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

91–100 of 223 posts

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#91

Post by kyawzazaw »

jtriangle wrote: post #86
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 a flawed solution based on a misunderstanding of how houses are actually built/designed/engineered. Most of what you see being built today is dimensioned based on available timber. It's part of why all the houses look the same, because it's the most efficient way to build. Everything structural gets built with 2x4's or prefab trusses (which are also made of 2x4's), windows are all standard sizes, as are cabinets…

That's not how we build in my country though

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#92

Post by elihu »

jtriangle wrote: post #86
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 a flawed solution based on a misunderstanding of how houses are actually built/designed/engineered. Most of what you see being built today is dimensioned based on available timber. It's part of why all the houses look the same, because it's the most efficient way to build. Everything structural gets built with 2x4's or prefab trusses (which are also made of 2x4's), windows are all standard sizes, as are cabinets…

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

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#93

Post by aaron695 »

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.

[dead]

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#94

Post by krispyfi »

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.

In my country, central a/c is rare and heating only occupied rooms using individual a/c units is the norm. I think heavy insulation on interior walls would be great here.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#95

Post by fbdab103 »

primitivesuave wrote: post #20

If you live in California, you can potentially build one of these as an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit). Local agencies are required to approve an ADU within 60 days, and recent state bills (AB 976, 434, 1033, and 2221) make it easier to build/sell/rent ADUs on your property. You'll have to wait until 2025 before every locality is forced to have a process for pre-approved ADU plans (at which time you could potentially…

I would think that a pre-built manufactured home delivered pre-assembled would make more sense. Pour a slab, hookups for water, and electricity, done.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#96

Post by tadfisher »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #80
ropable wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of basic structural building materials (bricks, framing timber, roof tiles, etc.) are already fairly reusable to an extent. It's just labour-intensive to do so, therefore we often don't. I'm not optimistic that prefabbed structural components would be much better.

Yeah as soon as someone gets a demolition bill as high as the construction bill, the desire to reuse everything will disappear quick. This also presumes in 40-100 years when a house presumably makes sense to demolish, the same standard design is still considered good and the new owner has heard of your weird bespoke construction style. Consider that currently the age of a house maybe worthy of demolition is 1978 and…

Reclaimed building materials are in high demand. Homes from the 1970s and older usually have excellent lumber, more often than not sourced from old-growth timber. My former home from 1949 sat on a 40-foot 12x12 solid cedar beam, for instance.

The only other stuff in the walls is either in demand (copper, plumbing metals) or we just throw it out (drywall, insulation).

So if these engineered materials are sturdy enough, I would give favorable odds to them being reclaimed.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#97

Post by Duanemclemore »

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 WH.

In the US nothing is EVER going to beat light gauge wood framing on cost. That's why you see even large (but not tall) complexes build from it.[1] It's been reduced to the 0th degree of expense because of the profit motive. That said, this is only when the "unskilled" labor of rough framing is cheap. But this doesn't necessarily hold for other economies.

The early WH work seemed cartoonishly idealistic (they were literal kids so I don't really fault them). But that foundation never changed and a lot of what they built on that has seemed like solution in search of a problem. Especially when you consider you don't even have to leave the UK to find a better model for self-build[2] and automated modular small scale construction is a really active space right now.

Other competitors[3] actually have online configurators that work well to arrange these kinds of elements. But they've realized that's where the value is and are holding their systems closer so they can maintain quality and monetize the expertise they brought to bear.

And yet other systems have been using industrial scale and logics to great effect for a long, long time.[4]

TBH the "open source" aspect is really kind of a gimmick. Their designs are useless without the overall system and the system is useless without some way of arranging it all properly. Plus - what are you going to do - buy and learn to run a mill, work your own ply with an extremely slow machine, assemble it in this (ridiculously) finicky way, source and install the insulation properly yourself, and still be confronted with the nontrivial tasks of... everything that's not structure and insulation? Not to mention approvals. In the end you'd need an architect to do all this for you. And... doesn't that defeat the point? It's very generous that they've assembled all the guides they have but there are cheaper and more flexible construction systems (light gauge wood, block, SIPS, ICF, etc) that are much more mature, non-proprietary (except ICF), much better documented, and much easier to train a helper or two for assistance.

I really do appreciate what they're -trying- to do. But again, I just think it's a solution in search of a problem.

[0] Architecture, Engineering, and Construction [1] https://lamag.com/urbandevelopment/geoff-palmers-faux-italia... [2] https://architecturefoundation.org.uk/programme/2015/walter%... [3] https://automatedarchitecture.io/ [4] https://www.ithouseinc.com/

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#98

Post by Duanemclemore »

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…

Forgot to add - Wikihouse has been at it since like 2011. In that time, we've seen the rise of engineered wood to the point that CLT (Cross-Lamianted Timber) is discussed as a steel replacement in large and tall building construction. What WH was doing back when was quaint and very precious. But their whole thing is kind of a relic of a simpler time. What they say they're about hits on a lot of different levels for me - as an advocate for FOSS and Open Source more generally, a NERD for modular building systems, someone actually working in the advanced fabrication and automated construction spaces, and more I WISH I could go to bat for them. But there's just no "there there" in terms of meeting the goals they claim.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#100

Post by Duanemclemore »

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.

You're correct - but wait until you meet their other friend "milling the panels." Doing it out of plywood is one increased level of expense and difficulty - machine and operator time is an exponential multiplier. Think about it - you're taking a system that could be a guy with a table saw ripping a piece of ply in a minute tops and turning it in to a guy standing and watching a mill run through a piece of ply in who knows how many passes... it just doesn't make any sense.
Post reply on HN