[HN Gopher] So you want to build a house more efficiently ___________________________________________________________________ So you want to build a house more efficiently Author : srl Score : 188 points Date : 2021-06-26 18:12 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (austinvernon.eth.link) (TXT) w3m dump (austinvernon.eth.link) | swiley wrote: | The most efficient way to build houses is in bulk by building | large buildings with condos/apartments, no one seems to want to | hear or accept that though. | ctdonath wrote: | USA population density is 6.6 acres per person, or 37 people | per square kilometer. I'd far rather my family be in a more | expensive larger home on 25 acres (with prospect of self- | sufficiency) than jammed into a large building with X # of | strangers and no land. | | Funny thing is, that "more expensive larger home" isn't more | expensive - it's on par or cheaper, even with the land. Blows | my mind that urban dwellers think paying equivalent of my | mortgage (on a 2400sqft house) for a couple rooms is | reasonable. | | Building big may be more efficient, but that's not what | occupants see in their rent bill. | xnx wrote: | Or as large subdivisions built all at once, like Levittown | mentioned in the article. | bradleyjg wrote: | Californians would rather preen about with paper straws and | compost bins and then drive their telsas back to single family | homes with lawns. | | Meanwhile New Yorkers are taking the subway to their apartment | homes. | | Different cultures. | IshKebab wrote: | Everyone knows and accepts that. They just don't really want | those houses. | occz wrote: | I very much doubt that to be true. As far as I've understood | it, a far too large amount of land in the U.S is zoned to be | single-family housing, effectively preventing this type of | home to be built. That precludes any choice in the matter. | People in the U.S opt for single-family homes because they | are really the only available option. | ghaff wrote: | There are a ton of apartments/condos in the the US. They're | just expensive in the most in-demand areas. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Which, compared to their European counterparts, are | flimsy, lacking acoustic insulation and a certain je ne | sais quois. I've lived in both, and while I'd never want | to move into most US apts/condos, I'd happily live in | many European ones, even those built after 1970 | (arbitrary number). | dctoedt wrote: | FTA: "Flexible technologies that work within the current system | and simplify processes have had the most success. These | technologies allow the high precision and efficiency of factories | to make it to the building site. [Example:] Experienced | carpenters use chisels to create post and beam members on site. | -> 2x4s and nails are mass manufactured and assembled by semi- | skilled workers on site." | elihu wrote: | If fancy manufacturing facilities with expensive equipment don't | scale well because construction materials are manufactured in a | lot of small factories rather than a few big ones, it seems like | an obvious way to improve construction is to reduce the cost of | that fancy equipment so that it's available even to small | operations. | | We see this with a lot of smaller-scale tools: 3D printers, CNCs, | laser cutters, welders, pick-and-place machines for assembling | circuit boards, etc.. are things that have become affordable to | casual hobbyists. | | I could see augmented reality being a big deal for construction. | See exactly where everything is supposed to go as you install it. | | Maybe eventually a mobile 3D-printing gantry that can be quickly | deployed on site will be something that a small local business | would own. | WalterBright wrote: | One thing I notice is the large volume of waste from stick | framing on site. A huge pile of cut lumber that just goes to the | dump. | creato wrote: | I haven't seen this at the job sites I've been on. Most of the | wasted wood is a small pile of cuttings from the oddly sized | parts of the build, but it's surely less than 5% of the whole | build, probably even less than 1%. Any scraps more than a foot | long will usually get used for something. | | The incentives are aligned here, contractors don't want to buy | more wood than necessary. | kingsuper20 wrote: | Exactly. | | It isn't like walls are 8'2" high. There's a great deal of | standardization built into modern home design. | ohyeshedid wrote: | I've seen large houses framed out and the scrap loss didn't | fill a trashcan. Running jokes about the tags weighing more | than the actual wood scrap. | Syonyk wrote: | If you ever get a chance to tour a manufactured home facility, | one of the big things you'll notice is that there is almost no | waste coming out the back end, and certainly far, far less | waste than you see in a typical site-built home (huge dumpsters | of waste being hauled off regularly). | | They're designed so that there's just not much in the way of | waste - because dimensions are standard, and consistency is | pretty good, you simply make sure that if you have a cut of a | standard piece, you need the other half of it over there. | There's just very, very little waste. | | On top of that, there's very little transporting of random | stuff, because it's all built onsite. Cabinets are built as an | entire unit in a quarter of the factory I toured, and are | simply run across into the house before the roof goes on. | There's no need to make sure the cabinets fit through doors and | such - the entire assemblies are brought in and dropped in | place (or nearly so) through the top. | | The roof, meanwhile, is built at more or less waist height | (depending on slopes). It's assembled, "drywall up," on some | jigs that hold it properly, wiring is run, the joists are | added, and you end up with a roof segment that is then lifted | up, painted, and set down on top of the house. It almost | entirely eliminates the "roof work" risk for doing roofs. | | I know in most modern tech circles it's incredibly popular to | hate "trailer homes" - which tells me that most people's vision | of them is a 1970s single wide, 50 years of limited maintenance | later. Modern manufactured homes have nearly nothing to do with | that - ours is 2x6 exterior construction, drywall, Energy Star | rated, metal roof, good insulated windows, etc. Out of | curiosity I signed up for the power company's free "energy | analysis" thing, where they come and check the ducts, do a | blower door test, etc, and they left saying "There's literally | nothing we can improve - this is a tight house, comfortably in | the top range, and your ducts are very well sealed too." I'd | wager my results against any similar size site built home in | the area. | | People we have over are consistently surprised to find out that | our place is a manufactured, because it doesn't match the | "trailer house" image. I think it's blindingly obvious it's | manufactured, but I also saw it come in on trucks, and I know | the signs to look for - simple rectangular floor plan, a strong | marriage line down the center, and typically water only on one | half of the house (it avoids having to do any water pipe joins | onsite, which reduces the risk of leaks). We have a concrete | foundation under the house, and it works great for us. | | But, you know, we do legally live in a "trailer home." Doesn't | bother us in the slightest. | maxsilver wrote: | > It's incredibly popular to hate "trailer homes" - which | tells me that most people's vision of them is a 1970s single | wide, 50 years of limited maintenance later. Modern | manufactured homes have nearly nothing to do with that | | How do you actually find these? How can you tell the | difference? | | Every 1970's-era trailer house manufacturer has rebranded | themselves as "Modular, not Mobile". For non-experts, it's | hard to tell the difference, which might be why everyone | lumps them all together. | | I would love to buy a well-designed actually-good factory- | standardized home. Every thing I've seen that _claims_ such, | is just a rebranded trailer house. | Syonyk wrote: | In the 80s, the standards changed so you can't have the old | newspaper and spit style manufactured homes anymore. | | But I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for. Our house | is absolutely a "trailer" - it came in two pieces, has long | I-beams under the floor, and still has axles down in the | crawlspace. I believe one can get the "modular" version | which is the same thing, same factory, and doesn't keep the | axles (with perhaps a few other changes - it didn't matter | to me and was more money for the same end result). | | Despite that, it's a solid drywall based house, 2x6 | exterior walls, etc. | | But if you want more details, you'll have to find someone | in your area who sells them and go find out more - my | regional knowledge probably isn't applicable to your | situation. | dangrossman wrote: | > Every 1970's-era trailer house manufacturer has rebranded | themselves as "Modular, not Mobile". | | This isn't just branding. The Housing Act of 1980 required | the term "manufactured" be used in place of "mobile" in all | federal laws about homes built after 1976. | | If you look at a "mobile" home, it's one built before | modern standards, where if you look at a "manufactured" or | "modular" home, it's one that conforms to the National | Mobile Home Construction and Safety Act (1974) and HUD | Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (1976). | | Now "manufactured" vs "modular" is whether it's built just | to the federal HUD standards, or also built to the same | local codes as a site-built home. | | All three (mobile, manufactured, modular) are terms for | factory-built pre-fab homes, i.e. "trailer homes". | lostapathy wrote: | > because dimensions are standard, and consistency is pretty | good, you simply make sure that if you have a cut of a | standard piece, you need the other half of it over there. | There's just very, very little waste. | | They also operate at a scale such that if they need an | oddball length of some material, the lumber mill is happy to | supply it cut to that oddball length since they are buying it | by the railcar. | lazypenguin wrote: | The amount of waste in general for constructing or remodeling a | house is incredible. In my experience, even if you wanted to be | conscientious about the waste (e.g repurpose timber), it would | require so much more effort that's already going into the | project that it's just easier to throw all the waste together | in one bin and take to the landfill. | alkonaut wrote: | It's indeed much easier to reduce waste in a factory when the | production line can optimize for reducing waste. | | It's a delicate problem though. I have recently implemented | such an optimization for wall panel production lines and it's | not so easy for the operators cutting sheets of material to | keep too many leftover bits for the following wall panel being | built, and the order of the panels built can be dictated by a | specific loading order on the delivery truck so can't be | reordered to reduce waste. | | Working on various bin-packing and cutting stock problems is an | interesting challenge! | ohyeshedid wrote: | That largely depends on the builders, and in particular the | project managers. | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | I think the solution to reduce housing costs is simple and three- | fold. | | First: most people can build a house. It's _really_ not | difficult. Today 's homes are quite complex in terms of their | layers of parts, and constantly varying building codes don't | help. But if you can swing a hammer and push a saw, you can build | a house. | | Ikea has shown it's not only possible, but profitable, to sell | virtually everything that goes in a home to consumers and have | them put it together themselves. So why not the rest of the house | too? We've done it before: Sears shipped people houses on the | railroad along with instructions and (eventually) pre-fab parts. | They sold them for 30 years. | https://www.amusingplanet.com/2021/06/sears-mail-order-homes... | | A huge chunk of the cost of a home is the labor. So let the | homeowner handle more of it! They can build in stages, offsetting | costs and building at their own pace. And if somebody gets tired | of doing it themselves, they can always hire a contractor. | | Second: customers interest in having a unique home is a huge | cost. So let's focus on building either the variable parts, or on | making a "core home" that can be customized after the fact by | customers. Most homes are just boxes. It should be possible for | us to construct some basic designs that can then be modified or | "spruced up" by the homeowner later. Most of the features that | make a home look unique could be turned into add-ons, so that we | could focus on efficiency of the bare home, and let customers | take on additional cost when and if they choose. | | Third: most people don't need huge houses! Due to the increasing | cost of renting, most renters rent apartments that are absolutely | tiny by comparison to the average new home. We can reduce housing | costs further by simply making the building smaller, and gaining | efficiencies by taking advantage of that smaller size. Want a | bigger home? By having simpler designs by default with add-on | exteriors, we can make it much easier to add extensions on to | houses. Simply unbolt the exterior facade, build on your | extension, and bolt the facades back on. This allows us to spend | less money on materials and labor, while still allowing the | consumer to add to the property over time. | greedo wrote: | I think it's a bit reductive to say that if you can push a saw | and swing a hammer that you can build a house. Sure in theory, | but the idea runs into a lot of problems quickly. | | 1. Navigating the permitting process 2. Finding a lender | willing to finance a self-built home. 3. Learning the | complicated trades (plumbing/electrical/foundation) 4. | Affording to take the time to build a house. | | Just #4 alone makes this a non-starter for most people. The | average home takes between 6-9 months to build, and that's with | an experienced crew. Learning as you go would easily add 6 | months to this. Affording to take a year off to build is just | not something "most people" can do. | | I have a neighbor who is a building contractor. He built his | house on his weekends, doing the majority of the work himself. | It took him over a year, and he has the skills, tools, and | knowledge. Joe Six Pack isn't going to know enough to avoid the | pitfalls that can make this a disaster. | csours wrote: | If there was a way to never have electric cables or plumbing in | walls, that would speed up construction and reduce the cost. | | The savings for this don't just show up in the plumbing and | electrical categories, but also in framing and finishing, as well | as hidden inefficiencies - you have to pre-wire and plumb, and | then late come back to finish wiring and plumbing. | | Also, this article is about how to construct a house in an | efficient manner, not how to construct a house that is efficient | throughout it's life. | walrus01 wrote: | Ctrl-f "SEER" | | No results found | | Since nobody has mentioned it yet, I recommend doing some | dedicated research into the efficiency level and measurements of | various types of air conditioners, mini split and otherwise. | There is a great deal of variation. | mortenjorck wrote: | It was interesting to see architecture and engineering broken out | as ~1.5% of the total cost of building a home, and it made me | wonder: How much does better residential architecture actually | cost? | | If I were in the market to build a home, and the difference | between building something that looks like your average suburban | detached versus something modern and striking were, say, an extra | 1.5% (doubling the cost of architecture and engineering), I | wouldn't even consider skimping on architecture. | | And yet, most architecturally-interesting homes are most | certainly not 1.5% or even 15% more than average-looking homes, | being generally restricted to luxury markets. Why is that? | ghaff wrote: | Probably because the architecture and engineering is only a | small part of the cost, the things the architects design in are | _much_ more expensive to build. | | The actual design of the striking granite-block construction | with large windows on the coast may not cost all that much. But | the materials and skilled artisans sure do. | manmal wrote: | The concepts in the article sound foreign to me - they are, since | I live in the EU. In Central European countries, most houses are | built to last 80-150+ years. People like to use bricks, aerated | concrete or specially treated wood that will last for a very long | time. There are other systems too, like walls filled with small | clay pellets mixed with concrete. Houses built in such a way are | quite expensive, usually EUR300k or more for a typical family | home where I live. That leaves some room for prefab | (Fertigteilhaus) to be cheaper, contrary to what OP wrote. | | There are small model cities you can visit where several dozen | prefabbers exhibit their current model homes, and if you stick to | their plan, you will usually pay less than building on your own. | Those are often built on wood frames, but are still quite sturdy | and supposed to last at least 100 years. Others are built with | bricks or aerated concrete just like individually built homes. | Savings are probably achieved by bulk orders, prefab, and a well | coordinated team who has built the exact same house ten times | already. | ajuc wrote: | Yup, American building culture is so weird. | fpoling wrote: | In US in many areas the earthquakes safety requires to build | lighter houses. Plus many areas are subject to tornados and | hurricanes when it is rather pointless to build anything that | lasts 100 years. On that time scale the house will be destroyed | or badly damaged in any case. | mcguire wrote: | " _Atlanta has seen 77 tornadoes in the four counties of | Clayton, Cobb, Dekalb and Fulton from 1950-2013. This is a | density of 0.94 tornadoes per year per 1,000 square miles._ " | | 1,000 sq mi is about 640,000 acres, so that's .0000015 | tornadoes per year per acre. If I've got my math right, | that's about a 99.9% chance that your 1 acre plot will not be | hit by a tornado in 1000 years, if you live in the Atlanta | area, which is only a middling high-probability area. | (https://weather.com/storms/tornado/news/tornado-odds-of- | bein...) | | Hurricanes are generally only a coastal problem, although | flooding is a fairly large issue everywhere. (Don't get a | house in a low lying area. Please.) | | Earthquakes are mostly a West Coast thing, modulo New Madrid | (pronounced "mad-rid") and various oil drilling operations. | But then there's fires and termites and everything else. | | There are plenty of hundred-year-old houses all over the US, | as well as plenty of newer ones that could last more than a | century with proper maintenance. | | Few houses today are built to last that long, though, because | it's more expensive but doesn't add anything to the purchase | price like granite countertops. Stick frame on slab | construction is pretty close to mini-maxing housing | construction as the article describes (even in areas where | slab foundations are geologically idiotic). | | Anyway, when you get down to the second-to-last section of | the article, remember that, past a certain point, efficiency | is the enemy of resiliency. | Ericson2314 wrote: | I lived in a wooden house with a brick facade from 1905 in | San Francisco, so I think this is overstated. | | They have earthquakes in e.g. Italy and Turkey too, you know. | fpoling wrote: | On my visit to SF I saw a warning an a building that it did | not satisfy earthquake safety standards of the government | of California. A colleague explained that this was a common | thing with old buildings in SF. | estaseuropano wrote: | I don't want to doubt you, but this sounds like 'folk wisdom' | or 'common sense' logic, rather than fact. You are not | seriously claiming that every piece of land is hit by | earthquakes or hurricanes once every 50 years? While they get | lots of attention my guess would be this is a shark attack- | like phenomenon: its so unusual that its news worthy, which | is why people think it is more frequent than it is. | | There are certainly earthquake (and hurricane) areas but the | majority of the US population does not live in those. I'd | need some risk/benefit analysis and actual data before | believing they are even a factor in the equation for most | people and areas. I can think of 100 other possible reasons | (eg historically people moved frequently, or it was simply | cheaper to rebuild than maintain as building | standards/expectations change frequently, or in the cities | you anyway expect someone to come in and buy up old building | stock and rip it all down to put something bigger in, or ... | ). | Enginerrrd wrote: | You are blessed with having quite a bit of ignorance in | this subject, and therfore very much you can learn! | | See ASCE 7-16 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria | for Buildings and Other Structures, For wind: Chapters | 26-31 for 144 pages of wind load design criteria. | (California Building Code and International Building Codes | recognize and point to that standard) | | Of particular note, is a concept called "Basic Wind Speed" | which is derived from mapped values. What you'll find is | that its intimately correlated with hurricane landing. Most | people live on the coast in the US where the wind speed is | highest. Depending on the risk category of the building, a | typical value on the West coast is ~105 mph. On the east | coast, it vaires by latitude from ~115-200 mph, increasing | in all the areas that get hit by hurricanes. Despite your | ignorance, I assure you it is a significant design concern. | | The seismic load is similar. | | Both loads are fundamentally designed to give a defined | risk of failure from storms and earthquakes with particular | recurrence intervals ranging from 50-100 years. (Offhand, I | believe this value is ~1% for total collapse with a much | higher risk of damage.). It is indeed carefully weighted | and considered balance between risk reduction and | feasibility, and indeed, having less than 1% risk for | intervals over 100 years starts to get rather difficult. We | still require it for schools, police stations, and | emergency gathering locations and the like, but not normal | houses. Anyway, OP is exaggerating slightly, but fairly | spot on. | manmal wrote: | Please bear in mind that I don't mean the following in a | cynic way. Damage from storms is horrible, and I feel for the | families losing their homes every year. | | There was a tornado just a few days ago in the Czech Republic | (not far from where I live), and as far as I can see, houses | did lose their roofs, or the shingles at least, but the | structures remained mostly intact. Many houses have basements | in which people could hide in relative safety. Five people | died unfortunately, not sure how many of those were in their | homes at the time. But I think those rather sturdy houses | made of bricks did infact save a lot of lives, and prevented | many more from totally losing their home. | | To me it feels deeply illogical to build a house basically | made of light wood frames when I know a hurricane can blow it | away while I'm inside of it. I'm not sure about earthquakes, | we have them of course, but they are less severe than in | other areas in the world. | strstr wrote: | The frequency and maximum strength of tornadoes are higher | in the central US. Casual skim of the wikipedia page | indicates about as many F4 tornadoes in Europe as F5 | tornadoes in the US since 2000. | octopoc wrote: | There are many tornadoes where I live and most of the | houses don't have basements. Directly in the path of the | tornado, houses built on a slab were completely gone, | leaving only a clean slab. This happened to a few entire | neighborhoods. | | But, tornadoes here follow similar paths over a fifty year | period. When I bought my house I found a hole in the fifty | year tornado map and I've never had one come near me. Every | couple decades the patterns may shift to other patterns, | but generally speaking both the new patterns and old | patterns have all happened in the last fifty years. | ahnick wrote: | > I found a hole in the fifty year tornado map | | What was your source for this information? | manmal wrote: | That's devastating. I wonder why houses in such areas are | not required to provide underground shelter, or at least | be built more solidly. | mcguire wrote: | After the 2011 tornadoes in the Southeast US, many | communities built above-ground shelters (think "bunker"), | with the downside being going any distance to a shelter | is likely to be more dangerous than staying where you | are. Also, many homeowners bought smaller above-ground | shelters (think "steel pill-box"). | ghaff wrote: | You cannot reasonably build solidly enough to withstand a | high-level tornado unless you're talking underground | bunkers, which are not an acceptable answer. | manmal wrote: | That's a bit defeatist, though? Efforts have been made, | eg https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar | ticle=... | | It seems a concrete dome would also work if digging a | bunker is too expensive. Yes it's not pretty, but not | being afraid of dying during the next hurricane season | must be worth something. A small dome can't cost much. | ghaff wrote: | Sure. Building a reinforced shelter for tornadoes, | nuclear attack, etc. may make sense. Historically, in the | US Midwest that meant going into the basement. But you | don't live there. | bobthepanda wrote: | Is it not? | | For a few decades the Swiss required building concrete | nuclear fallout bunkers for every resident. This was | relaxed only recently, but presumably it was doable for | five decades. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss- | bunker/swiss-relax-... | ghaff wrote: | So you can be in a bunker above ground. At that point | you're quibbling. | kayodelycaon wrote: | Many places the basement would be under the water table | or have to be carved out. | crooked-v wrote: | I just looked that up and that appears to have been an EF2 | tornado. That intensity deals an order of magnitude less | damage than the EF3, EF4, and EF5 tornadoes that regularly | appear in the US, which can literally tear entire houses | off their foundations. A brick building in those conditions | would be reduced to individual bricks. | bradleyjg wrote: | Hurricanes and earthquakes are one thing, but what | percentage of the US population lives in areas regularly | subject to EF3-5 tornadoes? | kayodelycaon wrote: | Much of the Midwest, which is 21% of the US population. | | Hurricanes are far more destructive and many spawn | tornadoes. About 44% of Americans live in a Hurricane | zone. | | Add earthquakes and fires maybe 60~70% of Americans live | in a place with reoccurring natural disasters. | [deleted] | Kalium wrote: | You might be surprised: | https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/tornado- | all... | | EF4 or EF5 tornadoes are around 2% of those in the US (ht | tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornadoes_in_the_United_State | s), which means any state with more than 34 or so a year | can expect to see at least one. That accounts for 14 | states with a combined population of about 106 million | people. That's approximately 32% of the total US | population. | | 8%-ish of tornadoes rate EF3. At which point any state | with seven or more a year should expect at least one in | the EF3-5 range (yay, birthday paradox!). That's _32_ | states totaling 270 million people - 82% of the US. | sudosysgen wrote: | EF2 is not a measure of force of wind. It's a measure of | total damage. . The wind speed was in the F4 category. | manmal wrote: | I read it was estimated to be F4. Brick houses are | definitely less likely to be destroyed than timber. | syoc wrote: | Timber can be many things. I have a hard time seeing a | log house being swept away by almost any force of wind. | TylerE wrote: | Then you don't appreciate the forces at play. An EF4 will | rip deep rooted trees right out of the ground. | dcolkitt wrote: | It doesn't economic make sense to build homes to last 100+ | years. Equity markets have historically returned 8% per year. | You're much better off cutting corners, investing the money, | then fixing the problems in the future with your compounded | wealth. | | Pretend you have two options, you can build a home that lasts | forever or a house that will fall apart in a half century but | is 10% cheaper. By year 40, you'll have enough wealth | accumulated to buy _two_ new replacement homes. | AngryData wrote: | I mean there is no reason wooden structures shouldn't last over | 100 years if not double or triple that except for lack of | maintenance, usually involving leaking roof or a negligent | design that traps water. I grew up in a house that was 150 | years old and the only thing not wooden on it was the roofing | material, although when it was first built it likely was cedar | shake. The walls were wood, the floors were wood, the siding | was wood, and any interior plaster was backed with wood. We | never had to question any of the woods condition despite the | majority of it being completely original. | manmal wrote: | Let's add a lack of termites, no lightning strikes, and great | care about open fires to the list of requirements. While I | personally like the idea (and smell!) of pure wood houses, I | would not want to live in one permanently. Wood is a great | material for sure, but why not mix it with other materials to | make things safer and more sturdy. | insaneirish wrote: | > but why not mix it with other materials to make things | safer and more sturdy. | | Because wood is a renewable resource, not a source of | carbon emissions (like concrete), and is absolutely strong | enough for single family homes. | belval wrote: | One other drawback of wooden houses is that wood absorbs | moisture so in winter you have to run a humidifier because | the air moisture is basically non-existent and that will | irritate your nose and throat. | | I'll take a typical drywall panels on a wooden frame over | wooden walls. | Johnny555 wrote: | Wood can't continually absorb moisture, at some point it | would become saturated. | | I always thought that the reason that winter air is dry | is because warm air can hold more moisture than cold air, | so as you heat it, relative humidity decreases. So, for | example, if it's 5C outside with 50% relative humidity, | if you heat that air to 22C, then it will have only 17% | relative humidity. | | But modern houses (even wood ones) are so well sealed | that even in winter you could end up with too _much_ | humidity inside just from normal activities (cooking, | bathing, breathing). | xyzzyz wrote: | Termites are not a problem in huge swaths of the world, | lightning strikes are... very unlikely, and fires will | destroy any house, wood or not. | | All in all, correctly built wooden houses are pretty much | as safe and sturdy as anything else. | syoc wrote: | Wood houses do not burn very well. Pure wood houses (think | lumber cottages) are especially hard to set fire to. | | The things that do burn are furniture, paint, drapes etc | and are present in any house. | horsawlarway wrote: | Because wood is plenty strong and safe. | | I've lived in wood houses all my life, all of them built | between 1920 and 1950. | | Balloon construction has, generally speaking, been great. | The frames are strong and light, easy to run | cabling/utilities, easy to modify/remove/renovate (You know | what else I've done in every house I've owned? Moved at | least one wall - in my current house we just completely | modified the layout of the upstairs. Moving the walls cost | on the order of a few hundred dollars each, since they | weren't structural supports, and it's just wood and | drywall) | | Basically - They're cheaper, better for the environment, | and when cared for last a LONG time. Do they have some | specific downsides? Sure. But overall they work | fantastically well. | | Also - if you think concrete is sturdier than wood | frames... in most cases I suspect you're wrong for | residential homes. I live in a temperate rain forest | (Atlanta, GA) the pine trees are HUGE, and they fall | constantly - they hit houses a lot. Most take damage, but | it's usually easy to repair, and honestly, the wood frame | alone usually keeps people inside safe. Hundreds of houses | a year take tree hits, and having someone die is rare | enough it usually makes the news. Wood is tough. I've seen | a 100ft pine literally bounce off a house. | crazygringo wrote: | Every thread that's ever about US housing construction, some | Europeans chime in to talk about how strange it seems to them | to build houses out of wood, rather than stone/brick/etc that, | as you put it, will "last for a very long time". | | Here's the thing, though: most Europeans seem to be suffering | some pretty serious misconceptions. | | First, Americans build out of wood because we _have wood_ , | lots of it. Europeans don't skip wood because brick or stone is | superior -- it's because Europe is _largely deforested_. Europe | doesn 't _have_ wood for people to use at the same scale. | | Second, wooden houses last a plenty long time. "80-150+ years", | as you put it, is entirely expected for a well-constructed | wooden house. Neighborhoods that date from, say, 1850, e.g. in | New England, have plenty of old wooden homes that people adore | because of their character. | | Third, wood construction has a ton of advantages. Not only is | it less expensive to build, but it's _tremendously_ more | energy-efficient when filled with insulation. Brick and stone | homes are absolute _energy guzzlers_ both in hot summers and | cold winters. And remember, e.g. in New York State you 're | dealing with 100degF (38degC) summers and -10degF (-23degC) | winters. Insulation _matters_. | | The idea that American homes are somehow lower quality or | shorter-lasting because they're built out of wood is a myth | through and through. To the contrary, they're built out of wood | because that's the _best_ construction for local climate and | availability. | zdragnar wrote: | Insulation does matter, but American insulation is also | pretty strange- it is all rated by R value, which is only | meaningful if you have a really good airtight seal. Any | drafting ruins the insulative value very quickly. | | Aerated concrete doesn't have that issue, because the | concrete cells are closed and don't draft. If you end up with | a poorly fitted window or 50+ mph winds, it doesn't let air | through. | | OTOH, totally agree about wood. Cheap(er), plentiful, and | most importantly, everyone already knows how to work it and | has the tools to do so. | | Masonry work is physically harder, requires a sounder | foundation that won't settle at all due to the increased | weight, and there are fewer people willing to do the work. | Getting anyone to do foam or aircrete is impossible- you have | to watch a bunch of YouTube videos and DIY it yourself. | newguy886 wrote: | ROTFL | bumbada wrote: | Europe has much more density of people living in the same | space. And Asia is even more dense. | | In the US there are things that do not make sense because | people density is so low there, even in places like New York, | most people live in individual homes, spread over a big area. | | When I was living in China I saw lost of things made sense that | do not make sense in Europe just by the economic of scale of so | much people living in such small areas. | marcinzm wrote: | >In the US there are things that do not make sense because | people density is so low there, even in places like New York, | most people live in individual homes, spread over a big area. | | That's patently false. In NYC only 9% of homes are single | unit detached and in NY state it's only 41%. | 411111111111111 wrote: | While it's true that Europe has a few cities that are | significantly more dense then new York, your phrasing makes | it sound like the average town is more dense then NY is... | And that's not the case | | I don't know the exact number, but there are very few cities | in Europe with a density higher then NY (10,716.36 | people/km2), and i'm pretty sure they're all in France, | Greece and Italy | IshKebab wrote: | The use of bricks over wood can't be due to population | density because the practice goes back hundreds of years. | | I think it is partly due to tradition, and partly due to | climate differences. | manmal wrote: | I think it has to do with prices and available know-how. | You can build a typical US home for 1/2 or less than a | Central European home. Right now, if I were to build a | 150m2 (1600sqft) home, that would cost me at least EUR250k. | More likely 300. Zoning often requires houses to be of a | certain build and look, so building cheaper than that is | often not even an option. As far as I know, a US home of | that size usually costs $100k? Please someone correct me if | I'm wrong. | greedo wrote: | The average cost per square foot for new construction is | between $100-$155 in the US. That might be a bit low | considering current lumber prices though. So a 1600 sq/ft | house would be between $160K-$248K. | manmal wrote: | Thank you! | xyzzyz wrote: | I think it is pretty conceivable that structural lumber | could have been more expensive than bricks in the past. | Before modernity, there was scarcely enough food for | everyone, so using it for something like forest would have | been relatively expensive. For this reason, today more | Europe is covered with forests than in 1700. On the other | hand, bricks only need small amount of land for extraction | of substrates, and some fuel, which didn't have to be prime | firewood like we're used to now, but more like thin twigs | from coppiced trees. | 29athrowaway wrote: | I am just going to say one thing: Superadobe. | brianolson wrote: | Framing is a plausible place to optimize, so how about steel? The | factory cuts all the pieces to be assembled on site. It goes up | real fast. This is what we want, right? | lostapathy wrote: | At very small scales, this is already done with wood framing. | There are vendors that will send out a pre-cut framing package | with every piece of wood cut and marked, and even stacked in | the right order for fairly optimal assembly. | | The trouble is that most house plans are not put together to a | sufficient level of detail for this to work - contractors rely | on all kinds of field decisions/adjustments. | trunnell wrote: | I recently read Gates' book _How To Avoid a Climate Disaster_ | which left me with the impression that the overriding factor in | building costs is the energy required (and CO2 produced) for | construction, heating, and cooling. | | Unfortunately I didn't see any mention of energy or carbon in | this post. | | Seems like the biggest breakthrough would be a pre-construction | estimate of energy costs over, say, 30 years. Similar to the | Energy Star sticker on appliances sold in the US which tell you | the cost to run a given appliance with typical usage compared to | the range for other models. | | This would allow you justify spending more upfront for better | insulation, HVAC, air sealing, etc. and recoup that over time. At | scale this would allow our civilization to be more energy | efficient and reduce the need to build more power plants. | | This suggestion stood out: "...move to resistance heating and | thermoelectric cooling" | | Unless I'm missing something, this would be a step backward. | Modern heat pumps are 3-4x more efficient than resistance | heating, since they aren't creating heat but moving it from one | place to another. For cooling, if the author is referring to | Peltier type thermoelectric cooling, the same applies: heat pumps | are many times more efficient. | | The building revolution we need is one that cheaply produces | extremely energy-efficient homes, IMO. | rhinoceraptor wrote: | This video is a great explainer on heat pumps [1]. The TL;DR is | that they are essentially nothing more than air conditioners | that run in the opposite direction. Plus, a heat pump and an | air conditioner can be combined into a single system. | | 1: https://youtu.be/7J52mDjZzto | wffurr wrote: | Heat pumps need plumbing and installation which increases the | construction cost. | | Agreed that they are the way to go, but it's not going to bring | down construction costs. | | The author's strawman proposal was a nuclear battery for | effectively unlimited onsite power with the no marginal cost in | order to minimize construction costs. | bumbada wrote: | >Vinyl flooring, vinyl siding, one-piece shower stalls, and | laminate countertops are examples of innovations that reduce the | cost and increase durability. | | Vynil is one of the worst thing you could have in your house. And | the production of it is horrible for the environment too. | | Vynil chemical group is not toxic, but the "Polyvinyl chloride" | people are referring to when they talk about "Vynil" is. It is | extremely toxic because of the chemical additives it has like | plasticizers that are breathable and never go away in your body. | | It is also extremely toxic when burn as it generates dioxins, and | flame retardants are added to it, also very toxic. | | It is also extremely cheap so people use it so much over big | surfaces. | | It is great for plumbing and I would only use it for that use. | | But don't use it on big surfaces because you and your family are | going to breath its additives when it is exposed to sunlight. | jackcosgrove wrote: | I think we already have the future of housing: mobile homes. | | With remote work gaining acceptance, location will lose its | premium for many. Socially we have pared down our living | arrangements to small nuclear families if that, which can fit in | a mobile home. | | Mobile homes offer better protection against deterioration of a | real estate or job market, and also better opportunities for | moving to a growing market. Mobility is in the name. | | Trailer parks have a bad rap because of classism. But the less | well-off are often trailblazers because they need to make things | work with less. | | The mobile homes of tomorrow need not be run-down single-wides. | They could be more luxurious and larger if broken apart into | components. | | I think this is mostly a marketing and image problem which is | only starting to change, mostly because of cost-of-land | pressures. | toast0 wrote: | > Mobile homes offer better protection against deterioration of | a real estate or job market, and also better opportunities for | moving to a growing market. Mobility is in the name. | | Mobility is in the name, but not in reality. Once you install a | mobile home, it's expensive and unlikely to move it and install | it somewhere else. It's better to call these buy their new | name, manufactured homes, which eliminates the misconception | from having mobile in the name. | | Now, that doesn't mean they couldn't be the future of housing, | but it doesn't seem to be what developers are building or what | people are buying when they've got choices. I think the cost | difference vs a wood framed house built on site doesn't make up | for the lack of flexibility. | handrous wrote: | > Mobility is in the name, but not in reality. | | "Mobile" wasn't in the name, originally. "Mobile" (Alabama) | was. | bradleyjg wrote: | A few people have made this point in this thread. There's | still actual trailers ("RV") though, which is what the | grandparent poster meant. | landryraccoon wrote: | If I'm reading this correctly, optimizing construction costs is a | very difficult problem because a huge part of the costs is | transportation, not the material itself or assembly thereof. | | Transportation is by nature highly distributed among a wide range | of actors, unlike industries like semiconductors where the costs | are centralized in a factory where a single agent can optimize | everything. | | In other words, the majority of improving construction costs is | actually a political problem, and engineers are unsuited to | optimizing it. Transportation costs can be reduced, but only at a | collective, national or state-wide level. Moving vast quantities | of lumber, insulation, wiring, drywall, roofing and other housing | materials across state lines is much more a political | coordination problem than an engineering one. Sure, a team of | engineers could design a more efficient, cost effective | transportation method - but how would consensus ever be achieved | to actually build the thing and align all the disparate interest | groups to rally around it rather than opposing it? | | My hot take is that in the current era (at least in the United | States) "Smart" people have neglected political concerns in favor | of technical concerns. But the risks aren't technical, they are | political, so this is inefficient. The problem will not be solved | simply by engineering, no matter how clever the engineers are, if | they are limited to purely technical approaches. | wallacoloo wrote: | I think I need a more concrete example. In many distributed | networks, you can add a new path to it, and if that path is | cheaper, then neighboring entities will (gradually) adopt it | for cost savings. So if I developed a way to transport material | between Seattle and NYC more efficiently, a bunch of individual | actors will gravitate toward using that route. In a distributed | system, I wouldn't need any external approval to do that, and | other participants would be free to choose to interact with me: | it's not political so much as it is markets. | | Is your claim that any improvement to the system will | inevitably conflict with a centralized authority -- like a | regional government that has to approve commerce or land use? | Is your argument that it's a political problem because it's | _not_ , actually, distributed? | R0b0t1 wrote: | How are you going to transport materials more cheaply? I work | in manufacturing and a large part of the ultimate bill is | S&H. We need to pass that onto our customers. Shipping is | bearable outside of the US but as soon as you enter into the | US it will eat your margins and leave nothing. | | As I understand it the main cost in S&H is personnel, as with | most businesses. So either you need more automation or higher | wages for the people who need to buy S&H services. | wallacoloo wrote: | > As I understand it the main cost in S&H is personnel, as | with most businesses. So either you need more automation or | higher wages for the people who need to buy S&H services. | | You just highlighted one opportunity for a technological | improvement ("automation"). Warehouse automation: a | decades-long trend which -- while it can be slowed -- so | far seems to be unstoppable by political force. Driverless | vehicles and drones: which, which technical solutions, and | contingent upon political outcomes. OTOH 90% of the | politics is around how these will be deployed on _public_ | land and air space, and those politics could be avoided if | the players decided to build their own infrastructure like | the big railroads did back in the day. Etc. | lostapathy wrote: | > So if I developed a way to transport material between | Seattle and NYC more efficiently | | I think the point wasn't that we need to make this trip | cheaper, but that we need to figure out a way to build houses | with materials that travel less. | wallacoloo wrote: | Two sides of the same coin, no? You can lower the | transportation costs of materials either by doing less of | it (as you suggest), or by decreasing the cost per | weight/volume/distance (my earlier comment). | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | It's complicated. Here in southwest, we have suitable | (clayish) soil for building adobe with all over the place. | Very little transportation in terms of miles compared to | lumber, bricks etc. | | However ... extremely labor intensive and compared to stick | framing, relatively slow. So, despite its local-ness, huge | thermal mass and excellent karma, adobe loses out and | stick-framed OSB sheathed things that look like adobe win. | lostapathy wrote: | But perhaps that's exactly where we need investment - to | figure out a way to apply automation to adobe type | building? | | Unfortunately this isn't the kind of thing the market is | good at sorting out, but there could well be some | breakthrough tech that makes adobe building cheap. We | just don't look for it. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | There have been attempts over the centuries. Rammed earth | walls attempt to do away with the "dealing with lots of | relative small pieces" problem (adobe bricks). But they | require form building, which adds a significant labor | component that isn't there for the "lots of small pieces" | approach. | kingsuper20 wrote: | > If I'm reading this correctly, optimizing construction costs | is a very difficult problem because a huge part of the costs is | transportation, not the material itself or assembly thereof. | | You have to go beyond the first section. | | His main points are that (a) it's hard to standardize on the | larger parts and (b) there is no low hanging fruit. | gpm wrote: | > You have to go beyond the first section. | | Please don't imply people didn't read the article. It's | boring, unnecessarily rude, against the guidelines [1], and | at least in this case I _did_ read the entire article and | agree with that comment. | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | > (b) there is no low hanging fruit. | | There is no low hanging fruit _when you divide up the pricing | the way he did_ , but transportation is part of nearly every | category that he divided it up into. From the data he shows | we don't have any reason to think that transportation is not | a single substantial fraction of the house cost, when you | some up all the different transportation costs between the | different sections he uses. | | To make an analogy to programming, transportation is like an | allocator, and his data shows that execution time is spent | evenly between 20 different functions. But all of those | functions allocate, it's perfectly plausible the program is | spending 50% of it's time in it's allocator and that speeding | up that allocator by 50% would reduce the overall execution | time by 25%. | Fiahil wrote: | This kind of article depress me to the highest point. I'm not a | "consumer" with "expensive taste", nor someone who put a brake on | innovation. | | I want a house built to last, by a skilled professional, with | wood, steel, stones, and slates. Less plastics and only locally | sourced materials. If I'm going to live there for the next half | century, it better be a place I love. | | Please stop pushing your capitalism and your economy of scale in | every corner of the world. | cies wrote: | > I'm not a "consumer" with "expensive taste" | | Saying so does not make it true. If you want to live in a | house, your a consumer of house. If you like a nicer than most | basic/economic house because "I'm going to live there for the | next half century, it better be a place I love"; voila there | come the expensive taste. | | Author explained where and where not the scale-upping worked in | construction. It seems author was on point, even in your case. | | To author does not shove anything down our reader throats by | saying how it is. You link to capitalism is pretty far of: the | scale-upping worked really well in socialist places as well, in | fact Marx himself obsessed over industrial scale-upping. You | seem to be misguided over what capitalism actually means | (spoiler alert: a system of law/govt that protects a person's | hoarded wealth ad infinitum). | jessaustin wrote: | You don't have to let the capitalists build your house. All | building trades of today and (especially) yesterday are | accessible to capable people. | | First, however, you're going to have to come to terms with the | fact that "professional" is a capitalist word. | readflaggedcomm wrote: | Capitalists build for ourselves as amateurs, hobbyists, or | artisans, too. Do we offend you as much as dog whistles do? | [deleted] | WJW wrote: | > I'm not a "consumer" with "expensive taste", | | But also | | > I want a house built to last, by a skilled professional, | | > only locally sourced materials | | Pick one or the other mate, those points don't mix well. | alkonaut wrote: | Having natural materials instead of vinyl isn't exactly | extravagant... | | Did that article suggest vinyl siding, as in the exterior of | a building using plastic? | Kalium wrote: | It specifically mentions vinyl siding as a cheap option | that better-off consumers spend money to avoid in favor of | more expensive wood or brick. | | Extravagance is perhaps, at times, a matter of perspective | and opinion. Some might consider consciously choosing more | costly materials, even if they happen to be natural | materials, to be matters of aesthetic choice that increase | cost. Or even expensive tastes. | alkonaut wrote: | I think in any scenario I'd rather refurbish half as | often or build half the size and use "better" materials. | | Same as buying "good" meat at 2x (better cuts, organic, | etc) isn't a costly extravagance if you simply buy half | as much by eating less of it each time or having meat | less often. | | If there is one thing you immediately notice when you | visit the US for example is you often see homes that are | of quite shoddy quality but might be 2500sq ft or even | 3000. I'd trade 500sq ft for a decent countertop alone... | Kalium wrote: | That's an excellent point! It also provides a handy | analytical framework. I'm going to try apply it to | siding. | | The cost differential between brick and vinyl siding can | easily be a factor of five, and wood vs vinyl a factor of | six (stone is more like 25). At this point you're trading | 2400-2500 sqft of that 3000 sqft house to use "better" | materials, assuming shapes that scale surface area | directly with flooring size. | | I expect this resulting cottage will be of wonderfully | high-quality materials, but you may run into a few limits | on how many people you can have comfortably living there | compared to the original 3000 sqft building. I imagine | you might want to be somewhere in between, at which point | your choice of "better" materials may become an | extravagance in the eyes of some. | alkonaut wrote: | Not sure why wood is so expensive, I'm paying under $2/m | or for cladding wood for the extension I'm building now. | Its around $1 per square foot. It gets slightly more | expensive before it's painted 3 times though (repeat | every 15 years as is standard with softwood). | | I'm fairly sure I couldn't find a cheaper exterior | cladding. And obviously the cladding is a tiny percentage | of the total cost of even just the wall, let alone the | whole construction. Cladding will be sub $300 and the 150 | sq ft extension is north of $50k all together. Insulation | is probably 3-5x what the cladding is, and so is the | flooring. | Kalium wrote: | The numbers I'm using include installation costs too. | Wood and brick are more labor than vinyl as I understand | it. | | I think my key lesson here is that even building smaller, | using "better" materials is an expensive matter of taste. | alkonaut wrote: | Painting is a bit of work but just nailing up standard | wooden cladding is such a tiny part of the work it hardly | even shows up on the total, including labor! | | Perhaps this is partially because of the high buikding | costs to begin with (It's cold so walls are 3-400mm, a | single window is $6-700 (triple glass) and so on. The BOM | for my extension was $25k which is half the total. | Cladding _including_ labor is a lot less than $1k. I have | never seen a vinyl clad house but I doubt I'd pick one to | save that little. | [deleted] | tootie wrote: | I feel like that's based on some naturalism fallacies. Durable | plastic is more efficient to produce that growing a tree. And | sourcing thingy locally isn't always practical. You want the | best lumber for the job that will last and that's usually | cultivated at scale. You can chop down trees from your backyard | or you'll destroy your neighborhood. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | There's almost no such thing as durable plastic when you're | talking about the lifetimes of traditional building material. | As a result, without a genuine recyling process for plastic | (rather than just "down cycling"), even if there was nothing | wrong with it during its normal lifetime, it just becomes | more trash at the end. Quite different for wood (stone, | glass, adobe, even concrete). | 015UUZn8aEvW wrote: | Great essay. This is a much more sophisticated analysis of | construction efficiency than you typically find; most of them | basically imply that construction is inefficient because | contractors are dumb. | | One minor comment: balloon framing is not a synonym for light | wood framing, it's a (mostly archaic) version of it. Balloon | framing features long exterior wall studs that extend up multiple | stories, as opposed to modern "platform framing", in which the | studs stop at each floor. | jakewins wrote: | Came here to say exactly this. Balloon framing was abandoned | due to fires. This made me hesitant about the rest of the text. | brudgers wrote: | Balloon framing is, like all construction, more common in | some regions than others. | | Short construction seasons are somewhat favorable to it. Dry | in can be quicker. A trade base familiar with the necessary | fire blocking makes it practical. Same with designers and | inspectors. | | The sun belt tends toward platform framing. Being the | sunbelt, construction tends to be more year round. | lostapathy wrote: | Where specifically is balloon framing done now? Genuinely | curious as I know people who have posted construction | pictures all over the country and I've never seen it. | aardvarkr wrote: | Saying something is invalid due to a personal choice in | vernacular is quite brazen and ignorant... it's like writing | off someone's opinion because they used the wrong | their/they're/there | gpm wrote: | If I was reading an article about grammar and the author | used the wrong version of their/they're/there I would | seriously consider whether or not I should stop reading it. | earleybird wrote: | Would you clarify your comment please. Are you saying | balloon vs platform framing is a personal choice? | function_seven wrote: | It's more than "personal choice in vernacular". Someone | speaking authoritatively on construction methods should | know the differences in terms. Calling a vertical wall | framing member a "joist" would be just as wrong. | | Balloon framing and platform framing are different, | exclusive terms. Author uses it as a catch-all for stick | framing throughout the article. | | The rest of the article seems fine and insightful, but it's | totally reasonable to see that incorrect terminology usage | as an indicator of knowledge gaps. And the author appears | to be more involved with cryptography and related concepts, | so it tracks. | aardvarkr wrote: | As a layman I hadn't heard either term so I looked it up while | reading the essay and the overwhelming opinion I found is that | platform framing is a variant of balloon framing that has | completely replaced the original method due to fires in 1860 | (Chicago) and 1903 (San Fran). most of what I read said the | terms used the terms interchangeably | steffan wrote: | Another likely reason is that balloon framing makes use of | single studs that extend the height of the structure, with | the 2nd floor suspended. The nature of available framing | lumber has shifted and it would be likely much more expensive | and difficult to obtain satisfactory 16'-20' studs vs. the | more common 8' length. | avernon wrote: | Thanks! If I would have known it would go to front page of | Hacker News I would have had one of my construction science | friends proof read it first! | | I've been writing for fun and to learn and have always been | curious about construction productivity. | brudgers wrote: | The problem is that construction schedules are NP hard. And | that optimization is expensive due to market efficiency for | labor. | kingsuper20 wrote: | >most of them basically imply that construction is inefficient | because contractors are dumb. | | Yeah, that's a problem. | | Usually, next up is some handwaving about building homes from | shipping containers because they're rectangular. | iandanforth wrote: | I was onsite at a modular manufacturer today and I can tell you a | lot of what is said here is just wrong. The cost estimate is not | quality adjusted. If you look at cost per square foot and don't | take into account the quality of work provided then you haven't | calculated anything worth knowing. Also the article doesn't price | out the value of speed. Modular can take half the time to move-in | as stick build. | | I agree there are plenty of points for improving efficiency. For | example the builder I visited was not vertically integrated at | all. They bought manufacturing time on a modular line for their | box plans, worked with external designers and all kinds of subs | they can't guarantee for onsite work. But having seen it up close | I can tell you there is far more opportunity for process | improvement on a assembly line (even if each build is custom) | than there is in the field. | | If you look to Japan, Toyota is getting into modular with steel | framing that is way ahead of anything in the states. I look | forward to that being available here. | [deleted] | opportune wrote: | I don't understand the worldwide disdain for the concrete paneled | construction the article briefly mentions: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka | | Most of the "badness" people associate with these, IMO, are due | more to the fact that 1. in recent times they are inhabited by | less well-off people 2. they usually need to be washed or | painted, probably because they are inhabited by less well-off | people who don't make it a priority 3. to the extent they are | seen as crime/drug dens, that's because they have a stigma/are in | disrepair so only poor people want to live there. It is possible | for them to be nice, even moreso if they are new (and not poorly | maintained, 60 years old). See | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelenograd as an example of a city | with this style (go to Google images for more pictures). The | whole city is like a park. | | From an urban planning perspective, they have a lot of benefits. | People can actually end up with a lot of green space in between | buildings. They make it easy to set up bus or train-based public | transportation, with walking a viable way to navigate toward a | hub. The density creates obvious economies of scale in other | areas. From a cost perspective, they are inexpensive to construct | because of the economies of scale. The article mentions them as | one of the few building styles amenable to mass- | production/assembly off-site. | | Probably my main gripe is that they are not often 'mixed use' and | could perhaps do with shops on the first floor, though this is | partially an artifact of the economic regime under which they | were mostly built. | OminousWeapons wrote: | The worldwide disdain arises from what you said, the additional | association with communism / cheapness, and the fact that they | are mass produced, generic, and boring, and no one wants to | spend a lot of money to get generic and boring. | nine_k wrote: | If McMansions aand cookie-cutter suburban communities are any | indication, some still want to spend a lot of money on | generic and boring. | | The reasons must be different. | OminousWeapons wrote: | McMansions are ugly but they're not boring or generic. | Unless you're in a housing development, most are fairly | unique. Units in housing developments do suffer from the | same stigma though, and a lot of people won't buy them for | that very reason, even though they are generally cheaper | than units located outside of those developments. | | The problem is really the combination of all 3 factors. | McMansions definitely make people think the inhabitants | have no taste, but they don't make people think the | inhabitants are poor. Buildings that look like public | housing make people think the inhabitants are poor, which | is worse for a lot of people. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | It seems to me... people will spend a lot of money to get a | generic, boring, mass produced version of what their | parents generation thought was luxurious or classy. | | McMansions + perfect lawn in a suburb full of curves and | crescents; and various kinds of "luxury" cars, big TVs, | etc. All things _just_ out of reach of many of our middle | class parents or grandparents. So now you 've _made_ it | when you have it... until you look close and see there 's | no actual class differentiator in it, no taste to it, no | art to it, or any particular advantage to it... | | Just my, like, opinion, man... | orthoxerox wrote: | Seam insulation is an issue, modern apartment blocks in Russia | use monolithic concrete instead. | Animats wrote: | It's hard to rent out all those street level shops. The tenants | of a 4-6 story structure can't support those shops. There are | not enough residents per shop for that. Such places are not | usually convenient to drive to. The SF peninsula is getting way | too many of those things. Many shops are vacant. | BeFlatXIII wrote: | Then the rent is too high for the ground-floor businesses. | Lower the rent to allow niche retailers to use those | storefronts as the physical presence for a largely online | business. However, it's often in the owner's financial | interest to leave them vacant at a high rent so they can make | up the difference by charging extortionate rents to the | businesses who bring in enough revenue to afford it. That's | why those first floors are inevitably filled with banks, | Starbucks, and Chipotle. | opportune wrote: | I used to live on the Peninsula and know what you mean. It's | worth mentioning though that you don't need a shop, or | multiple, in every building. It would be enough for there to | be a smattering of convenience stores and basic common | services like barbers and salons. Moreover, they are not | meant to be driveable so long as the surrounding density is | sufficient. Polk Street in SF is very inconvenient to drive | to but the shops there seem to do quite well. | marcinzm wrote: | >The tenants of a 4-6 story structure can't support those | shops. | | In the polish version of these, the stores are in one | building of the cluster of 4+ buildings, generally on the | main street of the area. The US has a retail store for every | 500 people or so which is about how many fit into a few of | these buildings.. | | >Such places are not usually convenient to drive to. | | You don't drive to them, you take whatever local public | transportation there is or walk. It's dense enough that you | can visit all the important stores without driving or leaving | your local area. | | >Many shops are vacant. | | That has more to do with the increasing rents and commercial | rates being locked in for 5+ years. More economical to keep | the place vacant for the landlord. | Ericson2314 wrote: | Agree except for the US _does_ have way to much total | retail, out of line with other countries. | | But that's a minor point. | marcinzm wrote: | Do you have data for that? Having visited a number of | countries in Europe, Japan and the US I've found roughly | the same number of retail stores (at least in terms of | area). The US tends to have fewer but larger stores in my | experience. For example, Google indicates that Germany | alone has almost as many grocery stores as the US despite | being a fraction of the population. | grouphugs wrote: | i don't have a home | 4b11b4 wrote: | I was hoping this was going to be an article about building with | earth, but it's stuck in the same framework of thinking. | abraxas wrote: | Earthships are not cheap nor any other rammed earth style | building. It's cool stuff but definitely not cheap. | zarzavat wrote: | Semi-autonomous road convoys and electric trucks are technologies | that are in development. That may completely alter the calculus | of the article and unlock those economies of scale that are | missing at the moment. | Grakel wrote: | That's a long way to say construction is already optimized for | our current level of technology. | f38zf5vdt wrote: | A somewhat less meandering explanation for the modern dominance | of balloon framing, which also draws parallels to software | development: | | https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/balloon-framing-i... | redtexture wrote: | Balloon framing has been gone for nearly a century, which | implies no firestops between floors. | | Stick built framing is the follow on, also called plate | building, the plates constituting inter-floor fire stops. | aaron695 wrote: | > Almost every advancement in construction is small enough for | someone to carry | | > Each advancement fits within a simple construction system. | | Powerful idea. | robotbikes wrote: | Nuclear batteries removing the need for electrical wiring seems | very pie in the sky to me but perhaps I'm just ignorant of the | practical application of it. | | Concrete seems far more common in residential construction | outside of the U.S. I wonder if technologies such as aircrete | (concrete with uniform foam produced air bubbles). | | Also well There's Your Problem had an interesting article about | the 5-1 construction that is used for a lot of new apartment | buildings in the U.S. | https://wtyppod.podbean.com/e/episode-46-five-over-ones/ | vbezhenar wrote: | Aerated concrete is extremely popular in Kazakhstan and Russia | in private houses. It's cheaper than bricks, it's sturdy | enough, it provides good insulation, it does not require much | skill to use, pieces are huge, so it's much faster to build. | | There are drawbacks, of course, but overall it's a very popular | technology. | jessaustin wrote: | _...it provides good insulation..._ | | This might be true, but it would be surprising, since even | "aerated" concrete would still be made of highly thermally | conductive... _concrete_. | R0b0t1 wrote: | The thermal mass of your house is part of the perceived | insulation. In the desert especially nights are cold, the | house chills, and retains that chill throughout the day, | keeping it cool inside. | earleybird wrote: | Thermal mass to manage comfort could be seen as tuning | latency for your arrival and departure of your heat | packets. | elihu wrote: | If memory serves, normal concrete has an R value of about 1 | per foot, whereas AAC is more like 1 to 2 per inch. So, an | 8 inch wall would have an R-value of about 8-16. That | doesn't seem like enough for a cold climate, so I'd assume | for those applications you'd probably add an extra layer of | actual insulation. (This would mean having pretty thick | walls.) You wouldn't need as much supplemental insulation | as you would with a regular concrete wall, though. | | The thermal mass is also nice, though it doesn't really | help much in winter-time. I think AAC is a bit more suited | to warm desert climates where you have a daily hot/cold | cycle. | vbezhenar wrote: | 20-inch wall is enough for pretty cold climate according | to my calculations. Either that or thin wall with | insulation (or thin wall and more money on heating which | might be an acceptable solution, if you have cheap coal | and your country does not care what you build). | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Fairly sure that AAC has less thermal mass than regular | concrete. It's more air, less concrete, and the thermal | mass comes from the concrete. | orthoxerox wrote: | Here in Russia it usually requires an external layer of | insulation plus cladding, you don't just stucco it and call | it a day. I did the math and a wall two blocks thick should | be barely sufficient, but needs a vapour barrier inside, or | the dew point will be inside the wall, ruining it. A vapour | barrier and a drywall finish means no reduction in | construction costs. | fpoling wrote: | In has been popular in the whole former USSR. But for some | reason in past it was not considered as a suitable material | for houses, only for storage facilities etc. But it could be | just a cultural perception. | | For example, my father built a temporary house from it in | Belarus in 1980s while waiting for the main house | construction that was using ordinary bricks. I remember as a | child that building from aerated concrete was indeed very | quick affair. | ArkanExplorer wrote: | Disadvantages From Wikipedia: | | "Installation during rainy weather: AAC is known to crack | after installation, which can be avoided by reducing the | strength of the mortar and ensuring the blocks are dry | during and after installation. | | Brittle nature: they need to be handled more carefully than | clay bricks to avoid breakage. | | Attachments: the brittle nature of the blocks requires | longer, thinner screws when fitting cabinets and wall | hangings and wood-suitable drill bits or hammering in. | Special, large diameter wall plugs (anchors) are available | at a higher cost than common wall plugs. | | Insulation requirements in newer building codes of northern | European countries would require very thick walls when | using AAC alone. Thus many builders choose to use | traditional building methods installing an extra layer of | insulation around the entire building." | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoclaved_aerated_concrete | kingsuper20 wrote: | >Aerated concrete is extremely popular in Kazakhstan and | Russia in private houses. | | In California (FWIW), I expect that you hit seismic issues. | Gibbon1 wrote: | Problem in California is insane mandated R values for | walls. Aerated concrete can meet previous standards. But | not the new ones. So it's use is effectively banned. | | Old saw about Generals fighting the last war. Energy | efficiency standards assume the need to conserve limited | supplies for fossil fuels. And the need to not interfere | with building large houses for upper middle class people. | | Bad thing is R value is a metric designed to upsell | insulation. R30 insulation is twice as good as R15, if | you're the guy selling it. If you're the guy buying it, not | as much. | bolangi wrote: | I know a guy who researched aerated concrete. He used a slimy | additive to help hold the bubbles. Basically, the compression | strength of concrete is so much higher than necessary that | addition of a large portion of air results in a material that | is much lighter with more than adequate compression strength. | He couldn't find interest among concrete companies in his | state. | elihu wrote: | I think in the U.S. the only place that makes the stuff | (Aercon) is in Florida, and there's Hebel that has a plant in | Mexico near Texas. | R0b0t1 wrote: | > Nuclear batteries removing the need for electrical wiring | seems very pie in the sky to me but perhaps I'm just ignorant | of the practical application of it. | | tl;dr very feasible sans NIMBYs | | The DoE investigated this exact thing. I happened across the | papers while browsing microfiche. It makes the most sense to | serve a neighborhood off small house/shed sized generating | facility. As you scale up you can switch to normal turbine | operation, as you scale down you move back to thermoelectric | operation. Single houses could be powered from thermoelectric | piles but this would probably have been reserved for expensive, | remote vacation homes. | | Closer to battery sized, you can layer radioactive material | against quantum dots that turn alpha particles into photons and | emit those photons directly onto a PV cell. | tootie wrote: | I thought the point about modular wiring was interesting. Why | aren't all wall studs fitted with grommeted mouseholes at | outlet and switch height? | elihu wrote: | I think that was kind of a whimsical suggestion; like, even if | you had a magical technology that eliminated all need for | electrical wiring, you'd still only reduce building costs by a | small amount. | Gibbon1 wrote: | I've thought that creating a 100-150 watt power over Ethernet | standard for home wiring would be a win. Advantage faster | install, cheaper cabling, and better safety. Better safety | because you can limit the default power to under 15W. Faster | install because you use crimp connectors. | imgabe wrote: | What if you want to plug in a vacuum cleaner, hair dryer, | space heater, curling iron, or any other thing that might | use more than 150 watts? | ben_w wrote: | Nuclear batteries have their place, but consumer products are | not it. | | First, you can't switch them off, so they are either always | warm or the are trickle-charging another storage system | (batteries, capacitors, whatever) within the device. | | Second, the radiation. You can do various things to limit the | risk, but the LD50 is something like 0.25 watts of absorbed | ionising radiation sustained for 18 minutes, so damage to the | batteries (malicious or accidental) would have significantly | greater harms than, say, asbestos, CFCs, or domestic carbon | monoxide sources. | | You absolutely do not want a 10 watt lightbulb powered by | built-in atomic batteries anywhere it can get messed with, let | alone a 2 kW kettle or a 5 kW oven. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome | jeffbee wrote: | The article does not even mention planning and permitting until | the last sentence, but in my city that is virtually all of the | cost. Fancy cabinet faces have _nothing_ to do with the fact that | a house costs $2 million. | | When I look at what techies are trying to do I just shake my | head. Factory_OS built an apartment building on Union Street in | Oakland "in ten days " but planning, permitting, site prep, | finishing, and inspections added up to seven years. Believing | that off-site fabrication helps this problem is right up there | with believing that hyperloops can solve traffic jams, in the | universe of nonsensical American beliefs. | failwhaleshark wrote: | Favelas tin-roof shanties would be cheaper too. | | In the US, why not distribute value, transportation, and land | sufficiently so people can have a better basic standard of | living? Right now, I'm looking at 1000 homeless people and tents | huddling under a highway, while my drunken idiot neighbors shout | and dance with glee feet from them in a gentrifying, mixed-use | development pool. The people who have just enough have no shame | or consideration because their motto is "F U, I got mine." | lrgzdmn wrote: | Anyone have any experience with SIPs (structural insulated | panels)? The claim is that their use reduces waste and labor, but | I'm not aware of any independent analysis to corroborate the | claims. | R0b0t1 wrote: | I tried to price them out. They definitely save on labor but | they are not particularly cheap. Depending on area your codes | may not permit them and/or your local PEs may not want to sign | off on them, even though they're fine. (This usually comes | about by the local codes only assuming a finite set of valid | structures, and some structure you wish to build not neatly | fitting into those classifications.) | | They _could_ nebulously reduce "waste" but with how much more | you're paying for them, it seems economically unviable to use | them. In the sense that money is a signal, the waste is still | there, you're just not seeing it and being put at an economic | disadvantage for paying more. | twothamendment wrote: | I worked with them twice and loved it. But three times I've | built my own house and passed them over. | | By my math, it makes sense to spend on a really good envelope | like SIPs or a very efficient HVAC like ground source heat | pumps - but buying the best of both is only for bragging rights | and never pays off. Pick one or the other to go all out on and | your bills won't be that much different if the other is just | above average. | | The downside of spending extra on anything that isn't seen by | the buyer is that they done want to pay extra for it. To bring | it back around to SIPs, if two similar houses are for sale, | nobody picks the more expensive one because it has SIPs. (ok, | not nobody, maybe I would) | kingsuper20 wrote: | Great article. | | It would be interesting to compare the US to Japan and Japan's | tendency to favor new construction (plus the differences in | features and styles). | chrisseaton wrote: | > It would be interesting to compare the US to Japan and | Japan's tendency to favor new construction | | You make it sound like these are opposing views but doesn't the | US also heavily favour new construction? | | In the US and Japan I understand that a new build is seen as | attractive and the best option for people with money to do it? | | If you want a real contrast, in the UK new build is seen as the | worst option, for people without any money. People with money | in the UK buy old houses. The older the better. I would | literally never buy a new-build in the UK unless I had no other | option whatsoever. I'm saving up to upgrade to an older house | here. | dimitrios1 wrote: | > but doesn't the US also heavily favour new construction? | | I don't know if my view reflects the majority, but around | where I am from, older and even historic homes are the crown | jewels because they were built before the race to the bottom | occured in construction -- namely cheaper, thinner walls, | smaller usable space, etc. Older homes are built with old | growth lumber, and often come with thicker plaster walls and | better layouts. | chrisseaton wrote: | > I don't know if my view reflects the majority | | It doesn't. For example this article expressing surprise: | | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-26/previous | l... | | Even the term 'previously owned' for a house is baffling to | UK ears. Of course a house is previously owned. Why would | you be building your own? | jjeaff wrote: | I have never seen a home listed as previously owned. In | the US, homes are by default assumed "previously owned" | unless specifically advertised as new. And only the very | well off tend to demo and build fresh. Most people will | remodel and add in to existing structures. | chrisseaton wrote: | > I have never seen a home listed as previously owned. | | Ok but Bloomberg have. | redtexture wrote: | And older structures have much less insulation, compared to | the present building code, as put forth in the so called | International (actually US) Residential Building Code, | adopted by most states. | | Energy use for heating and cooling is typically much higher | in older buildings, over a lifetime of decades. | chrisseaton wrote: | I don't know about building codes, but I know a 1900 | house built from foot-thick stone is better insulating | that anything we build today. | Pxtl wrote: | I have never seen a building from that era with foot- | thick stone, you have to go back further for that here in | Canada. | | The century homes here in southern Ontario are double- | wall brick with beefy 2x4 framing within the interior | wall, then lath and plaster, and no insulation. | chrisseaton wrote: | My 1930s UK house is foot-thick stone and brick on all | walls, even internal. It doesn't have insulation except | in the attic because it's one absolutely massive heat- | sink mass - by the time it's warmed up from the summer | it's already autumn and then it starts emitting the heat | usefully instead. | | That's the way to build, in my opinion. | earleybird wrote: | Thermal mass as a tool is so very under utilized. When | it's considered, it's often only on a 24hr cycle. As you | point out, the 365 day cycle may be even more important. | For a modern take (with for realz engineers and | measurements even) have a look at Drake Landing community | in southern Alberta. https://www.dlsc.ca/ | | edit: They've discontinued the 'Current Conditions' part | of their website but I followed it with some regularity | in the early years | mixmastamyk wrote: | No. Nimbys have been in control for decades and only starting | to lose their grip. In our city most folks are trapped in | shitbox two story apartments from the sixties, that are now | being renovated into luxury-light because supply is so highly | constrained. | | Older mostly exists on the east coast with a few exceptions. | chrisseaton wrote: | > shitbox two story apartments from the sixties | | Literally not sure if you consider these old or new-builds | for the purpose of this conversation? | | I'd call anything post 1950 'new-build'. | germinalphrase wrote: | I've read that build quality in Japan is significantly lower | due to the depreciating nature of houses as an asset and the | bias toward building new. | xivzgrev wrote: | Seems like it's a self-reinforcing cycle: houses are built | lower quality, people thus don't value older houses, so | builders build lower quality to lower "new" cost | | https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan- | reusabl... | BeFlatXIII wrote: | I admire the Japanese presence for building new because it | means that the owners build the house they want rather than | build for what the imaginary buyer 20 years in the future | would want. So many people here in the states have nonsense | houses for their family situation because their eye is | incessantly on resale appreciation value. | jbay808 wrote: | With few exceptions, houses are a depreciating asset just | about everywhere; it's only land that appreciates. Japan is | no different except that the depreciation rate of the house | may be somewhat faster, and appreciation of the land | significantly slower than in other countries. | greedo wrote: | I'm not sure this is accurate. I purchased my house in | 2004, and it's currently valued at $349K (purchase price | $199K). The lot itself sold for $40K in 2003. | | Looking at available lots in my neighborhood, they average | about $70K for my house size. So that means my house itself | is valued at $280K. | | So yes, the land has appreciated by $30K (over 18 years), | but the house itself has appreciated $120K in the same | timeframe. The land appreciated at roughly 3% per annum, | while the house appreciated at roughly the same rate. | | Of course this doesn't include any improvements, or | maintenance costs associated with the house. | ianmiers wrote: | From what I've seen in residential Tokyo, houses are usually | one offs built when the owner buys the land. And look, at least | superficially, to be similar construction methods to American | construction rather than European: i.e. wood framing as opposed | to masonry/concrete. | | Maybe some of it is prefab, but given the narrowness of roads, | I wonder. | coryrc wrote: | You are correct. The SFHs in Tokyo are usually built roughly | similar to stick-built (slightly post-and-beam, but walls are | load-bearing). Wood can be precut to length, but they are | constructed on-site. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-06-26 23:00 UTC)