3 ms·

Yes, it is confusing. My brother in law works in that industry, and explained the differences to me this way: Mobile home: Factory built before a certain dat

Yes, it is confusing. My brother in law works in that industry, and explained the differences to me this way: Mobile home: Factory built before a certain date in the 1970's (which I've forgotten), with no particular quality standards in place. Manufactured home: The new name for mobile homes, indicating that they have been factory built to clearly defined standards. Considered depreciating personal property by insurance companies and lenders. Modular home: Also factory built, but to the same standards as homes built on-site. (These are the prefabs you mention.) Considered real estate, the same as site-built homes, by insurance companies and lenders. Edit: Wikipedia links to this archived page, which provides more specifics: https://web.archive.org/web/20120323074714/http://www.mhcommunities.org/cm/lib/showtemp_detail.asp?id=63&cat=consumer_resos https://web.archive.org/web/20120323074714/http://www.mhcomm...

klipt 6y ago
All buildings depreciate though. It's only land that appreciates.
- diggernet 6y ago
  That is true. I guess what I meant to say is that mobile/manufactured are considered personal property separate from the land, while modular is considered attached to the parcel in the same way that site-built homes are. One result of this is that for manufactured, lenders have much more restrictive terms. Typically 10-15 years max, min 30% down, and a significantly higher interest rate.
- refurb 6y ago
  Is that true though? In the Bay Area the cost of new construction keeps going up ($400-500/sq ft for the most basic). If it costs more to replace a house than it cost to originally construct it I could see the value of the house appreciating.
  - LoneStarNot 6y ago
    Convoluted, but comprehensible. CA let landowners legislatively lock real estate(RE) revenue down with Prop13, even as the economy grew behind tech, AND steeper-than-avg regulation slowed construction. Choked supply and growing demand exploded prices. RE became a no-brainer for speculators. LOTS of CA land is held OUT of development ... likely because development is riskier than cashing in on the RE bidding wars. NO family sells CA land because _renting_ it is so profitable with demand insanely outstripping supply. Scott Weiner has repeatedly tried to get the legislature to a) relieve the economic stress on families, b) help the environment, by building greener, ESPECIALLY near public transit, to pay back the public investment in transit, and c) to densify, for the myriad of benefits. But the same right-wing segment who gave us Warren, and Reagan has protected the RE windfall to landowners even as exploding RE prices and the salary inflation that demands has pushed many hi-tech firms out of the state. LOCAL construction costs, and the cost of everything else not easily transported, get pushed up by the RE cost hitting _everyone_ but the land OWNERS. Complaints of complex, costly regulations are real; but the factors noted seem bigger. AND ... factory-built processes reduce the per/unit cost of regulation by letting regulators approve factory PROCESSES instead of individual homes.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Buildings (and more often, industrial facilities) appreciate when regulatory changes eliminate the possibility of building more in the future.
- bagpuss 6y ago
  That assertion doesn't always hold for castles, buildings of aesthetic appeal or those designed by architects long departed. Were that the case, buildings like Fallingwater and the palace at Versailles would only be worth the site value.

klipt 6y ago

All buildings depreciate though. It's only land that appreciates.

diggernet 6y ago
That is true. I guess what I meant to say is that mobile/manufactured are considered personal property separate from the land, while modular is considered attached to the parcel in the same way that site-built homes are. One result of this is that for manufactured, lenders have much more restrictive terms. Typically 10-15 years max, min 30% down, and a significantly higher interest rate.
refurb 6y ago
Is that true though? In the Bay Area the cost of new construction keeps going up ($400-500/sq ft for the most basic). If it costs more to replace a house than it cost to originally construct it I could see the value of the house appreciating.
- LoneStarNot 6y ago
  Convoluted, but comprehensible. CA let landowners legislatively lock real estate(RE) revenue down with Prop13, even as the economy grew behind tech, AND steeper-than-avg regulation slowed construction. Choked supply and growing demand exploded prices. RE became a no-brainer for speculators. LOTS of CA land is held OUT of development ... likely because development is riskier than cashing in on the RE bidding wars. NO family sells CA land because _renting_ it is so profitable with demand insanely outstripping supply. Scott Weiner has repeatedly tried to get the legislature to a) relieve the economic stress on families, b) help the environment, by building greener, ESPECIALLY near public transit, to pay back the public investment in transit, and c) to densify, for the myriad of benefits. But the same right-wing segment who gave us Warren, and Reagan has protected the RE windfall to landowners even as exploding RE prices and the salary inflation that demands has pushed many hi-tech firms out of the state. LOCAL construction costs, and the cost of everything else not easily transported, get pushed up by the RE cost hitting _everyone_ but the land OWNERS. Complaints of complex, costly regulations are real; but the factors noted seem bigger. AND ... factory-built processes reduce the per/unit cost of regulation by letting regulators approve factory PROCESSES instead of individual homes.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Buildings (and more often, industrial facilities) appreciate when regulatory changes eliminate the possibility of building more in the future.
bagpuss 6y ago
That assertion doesn't always hold for castles, buildings of aesthetic appeal or those designed by architects long departed. Were that the case, buildings like Fallingwater and the palace at Versailles would only be worth the site value.