Micro House on a Mega Lot

32940 S Wright Rd., Molalla, OR 97038

This might be the Northwest’s most expensive home, on a dollars per square foot basis.

32940 S Wright Rd., Molalla, OR 97038

Just 702 square feet, with a list price of $875,000. $1,246 per square foot. That’s 42 percent more expensive per square foot than San Francisco’s most expensive listing, this $18M, 20,000 square foot manse (whoa—that place probably deserves its own post).

32940 S Wright Rd., Molalla, OR 97038

Of course, the real appeal in this listing is the land. You get 86 acres of it.

32940 S Wright Rd., Molalla, OR 97038

There’s also a sweet flyover video, to give you a better sense of the scale.

I’m pretty sure that video was made by the same people who made the video for the “Railway Resort” house, located about an hour away (and which, by the way, is inexplicably still on the market). Aerial videos of listings is definitely a trend that I can get behind.

Found by: Christin C.

About the Author

Marty E.
Naked Loon Editor-in-Chief

7 Comments on "Micro House on a Mega Lot"

  1. Vineyard is exactly what I thought when I saw the place. It would be a vast improvement over the couple of rows of muscadines I have in the back yard. I wonder if the region is suitable for chardonnay? My wife, on the other hand, prefers a nice fruity blush.

    If that doesn’t pan out, I could make a decent profit with an array of pepper jellies. Sales like this are the stuff of high-end agricultural dreams.

    Perc-tested for additional building? That’s what I would do.

  2. “Architecturally significant & featured in the press…” I can’t for the life of me understand why. I’ve seen bravura micro-homes before – this isn’t one of them. The “house” itself looks like a glorified garage apartment, while the office/shop IS a glorified garage. Luckily, there’s that land that comes with it, or it might be a total waste for anyone who isn’t thoroughly devoted to the micro-living lifestyle. Or perhaps micro-living “trend” would be a more appropriate epithet, seeing as how there’s not really enough room for a lifestyle…

    I go camping twice a year and this place would make that go better (especially in bad weather), although without the undercarriage of an RV, it might be a bit tough to bring it along. But if it’s only to be used as a place to drop anchor occasionally as one checks in on crops, or better yet as the home of the person you employee to tend your crops, then it might work.

    I noted after some very close scrutiny of assorted images that this “home” is almost all the way at the far end of the red-outlined area shown above, near the curved tree line. That’s right – it’s so small you can’t even really see it in the photo provided. And with no street view available, sadly we cannot check in on the neighbors closer to the main road. Satellite snooping only gets one so far.

  3. @Frodo: “Perc-tested for additional building…”

    I must admit my ignorance. What in the world does “perc-tested” mean?

  4. @Emerald63: The soil of a property has to be able to absorb enough water in order to use a septic leach field. Depending on how much water it will absorb (by absorption rate and area) the property is tested and approved for a certain occupancy on the land. After all, you don’t want your septic system backing up and running all over your yard. In my area, they give it to you in the number of bedrooms you can have, assuming an average of two people per bedroom. Oddly, the listing didn’t say how many people, but given the size of the property, I imagine that septic really won’t be a problem.

  5. @Frodo: Thank you. So then “perc-” refers to percolation ability of the soil? All I could think of was “perk” as in perquisite.

  6. @Emerald63: Yes, sorry. Using the truncated form of percolation is very common in my area, although most around here wouldn’t know that perk, which they also use, is short for perquisite, which is an unfamiliar word to most. What tickles me is to think of a functioning septic system as a perk. There are remote locations near me where such may be the case.

  7. I agree with Emerald about the uncomfortable little building. But, you know – when something that compact is trumpeted as so valuable, one may so easily visualize raising it onto a large flatbed and sending it off with one of its now-slightly-less-well-heeled admirers. For the right price, one could throw in a porta-potty: just strap it right on there, in case their destination wouldn’t otherwise offer the right *ahem* perks. Toodles, little weird house! Toodles!

    Next, bring on the grape vines! Excellent proposition, those. :D


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.