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

211–220 of 223 posts

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#211

Post by seabass-labrax »

gorkish wrote: post #201
seabass-labrax wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What makes you think your architect can't draw on the blueprints?

The designs are available on GitHub:

https://github.com/wikihouseproject/Skylark

They're marked as being made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence[1]. The page also says you have to agree to the 'EULA'[2] of WikiHouse, but these explicitly give precedence to the CC licences:

  All content should be considered to be protected by copyright, with all rights reserved other than those materials that explicitly carry another licence, for example an Open Source or Creative Commons licence. In these cases, that licence shall be clearly marked on or by the relevant media, file or repository.
If you enter into a private agreement with your architect to build upon the WikiHouse designs, the most usual case is that you hold the copyright over the changes to the blueprints which you commissioned. Due to the terms of the CC licence that you agreed to, you must licence your modifications under a compatible licence if you distribute them further. Likewise, if your agreement with the architect gives them title to the copyright, this responsibility is initially on them.

I don't see how this arrangement could be considered objectionable?

[1]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.en

[2]: https://www.wikihouse.cc/terms

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#212

Post by class3shock »

ethanbond wrote: post #60
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.

Or perhaps if you're prioritizing things other than maximally efficient use of materials? It seems like they're prioritizing standardization, especially of methods, more than almost anything else. AFAICT we have far more excess material than excess labor, so it doesn't seem particularly crazy to me?

Using a unique block construction system that 99% of builders have never used is not really in the spirit of standardization.

As for materials, for a theoretical 2 story 20Wx50Lx20H home (2000 ft^2), you have 1,000 ft^2 of roof (assuming flat) and floor, as well as 20,000 ft^2 of wall.

Cheap fiberglass insulation is $1.32 per ft^2 10 in thick (1/10/24) https://www.homedepot.com/p/Owens-Corning-R-30-Faced-Fibergl...

Assuming we use this for everything that is $29K

I'm going to pull some ratios roughly out of this article.

https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/how-much-insula...

This is in the high energy efficiency area of construction but I'm using this to illustrate the inefficiency of a standard floor/wall/roof thickness, take it with these caveats.

So if you were building to this insulation cost would be:

1,0001.32 + 20,0001.32(2/3) + 1,0001.32*(1/6) = $19K

You could view that as $10K of wasted material or, if you chose not to fill the blocks with full thickness material, calculate how much of their volume is being wasted to achieve a standardized thickness. Lots of ways to look at it but, to put it simply, I think however you look at it, it's not optimal to be unable to adjust your floor/wall/roof thickness.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#213

Post by elihu »

orthoxerox wrote: post #118
elihu wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one wants to go the "lego things together" route, ICF and AAC are also options that exist already.

AAC is great, but - I don't think it's super common in the US - it's a high-tech product that quickly loses its legolike value if quality controls get sloppy (you have to spend hours sanding down each row or switch to mortar) - it's just walls, you still need a system for building foundations, floors, ceilings and roofs.

I think AAC is pretty rare where I am (Oregon) but apparently there's a company in Bend that specializes in it. They're a Hebel distributor.

https://northwestaac.com/

AAC floor and roof panels do exist.

My impression is that ICF is a lot more common in my area than AAC, though it's still not super common compared to, say, stick frame construction. I'd guess that's probably because with AAC you'd need to add additional insulation, whereas with ICF you wouldn't -- but maybe there are other reasons.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#214

Post by gorkish »

seabass-labrax wrote: post #211
gorkish wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What makes you think your architect can't draw on the blueprints? The designs are available on GitHub: https://github.com/wikihouseproject/Skylark They're marked as being made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence[1]. The page also says you have to agree to the 'EULA'[2] of WikiHouse, but these explicitly give precedence to the CC licences: All content shou…

> What makes you think your architect can't draw on the blueprints?

Nothing until the architect hands them to someone else in violation of both the CCSA and the EULA which the distributor claim apply to all of the published material. I can’t believe you linked to that nonsense and can’t understand why it might be objectionable.

I’m not saying anyone would come after you or care if you add some different dormers to your cabin or whatever; I just maintain it’s unreasonable to think that you can fold CCSA content into the existing framework of architectural IP and expect that everything is gonna be cool. It’s incompatible.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#215

Post by persolb »

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.

It's also clear that the floor between levels doesn't have insulation. I'm not sure where the OP got that all the blocks/insulation was the same.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#216

Post by Duanemclemore »

hedgehog wrote: post #195
Duanemclemore wrote: post #97

Hi, architect here. Wikihouse has been chasing many of the dragons we've been collectively chasing in AEC[0] for... a long time. Seriously I wish I had time to reply to every single comment here because there are a lot of excellent critiques (not just of WH). It shows what kind of communication problem we have in AEC that even the critiques that HAVE good answers within their weelhouse aren't adequately addressed by…

I've been hoping someone with the right knowledge would do a public update to the Segal method. The stuff that's widely documented wouldn't meet modern code or work as well with modern materials, but that's probably fixable. There also was apparently significant refinement to the methods over time based on lessons from the field and changes in available materials, also not well documented. The core idea still seems g…

This could have been the direction they went. "Wikihouse" and "open source architecture" could just as easily mean a wiki on DIY financing, development, design, construction, maintenance, and beyond using standard techniques. But somewhere they got in their head that they had to use CNC.

I wish it was possible to develop such a thing, but it would be very hard to gain traction without major support. And who with means to do so wants to support a movement to consume and waste (and thus spend) less, do more with less, do it on your own (thus not "create jobs"), etc?

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#217

Post by orthoxerox »

elihu wrote: post #213
orthoxerox wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AAC is great, but - I don't think it's super common in the US - it's a high-tech product that quickly loses its legolike value if quality controls get sloppy (you have to spend hours sanding down each row or switch to mortar) - it's just walls, you still need a system for building foundations, floors, ceilings and roofs.

I think AAC is pretty rare where I am (Oregon) but apparently there's a company in Bend that specializes in it. They're a Hebel distributor. https://northwestaac.com/ AAC floor and roof panels do exist. My impression is that ICF is a lot more common in my area than AAC, though it's still not super common compared to, say, stick frame construction. I'd guess that's probably because with AAC you'd need to add additiona…

AAC doesn't always require additional insulation. The rule of thumb is that a wall X mm thick made of AAC with density X kg/m3 has a metric R-value > 3, which is sufficient for Central Russian climate (which I am told is similar to Vermont, colder than the PNW). I have no idea what kind of blocks are sold in the US and how to convert between metric and imperial R-values, but online calculators suggest that a 300mm thick D300 block should have an imperial R-value of about 18.

Northwest AAC claims even higher values: "[f]or example, the R-value of a typical 12-inch wall is R-29", so either I'm converting the wrong values or the measurement standards are very different across the countries. Xella (Hebel) claims their blocks are warmer than standard blocks, but 50% more sounds like too much.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#218

Post by maxwell »

maxwell wrote: post #173
77pt77 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the most expensive? The land? Permits? Appliances?

Land is only worth what you can build on it. The buildable site was 7% of new single-family costs in 2022 in the U.S., including permits, inspections, design, etc. Construction costs (labor + materials) were 61%, with interior finishes 24% of construction costs, framing 20%, and major systems 18%. Appliances were under 2%. Margin was 10%. https://www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/news-and-economics/docs/ho...

Correction: finished lot itself was 18% of total sale, site work under 5%, appliances under 1%.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#219

Post by woah »

simonbarker87 wrote: post #4
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.

Since it’s a UK company/project they will be primarily comparing to brick costs since that’s what the vast majority of UK houses are (still) built with. They claim comparable cost as brick/block construction. £230/sqm. They also seem to be touting their accuracy and since plywood is dimensionally stable (well, more so that 2x4s anyway) that’s probably why ply.

Oh man. To me this plywood stuff seems like it might be marginally more durable than 2x4 and sheetrock, or maybe not (worse ventilation etc). So to me it seems like they have just reinvented the American "balloon" construction system, but overengineered, and probably at much greater expense.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#220

Post by helboi4 »

pimlottc wrote: post #155
helboi4 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, houses in England are not made from frames almost ever. They are made of solid brick. It was always so confusing to hear about Americans punching through walls. You can't do that here. There's no wood.

People talk about punching through /interior/ walls, which is typically drywall in the US.

Yeah even interior walls here are mainly brick. Dry walls only exist in conversions where walls have been added that did not exist in the original construction. Even then, making thin walls like that is highly frowned upon and seen as a bit of a bodge job because the standard for the sturdiness of walls is high here.
Post reply on HN