281–290 of 292 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A problem is that you can't get a mortgage to build it yourself. Being cheaper in the end doesn't help you if you don't have the money right now.
You cant get a mortgage for self build in the USA? - its a definite market in the UK and you can save quite a bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's not trying to make his life harder... he is building it by himself the same way that some contractor would be doing it with perhaps 4-5 guys. Although primitive, the video that you linked to is also based on previous technology/knowledge...
>Although primitive, the video that you linked to is also based on previous technology/knowledge... Yet one is possible to do literally by yourself without another human being alive as long as you possess the knowledge. It is a real difference.
In India, we mostly build using 100% concrete no woods -- I don't know why this difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those large roof overhangs are so wonderful. Why aren't they more common in America? Not only do they protect your siding and walls (greatly extending the life of your siding) but they also have huge energy benefits in warm areas by keeping the sun off of your walls. Oh, and if you have a basement, they help keep it dry. Build bigger roof overhangs, America! http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/ever…
Basically - they are more expensive to build. My dads friend was a builder in our town, and you can tell all of the houses he built because he was the only one who would refuse to build houses with small eaves, because he knew the problems it would cause down the line for the homeowner.
Big eaves are dangerous. They make the roof far more likely to get ripped off in a storm.
It looks like the entire thing is made of chipboard and planks of wood? Is it a temporary building? How long does that last?
Chipboard is made from sawdust and is completely different in load-bearing ability.
It looks like the entire thing is made of chipboard and planks of wood? Is it a temporary building? How long does that last?
Engineered joists aren't "chipboard"; they're stronger and more expensive than dimensional lumber of the same size, and you can run utilities through them without compromising strength to the same degree. They're typically used because they can lessen the need for supports, allowing larger rooms and fewer columns. See here for more information: https://www.thisoldhouse.com/ideas/lesson-modern-framing-mat... Chipboard…
Not the joists. The flat panels he's making the floors and walls from - they're chipboard, or OSB https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-chipboard.
There doesn't seem to be anything solid in the house at all - no brick or stone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Engineered joists aren't "chipboard"; they're stronger and more expensive than dimensional lumber of the same size, and you can run utilities through them without compromising strength to the same degree. They're typically used because they can lessen the need for supports, allowing larger rooms and fewer columns. See here for more information: https://www.thisoldhouse.com/ideas/lesson-modern-framing-mat... Chipboard…
> Engineered joists aren't "chipboard" Not the joists. The flat panels he's making the floors and walls from - they're chipboard, or OSB https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-chipboard . There doesn't seem to be anything solid in the house at all - no brick or stone.
Why does there need to be brick or stone? An all wooden building does better in earthquakes than a masonry building, as one example benefit. Another is that it's cheaper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Engineered joists aren't "chipboard" Not the joists. The flat panels he's making the floors and walls from - they're chipboard, or OSB https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-chipboard . There doesn't seem to be anything solid in the house at all - no brick or stone.
The concrete foundation seems pretty solid to me. Why does there need to be brick or stone? An all wooden building does better in earthquakes than a masonry building, as one example benefit. Another is that it's cheaper.
I guess there must be no need at all, since Americans are happily building and living in these houses.
It's just so odd to people in countries where you are used to all four walls in every internal room being a foot of solid brick to think you would build houses out of what looks like sticks and not-much-more-than-cardboard. It seems so temporary.
What did the three little pigs teach us?
But as I say this seems to work fine for the Americans so it must be great in practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concrete foundation seems pretty solid to me. Why does there need to be brick or stone? An all wooden building does better in earthquakes than a masonry building, as one example benefit. Another is that it's cheaper.
> Why does there need to be brick or stone? I guess there must be no need at all, since Americans are happily building and living in these houses. It's just so odd to people in countries where you are used to all four walls in every internal room being a foot of solid brick to think you would build houses out of what looks like sticks and not-much-more-than-cardboard. It seems so temporary. What did the three little…
Why would all four walls in every internal room need to be a foot of solid brick? That's so wasteful, and a nightmare for retrofitting with additional utility services. I get that you are used to it, but custom isn't a valid reason for things to be done a certain way. We need to go back to first principles. What's the best way to build a house? Well, in North America, wood is widely available, cheap, and builds a strong house that's resistant to earthquakes. Why would you use anything else? Also keep in mind that farmed wood is carbon neutral, while concrete and bricks are not.
And it's not temporary. Wooden houses will easily last centuries. Given how quickly technology is changing anyway, how long do you really need a house to last? Even one century is probably more than enough. Also consider that the average length of home ownership is 13 years; why does it matter what happens seven owners down the line after you're already dead?
Also, the moral of the three little pigs fairy tale is that hard work and dedication pay off, not that literally brick is the best construction material (it's not).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why does there need to be brick or stone? I guess there must be no need at all, since Americans are happily building and living in these houses. It's just so odd to people in countries where you are used to all four walls in every internal room being a foot of solid brick to think you would build houses out of what looks like sticks and not-much-more-than-cardboard. It seems so temporary. What did the three little…
The OP video is from a Canadian FYI, so it's not just Americans. Why would all four walls in every internal room need to be a foot of solid brick? That's so wasteful, and a nightmare for retrofitting with additional utility services. I get that you are used to it, but custom isn't a valid reason for things to be done a certain way. We need to go back to first principles. What's the best way to build a house? Well, in…
Well there you go - they're designed to be temporary - a fifth of houses in the UK are a century old or more, so from experience in this country we don't see a century as being 'more than enough' for a building to last and we use brick to achieve that.