11–20 of 244 posts
Or in other terms: "Why haven't Content Management Systems made web development cheaper?"
Sites like nytimes.com etc. are essentially prefab websites where all of the work is on the system to automate the building and distribution articles - the articles themselves are not bespoke HTML / CSS.
Prefab is the wrong optimization. It targets a minor improvement in a small part of the overall budget. Most of the time and money of construction in America is tied up in land prices, permitting, and regulation. Prefab solves zero of these issues. There is a building going up in Oakland right now where Factory_OS put out a press release that they had built it in ten days. But they spent 7 years getting approvals, 18…
As the article points out, the cost of the house is the same as the cost of a traditionally built house in the most expensive home construction area of the United States, and at the same time you are extremely limited in the geometries you can use. Does that answer the question?
While this is fine as the high-level answer, the interesting question seems to be why the as-installed cost would be the same as typical wasteful North American "stick building"? I've spent some time thinking about better ways to build houses, spoken with like-minded architects, etc., and haven't gotten to the bottom of this question. Intuitively, it seems like there should be quite a bit of room to decrease costs by…
Prefab is the wrong optimization. It targets a minor improvement in a small part of the overall budget. Most of the time and money of construction in America is tied up in land prices, permitting, and regulation. Prefab solves zero of these issues. There is a building going up in Oakland right now where Factory_OS put out a press release that they had built it in ten days. But they spent 7 years getting approvals, 18…
And people now pay a lot of money for those prefab houses:
Because framing a house, even a two story house, only takes an experienced crew a couple of days. And in the neighborhoods springing up around here, they are using pre-fab framed walls (still using wooden studs (which are cheap and plentiful), but they arrive on site as whole walls).
Before framing, there's site prep, foundation pours (probably some early HVAC and plumbing as well), floor joists, and floor sheeting. After framing, there's sheeting (the outside), roofing, putting in windows/doors, waterproofing (can be avoided with some more expensive sheeting options), and siding (which includes caulking the edges of the siding, and around any wall penetration).
Then there's insulating the outer walls, framing the interior walls, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, electrical, carpeting/flooring, drywall, trim, paint, landscaping... and probably a dozen other things I don't know about.
Optimizing only the framing - something that's already been pretty well optimized - isn't going to change prices much. What's really needed is a way to be ship entire finished walls.
(Seriously, look up some videos about "Larry Haun" and watch him and his brother frame an entire floor in under a day, using mostly hand tools).
Prefab is the wrong optimization. It targets a minor improvement in a small part of the overall budget. Most of the time and money of construction in America is tied up in land prices, permitting, and regulation. Prefab solves zero of these issues. There is a building going up in Oakland right now where Factory_OS put out a press release that they had built it in ten days. But they spent 7 years getting approvals, 18…
You say it’s the wrong optimization but your argument seems to be that there are bigger problems. I tend to agree, particularly with pernicious stuff like single-unit zoning and such, but that doesn’t mean that prefab is “wrong” overall. I don’t see it as a cost optimization, I see it as a speed and consistency optimization. Do we know if long-term maintenance costs of prefab construction are lower?
Prefab is the wrong optimization. It targets a minor improvement in a small part of the overall budget. Most of the time and money of construction in America is tied up in land prices, permitting, and regulation. Prefab solves zero of these issues. There is a building going up in Oakland right now where Factory_OS put out a press release that they had built it in ten days. But they spent 7 years getting approvals, 18…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While this is fine as the high-level answer, the interesting question seems to be why the as-installed cost would be the same as typical wasteful North American "stick building"? I've spent some time thinking about better ways to build houses, spoken with like-minded architects, etc., and haven't gotten to the bottom of this question. Intuitively, it seems like there should be quite a bit of room to decrease costs by…
Have you looked into log homes? That may fit your criteria: lot of wood needed (so great carbon sink), good insulation, simple design (1 wall for support, vapor barrier, insulation , siding and inside panelling).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say it’s the wrong optimization but your argument seems to be that there are bigger problems. I tend to agree, particularly with pernicious stuff like single-unit zoning and such, but that doesn’t mean that prefab is “wrong” overall. I don’t see it as a cost optimization, I see it as a speed and consistency optimization. Do we know if long-term maintenance costs of prefab construction are lower?
Seems like it would be hard to reason about. Consistency is great but it means if you order assembled wall panels from a factory, your foundation has to be exact in dimensions and dead level, or it's not going to come together. On-site framers aren't really bothered by this. I think it trades one kind of complexity for another.