[jillesvangurp]

New construction is kept expensive mostly through complex rules that often exist to protect the interests of those doing the construction work, those owning existing houses and property, etc. It's a form of artificial scarcity. This scarcity is crucial to justifying real estate prices, propping up mortgages and the banks that provide them, etc.

There's no technical reason why building some shelter that keeps the rain out and the heat/cold where it should be is not something that could not be done cheaply at large scale using affordable materials. People have been building shelter for tens of thousands of years and it's easier than ever with modern materials. It's not rocket science to keep people dry and comfortable.

People routinely buy recreational vehicles that, because they have wheels, are not considered houses. So, suddenly there are much less rules and you can just produce those efficiently in factories. Except getting permission to park those and live in them is really hard to come by in many places. It's OK for recreational use. But not for living permanently. Which of course some people do anyway. But it's highly stigmatized.

Recreational vehicles come out of factories. Houses are built artisanally at great cost. The only functional difference that matters is mobility and wheels. Why should people not be able to get a nice second hand RV for a few thousand dollars and park it in a nice spot and live there?

Answer: it would immediately devalue the notion of owning brick and mortar.

[nine_k]

Doesn't the price of land play a role? If the developer pays $100k for a parcel of land and builds a $500k house on it, they may have their margin on the $400k, but if they build a $250k house, it's only $150k, a more dramatic drop.

The minimum lot size requirements don't help the situation either.

It likely would be more efficient and profitable to build a townhouse, or even a mid-rise, and let more people live on the same parcel of land, but zoning restrictions often prevent that.

[ncruces]

Not just land, but all the bureaucratic costs, licensing, etc. Developers will always build the most high margin house the market will bear.

It still increases supply, though. And if there's no market for expensive houses, eventually they'll make cheaper houses.

Also, the people on the market who can afford the expensive houses, would still outbid you for a shittier house.

[rootusrootus]

I would not use RVs as a good benchmark. They are super cheap for a reason. The biggest reason not to live in one full time is that they quickly degrade under that kind of use. They are not built for anything other than occasional use. That is on top of their steep operating expenses, even if you can keep it held together.

A better benchmark would be a manufactured home. Transported on wheels, built in a factory, but intended to be used full time indefinitely.

IIRC, stick-built homes are only like 15% more expensive than the equivalent manufactured home, and you have a lot more flexibility in the design. Probably this is most of why manufactured homes are only popular in particular niches.

[supertrope]

Part of it is maintaining current real estate valuations, level of density and aesthetics.

Crime and social class segregation is another aspect. Who lives in a neighborhood matters as much as the physical assets. Bans on MDUs (multiple dwelling units), permanently parked RVs, and manufactured homes serve as a barrier to entry. It’s not explicitly stated but the effect is the same as saying “If you can’t afford a $410,000 house we don’t want you as a neighbor.”