They're talking about buying one lot and splitting it into 6 micro lots. That sounds ridiculously small to me.

The context you're missing is that zoning and building codes make a lot of lots ridiculously big in the first place.

I lived in the suburbs for decades so I know how big lots are.

Ah, good, mind telling me how big the lots are around my area?

Open Zillow and move around various metro’s suburbs to see how much lot sizes can vary.

Depends on what your measure for normal is.

In Seattle, luckily a lot of SFHs with big lots are being turned into multiple townhomes.

I think the idea is that you buy a house that has a lot that could easily support more houses. You live in the house that's there, and then you subdivide the lot and sell those smaller parcels for some amount to friends/family, who then finance the build of their own home.

So as the initial buyer, you're certainly spending some extra to get a house on a lot that's large enough (vs. a lot only large enough for your own house), but you're going to recoup some (all?) of that extra outlay from your friends/family. You're not financing the build of more homes yourself.

Also we need to be on the same page when it comes to lot size. Here in California it's common to have a house on a quarter of an acre of land or (much) less. You could easily build 6 -- maybe even 8 -- homes (1500 sqft or so each) on a 1-acre plot here, and no one would think that's unusual.

And sure, an acre of land in CA is not going to be cheap, but that certainly depends on where you buy it. But if you can get an acre for, say, $1M, and then sell sub-parcels to 5 of your friends for $200k each, that's... fine? Honestly that seems pretty standard here. But sure, in some places in CA you could get acre for $600k, or maybe less.

Yeah, I think the article captures that pretty well. The infographic shows 4 lots for 100k each.

In most cities it is close to impossible to find several lots for sale side by side.

At the risk of sounding glib, the Detroit Land Bank has some amazing deals on adjacent vacant properties when you buy a property to rehabilitate. If a family wants to have their own virtual compound and can stomach the safety implications, buying a Land Bank house and adjacent properties would give everyone plenty of elbow room.

Im sure there are lots of places if location is not a concern. The author of the article is in the California bay area.

In my city, you can often find rows of houses for sale for $5-10k a piece from slum lords trying to exit the business. Tearing down the old homes would probably be expensive, but I think the city even has a program to help with some of that. Since you could effectively buy a whole street, the safety implications might not be as bad as initially assumed.