Hacker News Reader

Comment by dpflan | Hacker News Reader

It's important to note that this is not a one-time $600 apparently. It's more like, find a developer who has created a rack, and pay to rent a space in that rack and plug in your home and continuing paying for space in that rack. I guess moving is a lot easier - just find a rack in another location.

"The idea is to have developers purchase racks and individuals purchase Kasitas that fit into them. The developers would make money with homeowner association fees. And homeowners would own their Kasita, paying about $600 a month -- or about half of an equivalent studio in central Austin." [from linked source]

But I'm still even confused by this wording and the $600 tag - is it just cheaper rent in another form and a different ownership model?

View on HN

This business model exists, and has existed for a long time.

The big problems that I'm aware of with it are that moving your unit can be a headache - think "transportable" not "portable," that units tend to depreciate (vs appreciation for permanent structures), and the ever-present concern about tornadoes in much of the country.

And yes, it's called a trailer park. As I understand it, you generally purchase and own your own mobile home, but you're leasing a pad from the park owner along with the costs for utility hookups.

Since trailer parks tend to be the choice of low-income /lowe-wealth residents, in practice the mobile homes tend to be owned by the parks and rented.

It varies. I frequently see them listed for sale in the DFW area.

That's pretty variable - the person I knew who lived in a mobile home had one that he'd inherited from his mother. I think the lot rent was not too far from what I'd previously been paying for a pretty nice apartment which really kind of sucks since all he was getting for that was a cement slab with some utility hookups.

The other problem he had was that because he owned the mobile home, to get out of the whole situation he had to either find someone to buy it (and take over the space or move it) or he had to get it out of the space himself. The residual value of a 20+ year old mobile home is really pretty low if it hasn't been kept up well, but I think he eventually sold it off to someone for a small amount of money just to avoid having to fix it up enough to be moved.

"I guess moving is a lot easier - just find a rack in another location."

I disagree. Why would I want to keep my pod, crane it down, put it on a truck and ship it to a new rack? Presumably I'd need to box up all my things that would get shaken around and broken in transit. It'd be easier to just put all those boxes in a truck and then unpack them in my new apartment.

The construction cost isn't the factor driving up rents, it's the market, location and the zoning.

They're very pretty little units, but I'm not sure they do much to solve the underlying affordability problem.

These units would likely share all that cost between them. So it does seem like a very effective move toward solving all that.

They're no more space-efficient than any other tiny apartment. The only practical way of fitting more square footage of housing onto the same sized building plot is to go higher, but zoning/planning laws are a massive impediment to high-rise construction.

I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the promotion of "micro living" as something chic. I don't like the idea of legitimising inadequate housing. Tiny houses are barely tolerable for young single people and utterly miserable for families.

With a handful of exceptions (Hong Kong, Macao etc) urban areas have no shortage of places to put good-sized homes; What they lack is the political will to allow sufficient construction. Housing is increasingly seen as an investment vehicle rather than a basic human need.

"Housing is increasingly seen as an investment vehicle rather than a basic human need."

Worse, declining house prices are seen as a political problem.

dpflan, I am a bit confused about the price as well, the exact cost of owning one of these seems to something that is still under development. Im sure this is something that will fluctuate between cities and demand.

From reading a couple articles on this the only consistent thing I've heard is that they are shooting for a price that is well below $1,600.

Thanks for digging deeper. Would you mind posting any references?

It actually says it right on the website ^1"Through partnerships with local entities, Kasita will rent units at about half the market rate of a studio apartment."

heres is also a nice counter agrument to Kasita.

[1] https://kasita.com/kasita/ [2] http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/12/micro-modular-apartme...

The title needs to be changed to "$600 per month micro homes"

So, I buy a mobile apartment for $X and then pay a berthing fee to some building owner for $Y a month? If I want to move, I haul my apartment to the next building?

Now, what about putting this living container on wheels with an engine or on a boat? Truly flexible living is now achieved! (Right?)

No, no, that would be an RV or mobile home and we cannot have those people in our neighborhood[1].

On a serious note, I am intrigued by the concept of pluggable apartment buildings with varying amenities with varying "berthing" fees. I buy a standard sized apartment model that fits with the layout I like. I cannot see it for families, but it would be an interesting idea for single / couples.

1) considering my Parent's trailer was a lot better built than the HUD house I grew up in there is some sarcasm in that sentence.

It's easy to stack boxes.

How much of the messy stuff like plumbing, kitchen, toilets, electricity, HVAC is handled by the "rack" vs. the "box"?

Looks like they are in racks of 9, at least that is what the pictures show.

9 X $600 = $5400/month, pretty lucrative for a developer.

One would hope that prices would drop over time due to competition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com