WikiHouse – Open source, modular, wood based, zero carbon housing(wikihouse.cc)
wikihouse.cc
WikiHouse – Open source, modular, wood based, zero carbon housing
https://www.wikihouse.cc/
290 comments
This might be true in the US, but because of stringent building requirements construction cost definitely is a problem for affordable housing in the UK and in some European countries. Here in The Netherlands it certainly is not possible to build a house for $50k (or less) according to commercial developers. Municipalities have been complaining about developers only building houses at the $400k or more price point, and developers have been saying that due to the building requirements it isn't economically feasible to build houses for less.
Also, what's the soil like where you're building those $50k homes? I've often seen that being spent just on the foundation.
That said, I'm not sure this construction method is cheaper than existing similar techniques like for example structural isolated panels.
Also, what's the soil like where you're building those $50k homes? I've often seen that being spent just on the foundation.
That said, I'm not sure this construction method is cheaper than existing similar techniques like for example structural isolated panels.
What you described (strict building requirements) is, in fact, a sociopolitical problem, not a technical one. We used to build houses for much less. They were worse houses. Many people would not like them today. Others would. They are not allowed to have them, though.
In the US it's even worse - we have those older houses, but they're almost always in older parts of the city (duh) and their valuation is sky-high.
That's a real problem, but will correct itself eventually. In the oldest parts of the oldest cities in the US, mostly the nicer old buildings survive for the long haul unless they have historical significance. (e.g. Paul Revere's house in Boston.) Eventually the value of building a nice building on that land will surpass the value of keeping a shitty old one there. I'm more concerned with the explosion of shitty quality "luxury" 5/2 buildings being blighted and falling apart right when they stop inflating market value in their neighborhoods and pushing people out.
In Europe we have stricter building codes on average but it's still very much a non-technical problem. Prices of land are insane in Spain, and I bet in other countries too.
And taxes, and a myriad of other things that have nothing to do with actually building the thing.
And taxes, and a myriad of other things that have nothing to do with actually building the thing.
I'm not sure by what measure Spain has high land prices. It effectively has the lowest population density of any sizeable (under 11 million) country in Europe [1]. It also has one of the highest rates of second property ownership in Europe [2]. I can't find figures but I suspect it also has one of highest rates of home ownership by non domeciles too.
Lots of factors contribute to all this and like anywhere it's always 'location, location, location', but outside a few major cities and popular holiday locations I think it's probably pretty cheap - in relative terms.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_Europea... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Secondary-property-owner...
Lots of factors contribute to all this and like anywhere it's always 'location, location, location', but outside a few major cities and popular holiday locations I think it's probably pretty cheap - in relative terms.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_Europea... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Secondary-property-owner...
If it's pretty cheap, it won't be allowed to build anything residential.
> We can build small, livable (for various definitions) homes for $50k (or less) today
Not sure I agree with this. If we assume a labor at a rate in the order of 1 worker-hour per square foot (this is highly variable, from 0.5 to 2 hr/ft^2), a 2000 sqf home would require 2000 hours. At minimum wage ($15/hour) that means $30K, just for labor. This does not include concrete, lumber, stucco, sheetrock, electrical, HVAC, plumbing, appliances, landscaping, etc. It also does not include permits and design fees. And of course, assuming $15 per hour would not be accurate at all. By the time you get a contractor involved and various trades you are paying significantly more than that, perhaps closer to $75 per hour on average. That gets you up to $200K, again, just in labor costs.
DIY is a different matter. And yet, it isn't. At some point opportunity cost comes into the equation. It would be silly for me to DIY a home until I am retired or unemployed. The loss of income --opportunity cost-- of devoting thousands of hours to home-building would be massive.
If we are talking about building homes at scale, except for some very specific locations and types (pre-fab?), I am not sure you could build something for $50K these days. For example, I have personally had to deal with LA County's Building for permits and plan-checks for my 13 kW solar array (yes, I DIY'd that). They easily added $50K, if not more, to my budget without reason or justification. The most grotesque example of this is that they made me put in 64,000 lbs of concrete into the footings for my ground-mount structure. An architect friend of mine told me I could support a four-story building with that amount of concrete. Why? Nobody knows. Once the plan checker made that decision there was no way to reason with him. Power trip? It was death by a thousand cuts.
Not sure I agree with this. If we assume a labor at a rate in the order of 1 worker-hour per square foot (this is highly variable, from 0.5 to 2 hr/ft^2), a 2000 sqf home would require 2000 hours. At minimum wage ($15/hour) that means $30K, just for labor. This does not include concrete, lumber, stucco, sheetrock, electrical, HVAC, plumbing, appliances, landscaping, etc. It also does not include permits and design fees. And of course, assuming $15 per hour would not be accurate at all. By the time you get a contractor involved and various trades you are paying significantly more than that, perhaps closer to $75 per hour on average. That gets you up to $200K, again, just in labor costs.
DIY is a different matter. And yet, it isn't. At some point opportunity cost comes into the equation. It would be silly for me to DIY a home until I am retired or unemployed. The loss of income --opportunity cost-- of devoting thousands of hours to home-building would be massive.
If we are talking about building homes at scale, except for some very specific locations and types (pre-fab?), I am not sure you could build something for $50K these days. For example, I have personally had to deal with LA County's Building for permits and plan-checks for my 13 kW solar array (yes, I DIY'd that). They easily added $50K, if not more, to my budget without reason or justification. The most grotesque example of this is that they made me put in 64,000 lbs of concrete into the footings for my ground-mount structure. An architect friend of mine told me I could support a four-story building with that amount of concrete. Why? Nobody knows. Once the plan checker made that decision there was no way to reason with him. Power trip? It was death by a thousand cuts.
"Small, livable" ... 2000 square feet ...
Low-cost building is something like $85 a square, so 50k gets you about 600 square. It is totally doable and that's with "current" setups (these are often built as "cabins" etc.
But the permits and other things destroy them (which is why so many "tiny homes" are technically mobile homes because then you just deal with the DMV).
And you can buy brand new homes including land around here for $300k so I suspect that they didn't cost $200k in labor. But maybe they do?
Low-cost building is something like $85 a square, so 50k gets you about 600 square. It is totally doable and that's with "current" setups (these are often built as "cabins" etc.
But the permits and other things destroy them (which is why so many "tiny homes" are technically mobile homes because then you just deal with the DMV).
And you can buy brand new homes including land around here for $300k so I suspect that they didn't cost $200k in labor. But maybe they do?
Of course, these are generalizations. Also, I did say that the labor per square foot range was wide, 0.5 to 2.
The truth of the matter is, as a percentage of the population, very few people live in 600 square foot homes. This is particularly true in the case of families. That's where you really have to start talking about double that space.
Anyhow, all-up home construction via traditional means is not cheap. These days transportation costs likely add a non-trivial amount of money to the total. Costs do vary across the country, and so does median income.
It would be interesting to find a comparison of construction costs of the kind of home the average family is looking for to the median family income for the area in question.
The truth of the matter is, as a percentage of the population, very few people live in 600 square foot homes. This is particularly true in the case of families. That's where you really have to start talking about double that space.
Anyhow, all-up home construction via traditional means is not cheap. These days transportation costs likely add a non-trivial amount of money to the total. Costs do vary across the country, and so does median income.
It would be interesting to find a comparison of construction costs of the kind of home the average family is looking for to the median family income for the area in question.
Ability to resell is also a huge consideration for most people, so almost everyone who is single or DINK lives in a house that ... would hold a family, because those resell the best.
I don't even know if many people are building 1 bedroom houses anymore; those only seem to show up as condos now and then.
Everything is built as a three bedroom and so all you have as an option is three bedroom.
I don't even know if many people are building 1 bedroom houses anymore; those only seem to show up as condos now and then.
Everything is built as a three bedroom and so all you have as an option is three bedroom.
You are right to a point. But one problem is that everyone is trying to cram into the same couple of places. Every country in the world tries to become effectively a city state. The housing shortage is secondary to this trend.
You may turn every block into kwaloon walled city and there will still be housing shortage.
I am not against density - I am fond of European 6 story buildings. But you have a fundamental demand problem. The big cities are bleeding dry the rest of the countries.
You may turn every block into kwaloon walled city and there will still be housing shortage.
I am not against density - I am fond of European 6 story buildings. But you have a fundamental demand problem. The big cities are bleeding dry the rest of the countries.
That's very, very incorrect.
At the population density of Kowloon in 1987, 1,255,000 per square kilometer, and today's population of 8 billion people, it would only take 6375 square km to house everyone.
That's less than five cities the size of Phoenix, Arizona.
Reasonable urban population density -- the kind where there is still green space and buildings are mostly just a few stories high -- would be about 7500 per square km, about 1.1 million square km for the world population. That sounds like a lot, but it's only about one tenth the metro area of Paris.
There is a clean water problem. There is a good sewage treatment problem. There are energy delivery problems. But people will happily live in much denser arrangements than they do on average, and cities make all of the other problems more efficient to deal with. These are policy problems.
At the population density of Kowloon in 1987, 1,255,000 per square kilometer, and today's population of 8 billion people, it would only take 6375 square km to house everyone.
That's less than five cities the size of Phoenix, Arizona.
Reasonable urban population density -- the kind where there is still green space and buildings are mostly just a few stories high -- would be about 7500 per square km, about 1.1 million square km for the world population. That sounds like a lot, but it's only about one tenth the metro area of Paris.
There is a clean water problem. There is a good sewage treatment problem. There are energy delivery problems. But people will happily live in much denser arrangements than they do on average, and cities make all of the other problems more efficient to deal with. These are policy problems.
In Europe we also have housing crisis in the capitals and other desirable places and there thr density already what the YIMBY want. If you want to solve the housing crisis don't ask why the rent is so high in NY, SF or London. Ask why there are so few desirable pleaces for people to live.
The main thing that makes a place desirable to live in is good infrastructure: water, climate, education, healthcare, transportation. A place that has all of those attracts people; work arises where people want to live; good work pays for the infrastructure and makes it more likely that people want to live there.
It's a chicken-and-egg problem, made worse by people who want to not pay for the infrastructure and maintenance.
It's a chicken-and-egg problem, made worse by people who want to not pay for the infrastructure and maintenance.
The rent is damn high in downtown / midtown Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn because there is enough business people, movie stars, stock traders, even software developers who are willing to pay as much.
If you step back into southern Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, the prices go down to reasonable, while still being within < 1 hour commute by public transport from the downtown area.
If you step back into southern Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, the prices go down to reasonable, while still being within < 1 hour commute by public transport from the downtown area.
Significant parts of eastern queens have no subway line at all. They might have LIRR service at twice the price.
>> Why build 20 $50k homes on the land and make $200k profit when you can build 10 $500k homes and make $1mil in profit?
I don't understand this comment. This is the same profit margin. You invest 1 million (20 * 50k) and make 20% (200k) or invest 5 million(10 * 500k) and make 20% (1 million).
Depending on the amount of initial capitol you want to invest you may choose one over the other.
I don't understand this comment. This is the same profit margin. You invest 1 million (20 * 50k) and make 20% (200k) or invest 5 million(10 * 500k) and make 20% (1 million).
Depending on the amount of initial capitol you want to invest you may choose one over the other.
The land is a fixed cost regardless of what you build on it, so higher return structures will win out even if the margins in the structures themselves are the same. Also fewer jobs to manage, fewer customers to sell to, simpler sewage, water, gas, electrical to deal with.
It almost sounds like building one multi-tenant city building is more efficient than twenty single-family suburb homes.
Correct, although many municipalities (like Boulder, CO) have ridiculous zoning laws such that you can't make multi-story apartment complexes. So the choice for developers is just single family suburbia
Single family zoning has become the norm in most of the United States. It's so broken. Even simple duplexes or quad-plexes are not allowed in most single-family zones.
Homeowners benefit because it drives up the prices of homes, which has become one of the most important financial investment tools to normal people in this country.
Homeowners benefit because it drives up the prices of homes, which has become one of the most important financial investment tools to normal people in this country.
As a contractor or manufacturing company that's not what you're investing into. You build the machines and process and design the house. So in one case you get 200k out of the invest, and in the other 1000k. At least that's how I'm reading this.
If you, as a single household, plan to build a 50k house on your land, you might be unable to find someone to build it for you.
Of course in larger cities/projects with a single developer reselling units it's a bit different.
As I said, that's how I'm reading it.
If you, as a single household, plan to build a 50k house on your land, you might be unable to find someone to build it for you.
Of course in larger cities/projects with a single developer reselling units it's a bit different.
As I said, that's how I'm reading it.
Because the constraints are time, getting Landon, getting permits, etc. Each additional house is more overhead from regulations you have to meet and permits, as well as area improvements such as roads that need to be made or improved, and more houses mean more roads and sidewalks.
Even if they have the same profit, o ly one of those strategies scales to allow you to pump more money in and get more money out without significantly changing the resources required to accomplish it.
Even if they have the same profit, o ly one of those strategies scales to allow you to pump more money in and get more money out without significantly changing the resources required to accomplish it.
A burger has small profit margin, a complex meal has a bigger profit margin. That's what I think he meant. Venture Capitalist don't like nickel and diming.
even in the US, i'm sure there are places where land is still cheap. Thinking globally, there's even more of them. That's the beauty of it being opensource: you can build in any part of the earth
It's cheap because noone wants to live there.
Here in Florida, large parcels were bought up by developers and then subdivided into .25/.33/.50 acre lots. These were then sold off to people who eventually wanted to retire here. The problem is the building codes here are probably the most stringent in the US. So there are a lot of these parcels for sale on the cheap ($10k-$25k) but it’s still not worth doing anything with them.
Would a prefab house (which normally satisfies various codes' requirements) be worth putting there?
The issue with much of Floridas land is it’s wetlands. It doesn’t so much matter what you build on it as it is about minimizing impact to the environment.
Even with a fully legal prefab house, you're often looking at anywhere between 20-100k in "other costs" besides delivery and installation.
You have to connect to water, sewer, power (or build a well and septic), you still have to get it permitted and inspected, etc, etc, etc.
You have to connect to water, sewer, power (or build a well and septic), you still have to get it permitted and inspected, etc, etc, etc.
[deleted]
Nobody wants to live there because there is no local work. If you work remote it's an amazing value proposition.
It's not just work though. It's shops, supermarkets, schools, community groups, cinemas, bars, ... you get the idea!
I thought living in huge estates (or even suburbs) with none of those things was fairly common in much of the US? There are examples of it here (Australia) too and there still seems to be plenty of demand to live in such places, despite the fact that everybody who does so after a few months or years starts complaining about it (in fairness, often such facilities are sold as "coming soon").
Suburbs in US almost universally have these things, even suburbs of decaying cities like Detroit or Cleveland (which often offer more facilities than than the city cores themselves).
I certainly got the impression that there were newer suburban housing developments with many 1000s of houses and basically nothing else.
I gathered Texas was particularly prone to this so randomly browsing Google Maps found "Ridglea hills" and suburbs to the south of it in Fort Worth which appear to house 10s of 1000s of people without a single supermarket and barely even a cafe etc.
I looked at this neighborhood. It’s around 1 mile in diameter, and there are many restaurants at its north edge, and a Walmart at the south tip. This means that residents can reach it in less than 20 minutes walk, or 2-3 minute drive. This is really rather accessible, and I can’t imagine how you can get much better than that while still living in a large house with a yard. Seems like a pretty sweet place to live, if you ask me.
Yeah I saw the shopping strip at the northern boundary, which is why I said Ridglea hills and suburbs to the south of it (not a single supermarket shows up in a 5x5 km area, though part of the problem is Maps, it seems quite inconsistent at what scales anything shows up). It may well not be as barren as it appears on Google maps, but it certainly doesn't appear "rather" accessible to me. I'm curious how it compares to the blocks of land in Florida mentioned a few posts up.
This whole comment thread is weird. That neighborhood is surrounded by shopping, probably more so than the worst suburb "developments". And that isn't a normal walmart, as you can see from the maps if you click on it: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Walmart+Neighborhood+Marke...
It's a walmart "Neighborhood Market" which looks like a grocery store to me. There's even pictures of the inside.
It's a walmart "Neighborhood Market" which looks like a grocery store to me. There's even pictures of the inside.
The surburban hellscape you're imagining is probably like this: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Granada+Hills+North,+Los+A...
The nearest grocery stores appear to be on the other side of the highway, and like an hour's walk from inside the neighborhood. Although literally no one here is walking to Trader Joe's. Just having a Trader Joe's here kind of implies that.
The nearest grocery stores appear to be on the other side of the highway, and like an hour's walk from inside the neighborhood. Although literally no one here is walking to Trader Joe's. Just having a Trader Joe's here kind of implies that.
I've been to the San Fernando valley, but only really around Van Nuys and Sherman Oaks, which definitely weren't like that. But it wouldn't surprise me that parts of LA would be.
Ridglea Hills has a stinking Walmart heh! The "Acres of suburbia" usually mean that it's a pain to walk to the store, not that the store doesn't exist.
I'd be surprised if there are many suburban areas that are more than 5/10 miles from "stores" for some value of store. Taking some central place of Ridglea gets me a 2 mile walk to Walmart. But there are no sidewalks.
I'd be surprised if there are many suburban areas that are more than 5/10 miles from "stores" for some value of store. Taking some central place of Ridglea gets me a 2 mile walk to Walmart. But there are no sidewalks.
well, schools become irrelevant once kids grow up (that is, if you have any). A lack of shopping is good for the wallet, when you grow accustomed to buying in bulk and stacking food. the rest is all about your lifestyle preferences
There 0.5+ Acre lots that you can buy for something like 20-30k$ in Cleveland, OH and I'm planning to move there.
You may find land that is cheap, but you will only be able to build a single house on it. This incentivizes building large.
Your chance of finding a sub-dividable lot in a suburban area is essentially 0.
Your chance of finding a sub-dividable lot in a suburban area is essentially 0.
The real solution will look very similar to https://www.quixotecommunities.org imo. Get cheap land, build net-zero tiny home communities, along with regenerative agriculture. Solar punk style.
I really like the concept of this, it's basically a step further on from SIPs (structural insulated panels) by having standard composable blocks. The things I think are particularly good:
- Standardising on screw pile foundations. Standard concrete foundations are often be about 30% of the build cost, with the quantity of earth removed and cement used it's a massive part of the carbon footprint of a home. For a "light weight" timber construction, screw piles are the future.
- Having services recesses and notches built into the panels, and there is no need to batten the internal walls for boarding. this will increase the speed of construction significantly.
- Being an "Open" standard allows any timber frame or prefab construction company to adopt it.
My one concern (I wouldn't go as far as criticism) is that the panels have a somewhat complex manufacturing process by having to be CNC machined. Realisticly they almost always will be, but I would have liked to see the panels designed to be constructed a little more simply - you will always have to make changes on site.
I wander why they went with ply over OSB, they have similar structural properties but OSB can be cheeper.
- Standardising on screw pile foundations. Standard concrete foundations are often be about 30% of the build cost, with the quantity of earth removed and cement used it's a massive part of the carbon footprint of a home. For a "light weight" timber construction, screw piles are the future.
- Having services recesses and notches built into the panels, and there is no need to batten the internal walls for boarding. this will increase the speed of construction significantly.
- Being an "Open" standard allows any timber frame or prefab construction company to adopt it.
My one concern (I wouldn't go as far as criticism) is that the panels have a somewhat complex manufacturing process by having to be CNC machined. Realisticly they almost always will be, but I would have liked to see the panels designed to be constructed a little more simply - you will always have to make changes on site.
I wander why they went with ply over OSB, they have similar structural properties but OSB can be cheeper.
Mold abatement & home restoration contractor here. OSB should not be considered code-compliant material, full-stop. Imagine your home has been constructed with slabs of sponge that have are purpose-engineered to provide optimal growing conditions for fungi when moisture is introduced. Now consider that over the lifetime of a structure some combination of exterior cladding failure, roof leaks, ground moisture issues, and plumbing fails are not only likely, but basically guaranteed.
My biggest concern with this system is given this system's "tightness" to water vapor (similar to SIPs), all of the same issues with mold and related air quality are inherited. If structures don't breathe they rot. i
My biggest concern with this system is given this system's "tightness" to water vapor (similar to SIPs), all of the same issues with mold and related air quality are inherited. If structures don't breathe they rot. i
All excellent points, and why moisture vapour transmission direction/rate must be taken into account during a build. If you live somewhere where AC is the primary mode of interior conditioning, you will build to where the AC will pull moisture in from the structure for removal via the condensate line. If you live somewhere not so tropics, you're going to build where the moisture is pulled out of the home by the natural environment.
Building sciences are both fun and fraught with peril. I'm somewhat excited and cautiously optimistic about Boxabl from a housing manufacturing perspective.
Building sciences are both fun and fraught with peril. I'm somewhat excited and cautiously optimistic about Boxabl from a housing manufacturing perspective.
It is indeed a concern, and I suspect that's why they're recommending any wikihous project include a full-house MVHR system (see About=>Product, the bent arrow near the middle of the image map). MVHR is the solution I've settled on for my house retrofit project - it should allow the house to breathe in a controlled manner, without leaking warm air in winter.
> OSB should not be considered code-compliant material, full-stop.
OSB is a fine air barrier, and most water vapour volume happens through air leaks. Vapour diffusion tends to be a smaller percentage:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXXgjvOJcYI
The main place that vapour concentration really becomes a problem is at the highest point of the house (e.g., ridge):
* https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/building-science-i...
The main point is to not have your condensing surface on the inside of your structure:
* https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-t...
Which is why so many jurisdictions are encouraging / mandating external insulation. When the sheathing is the coldest surface, of course there's going to be condensation, but if it's the same temperature as the inside air how would moisture accumulate.
> If structures don't breathe they rot.
If structures don't dry they rot. There are plenty of of <1.0 ACH@50 structures that do not "breathe" that have no moisture/rot issues because they take care of water mechanically, e.g., ERV/HRV and (whole house) dehumidifiers.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIcrXut_EFA
OSB is a fine air barrier, and most water vapour volume happens through air leaks. Vapour diffusion tends to be a smaller percentage:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXXgjvOJcYI
The main place that vapour concentration really becomes a problem is at the highest point of the house (e.g., ridge):
* https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/building-science-i...
The main point is to not have your condensing surface on the inside of your structure:
* https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-t...
Which is why so many jurisdictions are encouraging / mandating external insulation. When the sheathing is the coldest surface, of course there's going to be condensation, but if it's the same temperature as the inside air how would moisture accumulate.
> If structures don't breathe they rot.
If structures don't dry they rot. There are plenty of of <1.0 ACH@50 structures that do not "breathe" that have no moisture/rot issues because they take care of water mechanically, e.g., ERV/HRV and (whole house) dehumidifiers.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIcrXut_EFA
OSB is absolutely a fine air barrier assuming <60% humidity at all times. That does not make it a sane choice for sheathing/flooring material given the likelihood of moisture ingress. Every form of seam sealant known to man bites it at some point due to thermal expansion cycles, uv damage, etc. and that's assuming perfect installation of all layers of the moisture control stack. It isn't even a good choice for cabinetry due to it's propensity to devolve into Nature Valley Granola when put in proximity to a sink, dishwasher, or refrigerator (if a cold water line is part of the install).
In theory vapor accumulation is only really problematic in the overhead plenum spaces. In actual practice (setting aside acute water ingress) 100% of the time moisture problems start in the crawl space and then spread to the plenum.
Yes absolutely it is possible to design complex interlocking systems that at least in theory both provide high efficiency sealed construction and control moisture. In practice the complexity of these systems is sufficient that even top-end contractors frequently run into issues that lead to full blown abatement projects. There is also the minor issue of what happens if all of these systems aren't subjected to aggressive inspection regimes and/or a structure goes a significant amount of time unoccupied. The one thing all of these super high-efficiency sealed systems have in common is they quite literally tear themselves apart if neglected or the power gets turned off for any meaningful amount of time.
The statement "If structures don't dry they rot" is absolutely true, but only in the context of traditional lumber products that are comparatively resistant to rot in the first place and are capable of weathering swell/shrink cycles without falling apart. Highly engineered products degrade aggressively just by getting damp in the first place as swelling wood fibers break down bonds with the adhesive that's holding the material together.
I absolutely stand by my original statement that OSB shouldn't be code-compliant and with the exception of shitty flat-pack furniture has no business anywhere in a home.
In theory vapor accumulation is only really problematic in the overhead plenum spaces. In actual practice (setting aside acute water ingress) 100% of the time moisture problems start in the crawl space and then spread to the plenum.
Yes absolutely it is possible to design complex interlocking systems that at least in theory both provide high efficiency sealed construction and control moisture. In practice the complexity of these systems is sufficient that even top-end contractors frequently run into issues that lead to full blown abatement projects. There is also the minor issue of what happens if all of these systems aren't subjected to aggressive inspection regimes and/or a structure goes a significant amount of time unoccupied. The one thing all of these super high-efficiency sealed systems have in common is they quite literally tear themselves apart if neglected or the power gets turned off for any meaningful amount of time.
The statement "If structures don't dry they rot" is absolutely true, but only in the context of traditional lumber products that are comparatively resistant to rot in the first place and are capable of weathering swell/shrink cycles without falling apart. Highly engineered products degrade aggressively just by getting damp in the first place as swelling wood fibers break down bonds with the adhesive that's holding the material together.
I absolutely stand by my original statement that OSB shouldn't be code-compliant and with the exception of shitty flat-pack furniture has no business anywhere in a home.
I appreciate all of your comments here, but let me just pause for a moment to appreciate the perfection of the name "Nature Valley Granola" for that failure mode. That's spot on for texture and appearance. And given the crumbly, dry vagueness that is a Nature Valley Granola bar, possibly for taste as well.
(I'm in Canada, which is generally a 'basement using' zone.)
> In theory vapor accumulation is only really problematic in the overhead plenum spaces. In actual practice (setting aside acute water ingress) 100% of the time moisture problems start in the crawl space and then spread to the plenum.
Which is a good argument for conditioned crawl spaces.
* https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/bareports/ba-0401-...
> In theory vapor accumulation is only really problematic in the overhead plenum spaces. In actual practice (setting aside acute water ingress) 100% of the time moisture problems start in the crawl space and then spread to the plenum.
Which is a good argument for conditioned crawl spaces.
* https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/bareports/ba-0401-...
No argument here. Sealed crawlspaces may be the best thing building science has brought to the industry in the last 30 years.
The reason OSB wins so much is that the average house is built to last just about as long as OSB does in normal conditions (even with water damage).
Shit is wack yo. Perfectly usable houses are remodeled all the time.
I hate OSB so much. And it no longer is that much cheaper than plywood, which still can die in water but at least doesn't die immediately.
Shit is wack yo. Perfectly usable houses are remodeled all the time.
I hate OSB so much. And it no longer is that much cheaper than plywood, which still can die in water but at least doesn't die immediately.
One aspect that's missing for me here is the toxicity of the glues used in OSB products. Compared to multi layer timer its massive amounts of glue being using in these OSB panels. Nothing you want in the room where you breathe at least 8 hours a day/night.
Plywood also uses glue:
* https://www.greenhomeguide.com/askapro/question/i-m-concerne...
* https://greenhomeguide.com/askapro/question/we-have-osb-that...
Unless you're using planks for siding and your flooring, you're going to have to use some kind of glued product product. Further your OSB is generally behind your drywall (sheet rock, gypsum) which can act as an air barrier.
Ideally you should have an HRV/ERV that exchanges the air in your dwelling constantly.
* https://www.greenhomeguide.com/askapro/question/i-m-concerne...
* https://greenhomeguide.com/askapro/question/we-have-osb-that...
Unless you're using planks for siding and your flooring, you're going to have to use some kind of glued product product. Further your OSB is generally behind your drywall (sheet rock, gypsum) which can act as an air barrier.
Ideally you should have an HRV/ERV that exchanges the air in your dwelling constantly.
OSB is fine with a proper WRB, vapor control and venting. Things like rainscreen/strapping under siding and roofing go a long way of letting your house dry out when water gets in.
Sure it is, for the first year. Or the first five years. Or however long it takes for a caulk seam around a window or door to get sprung or a plumbing fitting somewhere to develop a drip. How long do you expect your home to last without major restoration work?
The fact that you have to cut that many backflips just to get the stuff to work should tell you something. Once it finally does get wet all hell breaks loose because OSB cannot tolerate wetting cycles in the same way plywood can.
If you're ever curious about just how big the gap in durability is here's a free demonstration: next time you see a new house going up stop by after the framing crew has the place sheathed and ask for a small scrap of OSB sheathing and plywood they have sitting in the scrap pile. Take both home and let them sit out in the yard for six months. The plywood will warp a bit, and it might discolor. The OSB will disintegrate unless you live in a desert.
The fact that you have to cut that many backflips just to get the stuff to work should tell you something. Once it finally does get wet all hell breaks loose because OSB cannot tolerate wetting cycles in the same way plywood can.
If you're ever curious about just how big the gap in durability is here's a free demonstration: next time you see a new house going up stop by after the framing crew has the place sheathed and ask for a small scrap of OSB sheathing and plywood they have sitting in the scrap pile. Take both home and let them sit out in the yard for six months. The plywood will warp a bit, and it might discolor. The OSB will disintegrate unless you live in a desert.
Do you see that in modern construction? As long as there is adequate insulation and the vapor retarding layer is in the right place (per code) the OSB shouldn't ever be more than damp for any extended amount of time.
I've seen catastrophic moisture damage in every form of home construction utilized in North America from the 1850s to present day. Anecdotally the most common failure modes break down roughly thus:
1850s-1960s: Termite damage followed by rot. This time frame is notable for ready availability of dense, tightly grained building materials. Lumber from this time period shrugs off all but the most egregious wetting cycles. So what happens is high humidity attracts termites which break down the structure. This in turn gives rot a plate to establish a foothold and spread (slowly).
1970s-1990s: This period is notable for a steady decline in quality of building materials and introduction of first and second generation engineered products. First-to-market siding products, condensation issues due to the aluminum craze in the 80s, and material adhesives edging out toward the end of their life expectancy all contribute to problems with mold/rot. Looser grained building materials also mean that when a problem is present it will quickly spread to larger areas of the structure than older materials would permit under similar conditions.
2000-2010: Easily the absolute nadir of home building in the US. The industry saw a massive influx of "budget" engineered materials, with no substantive changes to code to address the deficiencies of these materials. My personal favorite from this era include OSB siding that turned into a kitchen sponge whenever the paint layer was breached.
2010-present: same as it ever was. The market is still flooded with engineered materials that have a fraction of the life expectancy of more traditional materials. Building codes have largely caught up with the obvious limitations of these materials, however now the biggest issue is as a nation we are short two full generations of trained craftspeople in the construction industry and as such installation errors are rampant. This leads to more and bigger issues, bigger abatement projects, and in significantly newer homes. Case in point: a pinhole leak in a caulk seam on a window surround that resulted in all of the structural members surrounding that window, the wall cladding, the sill beam, a section of the floor, and several joists rotting out in short order. Root cause: didn't use plywood. Engineered sheathing acted like an enormous sponge both retaining and broadcasting moisture to all of the surrounding materials.
So yeah, you're not wrong inasmuch as according to theory and per code it is within the realm of possibility to use these construction methods and materials successfully. In practice, however, the least competent subcontractor on any given jobsite presents a hard ceiling to what one can get away with. You design a fault-intolerant system that has any flavor of complexity to it's installation and odds are good someone's going to screw something up. The Achilles Heel of modern vapor tight building systems is the fact that houses leak. Either through incompetence during the initial build or breakdown of materials over time all houses leak. Whereas older construction methods would tolerate this to varying degrees, newer systems do not.
1850s-1960s: Termite damage followed by rot. This time frame is notable for ready availability of dense, tightly grained building materials. Lumber from this time period shrugs off all but the most egregious wetting cycles. So what happens is high humidity attracts termites which break down the structure. This in turn gives rot a plate to establish a foothold and spread (slowly).
1970s-1990s: This period is notable for a steady decline in quality of building materials and introduction of first and second generation engineered products. First-to-market siding products, condensation issues due to the aluminum craze in the 80s, and material adhesives edging out toward the end of their life expectancy all contribute to problems with mold/rot. Looser grained building materials also mean that when a problem is present it will quickly spread to larger areas of the structure than older materials would permit under similar conditions.
2000-2010: Easily the absolute nadir of home building in the US. The industry saw a massive influx of "budget" engineered materials, with no substantive changes to code to address the deficiencies of these materials. My personal favorite from this era include OSB siding that turned into a kitchen sponge whenever the paint layer was breached.
2010-present: same as it ever was. The market is still flooded with engineered materials that have a fraction of the life expectancy of more traditional materials. Building codes have largely caught up with the obvious limitations of these materials, however now the biggest issue is as a nation we are short two full generations of trained craftspeople in the construction industry and as such installation errors are rampant. This leads to more and bigger issues, bigger abatement projects, and in significantly newer homes. Case in point: a pinhole leak in a caulk seam on a window surround that resulted in all of the structural members surrounding that window, the wall cladding, the sill beam, a section of the floor, and several joists rotting out in short order. Root cause: didn't use plywood. Engineered sheathing acted like an enormous sponge both retaining and broadcasting moisture to all of the surrounding materials.
So yeah, you're not wrong inasmuch as according to theory and per code it is within the realm of possibility to use these construction methods and materials successfully. In practice, however, the least competent subcontractor on any given jobsite presents a hard ceiling to what one can get away with. You design a fault-intolerant system that has any flavor of complexity to it's installation and odds are good someone's going to screw something up. The Achilles Heel of modern vapor tight building systems is the fact that houses leak. Either through incompetence during the initial build or breakdown of materials over time all houses leak. Whereas older construction methods would tolerate this to varying degrees, newer systems do not.
This is fascinating stuff. So what would you do if you were building a house today?
Assuming I was building in the Southeast where I live, that someone handed me a blank check, and without drilling down to specific products?
- Hardwood timber framing
- Stone or masonry curtain wall from the foundation to the bottom of the window sills.
- Fully sealed crawlspace with inline registers broadcasting conditioned air into the space
- Insulate the curtain wall instead of the interstitial space between floor joists
- Standard soffit-to-peak venting in the attic space
- Two layers of plywood subfloor separated by a layer of tar paper
- Double layered sheetrock on all interior walls
- Wall-to-wall sheet vinyl floor treatments in all of the rooms where water is a thing.
- 3/4" hardwood flooring everywhere water isn't a thing.
- Passive/active solar combo meal on the roof to offset any efficiency losses incurred by "loose" construction methods
- Temperature & humidity sensors in the crawl space & plenum
- Wood window frames and sills. Modern plastic window frames and sills are excellent at hiding a problem until it's turned into a $50k project (see also: aluminum siding). By comparsion wood trim acts as a bellwether. I'd much rather have to scrape, recaulk, and paint a window than be looking at deconstructing an exterior wall that's rotted to the foundation.
- Hardwood timber framing
- Stone or masonry curtain wall from the foundation to the bottom of the window sills.
- Fully sealed crawlspace with inline registers broadcasting conditioned air into the space
- Insulate the curtain wall instead of the interstitial space between floor joists
- Standard soffit-to-peak venting in the attic space
- Two layers of plywood subfloor separated by a layer of tar paper
- Double layered sheetrock on all interior walls
- Wall-to-wall sheet vinyl floor treatments in all of the rooms where water is a thing.
- 3/4" hardwood flooring everywhere water isn't a thing.
- Passive/active solar combo meal on the roof to offset any efficiency losses incurred by "loose" construction methods
- Temperature & humidity sensors in the crawl space & plenum
- Wood window frames and sills. Modern plastic window frames and sills are excellent at hiding a problem until it's turned into a $50k project (see also: aluminum siding). By comparsion wood trim acts as a bellwether. I'd much rather have to scrape, recaulk, and paint a window than be looking at deconstructing an exterior wall that's rotted to the foundation.
> Wall-to-wall sheet vinyl floor treatments in all of the rooms where water is a thing.
Doesn't this risk any water that does end up getting in, to accumulate and cause more damage over time since there's no route for it to dry out?
I was always taught in my building science courses to put the water/air/vapour control layer inside the wall, before the insulation, so vapour can dry out from both sides.
Doesn't this risk any water that does end up getting in, to accumulate and cause more damage over time since there's no route for it to dry out?
I was always taught in my building science courses to put the water/air/vapour control layer inside the wall, before the insulation, so vapour can dry out from both sides.
Pretty much, yeah, but it just never becomes an issue. Folks have been using wall to wall impermeable floor treatments (hello linoleum) in kitchens and bathrooms since the 1870s so the stuff has a pretty well established track record. Vapor barrier under the house passively blocks ground moisture, conditioning systems in the crawlspace actively prevent moisture buildup, and the floor treatment rejects both vapor and spills. In practice you'll end up renoing the floor treatment decades before any problems crop up.
If you really want to rot a floor though the absolute best A+ gold star method for doing so is adding a gas log fireplace with surround. I had a house a couple years ago that had moisture from the flue pooling inside the surround and under the unit. Rotted through 3/4" red oak hardwood flooring, 2 layers of 3/4" plywood, and bit off the top 4" of the 2x8 joists under the unit. Interior space was a solid sheet of black mold. That was one of those bag-the-room negative air pressure break-out-the-space-suits jobs. Six months later I was on a job where condensation off another gas log flue pooled inside a surround and got into the OSB cladding, then wicked 9' straight up. Only time I've ever seen cedar siding actually rot. We ended up having to cut the entire fireplace surround and a portion of the roof off the side of the house and rebuild it studs and all. Never a dull moment I tell ya.
If you really want to rot a floor though the absolute best A+ gold star method for doing so is adding a gas log fireplace with surround. I had a house a couple years ago that had moisture from the flue pooling inside the surround and under the unit. Rotted through 3/4" red oak hardwood flooring, 2 layers of 3/4" plywood, and bit off the top 4" of the 2x8 joists under the unit. Interior space was a solid sheet of black mold. That was one of those bag-the-room negative air pressure break-out-the-space-suits jobs. Six months later I was on a job where condensation off another gas log flue pooled inside a surround and got into the OSB cladding, then wicked 9' straight up. Only time I've ever seen cedar siding actually rot. We ended up having to cut the entire fireplace surround and a portion of the roof off the side of the house and rebuild it studs and all. Never a dull moment I tell ya.
Cool, fascinating to get such detailed insights from actual practise.
> ... and the floor treatment rejects both vapor and spills.
That's a good point I didn't consider. Drying out the inner surface works well for interior vapour that gets into the enclosure, but won't handle spills, or standing water well.
> ... and the floor treatment rejects both vapor and spills.
That's a good point I didn't consider. Drying out the inner surface works well for interior vapour that gets into the enclosure, but won't handle spills, or standing water well.
Fascinating, I understand most of it but why vented attic vs conditioned?
Simplicity. Sealed crawlspace prevents the plenum from ingesting ground moisture, so as long the roof is maintained that space shouldn't see any significant issues at any point in the next century.
Thanks! Very interesting.
From their FAQs:
>Which material is better, ply or OSB?
>Ply is lighter and generally better structurally but more expensive. OSB is cheaper but heavier. With the recent research on WikiHouse Skylark we did test both materials, but in terms of the full spanning floor beams it’s clear ply offers advantages in terms of strength but also because it’s lighter it’s easier to move and carry. A hybrid approach is also a possibility.
>Which material is better, ply or OSB?
>Ply is lighter and generally better structurally but more expensive. OSB is cheaper but heavier. With the recent research on WikiHouse Skylark we did test both materials, but in terms of the full spanning floor beams it’s clear ply offers advantages in terms of strength but also because it’s lighter it’s easier to move and carry. A hybrid approach is also a possibility.
He's talking about the moisture resistance property of plywood over OSB. OSB absorbs moisture readily and turns into mush.
> Realisticly they almost always will be, but I would have liked to see the panels designed to be constructed a little more simply - you will always have to make changes on site.
I feel this way about the current trend in plant-based meat replacements. I’ll trust the hype about lower carbon footprint, but they take food production further into industrialisation and profit motive territory which was, in part, how we got into this environmental crisis in the first place.
I feel this way about the current trend in plant-based meat replacements. I’ll trust the hype about lower carbon footprint, but they take food production further into industrialisation and profit motive territory which was, in part, how we got into this environmental crisis in the first place.
I live in Colombia, where ag tech is a lot farther behind. The profit motive for farmers here is as strong as anywhere. They wouldn't farm if it wasn't for the money. But the lack of industrialización means that more people are invested in the activity, producing less output, and living in poverty.
Industrialized agriculture would push most people out of land (no longer need that many people), and if the people can't find alternative for living they would be even poorer. If there are better alternatives, peasant farmers will chase them anyway.
There are also better ways for agriculture which can regenerate soil, maintain biodiversity while at the same time harvest more.
There are also better ways for agriculture which can regenerate soil, maintain biodiversity while at the same time harvest more.
> Industrialized agriculture would push most people out of land (no longer need that many people), and if the people can't find alternative for living they would be even poorer.
The places where industrial agriculture has taken off, that seems not to be the story. Grandparents in China are thrilled to see their children working city jobs. It's a hard life still, but much easier than they had.
> regenerate soil, maintain biodiversity while at the same time harvest more.
I very much want those things. And corporations do sometimes make stupid decisions. But it's hard for me to believe there are such free lunches on a large scale. If there were, some enterprising soul ought to go start a business exploiting them, make a killing, put Monsanto out of business, etc.
The places where industrial agriculture has taken off, that seems not to be the story. Grandparents in China are thrilled to see their children working city jobs. It's a hard life still, but much easier than they had.
> regenerate soil, maintain biodiversity while at the same time harvest more.
I very much want those things. And corporations do sometimes make stupid decisions. But it's hard for me to believe there are such free lunches on a large scale. If there were, some enterprising soul ought to go start a business exploiting them, make a killing, put Monsanto out of business, etc.
biodiversity doesnt make you money
Also there are many potential biotech revolutions - like China developing rice that can use salt water - if our crops could use seawater like the mangroves, that wouod be huge.
Another massive thing, is perrenial crops - meaning you dont have to plant them every year. There are perrenial cousins of our staple foods like wheat, but firstly they are harder to automatically harvest/manage, secondly they do not benefit from thousands of years of selective breeding. So we gave to invest massive amounts of money to ger their yields up, and even if you do, there is no guarantee consumers will eat them - they taste a bit different
Also there are many potential biotech revolutions - like China developing rice that can use salt water - if our crops could use seawater like the mangroves, that wouod be huge.
Another massive thing, is perrenial crops - meaning you dont have to plant them every year. There are perrenial cousins of our staple foods like wheat, but firstly they are harder to automatically harvest/manage, secondly they do not benefit from thousands of years of selective breeding. So we gave to invest massive amounts of money to ger their yields up, and even if you do, there is no guarantee consumers will eat them - they taste a bit different
If they're productive enough, they'll be cheap enough that consumers will accept a little taste difference.
Fun fact: Italians hated tomatoes for centuries.
https://lithub.com/unhealthy-smelly-and-strange-why-italians...
Fun fact: Italians hated tomatoes for centuries.
https://lithub.com/unhealthy-smelly-and-strange-why-italians...
You are talking a muti-billion investment that will take decades to yield fruit, that people might hate the taste for for centuries?
When most corporate leaders don't care what happens 2 years from now?
When most corporate leaders don't care what happens 2 years from now?
How do plant-based meats take food production "further into .. profit motive territory"?
One man's environmental crisis is another man being lifted out of crushing poverty by the abundant energy and wealth produced by that same industrialization and profit motive.
Unless you think cavemen shouldn't have burned sticks for warmth out of concern for CO2 emissions, the way out for humanity will be through (further technological gains enabling more energy expended per capita, hopefully cleanly), not backwards.
Unless you think cavemen shouldn't have burned sticks for warmth out of concern for CO2 emissions, the way out for humanity will be through (further technological gains enabling more energy expended per capita, hopefully cleanly), not backwards.
> One man's environmental crisis is another man being lifted out of crushing poverty by the abundant energy and wealth produced by that same industrialization and profit motive.
The problem with that is it's only one man that gets the benefit.
Yes, I'm twisting your words a bit. The point I'm making is that these profit motives tend towards capital hoarding by individuals. _That_ process tends towards selfish decision making where the only long-term benefit is the individual and their family, often at the cost of short and long term damage or hinderance to other people and the environment. I confess I make many such decisions myself, but it's very hard not within our current economic system.
I'm not arguing for a return to some imaginary glory projected onto images from the past at all. I'm trying to feel out ideas for future systems more of us can engage with comfortably, which don't promote the double hit of individual-focused power imbalances and environmental damage.
The problem with that is it's only one man that gets the benefit.
Yes, I'm twisting your words a bit. The point I'm making is that these profit motives tend towards capital hoarding by individuals. _That_ process tends towards selfish decision making where the only long-term benefit is the individual and their family, often at the cost of short and long term damage or hinderance to other people and the environment. I confess I make many such decisions myself, but it's very hard not within our current economic system.
I'm not arguing for a return to some imaginary glory projected onto images from the past at all. I'm trying to feel out ideas for future systems more of us can engage with comfortably, which don't promote the double hit of individual-focused power imbalances and environmental damage.
Burning sticks isn't increasing the amount of carbon in the natural cycle (unlike digging up fossil fuels and burning them). Though obviously if enough people burn them faster than nature can regrow them it's still a problem, such that 8 billion of us returning to trees as our primary source of fuel would be pretty catastrophic.
OSB is a really risky thing to use, especially in environments (like England) that are constantly damp. One leak and the panel is ruined. Plywood can dry out and retain its structural integrity. Plywood is generally considered the better material for home construction for all uses, walls, roofs, subfloors. I think the majority of homes are built with OSB today and I consider it the most glaring sign that the construction is cheap and to be avoided.
I think this is overly complicating the process. If you want an open source DIY method of building a home, just learn basic framing and construction. It's not hard, lots of people have built their own homes, you just need some common sense and a willingness to learn.
If you want to go all in on modular, wood based, zero carbon housing then learn how to build a timber frame house. If you really want zero carbon you can use only hand tools and harvest your own trees.
Wikihouse seems more for people who want to buy something off the shelf, pretty much a kit house. That's not a bad thing since it takes a lot of effort to build something as big as a house and lots of people don't want to do that. But I don't think this should be sold as a solution for DIYers since the existing methods already satisfy the listed requirements.
If you want to go all in on modular, wood based, zero carbon housing then learn how to build a timber frame house. If you really want zero carbon you can use only hand tools and harvest your own trees.
Wikihouse seems more for people who want to buy something off the shelf, pretty much a kit house. That's not a bad thing since it takes a lot of effort to build something as big as a house and lots of people don't want to do that. But I don't think this should be sold as a solution for DIYers since the existing methods already satisfy the listed requirements.
I used to work as a framer during the summer when I was going to college.
What you're glossing over here is that about 10-15% of the timber you buy to frame a site-built house is wasted (ad-hoc cuts, bracing, jigs, etc.) and thrown into a dumpster.
If a house is pre-planned, you can use a machine that cuts each board to length, and join the ends of each board using basic joinery processes that aren't practical when building a site-built home. You can pre-fabricate things like trusses and wall segments so you (or your workers) aren't driving 100k fasteners to fabricate something a robot could build in 1/10th the time.
What you're glossing over here is that about 10-15% of the timber you buy to frame a site-built house is wasted (ad-hoc cuts, bracing, jigs, etc.) and thrown into a dumpster.
If a house is pre-planned, you can use a machine that cuts each board to length, and join the ends of each board using basic joinery processes that aren't practical when building a site-built home. You can pre-fabricate things like trusses and wall segments so you (or your workers) aren't driving 100k fasteners to fabricate something a robot could build in 1/10th the time.
I'm not sure recouping some of that wastage is worth the switch. You wouldn't eliminate all waste since there will always be some on site modification. I'd like to see the comparison in time spent assembling all of these individual segments vs framing a wall with an air gun. The segments look a lot more fiddly to me compared to laying out pieces on the deck and banging them together with a gun and then just standing the wall up. From their guide on the site:
> A typical WALL block weighs around 40-60kg and can generally be carried by two people.
They're a little light on detail about how these wall segments join and seal to each other so that could be a bunch more work. All this is considering you'd be able to get pre-manufactured blocks from somewhere, if you had to CNC and assemble them yourself then the labor is off the chart.
> A typical WALL block weighs around 40-60kg and can generally be carried by two people.
They're a little light on detail about how these wall segments join and seal to each other so that could be a bunch more work. All this is considering you'd be able to get pre-manufactured blocks from somewhere, if you had to CNC and assemble them yourself then the labor is off the chart.
> If a house is pre-planned, you can use a machine that cuts each board to length, and join the ends of each board using basic joinery processes that aren't practical when building a site-built home. You can pre-fabricate things like trusses and wall segments
aren't prefab trusses readily available these days? i feel like i've seen plenty of trailers hauling stacks of 10 timber trusses down the road.
we've also got prefab homes (not mobile/trailer/whatever homes), with modules assembled in factories and brought together at the site. unfortunately they seem to carry class connotations here in the US.
aren't prefab trusses readily available these days? i feel like i've seen plenty of trailers hauling stacks of 10 timber trusses down the road.
we've also got prefab homes (not mobile/trailer/whatever homes), with modules assembled in factories and brought together at the site. unfortunately they seem to carry class connotations here in the US.
A mate of mine used to work in a place that manufactured segments of regular wood framed houses. They had painted outlines on the floor, so they could cut and assemble 2x4 frames at great speed. I think you would need to make a truly massive number of these before a robot would be more cost effective. I also think that 2x4 construction would create less waste than parts CNC cut from ply sheet.
They exist and they can be designed to take advantage of things like making sure each room is designed to use full board lengths, no cuts (8 foot stud walls, for example).
yeah, prefrab trusses, prefab sip panels, modular houses, trailers and prefab houses divided up into rooms that can be trailered and joined onsite all exist
I mostly agree with you, but I like the idea of being able to give reasonably smart but unskilled people a bunch of these boxes and an Ikea-style "how to assemble this house" and telling them to get to work. Seems like it'd scale very well for situations where you have a bunch of volunteers and need to build several houses but maybe don't have many experienced builders around.
> If you really want zero carbon you can use only hand tools and harvest your own trees.
Why on earth can't power tools run off renewables? And even hand tools/nails/ bolts etc. have embedded CO2 emissions.
Why on earth can't power tools run off renewables? And even hand tools/nails/ bolts etc. have embedded CO2 emissions.
They can but can you guarantee it? Hand tools have a much smaller footprint compared to the mix of metals and plastic that go into power tools. You can buy 100 year old hand tools that work just as well as new ones too so they've got the whole recycle thing going for them.
It's too nitpick. If I think too deep, your body needs more energy if you don't use electric tools, so you need more foods to feed energy but perhaps every foods aren't carbon neutral for farming tools, fertilizer, and transportation.
any resource you'd recommend for learning framing and construction?
There's tons of material out there, you can buy a book from Amazon[0] or watch a bunch of YouTube tutorials[1]. It's best to learn by doing though so you could always volunteer[2] or take a local course.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/s?k=house+framing&crid=ZT0KPA5JG1EY&s... [1] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=house+framing [2] https://www.habitat.org/volunteer/near-you
[0] https://www.amazon.com/s?k=house+framing&crid=ZT0KPA5JG1EY&s... [1] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=house+framing [2] https://www.habitat.org/volunteer/near-you
There are also lots of folks: building their own places (search "homesteading"), commercial builders documenting/advertising their build process (Perkins Builder Brothers is decent), and pointing out small details that are easy to miss (Matt Risinger, who has a building science lean to things).
Larry Haun's book The Very Efficient Carpenter. Comes with companion videos that you can find on YouTube, as well.
https://www.shelterinstitute.com/ (timber framing especially) is one that I am aware of from a few sources over time--perhaps most notably from YouTube channel Pure Living For Life, who failed to finish building their house.
This guys channel is very approachable for amateurs
https://www.youtube.com/c/HouseImprovements/playlists
Canadian I think, but their standards seem on par or higher than the US.
https://www.youtube.com/c/HouseImprovements/playlists
Canadian I think, but their standards seem on par or higher than the US.
> If you really want zero carbon you can use only hand tools and harvest your own trees.
How is that zero carbon? That's actually higher carbon than the regular way with power tools.
Human power is very inefficient, you'll emit far more carbon because you'll need to eat more. And hand harvesting a tree is also far more wasteful of CO2.
How is that zero carbon? That's actually higher carbon than the regular way with power tools.
Human power is very inefficient, you'll emit far more carbon because you'll need to eat more. And hand harvesting a tree is also far more wasteful of CO2.
If you want to see a cool DIY property - the guy behind woodgears.ca lived on the property while his dad built a retreat/summer camp.
https://woodgears.ca/cottage/index.html
https://woodgears.ca/cottage/index.html
Thank you for posting this, it's amazing. The woodshop tour really took me back to a different era.
For envelope (floor, walls roof) key metric is $ per sq ft. Its possible to do <$10 per sq ft in most of USA. So for a 100 sq ft room it works out to 6 sq ft envelope per sq ft of floor so $60 per sq ft of floor area.
for a 500 sq ft studio that works out to $30k.
for a 500 sq ft studio that works out to $30k.
You can work out the estimates but it's often the finish stuff that drives the cost per square way up.
Build a post-frame "barn" and get a massive space with no interior walls and get it for quite cheap.
In a 2000 sq foot house, a $2k tub costs a dollar a square. That's a significant part of the total price!
Build a post-frame "barn" and get a massive space with no interior walls and get it for quite cheap.
In a 2000 sq foot house, a $2k tub costs a dollar a square. That's a significant part of the total price!
This is accurate, I've built something that size and it came out to about that.
I moved to U.S from a country where there are barely any construction regulations and brought log cabin construction skills with me. They are useless though because no municipality would allow me to do it myself without a contractor and a log house won't pass any modern construction codes.
Many areas will have relaxed codes for cabins that are only used part-time. The hard thing is that all this stuff is state-by-state and locality-by-locality, so you have to dig to find lax areas. Louisiana is particularly open for residential construction IIRC.
I'm not sure where you are located but in Northern New England this is very untrue. Maine, New Hampsire, and Vermont all have a LARGE number of diy log cabins built. I've stayed in several and I'm in the early planning of building a house (not log cabin, it's a long house with builtin green house/barn sections similar to the long house on the Apple TV show home). There are many places in the US that allow you to DIY your own home, though the majority are very rural which is a MASSIVE benefit IMO.
Very true. Where I live you need a building permit and an certified engineer to sign off plans for something as basic as a pergola.
land of the free.....:/
Free is subjective, and since there are variations of the regulations by municipality, you can choose from the spectrum of lax laws + dangerous to strict laws + safe. Your preferred location, however, may not align with your preferred regulations. Or you can do like we do here in Berkeley and build whatever you want because your neighbors also have illegal additions so they're not gonna squeal.
It's one of those things of life.
"Land of the free" doesn't mean the land is free of dickheads or immoral people who endanger others in their attempts to "get ahead".
And so laws are born...
Whether there are too many is totally a question though.
"Land of the free" doesn't mean the land is free of dickheads or immoral people who endanger others in their attempts to "get ahead".
And so laws are born...
Whether there are too many is totally a question though.
The existing methods of building houses are terrible though. It's stupidly expensive to edit a house, they're designed and built as if it's still 1800.
Why does adding a socket into a wall cost more than $50? Should be able to just open the wall panel, plug in an extra cable, close panel, done.
Why does adding a socket into a wall cost more than $50? Should be able to just open the wall panel, plug in an extra cable, close panel, done.
We see the divergence from aesthetics in wood shops, auto shops, and other building shops. Moveable panels, exposed circuitry/plumbing/gas lines. A home typically hides its utility parts behind solid objects (i.e. a wall) that need invasive cutting to reach. Even still, an electrician adds an outlet in the exact process you mention, but it's a little messier and costs $150.
Because people want nice plastered, painted and wallpapered walls?
Adding a socket is the easy bit. It's the putting everything back to how it was that's hard.
If you want plain panelled walls you could install that now. And have your $50 socket. Most people probably don't like that tradeoff.
Adding a socket is the easy bit. It's the putting everything back to how it was that's hard.
If you want plain panelled walls you could install that now. And have your $50 socket. Most people probably don't like that tradeoff.
well if they had more easily removable wall panels you could still decorate and access the inner wall
Seems strange that we'd optimize for making modifications easier, when such modifications are much fewer and farther between than the everyday living that fills the time between, during which people value a solid wall with no gaps or seams.
Of course, not everyone values the same things to the same degree, and a homeowner could cut a 4x8 piece of drywall into smaller pieces and have more easily removable panels like you're imagining.
Of course, not everyone values the same things to the same degree, and a homeowner could cut a 4x8 piece of drywall into smaller pieces and have more easily removable panels like you're imagining.
Interior ceilings are often built as modular panels for this reason, and sometimes even floors. But walls, especially exterior walls, are engineered to serve multiple functions, such as acting as a moisture, thermal, and acoustic barrier, in addition to carrying utilities and structural loads. All of this is best served by arranging, and sealing different material layers carefully within the enclosure. Within the ruthless logic of cost optimization, incorporating modularity conflicts with building-code-regulated neccessities, and will only be used by some small percent of people, for some small percent of time.
> Why does adding a socket into a wall cost more than $50? Should be able to just open the wall panel, plug in an extra cable, close panel, done.
what are you envisioning? using cheap consumer power cables inside of walls, and paying extra to have unused sockets hidden away inside of walls for years/decades, just so that it's fast to add an outlet?
we use screw terminals inside of the wall because they're cheaper and more reliable than the socketed connections. and we use heavy gauge cable with thick jackets for safety.
what are you envisioning? using cheap consumer power cables inside of walls, and paying extra to have unused sockets hidden away inside of walls for years/decades, just so that it's fast to add an outlet?
we use screw terminals inside of the wall because they're cheaper and more reliable than the socketed connections. and we use heavy gauge cable with thick jackets for safety.
2 parts, walls should be easier to open and close, that's the major point
Secondly a minor addition, if there were a standard for junctions of power cables, so they could easily be added to, that would be nice.
Then installing a socket would be: open wall, connect socket you just bought with standard junction connectors, close wall. $50
Rather than: cut a load of holes in walls, connect socket using annoying wiring techniques, fill in holes you made, plaster and repaint so that next time it'll cost all that money again. >>>$50
Secondly a minor addition, if there were a standard for junctions of power cables, so they could easily be added to, that would be nice.
Then installing a socket would be: open wall, connect socket you just bought with standard junction connectors, close wall. $50
Rather than: cut a load of holes in walls, connect socket using annoying wiring techniques, fill in holes you made, plaster and repaint so that next time it'll cost all that money again. >>>$50
It still would in this system, the website states that you still need to add "plaster panels" or drywall if you're in the US which means everything will be taped, mudded and painted.
If you want easily accessible utilities then there are ways to build to code where all of that is visible and accessible, it just won't be pretty. Aesthetics or utility, pick one.
If you want easily accessible utilities then there are ways to build to code where all of that is visible and accessible, it just won't be pretty. Aesthetics or utility, pick one.
Related:
Facit Homes, Wikihouse, and the Plywood Frame - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27666320 - June 2021 (33 comments)
WikiHouse – Open source buildings and interiors for self-build - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13856917 - March 2017 (53 comments)
The WikiHouse chassis system [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13029982 - Nov 2016 (1 comment)
WikiHouse's DIY kits are the open-source way to build a house - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5768030 - May 2013 (3 comments)
Facit Homes, Wikihouse, and the Plywood Frame - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27666320 - June 2021 (33 comments)
WikiHouse – Open source buildings and interiors for self-build - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13856917 - March 2017 (53 comments)
The WikiHouse chassis system [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13029982 - Nov 2016 (1 comment)
WikiHouse's DIY kits are the open-source way to build a house - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5768030 - May 2013 (3 comments)
Stick based construction is already incredibly time, resource, and labor efficient.
SIPs are neat (https://www.sips.org/what-are-sips), but even they are an added cost.
Dirt-based construction is an intriguing idea, but generally you are trading materials cost (which is already relatively low) for quite a bit of labor cost.
A system that cheaply allows for enduring dirt-based construction would be an interesting advancement, but I'm not sure how universal that system would be.
SIPs are neat (https://www.sips.org/what-are-sips), but even they are an added cost.
Dirt-based construction is an intriguing idea, but generally you are trading materials cost (which is already relatively low) for quite a bit of labor cost.
A system that cheaply allows for enduring dirt-based construction would be an interesting advancement, but I'm not sure how universal that system would be.
This is a neat project from a design/engineering viewpoint, but it seems it's addressing the 'problem' of "houses look hard to make; how can it look like something I can do?" Same reason I'm skeptical of 3D printed houses.
We had looked into SIPs for our relatively fancy house, but budget won out. There are lots of neat building solutions that cost too much. If you think labor costs are high, wait til you try to find someone who will learn a new system.
Construction cost is not the reason that housing supply is tight—but engineers don't have as much fun fighting for better zoning policy.
We had looked into SIPs for our relatively fancy house, but budget won out. There are lots of neat building solutions that cost too much. If you think labor costs are high, wait til you try to find someone who will learn a new system.
Construction cost is not the reason that housing supply is tight—but engineers don't have as much fun fighting for better zoning policy.
This is basically available, but no one offers the service.
https://www.opensourceecology.org/
There is just too much labor involved for the material savings unless you are in the third world.
Bagged earth construction is similarly cost effective given a cheap labor force.
https://www.opensourceecology.org/
There is just too much labor involved for the material savings unless you are in the third world.
Bagged earth construction is similarly cost effective given a cheap labor force.
Bagged earth construction is great, however you are adding a TON of labor. So much so that in a developed country you might as well just use brick construction because it will be cheaper.
In addition, in my area I would have to have my dirt amended because we have very sandy soil, but I don't know by how much because a few feet down that sandy soil turns to clay.
They have some mobile dirt brick factory machines, but those seem to be home-built prototypes for the most part.
In addition, in my area I would have to have my dirt amended because we have very sandy soil, but I don't know by how much because a few feet down that sandy soil turns to clay.
They have some mobile dirt brick factory machines, but those seem to be home-built prototypes for the most part.
> cheaply allows for enduring dirt-based construction would be an interesting advancement,
you wouldn't mean clay brick, would you? I see some of the advantages, but want to be pendantic about calling a 10K old technology an 'advancement'
you wouldn't mean clay brick, would you? I see some of the advantages, but want to be pendantic about calling a 10K old technology an 'advancement'
Unfired clay brick production is incredibly labor intensive, and generally you'll want to produce those bricks on-site because they don't transport well.
My first impressions are favourable. There are contraints though, as the design guide acknowledges:
> WikiHouse is intended for buildings of up to 3 storeys. This covers 95% of all buildings, and allows gentle density neighbourhoods of up to around 75 dwellings per hectare.
> The main constraint on height is not gravity, but wind. In high winds, lightweight structures are more prone to slight lateral flexing, which is not allowed within most building codes. Further structural research and testing is ongoing.
> WikiHouse is intended for buildings of up to 3 storeys. This covers 95% of all buildings, and allows gentle density neighbourhoods of up to around 75 dwellings per hectare.
> The main constraint on height is not gravity, but wind. In high winds, lightweight structures are more prone to slight lateral flexing, which is not allowed within most building codes. Further structural research and testing is ongoing.
I'm kinda curious about this. Under the International Building Code, you can build wood frame buildings up to 6 storeys tall [0]. Granted, this is not actually wood frame construction, but I don't see why a building built this way would be any less structurally sound than a traditionally built wood frame building.
---
[0]: https://seagatemasstimber.com/how-tall-are-tall-wood-buildin...
---
[0]: https://seagatemasstimber.com/how-tall-are-tall-wood-buildin...
Maybe it has to do with lack of bracing? When my home was being built I noticed lots of metal straps going between studs in an X-formation. I wonder if that was to make lots of triangles to add rigidity?
Yes.
This can also be provided by sheet materials like plywood, securely attached, providing diagonal structure preventing racking of the frame.
In older houses, sheathed with one inch by eight or ten or twelve inch boards, diagonal wood bracing was cut into the two by four inch wall studs for diagonal bracing and structure.
This can also be provided by sheet materials like plywood, securely attached, providing diagonal structure preventing racking of the frame.
In older houses, sheathed with one inch by eight or ten or twelve inch boards, diagonal wood bracing was cut into the two by four inch wall studs for diagonal bracing and structure.
You can built wood frame buildings much taller. And wood framing is stiffer especially if you are using mass timber.
This is interesting. The Walter Segal self-build method is another approach that aims to use common materials (lumber, plywood, insulation) with little cutting so as to reduce labor and allow for later disassembly+reuse.
https://theprepared.org/features-feed/segal-method
With many of these less common methods it's more work to show safety, code compliance, etc. For example the Segal method doesn't really allow for modern levels of air sealing and insulation.
https://theprepared.org/features-feed/segal-method
With many of these less common methods it's more work to show safety, code compliance, etc. For example the Segal method doesn't really allow for modern levels of air sealing and insulation.
Seagal's designs are fantastic. His approach is more convincing in terms of fab methods/cost and looks a little less standardised compared to wikihouse imo.
His approach is pretty well proven in that some of the buildings have been standing over 40 years which seems long enough to find most of the issues. Insulation/sealing and permitting are the two I know about, at least at house scale, but If I needed a temporary storage shed it would be a great way to build & be able to dismantle later.
Frame is just a small part of the cost and complexity of building a house. Considering you still need the CNC, and expensive materials, and a contractor, this doesn't seem like a win.
On the contrary, I'd rather see more open designs for modern post-frame homes. They're lighter, cheaper, simpler, faster, and provide some design benefits. The only real downside is zoning needs to catch up.
On the contrary, I'd rather see more open designs for modern post-frame homes. They're lighter, cheaper, simpler, faster, and provide some design benefits. The only real downside is zoning needs to catch up.
One of these went up near me. Pretty cool. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfTkW87vmUQ
The resources I could find that reference this indicate that they needed 30k £ to finish the interior--the same page indicates they were fund-raising 190k £, and the charity that operates on about ~214k £ a year.
Do you have any inductions on the cost of this building?
Do you have any inductions on the cost of this building?
I don't see any toilets, kitchen, electrical stuff in that time-lapse. It looks more like a shed than a house :-)
I'm still surprised that no one has made a CNC specifically designed to be:
- carried on a truck - used while in place on the truck or is easily removed from it and then set up - which has an interface suited to a job site in terms of setting up a design and cutting
The Shapr3D seems to get some jobsite use, and there is at least one digital saw where one plugs in a dimension and the stop moves to the correct position for the cut --- the Yeti SmartBench seems like it might be a contender in this space, but still not seeing the CAD/CAM interface which would make it workable.
Really miss Saltire's SketchRight and FutureWave's SmartSketch for quick jobsite sketches.
- carried on a truck - used while in place on the truck or is easily removed from it and then set up - which has an interface suited to a job site in terms of setting up a design and cutting
The Shapr3D seems to get some jobsite use, and there is at least one digital saw where one plugs in a dimension and the stop moves to the correct position for the cut --- the Yeti SmartBench seems like it might be a contender in this space, but still not seeing the CAD/CAM interface which would make it workable.
Really miss Saltire's SketchRight and FutureWave's SmartSketch for quick jobsite sketches.
This is something I'm really hoping will take off when electrified trucks become more common. With an electric truck you have an enormous amount of power ready to go for having something like a bed-mounted CNC in the back.
The next phase for something like this--to bring more utility--is to make a CNC with an automatic feeder and ejector. That way you could put a stack of 4x8ft plywood in one side and get finished parts out the other end. Presumably at the speed at which a worker can take the finished part, install it, and come back for the next one.
The first use I'd imagine for something like that would be custom crown molding, drywall with electrical and plumbing holes pre-cut, perfectly-sized shims and frames for anything and everything, turning regular floor boards into snap-lock flooring, shelving and cabinetry, and other housing materials that could be made on-site if it were not for the complexity/detail.
The next phase for something like this--to bring more utility--is to make a CNC with an automatic feeder and ejector. That way you could put a stack of 4x8ft plywood in one side and get finished parts out the other end. Presumably at the speed at which a worker can take the finished part, install it, and come back for the next one.
The first use I'd imagine for something like that would be custom crown molding, drywall with electrical and plumbing holes pre-cut, perfectly-sized shims and frames for anything and everything, turning regular floor boards into snap-lock flooring, shelving and cabinetry, and other housing materials that could be made on-site if it were not for the complexity/detail.
Festool bought Shapr and their TS saw sounds like what you’re describing. Both can be used but that’s really finish carpentry.
One reason I can think of why they’re not used during regular carpentry/building a home is the time it takes to setup. It’s much faster to measure, mark, cut vs setting up a CNC equivalent.
One reason I can think of why they’re not used during regular carpentry/building a home is the time it takes to setup. It’s much faster to measure, mark, cut vs setting up a CNC equivalent.
I remember a friend mentioning a client of his with a cnc mounted in a container to work on site (for building projects, similar if not wikihouse). Container could go anywhere the truck would.
There was a "Grand Designs" episode (UK TV show) where they used exactly that.
A bit of search turns up this link: https://www.facit-homes.com/post/we-re-back-on-site-manufact...
A bit of search turns up this link: https://www.facit-homes.com/post/we-re-back-on-site-manufact...
This isn't my field but I'm assuming there are size/width constraints to the "carried on a truck" CNC machine. Of course it's possible but the width for a trailerable load is around 10' which may be quite limiting for residential structures. At that limit prefab units may seem more practical?
I find the CNC housing idea interesting but similar to EVs (in the past) it needs to catch on
> the width for a trailerable load is around 10'
Ahh but the maximum height is 14'! Well, on most roads and Federal highways anyway (plan your route!).
Also, the maximum trailer width is actually 12' with a realistic payload for non-flatbed of around 11'. The maximum width that'll fit in the bed in your typical American pickup truck is around 5-5.5'.
Ahh but the maximum height is 14'! Well, on most roads and Federal highways anyway (plan your route!).
Also, the maximum trailer width is actually 12' with a realistic payload for non-flatbed of around 11'. The maximum width that'll fit in the bed in your typical American pickup truck is around 5-5.5'.
Do sheet materials ever come in larger sizes than 4' x 8'? The CNC wouldn't need to be much larger than the largest sheet it could cut.
Drywall is commonly available at any home center in 4'x12', and available in 4'x16' sizes.
I believe metals can or do - thicker gauge can’t be rolled up but assume it’s oriented vertically for shipping
Baltic Birch is 5'x5' (but it's more typically used for furniture)
This looks neat, but having to submit a structural engineer's inspection report before they sell you the materials is absurd.
That seems specific to how mortgages work in the UK
This is cool. The model of distributed local fabrication is one that I think we’ll see more of in future as automation becomes more capable and cheaper.
This seems to fix one of the big problems with pre-fab houses, that they are expensive to ship long distances, and therefore can’t benefit from economy-of-scale centralized manufacturing.
This seems to fix one of the big problems with pre-fab houses, that they are expensive to ship long distances, and therefore can’t benefit from economy-of-scale centralized manufacturing.
If I was designing this, I would only have a small set of "SKUs" with minimal customization, and then go all out on economies of scale.
If 10% of houses switched to a single "system" with a small set of SKUs, such that everything is optmized for manufacturing, shipping and assembly - you could reduce the cost of construction significantly. This is basically an extension of the IKEA model for the house itself instead of just the furniture.
If 10% of houses switched to a single "system" with a small set of SKUs, such that everything is optmized for manufacturing, shipping and assembly - you could reduce the cost of construction significantly. This is basically an extension of the IKEA model for the house itself instead of just the furniture.
So we used WikiHouse construction to build a community centre in our local park. You can see a timelapse here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfTkW87vmUQ
Took 4 people 6 days to build it. Slotted together like lego, it was quite something to watch.
Took 4 people 6 days to build it. Slotted together like lego, it was quite something to watch.
Another interesting option is Earthships: https://earthshipstore.com/collections/construction-drawings...
MMM, I might just have to build a home office away from the house with WikiHouse! I've been dreaming of something like this!
Genuine question, other than the cover hero image title, where does it explain how come this is zero carbon?
Wow, this can be a great foundation for open source bike and motorcycle communicator intercom [1].
Does this support mesh networking to extend the coverage?
[1]FreedConn:
https://en.fdcdz.com/
Does this support mesh networking to extend the coverage?
[1]FreedConn:
https://en.fdcdz.com/
how is this zero carbon? logging is very carbon intensive. and, i'm not an expert, but from what i've read as a layperson, doesn't removing trees cause a loss of the carbon that's stored in the soil?
Is it? The first study I found showed some extra carbon storage, but the 95 CI includes 0
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339956316_The_lifec...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339956316_The_lifec...
that's interesting, i'll take a deeper look later. if only i had bookmarked all the studies i've come across. i have an interest in woodland so i've been curious to learn about this and my (layperson) takeway is that logging adds a lot of carbon to the atmosphere. also, the soil stores a lot of carbon, and when you log trees, you degrade the soil and cause loss of stored carbon. (but i'm far from a scientist, just waiting for somebody who knows what they're talking about to chime in.)
Looking further it seems like there's a lot of logging practices that are worse than performing no action (assuming that the biomass provided doesn't offset something else, e.g. prevents coal from being burnt)
Isn't the majority of carbon in a tree coming from the air, not soil? I could imagine it removes nutrients though.
the wood will usually be replanted, if they do it properly. But the basement it stands on- it still cement.
The physical world is headed in the same direction as the internet. In 20 years, the built environment is going to be entirely comprised of identical materials and trademarked by a tiny handful of monopoly companies.
You forgot "ridiculously expensive." I got excited by this project several years ago, but like most of its sort: it's completely inaccessible for what it is.
It's open source; I wonder if competition and innovation will bring the cost down over time.
One obvious way to do that is to build one, or a few, giant centralized plants that pump out a zillion of these each year, i.e. economies of scale. Like Honda Civic cars or Lego blocks (which also are machined with tight tolerances).
Yes, I know that the founders want these to be manufactured in a decentralized way, all over the world, but that's not how economies of scale work. Systems that can be run decentralized (e.g. email, Bitcoin mining) often end up becoming centralized anyway.
One obvious way to do that is to build one, or a few, giant centralized plants that pump out a zillion of these each year, i.e. economies of scale. Like Honda Civic cars or Lego blocks (which also are machined with tight tolerances).
Yes, I know that the founders want these to be manufactured in a decentralized way, all over the world, but that's not how economies of scale work. Systems that can be run decentralized (e.g. email, Bitcoin mining) often end up becoming centralized anyway.
Framing out a house with construction lumber is “open source” too. Vastly simpler and cheaper than lock-together blocks made out of relatively complex materials like sheet goods. In a pinch, you can fell trees and process them with hand tools using methods refined over many, many generations.
In other words, stick construction has been public domain for so long that it would be impossible to even acknowledge its creator and significant contributors.
In other words, stick construction has been public domain for so long that it would be impossible to even acknowledge its creator and significant contributors.
Been re-reading Walden ( https://www.gutenberg.org/files/205/205-h/205-h.htm ) lately, so eyeopening compared to our strange "modern" world:
> And when the farmer has got his house, he may not be the richer but the poorer for it, and it be the house that has got him.
> It is possible to invent a house still more convenient and luxurious than we have, which yet all would admit that man could not afford to pay for. Shall we always study to obtain more of these things, and not sometimes to be content with less? Shall the respectable citizen thus gravely teach, by precept and example, the necessity of the young man’s providing a certain number of superfluous glow-shoes, and umbrellas, and empty guest chambers for empty guests, before he dies?
And the coup de grace, his own accounting of building his own house:
> The exact cost of my house, paying the usual price for such materials as I used, but not counting the work, all of which was done by myself, was as follows; and I give the details because very few are able to tell exactly what their houses cost, and fewer still, if any, the separate cost of the various materials which compose them:—
> Boards.......................... $ 8.03½, mostly shanty boards.
> Refuse shingles for roof sides,.. 4.00
> Laths,........................... 1.25
> Two second-hand windows with glass,................... 2.43
> One thousand old brick,.......... 4.00
> Two casks of lime,............... 2.40 That was high.
> Hair,............................ 0.31 More than I needed.
> Mantle-tree iron,................ 0.15
> Nails,........................... 3.90
> Hinges and screws,............... 0.14
> Latch,........................... 0.10
> Chalk,........................... 0.01
> Transportation,.................. 1.40 I carried a good part on my back.
> In all,..................... $28.12½
> These are all the materials excepting the timber stones and sand, which I claimed by squatter’s right. I have also a small wood-shed adjoining, made chiefly of the stuff which was left after building the house.
> I intend to build me a house which will surpass any on the main street in Concord in grandeur and luxury, as soon as it pleases me as much and will cost me no more than my present one.
> And when the farmer has got his house, he may not be the richer but the poorer for it, and it be the house that has got him.
> It is possible to invent a house still more convenient and luxurious than we have, which yet all would admit that man could not afford to pay for. Shall we always study to obtain more of these things, and not sometimes to be content with less? Shall the respectable citizen thus gravely teach, by precept and example, the necessity of the young man’s providing a certain number of superfluous glow-shoes, and umbrellas, and empty guest chambers for empty guests, before he dies?
And the coup de grace, his own accounting of building his own house:
> The exact cost of my house, paying the usual price for such materials as I used, but not counting the work, all of which was done by myself, was as follows; and I give the details because very few are able to tell exactly what their houses cost, and fewer still, if any, the separate cost of the various materials which compose them:—
> Boards.......................... $ 8.03½, mostly shanty boards.
> Refuse shingles for roof sides,.. 4.00
> Laths,........................... 1.25
> Two second-hand windows with glass,................... 2.43
> One thousand old brick,.......... 4.00
> Two casks of lime,............... 2.40 That was high.
> Hair,............................ 0.31 More than I needed.
> Mantle-tree iron,................ 0.15
> Nails,........................... 3.90
> Hinges and screws,............... 0.14
> Latch,........................... 0.10
> Chalk,........................... 0.01
> Transportation,.................. 1.40 I carried a good part on my back.
> In all,..................... $28.12½
> These are all the materials excepting the timber stones and sand, which I claimed by squatter’s right. I have also a small wood-shed adjoining, made chiefly of the stuff which was left after building the house.
> I intend to build me a house which will surpass any on the main street in Concord in grandeur and luxury, as soon as it pleases me as much and will cost me no more than my present one.
If wood-based housing can be considered "zero carbon", I must be confused about the definition of "zero carbon".
I'm not sure what you are referring to but the carbon in the wood of a house is effectively sequestered.
I've heard the equivalent amount of hemp made into boards holds 60% more carbon than tree wood so perhaps that would be better, depending on the carbon required to convert the hemp to usable lumber.
I've heard the equivalent amount of hemp made into boards holds 60% more carbon than tree wood so perhaps that would be better, depending on the carbon required to convert the hemp to usable lumber.
Does anyone know of a similar project for garden offices?
Tuff sheds (no affiliation) are inexpensive. My 12'x16' cost ~$6k a few years ago. Hire a contractor to finish the interior.
[deleted]
I have questions on fire safety. I lost some close friends recently to a fire. I had never thought about it before.
most buildings in america today are wood frame, this is likely no better or worse. it is more important to consider what you put in the building, have a good electrician do the wiring, and design your layout and exits to fire code compliance.
All wood frame is not equivalent. Modern stick framing is designed to slow the spread of flame both with how the wood is used (see modern stick framing vs balloon framing) and the other materials chosen (drywall is fairly nonflammable, whereas this seems to use plywood walls). I’m not saying this is better or worse (it might be that all the insulation significantly slows the spread of flame?), but they haven’t really discussed the fire safety implications of their design that I can see.
To quote their FAQs:
>Is it firesafe?
>WikiHouse is not really any different from most kinds of 1-3 storey buildings with timber roof, floors, or internal walls, in that the building needs to be designed with adequate means of escape, and the chassis needs to be reasonably protected from catching fire. This can usually be achieved either with a plasterboard internal lining, by using a non-toxic fire protection coating, or by installing a basic sprinkler system.
>If you are building several adjacent houses, located close together in a row, you will usually need to use an external fire barrier material to prevent fire spreading from one building to the next.
>Is it firesafe?
>WikiHouse is not really any different from most kinds of 1-3 storey buildings with timber roof, floors, or internal walls, in that the building needs to be designed with adequate means of escape, and the chassis needs to be reasonably protected from catching fire. This can usually be achieved either with a plasterboard internal lining, by using a non-toxic fire protection coating, or by installing a basic sprinkler system.
>If you are building several adjacent houses, located close together in a row, you will usually need to use an external fire barrier material to prevent fire spreading from one building to the next.
They probably would use fire retardant timber/plywood. There is a pretty cool office building in Barcelona (still under construction I believe?) entirely made of wood that uses this kind of treated wood: https://wittywood.es/en/
By the looks of it they also rely on oversizing the columns and beams to achieve fire retardation.
This is known as mass timber.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wooden-skyscrapers-are-on-the-r...
https://www.thinkwood.com/mass-timber
https://www.naturallywood.com/topics/mass-timber/
https://www.ijpr.org/housing/2022-09-04/oregons-mass-timber-...
And regarding fire retardation - Cross Laminated Timber Fire Testing from the Forest Products Laboratory and US Forest Service - https://youtu.be/HuVTCOmRGd0
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wooden-skyscrapers-are-on-the-r...
https://www.thinkwood.com/mass-timber
https://www.naturallywood.com/topics/mass-timber/
https://www.ijpr.org/housing/2022-09-04/oregons-mass-timber-...
And regarding fire retardation - Cross Laminated Timber Fire Testing from the Forest Products Laboratory and US Forest Service - https://youtu.be/HuVTCOmRGd0
yes, you're absolutely right, I couldn't find the right term for it.
unfortunately it works at the cost of 2x or 3x the raw materials it would normally take.
It represents a sequestration of carbon whereas the cement in a traditional cement framework building represents significant portion of the carbon footprint.
As to the cost - https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/62676
> Based on commercial construction cost data from the RSMeans database, a mass timber building design is estimated to have 26 percent higher front-end costs than its concrete alternative.
And from the paper:
> The resulting TLCCs of the two buildings under these scenarios are shown in Table 6 and Figure 5. From the results of these scenarios, it was found that the TLCC for the mass timber building would have a cost advantage with its longer life span (100 yr) than the concrete alternative (75 yr) when other factors are the same (see Scenario S0 and S4), and the higher front-end cost (value) showed an even greater advantage of 7.0 percent difference (Scenario S4). When the life spans of the two buildings were the same, the end-of-life cost or value of the mass timber building was not able to be offset by the higher front-end costs (see Scenario S1 [12%], S2 [6.7%], and S3 [5.9%]). In this case study, the two buildings were designed to be functionally equivalent. Thus, we assumed the same operational utility and maintenance during the building-use stage. No impact from these parts were considered in the TLCC calculations on the cost- performance for the comparison of the two buildings. But if there are energy savings discovered in the new mass timber buildings, the LCC analysis would reveal more cost benefits (Liang et al. 2019).
I can't find any sources that agree with your cost assessment... instead: https://www.bdcnetwork.com/5-myths-about-cross-laminated-tim...
> When considering the total in-place value of a CLT system, it is cost competitive to other plate building materials. But you also need to consider all the value added benefits:
> • More savings can be found in the reduced installation cost, usually 50% cheaper than installing other plate materials.
> • With an earlier project completion date, you are open for business sometimes months ahead of schedule.
> • The building structure will weigh less than half the weight of other construction types, so the foundation costs less money.
> • Job site safety is dramatically increased due to the prefabricated CLT panels and usually the only power tools are pneumatic drills.
> The intent of cross laminated timber is not to replace light-frame construction, but rather to offer a versatile, low-carbon, and cost-competitive wood-based solution that complements the existing light frame and heavy timber options while offering a suitable candidate for some applications that currently use concrete, masonry, and steel.
As to the cost - https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/62676
> Based on commercial construction cost data from the RSMeans database, a mass timber building design is estimated to have 26 percent higher front-end costs than its concrete alternative.
And from the paper:
> The resulting TLCCs of the two buildings under these scenarios are shown in Table 6 and Figure 5. From the results of these scenarios, it was found that the TLCC for the mass timber building would have a cost advantage with its longer life span (100 yr) than the concrete alternative (75 yr) when other factors are the same (see Scenario S0 and S4), and the higher front-end cost (value) showed an even greater advantage of 7.0 percent difference (Scenario S4). When the life spans of the two buildings were the same, the end-of-life cost or value of the mass timber building was not able to be offset by the higher front-end costs (see Scenario S1 [12%], S2 [6.7%], and S3 [5.9%]). In this case study, the two buildings were designed to be functionally equivalent. Thus, we assumed the same operational utility and maintenance during the building-use stage. No impact from these parts were considered in the TLCC calculations on the cost- performance for the comparison of the two buildings. But if there are energy savings discovered in the new mass timber buildings, the LCC analysis would reveal more cost benefits (Liang et al. 2019).
I can't find any sources that agree with your cost assessment... instead: https://www.bdcnetwork.com/5-myths-about-cross-laminated-tim...
> When considering the total in-place value of a CLT system, it is cost competitive to other plate building materials. But you also need to consider all the value added benefits:
> • More savings can be found in the reduced installation cost, usually 50% cheaper than installing other plate materials.
> • With an earlier project completion date, you are open for business sometimes months ahead of schedule.
> • The building structure will weigh less than half the weight of other construction types, so the foundation costs less money.
> • Job site safety is dramatically increased due to the prefabricated CLT panels and usually the only power tools are pneumatic drills.
> The intent of cross laminated timber is not to replace light-frame construction, but rather to offer a versatile, low-carbon, and cost-competitive wood-based solution that complements the existing light frame and heavy timber options while offering a suitable candidate for some applications that currently use concrete, masonry, and steel.
sorry for my careless reply to OP. I meant that e.g. a beam that would usually be 10x20" (totally made up numbers) without taking into consideration fire, would have to be 15x30" to have the required fire rating (say 1 hour or whatever it should be). Thus every structural element has to be larger than it would be when taking into consideration only earthquakes or wind/snow loads.
Regarding mass timber in a seismic area - http://nheri.ucsd.edu/projects/2017-development-validation-s... and http://nheritallwood.mines.edu
And the beam size gets into "don't design a concrete building and swap in mass timber". https://www.woodworks.org/resources/creating-efficient-struc...
Another aspect to the beams is that the structural elements are often left bare for aesthetics ( https://uploads.map-dynamics.com/0518_Structurlam-U.S.-Mass-... ).
Table 6 in https://www.structurlam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Struc... gets into the snow loads and I don't know enough engineering to be able to do a comparison between mass timber and other building approaches.
The main thing to consider is this isn't a "it costs 2x" or "it uses 2x more materials" because they are different materials with different designs. If comparisons are to be done, they should be done at the building level ("it cost X to make a N story building with M square feet per floor" and "building A had a sustainability rating of P while building B was rated at Q with a difference in cost of Z%").
And the beam size gets into "don't design a concrete building and swap in mass timber". https://www.woodworks.org/resources/creating-efficient-struc...
Another aspect to the beams is that the structural elements are often left bare for aesthetics ( https://uploads.map-dynamics.com/0518_Structurlam-U.S.-Mass-... ).
Table 6 in https://www.structurlam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Struc... gets into the snow loads and I don't know enough engineering to be able to do a comparison between mass timber and other building approaches.
The main thing to consider is this isn't a "it costs 2x" or "it uses 2x more materials" because they are different materials with different designs. If comparisons are to be done, they should be done at the building level ("it cost X to make a N story building with M square feet per floor" and "building A had a sustainability rating of P while building B was rated at Q with a difference in cost of Z%").
Sorry to hear that! Valid point ofc, I would like to see if they have addressed that with the wooden build. BTW the plans can be made using non-wooden materials or limited wood but this may change the zero carbon status/ease of fabrication.
Doesn't seem incompatible.
The use of "Carbon negative" really grinds my gears. Carbon negative would mean that by building this house, you actually remove carbon from the atmosphere. No, you don't remove CO2 from the atmosphere by buliding this house.
Yes, trees remove carbon, but now you've just cut them down and released a bunch of carbon in that process (plus all the CO2 you emit, you know, building the actual house).
Edit: Ok, looking more through their website I came across this: https://www.wikihouse.cc/product They say that the upfront carbon cost of building a WikiHouse is - 17T CO2, compared to a normal house of + 30T CO2. This is so fucking misleading, I've just lost all respect for the makers of this. I think it's a great project, but once you start bullshitting like this, you can get the hell out.
Yes, trees remove carbon, but now you've just cut them down and released a bunch of carbon in that process (plus all the CO2 you emit, you know, building the actual house).
Edit: Ok, looking more through their website I came across this: https://www.wikihouse.cc/product They say that the upfront carbon cost of building a WikiHouse is - 17T CO2, compared to a normal house of + 30T CO2. This is so fucking misleading, I've just lost all respect for the makers of this. I think it's a great project, but once you start bullshitting like this, you can get the hell out.
The carbon sequestered by the trees is now in the building materials. The space the trees were in will now have more trees grown in them.
The carbon from the trees is now not in the atmosphere, it's in the wood components, and won't be in the atmosphere until the wood components reach end of life and are burned/rotted/whatever.
So yes, carbon has been removed from the atmosphere. I don't understand the objection.
The carbon from the trees is now not in the atmosphere, it's in the wood components, and won't be in the atmosphere until the wood components reach end of life and are burned/rotted/whatever.
So yes, carbon has been removed from the atmosphere. I don't understand the objection.
> The carbon sequestered by the trees is now in the building materials.
If X amount of carbon was in the trees, X amount of carbon is now in the building materials (at best). There's no further removal of carbon from the atmosphere by this alone. And all of the future carbon the trees would have sequestered is now not going to be sequestered by those trees. So more likely carbon positive than negative.
> The space the trees were in will now have more trees grown in them.
That's an assumption. And even if it were true, those trees would take years to begin to sequester the same amount of carbon that the previously existing trees did. And even then, it's not obvious that those new trees would sequester more carbon than the previous trees would have had they been allowed to continue growing.
Plus if you're going to say that building with blocks is carbon negative, you're going to have to talk about how those trees get turned into blocks, and how the overall process including that, is somehow carbon negative.
If X amount of carbon was in the trees, X amount of carbon is now in the building materials (at best). There's no further removal of carbon from the atmosphere by this alone. And all of the future carbon the trees would have sequestered is now not going to be sequestered by those trees. So more likely carbon positive than negative.
> The space the trees were in will now have more trees grown in them.
That's an assumption. And even if it were true, those trees would take years to begin to sequester the same amount of carbon that the previously existing trees did. And even then, it's not obvious that those new trees would sequester more carbon than the previous trees would have had they been allowed to continue growing.
Plus if you're going to say that building with blocks is carbon negative, you're going to have to talk about how those trees get turned into blocks, and how the overall process including that, is somehow carbon negative.
> And even if it were true, those trees would take years to begin to sequester the same amount of carbon that the previously existing trees did.
It sounds like you might be making a stock vs flow error here. Or I could be misunderstanding you.
> And even then, it's not obvious that those new trees would sequester more carbon than the previous trees would have had they been allowed to continue growing.
1. Trees slow as they grow (after a certain point).
2. Commercial tree farms exist to grow trees. If they weren't growing trees for consumption, something else would be done with that land.
It sounds like you might be making a stock vs flow error here. Or I could be misunderstanding you.
> And even then, it's not obvious that those new trees would sequester more carbon than the previous trees would have had they been allowed to continue growing.
1. Trees slow as they grow (after a certain point).
2. Commercial tree farms exist to grow trees. If they weren't growing trees for consumption, something else would be done with that land.
> Commercial tree farms exist to grow trees. If they weren't growing trees for consumption, something else would be done with that land
Yes, for example let the natural vegetation take over, increase biodiversity, and sequester more carbon thanks to the increased biodiversity and better soil than fucking tree farms.
Yes, for example let the natural vegetation take over, increase biodiversity, and sequester more carbon thanks to the increased biodiversity and better soil than fucking tree farms.
- Plantations aren't worse for the soil than native vegetation most of the time. Sometimes they can be better for it.
- A lot of the time plantations are planted on less productive farmland. - Not all plantations will naturally regenerate quickly back to native vegetation.
- Those trees were planted for a reason and a lot of plantations are planted on degraded farmland or scrubland.
- A lot of the time plantations are planted on less productive farmland. - Not all plantations will naturally regenerate quickly back to native vegetation.
- Those trees were planted for a reason and a lot of plantations are planted on degraded farmland or scrubland.
My understanding is that older trees have accelerated carbon uptake (because of more surface area to do photosynthesis), but younger trees can be grown more closely together, increasing the total efficiency. It does seem be to unclear which approach is ultimately "better".
> That's an assumption. And even if it were true, those trees would take years to begin to sequester the same amount of carbon that the previously existing trees did. And even then, it's not obvious that those new trees would sequester more carbon than the previous trees would have had they been allowed to continue growing.
It's a very safe assumption
It's a very safe assumption
By “sequestering” the carbon in building materials, we’re merely kicking the can down the road by 20-30 years. At which point the house is torn down and goes off to the dump to rot away as normal.
And we’re already doing this for centuries - using wood for making buildings - so we’re merely continuing the status quo, not magically putting more carbon away suddenly.
And we’re already doing this for centuries - using wood for making buildings - so we’re merely continuing the status quo, not magically putting more carbon away suddenly.
> The carbon sequestered by the trees is now in the building materials
You're ignoring material waste. This process doesn't consume 100% of the tree; only a portion of the tree's carbon is sequestered into the building. The rest is rotting.
> The space the trees were in will now have more trees grown in them.
Trees are renewable, but it's not quite "copy&paste". Further, the harvesting of the trees was certain to be carbon intensive.
So, on the whole, you can trust this process IS NOT CARBON NEGATIVE.
What it may be is LESS CARBON INTENSIVE than a traditional process. They are VERY FAR from crossing the neutral line and yet are trying to claim carbon negative? That's pretty brash.
Does the objection make more sense now?
You're ignoring material waste. This process doesn't consume 100% of the tree; only a portion of the tree's carbon is sequestered into the building. The rest is rotting.
> The space the trees were in will now have more trees grown in them.
Trees are renewable, but it's not quite "copy&paste". Further, the harvesting of the trees was certain to be carbon intensive.
So, on the whole, you can trust this process IS NOT CARBON NEGATIVE.
What it may be is LESS CARBON INTENSIVE than a traditional process. They are VERY FAR from crossing the neutral line and yet are trying to claim carbon negative? That's pretty brash.
Does the objection make more sense now?
Despite the all caps, your objections still don't make that much sense.
> You're ignoring material waste. This process doesn't consume 100% of the tree; only a portion of the tree's carbon is sequestered into the building. The rest is rotting.
It's ply. Apart from the root system, it's quite close to 100% indeed.
> Trees are renewable, but it's not quite "copy&paste". Further, the harvesting of the trees was certain to be carbon intensive.
Tree harvesting is pretty much fine. Transport is what pollutes the most here. The new growing trees are carbon sinks. It's not a question of renewability. It's just that you used to have CO2 in the air and now it's a house. Processing will mostly use electricity so it depends of how your local electricity is produced of course.
> They are VERY FAR from crossing the neutral line
They are probably not very far. It's not an heavily mechanised project. Assembly is mostly done by hand. Considering the amount they sequester, being neutral is not that far fetched.
> You're ignoring material waste. This process doesn't consume 100% of the tree; only a portion of the tree's carbon is sequestered into the building. The rest is rotting.
It's ply. Apart from the root system, it's quite close to 100% indeed.
> Trees are renewable, but it's not quite "copy&paste". Further, the harvesting of the trees was certain to be carbon intensive.
Tree harvesting is pretty much fine. Transport is what pollutes the most here. The new growing trees are carbon sinks. It's not a question of renewability. It's just that you used to have CO2 in the air and now it's a house. Processing will mostly use electricity so it depends of how your local electricity is produced of course.
> They are VERY FAR from crossing the neutral line
They are probably not very far. It's not an heavily mechanised project. Assembly is mostly done by hand. Considering the amount they sequester, being neutral is not that far fetched.
> It's just that you used to have CO2 in the air and now it's a house.
I disagree on your accounting (largely because the house is torn down one day and further a CNC throws wood dust everywhere and this project requires one front and center), but none of that matters. Carbon negative is a strong claim that requires strong evidence. Of which, none has been offered.
I disagree on your accounting (largely because the house is torn down one day and further a CNC throws wood dust everywhere and this project requires one front and center), but none of that matters. Carbon negative is a strong claim that requires strong evidence. Of which, none has been offered.
> "The rest is rotting"
Is it, though? Because operations I've been to use every last available ounce of the tree. Trunk and limbs are sawn, small limbs, branches, bark, and offcuts are ground for biomass heating. Yes, it's burnt, but releasing no more carbon than it captured in its lifecycle and to provide a tangible end result that would otherwise be achieved with fossil fuels.
Root stumps rot, yes, but providing a breeding ground for insects and hence birds and small mammals and hence predators. They also fix soil beneficial bacteria and fungi, and having spent all their energy breaking up the soil and then breaking down they prepare the best soil bed for the new tree to take its place and sequester more carbon.
It's not the perfect process, by any means, but wood as a building material is infinitely more sustainable than concrete, gypsum and stone.
Is it, though? Because operations I've been to use every last available ounce of the tree. Trunk and limbs are sawn, small limbs, branches, bark, and offcuts are ground for biomass heating. Yes, it's burnt, but releasing no more carbon than it captured in its lifecycle and to provide a tangible end result that would otherwise be achieved with fossil fuels.
Root stumps rot, yes, but providing a breeding ground for insects and hence birds and small mammals and hence predators. They also fix soil beneficial bacteria and fungi, and having spent all their energy breaking up the soil and then breaking down they prepare the best soil bed for the new tree to take its place and sequester more carbon.
It's not the perfect process, by any means, but wood as a building material is infinitely more sustainable than concrete, gypsum and stone.
> It's not the perfect process, by any means, but wood as a building material is infinitely more sustainable than concrete, gypsum and stone.
Cool, show me the part where any of that means this company has a right to claim carbon negative?
Onus isn't on me here.
Cool, show me the part where any of that means this company has a right to claim carbon negative?
Onus isn't on me here.
That's not what I said.
I just pointed out that your emotional response that backs your argument isn't necessarily reflective of what actually happens.
I just pointed out that your emotional response that backs your argument isn't necessarily reflective of what actually happens.
Well put. If they just would say "less carbon intensive than using concrete or bricks", I would buy it. But carbon negative is just a straight up lie.
While I very much doubt if the entire process is going to be carbon negative, "straight up lie" is very strongly worded. In essence, by building wooden structures you can store CO2 in urban environments that are currently dominated by concrete. To be sure, to be carbon negative the whole process needs proper thought; the trees for the wood of course needs to be replanted and the energy used in milling, construction and transportation need to be sourced durable, I get that.
But I mean, if we want anything to be carbon negative we need to capture carbon from the atmosphere and put it somewhere; e.g. reclaiming land for forests or putting carbon back into the ground where we got it from, but putting carbon in constructions as part of the solution, why not? For dealing with climate change, the important part is getting it out of the atmosphere.
But I mean, if we want anything to be carbon negative we need to capture carbon from the atmosphere and put it somewhere; e.g. reclaiming land for forests or putting carbon back into the ground where we got it from, but putting carbon in constructions as part of the solution, why not? For dealing with climate change, the important part is getting it out of the atmosphere.
The problem is that people believe this type of greenwashing (as can be seen by other comments on this thread). Building a house is never going to be carbon negative. Carbon neutral at best, but even that is going to be almost impossible to achieve.
They say that the upfront carbon cost of building a WikiHouse is - 17T CO2, compared to a normal house of + 30T CO2. This is so fucking misleading, I've just lost all respect for the makers of this.
I'm not sure what "upfront" means here, but it makes sense if talking about overall net CO2 usage. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere after building would be 17T less than before the tree started growing. Ie the tree absorbs 17T more during its growth than is emitted during harvesting, transport and construction. Whereas an equivalent brick building puts 30T more into the atmosphere than the (unharvested) tree absorbs.
I'm not sure what "upfront" means here, but it makes sense if talking about overall net CO2 usage. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere after building would be 17T less than before the tree started growing. Ie the tree absorbs 17T more during its growth than is emitted during harvesting, transport and construction. Whereas an equivalent brick building puts 30T more into the atmosphere than the (unharvested) tree absorbs.
"carbon negative" isn't BS: since the CO2 already sequestered in the wood remains there (mostly), while the trees cut down for that wood are replanted eventually capturing more CO2, thus ultimately removing more CO2 from the atmosphere than was released through the sourcing of the wood.
Now considering everything involved in the building process, the house as a whole is probably not "carbon negative" -- and perhaps that's your objection -- but when it comes to the primary material (wood vs concrete/steel) it can be carbon negative.
There are few wrong assumptions with your statement:
1) The wood the house is built with will not be there forever, some day the house will be torn down and the wood burned or rotten
2) Cutting down trees and planting new ones is not a good way of carbon sequestration. Otherwise, why not cut down all trees and just plant new ones? Bam, carbon negative, climate problem solved.
People need to understand that trees should not be seen as a renewable resource in the context of climate change. Not for building, not for burning as fuel.
1) The wood the house is built with will not be there forever, some day the house will be torn down and the wood burned or rotten
2) Cutting down trees and planting new ones is not a good way of carbon sequestration. Otherwise, why not cut down all trees and just plant new ones? Bam, carbon negative, climate problem solved.
People need to understand that trees should not be seen as a renewable resource in the context of climate change. Not for building, not for burning as fuel.
You’ve just asserted that this is bullshit without explaining why. Could you explain why you feel this is misleading?
I am also deeply skeptical of the net-negative claim, mostly because of the outsized role plywood appears to play in the building productions demonstrated. There are several energy-intensive steps required to manufacture plywood that are not present with standard lumber production. Additionally, transport overhead is higher due to the comparative rarity of the specialized mills used to create plywood. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any kind of real numbers comparing the carbon footprint of lumber vs plywood to demonstrate exactly how much more carbon it takes to manufacture plywood vs lumber.
FWIW, plywood (OSB, chip board, etc) are already heavily used in house building. Floors, roofs, sheathing, etc.
Yep. And as stated by others upthread those houses are mostly designed to last about as long as OSB does under normal conditions.
I am also skeptical but I would not call the claim bullshit. Building from wood could in theory be carbon negative. Unclear though if this process is.
Another thing worth considering is that building small houses uses a lot of land, land which might have had forests. That needs to be considered too.
Another thing worth considering is that building small houses uses a lot of land, land which might have had forests. That needs to be considered too.
I've explained why pretty clearly. Trees are not a renewable resource in the context of climate change. They take dozens of years to grow, they are part of an biodiverse ecosystem, and just cutting down forests has a much bigger effect on the ecosystem and its carbon sequestration capacity than the tree alone. And don't get me started with tree farms.
This carbon negative claim taken to the extreme would mean, that we should just cut down all trees and plant new ones. I think you can see why this is ridiculous?
This carbon negative claim taken to the extreme would mean, that we should just cut down all trees and plant new ones. I think you can see why this is ridiculous?
I wouldn't outright call it bullshit, but the cost and effort involved make it only a marginal improvement over traditional buildings. Plus it doesn't scale as good as the US based 2x4 wood system, which can be mass-produced / prefabricated much easier.
[deleted]
I see.
Another wood-house project created by civil engineering or building material science graduates (Leeds Beckett University)--similar to the last one.
Build costs similar to brick (ouch!), requires a specific CNC operator to build panels (supply chain ouch!), and creates an integrated house (ouch! to any renovations using conventional materials; ouch! to system longevity).
I hate these as they're basically the results of a couple of graduate students operating under a innovation grant.
The practical results of this are that someone is going to find a local CNC operator (within 320km based on the study), find out the costs of buying 300 sheets of quality 7-layer plywood and running a custom project with the CNC operator, find a local engineer willing to sign off on the project (for insurance, mortgage, and to maintain the 10 year defect free period), and then have to find a local labour contractor willing to use their building materials as the structure.
After all that legwork, they're going to go with a traditional building contractor.
Another wood-house project created by civil engineering or building material science graduates (Leeds Beckett University)--similar to the last one.
Build costs similar to brick (ouch!), requires a specific CNC operator to build panels (supply chain ouch!), and creates an integrated house (ouch! to any renovations using conventional materials; ouch! to system longevity).
I hate these as they're basically the results of a couple of graduate students operating under a innovation grant.
The practical results of this are that someone is going to find a local CNC operator (within 320km based on the study), find out the costs of buying 300 sheets of quality 7-layer plywood and running a custom project with the CNC operator, find a local engineer willing to sign off on the project (for insurance, mortgage, and to maintain the 10 year defect free period), and then have to find a local labour contractor willing to use their building materials as the structure.
After all that legwork, they're going to go with a traditional building contractor.
> requires a specific CNC operator to build panels (supply chain ouch!)
Unsure what this means. The CNC files are open source, and there are millions of CNC machines in the world. What specific CNC operator?
In general, I'd say your comments are valid for a random homeowner that decides they want to try this out. If you think in terms of a contractor who wanted to start specializing in this in their region, it seems quite doable. They could have their own engineer that has seen many of these, and a stable source of plywood/OSB and access to a CNC shop.
Unsure what this means. The CNC files are open source, and there are millions of CNC machines in the world. What specific CNC operator?
In general, I'd say your comments are valid for a random homeowner that decides they want to try this out. If you think in terms of a contractor who wanted to start specializing in this in their region, it seems quite doable. They could have their own engineer that has seen many of these, and a stable source of plywood/OSB and access to a CNC shop.
I think it may be worth pointing out that this system as demonstrated exacerbates the two largest problems contractors face: materials costs and sourcing labor.
The specialized manufacturing requirements for modules makes sourcing materials from traditional suppliers functionally impossible, adds additional (highly specialized) manufacturing overhead, and drives up the cost of materials.
The wildly non-standard construction methods mean subcontractors will have to train on using the system, and projects will start from a functional zero-prior-experience knowledge base, which invites a diversity of headaches and potential safety issues.
On an unrelated note, insurers are likely to be deeply skeptical of unproven construction methods in general, and plywood-heavy construction methods in particular given their propensity to fail catastrophically from even relatively minor moisture-related insults. Insurance premiums are likely to reflect that.
The specialized manufacturing requirements for modules makes sourcing materials from traditional suppliers functionally impossible, adds additional (highly specialized) manufacturing overhead, and drives up the cost of materials.
The wildly non-standard construction methods mean subcontractors will have to train on using the system, and projects will start from a functional zero-prior-experience knowledge base, which invites a diversity of headaches and potential safety issues.
On an unrelated note, insurers are likely to be deeply skeptical of unproven construction methods in general, and plywood-heavy construction methods in particular given their propensity to fail catastrophically from even relatively minor moisture-related insults. Insurance premiums are likely to reflect that.
They mean that it requires a cnc operator, and that it's not usually required in building houses, which is a pretty huge added cost.
From which you can subtract the cost of the brick/cement/block manufacturer.
Wouldn't that be equivalent to the plywood manufacturer? This still adds an additional processing step where you take a mass produced construction material and make a specialized product out of it which you then use to build the house instead of just going straight from material to construction.
I agree.
Folks love to knock on traditional “stick built” buildings. I don’t get it. I live in a frame house built in 1927. It’s not going anywhere so long as the owners are stewards of the property.
Watching similar houses get built, it’s a fairly efficient process. I don’t think the costs of homes are really driven by framing.
Super conservative code requirements like electric socket requirements (my kitchen remodel required the addition of *5 dedicated circuits with arc fault breakers in most cases), fire sprinklers, etc and others drive costs.
A frame house with a thoughtful architecture that incorporates passive heating/cooling, etc will cost less, be easier to bike and require less fiddling.
Folks love to knock on traditional “stick built” buildings. I don’t get it. I live in a frame house built in 1927. It’s not going anywhere so long as the owners are stewards of the property.
Watching similar houses get built, it’s a fairly efficient process. I don’t think the costs of homes are really driven by framing.
Super conservative code requirements like electric socket requirements (my kitchen remodel required the addition of *5 dedicated circuits with arc fault breakers in most cases), fire sprinklers, etc and others drive costs.
A frame house with a thoughtful architecture that incorporates passive heating/cooling, etc will cost less, be easier to bike and require less fiddling.
The plot next to us is being built now, and when they finally started erecting the house it took a couple of weeks. They spent months with excavators and explosives first. That's what you get for building on porous rock I guess.
On the other hand, if you're a CNC operator and you already have spare capacity, this could allow you to cheaply branch into home construction by hiring a few more employees...
So this happened. I looked at wikihouse many years ago for a project.
I really liked the idea and team but (at least at the time) it was still very new.
Too much risk to take on for individual homeowner and it was cheaper for me to get a local contractor who had experience in developing what I was after.
I really liked the idea and team but (at least at the time) it was still very new.
Too much risk to take on for individual homeowner and it was cheaper for me to get a local contractor who had experience in developing what I was after.
[deleted](1)
Says zero-carbon, proceeds to show single-family detached homes in a suburban setting, mostly accessible by car only.
P.S. The concrete foundations look far from zero-carbon.
P.S. The concrete foundations look far from zero-carbon.
Put solar panels on the roof and an electric car in the driveway.
The main strike against suburban lifestyles today is that they’re energy intensive and thus carbon-heavy. There is nothing wrong with a energy intensive suburban life if that energy is carbon neutral.
(And yes, as other posters point out, there are some additional environmental externalities associated with suburban versus urban lifestyles. It’s not clear to me how severe these externalities are, and thus whether they are worth the tradeoff of increased quality of life for the many people who love living in the suburbs. As an extreme example, living a pre-industrial lifestyle would be much more environmentally friendly, but it isn’t remotely worth the quality of life tradeoff.)
The main strike against suburban lifestyles today is that they’re energy intensive and thus carbon-heavy. There is nothing wrong with a energy intensive suburban life if that energy is carbon neutral.
(And yes, as other posters point out, there are some additional environmental externalities associated with suburban versus urban lifestyles. It’s not clear to me how severe these externalities are, and thus whether they are worth the tradeoff of increased quality of life for the many people who love living in the suburbs. As an extreme example, living a pre-industrial lifestyle would be much more environmentally friendly, but it isn’t remotely worth the quality of life tradeoff.)
Electric cars are as zero-carbon as the cost-equivalent space of a freshly paved asphalt concrete highway or parking space. If not more than that due to the more special materials required to make them.
Also note that, due to much heavier weight of electric cars, asphalt concrete surfaces will be damaged a lot faster. The relationship between vehicle weight and its damage to the road surface is exponential, not linear.
Also note that, due to much heavier weight of electric cars, asphalt concrete surfaces will be damaged a lot faster. The relationship between vehicle weight and its damage to the road surface is exponential, not linear.
You still need to drive places, which is the least efficient method of mass transportation. An entire infrastructure needs to be built and maintained for cars, which is super wasteful and in almost every country is pushing everyone into debt that is just punted into the future.
Sure, convenient for individuals but absolutely not sustainable for society, nor the planet. Even with electric cars and green energy.
The insane cost of cars: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ztHZj6QNlkM
The hard truth is that if we don't want to abandon our comfortable modern lifestyles, 80-90% of us will have to live in dense cities and use mass transportation 95% of the time.
Sure, convenient for individuals but absolutely not sustainable for society, nor the planet. Even with electric cars and green energy.
The insane cost of cars: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ztHZj6QNlkM
The hard truth is that if we don't want to abandon our comfortable modern lifestyles, 80-90% of us will have to live in dense cities and use mass transportation 95% of the time.
I agree with you but I think one thing that might help people fear this change less is reiterating that the density necessary isn't Manhattan or Downtown Chicago. There are a lot of ways to make an efficient urban area without being a massive megalopolis. Neighborhoods like Park Slope in Brooklyn or Sunset in SF are good examples. Multifamily housing doesn't have to mean high rises.
People also don't have to live in what we think of as cities at all. Rural living is fine if people live closer together in those areas. Such that they live in walkable towns that don't require driving and can be easily connected to other towns and cities via a bus or train. Europe is much better at this but you see vestiges in New England. It's just nobody should really be living beyond walking or biking distance of core services (transport, shopping, etc). The benefit for those who love nature is more untampered natural beauty in the surrounding areas. If anyone has ever been to a place like Banff it's lovely when fine right.
People also don't have to live in what we think of as cities at all. Rural living is fine if people live closer together in those areas. Such that they live in walkable towns that don't require driving and can be easily connected to other towns and cities via a bus or train. Europe is much better at this but you see vestiges in New England. It's just nobody should really be living beyond walking or biking distance of core services (transport, shopping, etc). The benefit for those who love nature is more untampered natural beauty in the surrounding areas. If anyone has ever been to a place like Banff it's lovely when fine right.
Someone posted here that the maximum density with this type of housing is 3 stories, 75 dwellings per hectare, so about 7500 dwellings per square kilometer. At 3 stories, that has to be at least 6 people per dwelling, so about 45k people per square kilometer. Let's cut that to 5k people per square kilometer to account for infrastructure, shops, schools, etc, it still seems reasonable.
We don't even need more than that on average, we don't need Hong Kongs everywhere. "Brownstones" will do :-)
We don't even need more than that on average, we don't need Hong Kongs everywhere. "Brownstones" will do :-)
Which is great. Living in cities in Europe is fantastic. Even the towns are great in some countries with great rail and tram connections
Who wants to use a train/tram to haul kids and their things around? Do you really think it's possible to haul an infant, a toddler, and a 4 year-old around and all their things using a train that will only get you so close and now you have to walk another 4 blocks? Who wants to do that?
A home with space and a nice sized yard and an automobile to travel around in is great. It's nice to have a local train too to get into the adjacent metropolis, etc.
A home with space and a nice sized yard and an automobile to travel around in is great. It's nice to have a local train too to get into the adjacent metropolis, etc.
I do that all the time. Works well if you know how, which you do if you live in a city. We tend to use our transporter bike for short trips with the smallest child, long trips are usually a combination of bike and public transport and sometimes we’ll take a cab, car club or rent a car if there’s a specific need (such as when we go camping). Yes we have been on family camping trips where we get the train to the coast with all of our gear and a cab to the campsite from the nearest station. Yes we’ve also done trips where we rented a van. All of this was orders of magnitude cheaper than owning a car. It is also faster. A regular trip I do via bike + public transport takes 50 mins on a good day, 2.5 hours on a very good day by car. (I’ve done both multiple times)
I have three kids. The eldest is 15. I’ve never owned a car. I probably never will.
I have three kids. The eldest is 15. I’ve never owned a car. I probably never will.
What are we talking about? Long trips? Short trips? What's the use case?
For short stuff, bakfiets. For the second part, sure, why not? Get a baby buggy for multiple kids.
Walking is also good for you.
Also, is all of this happening as a single parent? How many single parents with 3 kids are even out there? 0.00001% of the population?
All these problems are solvable. With probably less than half the money spent on car infrastructure and 5% the pollution.
For short stuff, bakfiets. For the second part, sure, why not? Get a baby buggy for multiple kids.
Walking is also good for you.
Also, is all of this happening as a single parent? How many single parents with 3 kids are even out there? 0.00001% of the population?
All these problems are solvable. With probably less than half the money spent on car infrastructure and 5% the pollution.
Ok it’s raining or snowing or very hot outside - I’m not throwing 3 kids into a wheelbarrow fitted to a bike and doing that. What an awful way to live.
Why does it matter how many parents? One could be away or working and the other has to go 5 miles to Costco or whatever. Your little bike things don’t work. Also there are lots of single parents with 3+ kids.
I don’t want your terrible solution or way of life. I like having a large home with a large lawn and a large SUV to drive my family where we want when we want. I take trains and walk too and use strollers of course. But that’s like 20% of the time. Your comment reads like a person who doesn’t have kids.
Why does it matter how many parents? One could be away or working and the other has to go 5 miles to Costco or whatever. Your little bike things don’t work. Also there are lots of single parents with 3+ kids.
I don’t want your terrible solution or way of life. I like having a large home with a large lawn and a large SUV to drive my family where we want when we want. I take trains and walk too and use strollers of course. But that’s like 20% of the time. Your comment reads like a person who doesn’t have kids.
If you think my way of life with my 3 kids is terrible and your way of life with your SUV is the only possible solution then I think you’d be happier if you widened your horizons rather than shitting on everyone else when they are having a good time.
He just proposed a housing solution. Now you are complaining because he hasn't produced a transportation solution as well?
The main strike against suburban lifestyles is that the maintenance cost per square meter (water, sewage, electrics, roads, communications) is much higher than the area generates in taxes.
I've heard that before and believe it to be true, but then it makes me wonder why cities are often so eager to annex suburban developments? If a suburb isn't paying it's fair share, why don't cities raise taxes or un-annex them? (is there a word for un-annex?)
https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ Cities need to grow new developments to pay for the existing developments.
Presumably when the infrastructure needs to be replaced local governments will finance with bonds (which I think makes a lot of sense). If the bonds are paid for by suburban taxes, do you think the suburbs will get to be as expensive as the city or maybe even more expensive?
The Strong Towns ideology is attractive (especially for northern US cities), but I think if self driving cars come into existence, the ideas might not get very far in most places. Self driving cars are going to encourage sprawl like no other force ever has. I know I'd move further out if I had a self-driving car.
The Strong Towns ideology is attractive (especially for northern US cities), but I think if self driving cars come into existence, the ideas might not get very far in most places. Self driving cars are going to encourage sprawl like no other force ever has. I know I'd move further out if I had a self-driving car.
[deleted]
A lot of people don't like to live in cities.
You have to remember a lot of people on this site are young people without families that prioritize social lives. They haven't related yet that people with kids and careers, etc. are simply not interested in what cities have to offer and that the quality of life in a city is terrible if you have a family compared to what you can get outside of a city in a nice town. Unless you're really rich and can get a huge apartment or condo and can afford to pay for parking or have a driver, etc.
Just look at NYC to find the typical pattern: Young person lives with multiple people in an area like the Lower East Side or Williamsburg (yay social life!), then begins to settle down in a place like Park Slope (just married!) and has a kid (dedicated to urban living) and then another kid comes along and/or the reality of urban living (the schools are awful, it's cramped and expensive, the city offers you nearly nothing since you don't go out like you used to) and the brownstone is sold for a tidy profit and they're off to the NYC suburbs to get more space and a better quality of life to raise a family in. The city is a short commute away still.
Just look at NYC to find the typical pattern: Young person lives with multiple people in an area like the Lower East Side or Williamsburg (yay social life!), then begins to settle down in a place like Park Slope (just married!) and has a kid (dedicated to urban living) and then another kid comes along and/or the reality of urban living (the schools are awful, it's cramped and expensive, the city offers you nearly nothing since you don't go out like you used to) and the brownstone is sold for a tidy profit and they're off to the NYC suburbs to get more space and a better quality of life to raise a family in. The city is a short commute away still.
That’s a separate issue from suburbs’ environmental impact. I’m all for raising property taxes in suburbs to make their residents pay their fair share for infrastructure.
Suburbia also encroaches on wildlife habitat, reduces ground water replenishment, requires expensive infrastructure, and is material (not just energy) intensive.
Other than the air pollution from your tyres, the pollution and murder from getting the materials for your car batteries and the taxes that poorer residents in the inner cities have to pay to subsidise the high cost of services and low tax intake from the suburbs
my guess is they will buy carbon offsets to cover manufacturing energy and transportation costs, a system which has its own shortcomings and critiques.
[deleted]
Just buy some 2x4's and plywood and start building. It's not that hard. Building does not have to be this complicated. The building systems and products out today make it incredibly easy and (before the ridiculously low interest rates) pretty cheap.
>Just buy some 2x4's and plywood and start building. It's not that hard.
I mean sure, if you live somewhere without building codes, don't need a foundation, and don't care how long something lasts or how safe it is. Just chuck it together. Just some 2x4s and plywood is all you need for a treehouse. Maybe.
I mean sure, if you live somewhere without building codes, don't need a foundation, and don't care how long something lasts or how safe it is. Just chuck it together. Just some 2x4s and plywood is all you need for a treehouse. Maybe.
The linked project/product does not include foundation, and most likely also needs engineering work to pass codes/inspection.
Stick framing is cheap and simple- 2x4s are abundant. And you can do it yourself solo with minimal tools.
Also, using plywood is way more prone to water issues than solid wood.
Stick framing is cheap and simple- 2x4s are abundant. And you can do it yourself solo with minimal tools.
Also, using plywood is way more prone to water issues than solid wood.
disclaimer - I work in civil/structural engineering but typically much larger structures than houses and mostly concrete and wood and haven't done wood design since school. the following does not constitute engineering advice and should not be relied upon for design or construction purposes. This is merely discussion.
I wouldn't build most houses today out of 2x4s, simply because its not a big enough insulation cavity for a modern home. Stick framing being cheap does not substitute for planning. As you say - you need to design a structure and that includes hiring an engineer for more than just 'passing codes/inspection' but also for structural design of your home.
It's unlikely you'll be able to design a roof out of 2x4s without making major sacrifices to the design of the house, and you're probably not qualified to judge the worst case loading in your area or capacity of a 2x4 roof (or else you wouldn't even mention 2x4s).
The linked site includes several guides including an engineering guide most non engineers would struggle to understand. https://www.wikihouse.cc/guides
Plywood is not particularly prone to water issues, and isn't used in the same way as solid wood would be. In situations where plywood would be having water issues, so would solid wood. You might be confusing plywood and OSB. Structurally, plywood sheathing is primarily used for shear capacity to let structures handle lateral (sideways) loads to resist racking, and to have somewhere to attach the exterior materials of the structure to.
The linked engineering guide provides structural testing numbers of their panels for various capacities that a structural engineer understands. Like proper stick framing, it requires planning and design, rather than grabbing some 2x4s and letting er rip.
I wouldn't build most houses today out of 2x4s, simply because its not a big enough insulation cavity for a modern home. Stick framing being cheap does not substitute for planning. As you say - you need to design a structure and that includes hiring an engineer for more than just 'passing codes/inspection' but also for structural design of your home.
It's unlikely you'll be able to design a roof out of 2x4s without making major sacrifices to the design of the house, and you're probably not qualified to judge the worst case loading in your area or capacity of a 2x4 roof (or else you wouldn't even mention 2x4s).
The linked site includes several guides including an engineering guide most non engineers would struggle to understand. https://www.wikihouse.cc/guides
Plywood is not particularly prone to water issues, and isn't used in the same way as solid wood would be. In situations where plywood would be having water issues, so would solid wood. You might be confusing plywood and OSB. Structurally, plywood sheathing is primarily used for shear capacity to let structures handle lateral (sideways) loads to resist racking, and to have somewhere to attach the exterior materials of the structure to.
The linked engineering guide provides structural testing numbers of their panels for various capacities that a structural engineer understands. Like proper stick framing, it requires planning and design, rather than grabbing some 2x4s and letting er rip.
[deleted]
The responses here are critical —- some useful, some not so useful.
I’m happy to see this project and would like to see more like it, even if this is not quite ready for show time. The possibility of using advances in technology and open source methods to allow people to make more stuff for themselves and their communities in a way that is efficient and feasible is exciting to me.
I’m happy to see this project and would like to see more like it, even if this is not quite ready for show time. The possibility of using advances in technology and open source methods to allow people to make more stuff for themselves and their communities in a way that is efficient and feasible is exciting to me.
I guess the real question is does this actually solve a real problem people are having? An acquaintance of mine recently built a house, and constructing the outer 'shell' was by far the quickest and easiest part of the whole process.
Depends what you mean by “this.” This exact project is, I think, not ready for prime time, as I said in my post.
If by “this” you mean “ways to make more of our own stuff on a smaller scale,” I am currently in my fourth month of waiting for a proprietary part for my tractor, when if I had an economical and legal way to either machine the part myself, or have it machined by a competent neighbor, then I wouldn’t have this problem.
In a time when we are experiencing the consequences of over-specialized, over-connected, over-optimized supply chains, I think that a more fractal, scale-invariant, redundant approach to production has real value.
(It also, in general, makes humans feel good to make and then use something).
(It also, in general, makes humans feel good to make and then use something).
> does this actually solve a real problem people are having?
And does it solve it at a price point that makes it practical in comparison to other high efficiency house building technologies?
And does it solve it at a price point that makes it practical in comparison to other high efficiency house building technologies?
Are construction methods the bottleneck though? Habitat For Humanity is an excellent example of communities building things for themselves and others. What problem do you see systems like this solving?
> Are construction methods the bottleneck though?
Perhaps when compared to this CAD/CNC approach. In the traditional stick-built house you need wood and other materials, tools of all sorts, and specialized workers who know the steps in order. If some critical material hasn't been delivered yet, workers have to pivot to a different task or simply stop working.
With this other method, 100% of the material is cut/delivered to the site, and the workers need only to follow the instructions. Their tools are fewer, too—hammers, nails, hand-crank lift.
In the future, anyone who likes putting together IKEA furniture may consider an exciting new career in home construction. I say that half in jest, half in hope.
Perhaps when compared to this CAD/CNC approach. In the traditional stick-built house you need wood and other materials, tools of all sorts, and specialized workers who know the steps in order. If some critical material hasn't been delivered yet, workers have to pivot to a different task or simply stop working.
With this other method, 100% of the material is cut/delivered to the site, and the workers need only to follow the instructions. Their tools are fewer, too—hammers, nails, hand-crank lift.
In the future, anyone who likes putting together IKEA furniture may consider an exciting new career in home construction. I say that half in jest, half in hope.
I see how the material presented on the website could lead someone who is unfamiliar with construction to the impression that this system simplifies the process but that is not the case in any meaningful way.
Framing, cladding, and insulating a structure, which is all that is represented here, are the simplest, least tool-intensive tasks involved. Additionally this style of construction can seamlessly cope when a foundation is poured a couple inches out of dimension or a few degrees off square. By comparison I shudder to think what flavor of chaos would kick off on a DIY Ikea house project when the assembly team has to cope with similar issues with only pre-fab components to draw from.
Standard building methods expect all of the material for each phase of construction to be trucked in in one bundle, identical to a pre-fabbed system, but with the added benefit that if any material is found to be sub-standard, or if there are errors with the delivery materials to make up the difference can be trivially sourced from any lumber yard or big box home improvement store.
Long story short, framing a house isn't particularly complicated. Folks that are intimidated by the process don't have enough experience in the industry to know first-hand that there isn't a single task involved that isn't routinely completed by individuals who have little prior experience, are high out of their mind, or both.
Framing, cladding, and insulating a structure, which is all that is represented here, are the simplest, least tool-intensive tasks involved. Additionally this style of construction can seamlessly cope when a foundation is poured a couple inches out of dimension or a few degrees off square. By comparison I shudder to think what flavor of chaos would kick off on a DIY Ikea house project when the assembly team has to cope with similar issues with only pre-fab components to draw from.
Standard building methods expect all of the material for each phase of construction to be trucked in in one bundle, identical to a pre-fabbed system, but with the added benefit that if any material is found to be sub-standard, or if there are errors with the delivery materials to make up the difference can be trivially sourced from any lumber yard or big box home improvement store.
Long story short, framing a house isn't particularly complicated. Folks that are intimidated by the process don't have enough experience in the industry to know first-hand that there isn't a single task involved that isn't routinely completed by individuals who have little prior experience, are high out of their mind, or both.
[deleted]
First, looking through their design guide (https://www.wikihouse.cc/guides/design), the only thing they mention is that space (32mm in walls, I guess, and 70mm under ceilings) is provided.
Given that the plumbing, electrical, ventilation, appliances, etc. are the majority of the cost of a home, I find this a bit odd. A typical American full bathroom costs something like $5k to $20k (and up... way up) depending on the quality. A kitchen can cost multiple times more. Sure, you can build them cheaper, but that's the rub... most people who are in the market to purchase a home don't want low-end bathrooms and kitchens. Or windows. Or lighting. Or wall fixtures. Or anything really.
Second, IMO, the problem with affordable housing is not a construction cost problem. We can build small, livable (for various definitions) homes for $50k (or less) today, ignoring land costs. But the regulatory costs, the land costs, the market demands all make building such homes a non-profitable endeavor. Why build 20 $50k homes on the land and make $200k profit when you can build 10 $500k homes and make $1mil in profit?
The affordable housing crisis in the America do not have a technical solution, only a socio-political one. And since nearly all the power related to zoning, building costs, etc are managed at the local and state level, that means engaging with local politics.