Once Upon a Time There was a Mobile Home Park in Boulder.....

If you’ve driven on Folsom St. in Boulder, between Mapleton and Valmont, you’ve seen the Mapleton trailer park.  Meghan Stromberg has written extensively about the Mapleton trailer park in her article “Here to Stay” where she delves into the particulars of how this park has changed over the years and  managed to hold its own in one of the priciest real estate markets in the country (Svaldi).  Stromberg looks at what this tells us about the viability of mobile home parks as affordable housing options in such areas.  Stromberg brings up a common statistic; a third of all mobile home owners are in land-lease situations where they own their homes but not the land underneath them (11).  In a town like Boulder where land is extremely valuable, this leaves residents of mobile home parks vulnerable to owners who want to cash out to developers and even municipalities looking for more park land.  Stromberg, however, chronicles a different story for the Mapleton trailer park.  This story is unique, according to Stromberg, in that the city of Boulder, recognizing their need to meet state-mandated affordable housing requirements sold the park to a non-profit owner, in this case Thistle Community Housing, where it is held permanently in the Thistle Community Land Trust under the terms of a renewable 99 year land lease ensuring that most of the lots within the Mapleton are affordable in perpetuity (12).  In addition, Stromberg cites an important factor in the success of this transition; Mapleton residents make up the association that manages the park.  This solution, however, was anything but simple.  Stromberg concedes that numerous community organizations had to come together to create the patchwork of necessary funding from “grants, bonds and traditional banks,” to purchase the property (13).  “This is a promising, although complicated means of achieving an affordable housing goal” says Jeff Yegian who was the home ownership programs manager in Boulder’s division of housing (qtd in Stromberg).  This story is ongoing.  Mapleton trailer park is in need of some major infrastructure upgrades which is typical of many trailer parks whether privately or collectively owned.  Upgrading older mobile homes, particularly ones build before the 1976 HUD codes mandating minimum quality standards is another huge issue.  These older models make up over a third of all manufactured homes (14).

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the Tiny House community proposed for development in Salida, Colorado.  In her March 6, 2016 Denver Post article “Small town, tiny houses, and a big price tag” Susan Tweit brings up some of the challenges Tiny House communities face if they truly want to provide an affordable housing option. 

Inside a Tiny House: Photo courtesy of WikiMedia

Unlike the Mapleton trailer park, the proposed development in Salida would be funded by a private company, Sprout Tiny Homes, who also builds Tiny Houses.  According to Tweit rental rates could range from $750/month to $1400/month, making the units far from affordable.  Doubtless, part of what is driving these rental figures is the amenities like a community building, exercise facility, kitchen and laundry that this development would provide.  And unlike the Mapleton trailer park, these tiny houses will be trendy, chic and adorable.  If you don’t believe me, check out some uber-cute Sprout Tiny Homes.  Ultimately, Twiet concludes that the Tiny House community in Salida is many things, “But it’s not a solution to our affordable housing problem” (2D).

After my research, I’m struck by how close mobile homes and tiny houses are to offering a viable solution to the affordable housing crisis while still missing the mark.  Ultimately, I think mobile homes need to be more like tiny houses and tiny houses need to be more like mobile homes.  Each of these options has something to offer to the conversation about how we create affordable housing.  Mobile homes would benefit from being built more like tiny houses, with an increased emphasis on quality, design and efficiency.  Part of what drives the appeal of tiny houses is the fact that they’re built like standard houses in a smaller, cuter package.  This sounds trivial until you acknowledge the very real fact that we all want to live in a space that makes us feel good.  For most people, the image of a dilapidated trailer is the furthest thing that comes to mind when we think of places we want to live.  The internet is awash with architecturally designed mobile home models that would make anyone with a design aesthetic salivate.  The problem becomes, how do we get these units to populate existing trailer parks and mix with current mobile homes, in a way that is affordable for would-be home owners?

Prefabricated house photo courtesy of Wikipedia

Furthermore, mobile homes should be more mobile.  When it isn’t cost prohibitive for an owner to move their mobile home they are likely to invest more and therefore be more invested in their home.  On the flip side, Tiny Homes need to be more like mobile homes; real places for real people.  As the Salida example illustrates, Tiny houses are in danger of becoming just another quaint consumer product only the financially well-to-do can afford.  Divorce Tiny Houses from the core tenets of the “movement” – (DIY, simplicity, environmental sustainability, community) and you essentially make them irrelevant; snazzy hipster outbuildings for people with extra cash to burn.  How can tiny houses be more like mobile homes and find a path to municipal legitimacy, complete with building codes and access to existing infrastructure?  There are only so many people willing to use composting toilets for the long haul.

As is so often the case, the problem isn’t as simple as I’d hoped.  While these solutions are compelling, there are still substantial road blocks.  I’m convinced that both mobile homes and tiny houses are part of the solution to the affordable housing crisis.  They’re not the silver bullet but they’re an important piece of the puzzle.  And if there’s any conclusion that my research has led me to, it is that there is immense power in partial solutions.  I wonder how the model of the Mapleton trailer park can be adapted to other locales and how the non-profit land-trust model can be replicated and streamlined.  After all, everyone needs a shot at home ownership.  It’s the American way.


Sources:

Stromberg, Meghan. "Here To Stay." Planning 71.2 (2005): 10-15. Academic Search Premier. Web.   6 Mar. 2016.

Svaldi, Aldo. "Boulder Real Estate His Top 1 Percent of Country's Most Expensive Markets." The Denver Post. 11 Nov. 2015. Digital First Media. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

Tweit, Susan. "Small Town, Tiny Houses, and a Big Price Tag." The Denver Post. 6 Mar. 2016, PERSPECT: 2D. NewsBank. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

It's not what you think

As it turns out, there is something wrong with trailer parks, but it's not what you might think….

Given that the U.S. Census Bureau puts the average purchase price of a single family home in 2015 at a little over $326,000 and the average price of a manufactured, or mobile home, at $66,800, there's no doubt that manufactured housing is worthy of a second look.   On the surface it seems like mobile homes are the solution to the affordable housing crisis that’s right underneath our noses.  Unfortunately, there are some serious issues with manufactured housing even though cost isn't one of them.  In her 2014 Atlantic Monthly article, "The Case for Trailer Parks," Alana Semuels brings up some of the benefits and also some of the less obvious drawbacks to manufactured housing.  The stigma of mobile homes as “shoddily built cheap eyesores” is becoming increasingly out of date as HUD has established building codes regulating design and construction of mobile homes and as the industry looks to improve the quality of their products offering amenities such as “Energy Star” certified units.  This touches on the environmental advantages to manufactured housing over conventionally built homes.  Not only do they require less energy to heat and cool but they also produce much less waste in the building process.  The disadvantages of mobile homes, on the other hand, aren’t as apparent. 

First and foremost, is that good percentage of mobile home owners don’t own the land under their homes.  This leaves these mobile home owners vulnerable to increases in rent and often without a place to go if the land under their home is sold.  This short OZY News documentary "Trailer Park Nation: The Great Eviction," offers a compelling insight into the plight of mobile home owners forced to relocate:

As Semuels brings up, organizations such as the Affordable Housing Alliance have purchased trailer parks with the aim of ensuring long-term stability and affordability for residents.  Other obstacles preventing mobile homes from gaining a wider acceptance has to do with how the loan process works for manufactured housing.  Contrary to standard houses, the vast majority of mobile homes have higher interest rate loans.  According to Semuels “Buyers don’t have much choice among various financial products because manufactured homes are legally classified as personal property, like a car, rather than a house, which means that loans are more expensive and riskier.”  These issues are beginning to be addressed by government and industry stakeholders who recognize that current laws governing mobile home loans unfairly penalize their owners.

Many of the benefits of mobile homes are also shared by tiny houses.  According to Anne Wyatt in her article “Tiny Houses: Niche or Noteworthy?,” tiny houses “offer a wealth of potential benefits and solutions to a range of housing challenges; they are more economical and sustainable than conventional housing and add to the range of housing choices available” (39).  Inarguably, cost is one of the biggest factors driving tiny house appeal.  The price of many tiny homes hovers around $20,000 to $30,000, offering a roof over your head for a price that’s even less than the average manufactured home.  With a focus on quality over quantity and the “Walden-esque” ethos of a simple life, tiny homes have circumvented much of the stigma that continues to dog mobile homes.  There are many roadblocks, however, preventing tiny homes from popping up on every street corner and in every backyard.  Most problematic is the fact that many municipalities have minimum size and permanent foundation requirements for homes that essentially make many tiny houses illegal.  The issue of accessibility to infrastructure and utilities is also a dilemma facing many tiny house owners who often turn to “off grid” solutions like solar power and composting toilets since they can’t simply plug into existing utilities like water, sewer and electric.  Wyatt argues tiny houses “offer the opportunity for planners to look at some of the planning assumptions and status quo factors that make tiny houses challenging to locate and live in” (42).  Like some of the problems that plague mobile homes, this may be starting to change.  More and more towns are revising their municipal codes to make room for tiny houses.  A few towns have even gone so far as to make themselves “tiny house friendly” in the hopes of attracting residents and revenue.  How can we get more towns to follow suit?

At this point, having read about the problems and potential of mobile homes and tiny houses, I see their long term benefits as outweighing their short term downfalls.  It seems to me that mobile homes and tiny houses could be the answer for many people who aren’t able to afford conventional housing.  What’s more, mobile homes and tiny houses signal an important and necessary environmental shift towards more sustainable living.  While real, the problems associated with mobile homes and tiny houses seem to be solvable, requiring a change in attitudes and laws more than anything else.


Source:

Wyatt, Anne. "Tiny Houses: Niche Or Noteworthy?." Planning 82.2 (2016): 39-42.  

     Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Mar. 2016.

 

What's Wrong with a Trailer Park?

From my desk, I have a bird's eye view of all that is wrong with housing in Boulder County.  I live in Lyons and from my hillside perch I have an expansive vista of the town which stretches below me and to the northeast.  Looking up, I see the opposite hillside which is crowded with a tight row of 5000 square foot homes, built so close together it looks like neighbors could shake hands without leaving their living rooms.  Directly below me I see the confluence area, a low lying neighborhood of mostly older homes where the North St. Vrain and the South St Vrain rivers converge.  Not surprisingly, this was the area most devastated by the historic flooding in 2013.

Here's what we lost and here's what we need
Photo by Amanda Cronin

The story's a predictable and heartbreaking one.  The parts of town most affected by the flooding were the neighborhoods with the largest "affordable" housing stock.  These were the older, smaller and cheaper houses in town.  Lyons lost two trailer parks in the flood that housed over seventy families all told.  Sadly, these are the people who can't afford to come back.  Solutions to the ensuing housing crisis have been controversial.  A measure to turn public park land into a low income residential neighborhood split the town and was ultimately rejected by voters.  Many Lyons residents had concerns about the complexity and scale of the project, not to mention that the subsidized rent figures touted in the plan were still ridiculously expensive.  Most troubling, there was no guarantee that the people who lost their homes in the flood would be the ones returning.  Adding salt to these wounds was the fact that residents who owned and lost their mobile homes in the flood would now have to come back as renters.  

Maybe it’s time to back off of big solutions to big problems.  With stagnant wages and a shortage of affordable housing options, maybe it’s time, instead, to recast the American dream of home ownership.  Maybe the advent of the DIY Tiny House ethos can de-stigmatize living on a smaller scale.  One look at the housing market in Boulder County and suddenly "mobile home" doesn't seem like such a dirty word after all.  Mobile homes, or "manufactured housing" have long been a fixture of the American landscape. With the typical size of a mobile home ranging between 1000 and 2000 square feet, they offer enough room for a family. Tiny houses, on the other hand, are well, tinier. Most Tiny houses are under 300 square feet and are built on wheeled trailers making them way more mobile than any mobile home. People are more mobile than ever; why shouldn’t their houses be as well?  

Real Estate prices in Lyons have shut out all low income and quite a few middle income families to boot.  Housing prices determine where we live, whom we live with, where we work and how far we drive to get there.  Unfortunately, this is not unique to our area.  The lack of affordable housing is a major issue in many parts of the country, forcing municipalities to grapple with how they can make sure their most vulnerable residents aren’t priced clear out of town.  

How much does increased urbanization, population growth and lack of buildable land factor into the housing crisis? What about the social and environmental repercussions of a lack of affordable housing?  How will our towns and cities change when only the wealthy can afford to live there?  Moreover, how can our housing choices reflect the environmental imperatives of our time?  If we need to produce less waste and use less energy, how can we adapt our homes to fit this picture?  How do we address issues of urban sprawl?  I’m left with a lot of questions.  -A lot of questions and a row of 5000 square foot houses staring at me from the opposite hillside.  Something’s got to give.  Maybe small will be the new big.

test post