Despite some promising developments, an unfortunate reality persists: Manufactured housing still suffers from a long-standing, now outdated stereotype that “trailer parks” and “mobile homes” don’t belong in modern affordable housing discussions. To overcome this, the investment and real estate communities must focus on facts, not innuendo, and recognize the critical role of manufactured housing in the broader housing mix.
Why do mobile homes have a bad rep?
The roots of mobile homes can be traced back to the late 19th century, when the first examples of offsite constructed homes were introduced in the United States. These rudimentary structures didn't gain popularity until immediately after World War II, when a tremendous need for young veteran housing created an explosion in the manufactured home industry. This expansion did not meet with adequate regulation, however, and it wasn’t until 1976 that the federal government introduced Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standards for mobile and manufactured homes. That 3-decade free-for-all created a huge number of safety and quality issues that continue to damage the reputation of these homes to this day. And while the “wobbly box” stigma was created out of a genuine lack of safety and quality standards during the infancy of the manufactured home industry, it no longer applies today.
HUD vs. IRC vs. IBC
From a code perspective, there is no difference between a manufactured home built after 1976 and a conventional, “stick-framed” home of a similar era. As populations evolved and developed during the last 50 years, stick-framed homes (attached to land) tended to be updated and maintained, while manufactured homes were either replaced or abandoned in favor of a new home. This phenomenon has also led to reputational damage to manufactured homes, as they tended to age and depreciate much faster than their traditional counterparts — even if it's only due to a lack of TLC.
The legal status of manufactured homes, though frequently advantageous from a tax standpoint, also served to degrade the reputation of these homes since the ownership of the “home” was separate from the “land.” This delineation led to a perception that the homes declined in value, but the reality is that all homes decline in value — it’s the underlying land where almost all appreciation takes place. Despite that reality, however, this legal distinction led to a misperception that stick-frame homes appreciate while manufactured homes depreciate.
Modern manufactured homes
Without a doubt, the manufactured homes of the modern era are superior to stick-frame homes in almost every way. They’re constructed in controlled indoor environments, stabilized with steel frames, and produced in a vastly more cost-effective manner. In addition, new construction technology has empowered many technology-based home builders to create promising innovations.
While none of these new companies have reached a significant scale (perhaps because most of them seem to lack leadership experience in the heavily regulated environment of housing construction), it is likely that some of these technologies will eventually be adopted into the larger pantheon of manufactured housing.
Who benefits from stigma?
Home building is a massive American industry, reaching nearly $150 billion (about $460 per person in the US) in 2024. Manufactured homes represent only 9% of this total, meaning the overwhelming majority of home builders operate in the site-built environment. Growth of the manufactured housing market poses an obvious threat to traditional housing market share, so many in that home space may be (understandably) motivated to prevent that. ; the majority of site-built construction is undertaken by union labor, whereas manufactured homes are built predominantly with non-union labor.
Why manufactured home builders are ignoring the issue
The manufactured housing industry underwent significant consolidation after the 2008 real estate recession, leaving fewer builders controlled by a handful of large companies. These businesses focus on delivering cost-effective products for manufactured housing parks and high-end luxury products for direct-to-retail consumers. Serving these divergent markets creates inefficiencies in marketing and manufacturing. Pursuing luxury customers while appealing to cost-conscious investors often means balancing conflicting priorities.
This usually leads to long factory wait times during favorable economic periods as the low-cost models get kicked to the back of the line to make room for the higher-margin luxury product, followed by significant cutbacks during slower economic times that prevent any long-term investment into manufacturing capacity expansion. While there has been some development in new home builders entering the market, none have yet been able to consistently build a legal product in the long term.
How does manufactured housing move forward?
Because the industry’s “less than” reputation has been building up over 80 years, it's unlikely that this can be undone quickly. While not an exhaustive list, here are a few steps can be taken to start moving things in the right direction:
- If you are considering investment in manufactured housing, select a reputable and seasoned operator with real experience. The industry is particularly sensitive to every bit of bad press disreputable operators and owners (justifiably) receive, so it’s critical to make sure your investment dollars go to good people.
- Tour a manufactured home facility. I would highly encourage you to view for yourself how these homes are built, because it is truly a remarkable and eye-opening experience. Education is also ammunition against ignorance, so the more people with first-hand experience into how modern construction methods are employed, the better.