I'm… conflicted, on this one.
On the one hand, it's very strange, it's well-written, and I like the origin, and the advancement is neat. There is an odd moment where you jump from "the interior is squishy and the furniture is unconvincing" straight to "once it is inhabited", and I'm not really sure how that gap is bridged. Like, people move into the squishy house voluntarily?
On the other side… there are a lot of details in the article that come off as a pretty shitty commentary about poor people. I don't think this was your intent at all, and I don't think it stands out as a through line since they were always interspersed with other descriptions, but they still happened often enough to be very uncomfortable. Examples:
- The items being destroyed by tornadoes and hurricanes used as a method of dispersion (in retrospect, they're probably inhabited when this occurs)
- People refusing to leave the objects due to (fictional) opiate addiction
- People in these communities becoming highly insular and growing their own food
- People in these communities stealing from neighboring communities
- These commodities destroying existing structures and producing strip malls, motels, and other urban sprawl
So, I don't think that it was your intention to consciously invoke stereotypes about poverty. I fully believe you just set out to write a weird creepy skip. Unfortunately, it comes off as a skip that could take credit for real-world behaviour, but defines that behaviour is a really negative way.
Edit: It really doesn't help that this is a compulsion effect. It reads like, "Oh, it's a trailer park mimic with <rather cool effects and origin.> Also, if you move in, you will inevitably become a drug-addicted criminal who will never let anyone escape that lifestyle and will be indirectly responsible for destroying surrounding communities. And you'll probably die in a tornado." Like… is that a necessary storyline?