller – aren’t inherently of lesser quality.
“Tiny house” isn’t always a trailer-able domicile. It’s just a house of <=400sf (one definition).
As to square footage …
https://www.thezebra.com/resources/home/median-home-size-in-us
This isn’t an immutable law of nature. It’s … consumption. So one element of solving this one might be addressing The American Dream (ie, working too hard at a job you don’t like in order to buy shit you don’t need in an effort to keep up with people you really can’t stand).
Sez me 
People with ARMs who didn’t switch to low fixed rate mortgages in the past few years were being foolish, and foolish people seldom do well.
I have nothing against renting, but maintenance gets included in the rent also, unless you get lucky and move before a big one hits.
One problem has been that at one point reasonable levels of inflation and reasonable levels of income growth made home ownership a good deal, even if it was tight at the beginning. It’s not so good with low inflation and low income growth. Those with fixed rate mortgages and jobs where there salary goes up with inflation to some extent are going to find the percent of money they pay for their mortgage go down. This should let them save for repairs. You wouldn’t expect big repairs right after you buy if you did a decent inspection.
That’s true.
If you’re talking about tiny homes, however, that may also entail deciding not to have a family.
Two people who are both into it might manage in one of those – depending very much on the two people, and on how much time they spend at home. People in desperation might live in them with children; but I don’t think it ‘solves the problem’ to offer them housing that requires living like that.
There are lots of things that might work for single 20-somethings, and for a smallish percentage of others; but while tiny homes might help to some extent, they’re far from a total solution to the problem.
All fair points, to be sure.
My point was to showcase “tiny homes” as an example of backing the square footage truck up.
As my long-suffering wife likes to say, her grandparents raised 13 (count 'em: 13) kids in a house that can’t be more than 750-800sf, and there were a number of years where the whole baker’s dozen and the parents all lived there simultaneously (ie, nobody had flown the coop yet).
The number of square feet per body inhabiting … is rising. It doesn’t have to be a Tokyo sleep cubicle.
Maybe just … less.
And, no: I’m not the one who’s going to convince Americans to sign on, but I do think there are any number of people who enjoy living with less, maybe aren’t planning to have a family, or a small family, and …
I think it’s a market failure and that opening up (parts of) our cities and our dreams to smaller, “nicer” homes could be part of the solution.
Also, I’m thinking of ‘entry level’ (“starter home”) as part of what’s missing in this market. In the 50’s, The Boss drove a Cadillac and the line worker owned a Chevy. In today’s terms – in housing parlance – there are too many Bugattis, a shortage of Chevy’s, and too many people are probably ‘forced’ into rental cars.
[Yeah: renting should always be an option, and quite often IS the right move for a given person/family/situation]
And “starter homes” can be just that. If people decide that acquisition and consumption rule, or if they decide to have a (larger) family, then they leave smaller cheaper stock for others trying to enter the market.
This, coming from a guy who lived for a number of years in a 28’ Airstream … quite comfortably I might add 
The problem is not “square footage”; aside from a few obscenely desirable urban markets, the constraints on real estate in the United Staes aren’t space to build but availability of affordable rentals and housing priced for lower and middle income families, which is largely driven by suburban housing development-oriented code restrictions, protectionist actions by incumbent residents to prevent more people from moving to their area or adjacent neighborhoods, and the general unwillingness of municipalities to restructure lucrative tax bases to a mixed use, mixed income basis even if the overall effect is a net benefit to the local economy. Pretending like this is all just matter of optimizing the use of space is like Charlie Munger insisting that students should live in a giant corporo-industrial quasi-prison to satisfy his armchair sociology architectural theories.
Stranger
And that’s another solution. If cities put in parking lots designed to accommodate van lifers, that would free up a ton of housing, as well as allow those people to move easily if there are better opportunities elsewhere.
Well, that, and I think having to ride out something like a blizzard or hurricane in something that size would be hellish. And in fact tiny homes aren’t really that cheap in many cases, aren’t as durable, and useless for anyone with kids. This sort of housing pre-supposes everyone is single and living alone, maybe a couple, but certainly not anyone raising a family or with any sort of dependent.
The need for repairs isn’t always a matter of how well the home was constructed or maintained - having a tree fall on your house, a lightning strike, etc. are not planned in advance. Sure, there are ways to mitigate these things, but not entirely eliminate them.
You shouldn’t have to do major repairs right away but you might have to because Stuff Happens.
Is the resale value of a tiny home worth it, though? Or are they like “mobile homes” that depreciate rather than gain value over time? They really do strike me as a glorified “van life” or RV living (which are fine for those who actually want it) than anything else.
They can be part of the solution, but I don’t think they’ll be more than a niche part of it.
It’s hard to imagine that tiny homes are anything more than a niche - all the big cities that have (effectively) solved this issue do so with dense high rise living. Which can be functionally similar for residents - a small apartment is mostly similar to a tiny house in terms of living space and such - but on a per capita basis, high rise apartments are much, much more efficient, both economically and environmentally.
I’m not sure a ton, but there are a number of mobile home parks in San Jose. Which are under pressure, since the land is so valuable that the owners want to raise rents to unsustainable levels. Most of the people in them, from the news stories, seem to be retired, but I haven’t seen demographics.
By way of adding emphasis to the untapped demand/market failure aspect of this conversation …
These new living arrangements may have an impact not just on young adults and their families, but on the U.S. economy overall, reflecting the importance of the housing market to overall economic growth. Even before the outbreak, the growth in new households trailed population growth, in part because people were moving in with others. Slower household growth could mean less demand for housing and household goods. There also may be a decline in the number of renters and homeowners, and in overall housing activity. Between February and July 2020, the number of households headed by an 18- to 29-year-old declined by 1.9 million, or 12%. The total went from 15.8 million to 13.9 million.
These are potential first-time home buyers, some of whom are opting out of that decision by choice; others by circum$tance.
But it isn’t hard to imagine that there still are a dearth of truly affordable homes to allow many of these kids to leave the nest.
It may be hard to get Kobe beef to come significantly down in price. Maybe there needs to be a larger supply of ground chuck
Mobile homes aren’t really mobile, and they take up more room than a van.
The people who own a home on a rental property get screwed when the rent goes up. They can’t really leave, and they can’t afford to stay.
At least if the rent is increased on a parking spot, it’s fairly trivial to move your van to somewhere with a more competitive rate.
Some of them are staying home longer to build up savings so that a home purchase is viable.
I was assuming the parking spot was going to have some kind of hookups. If not you’re a lot more flexible, but it is just a step up from sleeping in the car.
I would see some as having hookups, some without.
Disconnecting is a pretty simple matter. A bit more work than just putting the car in drive, but a whole lot less than trying to move a “mobile” home.
Yeah, pretty much. But sleeping in a car where you are allowed to do so, where there is at least some level of security, and where there are facilities for your use.
It’s not going to solve the problem itself, and it’s not for everyone, but it would free up some housing from people who don’t mind such accommodations.
Tell me about it. When my parents sold their house in Culver City the early 70s, it was between $60-$70K (they bought it for $12K in 1952). It’s currently appraised at $2.1M.
I have a daughter who’s house-hunting in the Midwwst in the middle of this market. She and my son-in-law have been outbid on two houses so far, and it seems that by the time their realtor can show them a house, someone else has already put in an offer. They’re resisting the urge to get into a bidding war, especially since it’s kind of looking like home values may be dropping a bit from their peak, but it’s really stressful.