Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Pretty Good House

prettygoodhouse.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 339 posts

Re: The Pretty Good House

#181

Post by Scoundreller »

bjarneh wrote: post #88

> Even the best windows and doors on the market perform much worse than even an average wall New windows here in Norway are often triple or quadruple glazed, and they have a pretty good R-value; so they are not that much worse than average walls at least.

Does Norway require insulation based on building profile or just walls must be X, windows must be Y?

By building profile I mean, higher requirements if you want massive windows; to account for their lower R rating than a wall.

Or higher requirements for a rectangular footprint vs a square footprint because the rectangle has a more surface area for the same volume.

(Does anywhere take this approach???)

Re: The Pretty Good House

#182

Post by muro »

10u152 wrote: post #134
sgt wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in South Africa, single glazed is still a thing. I've been replacing all my windows with double glazing. I considered triple but that makes them very heavy and expensive. Benefits are both in hot summer and in the relatively cold winter.

My house in Australia is all single glazed. But where I live summers aren’t that hot (rarely over 30c) and winters aren’t cold (rarely less than 10c overnight). I’ve considered double glazing but it makes no sense really

I was never as cold indoors as in Australia. The houses have no insulation, it's almost as cold inside as it is outside. Even if it's above 10°C in Sydney in winter, it's about 15°C indoors unless you use AC for heating. Add to that just terrible craftsmanship of walls and windows.

Re: The Pretty Good House

#183

Post by 93po »

Scoundreller wrote: post #179
kleiba wrote: post #174

My wife and I have entertained the idea of a bigger house for quite some time. Well, that boat has sailed. Building has pretty much become unaffordable for us, unless we'd move way out to the country side. And I mean WAY out - we would spend a lot more time every day driving everywhere). We'd also have to build a rather modestly-sized home to fit it into our budget. The thing is, the only reason we've started thinkin…

> Except that the old one will be, at its core, still an old house Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I like the idea of the core of my house being true 2x4s made of hardwood, instead of scam “2x4s” where they say it’s because of their sawblades but I’d say it’s because the mills squeeze too many “2x4s” out of a log.

No one uses hardwood 2x4 for framing houses. If they did it'd add, at minimum, six figures to your home cost with effectively no benefit. You can absolutely choose between grades of 2x4, however, and if you're working with a builder you can specify with them.

Re: The Pretty Good House

#184

Post by Ensorceled »

nine_k wrote: post #160
Ensorceled wrote: post #156

I like this, but ROI should never be part of the calculation for home building, it's why we have so much homelessness in the first place.

ROI should absolutely be a part of calculation, else it would be easy to spend (even) more money on a home that's not desirable or enjoyable. The return is just not limited to money only. You likely want to get most house for your money, by various metrics. I don't think that homelessness has much to do with construction costs: homeless people are usually not those who have $70k lying around which is not sufficient e…

> ROI should absolutely be a part of calculation, else it would be easy to spend (even) more money on a home that's not desirable or enjoyable.

ROI is being used in it's economics section, literally as return on investment.

> I don't think that homelessness has much to do with construction costs

No, but it does have to do with ROI, which you hand waved away above by redefining ROI to be non-financial rewards such as enjoyment.

Housing as an investment has put housing out of reach of a increasing percentage of homeowners and raised rental rates.

The least expensive rentals in my city are out of reach for those making minimum wage in my city.

Re: The Pretty Good House

#185

Post by brabel »

sgt wrote: post #178
10u152 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My house in Australia is all single glazed. But where I live summers aren’t that hot (rarely over 30c) and winters aren’t cold (rarely less than 10c overnight). I’ve considered double glazing but it makes no sense really

You will save on heating, though. If it's 10C outside and that cold creeps in, it's going to be pretty cold inside unless you run lots of heaters or a fireplace all the time. Not everyone is bothered by this though, but I think a house should have at least 21C in winter.

In Sweden, because of the crazy electricity prices, everyone is discussing right now how warm they should keep their houses. The idea is that a good citizen should save energy and therefore let the house get colder (also, to be "green" of course - but nothing like 5x more expensive energy to get people saving). They asked some politicians, most of them were saying between 19C and 21C.. one guy even said 15C, which everyone thinks is BS :D

Re: The Pretty Good House

#186

Post by seb1204 »

bboygravity wrote: post #53
tibbon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good architect will be this third party and hold the GC's feet to the fire. The GC might not care about you and repeat business, but they will likely care a lot more about keeping a good architect & firm happier with a decent reputation. Plus, the architect is used to helping this process.

I thought architects are designers who are not experts on the technical details of things like constructions (strength, earthquake proofness, wind proofing), heating/cooling, humidity issues, electrical installation building codes, proper tubing, insulation materials, sound proofing etc. That's the experience / knowledge I'd want to hire for oversight. I don't see how a designer is the best person for that but then m…

I think statement like this need a country name to be included. I. Germany the architect is responsible to also manage contractors and that they do the right thing. The architect can however employ a 'Bauleiter', a foreman?

Re: The Pretty Good House

#187

Post by throw0101c »

desiarnezjr wrote: post #113
jonasdegendt wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Frequent checking on the work and hounding the people to fix it. Isn't this partially what you pay your architect for? If you're willing to pay top dollar you should be able to find one that's very hands on and coordinates the whole building process as your representative.

No. Architects are about end results and "vision". General contractors, while imperfect, should be about getting it built. So an architect you should roughly expect getting something built at any cost. A GC should be how to do it pragmatically or even if it's possible. In between is the end result.

> Architects are about end results and "vision". General contractors, while imperfect, should be about getting it built.

Plenty of architects care about getting the details right. Check out Steve Baczek, who is online a lot, and is very interested in building science details.

Re: The Pretty Good House

#188

Post by seb1204 »

galenko wrote: post #16
carabiner wrote: post #11

I'm looking at building a home as a first time home owner in the next few years. One thing I'm wondering is how many headaches can I avoid if I just choose an expensive builder and not try to haggle or save a buck at every turn? I just want a 2-bedroom, 1,000 sq ft bungalow and am willing to pay 60-70% more than the average $/sqft in my city if they do a good job. I'd rather have a nice small place rather than a huge…

No. That’s still a lottery and you are basically saying I’m paying more, so I expect a better service. This does not guarantee results. At all. What you want is a third party. Someone who understands the trade and the codes and will check in on the building site daily and will make sure everything is being done correctly. And if it’s not, will stop work and put everyone in their place. I frankly have no idea what the…

My thinking was also to go with a reputable pre-fab house provider or a low-energy/emissions house. I would hope that the higher requirements will set you up with a better builder. Not guaranteed though.

Pre-fab houses/ components do require more rigor for foundation etc.

Re: The Pretty Good House

#189

Post by throw0101c »

bboygravity wrote: post #53
tibbon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good architect will be this third party and hold the GC's feet to the fire. The GC might not care about you and repeat business, but they will likely care a lot more about keeping a good architect & firm happier with a decent reputation. Plus, the architect is used to helping this process.

I thought architects are designers who are not experts on the technical details of things like constructions (strength, earthquake proofness, wind proofing), heating/cooling, humidity issues, electrical installation building codes, proper tubing, insulation materials, sound proofing etc. That's the experience / knowledge I'd want to hire for oversight. I don't see how a designer is the best person for that but then m…

> I thought architects are designers who are not experts on the technical details of things like constructions

Depends on the architect. Someone like Steve Baczek knows quite a bit about technical details, and actually puts them in his blueprints.

Re: The Pretty Good House

#190

Post by bjarneh »

prepend wrote: post #170
bjarneh wrote: post #88

> Even the best windows and doors on the market perform much worse than even an average wall New windows here in Norway are often triple or quadruple glazed, and they have a pretty good R-value; so they are not that much worse than average walls at least.

But aren’t average walls in Norway much more insulated? So the statement is still true? What is the R-value of a Norwegian wall?

> What is the R-value of a Norwegian wall?

That varies greatly I think. There are a lot of old houses here; built to a very different standard than a modern house. Double glazed windows has been the norm for a long time though, through the invention of the easy to clean husmorvinduet or h-vinduet:

https://www.h-vinduet.com/

Husmor translates to housewife, vindu to window (housewife window). Easy to clean, since they can flip around, i.e. you can wash the outside from the inside. So for most older homes, I guess it's a mix.

For new buildings; what you say holds true I think.

Speaking for myself here, my house was built around 1850-1861 (no one really knows when it was made exactly). Timber construction covered with boards on both sides; but with minimal insulation (until we started renovating the house).

There are stricter rules for building new homes now, then what they had in the 1850's of course :-). A new house built now should follow the TEK17 standard made into law in 2017 (prior versions are the TEK10 standard from 2010, TEK07 from 2007, TEK97 from 1997 etc.). They regulate everything, from how much area you should have outside to how big a shed you can set up I think. Eco friendliness is an important category though; and these are the minimum requirements that came up with a google search (in Norwegian) for your question:

https://dibk.no/regelverk/byggteknisk-forskrift-tek17/14/14-...

Unfortunately in Norwegian as well, but they do state how much a wall/roof etc is allowed to leak; i.e. U value. As you can see (with Goole translate at least), walls should have better insulation than windows at minimum at least.

Post reply on HN