by srl on 6/26/21, 6:12 PM with 480 comments
by manmal on 6/26/21, 8:26 PM
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.
by 015UUZn8aEvW on 6/26/21, 8:08 PM
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.
by trunnell on 6/26/21, 9:04 PM
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.
by opportune on 6/26/21, 8:41 PM
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.
by landryraccoon on 6/26/21, 8:36 PM
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.
by robotbikes on 6/26/21, 7:46 PM
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/
by iandanforth on 6/26/21, 10:08 PM
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.
by jeffbee on 6/26/21, 8:15 PM
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.
by jackcosgrove on 6/26/21, 8:36 PM
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.
by indigodaddy on 6/27/21, 12:37 PM
——— 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.
by dcolkitt on 6/26/21, 11:10 PM
[1]https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-Contracting-Step-Step-...
by elihu on 6/26/21, 8:51 PM
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.
by hanniabu on 6/27/21, 12:00 AM
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.
by lrgzdmn on 6/26/21, 8:17 PM
by axiolite on 6/27/21, 4:06 AM
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.
by carapace on 6/27/21, 1:59 AM
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):
by mortenjorck on 6/26/21, 8:57 PM
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?
by plaidfuji on 6/27/21, 2:05 PM
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.
by dctoedt on 6/26/21, 7:51 PM
by WalterBright on 6/26/21, 7:23 PM
by bumbada on 6/26/21, 8:35 PM
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.
by woeirua on 6/28/21, 3:39 PM
This is yet another conversation about housing that whistles right by the true cause: exclusionary, and racist zoning practices.
by Grakel on 6/26/21, 7:44 PM
by zarzavat on 6/26/21, 8:42 PM
by nottorp on 6/27/21, 6:16 PM
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.
by csours on 6/26/21, 10:56 PM
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.
by 0xbadcafebee on 6/26/21, 8:53 PM
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.
by indigodaddy on 6/26/21, 11:19 PM
by xnx on 7/3/21, 7:47 PM
by AtlasBarfed on 6/27/21, 4:04 PM
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.
by cout on 6/26/21, 11:38 PM
by falcolas on 6/27/21, 2:41 AM
i.e. high efficiency houses.
by artificialLimbs on 6/27/21, 4:38 AM
I closed the tab here. Not today, satan.
by seniorsassycat on 6/27/21, 2:07 AM
* 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.
by kristianp on 6/27/21, 6:16 AM
by weeboid on 6/26/21, 11:01 PM
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
by jokoon on 6/27/21, 12:18 PM
I would certainly like to buy a quality tiny house or cheaper housing for residency if I could be taught how to maintain it.
by wreath on 6/27/21, 1:10 PM
by walrus01 on 6/26/21, 10:56 PM
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.
by aktuel on 6/27/21, 7:57 AM
by frankus on 6/27/21, 6:14 AM
Maybe even build it into the wall box rather than the fixture, and just have the fixture plug into to wall box.
by brianolson on 6/26/21, 9:31 PM
by blendo on 6/27/21, 8:43 PM
Perhaps incentivize by basing property taxes on home size?
by silexia on 6/29/21, 8:21 PM
by 4b11b4 on 6/26/21, 7:43 PM
by 29athrowaway on 6/26/21, 10:32 PM
by swiley on 6/26/21, 8:49 PM
by kingsuper20 on 6/26/21, 7:18 PM
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).
by failwhaleshark on 6/26/21, 10:45 PM
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."
by aaron695 on 6/26/21, 10:14 PM
> Each advancement fits within a simple construction system.
Powerful idea.
by Fiahil on 6/26/21, 8:07 PM
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.