Stop Calling $200,000 a Starter Home

“Starter home” used to mean exactly that: the first step into ownership. A small, modest house you could actually afford on a modest income. It wasn’t about granite countertops or vaulted ceilings. It wasn’t about impressing anyone. It was about finally having a place of your own — a place where you could build equity, raise a family, or simply stop pouring money into rent.

 

For decades, through the mid-20th century, a starter home was just that — small, modest, affordable. A real first step into ownership. Somewhere between rising land prices, zoning creep, and the impatience of profit, the meaning shifted. What was once reachable became aspirational. What was once a path forward became a gate someone else got to keep locked.

 

Now, we’re expected to call a $200,000 house in Cincinnati a “starter home.” For families earning $40,000 or $50,000 a year, that’s not a first step into ownership. That’s a locked gate. That’s the system saying: unless you’re already doing well, you don’t get to start at all.

 

This isn’t just about dollars and cents. It’s about what kind of future people can realistically reach. When “starter” means something unattainable for most single-income households, young adults, or working-class families, it doesn’t start anything. It ends possibility.

 

At Little Haven, I’m not willing to play along. I believe a starter home should go back to being what it was always meant to be: small, modest, affordable — a way in. Not a luxury product. Not a status symbol. Just a solid foundation.

 

That’s why our homes are deliberately smaller. That’s why we build in community-centered neighborhoods instead of isolating sprawl. That’s why accessibility isn’t treated like an upgrade but a right. Because if we want to talk about “starter homes,” then let’s start by making sure they actually start something.