Could you live in a tiny home? Or what about a skinny home? I’m talking where walls range anywhere from eight feet to twelve feet wide at their maximum. Well, let’s talk about a super thin unit that sold recently in Sacramento.
Think Like an Appraiser Class: I’m teaching my favorite class on April 28 from 9am-12pm. We’ll talk through choosing comps, making adjustments, and lots of practical scenarios. Hope to see you there.
MARKET STATS: So much to talk about right now. I’ll have lots of market stats out this week on my social channels, so watch Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook.
THE SKINNY HOUSE:
The “skinny house” is sort of a neighborhood landmark in South Land Park, and I think it’s a great conversation piece. I’m not aware of any house that is actually skinnier, so I’m open ears if you know about something. Most websites no longer have photos of this house, but Compass still does.
- Lot size: 2,040 sq ft
- Square footage of house: 1,019 sq ft
- Built in 2006
- Walls range from 8-12 feet (SacBee)
- Modern design
- Sold recently for $494,000 with multiple offers
You don’t need much: This property is a testament that you don’t need much land to build a home. The boxy modern design works well to maximize the footprint too. This house was built in 2006, so it was ahead of its time before modern units became all the rage. When this home was under construction, The Sacramento Bee actually quoted the developer as saying he put up a sign that said, “It’s a house.” Apparently, lots of curious residents kept stopping to talk to workers. The SacBee wrote about this home again recently (paywall).
HOW DO WE VALUE SOMETHING SO SKINNY?
Good luck finding three model match sales in a one-mile radius. That’s just not going to happen for something unique.
A few questions I would ask:
- Are there any other unique homes that have sold in the neighborhood or other neighborhoods? Maybe those can give clues into value.
- Has the subject property sold previously? If so, what did it compare to at the time? These could be clues.
- What are similar-sized properties selling for in the neighborhood? The subject might not compete with these units, but we need to at least understand what buyers have been paying for similar sizes.
- What is the price position? In other words, where might a property like this fit into the market price spectrum? I know, this sounds really subjective, but we have to ask. Is a property like this poised to compete toward the highest prices or the lowest prices?
Sold twice (see black dots): This property has now sold twice on the open market. The first time was during the foreclosure crisis, so we probably don’t want to give too much weight to that sale. With that said, each time this unit sold, it competed toward the lower end of the competitive range.
Don’t get stuck on 90 days of sales: It’s easy to get trapped looking at only a few months of sales, but sometimes we need more context, so it’s a good idea to step back and let the past give us insight. Of course, we have to be really careful about locking a property into whatever price position it had in the past, because it’s possible the market could change its perception today. But for now, with a property like the subject, the two prior sales help give weight to the idea that this unit tends to have a price position toward the lower end of the competitive range. The black dots help substantiate this.
A murderous example: Two weeks ago, I talked about Scott Peterson’s house. Being that this property has sold four times in the past twenty years, we have some insight. Why not check out the previous sales to understand the market? It’s easy to talk about this home like it’s damaged goods, but I think market stats say otherwise in this case. By the way, this property got into contract in less than a week recently with over ten offers.
OTHER SKINNY HOMES:
Single family home in Citrus Heights: This property was built a few years ago on Antelope Road, and it has a small footprint for building. Modern architecture isn’t for everyone, but what I like here is it’s not just another dull ranch home. In other words, this pushes the envelope – especially for Citrus Heights. Image: Google Street View.
Skinny modern halfplex in Midtown: These two attached units are only seventeen feet wide on each side, and there are three stories of living space (and an extra fourth story of bonus area). I wrote a blog post about this halfplex a couple of years ago. It’s amazing to fit a total of over 3,000 sq ft of building area on such a tiny lot. Photo: Brian McMartin.
Anyway, that’s what’s on my mind today.
Thanks for being here.
Questions: What do you think of such a skinny house? Would that work for you? Would modern in general work for you?
If you liked this post, subscribe by email (or RSS). Thanks for being here.
I would not consider a house that I can’t set up a home theater in. I suspect this is too narrow.
Gotta have a big screen wider than eight feet? 🙂
Need more space for the speakers outside the screen. Having speakers against the walls kills the sound.
I guess you could go inwall but that’s limiting.
That makes sense. You can tell now I’m not a speaker nerd. I don’t know much about these things. Though I did recently build a turntable stand, so I’m some level of hipster on some level.
Until I read your post, I thought that the skinny home in Boston was the skinniest home in the US. I guess Sacramento is skinnier. Your method of looking at past sales in the context of the neighborhood scatter chart is super useful for any unique home.
Oh, someone just mentioned that house to me. This one is 8 feet in portions, so maybe Boston has us beat. Someone just texted me a photo of the Boston one. I’m actually taking the family to New York and Boston in a couple of months, so we might have to check that one out. Thanks for the kind words, Gary.
“Yes” to your analysis!
“No” to living in the skinny home- claustrophobic just thinking about it ?
Haha. I get it. I suspect this feels like an apartment. Smaller and to the point. Props to the developer and nailing this one. I hope to see it in person. I’m a fan. Granted, it would be small for my family of four, but I’d love to have a unique home like this one of these days.
Ryan– We are always intrigued by housing that is “outside the box”… I think all of us would be highly interested in the developer / construction costs… if higher or lower than the typical new construction in that zip code or in that market ?
Thanks Bruce. Yeah, that’s a good question. I wish I knew. There is a reason why developers want to typically build larger homes though. They can make the numbers work a bit better. I suspect it would be very difficult to build brand new 1,000 sq ft units to flip. On a related note, it’s a growing concern not to see smaller homes built. The problem will be in the future where we have less available product suitable at a lower price point…
This home could be an inspiration to folks considering a lot split with another unit under the new SB 9 rules. I think under the new law, you can split off as small as a 1200 sq ft lot! Or this could even just be inspiration as an ADU without a lot split.
Love it. Agreed. You don’t need much room. Unfortunately it isn’t cheap to build – even small stuff. On a side note, I’ve wondered why the makers of SB9 didn’t focus on allowing for a single family home to be built. Seems like we would increase inventory much more readily instead of having to build a duplex. I suspect the issue is trying to create more units. I’m just wondering if single-unit lot splits would have led to a greater number of units.
Hey, I thought SB 9 does allow for new single family homes on the split lot. I may be reading it wrong, but I see it saying up to two units per lot after a split, not requiring two units.
Hmm, I’ll follow-up on this. I just emailed a researcher / reporter I know who has written more extensively on this (I had one post). It’s a bit ambiguous to me, but there is so much emphasis on two units, so this seems like a duplex thing. I hope I’m wrong.
Good news, Steve. You were right!! I just talked with my source and she pointed me to an SB9 Fact Sheet. Thanks Manuela Tobias of CalMatters for coming through.
Here’s the skinny, “Up to Two Primary Units. The local agency must allow up to two primary units (i.e., one or two) on the subject parcel or, in the case of a lot split, up to two primary units on each of the resulting parcels.”
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/planning-and-community-development/sb9factsheet.pdf (PDF)
I’m actually glad to see this. Thanks, Steve.
Awesome! Yeah, I thought the law was a positive step when it passed, and it does seem to allow a lot of flexibility in adding new housing units that fit an owner’s preferences. We’ve thought about adding an ADU for one of our kids and letting her have a partial ownership in the entire home if she pays for the ADU construction. We’ve also thought about splitting the lot for her. The new law brings up a bunch of interesting inter-generational possibilities!
We’ve had that conversation too. Should we build an ADU for an aging parent or soon-to-be-adult kid in the midst of housing affordability being grim? SB9 of course would only work with an actual split. ADUs sure aren’t cheap though…
Looks like two singlewides stacked on top of each other wrapped in a candy shell : ) Great post as always, Ryan
Oh, Mark. You’re going to get me in trouble if the owner reads this thread. Haha. 🙂
Ryan– As usual you are a WRIZIO about analyzing a very special type of property— way to go “WRIZIO Ryan”–Art Gaudet/Phoenix- NO I CANT SPELL REAL GREAT
Thanks so much Art. I appreciate the kind words. Hope you are well.