You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_j7kyr2o wrote



apd56 t1_j7l253b wrote

I think some people would be attracted the idea of renting a stand alone unit. These specifically are targeted towards young individuals or couples opposed to families.


riffler24 t1_j7mvlj1 wrote

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.


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.


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.


[deleted] t1_j7ndk6x wrote



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


[deleted] t1_j7ng1ko wrote



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?


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.


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.


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.


Tai9ch t1_j7msmei wrote

There's very little practical benefit to a stand-alone building if it's six feet from the next building over. Basically it's spending a couple hundred dollars a year in heating costs to save a hundred bucks in sound proofing.


59000beans t1_j7mvzqg wrote

I would take a standalone living space over a shared building any day. Yes, a neighbor might be 6ft away in a building next door, but not having loud noises all around you inside your own living area is worth it....and being free from all the smells.


Tai9ch t1_j7n274g wrote

The alternative would be rowhouses (or even just duplexes), which could easily be better at both noise and smell insulation than these things.


Psychological-Cry221 t1_j7pd8sj wrote

Row houses or duplexes, both of which would share a wall, would be better on noise and smell than detached units? Have you been eating paint chips again?


Tai9ch t1_j7pid87 wrote

Yes, replacing two walls with windows in them with one wall with sound insulation and a vapor barrier means less noise and smell transmission.

I take it you've never lived in either a decent duplex or a closely spaced single family.


[deleted] t1_j7nbn7r wrote



Cantide756 t1_j7nc9mz wrote

40 years is about 4 times more optimistic than you should be with these


Psychological-Cry221 t1_j7pddja wrote

The rent on these is set at fair market (FMR) and they lease for $1,200 month. What do you pay for rent?


pullyourfinger t1_j7sldqn wrote

hopefully they won't be. they are ugly as shit and should be torn down now, FFS.


Cantide756 t1_j7nc4za wrote

Not to mention the reduced likelihood of pests getting through the walls


Own_Clothes9361 t1_j7mxnoh wrote

Open those windows and guarantee you’ll smell your neighbors burnt pizza airing out or hear them laying pipe on a Friday night.


apd56 t1_j7mu8qk wrote

Some people might prefer this style of housing. Whether it has downsides in efficiency or not. Also worth noting that due to zoning, large multi-family housing structures aren’t permitted to be constructed in certain areas.


Tai9ch t1_j7n40g0 wrote

> Some people might prefer this style of housing. Whether it has downsides in efficiency or not.

That's true, and if that's really their preference then more power to them.

> Also worth noting that due to zoning, large multi-family housing structures aren’t permitted to be constructed in certain areas.

That's more my problem here. If rules like that influenced this project then the rules should be fixed, because people who do want the higher efficiency / cheaper option should get to choose that.

But then we live in a state where most places have 5 acre lot size minimums but no frontage minimums, which lead to ridiculous strip lots that make no sense unless specifically to frustrate future development at the cost of every other consideration.


prestigious_delay_7 t1_j7p5lpa wrote

I suspect lot size regulations were not the case here, but I'm curious where in Dover these homes were built.


apd56 t1_j7prbbf wrote

On Back River Road, permitted uses do not include multi-family housing. Maximum 2-family dwelling.


itsmckenney t1_j7ms9ts wrote

Yeah, but from the looks of it they're still only ten feet away from their neighbors.


ThunderySleep t1_j7n7lfh wrote

I don't plan to move unless leaving, NH, but I'd go for something like this just to have a small amount of outdoor space, and not worry about disturbing neighbors on other floors if I'm up and about at odd hours.


The51stAgent t1_j7nmcih wrote

We need so much more of this. Single people and childless couples get the shaft when it comes to housing development. All thats built, especially around here seems to be 3 or 4 bedroom homes and up. I personally do not want or need anything beyond a 2bedroom home with a garage. But developers don’t care because it wont bring them as much money


lellololes t1_j7l4nqr wrote

Eh, there should be more variety in housing than apartments and mcmansions. We don't have enough of the in between stuff. Having different densities is a good thing.

These look appropriately sized for an individual or a couple without a lot of material stuff. It's not going to be for everybody, but these look like they would be good homes for people that have modest means and don't want to live in an apartment.


broknkittn t1_j7lyrmm wrote

I would totally rent something like this rather than an apartment in a complex. If for nothing else than noise levels and no one else living above you stomping around.

Also you get the yard without it being overwhelming like it can be if you owned a full house. Room for a little garden outside, too.


MethBearBestBear t1_j7m8xca wrote

But you don't, it is 7.5 aces subdivided into 44 lots plus roads...


lellololes t1_j7m9xh3 wrote

That's not living in the middle of nowhere but it is pretty normal. That's about 1/6th of an acre per house.

I grew up with a 1/4 acre yard. It's not Sherwood forest but it is hardly living on top of each other...


MethBearBestBear t1_j7mc8pj wrote

I grew up on 1/4 acre as well and i have driven by this project multiple times. It is probably going to come to more of 1/8 of an acre per lot in reality. I was responding to the person saying you will not hear your neighbors (you will) and can have a garden (not really).

This whole project screams money printer with a fake "we are helping out" facade or just a poorly thought out pie in the sky with more money than thought. The location is walkable outside of winter to downtown but condos would have been a much better use of the land of they didn't want apartment buildings. These are going to be cheaply built (2 years to go from forested uneven ground to 44 units) units that will make the property owner between 100-250k per year. Surprised the city approved of the project and probably only did so because it was "adding housing" but added it in a very inefficient way.


ThePencilRain t1_j7n31a1 wrote

The city approved it because the developer has more money than the neighbors.

Per the city meetings a few years ago, all of these were supposed to be claimed already by the employees of the owner's other ventures - the giant assisted living/nursing homes down the road. So, apparently, things have changed.

Which sucks, as I just took over my grandmother's house which is reeeeeeaaaaally close to this monstrosity. It looks like shit and I guarantee it will be section 8 projects within 5 years.


the_nobodys t1_j7ljquq wrote

Yeah, good points. They wouldn't make it if there wasn't demand and financial feasibility.


rahnster_wright t1_j7lw0nq wrote

Diversity in our housing stock is good! They probably could have fit more units on the lot if they built an apartment building, but they specifically wanted to build cottages, which are really desirable for a host of reasons. We don't want all our housing to be the same.


ANewMachine615 t1_j7n6ved wrote

That's fine, but the real key is to let as much varied housing be built as possible. People in this thread prefer this, and would be willing to rent it. Let them. I'd prefer a non-double-loaded hallway apartment building. Let them build that too!

The fix for housing is fewer mandates and restrictions, not more controls over what you can build.


ThunderySleep t1_j7n7dzf wrote

> between $1,000 and $1,232 per month.

I looked around for apartments in Dover around this time last year and couldn't find anything less than $1300. Plus, outdoor space is a bonus, even if it's just enough to grill or have a tiny garden.


gregor-sans t1_j7owhlb wrote

Who is the landlord? I got the impression that the homes would be for sale. Regardless, the builder probably doesn’t have to care about the longterm costs.


pullyourfinger t1_j7sm45r wrote

some trustafarian jerkoff "contractor" and his Karen-esque "architect" wife (don't quit your day job selling Arbonne, hun!). They seem like fakes on all levels, not to mention complete attention whores with the endless PR about this shithole.


Psychological-Cry221 t1_j7pd2yp wrote

The cost to construct these is not much more than an apartment complex. At this time it costs anywhere from $200k to $250k a unit to build an apartment and I’ve seen budgets that go as high as $300k a unit. That’s one reason rent is so high. Well that and Dover NH taxes are prohibitively high.


sheila9165milo OP t1_j7kt5ax wrote

Super cool that Dover took the initiative.


sledbelly t1_j7lhqjx wrote

I don’t know if $1200 a month for 384 square feet is taking initiative


Madcat28 t1_j7liexr wrote

Yea this is my problem with tiny homes, why would I want to pay more for less, I would totally be on board if it was cheaper.


sledbelly t1_j7liu6l wrote

Or if they offered them for sale! Buying property is the ladder to move up with. Help people instead of making as much money as you can off of them.


WeimarStreetCrust t1_j7lv88i wrote

If only helping them was actually as profitable.

Asset management firms care about maintain a certain level of guaranteed revenue over a sustained period of time..

You don’t get that by selling homes, but you sure as hell do by renting them!

The entire system is breaking down into a new form of feudalism. Need to change the system so housing doesn’t get totally nuked by asset management firms.


Own_Clothes9361 t1_j7n19cf wrote

And on it’s own land. Bet there’s all sorts of bs rules here.


Unusual-Dragonfly-88 t1_j7llakz wrote

The average rent cost for a 1 bedroom apartment in Dover is $1500. The maximum rent for a tiny home is 1200 with it being closer to 1050 after adjusted income. Saving $300-$450 a month on housing in the same town is very appealing to many people.


WhiskyIsMyYoga t1_j7lryly wrote

Meanwhile, the mortgage would be $700 or $800 if these were actually intended to help people other than the developer.


rahnster_wright t1_j7lvtaq wrote

Financial feasibility is a real challenge to building affordable housing (or any housing that isn't market rate or "luxury"). They would love to support homeownership if it were possible, but it's not - the math doesn't work.

Edit: I get the downvotes, Reddit hates developers and landlords, but it is clear that y'all don't understand financially feasibility. Developers can't take a loss on project or they would go out of business.


Cantide756 t1_j7nctat wrote

It's also a huge problem with the market, houses that are condemned still go for way more than they are worth, since they have "potential". Property value going up is one thing, but the value of it skyrocketing because of a building on it that is better off demolished is idiocy.


invenio78 t1_j7pppbg wrote

They go for what they are worth because what they are worth is what the market determined.

Redditors just can't come to grasp with the fact that realestate is expensive. As pertaining to the original post, this is incredibly cheap housing. You really can't find anything cheaper in the area, so you can claim many things, but overpriced is not one of them.


Cantide756 t1_j7pukj9 wrote

I know of 6 houses in a development that were finished right before the 08 mess, guy won't drop the price from 350k, and they've been raided for copper from the meter and furnace out, sheet rock is trashed, and exterior has never been redone. I can see the value of the land itself might be high, but the amount of money going into making it livable, that shouldn't be the asking price. Most he does is mow the lawns, they've never had occupants other than the occasional squatter.


invenio78 t1_j7pwzbq wrote

Housing prices, much like any other commodity go up and down in value. If you are concerned about housing prices going up, don't look at how much you are paying for eggs now compared to a year ago.

You example just says that he was not listing his house at the proper market value. If he did, he would have sold it (whether it be 2008, 2009, or 2023).


Unusual-Dragonfly-88 t1_j7ltnq3 wrote

These are not intended to be long term housing for families or home owners. They are also not meant to be to be owned as the homeowners could turn around and rent out the tiny home for more than the mortgage and therefore generating profit and not keeping them affordable. This would have a compound effect if they were to be controlled by multiple real estate firms looking to continually drive up the cost of rent rather than one firm dictating the same price for all. At the same time, an HOA would have to be established to dictate the rules and regulations of the community and was not the design for this project! If this was about making the most money quickly and not keeping housing affordable in Dover, they would be for sale rather than rent. As stated in my original post, future plans to allow tiny home ownership in neighboring towns has been discussed for people who may want to be able to invest long term into this type of housing!


Own_Clothes9361 t1_j7n7ypd wrote

How do you avoid the long term renters exactly? Monitor their credit to avoid debt? Don’t accept certain people? Part of the problem is this is geared at people in low paying fields.


rahnster_wright t1_j7ppjk8 wrote

The size of the units would discourage long-term tenants. Most people won't stay in a 384 square foot house for more than one season of their life. These units don't prohibit long-term tenants, but the size of the units means tenants probably won't stay for more than a handful of years. I suspect it'll be mostly single-person households, probably young people and divorcee/empty nester types. If someone stays for longer, that's fine - they're not going to be kicked out or whatever!


Own_Clothes9361 t1_j7psb5d wrote

Do the Randolph’s know you speak on their behalf here? You are so heavily invested/emotional it’s rather suspect. I would not be happy if someone I knew was so frequently using my name on a public forum and disclosing information not readily available in the public.


[deleted] t1_j7qc1kg wrote



Own_Clothes9361 t1_j7qjptd wrote

I have “good” friends I also “like” with public facing projects I support. But I’d absolutely remove all doubt before speaking on their behalf - it can taint public perception going forward. A lot of comments made are not just “misunderstandings” but missed opportunities to capitalize on dialogue.


MethBearBestBear t1_j7ma175 wrote

The average size of a 1 bedroom apartment in Dover is 790 square feet. So are you saying the rent should be half the amount around $750 instead of $1200?


smartest_kobold t1_j7kv4ko wrote

Landlords lauded for shrinkflation. Better than nothing I guess.


Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7kxvm9 wrote

Trailer parks have been a major source of affordable housing for decades now. It’s not shrinkflation, it’s just an inferior good. Kinda like how Spirit Airlines isn’t a fun sized JetBlue, it’s just an airborne bus.

If I have to criticize anything about more housing being built, it’s this classist “tiny house” terminology. You live in a trailer, Becky. Own it. It’s fine. The main problem with trailers is that they deteriorate much faster than traditional homes. But don’t let this landlord’s silver tongue grift you into paying $2000/mo for a trailer. Yes, I know these particular trailers are being rented for $1200/mo (for now), but the point remains.


apd56 t1_j7l1uif wrote

In this case at least, these aren’t trailers. They’re wood framed on permanent foundations like any other house would be. They just have a small footprint. Condominiums are being built in a similar manner more and more now, where you own the building but all the land is communal. The only difference here is that the homes are rented. It’s a nice alternative to living in an apartment building.


dc551589 t1_j7mxqu6 wrote

Yeah, tiny house doesn’t equal trailer doesn’t equal modular. I’d be interested to know what category these houses are insured under. That’s the best way to know for sure, but, as you said, we can rule out trailer.


nhbruh t1_j7lmuhf wrote

Trailer parks can be predatory as fuck and have the habit of making poor people even more poor


e: removing implication that all parks are predatory


Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7lptoh wrote

Did you actually watch that segment? The issues laid out in it are specific to trailer parks where people own trailers and lease the land. Mobile homes actually can’t be moved once they’ve settled. People are stuck with the worst of both worlds.

Those issues aren’t relevant if the trailers are rented with the land, or if you put your owned trailer on land you own.

Also, this is a very recent grift, where parasitic hedge funds have decided to gouge trailer park owners. In the past, either they thought such things were beyond the pale, or they once feared prosecution. I don’t understand how that isn’t criminal, honestly.


nhbruh t1_j7lvzkg wrote

Yeah I did. You didn’t specify the land/lease agreement parameters in the post I responded to, so narrowing the argument to only include scenarios where the land is owned by an individual feels slightly disingenuous.

Recent or not, its happening now and that removes support from the argument that trailer parks are a source of affordable house (you can toss your asterisk here and say YMMV and the like)


rahnster_wright t1_j7ly1mi wrote

There is a lot of nuance and context missing from your comments.

First, these aren't trailers. The Randolphs are building small homes. They are stick built to the same code/standards as any other stick built home. They're just small. This conversation about trailers is irrelevant to this thread.

Second, manufactured housing parks can be predatory. There is a lot of great coverage on that issue. That doesn't mean all "trailers" are predatory. For example, resident owned communities (ROCs) are not predatory, nor is a single manufactured homes placed on the owner's property.

Per NH statute, manufactured housing in NH is treated as real estate. The appreciate, just like real estate does, and since the 1970s, they have been built to HUD standards. Manufactured housing is a very real path toward affordable homeownership for a lot of people in NH.

But you are right that investors buying up manufactured housing parks in NH is a huge problem and it is predatory. Per NH statute, tenants must be given the opportunity to buy their park and that's pretty freaking awesome.


nhbruh t1_j7m1y2h wrote

I think you are conflating arguments. My comment exchange with curious_buffalo was not in reference to the tiny homes mentioned in the original article. Furthermore, the relevance to the main topic doesn’t really matter in the end, this is Reddit after all.

I’m sorry I gave you the impression that all trailer parks and communities are predatory, as that was not the intent of my comment.


the_nobodys t1_j7llc73 wrote

Since accurate terminology has no meaning to you, I've decided your domicile is a cave. There's no shame in being a cave dweller, you just have to own it.


rahnster_wright t1_j7lv10n wrote

Very apropos given CAVE is a fun acronym for NIMBYs - Citizens Against Virtually Everything.


rahnster_wright t1_j7luxah wrote

Some of your points are factually incorrect, but I am going to start with the nuance that is missing from this conversation.

"Tiny houses" is often used when referring to tiny houses on wheels. These aren't that. What the Randolphs are building in Dover are just very small homes. No wheels. There is no reason they will deteriorate faster than any other home because they're built with the same materials and to the same code. They're just smaller.

Tiny houses on wheels may deteriorate faster. There is less regulation when we're talking about THOWs (inspection standards, building code, etc.). THOWs are personal property, not real estate. Note that is also substantially different than manufactured housing, which is considered real estate in NH, does not depreciate, and since the 70s, has been built to HUD standards.

Manufactured homes, especially those in Resident Owned Communities (ROCs), are hands-down the most affordable path to homeownership and are often less expensive than median rents in any given area.

There is a lot of classism in your comment for someone criticizing classism.


Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7mr8cq wrote

It sounds to me like this whole “tiny house” phrase needs to stop being used altogether. It’s become rather meaningless.

My dad grew up in a 500 sq ft house. It wasn’t a “tiny house.” It was just a small house, built before all the NIMBY tyrants destroyed the American dream.

You used to be able to buy a house from the Sears catalog and build it yourself, on your land. Karens couldn’t stop you. Let’s go back to that, and stop making it so you need a fucking PR agent to build a small affordable house.


Bigfootlovesbeer t1_j7kwahb wrote

This is just down the street from me and I think it’s a good idea. Those places sound really nice and I wish there was something available like this when I was renting.


redditthrower888999 t1_j7l9qlj wrote

This sounds cool and then realize it's rentals. I mean I guess that's decent for people renting but does not help people find affordable homes.


foodandart t1_j7lyakv wrote

This area is full well into the maw of Late Stage Capitalism.

Home buying within 75 miles of the Seacoast is now an exercise in futility if you're making a working poor/lower middle class income.

I've been looking for years and have expanded my search to the upper midwest.

Can find homes there a plenty and as husband and I are within a decade of being turfed from our jobs for being too old, it looks like where we will be headed once we no longer are employable.


jkweiler74 t1_j7nltoj wrote

As someone from the upper Midwest and have lived in the seacoast for 5 years, I am not surprised by your plan, as it is also our plan.


Avadya t1_j7lbsen wrote

Jeez, people will do anything to avoid building high density/multi family structures.


lendluke t1_j7tzob2 wrote

Very difficult to get those approved by local government on the Seacost.


z-eldapin t1_j7lj7qg wrote

Had me until rent.

I thought these were being built for affordable housing. For the people that can't afford to buy a big old house.

If these were for sale, then the people that are currently renting while waiting to buy would move out of the rental, opening that rental unit up for the exact people that this project claims to be geared toward. That would be addressing the housing issue on 2 fronts.

This is just a money grab in the guise of 'helpful solution'.

Also, the rent is what my 2 BR apartment in Winchester Arms was. And it was double the size.


lendluke t1_j7tzz5s wrote

Every new development will be a "money grab". Do you think a developer shouldn't try to get a much profit as possible without fraud? If this is successful, they'll have more capital to continue increasing the housing supply, which will marginally reduce/slow the rise of rents and make buying cheaper (the two are correlated even if these aren't being sold).


z-eldapin t1_j7u3k3q wrote

Then say that.

DON'T come out and say that there is some altruistic motivation.


futureygoodness t1_j7ku0r7 wrote

Good! Hope we see more experiments in addressing different housing needs across the state.


Dull_Broccoli1637 t1_j7lro5b wrote

Or just stop building mini mansions that are $600+ k. Just a thought. There's literally no true starter homes for people to buy. That's a good way to move into a bigger home eventually when needed.


ProlapsedMasshole t1_j7lr28q wrote

As someone who now owns a home in Dover and is able to start a family specifically because I was able to rent a home very similar to this (~500 sqft) while in a transitional period in my life I just want to say that while these are not the perfect solution for every housing situation, there are absolutely people who this sort of arrangement is perfect for.

The people in the thread hating on this because it's not apartment buildings or they aren't for sale are entirely missing the purpose of these builds.

Kudos to the Randolphs for fulfilling an underserved niche.


YouAreHardtoImagine t1_j7ludh7 wrote

Totally get the purpose…especially watching the video. But one of the single most (often forgotten) underserved communities is the disabled - both young and old. This includes our veterans. There is no mention of even creating one handicap accessible home of the 44 units in the video or article. That’s shameful, honestly.

Edit: Interesting the person defending the builders deleted their posts lol


[deleted] t1_j7lyl5q wrote



YouAreHardtoImagine t1_j7m0p6w wrote

It’s very “dangerous” and presumptuous of you to assume the disabled aren’t part of the workforce and building toward homeownership. Hopefully, towns become more savvy and approve their developments with a set minimum before the project can start.


[deleted] t1_j7m45kz wrote



YouAreHardtoImagine t1_j7m7a6e wrote

This has not been my experience in a community I lived in but perhaps it was the funding the specific builders used. Regardless, inclusive communities are certainly the NH way. It’s terrible optics for the builders to take the short sighted stance (at the very least their bad PR campaign).

There’s also a literal family member in this thread touting these for the “elderly” which, by design, makes them practically disastrous.

Edit: words


ProlapsedMasshole t1_j7lwal1 wrote

I can't speak to that and agree it's important, every person is only temporarily able after all, but just because it wasn't explicitly mentioned doesn't mean it's not accounted for either.

If not then hopefully this is successful enough that they can account for it in the next project. It is good feedback.

Designing for accessibility only increases marketability.


DietCokeMachine t1_j7mhx9c wrote

You can read the planning board minutes about this project (starting at pg. 5) and listen to the audio (click Meeting Minutes tab) here:

Some interesting items:

  • 35 of the 44 units will be rent restricted to meet the HUD Fair Market rates for Dover, as published annually by New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority.

  • M. Speidel’s biggest concerns are traffic and parking. If there are potentially 66 residents there, there could be 66 vehicles, but only 59 parking spaces. He thinks there should be about 83 spaces when using formulas for residents and visitors. This may result in parking on Back River Rd which could be very dangerous due to slope. Mr. Randolph noted the lease will state that there is only one vehicle allowed on site per unit.


sheila9165milo OP t1_j7pyfb3 wrote

Parking definitely needs to be taken into account. Only having one car parking is exclusionary to working couples who both have to drive cars to work.


Unusual-Dragonfly-88 t1_j7lcxk8 wrote

This is my dad and stepmother John and Maggie Randolph’s project! We are working to bring affordable housing to the Seacoast! I am so happy to see this made it on to Reddit! If anyone has any questions or comments, would be happy to talk with anyone!


Frederick_Foz t1_j7lfwb5 wrote

Have you guys considered having people buy housing, not renting. Seems like renting would just make these glorified apartments. I’m sure many people would love to actually own the home


Unusual-Dragonfly-88 t1_j7lguga wrote

We are building these tiny homes for people that are in transitions of their life where they may not be able to afford owning a home or wanting the long term commitment of owning a home. This includes students and elderly people who may be transitioning out of their homes and into something more affordable at the time! Our aim is to provide affordable housing in an area where the cost of rent drastically can change how much you are able to save towards buying a home in the area! The idea to build these homes came after a demand for affordable housing for our own staff at Harmony Homes. With this said, we do have future plans to continue to build tiny home communities in the area with the potential of allowing home ownership!


YouAreHardtoImagine t1_j7ln7nm wrote

How are these handicap accessible with lofts? (ie: most elderly cannot access those safely) Or even without to not exclude other seniors?

Edit: words


sledbelly t1_j7lhx9i wrote

If that was true why are the rents impossibly high for essentially a hotel room?

Edited: for the size of a hotel room


ProlapsedMasshole t1_j7lsg65 wrote

I lived in a space this size with a spouse and cats for several years. It's entirely manageable. I was even paying more than this in rent and it was a far older shittier home. These would have been a fantastic option.


Unusual-Dragonfly-88 t1_j7ljnt4 wrote

The rent of these tiny homes are based on the average yearly income of a Dover citizen while adjusted for the unusually high rent cost of living on the seacoast! We will be lower than the cost of an average place to rent in Dover and therefore helping people save money towards a future home. As for the space, there are many individuals both young and old who have expressed the minimal space as more of a benefit for their life than being able to have more space. For students or young adults, most do not have the need for extra space and would rather pay less for that commodity. As for seniors, many of them want to downsize from their single family home and find an affordable 1 level place to stay as they begin their retirement! These tiny homes weren’t designed for long term ownership as many people begin families and want to have money saved up to buy a home!


Lords_of_Lands t1_j7nbzbp wrote

> rent of these tiny homes are based on the average yearly income of a Dover citizen

In other words your previous claims of doing this for affordable housing are mostly bullshit. If not then the rents would be based solely on the cost of maintaining the units. I have 3-bedroom units in Manchester that I rent out for $1200 because $3600 covers the mortgage, related bills, and maintenance costs. Based on average income the rent (at 30% of income) should be $1600 and market rent for these units would be $2300. That is how you provide affordable housing. The price is effectively the same as if they bought their unit.

Stop deluding yourself that you're doing this to help people. You're doing it to make money. Lying about it is why so many people hate us.


Frederick_Foz t1_j7liwpz wrote

It seems because they need to meet the fair market housing price. It ls for taxes and shit


sledbelly t1_j7ljfah wrote

There is no law that a landlord needs to make their rental fair market price. They are allowed to charge whatever they like. Less even.


pullyourfinger t1_j7snqp9 wrote

clearly this project was approved with this density and variances due to the agreement re: rent control (which will probably end up making them section 8 housing eventually).


sledbelly t1_j7tu076 wrote

They’ve already said this is market rate housing. Not section 8.

The owners will be making half a million dollars a year on this project.


Frederick_Foz t1_j7lmgsh wrote

Yes but the fair market housing price is used for taxes and shit. I’m no tax expert so take this with a big grain of salt but I believe if you charge below you get hot with ridiculously high taxes and at that point it might not be profitable enough to keep building. Setting your price at the fair market price gives you the best tax benifits


Lords_of_Lands t1_j7ncvgi wrote

Being at or under fair market lets you join some government programs that help renters pay their rent and can help you get low interest loans to deal with things like lead removal and energy efficiency. There are some tax benefits if you're in some poorer areas, but reductions from that are overtaken by repair costs.

Charging more simply means you can't be part of those programs. There isn't an extra tax for charging more other than the normal tax brackets.


Foresthoney t1_j8fijz2 wrote

$1200 for less than 400 square feet is not affordable.


CommonManContractor t1_j7n3azk wrote

I love the concept and would love to know the numbers behind it. I am in the Midwest and always looking for ways to get my money working for me.


YouAreHardtoImagine t1_j7lmixi wrote

384 sq feet and smushed like sardines. Hope your neighbor is quiet or you’re even more stressed out.


jlangemann-man t1_j7lyddq wrote

Like everyone living in any sort of apartment building, or multi-unit home is already dealing with.


YouAreHardtoImagine t1_j7lzvxj wrote

Not my experience. The tiny size and close proximity would easily make me anxious. But I’m glad it can work for some people!


invenio78 t1_j7mi6h1 wrote

384 sq ft,.. I can't imagine. My home theater room is significantly larger than that! To each their own.


sheila9165milo OP t1_j7pyten wrote

I'd prefer to live in and rent one these units than be crammed into the small apartment I'm living in now and paying the same rent (and am really lucky to be only be paying $1200 a month in Manchester) with my landlord downstairs and a neighbor across the hall.


riffler24 t1_j7luo49 wrote

I have to wonder the point if it's still rental based. You're basically just making a large number of studio apartments, except less efficient because they all need their own systems and hookups.

I guess the point is to be entirely separate, but that's not really going to solve the housing problem. In the footprint they fit 44 individual tiny homes, you could probably have fit well over 100 apartment units and probably for cheaper too.


vexingsilence t1_j7mp5q3 wrote

At least it's something different. Less of an eye sore than large apartment buildings.


riffler24 t1_j7msaio wrote

Sure it's wasteful of space and materials, but at least it's not a large apartment building


vexingsilence t1_j7mt4ld wrote

If space and materials were our primary motivators, we'd all be living in the equivalent of a jail cell. Own nothing, live in a pod, eat bugs.


riffler24 t1_j7myh0j wrote

Except these are apartments, you don't own them either. If you could own them it would actually make sense, but you can't so there's no actual, logical reason to do it instead of an apartment building. You would pay less for the same amount of space, the same level of "ownership" and the same amenities. You could house more people with basically any other option than 44 individual houses, and it wouldn't be some towering monstrosity either...which again: should barely be a footnote in the plans for something like this


vexingsilence t1_j7ptdng wrote

Like I said, at least it is something different. I'm not evaluating the value proposition here. There has been some interest in tiny homes in this sub, these are some tiny homes. Fine, they're rentals.. but it if this developer can get the ok to build them, it opens a path for others.


irr1449 t1_j7nbv0q wrote

I’m not trying to be cynical but how is this any different than a trailer park? The size and density is about the same. One just doesn’t have the stigma associated with being a “trailer.”


FatherOfTheVoid t1_j7p2hql wrote

Well if they can own the land the building is on, instead of owning the building and renting the land, that alone would make a big difference.

Edit skipped MSN and went straight to WMUR, they're basically apartments.

> The homes are built to be affordable and will stay affordable for the Dover workforce community, the Randolphs said. They said they agreed to, at a minimum, meet the Housing and Urban Development fair market rental rate, so they expect rent to range between $1,000 and $1,232 pe month.


rahnster_wright t1_j7pqtfe wrote

Aren't you perpetuating the stigma by using the phrase "trailer park"?

New Hampshire has a statute that governs manufactured housing specifically. In NH, manufactured housing is real estate and it appreciates like real estate. Since the 1970s, all manufactured housing is build to HUD standards.

Plus, we have the NH Community Loan Fund, which works to help residents purchase their own parks and start resident owned communities (ROCs) and avoid predatory practices of investor owned parks.

The stigma comes from misunderstands of all of the above or outdated knowledge - people think "trailer parks" will depreciate, aren't energy efficient, and are all owned by predatory investors. But, at least in NH, non of that is true today.

In the case of this story, these are stick built homes, on a foundation. Not manufactured. So, quite different. This style of homes is called "pocket neighborhoods" or "cottage clusters" and are quite popular across the country.


pullyourfinger t1_j7snux4 wrote

it's not any different. Well, other than the fact trailers are bigger, and cheaper.


TheMobyDicks t1_j7l82t8 wrote

If you like this and want to see more of it, please support SB 202 - being heard at committee next week - by emailing your support.

Here's the bill text:


vexingsilence t1_j7mplhf wrote

Why should taxpayers be on the hook for the $5M appropriation? I'm guessing that's going to come from property tax, which just makes home ownership more expensive.


TheMobyDicks t1_j7peqe0 wrote

The bill seeks to assist with new technologies that make new housing more affordable, including the 3D printing of homes. Mandalorian here - This is the Way. 3D printing, especially as it continues to evolve, is 100% the solution. Homes built more cheaply, faster and more sustainably is the only way to attack the housing crisis. Please look into it; they've already started in Maine and Texas. It will be mainstream in the next five years. New Hampshire needs to get onboard quickly and not be left behind like we are with solar.


vexingsilence t1_j7ptu5z wrote

If the construction method has merit, home fabricators will use it themselves. Why are the property owners in NH getting fleeced for $5M to pay for this?


TheMobyDicks t1_j7pveoe wrote

Fair question. I'll reply at the end, but here is the pertinent language in the bill:

I. The homeownership innovations fund shall be used by the authority to make grants and loans to eligible applicants for the purpose of fostering innovations in the development and financing of entry-level homes for owner occupancy.

II. The authority shall consider a wide range of alternatives and solutions to affordable entry-level homeownership, including such approaches as 3D printing of homes, low cost and highly sustainable sources of energy and energy efficiency, and other concepts that will provide New Hampshire homeowners with the most advanced and most affordable alternatives available.

The impetus is to incentivize applicants that create or seek to create innovations that result in affordable housing. It's a pittance, but a start. The money would go to NHHFA, who has an exemplary reputation for using resources responsibly.


vexingsilence t1_j7pwb66 wrote

This is a form of corporate welfare, isn't it? If a new construction process is going to save money, builders will jump on it. Why do they need to be incentivized by people that already own homes? If anything, maybe it should be a temporary break on property tax payments to the state for the housing that's being constructed using those methods.


TheMobyDicks t1_j7pyx1v wrote

Innovation costs money, just like in any industry or process. These dollars represent NH's effort to create some new process to attack what I think is the state's most pressing need, creating affordable housing.

On this issue and legislation, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.


vexingsilence t1_j7pzy36 wrote

On behalf of other property owners in the state.. please disagree with your own money. Thanks.

This scheme provides zero benefit to the people that will have to pay for it.


[deleted] t1_j7m606i wrote



TheMobyDicks t1_j7pe2om wrote

The reason to email Senator Bradley is that - my opinion - if he supports the legislation, it passes. With a Republican House, Senate and Governor, the Senate President is uniquely positioned to influence most bills. Writing your own reps and signing in online in support should be done as well.

Asking for 87K friends, can you tell me (read: us) how to sign in online?



rahnster_wright t1_j7plckk wrote

Hi Darren :-)

I see - when I initially read your comment, I assumed Bradley was the sponsor and emailing the sponsor (when they aren't your rep) is silly because the sponsor is obviously already onboard. Yes, emailing the Senate President is a good idea. He may ignore folks who aren't his constituents. That's always the risk of emailing not your rep.

I won't email my rep because she's one of the sponsors and obviously already on board.

Signing in online is easy:

  1. Go to
  2. Scroll to the bottom where you'll sign "Senate Remote Sign In"
  3. You'll need the date of the public hearing, committee, and bill #
  4. Submit!

It looks like it's going to Senate Commerce on 2/14 at 9:45 am. Folks can also show up in person to testify.


TheMobyDicks t1_j7psat3 wrote

Thanks Sarah. I'll be there as will John R. and a few others. The main sponsor told me that there is some concern that this will compete with the Innis bill. I disagree - both are needed. She also said that Ben F. helped write it. My hopes are someone from your office will be on hand to support.

Also note HB 177 which expands 79-E to include parcels of land in a community where there is "public benefit". This is a game changer for affordable housing for communities of the willing. In other words, if attainable/affordable housing is deemed by a community a public benefit, they could create a 79-E zone and maintain level taxes for up to 9 years (I'd have to explain but will L8R) on any one property in that zone despite new taxable growth - a huge incentive for a developer. Likewise a town, as part of the 79-E contract, could make as a condition to accepting such an incentive that the property remain affordable in perpetuity by covenant. To wit:

"II.(a) "Qualifying [structure] property" means a building or parcel of land located in a district officially designated in a municipality's master plan, or by zoning ordinance, as a downtown, town center, central business district, or village center, or, where no such designation has been made, in a geographic area which, as a result of its compact development patterns and uses, is identified by the governing body as the downtown, town center, [or] village center, or area of a municipality where revitalization and development would be a public benefit for purposes of this chapter."


Business_Ad_3995 t1_j7m6pz0 wrote

I like that this is a start. What needs to happen is that zoning needs to change so that this is repeatable and could be a condo or co-op type set up so that the residents can own. Unfortunately most towns have minimum square footage requirements for new builds which makes creating housing for single people or couples almost impossible within the lower to middle range.


jdkeith t1_j7pnry7 wrote

What's up with people making houses which have an entire side with zero or one window? When a house has no windows on one side and then is combined with vinyl siding it looks extra McMansion-y


bungdad t1_j7qmdy9 wrote

Cool a shanty town.


Own_Clothes9361 t1_j7mq9e6 wrote

44 master-bedrooms on 7 acres. What could possibly go wrong?


MingoRepp t1_j7n0ykb wrote

Remember the first "tiny home" craze? My grandparents did, it was called the depression. At least back then the product reflected the cost.


[deleted] t1_j7mfilq wrote

This is great to see. And also gives me an idea of what I could do with my barn that’s only a few years old. Did someone say air bnb?


Arthur-Morgans-Beard t1_j7ubmch wrote

God, you people will bitch about anything.


sheila9165milo OP t1_j7ufytl wrote

Who is "you people?" And why so hostile?


Arthur-Morgans-Beard t1_j7ug78v wrote

Look how negative this thread is, it's like they think someone is going to force them into moving into one. If I was a single dude living down there, this would seem like a great option, instead it's all just a bunch of bitching.


Constant-Dot5760 t1_j7l0m4v wrote

Who are the contractors? I can't quite make out the names.


TheMobyDicks t1_j7l6d4m wrote

John and Maggie Randolph out of Exeter. They own Harmony Homes and built housing on site in Durham for their employees. Even opened a daycare for their employees and others. They're the bomb!


-cochise t1_j7lumdf wrote

I think (hope?) this will be a big part of the near future of housing construction, smaller houses clustered village style and it’s exactly what we need. It’ll allow families to build equity and own something without needing to put down $80,000 right out of the gate.


[deleted] t1_j7ljpkz wrote



itsmckenney t1_j7mu0rw wrote

You realize that this is a public forum, right?

People are gonna voice their opinions.


invenio78 t1_j7miikt wrote

It will have an influence on the home values in the neighborhood so it is a concern for the residents of that area. It will also influence tax collection and the cost of services to the town which can be $10,000's per family if they have kids in the school system.

So it can have an effects on others.


Tai9ch t1_j7mtkid wrote

> It will have an influence on the home values in the neighborhood so it is a concern for the residents of that area.

Not only is this argument absurd, the social norm that people can make this argument without being laughed out of the room is also absurd.


invenio78 t1_j7mv4wx wrote

I can't tell if you are serious? You really think your neighbors' homes has no influence on your home value?

I have to ask, are you a home owner? Your statement seems really out of touch with the realities of home appraisals and realestate evaluation.


Tai9ch t1_j7n3g6b wrote

> You really think your neighbors' homes has no influence on your home value?

I just don't think that effect justifies giving everyone who lives nearby veto power over property usage.

> I have to ask, are you a home owner?

I am.

> Your statement seems really out of touch with the realities of home appraisals and realestate evaluation.

In some places people are really worried about those effects, and the result tends to be suburban HOAs.

The last couple houses I bought were in areas where the effect is drastically smaller. The last place I lived was a dense urban area where demand was so much higher than supply that even stuff like being next to a major airport had minimal effect on property values. Right now one of my 20 closest neighbors is a pig farm and someone got laughed out of town meeting for suggesting the town adopt a noise ordinance in response to their neighbor firing a literal cannon.


invenio78 t1_j7nij6i wrote

Yes. Different locations will have different levels of influence. But that in no way negates the fact that the type of homes in neighborhoods effect housing prices.

Your original statement seemed to indicate that was not the case. But yet the examples you yourself use seems to indicate otherwise.


YouAreHardtoImagine t1_j7locc6 wrote

If it may impact their school/local tax system (ie: local tax rate) or they’re an abutter, absolutely.

Edit: words


ForEverCurious22 t1_j7lu1ig wrote

"Tiny homes are progressive, right? That will be really 'lit' with the youth?"

"Yeah, they'll 'yeet' with joy!"

"Great! They can afford a couple thousand buck a month, right?"

"Of course! I gave my kid ten thousand dollars when he turned 18. Doesn't every parent?"

*Toasts with an imported whiskey from 1897*


sheila9165milo OP t1_j7q07yt wrote

$1200 a month for rent right now is a good deal. Why bring politics into this?


bubumamajuju t1_j7ld2be wrote

Massachusetts YIMBYs salivating. You will own nothing and be happy!

What’s Dover’s minimum lot size? Adding tiny home rentals is a net loss for any community since services are almost always supported by commercial properties. When you have higher density homes fitting 2x as many people into the same area as if you had built larger homes with bigger lots, you’re looking for a problem for the desired “solution” of increasing taxes. It’s a big burden on the rest of the tax base.

I don’t live in Dover but I’m never going to celebrate towns trying to become more like cities. It’s an infection


ProlapsedMasshole t1_j7lrvi8 wrote

A. Dover literally is a city. It's the City of Dover.

B. Would you rather population density increase in populous areas or sprawl and deforestation to occur in less populous ones?

It's one or the other as long as human population is exponentially increasing.

We're the infection.


bubumamajuju t1_j7ltty3 wrote

You know that’s pointless semantics when I’m talking about highly suburbanized areas which residents move to often specially because they’re not city-like. Not every “city” needs to have high density housing.

The deforestation comment is just odd. Do you know lumber is a renewable resource? Any global issues with deforestation have nothing to do with squeezing Dover NH into a rental unit that are twice as small. There’s reasonable sustainability and then there’s being a martyr. It’s stupid and unrealistic to expect people to downsize for perpetuity and for small communities to upzone into mid-rise monstrosities.


ProlapsedMasshole t1_j7lvi45 wrote

I moved to Dover specifically because it's city-like. Why did you move here? Oh yeah, you didn't. 👍 There are plenty of suburbs I could have moved to, so really not sure what your point is.

I don't mean deforestation in terms of cutting trees, I mean replacing forest with suburbs. There's nothing unreasonable about living in a smaller home, especially for young adults who are transitioning into adulthood who don't have a ton of shit.

These aren't for downsizing, they're a rung on the upsizing ladder.