So you want to build a house more efficiently(austinvernon.eth.link)
austinvernon.eth.link
So you want to build a house more efficiently
https://austinvernon.eth.link/blog/construction.html
491 comments
Every thread that's ever about US housing construction, some Europeans chime in to talk about how strange it seems to them to build houses out of wood, rather than stone/brick/etc that, as you put it, will "last for a very long time".
Here's the thing, though: most Europeans seem to be suffering some pretty serious misconceptions.
First, Americans build out of wood because we have wood, lots of it. Europeans don't skip wood because brick or stone is superior -- it's because Europe is largely deforested. Europe doesn't have wood for people to use at the same scale.
Second, wooden houses last a plenty long time. "80-150+ years", as you put it, is entirely expected for a well-constructed wooden house. Neighborhoods that date from, say, 1850, e.g. in New England, have plenty of old wooden homes that people adore because of their character.
Third, wood construction has a ton of advantages. Not only is it less expensive to build, but it's tremendously more energy-efficient when filled with insulation. Brick and stone homes are absolute energy guzzlers both in hot summers and cold winters. And remember, e.g. in New York State you're dealing with 100°F (38°C) summers and -10°F (-23°C) winters. Insulation matters.
The idea that American homes are somehow lower quality or shorter-lasting because they're built out of wood is a myth through and through. To the contrary, they're built out of wood because that's the best construction for local climate and availability.
Here's the thing, though: most Europeans seem to be suffering some pretty serious misconceptions.
First, Americans build out of wood because we have wood, lots of it. Europeans don't skip wood because brick or stone is superior -- it's because Europe is largely deforested. Europe doesn't have wood for people to use at the same scale.
Second, wooden houses last a plenty long time. "80-150+ years", as you put it, is entirely expected for a well-constructed wooden house. Neighborhoods that date from, say, 1850, e.g. in New England, have plenty of old wooden homes that people adore because of their character.
Third, wood construction has a ton of advantages. Not only is it less expensive to build, but it's tremendously more energy-efficient when filled with insulation. Brick and stone homes are absolute energy guzzlers both in hot summers and cold winters. And remember, e.g. in New York State you're dealing with 100°F (38°C) summers and -10°F (-23°C) winters. Insulation matters.
The idea that American homes are somehow lower quality or shorter-lasting because they're built out of wood is a myth through and through. To the contrary, they're built out of wood because that's the best construction for local climate and availability.
Perhaps I can correct some misconceptions. I know mostly about the UK rather than central Europe.
1) New houses in the UK are very well insulated indeed. Walls are commonly of cavity construction with 'lightweight' thermal blocks or timber on the inside skin, and insulation in the cavity. We also indsulate the floors and roofs. Our building code is pretty strict about insulation and I believe that is also true in Germany for instance.
2) We use brick on the outside because the UK climate makes external wood rot very quickly in normal circumstances. Cedar cladding can work if left to 'silver', but you have little chance of keeping paint on anything. Exterior woodwork also has to be treated with fire retardant if used as cladding. Roof coverings are normally clay tiles or slate.
There are buildings in my town that are 600+ years old, built out of oak framing with wattle and daub infills...but this is a very expensive way to build.
1) New houses in the UK are very well insulated indeed. Walls are commonly of cavity construction with 'lightweight' thermal blocks or timber on the inside skin, and insulation in the cavity. We also indsulate the floors and roofs. Our building code is pretty strict about insulation and I believe that is also true in Germany for instance.
2) We use brick on the outside because the UK climate makes external wood rot very quickly in normal circumstances. Cedar cladding can work if left to 'silver', but you have little chance of keeping paint on anything. Exterior woodwork also has to be treated with fire retardant if used as cladding. Roof coverings are normally clay tiles or slate.
There are buildings in my town that are 600+ years old, built out of oak framing with wattle and daub infills...but this is a very expensive way to build.
The notion that you cannot keep wood treatment on anything in the UK is ludicrous. You can choose to leave raw wood exposed, or you can chose to treat it every 5-10 years.
Source: my family in Norway owns several wooden houses that are a couple of hundred years old, and as a kid/teenager I spent a lot of time having to treat these houses :)
Source: my family in Norway owns several wooden houses that are a couple of hundred years old, and as a kid/teenager I spent a lot of time having to treat these houses :)
Treated external timber in the UK is more exposed to UV light than in Scandinavian countries and requires much more maintenence, say at least every two years instead of five. People just don't want to repaint there houses this frequently. Although, you are right, this isn't to say that timber cladding can not last for a very long time.
As an Icelander living in the UK, I will attest to this being true. It really surprised me that all my wooden outdoor structures and projects decay much, much faster in the UK than they did in Iceland, despite the general lack of frost. I hadn't considered it being due to added UV exposure. But I'm having to varnish my nice oak garage door every 18 months to keep it from going grey, despite using extra tough oil-based polyurethane. Similarly processed wooden structures would last many years in Iceland without any extra maintenance.
There's also the fact that when the ground is frozen, the microbes in the soil that cause rot and decay are less active. The constant dampness of UK soil means any wood that touches the ground is rotted through in a couple of years unless you take significant precautions, while in Iceland, the ground being frozen or dry a large part of the year makes this less of a problem.
There's also the fact that when the ground is frozen, the microbes in the soil that cause rot and decay are less active. The constant dampness of UK soil means any wood that touches the ground is rotted through in a couple of years unless you take significant precautions, while in Iceland, the ground being frozen or dry a large part of the year makes this less of a problem.
It doesn’t sound like you’ve been to western Norway.
We generally do not clad our houses with wood in the US either. We're mostly clad with brick, vinyl, or stucco. Roofing is occasionally wooden shake in dry climates like California. But asphalt and clay are by far more common.
Also cement siding (hardiplank).
I was going to say. In the PNW at least, probably 99% of all new construction uses cement siding for the lion's share of the exterior.
I feel like it is becoming more common here in the southeast as well. I don't particularly like it, tbh, though it does have some advantages. It seems to block noise pretty well.
Here in the PNW most new houses are ugly boxes with some kind of flat paneling. Quite the contrasting sitting next to far more attractive older brick houses.
Brick houses are terrible for insulation, terrible for running any new technologies like wiring or plumbing through, terrible for disasters like earthquakes.
I also live here in the PNW and I know what you mean by the ugly boxes, but that is what people want.
I also live here in the PNW and I know what you mean by the ugly boxes, but that is what people want.
Speaking of both wooden siding and hariplank, construction is a big factor in the survivability of a home in the case of a wildfire.
Cedar shake looks very nice, but perhaps it is a bad idea when there is a non-zero chance of a neighbourhood fire blowing embers onto your roof. Here in western Canada, the Fire Smart guides are great. e.g., https://firesmartbc.ca/
Cedar shake looks very nice, but perhaps it is a bad idea when there is a non-zero chance of a neighbourhood fire blowing embers onto your roof. Here in western Canada, the Fire Smart guides are great. e.g., https://firesmartbc.ca/
And for Reasons, we make the vinyl look like wood.
Most of the houses in Seattle are wood. Seattle has a very similar climate to the UK including tons of rain. Many very old houses. Besides, with wood siding, you can just replace it, it comes right off and you put more on. My house was built in the 70s. It's cedar siding. The siding is fine.
But why is that better than brick, and (it being a lot harder to, sure, but) not needing to?
Brick in Seattle is not great because we get earthquakes and brick tends to crumble.
There are some brick buildings, and there are some things you can do to reinforce them in preparation for an earthquake. But in general, wood is better.
There are some brick buildings, and there are some things you can do to reinforce them in preparation for an earthquake. But in general, wood is better.
Plenty of house in Florida that are made out of wood. Wood rot is not a huge problem and I’d bet the heat, humidity, and rain is much more than the UK climate.
54" vs 34". Florida has more volume of rain.
114 days vs 170 days. UK has more frequent rain.
Was just curious so looked it up and shared. Not drawing any conclusions. I actually find it hilarious that so many of the comments here are trying to distil such a complex and nuanced cultural difference down to stats and logic :)
114 days vs 170 days. UK has more frequent rain.
Was just curious so looked it up and shared. Not drawing any conclusions. I actually find it hilarious that so many of the comments here are trying to distil such a complex and nuanced cultural difference down to stats and logic :)
In the Southwest US, houses are often roofed with tiles. In the rest of the US, with asphalt-treated shingles. Why? I guess tiles are heavier and therefore require heavier trusses, but other reasons?
[deleted]
36 percent of the US is covered by forest (1).
38 percent of the EU is covered by forest. That's EU with Britain. Without Britain, the percentage is higher (2).
I realize I use different sources, and that maybe all forests are not equally good for lumber production. But Europe has as much forests as the US. Yes, a lot of it is concentrated in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, so traditionally, that would have been less accessible to most central and western European countries. Also, traditionally, there was far more farm land. But nowadays, Europeans could access lumber as easily as Americans.
1:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States#:.... 2:https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statis...
I realize I use different sources, and that maybe all forests are not equally good for lumber production. But Europe has as much forests as the US. Yes, a lot of it is concentrated in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, so traditionally, that would have been less accessible to most central and western European countries. Also, traditionally, there was far more farm land. But nowadays, Europeans could access lumber as easily as Americans.
1:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States#:.... 2:https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statis...
US: 818,814,000 acres (3,313,622 square kilometers).
EU: 161,000,000 ha
ha = ac / 2.4711
818,814,000 / 2.4711 = 331,356,076
Ok, the US has roughly double the forested surface area.
EU pop is 448m compared to US' 328m. So with 30% more population and half the forested surface area wood does seem scarser in the EU.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=E...
EU: 161,000,000 ha
ha = ac / 2.4711
818,814,000 / 2.4711 = 331,356,076
Ok, the US has roughly double the forested surface area.
EU pop is 448m compared to US' 328m. So with 30% more population and half the forested surface area wood does seem scarser in the EU.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=E...
And that's why the US market is eating most of Europe's construction wood supply at the moment? Which, by the way, is sourced to a significant degree from the former Soviet Union. So comparing EU forest surface with the US is somewhat misleading.
If "at the moment" is the past year and a half then it's because lumber prices have tripled or quadrupled so of course it makes sense to buy far afield and ship if the price is lower.
Prices increased because the US and China are buying up everything, not the other way round.
Yes increased demand drives increases in price if the supply is limited. Production has been constrained everywhere for the past year and a half so buyers have had to source material from further away than usual.
Didn't check the numbers but I'd guess including European Russia or non-EU Balkans or Norway would totally change your results.
Then again, including Canada would probably as well.
Then again, including Canada would probably as well.
I just used the parent comment numbers converted to same unit with the first DDGed population result. Comparing pct land forested seemed an odd ratio to me. Population seemed to be a better proxy for housing demand. Pop density and other factors would probably confound but tree per capita seems to matter than tree per surface area.
Canada is right next door as well, with trees that can just float down the river
Unsurprisingly a lot of houses are built from wood in Nordic countries and Eastern Europe. It's just tradition limiting its use in some parts.
"Tradition", I think, understates things a bit.
In any region, there are going to be specific factors of soil, climate, infrastructure, etc. that all affect how you would build homes. Transporting materials is expensive, so the availability of local materials is also a factor, though less of a factor than it used to be.
Builders and skilled tradesman in any region are going to have knowledge and practical experience with these local factors, and with the techniques and materials that address those factors. And to some degree, you're better off with the type of house that they're really good at building than the type of house that they're less experienced with.
If you're comparing the US and EU though, I think you also need to account for culture and language barriers. Construction techniques and materials across the US are more similar because builders and tradesmen from Oregon, Arizona, Texas, and Florida can all communicate more easily than builders and tradesman from across Europe.
In any region, there are going to be specific factors of soil, climate, infrastructure, etc. that all affect how you would build homes. Transporting materials is expensive, so the availability of local materials is also a factor, though less of a factor than it used to be.
Builders and skilled tradesman in any region are going to have knowledge and practical experience with these local factors, and with the techniques and materials that address those factors. And to some degree, you're better off with the type of house that they're really good at building than the type of house that they're less experienced with.
If you're comparing the US and EU though, I think you also need to account for culture and language barriers. Construction techniques and materials across the US are more similar because builders and tradesmen from Oregon, Arizona, Texas, and Florida can all communicate more easily than builders and tradesman from across Europe.
> Europe has as much forests as the US. Yes, a lot of it is concentrated in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe...
I'm pretty sure Scandinavian houses do tend to use wood. Likewise, less forested parts of the US, like Arizona, tend to have fewer wooden houses.
I'm pretty sure Scandinavian houses do tend to use wood. Likewise, less forested parts of the US, like Arizona, tend to have fewer wooden houses.
Wish I had more than one upvote to give. There’s a definite trend of Europeans looking puzzlingly at things that Americans do differently and assuming it must be due to some combination of stupidity and greed. Admittedly somethings may fall under that umbrella but homebuilding with wood is not one of them.
There’s a definite trend of Europeans looking puzzlingly at things that Americans do differently and assuming it must be due to some combination of stupidity and greed.
I'm an American and I look at the things we do and they seem to be a combination of stupidity and greed.
You can look at strongtowns.org and many other places for a summary of the illogical, unsustainable and short-term-greed fueled quality of American urbanism.
I'm an American and I look at the things we do and they seem to be a combination of stupidity and greed.
You can look at strongtowns.org and many other places for a summary of the illogical, unsustainable and short-term-greed fueled quality of American urbanism.
Many will see there are differences, there will be some puzzledness involved by part of those but I think there's little % left that then jump to conclusions about stupidity and greed.
> Not only is it less expensive to build, but it's tremendously more energy-efficient when filled with insulation
With modern buiding techniques - building an air tight home and then ventilating with mechanical ventilation, and taking into account thermal bridging - that's no longer true. If anything the extra thermal mass, compared to a wooden framed house, helps to keep it more comfortable and reduce energy consumption during day-night temperature swings. Some bricks, e.g. clay blocks with air pockets inside [0], are both structural and somewhat insulating - you could use them for something like a garage without any other insulation. If you are cheap you don't even need a facade :D
A lot of Central Europe has similar climates to NY - my area had -25C in the winter and 36C just this week. We usually don't even turn on the heating until it gets below 0C outside, as our home is more than comfortable enough (above 21C / 70F) inside until then.
Not gonna argue with the expensive part (there's a reason why people don't build 5000sqft homes here), however it is worth mentioning in most desirable places to build, it is often the land that is the most expensive part.
[0] https://www.wienerberger.com/en/brands-and-products/wall.htm...
With modern buiding techniques - building an air tight home and then ventilating with mechanical ventilation, and taking into account thermal bridging - that's no longer true. If anything the extra thermal mass, compared to a wooden framed house, helps to keep it more comfortable and reduce energy consumption during day-night temperature swings. Some bricks, e.g. clay blocks with air pockets inside [0], are both structural and somewhat insulating - you could use them for something like a garage without any other insulation. If you are cheap you don't even need a facade :D
A lot of Central Europe has similar climates to NY - my area had -25C in the winter and 36C just this week. We usually don't even turn on the heating until it gets below 0C outside, as our home is more than comfortable enough (above 21C / 70F) inside until then.
Not gonna argue with the expensive part (there's a reason why people don't build 5000sqft homes here), however it is worth mentioning in most desirable places to build, it is often the land that is the most expensive part.
[0] https://www.wienerberger.com/en/brands-and-products/wall.htm...
The reason why us Europeans are so confused is, that over the last couple of years we started to see beyond the American Dream. And it feels like every time the US is having a problem it fails to find a solution for some country in Europe or Asia already has one. Not the perfect one, and maybe not one that can be copied, but one that works. Examples: Health care, elections, public transportation, guns, infrastructure, house construction...
Not that I would expect Americans to just copy what we do, but the outright refusal to acknowledge that someone else is doing things that seem impossible is at times hilarious.
All that with the obvious exception, everything military.
Edit: American houses are lower build quality because of lower build quality. Not because they are build out of wood. They are also considerably cheaper.
Not that I would expect Americans to just copy what we do, but the outright refusal to acknowledge that someone else is doing things that seem impossible is at times hilarious.
All that with the obvious exception, everything military.
Edit: American houses are lower build quality because of lower build quality. Not because they are build out of wood. They are also considerably cheaper.
Likewise, some of us are a bit tired of the myopia coming from some Europeans. I’m writing this from an old brick home in the US, one of hundreds in my neighborhood. They’re not as old as the ones in your neighborhood since this area was only settled 150 years ago, but they’ll get there.
We’re not asking you to believe in some “American Dream,” just notice that we also have hundreds of millions of people who make highly varied decisions that conform to natural environments and resources, historical contexts, cultural preferences and financial limits.
We’re not asking you to believe in some “American Dream,” just notice that we also have hundreds of millions of people who make highly varied decisions that conform to natural environments and resources, historical contexts, cultural preferences and financial limits.
The problem is that in the US, house structures are built as large and cheaply as possibly, with all the spending in finish and features.
The US is in the stone age when it comes to wall construction (for longevity and energy savings), vapor control, doors and windows.
I have a small project and I am having to order my windows, house wrap/wrb and tape from European suppliers.
The US is in the stone age when it comes to wall construction (for longevity and energy savings), vapor control, doors and windows.
I have a small project and I am having to order my windows, house wrap/wrb and tape from European suppliers.
What’s different about US and EU house wrap?
Energy is comparatively cheap in the US. As an example, average natural gas prices for consumers have recently gone up to around 0.3€/m³ [0]. In one of the cheapest places in Europe, the Netherlands, itself a large natural gas supplier, it is about .79€/m³[1].
This does not encourage a culture of energy savings. Relevant experience just is not as deeply ingrained. Yet, if I may hope so.
Some examples, just concerning windows, unfortunately without references:
- One can still buy and legally install single pane windows in most of the US.
- A significant share of new windows in the US apparently still are double pane.
- New windows in the US are still often filled with air instead of specialised gases.
- Multi-chambered pvc windows are still being marketed as a tech innovation in some places in the US, while these are bog standard bottom line products even in the Baltic states.
- Try and ask your average window installer about air tightness seals and blower door tests.
[0] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_a_EPG0_PRS_DMcf_m.htm
[1] https://www.milieucentraal.nl/energie-besparen/inzicht-in-je...
This does not encourage a culture of energy savings. Relevant experience just is not as deeply ingrained. Yet, if I may hope so.
Some examples, just concerning windows, unfortunately without references:
- One can still buy and legally install single pane windows in most of the US.
- A significant share of new windows in the US apparently still are double pane.
- New windows in the US are still often filled with air instead of specialised gases.
- Multi-chambered pvc windows are still being marketed as a tech innovation in some places in the US, while these are bog standard bottom line products even in the Baltic states.
- Try and ask your average window installer about air tightness seals and blower door tests.
[0] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_a_EPG0_PRS_DMcf_m.htm
[1] https://www.milieucentraal.nl/energie-besparen/inzicht-in-je...
I'm sad from Japan to see your list because we have worse standards than US even though we don't have great energy source. Poor houses could be built by just lazy government. We still see single glass with stupid aluminum windows frames. It's really awful to use aluminum for insulation that also used for heat sink.
Thank you for your interesting perspective. I had no idea.
If the US depended on something from Russia, I'm sure they'd be huge on conserving it too. I get NL currently exports more than it imports, it still means everyone else will pay a premium for EU-sourced gas, or wants it there as their supply.
Not that Europe ever had an issue with Russian gas deliveries, or Soviet ones back during the Cold War. Ever. Ukraine is different in that regard. And that has nothing to do with energy saving for stuff like heating.
There was a gas scare a few years back. I don’t remember the specifics, but essentially Russia threatened parts of Europe to go without gas for a while.
Some time ago I spoke to an architect from Europe who was living and building in New Zealand. He said that good quality double glazed window are not available. Her ordered them from Europe. (I'm curious is I remember this correctly or maybe the situation has improved now). In Australia there certainly are no double glazed windows in most single home buildings.
Was watching a Scott Brown Carpentry video on Youtube where he mentioned most houses in NZ don't have floor/base insulation because it's not needed, the temperature differences aren't that big apparently. I was really surprised.
The reason might be that there is no need in double glazed windows in AU/NZ.
It (the reason) is not.
Most of NZ gets cold enough to need (at least) double paned windows, and all of NZ needs low-emissivity glass to reduce heat gain in summer. I believe the same is true of Australia.
NZ's current building standards are state of the art for the 1970s.
As gp said, specifying ordinary modern designs, materials and and fittings (by European standards) gets you looked at as though you're from outer space.
NZ's housing stock is cold, damp, and mouldy inside for the most part. Not coincidentally NZ has one of the highest rates of asthma in the world.
Most of NZ gets cold enough to need (at least) double paned windows, and all of NZ needs low-emissivity glass to reduce heat gain in summer. I believe the same is true of Australia.
NZ's current building standards are state of the art for the 1970s.
As gp said, specifying ordinary modern designs, materials and and fittings (by European standards) gets you looked at as though you're from outer space.
NZ's housing stock is cold, damp, and mouldy inside for the most part. Not coincidentally NZ has one of the highest rates of asthma in the world.
I went through a process of building an energy-efficient house, with double paned windows, thermo-resistant window frames, aerated concrete blocks, roof insulation and what not. This came at a significant surplus in my region, where 99% of the construction comes without it, and I got outer space looks all the time.
According to my calculations, the return on investment on reduced electricity costs will come in about 100-200 years, if not more.
In the meantime, if my house will end up in the market, it would hardly sell for any premium over any other house of similar footage in that area, so it's unlikely I would ever recover these costs.
According to my calculations, the return on investment on reduced electricity costs will come in about 100-200 years, if not more.
In the meantime, if my house will end up in the market, it would hardly sell for any premium over any other house of similar footage in that area, so it's unlikely I would ever recover these costs.
First of all, that's generically false. Almost every new housing unit in this world should use triple glazing. It's just great insulation and it will reduce both heating and cooling bills and you know, climate change and all that jazz.
Secondly, NZ, OK, maybe it won't need even double glazing. But aren't AU summers super hot?
Secondly, NZ, OK, maybe it won't need even double glazing. But aren't AU summers super hot?
> Almost every new housing unit in this world should use triple glazing
I agree that it "should". The added costs don't justify it, that's why it usually doesn't. In my region, ROI on triple glazing is in hundreds of years.
I agree that it "should". The added costs don't justify it, that's why it usually doesn't. In my region, ROI on triple glazing is in hundreds of years.
I think modern American houses are lower quality and shorter lasting, but more because of shitty building techniques and poor finish materials than wood framing.
I worked in a wood barn in my youth that was built in 1680 in upstate NY, and will remain standing as long as the roof is maintained. My current home is a circa 1910 wood frame house that is in great shape and should be for years to come. There’s nothing wrong with wood.
I worked in a wood barn in my youth that was built in 1680 in upstate NY, and will remain standing as long as the roof is maintained. My current home is a circa 1910 wood frame house that is in great shape and should be for years to come. There’s nothing wrong with wood.
I don't think it's fair to put brick and stone together like that. I personally live in France, where we have lots of old house made of stone, and they have a way better thermal insulation that houses made of brick, at least on my subjective "is it fresh in summer inside?" scale.
> Brick and stone homes are absolute energy guzzlers both in hot summers and cold winters.
That is not my experience, but a difference is maybe in how we heat things. This article about local heating explains my philosophy pretty well: https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/03/local-heating.html When it's cold, I tend to stay in the room where my computer is and wear a jacket. I do think that it's possible due to how Europe and especially France has a more temperate climate than the US though.
> wood construction has a ton of advantages. Not only is it less expensive to build
The comparaison doesn't really hold as in Europe it's easier to leverage old houses, due to the history of Europe. I don't think any new houses are made of stone.
It's really nice to have people like you point out misconceptions that Europeans can have, but please remember than you can have misconceptions too, and that Europe as a whole (like the US) is very large and has different climates. Not everything you said will hold in France, Spain, Ukraine, Greece, Norway.
> Brick and stone homes are absolute energy guzzlers both in hot summers and cold winters.
That is not my experience, but a difference is maybe in how we heat things. This article about local heating explains my philosophy pretty well: https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/03/local-heating.html When it's cold, I tend to stay in the room where my computer is and wear a jacket. I do think that it's possible due to how Europe and especially France has a more temperate climate than the US though.
> wood construction has a ton of advantages. Not only is it less expensive to build
The comparaison doesn't really hold as in Europe it's easier to leverage old houses, due to the history of Europe. I don't think any new houses are made of stone.
It's really nice to have people like you point out misconceptions that Europeans can have, but please remember than you can have misconceptions too, and that Europe as a whole (like the US) is very large and has different climates. Not everything you said will hold in France, Spain, Ukraine, Greece, Norway.
I'm not sure I get the insulation aspect. Sure when compared with concrete block wood is better, but wood is still a thermal bridge. In parts of Europe a cavity between two block walls is filled with insulation, so no cold bridge, and it means the structural materials inherent insulation value does not matter. An inner leaf of block also has a thermal mass which means the walls maintain the house heat better in summer / winter. So we have outer leaf for structure / weather resistance, insulated cavity with excellent u values, inner leaf for structure and thermal mass. It's a lot thicker wall, but serves multiple purposes very well, and better than wood frame with insulation between studs.
You left out the other advantage of wood - it's environmentally friendly. Instead of mining stone (releasing greenhouse gasses), sustainable wood growth sequesters CO2 inside your house.
This is the important part in my opiniom! And it's why Europe is warming up again to wood based construction (cross laminated timber from sustanaible forests).
All the other differences (ie isolation) can be achieved (or messed up) with either form of construction.
All the other differences (ie isolation) can be achieved (or messed up) with either form of construction.
Wait I thought chopping down trees was environmentally unfriendly.
Most lumber used for houses is planted for that purpose. You have giant fields of 0-year-old trees, then a field of 1-year-old trees, so on up until the (chop down)-year-old-trees being harvested and the -1-year-old-trees being retilled and replanted.
Chopping down Brazilian rainforest for rare woods or cow grazing is environmentally unfriendly. Using commercial softwoods is supporting carbon sequestration and is probably more sustainable than most agriculture.
Chopping down Brazilian rainforest for rare woods or cow grazing is environmentally unfriendly. Using commercial softwoods is supporting carbon sequestration and is probably more sustainable than most agriculture.
It depends .. if you don't release the carbon in the tree you cut down, and you plant another tree then it's all good.
Plant trees, wait 20 years, then chop and use them for building (a form of carbon capture). Repeat.
I think it's important to caveat that wood CAN be friendly, but to imply all wood building materials come from sustainable sources is a leap
I mean, in the US housing is built using SPF (spruce/pine/fir) lumber that is grown for the purpose (whichever of those variants grows close by). If you say your endangered whatever hardwoods aren't environmentally friendly because they're old-growth, sure. But no one is framing a house in that or putting it anywhere it's not visible.
Does anyone know how sustainable lumber is now?
I hope empress trees become usable in construction, they grow insanely fast.
I hope empress trees become usable in construction, they grow insanely fast.
1) You can insulate stone houses as well
2) I spent a year working in D.C. and watched 4-5 houses come up in the neighborhood during that time. The amount of insulation used was _laughable_. Watching builders on YouTube I get the same impression. In Sweden 99% of houses are wood, but all have at the very least the double amount of insulation, often more.
2) I spent a year working in D.C. and watched 4-5 houses come up in the neighborhood during that time. The amount of insulation used was _laughable_. Watching builders on YouTube I get the same impression. In Sweden 99% of houses are wood, but all have at the very least the double amount of insulation, often more.
Insulation does matter, but American insulation is also pretty strange- it is all rated by R value, which is only meaningful if you have a really good airtight seal. Any drafting ruins the insulative value very quickly.
Aerated concrete doesn't have that issue, because the concrete cells are closed and don't draft. If you end up with a poorly fitted window or 50+ mph winds, it doesn't let air through.
OTOH, totally agree about wood. Cheap(er), plentiful, and most importantly, everyone already knows how to work it and has the tools to do so.
Masonry work is physically harder, requires a sounder foundation that won't settle at all due to the increased weight, and there are fewer people willing to do the work. Getting anyone to do foam or aircrete is impossible- you have to watch a bunch of YouTube videos and DIY it yourself.
Aerated concrete doesn't have that issue, because the concrete cells are closed and don't draft. If you end up with a poorly fitted window or 50+ mph winds, it doesn't let air through.
OTOH, totally agree about wood. Cheap(er), plentiful, and most importantly, everyone already knows how to work it and has the tools to do so.
Masonry work is physically harder, requires a sounder foundation that won't settle at all due to the increased weight, and there are fewer people willing to do the work. Getting anyone to do foam or aircrete is impossible- you have to watch a bunch of YouTube videos and DIY it yourself.
> Insulation does matter, but American insulation is also pretty strange- it is all rated by R value, which is only meaningful if you have a really good airtight seal.
You're not wrong, but IMHO the two should be handled separately. The fact that airtightness has been less stringent in the US is mostly an accident of history, which is being improved with recent building codes. It's just that in the past it was easy for people to simply buy some fluffy stuff and stuff it into the walls: doing blower door tests is a lot more complicated.
Building science has also progressed quite rapidly in the last 2-3 decades, and we now 'know better' in many areas than in the past.
> Aerated concrete doesn't have that issue, because the concrete cells are closed and don't draft. If you end up with a poorly fitted window or 50+ mph winds, it doesn't let air through.
First: what's the carbon footprint of concrete? What is footprint of wood framing?
Not letting air through (in or out) is actually what you want. The structures of buildings should not pass any air at all ideally, and all air exchanges should be done primarily via mechanical means:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIcrXut_EFA
You're not wrong, but IMHO the two should be handled separately. The fact that airtightness has been less stringent in the US is mostly an accident of history, which is being improved with recent building codes. It's just that in the past it was easy for people to simply buy some fluffy stuff and stuff it into the walls: doing blower door tests is a lot more complicated.
Building science has also progressed quite rapidly in the last 2-3 decades, and we now 'know better' in many areas than in the past.
> Aerated concrete doesn't have that issue, because the concrete cells are closed and don't draft. If you end up with a poorly fitted window or 50+ mph winds, it doesn't let air through.
First: what's the carbon footprint of concrete? What is footprint of wood framing?
Not letting air through (in or out) is actually what you want. The structures of buildings should not pass any air at all ideally, and all air exchanges should be done primarily via mechanical means:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIcrXut_EFA
I should edit that- I meant that even with a poorly fitted window or 50+ mile winds, the closed cell nature of the concrete doesn't let air circulate through it, while fiberglass does.
Such is, my point was that foam boards and concrete are compared to blown / rolled fiberglass, even though the fiberglass has more failure modes for insulating. A poorly fitted window will seriously compromise the R value of the surrounding fiberglass.
As for the carbon footprint of cement, solid is pretty high, foam not so much. I don't know about commercial stuff, but most DIY'ers seem to use a little under 100 lbs portland cement to make a 55 gallon barrel's worth once the foam is mixed in. Rough math puts a 55 gallon barrel of concrete at about 1000 pounds.
Edit: I just realized that 10% seems low, so what I saw may have used a 55 gallon barrel but not completely filled it. In any case, depending on the structural integrity that you need, the weight reduction (and therefore carbon footprint from curing) is significantly reduced.
Such is, my point was that foam boards and concrete are compared to blown / rolled fiberglass, even though the fiberglass has more failure modes for insulating. A poorly fitted window will seriously compromise the R value of the surrounding fiberglass.
As for the carbon footprint of cement, solid is pretty high, foam not so much. I don't know about commercial stuff, but most DIY'ers seem to use a little under 100 lbs portland cement to make a 55 gallon barrel's worth once the foam is mixed in. Rough math puts a 55 gallon barrel of concrete at about 1000 pounds.
Edit: I just realized that 10% seems low, so what I saw may have used a 55 gallon barrel but not completely filled it. In any case, depending on the structural integrity that you need, the weight reduction (and therefore carbon footprint from curing) is significantly reduced.
We're living in an airtight, concrete, triple glazed house in europe with mechanical ventilation with heat exchange, plus heat pump on a ground source for heating amd (moderate) cooling. It's amazing, temperature is great 24/7 year round.
Having said that, your point about footprint holds and building with wood is coming 'back' here especially because of that, using cross laminated timber from sustainable forests.
Having said that, your point about footprint holds and building with wood is coming 'back' here especially because of that, using cross laminated timber from sustainable forests.
> First: what's the carbon footprint of concrete? What is footprint of wood framing?
Carbon footprint of wood framing is terrible, because its mostly made of engineered wood with a lot of oil in it.
Carbon footprint of wood framing is terrible, because its mostly made of engineered wood with a lot of oil in it.
> mostly made of engineered wood with a lot of oil in it.
[citation needed]
Certainly LVL and LSL products are more processed, as is OSB, but those have the advantage of using 'off cuts' so they can use up some of raw materials that might otherwise be thrown out.
Even with all that processing I find it hard to believe that it would be worse than concrete, given the amount of (fossil fuel?) energy needed for cement kilns and other things.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concre...
[citation needed]
Certainly LVL and LSL products are more processed, as is OSB, but those have the advantage of using 'off cuts' so they can use up some of raw materials that might otherwise be thrown out.
Even with all that processing I find it hard to believe that it would be worse than concrete, given the amount of (fossil fuel?) energy needed for cement kilns and other things.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concre...
... is the oil burned?
Insulation in the UK at least is also rated by R-value (or U-value, where U = 1/R). Can't speak to the rest of Europe.
Standard Assessment Producedure (which is used for household energy ratings) incorporates both this and some fudge factors for draftiness and local wind speed.
Standard Assessment Producedure (which is used for household energy ratings) incorporates both this and some fudge factors for draftiness and local wind speed.
In the United States, masons and concrete (including aerated) are quite common; rarity doesn't factor into it. DIY is not necessary.
You misunderstand building construction. American insulation is, indeed, rated by R value, its resistance to the conductive flow of heat. *Any* draft will bypass insulation of any material. A leaky window will leak air, regardless of the construction material of the wall. American wooden buildings are sealed with sheet plastic, Tyvek, etc. to prevent drafts; all part of the insulation.
Looks like you did not understand that comment. Concrete will not let a draft through no matter where the wind hits. For fiberglass and others, one bad fitting means a current can form through the material. This is why you need tyvek to begin with.
You are misunderstanding the American building system. We don't use fiberglass insulation by itself. You're picking a small part of a greater system and complaining it doesn't work in isolation. There are multiple layers to our construction and it's effective.
As for the wall material stopping drafts in a window frame, that makes no sense at all.
As for the wall material stopping drafts in a window frame, that makes no sense at all.
Exactly, the critique is that you need multiple layers, and if one fails, the R values you thought you had go out of the window. Whereas a concrete, wattle and daub etc wall will tolerate less-than-perfect fitting and maintenance. Of course if you assume construction is flawless, there will be no issues, and that’s the usual case.
How does concrete stop a draft that is going between a window frame and the wall itself?
I've never had a draft through a fibercement/wood/fiberglass/drywall wall, in any case.
I've never had a draft through a fibercement/wood/fiberglass/drywall wall, in any case.
A poor fit, minor damage, or any defect allows convection within the fiberglass. R-value assumes zero air movement, which is why it is far less useful comparing fiberglass to foam or aerated cement. In real world settings, aerated cement will outperform fiberglass.
The same thing can happen when concrete cracks, which is quite common. All of this a question of basic building maintenance rather than the building materials chosen.
Cracking is why single family homes generally avoid concrete walls in the permafrost.
Cracking is why single family homes generally avoid concrete walls in the permafrost.
Wood can also be good in an earthquake (the "willow vs oak tree" principle). However modern low-cost manufacturing means you'll still suffer various damage due to things like gypsum wallboards which are less compliant than the wood framing. But those failures won't be fatal.
> Here's the thing, though: most Europeans seem to be suffering some pretty serious misconceptions.
Hi there, I'm a civil engineer from the EU who specialized in building structures and was trained in masonry and timber structures.
None of the concerns you mentioned feature as a design constraint. There is no shortage of building materials in Europe, and is indeed cheaper than the classical building materials. We do use a lot of concrete, masonry, and steel, none of which grows on trees.
The main factor is population density, and the ultimate and serviceability state that buildings need to comply with in order to be assuredly safe to be habitable by people.
It's fine if you wish to build a single-family home with a timber structure from top to bottom, provided that you do all the work to ensure that expected win loads are not able to blow out your home. There are homes being built like that around here. But those are indeed rare, because of cultural differences. The everyday joe around here looks at modern timber homes and, when compared with masonry, concrete, and even steel structures, immediately perceives it as low-quality work. Think McMansion. Prefabricated homes in general suffer from that prejudice, including light steel frame homes. That in turn leads to a market where most offerings target the low-end.
On higher density residential buildings things are quite different. most residential buildings have 4 or 5 stories and thus structural soundness starts to be harder to ensure. You no longer are able to meet safety requirements by having a low-skilled carpenter randomly nailing together two boards. Moreover, the loads are more demanding, both dead loads and live loads such as wind Here the problem lies in the need to put together building structures that is verifiably safe involving cases where the minimum prescribed values in building standards don't cut it anymore. More importantly, you start to need to design specialized structural elements that can easily need to span over 6 meters. This is engineered timber territory, and one which can involve designing specialized structural elements. To add to the complexity, this technology introduces problems in complying with serviceability limit states that don't pose as big of a challenge with other technologies such as vibration limits and sagging.
Consequently, we do see engineered lumber structures in long span structures and even foot bridges, but in general it's more cost effective, simpler, durable, lower-mainrenance and higher-quality to just build with other building technologies.
Hi there, I'm a civil engineer from the EU who specialized in building structures and was trained in masonry and timber structures.
None of the concerns you mentioned feature as a design constraint. There is no shortage of building materials in Europe, and is indeed cheaper than the classical building materials. We do use a lot of concrete, masonry, and steel, none of which grows on trees.
The main factor is population density, and the ultimate and serviceability state that buildings need to comply with in order to be assuredly safe to be habitable by people.
It's fine if you wish to build a single-family home with a timber structure from top to bottom, provided that you do all the work to ensure that expected win loads are not able to blow out your home. There are homes being built like that around here. But those are indeed rare, because of cultural differences. The everyday joe around here looks at modern timber homes and, when compared with masonry, concrete, and even steel structures, immediately perceives it as low-quality work. Think McMansion. Prefabricated homes in general suffer from that prejudice, including light steel frame homes. That in turn leads to a market where most offerings target the low-end.
On higher density residential buildings things are quite different. most residential buildings have 4 or 5 stories and thus structural soundness starts to be harder to ensure. You no longer are able to meet safety requirements by having a low-skilled carpenter randomly nailing together two boards. Moreover, the loads are more demanding, both dead loads and live loads such as wind Here the problem lies in the need to put together building structures that is verifiably safe involving cases where the minimum prescribed values in building standards don't cut it anymore. More importantly, you start to need to design specialized structural elements that can easily need to span over 6 meters. This is engineered timber territory, and one which can involve designing specialized structural elements. To add to the complexity, this technology introduces problems in complying with serviceability limit states that don't pose as big of a challenge with other technologies such as vibration limits and sagging.
Consequently, we do see engineered lumber structures in long span structures and even foot bridges, but in general it's more cost effective, simpler, durable, lower-mainrenance and higher-quality to just build with other building technologies.
Its not just the insulative value, stone and concrete also have thermal mass, which can keep you cooler in summer and warmer in winter. Some types of construction like rammed earth or hempcrete exploit this on purpose.
Wood frame houses don't have that.
Wood frame houses don't have that.
Thermal mass is not always a good thing. High thermal mass is helpful in a temperate climates where winter nights are chilly and summer days are warm, but the average temperature all year is comfortable.
We don't have that in most of America. Having a high thermal mass in New England just means your heater has to work harder in the winter to heat your thermally massive house. Ditto for Arizona during most of the year.
We don't have that in most of America. Having a high thermal mass in New England just means your heater has to work harder in the winter to heat your thermally massive house. Ditto for Arizona during most of the year.
High thermal mass is very much desirable in Arizona. Adobe pueblos are used for traditional housing because they remain comfortable throughout summer without air conditioning due to the high thermal mass. A rug and some mild heating is sufficient to keep them tolerable even in extreme winters.
It seems like this shouldn't be a problem when the insulation is outside the the thermal mass? Once it's warmed up it will stay that way.
Insulation should absolutely be kept outside the vapor barrier and well ventilated for better performance, but thermal mass is less important than building super-airtight walls, with lots of insulation, good quality windows and controlled ventilation.
The desert is typically cold at night.
Was typically cold at night. I’ve lived in southern Arizona since the 90s. 30 years ago it would feel cool driving home from the city. Now? Not at all.
Owning a concrete block house feels like all my money is going through the walls. Even if you have the AC on in the summer, you can touch the walls from the inside and they feel warm. I’m definitely going to need to look at insulation going forward.
Owning a concrete block house feels like all my money is going through the walls. Even if you have the AC on in the summer, you can touch the walls from the inside and they feel warm. I’m definitely going to need to look at insulation going forward.
I think wood, stone, concrete and glass are all not great insulators, so that should be found in thickness, layering with different materials and airtightness (assumjng mechanical ventillation preferably with heat exhange). You can do that (and mess it up) with any of said materials.
In most masonry homes the insulation is on the inside of the masonry, so you don't get the masonry as part of the thermal mass inside the insulation envelope.
Wood framed houses can have thermal mass to keep a stable temperature. This is more common with homes with exposed wood framing, and SIP on the outside.
Wood framed houses can have thermal mass to keep a stable temperature. This is more common with homes with exposed wood framing, and SIP on the outside.
Masonry can be basically on any type of housing right?. Here in the Neherlands the inside is often concrete with lits if thernal mass, also in floors/ceilings, which are often big fat slabs of concrete.
American houses aren't really built from "wood" as in directly from trees - they are build from "engineered wood" like fiberboard and particleboard.
That's a lot of industrial processing with a lot of oil-based glues and so on. By weight, the houses are almost more oil than wood.
Here's an enlightening chapter of "Well there's your problem" podcast about this with actual civil engineers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVodkE47aLw
That's a lot of industrial processing with a lot of oil-based glues and so on. By weight, the houses are almost more oil than wood.
Here's an enlightening chapter of "Well there's your problem" podcast about this with actual civil engineers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVodkE47aLw
This statement is odd given the fact that the US (and China for that matter) are gobbling up all the European lumber as it is cheaper than in the states, leading to ridiculous price increases over here.
Societal inertia and tradition can be powerful forces. Look at all of the people going with green lawns in the desert.
My own home is 121 years old 2x4 framed, with a well frequented railroad track within a stones throw. Wonder how well a stone home would hold up to that constant mild tremor.
Absolutely fine. It's common for train lines to run straight through the centres of cities and towns in Europe including very densely packed industrial revolution era areas all made from stone.
By "brick" and "stone" you don't mean literally bricks and stones, right? Because modern houses are constructed with cinder blocks[0], foam concrete[1], polystyrene concrete[2] and composite blocks. And using mineral wool as an insulation is, well, not the best idea construction engineering came to in last 50 years.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_masonry_unit
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foam_concrete
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_polystyrene_concrete
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_masonry_unit
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foam_concrete
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_polystyrene_concrete
there's plenty of new builds in the UK using mostly red brick construction methods. Just plain old brick and mortar.
In fact, if you google "uk new builds" almost every image that comes up is a red brick house.
In fact, if you google "uk new builds" almost every image that comes up is a red brick house.
Composite block may look like bricks from the outside. Or there may be a decorative single brick layer around foam concrete walls.
Question: aren't lots of commercial buildings in the US built with steel (or aluminum??) studs? What are the advantages/ disadvantages? From observation, the metal studs are about the same size as a 2x4, but constructed like an I-beam, with open parts. I don't know how they're joined--bolted? Riveted?
> I don't know how they're joined--bolted? Riveted?
For black metal, it's the most obvious method — welding.
For sheet metal, it's clinching, snaps, or, more rarely, threaded fasteners.
For black metal, it's the most obvious method — welding.
For sheet metal, it's clinching, snaps, or, more rarely, threaded fasteners.
Unfortunately, while it’s definitely possible to insulate wood houses, it’s often not done [1]. As a result, more than half of energy use at home is spent on temperature control [2]. Yes, European homes are also underinsulated, but bricks provide better insulation per default.
I agree about European deforestation. Wood from the Russian Taiga and the Amazon are illegally imported as a result, that’s so embarrassing and wrong.
I did list specially treated wood in the list of building materials btw, you might have overlooked that. I agree that wood can be a great material for building modern houses, when combined with other materials. Homes purely made of wood would be too unsafe for me personally (fire hazard, termites in the US, high susceptibility to outside forces).
1: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ninety-percent-of-u...
2: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/homes.php
I agree about European deforestation. Wood from the Russian Taiga and the Amazon are illegally imported as a result, that’s so embarrassing and wrong.
I did list specially treated wood in the list of building materials btw, you might have overlooked that. I agree that wood can be a great material for building modern houses, when combined with other materials. Homes purely made of wood would be too unsafe for me personally (fire hazard, termites in the US, high susceptibility to outside forces).
1: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ninety-percent-of-u...
2: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/homes.php
> Unfortunately, while it’s definitely possible to insulate wood houses, it’s often not done [1].
"Ninety Percent of U.S. Homes Are Under Insulated"
Yes, because Ninety Percent of U.S. Homes Were Built With Old(er) Building Codes.
> Yes, European homes are also underinsulated, but bricks provide better insulation per default.
A lot of Europe is a lot more temperate than the US and Canada, so it didn't make much of a difference. I'm in Toronto, Canada, and we regularly get -15C winter weather as well as >30C (>80% RH) summer days too. To stay comfortable you really need heating and cooling. Many buildings in the EU don't have cooling (which has caused all sorts of problems during heat waves).
The US has eight climate zones (AK not shown):
* https://www.ecohome.net/guides/3521/climate-zones-map-usa-ca...
And while a lot of the construction techniques would be the same regardless of location (e.g., air tightness), other things would not (insulation, HVAC equipment).
"Ninety Percent of U.S. Homes Are Under Insulated"
Yes, because Ninety Percent of U.S. Homes Were Built With Old(er) Building Codes.
> Yes, European homes are also underinsulated, but bricks provide better insulation per default.
A lot of Europe is a lot more temperate than the US and Canada, so it didn't make much of a difference. I'm in Toronto, Canada, and we regularly get -15C winter weather as well as >30C (>80% RH) summer days too. To stay comfortable you really need heating and cooling. Many buildings in the EU don't have cooling (which has caused all sorts of problems during heat waves).
The US has eight climate zones (AK not shown):
* https://www.ecohome.net/guides/3521/climate-zones-map-usa-ca...
And while a lot of the construction techniques would be the same regardless of location (e.g., air tightness), other things would not (insulation, HVAC equipment).
> Yes, because Ninety Percent of U.S. Homes Were Built With Old(er) Building Codes.
Most public housing projects in Vienna, Austria, were retrofitted with modern insulation in the timespan of 10-20 years ago. Public funding exists in various EU countries for home owners to do the same.
> A lot of Europe is a lot more temperate than the US and Canada, so it didn't make much of a difference.
The number of households in Sweden, Finland, and Norway combined is comparable to Canada. Temps seem to be similar there. In Austria we get -10 and sometimes -15 degrees Celcius in winter, and up to 35 degrees in summer. Same in Germany, where 18% of EU inhabitants live. Bricks are a staple in energy conservation in big parts of Europe.
Most public housing projects in Vienna, Austria, were retrofitted with modern insulation in the timespan of 10-20 years ago. Public funding exists in various EU countries for home owners to do the same.
> A lot of Europe is a lot more temperate than the US and Canada, so it didn't make much of a difference.
The number of households in Sweden, Finland, and Norway combined is comparable to Canada. Temps seem to be similar there. In Austria we get -10 and sometimes -15 degrees Celcius in winter, and up to 35 degrees in summer. Same in Germany, where 18% of EU inhabitants live. Bricks are a staple in energy conservation in big parts of Europe.
Maybe someone with more local knowledge can correct me, but I am under the impression that most homes in Sweden, Finland, and Norway are made out of wood.
They, like Canada, have a convenient source of wood in the boreal forests.
They, like Canada, have a convenient source of wood in the boreal forests.
Single family houses are typically wood framed, yes. Exterior differs, wood planking and brick are probably the most common.
Multi-story buildings in cities are typically prefabricated concrete modules, sometimes clad in brick, sometimes just painted.
Multi-story buildings in cities are typically prefabricated concrete modules, sometimes clad in brick, sometimes just painted.
Wiod yes, but as far as I understood, well isolated, which was the point a few posts up I think.
At least in Florida, modern building codes of the past couple decades requires excellent insulation. The reason for so many houses being under-insulated (a separate issue from uninsulated) is because most houses are older. For the very reason you started with, houses last for many decades.
It also matters how one determines under-insulated. Energy here is cheap; we use big trucks as commuter cars. Using half our electricity for heating and cooling didn't matter until CO² usage became important; now it's huge.
It also matters how one determines under-insulated. Energy here is cheap; we use big trucks as commuter cars. Using half our electricity for heating and cooling didn't matter until CO² usage became important; now it's huge.
Building codes require relatively decent insulation and air sealing almost everywhere in the U.S. Builders do like to cut corners on things the homeowner can’t see, but in most areas code enforcement is not lax enough to allow insulation that doesn’t meet code.
> it’s often not done
Sure, 50 years ago. Modern code calls for a lot of insulation.
Sure, 50 years ago. Modern code calls for a lot of insulation.
You're saying it like rhe chiming in is bad or at least tiring. But that's how we come to insightful discussions like this one. Plus there IS a difderenc which does make articles like this at least different to interpret for the non-US crowd.
There are very good prefab houses made of wood in Europe. A relative of mine paid 600K EUR for one.
Also, while there is more wood in North America, it’s not like there are no forests in Europe. Take a look at Romania or Bosnia if you want to see big wild ones.
Also, while there is more wood in North America, it’s not like there are no forests in Europe. Take a look at Romania or Bosnia if you want to see big wild ones.
Termites though? Those tent things and fumigation companies are just a 'television thing' to me; when I was young I thought it was some sort of cleaning thing.
US wood supply is currently largely diminished and lots of wood is being imported from Germany.
Interesting, why? Source?
There are dozens of articles about it. This is the first result with duckduckgo for "wood prices soar": https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-05-12/lumber-pri...
can't tell u how many times I asked American construction workers/contractors about this, and none knew the answer. Glad to finally have an answer. thx.
Site note: can't stand the amount of noise(!) going throw the house as opposed to concrete.
Site note: can't stand the amount of noise(!) going throw the house as opposed to concrete.
You pay for the land and all that other blah-blah-blah aside:
Having grown up in the United States and lived over a decade in various parts of Europe, I find U.S. construction quality and expectations (esp. modern) absolutely dismal. It’s truly in the space of relative deprivation. In no way are most of the property structures worth their market prices (pre-bubble).
I spoke to a Swiss colleague who lives part time in the States recently about this. He attempted to have a house built to modern Swiss design spec. where he was living (climatically similar to the Schweizer Mittelland) and gave up due to infeasibility. Money was not the problem; knowledge, at-grade quality inputs, etc. are all lacking in the United States. And I’d believe it being in CH now and today. I’ve kept an eye open for quality execution on all of my return trips (various parts of the country), and I just don’t see anything that can hold a candle to modern construction in DACH.
Simple quality of life improvement for many buildings Stateside would be retrofitting these onto more doors: https://planet.ag/produkte/produkteuebersicht/. Folks deserve noise, smell, and climatic isolation. You don’t know what you are missing. I’d easily spend $50 a night more for hotels that’d use these. I don’t want to be able to hear a mouse fart from a room down the hall unattenuated at perfect fidelity.
Having grown up in the United States and lived over a decade in various parts of Europe, I find U.S. construction quality and expectations (esp. modern) absolutely dismal. It’s truly in the space of relative deprivation. In no way are most of the property structures worth their market prices (pre-bubble).
I spoke to a Swiss colleague who lives part time in the States recently about this. He attempted to have a house built to modern Swiss design spec. where he was living (climatically similar to the Schweizer Mittelland) and gave up due to infeasibility. Money was not the problem; knowledge, at-grade quality inputs, etc. are all lacking in the United States. And I’d believe it being in CH now and today. I’ve kept an eye open for quality execution on all of my return trips (various parts of the country), and I just don’t see anything that can hold a candle to modern construction in DACH.
Simple quality of life improvement for many buildings Stateside would be retrofitting these onto more doors: https://planet.ag/produkte/produkteuebersicht/. Folks deserve noise, smell, and climatic isolation. You don’t know what you are missing. I’d easily spend $50 a night more for hotels that’d use these. I don’t want to be able to hear a mouse fart from a room down the hall unattenuated at perfect fidelity.
> ...and I just don’t see anything that can hold a candle to modern construction in DACH.
You say "Money was not the problem". I take that to mean your friend was reasonably not willing to pay as much as an order of magnitude more in the US than average (say a range of $300-1K psf for just the improvement and not including the dirt). Generally, if he went to high-end commercial builders, opened a checkbook, and said, "use these materials and parts, build to these specs and tolerances", he'll get whatever he wants in the US.
Compare average US tract residential SFH construction build quality to what you find in private venture companies that builds and operate their own MFH's. While the interiors are similar, the private venture companies are staffed by people who know what will and will not work in the bones of the structure over the investment payoff timeline. They won't care about insulation for the tenants' benefit, but they will make very certain for example that the walls, roof and foundation stand for as long as they project to hold the investment.
The US aggressively min-maxes for the wealthy capital-holding class. It is no accident that if you want something done right and will last, you will avail yourself of the same kinds of resources that class will use themselves.
You say "Money was not the problem". I take that to mean your friend was reasonably not willing to pay as much as an order of magnitude more in the US than average (say a range of $300-1K psf for just the improvement and not including the dirt). Generally, if he went to high-end commercial builders, opened a checkbook, and said, "use these materials and parts, build to these specs and tolerances", he'll get whatever he wants in the US.
Compare average US tract residential SFH construction build quality to what you find in private venture companies that builds and operate their own MFH's. While the interiors are similar, the private venture companies are staffed by people who know what will and will not work in the bones of the structure over the investment payoff timeline. They won't care about insulation for the tenants' benefit, but they will make very certain for example that the walls, roof and foundation stand for as long as they project to hold the investment.
The US aggressively min-maxes for the wealthy capital-holding class. It is no accident that if you want something done right and will last, you will avail yourself of the same kinds of resources that class will use themselves.
What's that thing in your link?
To add to that - it’s a totally different industry, but Tesla cars made in China are known to be superior in quality compared to the US produced one‘s.
I mean there is no reason wooden structures shouldn't last over 100 years if not double or triple that except for lack of maintenance, usually involving leaking roof or a negligent design that traps water. I grew up in a house that was 150 years old and the only thing not wooden on it was the roofing material, although when it was first built it likely was cedar shake. The walls were wood, the floors were wood, the siding was wood, and any interior plaster was backed with wood. We never had to question any of the woods condition despite the majority of it being completely original.
Let’s add a lack of termites, no lightning strikes, and great care about open fires to the list of requirements. While I personally like the idea (and smell!) of pure wood houses, I would not want to live in one permanently. Wood is a great material for sure, but why not mix it with other materials to make things safer and more sturdy.
Because wood is plenty strong and safe.
I've lived in wood houses all my life, all of them built between 1920 and 1950.
Balloon construction has, generally speaking, been great. The frames are strong and light, easy to run cabling/utilities, easy to modify/remove/renovate (You know what else I've done in every house I've owned? Moved at least one wall - in my current house we just completely modified the layout of the upstairs. Moving the walls cost on the order of a few hundred dollars each, since they weren't structural supports, and it's just wood and drywall)
Basically - They're cheaper, better for the environment, and when cared for last a LONG time. Do they have some specific downsides? Sure. But overall they work fantastically well.
Also - if you think concrete is sturdier than wood frames... in most cases I suspect you're wrong for residential homes. I live in a temperate rain forest (Atlanta, GA) the pine trees are HUGE, and they fall constantly - they hit houses a lot. Most take damage, but it's usually easy to repair, and honestly, the wood frame alone usually keeps people inside safe. Hundreds of houses a year take tree hits, and having someone die is rare enough it usually makes the news. Wood is tough. I've seen a 100ft pine literally bounce off a house.
I've lived in wood houses all my life, all of them built between 1920 and 1950.
Balloon construction has, generally speaking, been great. The frames are strong and light, easy to run cabling/utilities, easy to modify/remove/renovate (You know what else I've done in every house I've owned? Moved at least one wall - in my current house we just completely modified the layout of the upstairs. Moving the walls cost on the order of a few hundred dollars each, since they weren't structural supports, and it's just wood and drywall)
Basically - They're cheaper, better for the environment, and when cared for last a LONG time. Do they have some specific downsides? Sure. But overall they work fantastically well.
Also - if you think concrete is sturdier than wood frames... in most cases I suspect you're wrong for residential homes. I live in a temperate rain forest (Atlanta, GA) the pine trees are HUGE, and they fall constantly - they hit houses a lot. Most take damage, but it's usually easy to repair, and honestly, the wood frame alone usually keeps people inside safe. Hundreds of houses a year take tree hits, and having someone die is rare enough it usually makes the news. Wood is tough. I've seen a 100ft pine literally bounce off a house.
IMO this is the kind of stuff people worry about who don't really have any knowledge about wood structures. In some ways they're the safest and sturdiest choice, especially if you get any earthquakes in your region.
FWIW, if you are concerned about fire, you should be aware that it's really the contents of the house that pose the greatest risk. You can get to flashover temperatures in a matter of minutes before any of the wood structure is burning.
FWIW, if you are concerned about fire, you should be aware that it's really the contents of the house that pose the greatest risk. You can get to flashover temperatures in a matter of minutes before any of the wood structure is burning.
Termites are not a problem in huge swaths of the world, lightning strikes are… very unlikely, and fires will destroy any house, wood or not.
All in all, correctly built wooden houses are pretty much as safe and sturdy as anything else.
All in all, correctly built wooden houses are pretty much as safe and sturdy as anything else.
Wood houses do not burn very well. Pure wood houses (think lumber cottages) are especially hard to set fire to.
The things that do burn are furniture, paint, drapes etc and are present in any house.
The things that do burn are furniture, paint, drapes etc and are present in any house.
> The material used in this type of wood can go up in flames much faster than traditional lumber does, meaning in a house fire, new homes will be more susceptible to something like a floor or roof collapse. Firefighters say it will happen quicker, too.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/idahonews.com/amp/news/local/ho...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/idahonews.com/amp/news/local/ho...
The article also says you’ll die of smoke inhalation long before the floor collapses
> but why not mix it with other materials to make things safer and more sturdy.
Because wood is a renewable resource, not a source of carbon emissions (like concrete), and is absolutely strong enough for single family homes.
Because wood is a renewable resource, not a source of carbon emissions (like concrete), and is absolutely strong enough for single family homes.
The no termites thing is a big deal. I would not build with wood in the jungles of Panama. At best some solid wood beams, hardwood, properly treated. For aesthetics.
Termites are a constant battle for my parents there in their concrete home. I can't imagine the carnage with a wood frame home.
Termites are a constant battle for my parents there in their concrete home. I can't imagine the carnage with a wood frame home.
TIL about concrete eating termites and now I’m absolutely horrified. Thanks.
What happens to a concrete home in termite country?
It's fine. They still invade the home through any opening they can find, build nests in the ceiling, eat cardboard boxes, exposed wood and trim, and furniture. They don't eat concrete, thankfully.
I lost a piece of furniture there living in a condo, downtown in the city. The termites are industrious.
I lost a piece of furniture there living in a condo, downtown in the city. The termites are industrious.
Imagine concrete termites. Yikes.
> Open fires
Time to bring the Latvian video back up again: https://youtu.be/G-J86Ka9MkQ
Time to bring the Latvian video back up again: https://youtu.be/G-J86Ka9MkQ
Yeah, so, fire. Why don’t we go to the - primarily built from stone - Notre Dame and ask how that went.
Well if you take into account that the roof framing that caught fire was made out of timber I think that highlights that even just using wood as part of the building is a massive fire hazard.
The roof is/was wood. That's what burned.
Well, technically, the roof was lead/tin shingles. The support beams for the roof (and a good many parts of the church, like the bell supports) were wood.
My point is that building of brick/concrete doesn't guarantee you're rid of flammable infrastructure.
My point is that building of brick/concrete doesn't guarantee you're rid of flammable infrastructure.
One other drawback of wooden houses is that wood absorbs moisture so in winter you have to run a humidifier because the air moisture is basically non-existent and that will irritate your nose and throat.
I'll take a typical drywall panels on a wooden frame over wooden walls.
I'll take a typical drywall panels on a wooden frame over wooden walls.
Wood can't continually absorb moisture, at some point it would become saturated.
I always thought that the reason that winter air is dry is because warm air can hold more moisture than cold air, so as you heat it, relative humidity decreases. So, for example, if it's 5C outside with 50% relative humidity, if you heat that air to 22C, then it will have only 17% relative humidity.
But modern houses (even wood ones) are so well sealed that even in winter you could end up with too much humidity inside just from normal activities (cooking, bathing, breathing).
I always thought that the reason that winter air is dry is because warm air can hold more moisture than cold air, so as you heat it, relative humidity decreases. So, for example, if it's 5C outside with 50% relative humidity, if you heat that air to 22C, then it will have only 17% relative humidity.
But modern houses (even wood ones) are so well sealed that even in winter you could end up with too much humidity inside just from normal activities (cooking, bathing, breathing).
In US in many areas the earthquakes safety requires to build lighter houses. Plus many areas are subject to tornados and hurricanes when it is rather pointless to build anything that lasts 100 years. On that time scale the house will be destroyed or badly damaged in any case.
Please bear in mind that I don’t mean the following in a cynic way. Damage from storms is horrible, and I feel for the families losing their homes every year.
There was a tornado just a few days ago in the Czech Republic (not far from where I live), and as far as I can see, houses did lose their roofs, or the shingles at least, but the structures remained mostly intact. Many houses have basements in which people could hide in relative safety. Five people died unfortunately, not sure how many of those were in their homes at the time. But I think those rather sturdy houses made of bricks did infact save a lot of lives, and prevented many more from totally losing their home.
To me it feels deeply illogical to build a house basically made of light wood frames when I know a hurricane can blow it away while I‘m inside of it. I‘m not sure about earthquakes, we have them of course, but they are less severe than in other areas in the world.
There was a tornado just a few days ago in the Czech Republic (not far from where I live), and as far as I can see, houses did lose their roofs, or the shingles at least, but the structures remained mostly intact. Many houses have basements in which people could hide in relative safety. Five people died unfortunately, not sure how many of those were in their homes at the time. But I think those rather sturdy houses made of bricks did infact save a lot of lives, and prevented many more from totally losing their home.
To me it feels deeply illogical to build a house basically made of light wood frames when I know a hurricane can blow it away while I‘m inside of it. I‘m not sure about earthquakes, we have them of course, but they are less severe than in other areas in the world.
I just looked that up and that appears to have been an EF2 tornado. That intensity deals an order of magnitude less damage than the EF3, EF4, and EF5 tornadoes that regularly appear in the US, which can literally tear entire houses off their foundations. A brick building in those conditions would be reduced to individual bricks.
I read it was estimated to be F4. Brick houses are definitely less likely to be destroyed than timber.
Timber can be many things. I have a hard time seeing a log house being swept away by almost any force of wind.
I worked on a cleanup crew after hurricane Andrew. Huge H-frame metal girders on highway structures were bent like pretzels. Entire lime groves were uprooted and piled like tumbleweeds. Houses were completely exploded. It was similar to what I imagine a bomb going off would look like.
A log cabin would not have survived the worst areas of it I don't believe.
A log cabin would not have survived the worst areas of it I don't believe.
Then you don't appreciate the forces at play. An EF4 will rip deep rooted trees right out of the ground.
I can see that there are manufacturers selling log houses certified for cat-5 (245 mph) hurricanes.
I do of course understand that any construction will be blown away at some point, I just cant picture it. The way the logs lock each other at the intersections and how the structure still is sound with no roof should help quite a bit.
The big danger in a cat 5 is more the debris.
There's a saying: It's not THAT the wind is blowing,it's WHAT the wind is blowing.
There's a saying: It's not THAT the wind is blowing,it's WHAT the wind is blowing.
EF2 is not a measure of force of wind. It's a measure of total damage.
.
The wind speed was in the F4 category.
Hurricanes and earthquakes are one thing, but what percentage of the US population lives in areas regularly subject to EF3-5 tornadoes?
You might be surprised: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/tornado-all...
EF4 or EF5 tornadoes are around 2% of those in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornadoes_in_the_United_States), which means any state with more than 34 or so a year can expect to see at least one. That accounts for 14 states with a combined population of about 106 million people. That's approximately 32% of the total US population.
8%-ish of tornadoes rate EF3. At which point any state with seven or more a year should expect at least one in the EF3-5 range (yay, birthday paradox!). That's 32 states totaling 270 million people - 82% of the US.
EF4 or EF5 tornadoes are around 2% of those in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornadoes_in_the_United_States), which means any state with more than 34 or so a year can expect to see at least one. That accounts for 14 states with a combined population of about 106 million people. That's approximately 32% of the total US population.
8%-ish of tornadoes rate EF3. At which point any state with seven or more a year should expect at least one in the EF3-5 range (yay, birthday paradox!). That's 32 states totaling 270 million people - 82% of the US.
I find a flaw in your logic, but don't have a pithy name for it. Population densities and EF4/EF5 tornado probabilities are not uniformly distributed throughout a state, and probably are negatively correlated.
Looking at this image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Improved_Average_Annual_T...) from the wikipedia article you linked shows this, with New Orleans, Atlanta and Miami being outside their state's main tornado zone and Houston and Chicago right at the border of high-tornados and medium-tornados.
Looking at this image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Improved_Average_Annual_T...) from the wikipedia article you linked shows this, with New Orleans, Atlanta and Miami being outside their state's main tornado zone and Houston and Chicago right at the border of high-tornados and medium-tornados.
Oh, you're absolutely right. I simplified immensely by aggregating at the level of a convenient political division that has only vague bearing on actual geography as well as assuming the distributions are uniform across the range in question.
I think the overall point is sound, though. A huge chunk of the US population is in territory regularly subject to strong tornadoes.
Also, I would beg to differ that this map puts Chicago at the edge of a high-tornado zone. It's solidly in one, as is Kansas City.
I think the overall point is sound, though. A huge chunk of the US population is in territory regularly subject to strong tornadoes.
Also, I would beg to differ that this map puts Chicago at the edge of a high-tornado zone. It's solidly in one, as is Kansas City.
I agree with KC. For Chicago, it looked to me like the tornado zone had a small buffer around the lake that Chicago nestled into.
But your larger point stands.
But your larger point stands.
Much of the Midwest, which is 21% of the US population.
Hurricanes are far more destructive and many spawn tornadoes. About 44% of Americans live in a Hurricane zone.
Add earthquakes and fires maybe 60~70% of Americans live in a place with reoccurring natural disasters.
Hurricanes are far more destructive and many spawn tornadoes. About 44% of Americans live in a Hurricane zone.
Add earthquakes and fires maybe 60~70% of Americans live in a place with reoccurring natural disasters.
[deleted]
The frequency and maximum strength of tornadoes are higher in the central US. Casual skim of the wikipedia page indicates about as many F4 tornadoes in Europe as F5 tornadoes in the US since 2000.
There are many tornadoes where I live and most of the houses don’t have basements. Directly in the path of the tornado, houses built on a slab were completely gone, leaving only a clean slab. This happened to a few entire neighborhoods.
But, tornadoes here follow similar paths over a fifty year period. When I bought my house I found a hole in the fifty year tornado map and I’ve never had one come near me. Every couple decades the patterns may shift to other patterns, but generally speaking both the new patterns and old patterns have all happened in the last fifty years.
But, tornadoes here follow similar paths over a fifty year period. When I bought my house I found a hole in the fifty year tornado map and I’ve never had one come near me. Every couple decades the patterns may shift to other patterns, but generally speaking both the new patterns and old patterns have all happened in the last fifty years.
That’s devastating. I wonder why houses in such areas are not required to provide underground shelter, or at least be built more solidly.
After the 2011 tornadoes in the Southeast US, many communities built above-ground shelters (think "bunker"), with the downside being going any distance to a shelter is likely to be more dangerous than staying where you are. Also, many homeowners bought smaller above-ground shelters (think "steel pill-box").
You cannot reasonably build solidly enough to withstand a high-level tornado unless you're talking underground bunkers, which are not an acceptable answer.
It's not a problem, people just don't want to pay for it.
https://www.icfmag.com/2012/09/tornado-resistant-concrete-ho...
https://www.icfmag.com/2012/09/tornado-resistant-concrete-ho...
Is it not?
For a few decades the Swiss required building concrete nuclear fallout bunkers for every resident. This was relaxed only recently, but presumably it was doable for five decades. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-bunker/swiss-relax-...
For a few decades the Swiss required building concrete nuclear fallout bunkers for every resident. This was relaxed only recently, but presumably it was doable for five decades. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-bunker/swiss-relax-...
So you can be in a bunker above ground. At that point you're quibbling.
There aren't many natural disasters a sufficient amount of reinforced concrete can't fend off.
That’s a bit defeatist, though? Efforts have been made, eg https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...
It seems a concrete dome would also work if digging a bunker is too expensive. Yes it’s not pretty, but not being afraid of dying during the next hurricane season must be worth something. A small dome can’t cost much.
It seems a concrete dome would also work if digging a bunker is too expensive. Yes it’s not pretty, but not being afraid of dying during the next hurricane season must be worth something. A small dome can’t cost much.
Sure. Building a reinforced shelter for tornadoes, nuclear attack, etc. may make sense. Historically, in the US Midwest that meant going into the basement. But you don't live there.
Many places the basement would be under the water table or have to be carved out.
> I found a hole in the fifty year tornado map
What was your source for this information?
What was your source for this information?
Well, the three little pigs story must have been originated somehow from real life experience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Little_Pigs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Little_Pigs
Insurance is federally subsidized/backstopped so people in hurricane or tornado zones don't have to pay for repairs directly, so it's cheaper to build a junk house than one which wouldn't take damage.
> In US in many areas the earthquakes safety requires to build lighter houses.
A lighter building does not protect you from earthquakes. Less-brittle materials, much more securely fastened together is what you want. With wood building this means metal strapping around studs nailed in perpendicular to the forces. With masonry buildings it means a lot of steel to hold the everything together.
> Plus many areas are subject to tornados and hurricanes when it is rather pointless to build anything that lasts 100 years. On that time scale the house will be destroyed or badly damaged in any case.
Tornadoes yes, hurricanes, no. Build strong and heavy, with durable steel shutters for all windows and very secure doors, and there's no reason your home can't survive hurricanes with minimal damage. Flooding is another matter, entirely.
> Plus many areas are subject to tornados and hurricanes when it is rather pointless to build anything that lasts 100 years. On that time scale the house will be destroyed or badly damaged in any case.
Tornadoes yes, hurricanes, no. Build strong and heavy, with durable steel shutters for all windows and very secure doors, and there's no reason your home can't survive hurricanes with minimal damage. Flooding is another matter, entirely.
"Atlanta has seen 77 tornadoes in the four counties of Clayton, Cobb, Dekalb and Fulton from 1950-2013. This is a density of 0.94 tornadoes per year per 1,000 square miles."
1,000 sq mi is about 640,000 acres, so that's .0000015 tornadoes per year per acre. If I've got my math right, that's about a 99.9% chance that your 1 acre plot will not be hit by a tornado in 1000 years, if you live in the Atlanta area, which is only a middling high-probability area. (https://weather.com/storms/tornado/news/tornado-odds-of-bein...)
Hurricanes are generally only a coastal problem, although flooding is a fairly large issue everywhere. (Don't get a house in a low lying area. Please.)
Earthquakes are mostly a West Coast thing, modulo New Madrid (pronounced "mad-rid") and various oil drilling operations. But then there's fires and termites and everything else.
There are plenty of hundred-year-old houses all over the US, as well as plenty of newer ones that could last more than a century with proper maintenance.
Few houses today are built to last that long, though, because it's more expensive but doesn't add anything to the purchase price like granite countertops. Stick frame on slab construction is pretty close to mini-maxing housing construction as the article describes (even in areas where slab foundations are geologically idiotic).
Anyway, when you get down to the second-to-last section of the article, remember that, past a certain point, efficiency is the enemy of resiliency.
1,000 sq mi is about 640,000 acres, so that's .0000015 tornadoes per year per acre. If I've got my math right, that's about a 99.9% chance that your 1 acre plot will not be hit by a tornado in 1000 years, if you live in the Atlanta area, which is only a middling high-probability area. (https://weather.com/storms/tornado/news/tornado-odds-of-bein...)
Hurricanes are generally only a coastal problem, although flooding is a fairly large issue everywhere. (Don't get a house in a low lying area. Please.)
Earthquakes are mostly a West Coast thing, modulo New Madrid (pronounced "mad-rid") and various oil drilling operations. But then there's fires and termites and everything else.
There are plenty of hundred-year-old houses all over the US, as well as plenty of newer ones that could last more than a century with proper maintenance.
Few houses today are built to last that long, though, because it's more expensive but doesn't add anything to the purchase price like granite countertops. Stick frame on slab construction is pretty close to mini-maxing housing construction as the article describes (even in areas where slab foundations are geologically idiotic).
Anyway, when you get down to the second-to-last section of the article, remember that, past a certain point, efficiency is the enemy of resiliency.
> 1,000 sq mi is about 640,000 acres, so that's .0000015 tornadoes per year per acre. If I've got my math right, that's about a 99.9% chance that your 1 acre plot will not be hit by a tornado in 1000 years
I appreciate your attempt to come up with realistic numbers, but you are making the assumption that each tornado only affects a single acre. As discussed in the article you linked, if a tornado touches down, it frequently causes destruction for a path of several miles, making this a faulty assumption.
I appreciate your attempt to come up with realistic numbers, but you are making the assumption that each tornado only affects a single acre. As discussed in the article you linked, if a tornado touches down, it frequently causes destruction for a path of several miles, making this a faulty assumption.
I lived in a wooden house with a brick facade from 1905 in San Francisco, so I think this is overstated.
They have earthquakes in e.g. Italy and Turkey too, you know.
They have earthquakes in e.g. Italy and Turkey too, you know.
On my visit to SF I saw a warning an a building that it did not satisfy earthquake safety standards of the government of California. A colleague explained that this was a common thing with old buildings in SF.
I don't want to doubt you, but this sounds like 'folk wisdom' or 'common sense' logic, rather than fact. You are not seriously claiming that every piece of land is hit by earthquakes or hurricanes once every 50 years? While they get lots of attention my guess would be this is a shark attack-like phenomenon: its so unusual that its news worthy, which is why people think it is more frequent than it is.
There are certainly earthquake (and hurricane) areas but the majority of the US population does not live in those. I'd need some risk/benefit analysis and actual data before believing they are even a factor in the equation for most people and areas. I can think of 100 other possible reasons (eg historically people moved frequently, or it was simply cheaper to rebuild than maintain as building standards/expectations change frequently, or in the cities you anyway expect someone to come in and buy up old building stock and rip it all down to put something bigger in, or ... ).
There are certainly earthquake (and hurricane) areas but the majority of the US population does not live in those. I'd need some risk/benefit analysis and actual data before believing they are even a factor in the equation for most people and areas. I can think of 100 other possible reasons (eg historically people moved frequently, or it was simply cheaper to rebuild than maintain as building standards/expectations change frequently, or in the cities you anyway expect someone to come in and buy up old building stock and rip it all down to put something bigger in, or ... ).
OP is exaggerating a bit, but mostly spot on. There's a wealth of information this.
See ASCE 7-16 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, For wind: Chapters 26-31 for 144 pages of wind load design criteria. (California Building Code and International Building Codes recognize and point to that standard)
Of particular note, is a concept called "Basic Wind Speed" which is derived from mapped values. What you'll find is that its intimately correlated with hurricane landing. Most people live on the coast in the US where the wind speed is highest. Depending on the risk category of the building, a typical value on the West coast is ~105 mph. On the east coast, it vaires by latitude from ~115-200 mph, increasing in all the areas that get hit by hurricanes. To address your skepticism, I assure you things like hurricanes are undeed a significant design concern.
The seismic load is similar.
Both loads are fundamentally designed to give a defined risk of failure from storms and earthquakes with particular recurrence intervals ranging from 50-100 years. (Offhand, I believe this value is ~1% for total collapse with a much higher risk of damage.). It is indeed carefully weighted and considered balance between risk reduction and feasibility, and indeed, having less than 1% risk for intervals over 100 years starts to get rather difficult. We still require it for schools, police stations, and emergency gathering locations and the like, but not normal houses.
See ASCE 7-16 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, For wind: Chapters 26-31 for 144 pages of wind load design criteria. (California Building Code and International Building Codes recognize and point to that standard)
Of particular note, is a concept called "Basic Wind Speed" which is derived from mapped values. What you'll find is that its intimately correlated with hurricane landing. Most people live on the coast in the US where the wind speed is highest. Depending on the risk category of the building, a typical value on the West coast is ~105 mph. On the east coast, it vaires by latitude from ~115-200 mph, increasing in all the areas that get hit by hurricanes. To address your skepticism, I assure you things like hurricanes are undeed a significant design concern.
The seismic load is similar.
Both loads are fundamentally designed to give a defined risk of failure from storms and earthquakes with particular recurrence intervals ranging from 50-100 years. (Offhand, I believe this value is ~1% for total collapse with a much higher risk of damage.). It is indeed carefully weighted and considered balance between risk reduction and feasibility, and indeed, having less than 1% risk for intervals over 100 years starts to get rather difficult. We still require it for schools, police stations, and emergency gathering locations and the like, but not normal houses.
I also live in the EU. It's not foreign to me because I live in Scandinavia where we have plenty of wood. In Scandinavia (and the Baltics and parts of Russia) we build houses largely the same way as they do in North America. Western Platform Framing construction, though lately Swedish Platform Framing is taking over since it has improved insulation and fewer thermal bridges inbetween floors and thus much better for passive houses. I suspect it will take over in North America in a couple of decades. Advanced Framing (which is largely meant to lower costs, but also leaves more space for in-wall insulation since it has 24" studs on center) in the US isn't really taking off that quickly, but maybe we'll see a combination of the two.
https://youtu.be/LUthssuOYks?t=262
https://youtu.be/LUthssuOYks?t=262
In Finland we have 100+ years old log houses still in good condition. Wood lasts just fine, as long as design, building and maintenance are done right.
As some have pointed out, wooden buildings are also way, way more ecological than concrete ones. They capture carbon long-term, while concrete production causes major carbon emissions.
As some have pointed out, wooden buildings are also way, way more ecological than concrete ones. They capture carbon long-term, while concrete production causes major carbon emissions.
[deleted]
It doesn't economic make sense to build homes to last 100+ years. Equity markets have historically returned 8% per year. You're much better off cutting corners, investing the money, then fixing the problems in the future with your compounded wealth.
Pretend you have two options, you can build a home that lasts forever or a house that will fall apart in a half century but is 10% cheaper. By year 40, you'll have enough wealth accumulated to buy two new replacement homes.
Pretend you have two options, you can build a home that lasts forever or a house that will fall apart in a half century but is 10% cheaper. By year 40, you'll have enough wealth accumulated to buy two new replacement homes.
The problem with that logic is that once applied pervasively, as it is in the US, you end up with many places where you don't want to live.
So you tear them down. Japanese housing, to name another example, is routinely torn down and replaced with new construction.
The problem is that much of the US makes it needlessly expensive to do the "tear down and replace with new construction" bit.
The problem is that much of the US makes it needlessly expensive to do the "tear down and replace with new construction" bit.
The US has very different environmental constraints than Europe when it comes to construction. We have strong earthquakes across much of the country, which does violence to masonry. We have more severe and extreme weather than exists in Europe. The US has prodigious quantities of cheap timber for construction, which is increasingly an anachronism in Europe. American construction is optimized for the American environment. Also, the idea that this construction doesn’t last centuries is evidently false, many people live in wood houses built in the 19th and 18th century.
The tl;dr: US housing is highly optimized for local conditions, as is the case everywhere. If you built European housing in much of the US it would be destroyed by the ambient environment or not compliant with safety regulations.
The tl;dr: US housing is highly optimized for local conditions, as is the case everywhere. If you built European housing in much of the US it would be destroyed by the ambient environment or not compliant with safety regulations.
To add a counterpoint to the conversation: I recently had to deal with a house built in the 70's, western Europe. It's now basically four walls and a roof. No isolation. No central heating except for the first floor. Gaz boilers for hot tap water, connected to outside gaz cylinders you replace every two months. Electricity will be hard to redo, actual central heating too. The costs to get it up to date will be another house. Utility costs while it was inhabited were through the roofs.
In the 70's, it was easy money and full employment for a lot of people and single house income could buy you such house. Some people built houses for themselves that wouldn't last more than a generation and wouldn't care at all about their descendants.
In the 70's, it was easy money and full employment for a lot of people and single house income could buy you such house. Some people built houses for themselves that wouldn't last more than a generation and wouldn't care at all about their descendants.
Yup, American building culture is so weird.
Europe has much more density of people living in the same space. And Asia is even more dense.
In the US there are things that do not make sense because people density is so low there, even in places like New York, most people live in individual homes, spread over a big area.
When I was living in China I saw lost of things made sense that do not make sense in Europe just by the economic of scale of so much people living in such small areas.
In the US there are things that do not make sense because people density is so low there, even in places like New York, most people live in individual homes, spread over a big area.
When I was living in China I saw lost of things made sense that do not make sense in Europe just by the economic of scale of so much people living in such small areas.
>In the US there are things that do not make sense because people density is so low there, even in places like New York, most people live in individual homes, spread over a big area.
That's patently false. In NYC only 9% of homes are single unit detached and in NY state it's only 41%.
That's patently false. In NYC only 9% of homes are single unit detached and in NY state it's only 41%.
While it's true that Europe has a few cities that are significantly more dense then new York, your phrasing makes it sound like the average town is more dense then NY is... And that's not the case
I don't know the exact number, but there are very few cities in Europe with a density higher then NY (10,716.36 people/km2), and i'm pretty sure they're all in France, Greece and Italy
I don't know the exact number, but there are very few cities in Europe with a density higher then NY (10,716.36 people/km2), and i'm pretty sure they're all in France, Greece and Italy
The use of bricks over wood can't be due to population density because the practice goes back hundreds of years.
I think it is partly due to tradition, and partly due to climate differences.
I think it is partly due to tradition, and partly due to climate differences.
I think it has to do with prices and available know-how. You can build a typical US home for 1/2 or less than a Central European home. Right now, if I were to build a 150m2 (1600sqft) home, that would cost me at least €250k. More likely 300. Zoning often requires houses to be of a certain build and look, so building cheaper than that is often not even an option. As far as I know, a US home of that size usually costs $100k? Please someone correct me if I‘m wrong.
I think it is pretty conceivable that structural lumber could have been more expensive than bricks in the past. Before modernity, there was scarcely enough food for everyone, so using it for something like forest would have been relatively expensive. For this reason, today more Europe is covered with forests than in 1700. On the other hand, bricks only need small amount of land for extraction of substrates, and some fuel, which didn’t have to be prime firewood like we’re used to now, but more like thin twigs from coppiced trees.
I doubt food scarcity, when it occurred, was for lack of land. Also, not all forest land can be used well for agriculture, and if there wasn’t much forest, there weren’t many twigs, either.
IIRC, bricks became popular because wooden house were forbidden in dense cities, and clay beat stone in availability/price/suitability (wouldn’t know which)
Certainly, after London burnt, “much of the old street plan was recreated in the new City, with improvements in hygiene and fire safety: wider streets, open and accessible wharves along the length of the Thames, with no houses obstructing access to the river, and, most importantly, buildings constructed of brick and stone, not wood.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London#Aftermath)
IIRC, bricks became popular because wooden house were forbidden in dense cities, and clay beat stone in availability/price/suitability (wouldn’t know which)
Certainly, after London burnt, “much of the old street plan was recreated in the new City, with improvements in hygiene and fire safety: wider streets, open and accessible wharves along the length of the Thames, with no houses obstructing access to the river, and, most importantly, buildings constructed of brick and stone, not wood.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London#Aftermath)
> I doubt food scarcity, when it occurred, was for lack of land.
Food scarcity was a constant reality of premodern times. I’m not talking about occasional famines, where people literally died en masse, but rather about normal times. The food had to be scarce, otherwise the population wouldn’t have been a small fraction of the current one.
> Also, not all forest land can be used well for agriculture,
Sure, but back then people used even marginal lands if at all possible, precisely because of land scarcity. Ever seen those terraced farms on mountain slopes in China? We don’t do that anymore, but it made sense back then. Moreover, land that wasn’t good enough for farming was mostly used for animal grazing, not forest.
> and if there wasn’t much forest, there weren’t many twigs, either.
No, as I said, you can get twigs from coppiced or pollarded trees, which yield more fuel per acre than normal forest, but don’t yield any structural lumber.
Food scarcity was a constant reality of premodern times. I’m not talking about occasional famines, where people literally died en masse, but rather about normal times. The food had to be scarce, otherwise the population wouldn’t have been a small fraction of the current one.
> Also, not all forest land can be used well for agriculture,
Sure, but back then people used even marginal lands if at all possible, precisely because of land scarcity. Ever seen those terraced farms on mountain slopes in China? We don’t do that anymore, but it made sense back then. Moreover, land that wasn’t good enough for farming was mostly used for animal grazing, not forest.
> and if there wasn’t much forest, there weren’t many twigs, either.
No, as I said, you can get twigs from coppiced or pollarded trees, which yield more fuel per acre than normal forest, but don’t yield any structural lumber.
Great essay. This is a much more sophisticated analysis of construction efficiency than you typically find; most of them basically imply that construction is inefficient because contractors are dumb.
One minor comment: balloon framing is not a synonym for light wood framing, it's a (mostly archaic) version of it. Balloon framing features long exterior wall studs that extend up multiple stories, as opposed to modern "platform framing", in which the studs stop at each floor.
One minor comment: balloon framing is not a synonym for light wood framing, it's a (mostly archaic) version of it. Balloon framing features long exterior wall studs that extend up multiple stories, as opposed to modern "platform framing", in which the studs stop at each floor.
Thanks! If I would have known it would go to front page of Hacker News I would have had one of my construction science friends proof read it first!
I've been writing for fun and to learn and have always been curious about construction productivity.
I've been writing for fun and to learn and have always been curious about construction productivity.
> most of them basically imply that construction is inefficient because contractors are dumb.
I don't think contractors are dumb. But I do think that they don't accumulate productivity efficiencies the way other industries do. There's a rule in economics that every X units of a product that gets made, manufacturers tend to improve by Y% percent efficiency. Because they learn by doing, and the more experience the industry accumulates the more chances it has to make continuous improvements off gradual innovation.
Moore's Law is probably the most extreme example. But it's well known in virtually every industry. For example Toyota kept getting repeatedly better at building cars more efficiently and reliably because they carefully observed the process and kept making improvements.
The problem with the contractor model is this doesn't happen, because you don't have large firms that can exploit economies of scale. At anything above lower management, every one is in their own isolated fiefdom where they can keep making the same mistakes and not learning from each other. If one contractor is 20% more efficient, it's difficult to grow fast into a national brand and export those productivity improvements.
Simple example. Copper plumbing is still widely used in most parts of the country. Pex plumbing is strictly superior. It’s much cheaper, easier to install, more reliable, and less likely to damage the framing. Despite being around for decades, most contractors still use copper.
If you really want to see gains in construction, I think you'll need a large Amazon-like org where every one on site works directly for the company and they're all centrally managed. As soon as you're outsourcing something, you should no longer expect to have it done efficiently. This is fine when it's something ancillary to your business. But when you're a homebuilder, especially a homebuilder aiming to achieve sustained productivity improvements, everything being done on site is core and should be directly under your management team.
I don't think contractors are dumb. But I do think that they don't accumulate productivity efficiencies the way other industries do. There's a rule in economics that every X units of a product that gets made, manufacturers tend to improve by Y% percent efficiency. Because they learn by doing, and the more experience the industry accumulates the more chances it has to make continuous improvements off gradual innovation.
Moore's Law is probably the most extreme example. But it's well known in virtually every industry. For example Toyota kept getting repeatedly better at building cars more efficiently and reliably because they carefully observed the process and kept making improvements.
The problem with the contractor model is this doesn't happen, because you don't have large firms that can exploit economies of scale. At anything above lower management, every one is in their own isolated fiefdom where they can keep making the same mistakes and not learning from each other. If one contractor is 20% more efficient, it's difficult to grow fast into a national brand and export those productivity improvements.
Simple example. Copper plumbing is still widely used in most parts of the country. Pex plumbing is strictly superior. It’s much cheaper, easier to install, more reliable, and less likely to damage the framing. Despite being around for decades, most contractors still use copper.
If you really want to see gains in construction, I think you'll need a large Amazon-like org where every one on site works directly for the company and they're all centrally managed. As soon as you're outsourcing something, you should no longer expect to have it done efficiently. This is fine when it's something ancillary to your business. But when you're a homebuilder, especially a homebuilder aiming to achieve sustained productivity improvements, everything being done on site is core and should be directly under your management team.
>you don't have large firms that can exploit economies of scale.
There are also diseconomies of scale in residential construction, partly for reasons described in the original post. Having many layers of management is inefficient when you're dealing with work that involves a lot of customization and homeowner input.
>Despite being around for decades, most contractors still use copper.
No, they don't. Pex is ubiquitous in single-family and smaller multifamily construction now. Copper is used in larger and nonresidential projects where the plumbing codes require it. The idea that professional plumbers and homebuilders haven't heard the news yet that Pex is cheaper is silly.
There are also diseconomies of scale in residential construction, partly for reasons described in the original post. Having many layers of management is inefficient when you're dealing with work that involves a lot of customization and homeowner input.
>Despite being around for decades, most contractors still use copper.
No, they don't. Pex is ubiquitous in single-family and smaller multifamily construction now. Copper is used in larger and nonresidential projects where the plumbing codes require it. The idea that professional plumbers and homebuilders haven't heard the news yet that Pex is cheaper is silly.
I was thinking the same thing, I live in a booming part of the US with dozens of home builders putting up tract housing everywhere you turn, and I’d be astounded if a single one of them used copper plumbing. Everything is Pex around here, even on custom 1M+ builds.
Maybe for someone who never sees the inside of the walls it's easy to be fooled. Where I live, the typical construction uses pex everywhere up to the point where it goes through the drywall, at which point it switches to copper. So if you only ever see the house with all the drywall up, you could be fooled into thinking the pipes are all copper, instead of just the nubs where the valves are installed.
From a quick google, PEX plumbing is not "strictly superior" because it does have some disadvantages compared to copper:
https://smartchoice.plumbing/pex-plumbing-disadvantages-what...
(I think your overall point is a good one though.)
https://smartchoice.plumbing/pex-plumbing-disadvantages-what...
(I think your overall point is a good one though.)
>Copper plumbing is still widely used in most parts of the country. Pex plumbing is strictly superior. It’s much cheaper, easier to install, more reliable, and less likely to damage the framing. Despite being around for decades, most contractors still use copper.
Which parts of the country? Not in my area.
Which parts of the country? Not in my area.
Came here to say exactly this. Balloon framing was abandoned due to fires. This made me hesitant about the rest of the text.
Balloon framing is, like all construction, more common in some regions than others.
Short construction seasons are somewhat favorable to it. Dry in can be quicker. A trade base familiar with the necessary fire blocking makes it practical. Same with designers and inspectors.
The sun belt tends toward platform framing. Being the sunbelt, construction tends to be more year round.
Short construction seasons are somewhat favorable to it. Dry in can be quicker. A trade base familiar with the necessary fire blocking makes it practical. Same with designers and inspectors.
The sun belt tends toward platform framing. Being the sunbelt, construction tends to be more year round.
> Dry in can be quicker.
I find that concept pretty fascinating. Here in the PNW we don't typically see balloon framing, but even so the dry-in time is still really quick. A two-story house can be framed up and have roof sheathing on in a week or so, and in another week have the roof and tyvek on. Even if the entire process was done in a downpour it still doesn't take long after that before it's dry enough to start interior work.
I find that concept pretty fascinating. Here in the PNW we don't typically see balloon framing, but even so the dry-in time is still really quick. A two-story house can be framed up and have roof sheathing on in a week or so, and in another week have the roof and tyvek on. Even if the entire process was done in a downpour it still doesn't take long after that before it's dry enough to start interior work.
Where specifically is balloon framing done now? Genuinely curious as I know people who have posted construction pictures all over the country and I've never seen it.
Platform framing is done in the north too.
yah; clearly author knows far less than he thinks
Saying something is invalid due to a personal choice in vernacular is quite brazen and ignorant… it’s like writing off someone’s opinion because they used the wrong their/they’re/there
It's more than "personal choice in vernacular". Someone speaking authoritatively on construction methods should know the differences in terms. Calling a vertical wall framing member a "joist" would be just as wrong.
Balloon framing and platform framing are different, exclusive terms. Author uses it as a catch-all for stick framing throughout the article.
The rest of the article seems fine and insightful, but it's totally reasonable to see that incorrect terminology usage as an indicator of knowledge gaps. And the author appears to be more involved with cryptography and related concepts, so it tracks.
Balloon framing and platform framing are different, exclusive terms. Author uses it as a catch-all for stick framing throughout the article.
The rest of the article seems fine and insightful, but it's totally reasonable to see that incorrect terminology usage as an indicator of knowledge gaps. And the author appears to be more involved with cryptography and related concepts, so it tracks.
If I was reading an article about grammar and the author used the wrong version of their/they're/there I would seriously consider whether or not I should stop reading it.
Would you clarify your comment please. Are you saying balloon vs platform framing is a personal choice?
That said, contractors are regionally dumb.
Carpenter acquaintances in California make vicious fun of carpenters in The East (which probably includes most of what easterners call "The West") continuing to use Skil saws long after geared designs, with a high-speed motor running perpendicular to the sawblade axis, have proven overwhelmingly superior by every measure.
Carpenter acquaintances in California make vicious fun of carpenters in The East (which probably includes most of what easterners call "The West") continuing to use Skil saws long after geared designs, with a high-speed motor running perpendicular to the sawblade axis, have proven overwhelmingly superior by every measure.
As a layman I hadn’t heard either term so I looked it up while reading the essay and the overwhelming opinion I found is that platform framing is a variant of balloon framing that has completely replaced the original method due to fires in 1860 (Chicago) and 1903 (San Fran). most of what I read said the terms used the terms interchangeably
Another likely reason is that balloon framing makes use of single studs that extend the height of the structure, with the 2nd floor suspended. The nature of available framing lumber has shifted and it would be likely much more expensive and difficult to obtain satisfactory 16'-20' studs vs. the more common 8' length.
The problem is that construction schedules are NP hard. And that optimization is expensive due to market efficiency for labor.
>most of them basically imply that construction is inefficient because contractors are dumb.
Yeah, that's a problem.
Usually, next up is some handwaving about building homes from shipping containers because they're rectangular.
Yeah, that's a problem.
Usually, next up is some handwaving about building homes from shipping containers because they're rectangular.
I recently read Gates’ book How To Avoid a Climate Disaster which left me with the impression that the overriding factor in building costs is the energy required (and CO2 produced) for construction, heating, and cooling.
Unfortunately I didn’t see any mention of energy or carbon in this post.
Seems like the biggest breakthrough would be a pre-construction estimate of energy costs over, say, 30 years. Similar to the Energy Star sticker on appliances sold in the US which tell you the cost to run a given appliance with typical usage compared to the range for other models.
This would allow you justify spending more upfront for better insulation, HVAC, air sealing, etc. and recoup that over time. At scale this would allow our civilization to be more energy efficient and reduce the need to build more power plants.
This suggestion stood out: ”...move to resistance heating and thermoelectric cooling“
Unless I’m missing something, this would be a step backward. Modern heat pumps are 3-4x more efficient than resistance heating, since they aren’t creating heat but moving it from one place to another. For cooling, if the author is referring to Peltier type thermoelectric cooling, the same applies: heat pumps are many times more efficient.
The building revolution we need is one that cheaply produces extremely energy-efficient homes, IMO.
Unfortunately I didn’t see any mention of energy or carbon in this post.
Seems like the biggest breakthrough would be a pre-construction estimate of energy costs over, say, 30 years. Similar to the Energy Star sticker on appliances sold in the US which tell you the cost to run a given appliance with typical usage compared to the range for other models.
This would allow you justify spending more upfront for better insulation, HVAC, air sealing, etc. and recoup that over time. At scale this would allow our civilization to be more energy efficient and reduce the need to build more power plants.
This suggestion stood out: ”...move to resistance heating and thermoelectric cooling“
Unless I’m missing something, this would be a step backward. Modern heat pumps are 3-4x more efficient than resistance heating, since they aren’t creating heat but moving it from one place to another. For cooling, if the author is referring to Peltier type thermoelectric cooling, the same applies: heat pumps are many times more efficient.
The building revolution we need is one that cheaply produces extremely energy-efficient homes, IMO.
Heat pumps need plumbing and installation which increases the construction cost.
Agreed that they are the way to go, but it's not going to bring down construction costs.
The author's strawman proposal was a nuclear battery for effectively unlimited onsite power with no marginal cost in order to minimize construction costs.
Agreed that they are the way to go, but it's not going to bring down construction costs.
The author's strawman proposal was a nuclear battery for effectively unlimited onsite power with no marginal cost in order to minimize construction costs.
> Heat pumps need plumbing and installation which increases the construction cost.
So do radiant floor heating or straight-out radiators. And force air needs ducting, which takes up a lot of volume: and unless you use floor trusses instead joists, you have to be a creative with the design of your runs.
What HVAC system would you suggest?
So do radiant floor heating or straight-out radiators. And force air needs ducting, which takes up a lot of volume: and unless you use floor trusses instead joists, you have to be a creative with the design of your runs.
What HVAC system would you suggest?
How should I know? It depends on what you are trying to optimize for. The author seems to think if you want to minimize on-site construction costs, a radioisotope thermal generator is the way to go. That's pretty far out there. My comment was simply explaining why the author brought up resistive electric heat at all. Though why not just use the waste heat from the RTG, but then we are back to needing ducting I guess.
Ultimately it depends on what tradeoffs you want to make and your local climate.
I think district-based aka neighborhood scale geothermal is promising from a sustainability perspective, but introduces a significant coordination problem.
Ultimately it depends on what tradeoffs you want to make and your local climate.
I think district-based aka neighborhood scale geothermal is promising from a sustainability perspective, but introduces a significant coordination problem.
Good point. Also note that a 4-family home is going to be generally much more energy efficient than 4 single-family homes, since there are fewer walls that leak heat to the exterior. So the author's recommendation to build more multi-family dwellings is on point in that respect.
Shared-wall homes have pretty terrible tradeoffs in terms of privacy, air quality, and (lack of) soundproofing, though.
They don't have to. The apt building I live in must be built really well because I have never heard a single sound from the people around me. I can only just hear muffled talking/music while standing in the hallway but never from within my own apt.
Some states have code that fixes the sound problem, but the cost is higher $/sq ft costs.
Do you have a sense on how bad the increased cost is for reasonable sound isolation (talking/tv not garage band)? Because I have dealt with loud neighbors, and if the problem could be ameliorated for an extra $1/m or something else trivial, I will be enraged that it is not mandated everywhere.
in EU we have these stickers. You cannot build houses with lower "tier" energy "stickers" anymore. New houses have to be built very efficiently and be certified where their yearly energy costs will be calculated. (HVAC, air sealing, building materials like windows/insulation and so on are taken in account)
This video is a great explainer on heat pumps [1]. The TL;DR is that they are essentially nothing more than air conditioners that run in the opposite direction. Plus, a heat pump and an air conditioner can be combined into a single system.
1: https://youtu.be/7J52mDjZzto
1: https://youtu.be/7J52mDjZzto
Not just can be combined they effectively always are. I’m not aware of any residential heat pumps sold in the US at least that don’t also operate in cooling mode. The additional cost is basically just a reversing valve.
Shouldn't we also account for housing density? A dwelling may be as energy efficient (in terms of cooling/heating) on a per-dwelling basis as a high-rise apartment, but this may not be the case when considering the impact on things like transportation etc.
> I recently read Gates’ book
I hope you didn’t intend to extract any valuable information from that.
> the overriding factor in building costs is the energy required (and CO2 produced) for construction, heating, and cooling. Unfortunately I didn’t see any mention of energy or carbon in this post.
That’s because when an eco-activist like Gates, who has no clue about environmental economics, talks about “costs”, he is completely bullshitting. Clearly he gave you the wrong impression, at least.
The overriding factor in the cost of essentially everything is energy, if you decompose the cost network far enough.
Obviously engineers and home builders are not stupid and if there was some massive efficiency increase they could exploit, the would do so.
I hope you didn’t intend to extract any valuable information from that.
> the overriding factor in building costs is the energy required (and CO2 produced) for construction, heating, and cooling. Unfortunately I didn’t see any mention of energy or carbon in this post.
That’s because when an eco-activist like Gates, who has no clue about environmental economics, talks about “costs”, he is completely bullshitting. Clearly he gave you the wrong impression, at least.
The overriding factor in the cost of essentially everything is energy, if you decompose the cost network far enough.
Obviously engineers and home builders are not stupid and if there was some massive efficiency increase they could exploit, the would do so.
I don't understand the worldwide disdain for the concrete paneled construction the article briefly mentions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka
Most of the "badness" people associate with these, IMO, are due more to the fact that 1. in recent times they are inhabited by less well-off people 2. they usually need to be washed or painted, probably because they are inhabited by less well-off people who don't make it a priority 3. to the extent they are seen as crime/drug dens, that's because they have a stigma/are in disrepair so only poor people want to live there. It is possible for them to be nice, even moreso if they are new (and not poorly maintained, 60 years old). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelenograd as an example of a city with this style (go to Google images for more pictures). The whole city is like a park.
From an urban planning perspective, they have a lot of benefits. People can actually end up with a lot of green space in between buildings. They make it easy to set up bus or train-based public transportation, with walking a viable way to navigate toward a hub. The density creates obvious economies of scale in other areas. From a cost perspective, they are inexpensive to construct because of the economies of scale. The article mentions them as one of the few building styles amenable to mass-production/assembly off-site.
Probably my main gripe is that they are not often 'mixed use' and could perhaps do with shops on the first floor, though this is partially an artifact of the economic regime under which they were mostly built.
Most of the "badness" people associate with these, IMO, are due more to the fact that 1. in recent times they are inhabited by less well-off people 2. they usually need to be washed or painted, probably because they are inhabited by less well-off people who don't make it a priority 3. to the extent they are seen as crime/drug dens, that's because they have a stigma/are in disrepair so only poor people want to live there. It is possible for them to be nice, even moreso if they are new (and not poorly maintained, 60 years old). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelenograd as an example of a city with this style (go to Google images for more pictures). The whole city is like a park.
From an urban planning perspective, they have a lot of benefits. People can actually end up with a lot of green space in between buildings. They make it easy to set up bus or train-based public transportation, with walking a viable way to navigate toward a hub. The density creates obvious economies of scale in other areas. From a cost perspective, they are inexpensive to construct because of the economies of scale. The article mentions them as one of the few building styles amenable to mass-production/assembly off-site.
Probably my main gripe is that they are not often 'mixed use' and could perhaps do with shops on the first floor, though this is partially an artifact of the economic regime under which they were mostly built.
Agreed. In Australia, we call this tilt-panel construction, and it can look great.
This strip-shop complex in a neighbouring town was built using tilt-panel: https://thatsne.at/file/memmgd.jpeg
Just like with movies, what you need to achieve a good-looking, functional building is a competent vision holder with taste. Too many buildings have winding passages because no one with any influence thought sufficiently deeply about the day-to-day usage of the building, how it will connect with neighboring areas, how the interior will be divided later by fitouts, etc etc.
This strip-shop complex in a neighbouring town was built using tilt-panel: https://thatsne.at/file/memmgd.jpeg
Just like with movies, what you need to achieve a good-looking, functional building is a competent vision holder with taste. Too many buildings have winding passages because no one with any influence thought sufficiently deeply about the day-to-day usage of the building, how it will connect with neighboring areas, how the interior will be divided later by fitouts, etc etc.
I'm writing this inside one. The main problem with khrushchyovkas is that sound isolation is horrid. You can hear steps from 1 (maybe 2) apartments over.
That's just a matter of installing a better floor with sound-insulating materials.
Which needs more space.
The worldwide disdain arises from what you said, the additional association with communism / cheapness, and the fact that they are mass produced, generic, and boring, and no one wants to spend a lot of money to get generic and boring.
If McMansions aand cookie-cutter suburban communities are any indication, some still want to spend a lot of money on generic and boring.
The reasons must be different.
The reasons must be different.
It seems to me... people will spend a lot of money to get a generic, boring, mass produced version of what their parents generation thought was luxurious or classy.
McMansions + perfect lawn in a suburb full of curves and crescents; and various kinds of "luxury" cars, big TVs, etc. All things just out of reach of many of our middle class parents or grandparents. So now you've made it when you have it... until you look close and see there's no actual class differentiator in it, no taste to it, no art to it, or any particular advantage to it...
Just my, like, opinion, man...
McMansions + perfect lawn in a suburb full of curves and crescents; and various kinds of "luxury" cars, big TVs, etc. All things just out of reach of many of our middle class parents or grandparents. So now you've made it when you have it... until you look close and see there's no actual class differentiator in it, no taste to it, no art to it, or any particular advantage to it...
Just my, like, opinion, man...
Totally opinion and preference. I’m a millennial and dying to get out of the city into a master planned community with beautiful lawns and big homes and properties
McMansions are ugly but they're not boring or generic. Unless you're in a housing development, most are fairly unique. Units in housing developments do suffer from the same stigma though, and a lot of people won't buy them for that very reason, even though they are generally cheaper than units located outside of those developments.
The problem is really the combination of all 3 factors. McMansions definitely make people think the inhabitants have no taste, but they don't make people think the inhabitants are poor. Buildings that look like public housing make people think the inhabitants are poor, which is worse for a lot of people.
The problem is really the combination of all 3 factors. McMansions definitely make people think the inhabitants have no taste, but they don't make people think the inhabitants are poor. Buildings that look like public housing make people think the inhabitants are poor, which is worse for a lot of people.
[deleted]
Concrete exteriors can look nice. I'm not sure if its just because its newer but I think this building (green one) pulls off raw concrete nicely https://i.imgur.com/gikmvgG.jpeg
Seam insulation is an issue, modern apartment blocks in Russia use monolithic concrete instead.
It's hard to rent out all those street level shops. The tenants of a 4-6 story structure can't support those shops. There are not enough residents per shop for that. Such places are not usually convenient to drive to.
The SF peninsula is getting way too many of those things. Many shops are vacant.
>The tenants of a 4-6 story structure can't support those shops.
In the polish version of these, the stores are in one building of the cluster of 4+ buildings, generally on the main street of the area. The US has a retail store for every 500 people or so which is about how many fit into a few of these buildings..
>Such places are not usually convenient to drive to.
You don't drive to them, you take whatever local public transportation there is or walk. It's dense enough that you can visit all the important stores without driving or leaving your local area.
>Many shops are vacant.
That has more to do with the increasing rents and commercial rates being locked in for 5+ years. More economical to keep the place vacant for the landlord.
In the polish version of these, the stores are in one building of the cluster of 4+ buildings, generally on the main street of the area. The US has a retail store for every 500 people or so which is about how many fit into a few of these buildings..
>Such places are not usually convenient to drive to.
You don't drive to them, you take whatever local public transportation there is or walk. It's dense enough that you can visit all the important stores without driving or leaving your local area.
>Many shops are vacant.
That has more to do with the increasing rents and commercial rates being locked in for 5+ years. More economical to keep the place vacant for the landlord.
Agree except for the US does have way to much total retail, out of line with other countries.
But that's a minor point.
But that's a minor point.
Do you have data for that? Having visited a number of countries in Europe, Japan and the US I've found roughly the same number of retail stores (at least in terms of area). The US tends to have fewer but larger stores in my experience. For example, Google indicates that Germany alone has almost as many grocery stores as the US despite being a fraction of the population.
To be clear, I was referring to retail floor area per capita.
A quick google gave me https://www.statista.com/statistics/1058852/retail-space-per...
I wouldn't be surprised, based on my own anecdotal understanding, if the average distance to nearest grocery store is less in Germany.
A quick google gave me https://www.statista.com/statistics/1058852/retail-space-per...
I wouldn't be surprised, based on my own anecdotal understanding, if the average distance to nearest grocery store is less in Germany.
Then the rent is too high for the ground-floor businesses. Lower the rent to allow niche retailers to use those storefronts as the physical presence for a largely online business. However, it’s often in the owner’s financial interest to leave them vacant at a high rent so they can make up the difference by charging extortionate rents to the businesses who bring in enough revenue to afford it. That’s why those first floors are inevitably filled with banks, Starbucks, and Chipotle.
> The tenants of a 4-6 story structure can't support those shops.
See Queen Street West (amongst many others) in Toronto for an example of having street-level retail and an apartment above:
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/720+Queen+St+W,+Toronto,+O...
All the major thoroughfares in Toronto (Queen, King, Dundas, College, Bloor, St. Clair, Yonge) were built like this. The residential, single-family unit side streets then have convenient, walking-distance retail.
Most of these were built pre-WW2, so they're only 2-3 stories, but recent condo redevelopments of lots have generally followed the template of street-retail:
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/506+College+St,+Toronto,+O...
See Queen Street West (amongst many others) in Toronto for an example of having street-level retail and an apartment above:
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/720+Queen+St+W,+Toronto,+O...
All the major thoroughfares in Toronto (Queen, King, Dundas, College, Bloor, St. Clair, Yonge) were built like this. The residential, single-family unit side streets then have convenient, walking-distance retail.
Most of these were built pre-WW2, so they're only 2-3 stories, but recent condo redevelopments of lots have generally followed the template of street-retail:
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/506+College+St,+Toronto,+O...
I used to live on the Peninsula and know what you mean. It's worth mentioning though that you don't need a shop, or multiple, in every building. It would be enough for there to be a smattering of convenience stores and basic common services like barbers and salons. Moreover, they are not meant to be driveable so long as the surrounding density is sufficient. Polk Street in SF is very inconvenient to drive to but the shops there seem to do quite well.
If I'm reading this correctly, optimizing construction costs is a very difficult problem because a huge part of the costs is transportation, not the material itself or assembly thereof.
Transportation is by nature highly distributed among a wide range of actors, unlike industries like semiconductors where the costs are centralized in a factory where a single agent can optimize everything.
In other words, the majority of improving construction costs is actually a political problem, and engineers are unsuited to optimizing it. Transportation costs can be reduced, but only at a collective, national or state-wide level. Moving vast quantities of lumber, insulation, wiring, drywall, roofing and other housing materials across state lines is much more a political coordination problem than an engineering one. Sure, a team of engineers could design a more efficient, cost effective transportation method - but how would consensus ever be achieved to actually build the thing and align all the disparate interest groups to rally around it rather than opposing it?
My hot take is that in the current era (at least in the United States) "Smart" people have neglected political concerns in favor of technical concerns. But the risks aren't technical, they are political, so this is inefficient. The problem will not be solved simply by engineering, no matter how clever the engineers are, if they are limited to purely technical approaches.
Transportation is by nature highly distributed among a wide range of actors, unlike industries like semiconductors where the costs are centralized in a factory where a single agent can optimize everything.
In other words, the majority of improving construction costs is actually a political problem, and engineers are unsuited to optimizing it. Transportation costs can be reduced, but only at a collective, national or state-wide level. Moving vast quantities of lumber, insulation, wiring, drywall, roofing and other housing materials across state lines is much more a political coordination problem than an engineering one. Sure, a team of engineers could design a more efficient, cost effective transportation method - but how would consensus ever be achieved to actually build the thing and align all the disparate interest groups to rally around it rather than opposing it?
My hot take is that in the current era (at least in the United States) "Smart" people have neglected political concerns in favor of technical concerns. But the risks aren't technical, they are political, so this is inefficient. The problem will not be solved simply by engineering, no matter how clever the engineers are, if they are limited to purely technical approaches.
I think I need a more concrete example. In many distributed networks, you can add a new path to it, and if that path is cheaper, then neighboring entities will (gradually) adopt it for cost savings. So if I developed a way to transport material between Seattle and NYC more efficiently, a bunch of individual actors will gravitate toward using that route. In a distributed system, I wouldn’t need any external approval to do that, and other participants would be free to choose to interact with me: it’s not political so much as it is markets.
Is your claim that any improvement to the system will inevitably conflict with a centralized authority — like a regional government that has to approve commerce or land use? Is your argument that it’s a political problem because it’s not, actually, distributed?
Is your claim that any improvement to the system will inevitably conflict with a centralized authority — like a regional government that has to approve commerce or land use? Is your argument that it’s a political problem because it’s not, actually, distributed?
How are you going to transport materials more cheaply? I work in manufacturing and a large part of the ultimate bill is S&H. We need to pass that onto our customers. Shipping is bearable outside of the US but as soon as you enter into the US it will eat your margins and leave nothing.
As I understand it the main cost in S&H is personnel, as with most businesses. So either you need more automation or higher wages for the people who need to buy S&H services.
As I understand it the main cost in S&H is personnel, as with most businesses. So either you need more automation or higher wages for the people who need to buy S&H services.
> As I understand it the main cost in S&H is personnel, as with most businesses. So either you need more automation or higher wages for the people who need to buy S&H services.
You just highlighted one opportunity for a technological improvement ("automation"). Warehouse automation: a decades-long trend which -- while it can be slowed -- so far seems to be unstoppable by political force. Driverless vehicles and drones: which, which technical solutions, and contingent upon political outcomes. OTOH 90% of the politics is around how these will be deployed on public land and air space, and those politics could be avoided if the players decided to build their own infrastructure like the big railroads did back in the day. Etc.
You just highlighted one opportunity for a technological improvement ("automation"). Warehouse automation: a decades-long trend which -- while it can be slowed -- so far seems to be unstoppable by political force. Driverless vehicles and drones: which, which technical solutions, and contingent upon political outcomes. OTOH 90% of the politics is around how these will be deployed on public land and air space, and those politics could be avoided if the players decided to build their own infrastructure like the big railroads did back in the day. Etc.
Yes, but you're handwaving away the complexity of actually doing it. The article, to me, seems to be approaching this from a "earth shattering revelation" viewpoint where people think we can fix systemic issues we have suffered for decades and just make houses cheaper. The only viable solution either of us has so far is not immediately viable.
I’m not focused right now on how complex the solutions will be: I’m focused on whether they’re solvable technologically, or only politically.
People like to dodge problems by saying “high housing cost is a political problem, therefore engineers cannot improve the situation because they’re ill-equipped to solve problems that are political in nature”. That’s a rephrasing of what OP said and IMO it’s throwing the towel in too soon. This problem has political components and technological components. There are enough technological components that’s I think engineers can have a positive impact. No, I’m not saying that implementing those improvements is simple. Just that those technological improvements are possible.
People like to dodge problems by saying “high housing cost is a political problem, therefore engineers cannot improve the situation because they’re ill-equipped to solve problems that are political in nature”. That’s a rephrasing of what OP said and IMO it’s throwing the towel in too soon. This problem has political components and technological components. There are enough technological components that’s I think engineers can have a positive impact. No, I’m not saying that implementing those improvements is simple. Just that those technological improvements are possible.
> Is your claim that any improvement to the system will inevitably conflict with a centralized authority — like a regional government that has to approve commerce or land use? Is your argument that it’s a political problem because it’s not, actually, distributed?
In the United States, most centralized authorities do not make decisions in the way you imply. There isn't a single decision maker, from President Biden down to any particular state Governor that is able to exercise authority to materialize an infrastructure project. Thus regional governments are themselves highly political in their decision making; you cannot simply get the local magistrate to buy into the project and suddenly the coast is clear.
Let's take a concrete example that is strictly easier. Let's consider broadband internet connectivity. Google attempted to disrupt local internet providers via Google Fiber. They failed at that attempt. [1]
Not only did Google face issue getting approval from municipal governments, they were opposed by entrenched existing interests and faced continuous lawsuits attempting to delay their efforts and increase their costs.
Now consider that any new transportation network would face the same political opposition and be even more controversial. After all, fiber optic cable is a proven technology and there were no technical challenges to deploying it - all of the issues were purely political. Those issues would be an order of magnitude greater with any significant new transportation network.
[1] https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-google-fiber-failed...
In the United States, most centralized authorities do not make decisions in the way you imply. There isn't a single decision maker, from President Biden down to any particular state Governor that is able to exercise authority to materialize an infrastructure project. Thus regional governments are themselves highly political in their decision making; you cannot simply get the local magistrate to buy into the project and suddenly the coast is clear.
Let's take a concrete example that is strictly easier. Let's consider broadband internet connectivity. Google attempted to disrupt local internet providers via Google Fiber. They failed at that attempt. [1]
Not only did Google face issue getting approval from municipal governments, they were opposed by entrenched existing interests and faced continuous lawsuits attempting to delay their efforts and increase their costs.
Now consider that any new transportation network would face the same political opposition and be even more controversial. After all, fiber optic cable is a proven technology and there were no technical challenges to deploying it - all of the issues were purely political. Those issues would be an order of magnitude greater with any significant new transportation network.
[1] https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-google-fiber-failed...
You're right for Google Fiber's failure being political, but that article is pretty garbage, mainly points 2 and 3 being price and 'partnerships'.
Google's entire plan wasn't to make an insanely popular internet offering that generated an overall profit within 10 years, it was to make internet itself better for _everyone_ so that they can make profit via their other products over the next 10 years - and that meant going into every single market possible and becoming a competitor. They were ready and willing to drop hundreds of millions of dollars in actually getting their network deployed, but at a certain point the lawsuits against incumbents indeed squeezed way too much out of them that it would be truly reckless to continue fighting them in more suburban markets. In this vein, they did succeed in making a lot of people's internet better across the board as ISPs know that municipalities could greenlight access to new ISPs easily or make their own. Now all they need is Starlink to take the bill for rural internet.
The fifth point about outages is also terrible as the example of the world series outage was a problem on the network's end with blown generators[0]. It doesn't seem like outages are any more rare on GFiber.
0: https://www.wired.com/2015/10/world-series-outage/#:~:text=B...
Google's entire plan wasn't to make an insanely popular internet offering that generated an overall profit within 10 years, it was to make internet itself better for _everyone_ so that they can make profit via their other products over the next 10 years - and that meant going into every single market possible and becoming a competitor. They were ready and willing to drop hundreds of millions of dollars in actually getting their network deployed, but at a certain point the lawsuits against incumbents indeed squeezed way too much out of them that it would be truly reckless to continue fighting them in more suburban markets. In this vein, they did succeed in making a lot of people's internet better across the board as ISPs know that municipalities could greenlight access to new ISPs easily or make their own. Now all they need is Starlink to take the bill for rural internet.
The fifth point about outages is also terrible as the example of the world series outage was a problem on the network's end with blown generators[0]. It doesn't seem like outages are any more rare on GFiber.
0: https://www.wired.com/2015/10/world-series-outage/#:~:text=B...
> So if I developed a way to transport material between Seattle and NYC more efficiently
I think the point wasn't that we need to make this trip cheaper, but that we need to figure out a way to build houses with materials that travel less.
I think the point wasn't that we need to make this trip cheaper, but that we need to figure out a way to build houses with materials that travel less.
It's complicated. Here in southwest, we have suitable (clayish) soil for building adobe with all over the place. Very little transportation in terms of miles compared to lumber, bricks etc.
However ... extremely labor intensive and compared to stick framing, relatively slow. So, despite its local-ness, huge thermal mass and excellent karma, adobe loses out and stick-framed OSB sheathed things that look like adobe win.
However ... extremely labor intensive and compared to stick framing, relatively slow. So, despite its local-ness, huge thermal mass and excellent karma, adobe loses out and stick-framed OSB sheathed things that look like adobe win.
But perhaps that's exactly where we need investment - to figure out a way to apply automation to adobe type building?
Unfortunately this isn't the kind of thing the market is good at sorting out, but there could well be some breakthrough tech that makes adobe building cheap. We just don't look for it.
Unfortunately this isn't the kind of thing the market is good at sorting out, but there could well be some breakthrough tech that makes adobe building cheap. We just don't look for it.
There have been attempts over the centuries. Rammed earth walls attempt to do away with the "dealing with lots of relative small pieces" problem (adobe bricks). But they require form building, which adds a significant labor component that isn't there for the "lots of small pieces" approach.
Two sides of the same coin, no? You can lower the transportation costs of materials either by doing less of it (as you suggest), or by decreasing the cost per weight/volume/distance (my earlier comment).
The cost of transportation scales with density of the object. If it takes up a lot of space like insulation or a house, which is by design full of empty space, then it costs a lot to move. To decrease transportation costs you'd have to increase the volume of space available both in depots and in the vehicles doing the moving. You'd also need to make it easier to move large items. The best example of this are container ships which have drastically reduced the cost of transportation. You'd need to replicate that for land or air transport and the last mile delivery to site.
> If I'm reading this correctly, optimizing construction costs is a very difficult problem because a huge part of the costs is transportation, not the material itself or assembly thereof.
You have to go beyond the first section.
His main points are that (a) it's hard to standardize on the larger parts and (b) there is no low hanging fruit.
You have to go beyond the first section.
His main points are that (a) it's hard to standardize on the larger parts and (b) there is no low hanging fruit.
> You have to go beyond the first section.
Please don't imply people didn't read the article. It's boring, unnecessarily rude, against the guidelines [1], and at least in this case I did read the entire article and agree with that comment.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> (b) there is no low hanging fruit.
There is no low hanging fruit when you divide up the pricing the way he did, but transportation is part of nearly every category that he divided it up into. From the data he shows we don't have any reason to think that transportation is not a single substantial fraction of the house cost, when you some up all the different transportation costs between the different sections he uses.
To make an analogy to programming, transportation is like an allocator, and his data shows that execution time is spent evenly between 20 different functions. But all of those functions allocate, it's perfectly plausible the program is spending 50% of it's time in it's allocator and that speeding up that allocator by 50% would reduce the overall execution time by 25%.
Please don't imply people didn't read the article. It's boring, unnecessarily rude, against the guidelines [1], and at least in this case I did read the entire article and agree with that comment.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> (b) there is no low hanging fruit.
There is no low hanging fruit when you divide up the pricing the way he did, but transportation is part of nearly every category that he divided it up into. From the data he shows we don't have any reason to think that transportation is not a single substantial fraction of the house cost, when you some up all the different transportation costs between the different sections he uses.
To make an analogy to programming, transportation is like an allocator, and his data shows that execution time is spent evenly between 20 different functions. But all of those functions allocate, it's perfectly plausible the program is spending 50% of it's time in it's allocator and that speeding up that allocator by 50% would reduce the overall execution time by 25%.
Nuclear batteries removing the need for electrical wiring seems very pie in the sky to me but perhaps I'm just ignorant of the practical application of it.
Concrete seems far more common in residential construction outside of the U.S. I wonder if technologies such as aircrete (concrete with uniform foam produced air bubbles).
Also well There's Your Problem had an interesting article about the 5-1 construction that is used for a lot of new apartment buildings in the U.S. https://wtyppod.podbean.com/e/episode-46-five-over-ones/
Concrete seems far more common in residential construction outside of the U.S. I wonder if technologies such as aircrete (concrete with uniform foam produced air bubbles).
Also well There's Your Problem had an interesting article about the 5-1 construction that is used for a lot of new apartment buildings in the U.S. https://wtyppod.podbean.com/e/episode-46-five-over-ones/
I think that was kind of a whimsical suggestion; like, even if you had a magical technology that eliminated all need for electrical wiring, you'd still only reduce building costs by a small amount.
I've thought that creating a 100-150 watt power over Ethernet standard for home wiring would be a win. Advantage faster install, cheaper cabling, and better safety. Better safety because you can limit the default power to under 15W. Faster install because you use crimp connectors.
What if you want to plug in a vacuum cleaner, hair dryer, space heater, curling iron, or any other thing that might use more than 150 watts?
> vacuum cleaner
Battery powered.
> hair dryer, curling iron.
Bath room.
> space heater
Just no.
Battery powered.
> hair dryer, curling iron.
Bath room.
> space heater
Just no.
Desktop computer? Large TV + stereo system? Refrigerator? Toaster oven? Printer?
There’s a lot of things that use more than 150w. I can’t imagine how you’re going to sell people on “here let’s make your house fundamentally worse and less capable. Oh, and you also need to buy all new appliances with different plugs“
There’s a lot of things that use more than 150w. I can’t imagine how you’re going to sell people on “here let’s make your house fundamentally worse and less capable. Oh, and you also need to buy all new appliances with different plugs“
So you created a system for providing lamps with electricity.
Why not battery power those low power items as well?
Why not battery power those low power items as well?
Aerated concrete is extremely popular in Kazakhstan and Russia in private houses. It's cheaper than bricks, it's sturdy enough, it provides good insulation, it does not require much skill to use, pieces are huge, so it's much faster to build.
There are drawbacks, of course, but overall it's a very popular technology.
There are drawbacks, of course, but overall it's a very popular technology.
I know a guy who researched aerated concrete. He used a slimy additive to help hold the bubbles. Basically, the compression strength of concrete is so much higher than necessary that addition of a large portion of air results in a material that is much lighter with more than adequate compression strength. He couldn't find interest among concrete companies in his state.
In has been popular in the whole former USSR. But for some reason in past it was not considered as a suitable material for houses, only for storage facilities etc. But it could be just a cultural perception.
For example, my father built a temporary house from it in Belarus in 1980s while waiting for the main house construction that was using ordinary bricks. I remember as a child that building from aerated concrete was indeed very quick affair.
For example, my father built a temporary house from it in Belarus in 1980s while waiting for the main house construction that was using ordinary bricks. I remember as a child that building from aerated concrete was indeed very quick affair.
Disadvantages From Wikipedia:
"Installation during rainy weather: AAC is known to crack after installation, which can be avoided by reducing the strength of the mortar and ensuring the blocks are dry during and after installation.
Brittle nature: they need to be handled more carefully than clay bricks to avoid breakage.
Attachments: the brittle nature of the blocks requires longer, thinner screws when fitting cabinets and wall hangings and wood-suitable drill bits or hammering in. Special, large diameter wall plugs (anchors) are available at a higher cost than common wall plugs.
Insulation requirements in newer building codes of northern European countries would require very thick walls when using AAC alone. Thus many builders choose to use traditional building methods installing an extra layer of insulation around the entire building."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoclaved_aerated_concrete
"Installation during rainy weather: AAC is known to crack after installation, which can be avoided by reducing the strength of the mortar and ensuring the blocks are dry during and after installation.
Brittle nature: they need to be handled more carefully than clay bricks to avoid breakage.
Attachments: the brittle nature of the blocks requires longer, thinner screws when fitting cabinets and wall hangings and wood-suitable drill bits or hammering in. Special, large diameter wall plugs (anchors) are available at a higher cost than common wall plugs.
Insulation requirements in newer building codes of northern European countries would require very thick walls when using AAC alone. Thus many builders choose to use traditional building methods installing an extra layer of insulation around the entire building."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoclaved_aerated_concrete
>Aerated concrete is extremely popular in Kazakhstan and Russia in private houses.
In California (FWIW), I expect that you hit seismic issues.
In California (FWIW), I expect that you hit seismic issues.
Problem in California is insane mandated R values for walls. Aerated concrete can meet previous standards. But not the new ones. So it's use is effectively banned.
Old saw about Generals fighting the last war. Energy efficiency standards assume the need to conserve limited supplies for fossil fuels. And the need to not interfere with building large houses for upper middle class people.
Bad thing is R value is a metric designed to upsell insulation. R30 insulation is twice as good as R15, if you're the guy selling it. If you're the guy buying it, not as much.
Old saw about Generals fighting the last war. Energy efficiency standards assume the need to conserve limited supplies for fossil fuels. And the need to not interfere with building large houses for upper middle class people.
Bad thing is R value is a metric designed to upsell insulation. R30 insulation is twice as good as R15, if you're the guy selling it. If you're the guy buying it, not as much.
Considering that you can put foam on the inside and outside of walls (exceptionally common in high-efficiency homes), this is likely not the issue.
I run my furnace for 5 months out of the year. Total yearly cost for nat gas is about $600. And my house is a really drafty 1950's era one. So the max that insulation could save me is $600, that's it.
A heat pump and solar installation needed heat my house in the winter would cost about $12000. But actually the heat pump would only run as I mentioned above for 5 months out of the year. So really just to offset the energy, $6000.
Economically high performance insulation systems lose to solar panels.
That wasn't true 10 years ago. But it's true now. And it'll get worse going forward.
A heat pump and solar installation needed heat my house in the winter would cost about $12000. But actually the heat pump would only run as I mentioned above for 5 months out of the year. So really just to offset the energy, $6000.
Economically high performance insulation systems lose to solar panels.
That wasn't true 10 years ago. But it's true now. And it'll get worse going forward.
When you're building a house, it's not hard to add additional insulation on either side of the framing. Not terribly expensive, either. You also save on the installation of the furnace (and AC) because it just requires very little heating and cooling.
Since insulation is low maintenance, you'll get those savings over the whole lifespan of the house.
Now, if you're in an existing house, it likely doesn't make sense to tear down all your siding and drywall just to add insulation, since you're having to both demo and build.
Since insulation is low maintenance, you'll get those savings over the whole lifespan of the house.
Now, if you're in an existing house, it likely doesn't make sense to tear down all your siding and drywall just to add insulation, since you're having to both demo and build.
Replacement rate for housing is around 2% a year.
New construction with boofo insulation isn't going to solve global warming.
New construction with boofo insulation isn't going to solve global warming.
Can you pre-tension aerated concrete? Concrete is already poor in tensile strength, it feels like creating voids in it would only make that worse.
And tensile strength is largely required for larger, earthquake safe concrete fixtures.
And tensile strength is largely required for larger, earthquake safe concrete fixtures.
AFAIK for earthquake-safe buildings you're supposed to build a frame from an ordinary reinforced concrete and then fill walls with blocks from aerated concrete. Not sure about details, I'm not living in earthquake-dangerous area, so never had to research more about it.
...it provides good insulation...
This might be true, but it would be surprising, since even "aerated" concrete would still be made of highly thermally conductive... concrete.
This might be true, but it would be surprising, since even "aerated" concrete would still be made of highly thermally conductive... concrete.
If memory serves, normal concrete has an R value of about 1 per foot, whereas AAC is more like 1 to 2 per inch. So, an 8 inch wall would have an R-value of about 8-16. That doesn't seem like enough for a cold climate, so I'd assume for those applications you'd probably add an extra layer of actual insulation. (This would mean having pretty thick walls.) You wouldn't need as much supplemental insulation as you would with a regular concrete wall, though.
The thermal mass is also nice, though it doesn't really help much in winter-time. I think AAC is a bit more suited to warm desert climates where you have a daily hot/cold cycle.
The thermal mass is also nice, though it doesn't really help much in winter-time. I think AAC is a bit more suited to warm desert climates where you have a daily hot/cold cycle.
20-inch wall is enough for pretty cold climate according to my calculations. Either that or thin wall with insulation (or thin wall and more money on heating which might be an acceptable solution, if you have cheap coal and your country does not care what you build).
Fairly sure that AAC has less thermal mass than regular concrete. It's more air, less concrete, and the thermal mass comes from the concrete.
Yeah, that sounds right. Still, a lot less than concrete can still be a lot. And I think in most cases I'd rather have better insulation than more thermal mass.
The thermal mass of your house is part of the perceived insulation. In the desert especially nights are cold, the house chills, and retains that chill throughout the day, keeping it cool inside.
Thermal mass to manage comfort could be seen as tuning latency for your arrival and departure of your heat packets.
Here in Russia it usually requires an external layer of insulation plus cladding, you don't just stucco it and call it a day. I did the math and a wall two blocks thick should be barely sufficient, but needs a vapour barrier inside, or the dew point will be inside the wall, ruining it. A vapour barrier and a drywall finish means no reduction in construction costs.
I think in the U.S. the only place that makes the stuff (Aercon) is in Florida, and there's Hebel that has a plant in Mexico near Texas.
I thought the point about modular wiring was interesting. Why aren't all wall studs fitted with grommeted mouseholes at outlet and switch height?
Made me wonder about 'service walls' which would be a pre-built piece that was incorporated into a regular build, but had wires/pipes/etc already built in. You could have a "spine" of a house setup like this, or like a hub, but that doesn't help power points or piping on other walls of a room.
So much of the hassle and cost is that we are building almost a unique house each time and everyone has their own idea of what they want in a house, or uses that unique aspect to express themselves.
So much of the hassle and cost is that we are building almost a unique house each time and everyone has their own idea of what they want in a house, or uses that unique aspect to express themselves.
Most wall studs don't have an outlet or a switch attached. Besides, wires come in from all heights, making the height for the hole of the wiring highly variable. Also people's preferences for switches and outlets varies (albeit probably not much).
Not to mention requiring a certain distance between wires for high (plugs, lights, etc) and low voltage (i.e. ethernet) applications.
You only need holes in certain places and they can be drilled in seconds. Electricians use specialized right angle drills called "hole hawgs" to drill them.
Some are. Especially engineered studs (like those which are closer to beams and filled with insulation) and joists. But holes are fairly quick to add to wood.
Nuclear batteries have their place, but consumer products are not it.
First, you can’t switch them off, so they are either always warm or the are trickle-charging another storage system (batteries, capacitors, whatever) within the device.
Second, the radiation. You can do various things to limit the risk, but the LD50 is something like 0.25 watts of absorbed ionising radiation sustained for 18 minutes, so damage to the batteries (malicious or accidental) would have significantly greater harms than, say, asbestos, CFCs, or domestic carbon monoxide sources.
You absolutely do not want a 10 watt lightbulb powered by built-in atomic batteries anywhere it can get messed with, let alone a 2 kW kettle or a 5 kW oven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome
First, you can’t switch them off, so they are either always warm or the are trickle-charging another storage system (batteries, capacitors, whatever) within the device.
Second, the radiation. You can do various things to limit the risk, but the LD50 is something like 0.25 watts of absorbed ionising radiation sustained for 18 minutes, so damage to the batteries (malicious or accidental) would have significantly greater harms than, say, asbestos, CFCs, or domestic carbon monoxide sources.
You absolutely do not want a 10 watt lightbulb powered by built-in atomic batteries anywhere it can get messed with, let alone a 2 kW kettle or a 5 kW oven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome
> Nuclear batteries removing the need for electrical wiring seems very pie in the sky to me but perhaps I'm just ignorant of the practical application of it.
tl;dr very feasible sans NIMBYs
The DoE investigated this exact thing. I happened across the papers while browsing microfiche. It makes the most sense to serve a neighborhood off small house/shed sized generating facility. As you scale up you can switch to normal turbine operation, as you scale down you move back to thermoelectric operation. Single houses could be powered from thermoelectric piles but this would probably have been reserved for expensive, remote vacation homes.
Closer to battery sized, you can layer radioactive material against quantum dots that turn alpha particles into photons and emit those photons directly onto a PV cell.
tl;dr very feasible sans NIMBYs
The DoE investigated this exact thing. I happened across the papers while browsing microfiche. It makes the most sense to serve a neighborhood off small house/shed sized generating facility. As you scale up you can switch to normal turbine operation, as you scale down you move back to thermoelectric operation. Single houses could be powered from thermoelectric piles but this would probably have been reserved for expensive, remote vacation homes.
Closer to battery sized, you can layer radioactive material against quantum dots that turn alpha particles into photons and emit those photons directly onto a PV cell.
What’s the estimated kWH for one of those “nuclear batteries”?
Abysmal. A current design you can see is the tritium nuclear battery. I misspoke, it is beta particles that generate the photons. The reaction produces nanowatts.
If you remake this system with quantum dots and layered materials it is actually useful and can power small electronics, like a bug. But it needs light shielding.
If you remake this system with quantum dots and layered materials it is actually useful and can power small electronics, like a bug. But it needs light shielding.
I was onsite at a modular manufacturer today and I can tell you a lot of what is said here is just wrong. The cost estimate is not quality adjusted. If you look at cost per square foot and don't take into account the quality of work provided then you haven't calculated anything worth knowing. Also the article doesn't price out the value of speed. Modular can take half the time to move-in as stick build.
I agree there are plenty of points for improving efficiency. For example the builder I visited was not vertically integrated at all. They bought manufacturing time on a modular line for their box plans, worked with external designers and all kinds of subs they can't guarantee for onsite work. But having seen it up close I can tell you there is far more opportunity for process improvement on a assembly line (even if each build is custom) than there is in the field.
If you look to Japan, Toyota is getting into modular with steel framing that is way ahead of anything in the states. I look forward to that being available here.
I agree there are plenty of points for improving efficiency. For example the builder I visited was not vertically integrated at all. They bought manufacturing time on a modular line for their box plans, worked with external designers and all kinds of subs they can't guarantee for onsite work. But having seen it up close I can tell you there is far more opportunity for process improvement on a assembly line (even if each build is custom) than there is in the field.
If you look to Japan, Toyota is getting into modular with steel framing that is way ahead of anything in the states. I look forward to that being available here.
Modular home manufacturing has been around for many decades. It certainly has a role to play, but if it were that much better it would have put the traditional contractors out of work long ago.
The main problem is transportation. You can make every box the size of a standard shipping container, and thus greatly reduce your home design options and size of rooms while still spending plenty on shipping. Or you can make bigger boxes, which gives you more design flexibility but still a lot less than stick building does. And with the bigger boxes you need special highway permits, escort vehicles, etc.
And then, when you have everything on site, there's still a lot to be done. Tree clearing, grading, excavation, concrete work, paving, utility lines, on-site assembly of the boxes (using an expensive crane)...
When you've added it all up, modular isn't the obvious improvement that it seems to be at first glance.
The main problem is transportation. You can make every box the size of a standard shipping container, and thus greatly reduce your home design options and size of rooms while still spending plenty on shipping. Or you can make bigger boxes, which gives you more design flexibility but still a lot less than stick building does. And with the bigger boxes you need special highway permits, escort vehicles, etc.
And then, when you have everything on site, there's still a lot to be done. Tree clearing, grading, excavation, concrete work, paving, utility lines, on-site assembly of the boxes (using an expensive crane)...
When you've added it all up, modular isn't the obvious improvement that it seems to be at first glance.
I suspect that transportation is not the issue, because any way you slice it, building materials come with large footprints. The footprint can be in the factory or on site, but you need big trucks moving stuff around in all cases, and every day the site has a crew on it is a day that generates vehicular traffic. Since the total time for the build goes down in modular, it can be surmised that less public space-over-time is used, even if more bandwidth is used at certain points.
As grandparent says, modular's biggest selling point is in quality control, which improves project risk profile. Factory assembly lends itself to systematic controls; one of the most common headlines in construction failures is "contractor used wrong parts or materials". That can quickly spiral into massive cost overruns when we're talking about something they assembled on site and realized they screwed up only after it's buried in the ground. If the whole subassembly arrives on site pre-checked, there's less that can go wrong. And "subassembly" is the way to think about it, not "box". It's certainly possible to devise a clever modular structure that ships packed but encapsulates more of the desired features with less sawing, nailing and bolting. Boxy shape language is not unique to modular, it appears all throughout industrial goods.
As grandparent says, modular's biggest selling point is in quality control, which improves project risk profile. Factory assembly lends itself to systematic controls; one of the most common headlines in construction failures is "contractor used wrong parts or materials". That can quickly spiral into massive cost overruns when we're talking about something they assembled on site and realized they screwed up only after it's buried in the ground. If the whole subassembly arrives on site pre-checked, there's less that can go wrong. And "subassembly" is the way to think about it, not "box". It's certainly possible to devise a clever modular structure that ships packed but encapsulates more of the desired features with less sawing, nailing and bolting. Boxy shape language is not unique to modular, it appears all throughout industrial goods.
I have had some professional experience with pre-fabricated houses (typically multi-flat buildings) in the '90's, and of course it may well depend on the country, on local codes and availability and cost of site workers, but the overall lesson we learned at the time after n designing and manufacturing tests was that the only real difference was construction times (at the same level of quality), an old related post of mine:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764117
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764117
Site preparation is a fixed cost, certainly?
I grew up in a "manufactured home" and have been shocked by the ambient draftiness in every site-built house I've inhabited since. Similarly rated materials end up with nowhere near as tightly sealed an end result. Now I'm in an extremely high-efficiency condo, and while there are certainly no drafts, air sensors confirm the windows don't open enough to get decent ventilation. Makes me miss the huge banks of properly openable windows on the manufactured home...
The article does not even mention planning and permitting until the last sentence, but in my city that is virtually all of the cost. Fancy cabinet faces have nothing to do with the fact that a house costs $2 million.
When I look at what techies are trying to do I just shake my head. Factory_OS built an apartment building on Union Street in Oakland “in ten days “ but planning, permitting, site prep, finishing, and inspections added up to seven years. Believing that off-site fabrication helps this problem is right up there with believing that hyperloops can solve traffic jams, in the universe of nonsensical American beliefs.
When I look at what techies are trying to do I just shake my head. Factory_OS built an apartment building on Union Street in Oakland “in ten days “ but planning, permitting, site prep, finishing, and inspections added up to seven years. Believing that off-site fabrication helps this problem is right up there with believing that hyperloops can solve traffic jams, in the universe of nonsensical American beliefs.
I think we already have the future of housing: mobile homes.
With remote work gaining acceptance, location will lose its premium for many. Socially we have pared down our living arrangements to small nuclear families if that, which can fit in a mobile home.
Mobile homes offer better protection against deterioration of a real estate or job market, and also better opportunities for moving to a growing market. Mobility is in the name.
Trailer parks have a bad rap because of classism. But the less well-off are often trailblazers because they need to make things work with less.
The mobile homes of tomorrow need not be run-down single-wides. They could be more luxurious and larger if broken apart into components.
I think this is mostly a marketing and image problem which is only starting to change, mostly because of cost-of-land pressures.
With remote work gaining acceptance, location will lose its premium for many. Socially we have pared down our living arrangements to small nuclear families if that, which can fit in a mobile home.
Mobile homes offer better protection against deterioration of a real estate or job market, and also better opportunities for moving to a growing market. Mobility is in the name.
Trailer parks have a bad rap because of classism. But the less well-off are often trailblazers because they need to make things work with less.
The mobile homes of tomorrow need not be run-down single-wides. They could be more luxurious and larger if broken apart into components.
I think this is mostly a marketing and image problem which is only starting to change, mostly because of cost-of-land pressures.
> Mobile homes offer better protection against deterioration of a real estate or job market, and also better opportunities for moving to a growing market. Mobility is in the name.
Mobility is in the name, but not in reality. Once you install a mobile home, it's expensive and unlikely to move it and install it somewhere else. It's better to call these buy their new name, manufactured homes, which eliminates the misconception from having mobile in the name.
Now, that doesn't mean they couldn't be the future of housing, but it doesn't seem to be what developers are building or what people are buying when they've got choices. I think the cost difference vs a wood framed house built on site doesn't make up for the lack of flexibility.
Mobility is in the name, but not in reality. Once you install a mobile home, it's expensive and unlikely to move it and install it somewhere else. It's better to call these buy their new name, manufactured homes, which eliminates the misconception from having mobile in the name.
Now, that doesn't mean they couldn't be the future of housing, but it doesn't seem to be what developers are building or what people are buying when they've got choices. I think the cost difference vs a wood framed house built on site doesn't make up for the lack of flexibility.
A few people have made this point in this thread. There’s still actual trailers (“RV”) though, which is what the grandparent poster meant.
Condo style mobile home ownership is an alternative to renting a lot that fixes a lot of the problems with mobile home parks
I sent this article to my builder brother and here is his very frank feedback:
——— interesting. Certainly true that building materials are bulky and very costly to ship. Seems to be a reality that is hard to change. he has a poor understanding of framing and got terminology wrong: "balloon" was a bridge between post-and-beam and modern platform framing and is no longer used. Although commercial steel buildings are basically balloon. His constant reference to "balloon" framing is a joke to a professional. The fact is that all the processing of building can be and often are quite efficient. If a person wants to keep everything simple it can be much less expensive than it often is. I guess he alludes to that with mentioning "consumer tastes". for sure custom homes are expensive for a reason.
it's hard for someone with absolutely zero experience to judge home building, obviously. For example he thinks 4x8 sheathing panels don't have to be cut, when of course they do, just like boards do.
——— interesting. Certainly true that building materials are bulky and very costly to ship. Seems to be a reality that is hard to change. he has a poor understanding of framing and got terminology wrong: "balloon" was a bridge between post-and-beam and modern platform framing and is no longer used. Although commercial steel buildings are basically balloon. His constant reference to "balloon" framing is a joke to a professional. The fact is that all the processing of building can be and often are quite efficient. If a person wants to keep everything simple it can be much less expensive than it often is. I guess he alludes to that with mentioning "consumer tastes". for sure custom homes are expensive for a reason.
it's hard for someone with absolutely zero experience to judge home building, obviously. For example he thinks 4x8 sheathing panels don't have to be cut, when of course they do, just like boards do.
If anybody's interested in learning the nitty gritty details of the process of homebuilding, especially with an eye towards what drives costs, I highly recommend Contracting Your Home[1]. If you're a neophyte like me, it's pretty illuminating how much you don't know. All the steps involved, what are the tradeoffs between the major approaches, issues that you might not even consider, and the like.
[1]https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-Contracting-Step-Step-...
[1]https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-Contracting-Step-Step-...
If fancy manufacturing facilities with expensive equipment don't scale well because construction materials are manufactured in a lot of small factories rather than a few big ones, it seems like an obvious way to improve construction is to reduce the cost of that fancy equipment so that it's available even to small operations.
We see this with a lot of smaller-scale tools: 3D printers, CNCs, laser cutters, welders, pick-and-place machines for assembling circuit boards, etc.. are things that have become affordable to casual hobbyists.
I could see augmented reality being a big deal for construction. See exactly where everything is supposed to go as you install it.
Maybe eventually a mobile 3D-printing gantry that can be quickly deployed on site will be something that a small local business would own.
We see this with a lot of smaller-scale tools: 3D printers, CNCs, laser cutters, welders, pick-and-place machines for assembling circuit boards, etc.. are things that have become affordable to casual hobbyists.
I could see augmented reality being a big deal for construction. See exactly where everything is supposed to go as you install it.
Maybe eventually a mobile 3D-printing gantry that can be quickly deployed on site will be something that a small local business would own.
@dang The link preview for eth.link domains should be shown with the subdomain and probably without the TLD. So for this case instead of eth.link it should show austinvernon.eth.
For reference in case you're unfamiliar, .eth domains are ENS domains (Ethereum Name Service), a decentralized domain system, and are resolved for casual browsing by Cloudflare with the .link TLD for people not running an Ethereum node.
For reference in case you're unfamiliar, .eth domains are ENS domains (Ethereum Name Service), a decentralized domain system, and are resolved for casual browsing by Cloudflare with the .link TLD for people not running an Ethereum node.
ENS is not DNS, and ETH is not a TLD since it is not in the Root Zone Database maintained by IANA.
If ENS is recognized, where does it stop? What happens when there is a collision and IANA makes a TLD that collides?
Why should Hacker News recognize domain names that are not recognized in browsers or operating systems by default? Why should Hacker News start redefining domain names as commonly understood and widely supported?
What about OpenNIC, FurNIC, Zilliqa, Namecoin and New Nations? Should they also be recognized?
If ENS is recognized, where does it stop? What happens when there is a collision and IANA makes a TLD that collides?
Why should Hacker News recognize domain names that are not recognized in browsers or operating systems by default? Why should Hacker News start redefining domain names as commonly understood and widely supported?
What about OpenNIC, FurNIC, Zilliqa, Namecoin and New Nations? Should they also be recognized?
That's a minor point. The fact that eth.link seems to have a public suffix list [1] type status stands, so HN should display abc.eth.link as abc.eth.link (not eth.link), just like abc.github.io is shortened to abc.github.io (not github.io).
[1] https://publicsuffix.org/
[1] https://publicsuffix.org/
You saying "For reference in case you're unfamiliar" is also "a minor point".
Anyone have any experience with SIPs (structural insulated panels)? The claim is that their use reduces waste and labor, but I'm not aware of any independent analysis to corroborate the claims.
I worked with them twice and loved it. But three times I've built my own house and passed them over.
By my math, it makes sense to spend on a really good envelope like SIPs or a very efficient HVAC like ground source heat pumps - but buying the best of both is only for bragging rights and never pays off. Pick one or the other to go all out on and your bills won't be that much different if the other is just above average.
The downside of spending extra on anything that isn't seen by the buyer is that they done want to pay extra for it. To bring it back around to SIPs, if two similar houses are for sale, nobody picks the more expensive one because it has SIPs. (ok, not nobody, maybe I would)
By my math, it makes sense to spend on a really good envelope like SIPs or a very efficient HVAC like ground source heat pumps - but buying the best of both is only for bragging rights and never pays off. Pick one or the other to go all out on and your bills won't be that much different if the other is just above average.
The downside of spending extra on anything that isn't seen by the buyer is that they done want to pay extra for it. To bring it back around to SIPs, if two similar houses are for sale, nobody picks the more expensive one because it has SIPs. (ok, not nobody, maybe I would)
I tried to price them out. They definitely save on labor but they are not particularly cheap. Depending on area your codes may not permit them and/or your local PEs may not want to sign off on them, even though they're fine. (This usually comes about by the local codes only assuming a finite set of valid structures, and some structure you wish to build not neatly fitting into those classifications.)
They could nebulously reduce "waste" but with how much more you're paying for them, it seems economically unviable to use them. In the sense that money is a signal, the waste is still there, you're just not seeing it and being put at an economic disadvantage for paying more.
They could nebulously reduce "waste" but with how much more you're paying for them, it seems economically unviable to use them. In the sense that money is a signal, the waste is still there, you're just not seeing it and being put at an economic disadvantage for paying more.
The author has some interesting points, but with a labor price of $104.62 per sq. ft. it seems like there's a huge opportunity to reduce housing prices. That would be $157,000 of the price of a 1500 sq ft home. If factory-built homes could be assembled in a few days, instead of a few months, that would be a big savings.
Of course transportation is a big problem. Something like pre-assembled wall sections which can be more or less flat-packed with several other sections could get the transportation costs down. And if they could fit in shipping containers from China (or trucks from Mexico) the price could be even lower.
Consumer preference shouldn't be a show-stopper. Changing the color of the paint isn't any more difficult in a factory than it is on-site. Switching the model of window as well (though I can see how each change would eat a bit into the factory efficiency. There are only so many ways to lay-out a house, I seriously doubt each site-built home is such a custom design that it can't be a model number for a pre-fab factory. Regular home builders are already usually going off a small set of plans, not re-engineering home design on every outing.
Of course transportation is a big problem. Something like pre-assembled wall sections which can be more or less flat-packed with several other sections could get the transportation costs down. And if they could fit in shipping containers from China (or trucks from Mexico) the price could be even lower.
Consumer preference shouldn't be a show-stopper. Changing the color of the paint isn't any more difficult in a factory than it is on-site. Switching the model of window as well (though I can see how each change would eat a bit into the factory efficiency. There are only so many ways to lay-out a house, I seriously doubt each site-built home is such a custom design that it can't be a model number for a pre-fab factory. Regular home builders are already usually going off a small set of plans, not re-engineering home design on every outing.
Maybe wall sections with built in services could work too. e.g., a wall with plumbing to handle a bathroom on one side and laundry on the other. Design a house around these service walls in strategic locations, then fill in the other, more-standard plasterboard walls.
If the more technical bits (electrical, plumbing, etc) could be done by accredited tradesman in the factory, leaving a general worker to screw on taps and plug in power cables, that might reduce the individuals required on site during the assembly process.
The factory professionals could knock out dozens of custom service walls (even if each was slightly different) in a day, versus driving around to individual building sites in the traditional model.
If the more technical bits (electrical, plumbing, etc) could be done by accredited tradesman in the factory, leaving a general worker to screw on taps and plug in power cables, that might reduce the individuals required on site during the assembly process.
The factory professionals could knock out dozens of custom service walls (even if each was slightly different) in a day, versus driving around to individual building sites in the traditional model.
Some relevant tidbits, apologies for not writing this up in more detail. (Especially since the article was so detailed and well thought out.)
Bucky Fuller had the idea to build houses in factories and deliver them by helicopter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_house
Or build whole cities at once:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_River%27s_City_project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology
Christopher Alexander thought that we should build our houses ourselves (using foamed concrete):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrete
Bucky Fuller had the idea to build houses in factories and deliver them by helicopter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_house
Or build whole cities at once:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_River%27s_City_project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology
Christopher Alexander thought that we should build our houses ourselves (using foamed concrete):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrete
It was interesting to see architecture and engineering broken out as ~1.5% of the total cost of building a home, and it made me wonder: How much does better residential architecture actually cost?
If I were in the market to build a home, and the difference between building something that looks like your average suburban detached versus something modern and striking were, say, an extra 1.5% (doubling the cost of architecture and engineering), I wouldn't even consider skimping on architecture.
And yet, most architecturally-interesting homes are most certainly not 1.5% or even 15% more than average-looking homes, being generally restricted to luxury markets. Why is that?
If I were in the market to build a home, and the difference between building something that looks like your average suburban detached versus something modern and striking were, say, an extra 1.5% (doubling the cost of architecture and engineering), I wouldn't even consider skimping on architecture.
And yet, most architecturally-interesting homes are most certainly not 1.5% or even 15% more than average-looking homes, being generally restricted to luxury markets. Why is that?
Probably because the architecture and engineering is only a small part of the cost, the things the architects design in are much more expensive to build.
The actual design of the striking granite-block construction with large windows on the coast may not cost all that much. But the materials and skilled artisans sure do.
The actual design of the striking granite-block construction with large windows on the coast may not cost all that much. But the materials and skilled artisans sure do.
> Transformational cost reduction would have to come from changing what we think a house is. Imagine you had a thin suit that provided heating, cooling, processed your urine and waste, and kept you clean. Then you could have a house without bathrooms, insulation, heating, cooling, plumbing, and have the electrical eliminated with nuclear batteries. No kitchen because robotic takeout is so cheap. The house could cost $20 per square foot (with low-end finishes) and be smaller. A new home would go up in weeks. The technology is in the bodysuit instead of the house. Bodysuits can be mass-produced and shipped long distances. Ripe for cost reduction. The volumetric value of a home would be even lower.
This sounds lovely, sign me up.
But seriously, I was excited about this article having misinterpreted the title, thinking it would be a critical analysis of the operating efficiency of a house, not the construction efficiency. Amortized over the lifetime of the house, I have to assume the up-front costs pale in comparison to the operating costs of a household. Especially as more work becomes remote-friendly, I would expect new construction to be required less often.
How about addressing the massive societal drain of doing dishes and laundry? Has anybody seriously tried to rethink those processes, not just in terms of roboticization, but in terms of house design and layout? How about heating/cooling? I guess what I’m curious about is more how an increase in capital expense could revolutionize operation, not the other way around. And certainly not involving a urine-processing body suit and relying on Uber eats indefinitely.
This sounds lovely, sign me up.
But seriously, I was excited about this article having misinterpreted the title, thinking it would be a critical analysis of the operating efficiency of a house, not the construction efficiency. Amortized over the lifetime of the house, I have to assume the up-front costs pale in comparison to the operating costs of a household. Especially as more work becomes remote-friendly, I would expect new construction to be required less often.
How about addressing the massive societal drain of doing dishes and laundry? Has anybody seriously tried to rethink those processes, not just in terms of roboticization, but in terms of house design and layout? How about heating/cooling? I guess what I’m curious about is more how an increase in capital expense could revolutionize operation, not the other way around. And certainly not involving a urine-processing body suit and relying on Uber eats indefinitely.
I always think about how in 2021 we're still manually scrubbing toilets or paying other humans to do it for us.
Always leaves me thinking about Airbnbs and how even if you have a great set up to rent, you still need to clean it every day or two, or pay someone to do it. Ends up being a significant portion of the cost. Assuming it's too difficult to automate stripping and making a bed, or auto-cleaning an existing toilet, it's crazy we don't reinvent toilets, bed linen and various other things so they are no effort at all.
Always leaves me thinking about Airbnbs and how even if you have a great set up to rent, you still need to clean it every day or two, or pay someone to do it. Ends up being a significant portion of the cost. Assuming it's too difficult to automate stripping and making a bed, or auto-cleaning an existing toilet, it's crazy we don't reinvent toilets, bed linen and various other things so they are no effort at all.
FTA: "Flexible technologies that work within the current system and simplify processes have had the most success. These technologies allow the high precision and efficiency of factories to make it to the building site. [Example:] Experienced carpenters use chisels to create post and beam members on site. -> 2x4s and nails are mass manufactured and assembled by semi-skilled workers on site."
One thing I notice is the large volume of waste from stick framing on site. A huge pile of cut lumber that just goes to the dump.
I haven't seen this at the job sites I've been on. Most of the wasted wood is a small pile of cuttings from the oddly sized parts of the build, but it's surely less than 5% of the whole build, probably even less than 1%. Any scraps more than a foot long will usually get used for something.
The incentives are aligned here, contractors don't want to buy more wood than necessary.
The incentives are aligned here, contractors don't want to buy more wood than necessary.
I've seen large houses framed out and the scrap loss didn't fill a trashcan. Running jokes about the tags weighing more than the actual wood scrap.
Exactly.
It isn't like walls are 8'2" high. There's a great deal of standardization built into modern home design.
It isn't like walls are 8'2" high. There's a great deal of standardization built into modern home design.
It’s indeed much easier to reduce waste in a factory when the production line can optimize for reducing waste.
It’s a delicate problem though. I have recently implemented such an optimization for wall panel production lines and it’s not so easy for the operators cutting sheets of material to keep too many leftover bits for the following wall panel being built, and the order of the panels built can be dictated by a specific loading order on the delivery truck so can’t be reordered to reduce waste.
Working on various bin-packing and cutting stock problems is an interesting challenge!
It’s a delicate problem though. I have recently implemented such an optimization for wall panel production lines and it’s not so easy for the operators cutting sheets of material to keep too many leftover bits for the following wall panel being built, and the order of the panels built can be dictated by a specific loading order on the delivery truck so can’t be reordered to reduce waste.
Working on various bin-packing and cutting stock problems is an interesting challenge!
The amount of waste in general for constructing or remodeling a house is incredible. In my experience, even if you wanted to be conscientious about the waste (e.g repurpose timber), it would require so much more effort that’s already going into the project that it’s just easier to throw all the waste together in one bin and take to the landfill.
That largely depends on the builders, and in particular the project managers.
If you ever get a chance to tour a manufactured home facility, one of the big things you'll notice is that there is almost no waste coming out the back end, and certainly far, far less waste than you see in a typical site-built home (huge dumpsters of waste being hauled off regularly).
They're designed so that there's just not much in the way of waste - because dimensions are standard, and consistency is pretty good, you simply make sure that if you have a cut of a standard piece, you need the other half of it over there. There's just very, very little waste.
On top of that, there's very little transporting of random stuff, because it's all built onsite. Cabinets are built as an entire unit in a quarter of the factory I toured, and are simply run across into the house before the roof goes on. There's no need to make sure the cabinets fit through doors and such - the entire assemblies are brought in and dropped in place (or nearly so) through the top.
The roof, meanwhile, is built at more or less waist height (depending on slopes). It's assembled, "drywall up," on some jigs that hold it properly, wiring is run, the joists are added, and you end up with a roof segment that is then lifted up, painted, and set down on top of the house. It almost entirely eliminates the "roof work" risk for doing roofs.
I know in most modern tech circles it's incredibly popular to hate "trailer homes" - which tells me that most people's vision of them is a 1970s single wide, 50 years of limited maintenance later. Modern manufactured homes have nearly nothing to do with that - ours is 2x6 exterior construction, drywall, Energy Star rated, metal roof, good insulated windows, etc. Out of curiosity I signed up for the power company's free "energy analysis" thing, where they come and check the ducts, do a blower door test, etc, and they left saying "There's literally nothing we can improve - this is a tight house, comfortably in the top range, and your ducts are very well sealed too." I'd wager my results against any similar size site built home in the area.
People we have over are consistently surprised to find out that our place is a manufactured, because it doesn't match the "trailer house" image. I think it's blindingly obvious it's manufactured, but I also saw it come in on trucks, and I know the signs to look for - simple rectangular floor plan, a strong marriage line down the center, and typically water only on one half of the house (it avoids having to do any water pipe joins onsite, which reduces the risk of leaks). We have a concrete foundation under the house, and it works great for us.
But, you know, we do legally live in a "trailer home." Doesn't bother us in the slightest.
They're designed so that there's just not much in the way of waste - because dimensions are standard, and consistency is pretty good, you simply make sure that if you have a cut of a standard piece, you need the other half of it over there. There's just very, very little waste.
On top of that, there's very little transporting of random stuff, because it's all built onsite. Cabinets are built as an entire unit in a quarter of the factory I toured, and are simply run across into the house before the roof goes on. There's no need to make sure the cabinets fit through doors and such - the entire assemblies are brought in and dropped in place (or nearly so) through the top.
The roof, meanwhile, is built at more or less waist height (depending on slopes). It's assembled, "drywall up," on some jigs that hold it properly, wiring is run, the joists are added, and you end up with a roof segment that is then lifted up, painted, and set down on top of the house. It almost entirely eliminates the "roof work" risk for doing roofs.
I know in most modern tech circles it's incredibly popular to hate "trailer homes" - which tells me that most people's vision of them is a 1970s single wide, 50 years of limited maintenance later. Modern manufactured homes have nearly nothing to do with that - ours is 2x6 exterior construction, drywall, Energy Star rated, metal roof, good insulated windows, etc. Out of curiosity I signed up for the power company's free "energy analysis" thing, where they come and check the ducts, do a blower door test, etc, and they left saying "There's literally nothing we can improve - this is a tight house, comfortably in the top range, and your ducts are very well sealed too." I'd wager my results against any similar size site built home in the area.
People we have over are consistently surprised to find out that our place is a manufactured, because it doesn't match the "trailer house" image. I think it's blindingly obvious it's manufactured, but I also saw it come in on trucks, and I know the signs to look for - simple rectangular floor plan, a strong marriage line down the center, and typically water only on one half of the house (it avoids having to do any water pipe joins onsite, which reduces the risk of leaks). We have a concrete foundation under the house, and it works great for us.
But, you know, we do legally live in a "trailer home." Doesn't bother us in the slightest.
> because dimensions are standard, and consistency is pretty good, you simply make sure that if you have a cut of a standard piece, you need the other half of it over there. There's just very, very little waste.
They also operate at a scale such that if they need an oddball length of some material, the lumber mill is happy to supply it cut to that oddball length since they are buying it by the railcar.
They also operate at a scale such that if they need an oddball length of some material, the lumber mill is happy to supply it cut to that oddball length since they are buying it by the railcar.
> It's incredibly popular to hate "trailer homes" - which tells me that most people's vision of them is a 1970s single wide, 50 years of limited maintenance later. Modern manufactured homes have nearly nothing to do with that
How do you actually find these? How can you tell the difference?
Every 1970's-era trailer house manufacturer has rebranded themselves as "Modular, not Mobile". For non-experts, it's hard to tell the difference, which might be why everyone lumps them all together.
I would love to buy a well-designed actually-good factory-standardized home. Every thing I've seen that claims such, is just a rebranded trailer house.
How do you actually find these? How can you tell the difference?
Every 1970's-era trailer house manufacturer has rebranded themselves as "Modular, not Mobile". For non-experts, it's hard to tell the difference, which might be why everyone lumps them all together.
I would love to buy a well-designed actually-good factory-standardized home. Every thing I've seen that claims such, is just a rebranded trailer house.
> Every 1970's-era trailer house manufacturer has rebranded themselves as "Modular, not Mobile".
This isn't just branding. The Housing Act of 1980 required the term "manufactured" be used in place of "mobile" in all federal laws about homes built after 1976.
If you look at a "mobile" home, it's one built before modern standards, where if you look at a "manufactured" or "modular" home, it's one that conforms to the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Act (1974) and HUD Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (1976).
Now "manufactured" vs "modular" is whether it's built just to the federal HUD standards, or also built to the same local codes as a site-built home.
All three (mobile, manufactured, modular) are terms for factory-built pre-fab homes, i.e. "trailer homes".
This isn't just branding. The Housing Act of 1980 required the term "manufactured" be used in place of "mobile" in all federal laws about homes built after 1976.
If you look at a "mobile" home, it's one built before modern standards, where if you look at a "manufactured" or "modular" home, it's one that conforms to the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Act (1974) and HUD Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (1976).
Now "manufactured" vs "modular" is whether it's built just to the federal HUD standards, or also built to the same local codes as a site-built home.
All three (mobile, manufactured, modular) are terms for factory-built pre-fab homes, i.e. "trailer homes".
In the 80s, the standards changed so you can't have the old newspaper and spit style manufactured homes anymore.
But I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for. Our house is absolutely a "trailer" - it came in two pieces, has long I-beams under the floor, and still has axles down in the crawlspace. I believe one can get the "modular" version which is the same thing, same factory, and doesn't keep the axles (with perhaps a few other changes - it didn't matter to me and was more money for the same end result).
Despite that, it's a solid drywall based house, 2x6 exterior walls, etc.
But if you want more details, you'll have to find someone in your area who sells them and go find out more - my regional knowledge probably isn't applicable to your situation.
But I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for. Our house is absolutely a "trailer" - it came in two pieces, has long I-beams under the floor, and still has axles down in the crawlspace. I believe one can get the "modular" version which is the same thing, same factory, and doesn't keep the axles (with perhaps a few other changes - it didn't matter to me and was more money for the same end result).
Despite that, it's a solid drywall based house, 2x6 exterior walls, etc.
But if you want more details, you'll have to find someone in your area who sells them and go find out more - my regional knowledge probably isn't applicable to your situation.
[deleted]
>Vinyl flooring, vinyl siding, one-piece shower stalls, and laminate countertops are examples of innovations that reduce the cost and increase durability.
Vynil is one of the worst thing you could have in your house. And the production of it is horrible for the environment too.
Vynil chemical group is not toxic, but the "Polyvinyl chloride" people are referring to when they talk about "Vynil" is. It is extremely toxic because of the chemical additives it has like plasticizers that are breathable and never go away in your body.
It is also extremely toxic when burn as it generates dioxins, and flame retardants are added to it, also very toxic.
It is also extremely cheap so people use it so much over big surfaces.
It is great for plumbing and I would only use it for that use.
But don't use it on big surfaces because you and your family are going to breath its additives when it is exposed to sunlight.
Vynil is one of the worst thing you could have in your house. And the production of it is horrible for the environment too.
Vynil chemical group is not toxic, but the "Polyvinyl chloride" people are referring to when they talk about "Vynil" is. It is extremely toxic because of the chemical additives it has like plasticizers that are breathable and never go away in your body.
It is also extremely toxic when burn as it generates dioxins, and flame retardants are added to it, also very toxic.
It is also extremely cheap so people use it so much over big surfaces.
It is great for plumbing and I would only use it for that use.
But don't use it on big surfaces because you and your family are going to breath its additives when it is exposed to sunlight.
It's just bizarre to me that people are focused on building homes more efficiently, when the overwhelming majority of the cost of housing in most areas is the cost of the land, not the actual cost of building the house. How do we know this is true? Well just look at the cost of building a new home in lower cost of living areas. You can still build quite large custom homes for under $300k in much of the country. So it's not the cost of labor, or the cost of raw materials. Sure there's some difference between LCOL areas and HCOL areas, but even generously assuming that it would be a 50% premium you still dont arrive at California level prices.
This is yet another conversation about housing that whistles right by the true cause: exclusionary, and racist zoning practices.
This is yet another conversation about housing that whistles right by the true cause: exclusionary, and racist zoning practices.
It's right there in the article:
> Rezone to allow more multi-family construction and remove minimum parking requirements. America has some of the cheapest multi-family in the world. We need more of it!
> Rezone to allow more multi-family construction and remove minimum parking requirements. America has some of the cheapest multi-family in the world. We need more of it!
That's a long way to say construction is already optimized for our current level of technology.
A somewhat less meandering explanation for the modern dominance of balloon framing, which also draws parallels to software development:
https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/balloon-framing-i...
https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/balloon-framing-i...
Balloon framing has been gone for nearly a century, which implies no firestops between floors.
Stick built framing is the follow on, also called plate building, the plates constituting inter-floor fire stops.
Stick built framing is the follow on, also called plate building, the plates constituting inter-floor fire stops.
That link describes platform framing as a variant of balloon framing: "The balloon frame addressed this by way of a variant known as 'western style' or 'platform framing'"
The piece uses the term "balloon framing" to encompass all light-frame construction as opposed to heavy-frame construction like post-and-beam. It think that's fine, I've certainly heard the term used that way before.
The piece uses the term "balloon framing" to encompass all light-frame construction as opposed to heavy-frame construction like post-and-beam. It think that's fine, I've certainly heard the term used that way before.
Semi-autonomous road convoys and electric trucks are technologies that are in development. That may completely alter the calculus of the article and unlock those economies of scale that are missing at the moment.
> Precast concrete panels are another small success story. Post-WWII, Eastern European countries built apartment buildings using this technology.
No. No and no. The precast concrete panel apartment buildings in Eastern Europe are so badly insulated that such a house will ruin any building savings with the heating/cooling costs. That is, if you don't get water infiltrations through the spaces between said concrete panels which are obviously filled with ... something else.
I guess you could do it properly, but then it won't be cheap.
Source: I live there. They're that bad.
No. No and no. The precast concrete panel apartment buildings in Eastern Europe are so badly insulated that such a house will ruin any building savings with the heating/cooling costs. That is, if you don't get water infiltrations through the spaces between said concrete panels which are obviously filled with ... something else.
I guess you could do it properly, but then it won't be cheap.
Source: I live there. They're that bad.
If there was a way to never have electric cables or plumbing in walls, that would speed up construction and reduce the cost.
The savings for this don't just show up in the plumbing and electrical categories, but also in framing and finishing, as well as hidden inefficiencies - you have to pre-wire and plumb, and then late come back to finish wiring and plumbing.
Also, this article is about how to construct a house in an efficient manner, not how to construct a house that is efficient throughout it's life.
The savings for this don't just show up in the plumbing and electrical categories, but also in framing and finishing, as well as hidden inefficiencies - you have to pre-wire and plumb, and then late come back to finish wiring and plumbing.
Also, this article is about how to construct a house in an efficient manner, not how to construct a house that is efficient throughout it's life.
Instead of walls I guess you could use... the floor and ceiling? Would that help? Walls at least don't have people walking on them.
In some sense just having "channels" through walls or floors would make things simpler, if electric and plumbing could be installed after the structure of the house was completed. But I can't come up with a way that would make sense. If you integrate channels into the framing that seems very similar to the current process (where "channels" are drilled through the wood), only you've added bulk and access panels. If you add channels that aren't part of the framing then you've increased the wall size with a lot of cascading effects.
Though there are basically channels through the floors that align with the joists. Maybe you could save effort by using those channels? But at the cost of material unless there was some wholistic design change.
Kind of related: it does seem possible that all-electric HVAC could be distributed through the house instead of using a central unit, and that might simplify things. Like it's unclear to me that central A/C is really much better than smaller split units, and certainly electric heat doesn't benefit from centralization.
In some sense just having "channels" through walls or floors would make things simpler, if electric and plumbing could be installed after the structure of the house was completed. But I can't come up with a way that would make sense. If you integrate channels into the framing that seems very similar to the current process (where "channels" are drilled through the wood), only you've added bulk and access panels. If you add channels that aren't part of the framing then you've increased the wall size with a lot of cascading effects.
Though there are basically channels through the floors that align with the joists. Maybe you could save effort by using those channels? But at the cost of material unless there was some wholistic design change.
Kind of related: it does seem possible that all-electric HVAC could be distributed through the house instead of using a central unit, and that might simplify things. Like it's unclear to me that central A/C is really much better than smaller split units, and certainly electric heat doesn't benefit from centralization.
I think the solution to reduce housing costs is simple and three-fold.
First: most people can build a house. It's really not difficult. Today's homes are quite complex in terms of their layers of parts, and constantly varying building codes don't help. But if you can swing a hammer and push a saw, you can build a house.
Ikea has shown it's not only possible, but profitable, to sell virtually everything that goes in a home to consumers and have them put it together themselves. So why not the rest of the house too? We've done it before: Sears shipped people houses on the railroad along with instructions and (eventually) pre-fab parts. They sold them for 30 years. https://www.amusingplanet.com/2021/06/sears-mail-order-homes...
A huge chunk of the cost of a home is the labor. So let the homeowner handle more of it! They can build in stages, offsetting costs and building at their own pace. And if somebody gets tired of doing it themselves, they can always hire a contractor.
Second: customers interest in having a unique home is a huge cost. So let's focus on building either the variable parts, or on making a "core home" that can be customized after the fact by customers. Most homes are just boxes. It should be possible for us to construct some basic designs that can then be modified or "spruced up" by the homeowner later. Most of the features that make a home look unique could be turned into add-ons, so that we could focus on efficiency of the bare home, and let customers take on additional cost when and if they choose.
Third: most people don't need huge houses! Due to the increasing cost of renting, most renters rent apartments that are absolutely tiny by comparison to the average new home. We can reduce housing costs further by simply making the building smaller, and gaining efficiencies by taking advantage of that smaller size. Want a bigger home? By having simpler designs by default with add-on exteriors, we can make it much easier to add extensions on to houses. Simply unbolt the exterior facade, build on your extension, and bolt the facades back on. This allows us to spend less money on materials and labor, while still allowing the consumer to add to the property over time.
First: most people can build a house. It's really not difficult. Today's homes are quite complex in terms of their layers of parts, and constantly varying building codes don't help. But if you can swing a hammer and push a saw, you can build a house.
Ikea has shown it's not only possible, but profitable, to sell virtually everything that goes in a home to consumers and have them put it together themselves. So why not the rest of the house too? We've done it before: Sears shipped people houses on the railroad along with instructions and (eventually) pre-fab parts. They sold them for 30 years. https://www.amusingplanet.com/2021/06/sears-mail-order-homes...
A huge chunk of the cost of a home is the labor. So let the homeowner handle more of it! They can build in stages, offsetting costs and building at their own pace. And if somebody gets tired of doing it themselves, they can always hire a contractor.
Second: customers interest in having a unique home is a huge cost. So let's focus on building either the variable parts, or on making a "core home" that can be customized after the fact by customers. Most homes are just boxes. It should be possible for us to construct some basic designs that can then be modified or "spruced up" by the homeowner later. Most of the features that make a home look unique could be turned into add-ons, so that we could focus on efficiency of the bare home, and let customers take on additional cost when and if they choose.
Third: most people don't need huge houses! Due to the increasing cost of renting, most renters rent apartments that are absolutely tiny by comparison to the average new home. We can reduce housing costs further by simply making the building smaller, and gaining efficiencies by taking advantage of that smaller size. Want a bigger home? By having simpler designs by default with add-on exteriors, we can make it much easier to add extensions on to houses. Simply unbolt the exterior facade, build on your extension, and bolt the facades back on. This allows us to spend less money on materials and labor, while still allowing the consumer to add to the property over time.
I think it's a bit reductive to say that if you can push a saw and swing a hammer that you can build a house. Sure in theory, but the idea runs into a lot of problems quickly.
1. Navigating the permitting process 2. Finding a lender willing to finance a self-built home. 3. Learning the complicated trades (plumbing/electrical/foundation) 4. Affording to take the time to build a house.
Just #4 alone makes this a non-starter for most people. The average home takes between 6-9 months to build, and that's with an experienced crew. Learning as you go would easily add 6 months to this. Affording to take a year off to build is just not something "most people" can do.
I have a neighbor who is a building contractor. He built his house on his weekends, doing the majority of the work himself. It took him over a year, and he has the skills, tools, and knowledge. Joe Six Pack isn't going to know enough to avoid the pitfalls that can make this a disaster.
1. Navigating the permitting process 2. Finding a lender willing to finance a self-built home. 3. Learning the complicated trades (plumbing/electrical/foundation) 4. Affording to take the time to build a house.
Just #4 alone makes this a non-starter for most people. The average home takes between 6-9 months to build, and that's with an experienced crew. Learning as you go would easily add 6 months to this. Affording to take a year off to build is just not something "most people" can do.
I have a neighbor who is a building contractor. He built his house on his weekends, doing the majority of the work himself. It took him over a year, and he has the skills, tools, and knowledge. Joe Six Pack isn't going to know enough to avoid the pitfalls that can make this a disaster.
> most people can build a house. It's really not difficult
You would appreciate some help with raising the walls, but that's certainly doable alone. Raising the rafters, though, requires at least two people with good upper body strength. Or a very ingenious tackle system.
You would appreciate some help with raising the walls, but that's certainly doable alone. Raising the rafters, though, requires at least two people with good upper body strength. Or a very ingenious tackle system.
Or you just rent a telehandler from United Rentals or a similar companby. It's not that expensive and they deliver it to the jobsite for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescopic_handler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescopic_handler
Not related to the post content, but does anyone know how to actually register a .eth domain (eg subdomain under eth.link) ? On the following page it appears the instructions assume that one already has/owns a (sub)domain, and I don’t see anything talking about how to actually register one..
https://eth.link/#how-to-access-ethdns
https://eth.link/#how-to-access-ethdns
First you need to get a metamask wallet. Then you buy some ETH for the wallet. Finally go to ens.domains and register your name.
It is very friendly with IPFS, which is how I host my blog. So I put the IPNS permalink in my ENS name contract (managed on ens.domains). The .link is there because browsers can't resolve ENS names. Cloudflare runs a system that checks Ethereum for the browser and redirects to the correct IPFS name if you add the .link.
I wrote a post on how to set up a blog like this. It is way simpler to use something like Fleek, though.
edit to add link: https://austinvernon.eth.link/blog/ipfsbasics.html
It is very friendly with IPFS, which is how I host my blog. So I put the IPNS permalink in my ENS name contract (managed on ens.domains). The .link is there because browsers can't resolve ENS names. Cloudflare runs a system that checks Ethereum for the browser and redirects to the correct IPFS name if you add the .link.
I wrote a post on how to set up a blog like this. It is way simpler to use something like Fleek, though.
edit to add link: https://austinvernon.eth.link/blog/ipfsbasics.html
Thank you so much for this summary! Extremely helpful.
This seems like the same issue namecoin was trying to solve but never got anywhere. Does eth.link look more promising?
Namecoin failed mainly because it was way, way, way too cheap to register names, so everything got squatted in the first few years.
ENS appears to have fixed this; the registration and renewal fees are denominated in USD (but paid in ETH) and cost about the same ($5/yr) as ICANN names.
Unfortunately ENS has the same problem that a lot of "new crypto" does: the rules can be changed at any time by a tiny handful of (mostly) anonymous people who hold the magic multisig keys to update the special contract. There is no developer/user separation, where the users can simply choose not to upgrade. The ever-present threat of this "declined to upgrade" situation is a major check on the developers' power in bitcoin/namecoin-style cryptocurrencies, and it is the central topic of discussion in any hard fork proposal.
ENS appears to have fixed this; the registration and renewal fees are denominated in USD (but paid in ETH) and cost about the same ($5/yr) as ICANN names.
Unfortunately ENS has the same problem that a lot of "new crypto" does: the rules can be changed at any time by a tiny handful of (mostly) anonymous people who hold the magic multisig keys to update the special contract. There is no developer/user separation, where the users can simply choose not to upgrade. The ever-present threat of this "declined to upgrade" situation is a major check on the developers' power in bitcoin/namecoin-style cryptocurrencies, and it is the central topic of discussion in any hard fork proposal.
austinvernon.com was taken, I had the ENS name, and I was curious about IPFS, so I used it. The system works surprisingly well, mostly thanks to Cloudflare. I've only been using it for a month, though. And its a static site with zero JS or any analytics. I haven't tried to add it to google search console or anything.
[deleted]
Good article. I wonder what improvements/efficiencies would be possible if consumer tastes could be shifted significantly (e.g. through marketing). I'm not thinking about small things like vinyl finishes, but larger shifts like building structures. Example: Could a company like Apple or Tesla make alternative structures like Quonset huts seem modern and fashionable.
The biggest forthcoming revolution in housing will be self driving EV RVs.
Your house takes you to your job, then takes you somewhere else on weekends or evenings. Ultracheap solar, which is still in it's main phase of cost improvement, same with batteries and drivetrain, will make EV RVs cheaper from TCO. And the guts of the RV will be efficiently centrally manufactured.
Your house takes you to your job, then takes you somewhere else on weekends or evenings. Ultracheap solar, which is still in it's main phase of cost improvement, same with batteries and drivetrain, will make EV RVs cheaper from TCO. And the guts of the RV will be efficiently centrally manufactured.
I wonder if earthbag technology could help to reduce building costs. Labor seems to be a big factor, but perhaps this could be reduced with the right equipment. Rural homes already need a big hole for septic; earthbags would then just make use of the dirt that's already sitting there, if not for the whole house then perhaps for some part of it.
About cost savings, point 1: If you’re putting insulation on the outside, why not also put it between the studs (you can blow it in pretty dang quickly), and perhaps even another 2” of foam insulation inside the studs? You’ll turn an R-20 into an R-40+ wall, reducing the long term cost of the house.
i.e. high efficiency houses.
i.e. high efficiency houses.
>> Replace gas appliances with electric or nuclear versions, eliminate gas piping
I closed the tab here. Not today, satan.
I closed the tab here. Not today, satan.
* drywall taping and mudding makes plumbing and electrical inaccessible.
* moulding could be built into drywall panels or eliminated in favor of reinforced panels.
* houses are unmonitored, I should be able to see how much electricity or water every fixture uses. How hot, how humid is my house or the attic.
* moulding could be built into drywall panels or eliminated in favor of reinforced panels.
* houses are unmonitored, I should be able to see how much electricity or water every fixture uses. How hot, how humid is my house or the attic.
I was thinking about how many of the trades would still exist in 20 years due to automation. I find it hard to think of houses built with robotic electricians or bricklayers reducing the costs. Maybe if prefab wall panels came with wiring and wall sockets built in?
i think balloon framing fell out of favor because
1. the length of timber required for two story structures is not efficient; old growth stuff has been felled and straight, seasoned, 24 and 36 foot lengths of wood are tough to find
2. and fire; platform framing has far better fire control
1. the length of timber required for two story structures is not efficient; old growth stuff has been felled and straight, seasoned, 24 and 36 foot lengths of wood are tough to find
2. and fire; platform framing has far better fire control
I think it's pretty clear the author is using "balloon framing" to encompass all forms of light-frame construction. You can tell because in the very first sentence he describes them as synonyms, "Stick frame construction, also known as light-frame construction or balloon framing"
The tiny house movement is interesting, but in the end, what matters is health and durability when faced with heat, cold, water, dust, mold.
I would certainly like to buy a quality tiny house or cheaper housing for residency if I could be taught how to maintain it.
I would certainly like to buy a quality tiny house or cheaper housing for residency if I could be taught how to maintain it.
I spent the last year watching This Old House videos. What I gather is that wooden houses are easier to remodel and maintain yourself than brick or cement houses (but also cement/brick houses don't require much maintenance.
Ctrl-f "SEER"
No results found
Since nobody has mentioned it yet, I recommend doing some dedicated research into the efficiency level and measurements of various types of air conditioners, mini split and otherwise. There is a great deal of variation.
No results found
Since nobody has mentioned it yet, I recommend doing some dedicated research into the efficiency level and measurements of various types of air conditioners, mini split and otherwise. There is a great deal of variation.
The future of efficient housing construction will be 3D printed on site.
So far the ideas are not amazing, but let's see how it goes
It's already more than ideas: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/30/dutch-cou...
I’d love to see someone make insulation displacement crimping work for wiring.
Maybe even build it into the wall box rather than the fixture, and just have the fixture plug into to wall box.
Maybe even build it into the wall box rather than the fixture, and just have the fixture plug into to wall box.
Framing is a plausible place to optimize, so how about steel? The factory cuts all the pieces to be assembled on site. It goes up real fast. This is what we want, right?
At very small scales, this is already done with wood framing. There are vendors that will send out a pre-cut framing package with every piece of wood cut and marked, and even stacked in the right order for fairly optimal assembly.
The trouble is that most house plans are not put together to a sufficient level of detail for this to work - contractors rely on all kinds of field decisions/adjustments.
The trouble is that most house plans are not put together to a sufficient level of detail for this to work - contractors rely on all kinds of field decisions/adjustments.
How many house plans does the world need? 100? 1000?
I don't disagree. This shouldn't be an insurmountable problem, but it's definitely the current state of the art.
I'm currently in the process of having a house built, and it's infuriating to me as an engineer how little detail I'm allowed to have either before or during the process. I have to rely on change orders to fix things that were totally preventable/plannable.
I'm currently in the process of having a house built, and it's infuriating to me as an engineer how little detail I'm allowed to have either before or during the process. I have to rely on change orders to fix things that were totally preventable/plannable.
I'm sure it's my naive hubris that makes me think someone should just design a dozen houses, each with a handful of well defined modifications (including to the facade), and do it with enough specificity that it could be turned into very exact instructions and material lists that suppliers could easily fulfill.
Hubris in particular because I'm sure architects think a lot about this and if they don't do it it's for some good reason... or they have done it and it just doesn't effect the market like I imagine it could.
I read about a government research program into building (70s?) that failed to reach its own goals but did advance building standards, and this does feel like something where government funded research could help. Something closer to how highway safety research is done, as opposed to scientific research.
Hubris in particular because I'm sure architects think a lot about this and if they don't do it it's for some good reason... or they have done it and it just doesn't effect the market like I imagine it could.
I read about a government research program into building (70s?) that failed to reach its own goals but did advance building standards, and this does feel like something where government funded research could help. Something closer to how highway safety research is done, as opposed to scientific research.
I'd be shocked if even 1% of houses built in the US actually involve an architect. Nearly all are built by a builder and plans drawn by a drafter.
There are prescriptive codes for everything "normal", so you don't have to consult an architect or engineer for structural things on most "common" houses. Figure anything up to 2x median purchase price probably can be built without either an architect or an engineer.
It's a crazy world and I don't disagree with you, but the housing market really doesn't work like one wants to think.
There are prescriptive codes for everything "normal", so you don't have to consult an architect or engineer for structural things on most "common" houses. Figure anything up to 2x median purchase price probably can be built without either an architect or an engineer.
It's a crazy world and I don't disagree with you, but the housing market really doesn't work like one wants to think.
I've hired gyprockers (drywallers in US) here in Australia that use lightweight steel framing and it is obscenely fast. They have wall frames up (nailgun that bolts to concrete floors) in literally minutes, slap up the gyprock and then most of the delay is waiting for the plastering to dry so they can come back and sand it. That's just interior tweaks though rather than anything particularly structural.
They’re generally quite a bit more expensive than wood 2x4s and conduct heat and cold so well that they almost totally defeat any fluffy insulation used between studs. This basically requires a layer of board insulation on the outside (this is commonly part of an EIFS system used in commercial construction). They also aren’t as amenable to hanging stuff as wood studs which is a common requirement in residential homes.
Note that steel framing is available in Australia, I think partially because of termites.
https://www.google.com/search?q=australia+steel+frame+homes
https://www.google.com/search?q=australia+steel+frame+homes
Can I suggest that smaller homes (700-1200 SF) are the “low hanging fruit” to reduce single family home construction costs?
Perhaps incentivize by basing property taxes on home size?
Perhaps incentivize by basing property taxes on home size?
The article here contains absolutely brilliant ideas. I am especially amazed by the idea of a suit for each person that takes care of everything a house does.
I am just going to say one thing: Superadobe.
The most efficient way to build houses is in bulk by building large buildings with condos/apartments, no one seems to want to hear or accept that though.
Californians would rather preen about with paper straws and compost bins and then drive their telsas back to single family homes with lawns.
Meanwhile New Yorkers are taking the subway to their apartment homes.
Different cultures.
Meanwhile New Yorkers are taking the subway to their apartment homes.
Different cultures.
Apartment buildings are expensive to build too! Searching a little it looks like condo construction is more expensive per square foot than houses. Maybe a condo is more liveable at a smaller size, but just from the perspective of construction costs it's not a big win. (It feels like it _should_ be easier to solve, but the only way to know is if it _is_ solved.)
USA population density is 6.6 acres per person, or 37 people per square kilometer. I’d far rather my family be in a more expensive larger home on 25 acres (with prospect of self-sufficiency) than jammed into a large building with X # of strangers and no land.
Funny thing is, that “more expensive larger home” isn’t more expensive - it’s on par or cheaper, even with the land. Blows my mind that urban dwellers think paying equivalent of my mortgage (on a 2400sqft house) for a couple rooms is reasonable.
Building big may be more efficient, but that’s not what occupants see in their rent bill.
Funny thing is, that “more expensive larger home” isn’t more expensive - it’s on par or cheaper, even with the land. Blows my mind that urban dwellers think paying equivalent of my mortgage (on a 2400sqft house) for a couple rooms is reasonable.
Building big may be more efficient, but that’s not what occupants see in their rent bill.
You're paying with the commute. Sure I pay the same for my smaller apartment as some people pay for their mortgage but the land near my office is expensive enough that the only way to make a profit is efficiency in the form of dense construction. The result is I have a 20 minute (round trip) walk from my kitchen to cube where many people have 1.5 hour drive through city traffic plus maintenance/insurance etc.
WFH changes that some, if you don't mind driving for groceries/hang-outs then going far out of developed areas for a larger home isn't so bad, although I will say as someone who grew up in a place like that it makes your kids significantly more dependent on you and severely limits their ability to socialize. Some people argue that's a plus and perhaps they're right, many of the most knowledgeable people I know came from similar situations but I'm not convinced it's all positive.
WFH changes that some, if you don't mind driving for groceries/hang-outs then going far out of developed areas for a larger home isn't so bad, although I will say as someone who grew up in a place like that it makes your kids significantly more dependent on you and severely limits their ability to socialize. Some people argue that's a plus and perhaps they're right, many of the most knowledgeable people I know came from similar situations but I'm not convinced it's all positive.
Commute? Down the stairs.
Provisions would require more planning, but that’s a good thing - more deliberation, more efficiency.
The “socializing” argument is overrated. Important yes, but they’re not completely isolated, and need to know how to function without others.
Provisions would require more planning, but that’s a good thing - more deliberation, more efficiency.
The “socializing” argument is overrated. Important yes, but they’re not completely isolated, and need to know how to function without others.
Or as large subdivisions built all at once, like Levittown mentioned in the article.
I grew up in such a subdivision in another state. It was fine. With a couple of exceptions, all of the houses were identical. They all had the same floor plans, but were oriented in different ways, and some were mirror images. There were also a number of different facades.
I lived there for upwards of 10 years before I figured this out, one day when I was at a new friend's house, and realized that I already knew my way around.
I lived there for upwards of 10 years before I figured this out, one day when I was at a new friend's house, and realized that I already knew my way around.
Everyone knows and accepts that. They just don't really want those houses.
I very much doubt that to be true. As far as I've understood it, a far too large amount of land in the U.S is zoned to be single-family housing, effectively preventing this type of home to be built. That precludes any choice in the matter. People in the U.S opt for single-family homes because they are really the only available option.
Nah…most of the “we need more dense housing” is in a small fraction of the US, typically near big city cores in a handful of locations.
There are a ton of apartments/condos in the the US. They're just expensive in the most in-demand areas.
Which, compared to their European counterparts, are flimsy, lacking acoustic insulation and a certain je ne sais quois. I've lived in both, and while I'd never want to move into most US apts/condos, I'd happily live in many European ones, even those built after 1970 (arbitrary number).
Great article.
It would be interesting to compare the US to Japan and Japan's tendency to favor new construction (plus the differences in features and styles).
It would be interesting to compare the US to Japan and Japan's tendency to favor new construction (plus the differences in features and styles).
> It would be interesting to compare the US to Japan and Japan's tendency to favor new construction
You make it sound like these are opposing views but doesn't the US also heavily favour new construction?
In the US and Japan I understand that a new build is seen as attractive and the best option for people with money to do it?
If you want a real contrast, in the UK new build is seen as the worst option, for people without any money. People with money in the UK buy old houses. The older the better. I would literally never buy a new-build in the UK unless I had no other option whatsoever. I'm saving up to upgrade to an older house here.
You make it sound like these are opposing views but doesn't the US also heavily favour new construction?
In the US and Japan I understand that a new build is seen as attractive and the best option for people with money to do it?
If you want a real contrast, in the UK new build is seen as the worst option, for people without any money. People with money in the UK buy old houses. The older the better. I would literally never buy a new-build in the UK unless I had no other option whatsoever. I'm saving up to upgrade to an older house here.
> but doesn't the US also heavily favour new construction?
I don't know if my view reflects the majority, but around where I am from, older and even historic homes are the crown jewels because they were built before the race to the bottom occured in construction -- namely cheaper, thinner walls, smaller usable space, etc. Older homes are built with old growth lumber, and often come with thicker plaster walls and better layouts.
I don't know if my view reflects the majority, but around where I am from, older and even historic homes are the crown jewels because they were built before the race to the bottom occured in construction -- namely cheaper, thinner walls, smaller usable space, etc. Older homes are built with old growth lumber, and often come with thicker plaster walls and better layouts.
> I don't know if my view reflects the majority
It doesn't. For example this article expressing surprise:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-26/previousl...
Even the term 'previously owned' for a house is baffling to UK ears. Of course a house is previously owned. Why would you be building your own?
It doesn't. For example this article expressing surprise:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-26/previousl...
Even the term 'previously owned' for a house is baffling to UK ears. Of course a house is previously owned. Why would you be building your own?
I have never seen a home listed as previously owned. In the US, homes are by default assumed "previously owned" unless specifically advertised as new. And only the very well off tend to demo and build fresh. Most people will remodel and add in to existing structures.
> I have never seen a home listed as previously owned.
Ok but Bloomberg have.
Ok but Bloomberg have.
Yeah, but I concur with the gp: I've never seen the phrase "previously owned" applied to housing; it sounds made up. Listings either specify "new construction" or it's assumed that the house is currently occupied.
And older structures have much less insulation, compared to the present building code, as put forth in the so called International (actually US) Residential Building Code, adopted by most states.
Energy use for heating and cooling is typically much higher in older buildings, over a lifetime of decades.
Energy use for heating and cooling is typically much higher in older buildings, over a lifetime of decades.
Older homes are usually well thought out in terms of natural cooling and heating. Being that many of these homes were built in an era where HVAC systems didn't exist, they can stay remarkably cool in the summer, and warm in the winter. They designed the homes to have proper airflow throughout the house (and underneath the house), and of course, shade from trees. So while their energy efficiency rating may be lower -- in how it can retain the heating or cooling put out by the HVAC, in practice, you don't use your AC or Heat as much as you would in a newer home (which for some reason new home builders seem hellbent on eliminating all trees, and placing the entire home in direct sunlight)
My house was built in 1927, and it stays ~75-78 even on a hot summer day, and due to the much thicker materials used, doesn't bottom out past 60 in the winter.
My house was built in 1927, and it stays ~75-78 even on a hot summer day, and due to the much thicker materials used, doesn't bottom out past 60 in the winter.
I don't know about building codes, but I know a 1900 house built from foot-thick stone is better insulating that anything we build today.
I have never seen a building from that era with foot-thick stone, you have to go back further for that here in Canada.
The century homes here in southern Ontario are double-wall brick with beefy 2x4 framing within the interior wall, then lath and plaster, and no insulation.
The century homes here in southern Ontario are double-wall brick with beefy 2x4 framing within the interior wall, then lath and plaster, and no insulation.
My 1930s UK house is foot-thick stone and brick on all walls, even internal. It doesn't have insulation except in the attic because it's one absolutely massive heat-sink mass - by the time it's warmed up from the summer it's already autumn and then it starts emitting the heat usefully instead.
That's the way to build, in my opinion.
That's the way to build, in my opinion.
Thermal mass as a tool is so very under utilized. When it's considered, it's often only on a 24hr cycle. As you point out, the 365 day cycle may be even more important. For a modern take (with for realz engineers and measurements even) have a look at Drake Landing community in southern Alberta. https://www.dlsc.ca/
edit: They've discontinued the 'Current Conditions' part of their website but I followed it with some regularity in the early years
edit: They've discontinued the 'Current Conditions' part of their website but I followed it with some regularity in the early years
I can't argue with your personal experience, but I pay less to heat a 17 year old, 3300 sq. ft. house than I did a 900 sq ft one that was built in 1950.
Insulation matters, especially when you have temperature swings from 100F in the summer to -25F in winter.
Insulation matters, especially when you have temperature swings from 100F in the summer to -25F in winter.
I think we need to settle on a description of "older" here. I do not consider a house from 1950 to be from the old generation of builders, but starting to be what was the budding mass building trends. The 1950s featured dirt cheap energy (also ironically, the US relied on renewables more in the 1950s than today), and so there wasn't much thought put into proper insulation because running your AC or heat all day wasn't that costly.
I consider older homes to be built in an era where HVAC either didn't exist or wasn't the norm, so they were designed as such -- thicker materials, proper airflow, and ample use of shade, even considering the house orientation relative to the sunrises and sunsets in the summer to ensure the primary living quarters would be out of direct sunlight the most amount of time.
I consider older homes to be built in an era where HVAC either didn't exist or wasn't the norm, so they were designed as such -- thicker materials, proper airflow, and ample use of shade, even considering the house orientation relative to the sunrises and sunsets in the summer to ensure the primary living quarters would be out of direct sunlight the most amount of time.
In Japan, my understanding is that it's common to tear down a perfectly good home and build a new one on the site. That pretty much never happens in the US.
It's not that we particularly favor new construction; it's more that we have a lot of empty land. Most new houses are going up on land that was either unused or farmland previously as opposed to having to demolish an existing house and rebuild on the plot.
No. Nimbys have been in control for decades and only starting to lose their grip. In our city most folks are trapped in shitbox two story apartments from the sixties, that are now being renovated into luxury-light because supply is so highly constrained.
Older mostly exists on the east coast with a few exceptions.
Older mostly exists on the east coast with a few exceptions.
> shitbox two story apartments from the sixties
Literally not sure if you consider these old or new-builds for the purpose of this conversation?
I'd call anything post 1950 'new-build'.
Literally not sure if you consider these old or new-builds for the purpose of this conversation?
I'd call anything post 1950 'new-build'.
New means now or recently.
Populations grow, so expecting everyone to live in homes from a century ago simply won't work.
Populations grow, so expecting everyone to live in homes from a century ago simply won't work.
> or recently
Right but 'recently' is relative. To me 1960s is recently. That's when people started building 'modernly'. But I guess not for you?
Right but 'recently' is relative. To me 1960s is recently. That's when people started building 'modernly'. But I guess not for you?
In Australia, before 1940s or so might be "character", 1960s might be "conventional" (said generally with distaste) and recent/new might be 2005+. Character houses are usually improved (with a matching or contemporary extension) and conventional houses are often demolished.
Character example with contemporary reno but garish fitout (antlers!): https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-highgate-136...
Conventional - you can see from the second photo being a top-down, they expect people to buy and demolish: https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-clapham-1364...
New build on half a block - common here to buy, sub-divide the block, and build two semi-detached or two-storey homes: https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-myrtle+bank-...
Character example with contemporary reno but garish fitout (antlers!): https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-highgate-136...
Conventional - you can see from the second photo being a top-down, they expect people to buy and demolish: https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-clapham-1364...
New build on half a block - common here to buy, sub-divide the block, and build two semi-detached or two-storey homes: https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-sa-myrtle+bank-...
If modernly is cheaply, yes 1960s.
If modern is dual pane windows, proper insulation, mixed use, multiple stories... this is still quite rare in California and only allowed to become common in new buildings ten years ago due to nimbys blocking any new development.
If modern is dual pane windows, proper insulation, mixed use, multiple stories... this is still quite rare in California and only allowed to become common in new buildings ten years ago due to nimbys blocking any new development.
From what I've seen in residential Tokyo, houses are usually one offs built when the owner buys the land. And look, at least superficially, to be similar construction methods to American construction rather than European: i.e. wood framing as opposed to masonry/concrete.
Maybe some of it is prefab, but given the narrowness of roads, I wonder.
Maybe some of it is prefab, but given the narrowness of roads, I wonder.
You are correct. The SFHs in Tokyo are usually built roughly similar to stick-built (slightly post-and-beam, but walls are load-bearing). Wood can be precut to length, but they are constructed on-site.
I’ve read that build quality in Japan is significantly lower due to the depreciating nature of houses as an asset and the bias toward building new.
Seems like it's a self-reinforcing cycle: houses are built lower quality, people thus don't value older houses, so builders build lower quality to lower "new" cost
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan-reusabl...
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan-reusabl...
I admire the Japanese presence for building new because it means that the owners build the house they want rather than build for what the imaginary buyer 20 years in the future would want. So many people here in the states have nonsense houses for their family situation because their eye is incessantly on resale appreciation value.
With few exceptions, houses are a depreciating asset just about everywhere; it's only land that appreciates. Japan is no different except that the depreciation rate of the house may be somewhat faster, and appreciation of the land significantly slower than in other countries.
I'm not sure this is accurate. I purchased my house in 2004, and it's currently valued at $349K (purchase price $199K). The lot itself sold for $40K in 2003.
Looking at available lots in my neighborhood, they average about $70K for my house size. So that means my house itself is valued at $280K.
So yes, the land has appreciated by $30K (over 18 years), but the house itself has appreciated $120K in the same timeframe. The land appreciated at roughly 3% per annum, while the house appreciated at roughly the same rate.
Of course this doesn't include any improvements, or maintenance costs associated with the house.
Looking at available lots in my neighborhood, they average about $70K for my house size. So that means my house itself is valued at $280K.
So yes, the land has appreciated by $30K (over 18 years), but the house itself has appreciated $120K in the same timeframe. The land appreciated at roughly 3% per annum, while the house appreciated at roughly the same rate.
Of course this doesn't include any improvements, or maintenance costs associated with the house.
By "improvements" do you mean sewer hookups and so on? Japan is no different in that those add value, and they don't redo them when rebuilding the house (barring some problem).
Also, depreciation of the house includes things like maintenance costs -- did you spend money on your roof? Redo the wiring? Renovate the kitchen? Unless they're intended as a teardown, old houses are often sold post-renovation, and that investment can counter the depreciation but won't show up if you just compare the selling price against the price of the bare lot.
Lastly, it sounds like if your lot is $70k and houses are $350k, maybe construction costs have gone up a lot in your area since 2004. That could cause an old house to appreciate by increasing the cost of new houses.
Also, depreciation of the house includes things like maintenance costs -- did you spend money on your roof? Redo the wiring? Renovate the kitchen? Unless they're intended as a teardown, old houses are often sold post-renovation, and that investment can counter the depreciation but won't show up if you just compare the selling price against the price of the bare lot.
Lastly, it sounds like if your lot is $70k and houses are $350k, maybe construction costs have gone up a lot in your area since 2004. That could cause an old house to appreciate by increasing the cost of new houses.
By improvements, I meant things like finishing out a basement (thus adding more usable sq footage), kitchen/bath remodels, decks etc.
Maintenance, at least in my area isn't a large cost over the life of a house. In the last year we've replaced a roof ($8K), furnace/AC ($9K), and the water heater ($800). The water heater we've had to replace twice before, so in total we've had roughly $20K in maintenance costs since we purchased the house. We're getting to a point where we need to repaint both inside and out, and replace some carpet. Probably around another $10K for that. So $30k in maintenance over 18 years is pretty small potatoes.
I don't know that construction costs have gone up much more than the inflation rate; I do know that material costs have gone up in the last 18 months, but that should drop back down to "normal" in another year or so.
Maintenance, at least in my area isn't a large cost over the life of a house. In the last year we've replaced a roof ($8K), furnace/AC ($9K), and the water heater ($800). The water heater we've had to replace twice before, so in total we've had roughly $20K in maintenance costs since we purchased the house. We're getting to a point where we need to repaint both inside and out, and replace some carpet. Probably around another $10K for that. So $30k in maintenance over 18 years is pretty small potatoes.
I don't know that construction costs have gone up much more than the inflation rate; I do know that material costs have gone up in the last 18 months, but that should drop back down to "normal" in another year or so.
So would your house sell at a premium relative to a buying the land and having a new house built? If so, it's definitely appreciated, but that sounds like a very uncommon scenario!
It's hard to say. I don't know the permitting costs in my city, nor the costs for water/sewer hookups either. My house is nice, but nothing special for the area. Assuming a $125/sqft cost, a house like mine would be around $225K plus the lot ($70K) for a total of $295K. The only thing I've seen that might have helped the house appreciation is the completion of an elementary school in our neighborhood.
This would be generally true in Australia. Land value for 700sqm where I live is $700k. An older character house or luxury/new build would add value, but almost anything else would have minimal value. A house on a typical block seems to rise in value faster than a unit (say, one of 6-8 on a block) where land is a smaller part of its valuation and redevelopment potential is wrapped up with the wider group.
Favelas tin-roof shanties would be cheaper too.
In the US, why not distribute value, transportation, and land sufficiently so people can have a better basic standard of living? Right now, I'm looking at 1000 homeless people and tents huddling under a highway, while my drunken idiot neighbors shout and dance with glee feet from them in a gentrifying, mixed-use development pool. The people who have just enough have no shame or consideration because their motto is "F U, I got mine."
In the US, why not distribute value, transportation, and land sufficiently so people can have a better basic standard of living? Right now, I'm looking at 1000 homeless people and tents huddling under a highway, while my drunken idiot neighbors shout and dance with glee feet from them in a gentrifying, mixed-use development pool. The people who have just enough have no shame or consideration because their motto is "F U, I got mine."
> The people who have just enough have no shame or consideration because their motto is "F U, I got mine."
What do you expect them to do? You just said that they "have just enough".
What do you expect them to do? You just said that they "have just enough".
I wrote too quickly. I meant to say "plenty," as in the jerk-off neighbors who act like their lives haven't graduated past freshman year Spring Break. I suspect this to be true because they're single, aging their bodies rapidly, smoking, doing drugs, sharing diseases, every forced smile and idiotic snark is for Facebook and Gram, and letting their dogs pee in the hallway and not cleaning it up... from their door to the elevator 80 feet / 27m away.
> Almost every advancement in construction is small enough for someone to carry
> Each advancement fits within a simple construction system.
Powerful idea.
> Each advancement fits within a simple construction system.
Powerful idea.
This kind of article depress me to the highest point.
I'm not a "consumer" with "expensive taste", nor someone who put a brake on innovation.
I want a house built to last, by a skilled professional, with wood, steel, stones, and slates. Less plastics and only locally sourced materials. If I'm going to live there for the next half century, it better be a place I love.
Please stop pushing your capitalism and your economy of scale in every corner of the world.
I want a house built to last, by a skilled professional, with wood, steel, stones, and slates. Less plastics and only locally sourced materials. If I'm going to live there for the next half century, it better be a place I love.
Please stop pushing your capitalism and your economy of scale in every corner of the world.
> I'm not a "consumer" with "expensive taste",
But also
> I want a house built to last, by a skilled professional,
> only locally sourced materials
Pick one or the other mate, those points don't mix well.
But also
> I want a house built to last, by a skilled professional,
> only locally sourced materials
Pick one or the other mate, those points don't mix well.
Having natural materials instead of vinyl isn’t exactly extravagant…
Did that article suggest vinyl siding, as in the exterior of a building using plastic?
Did that article suggest vinyl siding, as in the exterior of a building using plastic?
It specifically mentions vinyl siding as a cheap option that better-off consumers spend money to avoid in favor of more expensive wood or brick.
Extravagance is perhaps, at times, a matter of perspective and opinion. Some might consider consciously choosing more costly materials, even if they happen to be natural materials, to be matters of aesthetic choice that increase cost. Or even expensive tastes.
Extravagance is perhaps, at times, a matter of perspective and opinion. Some might consider consciously choosing more costly materials, even if they happen to be natural materials, to be matters of aesthetic choice that increase cost. Or even expensive tastes.
I think in any scenario I’d rather refurbish half as often or build half the size and use “better” materials.
Same as buying “good” meat at 2x (better cuts, organic, etc) isn’t a costly extravagance if you simply buy half as much by eating less of it each time or having meat less often.
If there is one thing you immediately notice when you visit the US for example is you often see homes that are of quite shoddy quality but might be 2500sq ft or even 3000. I’d trade 500sq ft for a decent countertop alone…
Same as buying “good” meat at 2x (better cuts, organic, etc) isn’t a costly extravagance if you simply buy half as much by eating less of it each time or having meat less often.
If there is one thing you immediately notice when you visit the US for example is you often see homes that are of quite shoddy quality but might be 2500sq ft or even 3000. I’d trade 500sq ft for a decent countertop alone…
That's an excellent point! It also provides a handy analytical framework. I'm going to try apply it to siding.
The cost differential between brick and vinyl siding can easily be a factor of five, and wood vs vinyl a factor of six (stone is more like 25). At this point you're trading 2400-2500 sqft of that 3000 sqft house to use "better" materials, assuming shapes that scale surface area directly with flooring size.
I expect this resulting cottage will be of wonderfully high-quality materials, but you may run into a few limits on how many people you can have comfortably living there compared to the original 3000 sqft building. I imagine you might want to be somewhere in between, at which point your choice of "better" materials may become an extravagance in the eyes of some.
The cost differential between brick and vinyl siding can easily be a factor of five, and wood vs vinyl a factor of six (stone is more like 25). At this point you're trading 2400-2500 sqft of that 3000 sqft house to use "better" materials, assuming shapes that scale surface area directly with flooring size.
I expect this resulting cottage will be of wonderfully high-quality materials, but you may run into a few limits on how many people you can have comfortably living there compared to the original 3000 sqft building. I imagine you might want to be somewhere in between, at which point your choice of "better" materials may become an extravagance in the eyes of some.
Not sure why wood is so expensive, I’m paying under $2/m or for cladding wood for the extension I’m building now. Its around $1 per square foot. It gets slightly more expensive before it’s painted 3 times though (repeat every 15 years as is standard with softwood).
I’m fairly sure I couldn’t find a cheaper exterior cladding. And obviously the cladding is a tiny percentage of the total cost of even just the wall, let alone the whole construction. Cladding will be sub $300 and the 150 sq ft extension is north of $50k all together. Insulation is probably 3-5x what the cladding is, and so is the flooring.
I’m fairly sure I couldn’t find a cheaper exterior cladding. And obviously the cladding is a tiny percentage of the total cost of even just the wall, let alone the whole construction. Cladding will be sub $300 and the 150 sq ft extension is north of $50k all together. Insulation is probably 3-5x what the cladding is, and so is the flooring.
The numbers I'm using include installation costs too. Wood and brick are more labor than vinyl as I understand it.
I think my key lesson here is that even building smaller, using "better" materials is an expensive matter of taste.
I think my key lesson here is that even building smaller, using "better" materials is an expensive matter of taste.
Painting is a bit of work but just nailing up standard wooden cladding is such a tiny part of the work it hardly even shows up on the total, including labor!
Perhaps this is partially because of the high buikding costs to begin with (It’s cold so walls are 3-400mm, a single window is $6-700 (triple glass) and so on. The BOM for my extension was $25k which is half the total. Cladding including labor is a lot less than $1k. I have never seen a vinyl clad house but I doubt I’d pick one to save that little.
Perhaps this is partially because of the high buikding costs to begin with (It’s cold so walls are 3-400mm, a single window is $6-700 (triple glass) and so on. The BOM for my extension was $25k which is half the total. Cladding including labor is a lot less than $1k. I have never seen a vinyl clad house but I doubt I’d pick one to save that little.
I feel like that's based on some naturalism fallacies. Durable plastic is more efficient to produce that growing a tree. And sourcing thingy locally isn't always practical. You want the best lumber for the job that will last and that's usually cultivated at scale. You can chop down trees from your backyard or you'll destroy your neighborhood.
There's almost no such thing as durable plastic when you're talking about the lifetimes of traditional building material. As a result, without a genuine recyling process for plastic (rather than just "down cycling"), even if there was nothing wrong with it during its normal lifetime, it just becomes more trash at the end. Quite different for wood (stone, glass, adobe, even concrete).
[deleted]
[deleted]
> I'm not a "consumer" with "expensive taste"
Saying so does not make it true. If you want to live in a house, your a consumer of house. If you like a nicer than most basic/economic house because "I'm going to live there for the next half century, it better be a place I love"; voila there come the expensive taste.
Author explained where and where not the scale-upping worked in construction. It seems author was on point, even in your case.
To author does not shove anything down our reader throats by saying how it is. You link to capitalism is pretty far of: the scale-upping worked really well in socialist places as well, in fact Marx himself obsessed over industrial scale-upping. You seem to be misguided over what capitalism actually means (spoiler alert: a system of law/govt that protects a person's hoarded wealth ad infinitum).
Saying so does not make it true. If you want to live in a house, your a consumer of house. If you like a nicer than most basic/economic house because "I'm going to live there for the next half century, it better be a place I love"; voila there come the expensive taste.
Author explained where and where not the scale-upping worked in construction. It seems author was on point, even in your case.
To author does not shove anything down our reader throats by saying how it is. You link to capitalism is pretty far of: the scale-upping worked really well in socialist places as well, in fact Marx himself obsessed over industrial scale-upping. You seem to be misguided over what capitalism actually means (spoiler alert: a system of law/govt that protects a person's hoarded wealth ad infinitum).
You don't have to let the capitalists build your house. All building trades of today and (especially) yesterday are accessible to capable people.
First, however, you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that "professional" is a capitalist word.
First, however, you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that "professional" is a capitalist word.
Oh no Capitalism, how scary! It has only brought us most every modern convenience including smartphones, this website, the COVID 19 vaccines, etc. Why so much disdain for something that has brought such good to everyday people? I didn’t even mention the number of people it has brought out of poverty across the world.
Capitalism taking credit for all of this is like a child taking credit for climbing a mountain when he spent the whole time in a backpack carried by a parent. Humans did all of those things. Capitalism was a method for robbing them as they worked.
Capitalists build for ourselves as amateurs, hobbyists, or artisans, too. Do we offend you as much as dog whistles do?
Who is offended? Building for yourself is great, but it is not an activity that is approved by the capitalists. If you didn't know that, you might not be a capitalist.
There are small model cities you can visit where several dozen prefabbers exhibit their current model homes, and if you stick to their plan, you will usually pay less than building on your own. Those are often built on wood frames, but are still quite sturdy and supposed to last at least 100 years. Others are built with bricks or aerated concrete just like individually built homes. Savings are probably achieved by bulk orders, prefab, and a well coordinated team who has built the exact same house ten times already.