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

Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

wikihouse.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 223 posts

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#201

Post by gorkish »

seabass-labrax wrote: post #36
gorkish wrote: post #34

> However, any modifications you make must be re-shared under the same licence. By everyone, for everyone. I’m gonna have to raise the alarm at this remark. There is no reasonable license that would permit enforcing this, that anyone should dare construct a structure bound by such license on their property. I am all for the idea of an open building system, but get real.

The important part is at the beginning of the paragraph: "The blueprints of WikiHouse are open source." (emphasis mine) They aren't telling you what you can and can't do with the house itself.

You don't really get approval to build things without blueprints in most places. It's "open" but my architect can't draw on it? Naw. CCSA cannot work for such a thing, and anything that's not specificaclly CCSA is under possibly the most overreaching website "terms of use" I've seen in a long time. Good thing at least that junk appears entirely unenforceable.

Build with it at your peril

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#203

Post by class3shock »

cycomanic wrote: post #163
class3shock wrote: post #73

I like the ethos but to me it's pointed in entirely the wrong direction. Why not just make standard sections of 2x4 or 2x6 framing? Start standardizing window sealing details? Literally anything that will actually get some use? Instead we get opensource plywood boxes? Using plywood for all of the structural components means if you get a leak, which all houses get, you are in danger of much more significant damage tha…

It's funny how every country thinks their approach to building is good and everything else has huge problems. For example Germans tend to think wooden houses will not last. The approach taken here is similar to what people are commonly doing in Scandinavia. Most generally almost all houses are pre fabricated in factories and assembled on site. The actual blocks vary quite a bit, mostly they are large wall sections, b…

Structural Insulated Panels - SIPs (which I think is what you are talking about) have arguments in their favor as they actually benefit from many of the upsides of building things in factories vs on an individual/onsite basis. These do not seem like they'll realize any of those (since you are just prefabing a component comparable to a sheet or board as opposed to a whole wall).

SIPS absolutely do have issues with leakage, the same as any construction method. Joints, penetrations, windows, etc. can all be sources, same as in traditional framing, the difference is again that plywood / osb / glued together wood scraps are atrocious at handling moisture. I do think they are interesting though, more reading for the curious below.

https://buildingscience.com/documents/enclosures-that-work/h...

One of the benefits of SIPs for airtightness is that the layer that provides that is built in (or atleast can be) at the factory. This eliminates alot of the variables that hurt airtightness when you are building onsite (working in temps/humidity where seals don't get installed right, poor workmanship, etc.).

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#204

Post by orthoxerox »

westurner wrote: post #82
sjfjsjdjwvwvc wrote: post #24

There is a pretty cool project for a complete open source village: - https://www.opensourceecology.org/ Supposed to be all the machines you need to supply a whole village, made from low cost basic materials. I think it’s from 2014 not sure if it’s still being worked on or if anyone actually has used the blueprints in a real world scenario.

TIL about The Liberator: The world's first open source compressed earth brick press. https://www.opensourceecology.org/back-to-compressed-earth-b... A multiple-CEB unit that makes interlocking blocks that don't require mortar could build on work from this project. Add'l notes on CEB, Algae, Sargassum, Hemp in the 2024 International and US Residential Building Code, LEGO-like Hempcrete block: https://news.ycombinator.…

> A multiple-CEB unit that makes interlocking blocks that don't require mortar could build on work from this project.

They have a page about interlocking blocks and according to it, they are simply too expensive, as you need a higher share of cement in blocks to stabilize them.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#205

Post by pitaj »

hkt wrote: post #72
shermantanktop wrote: post #51

Note that the walls and interior floors are equally thick and as insulated as the roof. It is not a sensible or efficient use of materials, given how the physics of heat work. It is great, however, if your approach to construction was formed by playing Minecraft.

Not so. If you want high thermal performance in a building, insulation (therefore thickness) is crucial in the entire building envelope. As the beardier building retrofit types say, your house needs a hat (loft insulation) boots (floor insulation) and jacket (wall insulation). Consider this: if you're raising the temperature of your floor to say, 25C, that won't do much if you're doing so on an uninsulated floor wher…

They were referring to insulation in internal walls and floors. That is, the floor between the first and second story or the wall between bedrooms.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#206

Post by hk__2 »

lainga wrote: post #171
hk__2 wrote: post #162

Just like yesterday [1] I’m confused by that name: what’s the "wiki" part in Wikihouse? Anybody can modify your house? [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38915999

1. (stative) hasten, speed up. 2. (stative) be swift, speedy, quick. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wiki#Hawaiian

In Hawaiian yes, but not in English.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#207

Post by amluto »

turtlebits wrote: post #22
woah wrote: post #2

Seems pretty expensive to make everything out of pure plywood. Does anyone have a sense of how cost compares to 2x4's plus drywall? I assume either construction method will need exterior cladding and insulation.

My rough estimate is around $4.75/sf for a high performance wall (drywall+2x6+osb+exterior foam ~ R31). They show £230/m2, so this product would be almost 7x more expensive.

R31 exterior foam will rather outperform the WikiHouse blocks due to reduced thermal bridging. And you get a structure that is essentially immune to condensation damage, so you can skip the annoying interior vapor barrier and all the problems that it can cause all by itself.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#208

Post by hkt »

pitaj wrote: post #205
hkt wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so. If you want high thermal performance in a building, insulation (therefore thickness) is crucial in the entire building envelope. As the beardier building retrofit types say, your house needs a hat (loft insulation) boots (floor insulation) and jacket (wall insulation). Consider this: if you're raising the temperature of your floor to say, 25C, that won't do much if you're doing so on an uninsulated floor wher…

They were referring to insulation in internal walls and floors. That is, the floor between the first and second story or the wall between bedrooms.

Still good if you want zoning etc, but point taken

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#209

Post by balfirevic »

gumballindie wrote: post #147
balfirevic wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most expensive part of house is the land it’s built on No, not where I live. > Remote work alleviates that. Remote work doesn't change where I want to live, because I want to live where there are things to do, regardless of where I work.

> Remote work doesn't change where I want to live I dont care where you want to live. Those who want to live where land is affordable should be given the option. Given that land is expensive where you want to live this type of house build wont solve your issue - might make it worse since people have said it’s more expensive to build. If more people would be allowed to work where they can afford property then demand i…

> I dont care where you want to live. Those who want to live where land is affordable should be given the option.

You seem to be arguing as if I disagree.

> Given that land is expensive where you want to live this type of house build wont solve your issue

No, actually, construction costs are enormous and that's the problem where I live. Building a house would be 3-4 times the cost of the land - and we're not talking about rural land but semi-urban near the second largest city in the country.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#210

Post by class3shock »

ivyirwin wrote: post #108
class3shock wrote: post #73

I like the ethos but to me it's pointed in entirely the wrong direction. Why not just make standard sections of 2x4 or 2x6 framing? Start standardizing window sealing details? Literally anything that will actually get some use? Instead we get opensource plywood boxes? Using plywood for all of the structural components means if you get a leak, which all houses get, you are in danger of much more significant damage tha…

The last time wikihouse showed up on HN (September '23) I did a deep dive on the process I still haven't come out of. 20 years ago as a grad student getting my masters in architecture, I definitely would have had similar comments to most of what's on this page. But I don't feel that way any more and I'm actually disappointed by the negativity toward this project – not because it's not warranted, but if this were a so…

I'm dismissive because I get tired of seeing shiny new projects that claim to solve issues when they don't seem to actually see what the problems are.

If the goal is to create opensource plans / design framework then doing that where the industry is (framing in the USA, maybe brick in the UK from other comments, etc.) is the way to benefit people, not trying to push them towards a unique "block" system that no builder has ever used.

If the goal is sustainability then a focus on locally sourced materials, energy efficiency, building longevity, or numerous other parameters would make sense. If I have a main criticism it's that their system seems to be based on the idea that using a block based design is a good starting point and not as a consequence of aiming to find a system that maximizes the aforementioned parameters.

Having worked in the industry I feel your pain and would agree that so much is broken. Here in the USA it is hard to find good contractors and harder to find ones familiar with building highly energy efficient buildings that normally require a very high level of attention to detail. Often the only projects I see that are highly energy efficient and/or green/sustainable are for very high end clients that are paying far more than a normal person could afford.

To offset that wall of negativity, if anyone wants to read about some (imo) good stuff check out the Pretty Good House (PGH) standard and Building Science Corporation (BSC).

Post reply on HN