House Costs Just $20k-But It’s Nicer Than Yours
fastcompany.com
House Costs Just $20k-But It’s Nicer Than Yours
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: House Costs Just $20k-But It’s Nicer Than Yours
#2What I want to know is how we can incorporate some of the innovations that they used (such as cantilvers for the foundation) into traditionally built houses. Also, how we tweak building codes to allow for these new innovations so that the houses pass inspection without having to have days long classes to explain to inspectors that yes, they really are safe?
Re: House Costs Just $20k-But It’s Nicer Than Yours
#3What I want to know is how we can incorporate some of the innovations that they used (such as cantilvers for the foundation) into traditionally built houses. Also, how we tweak building codes to allow for these new innovations so that the houses pass inspection without having to have days long classes to explain to inspectors that yes, they really are safe?
I don't think the cantilevers are innovations. Here's a description and explanation of cantilevered footings from a 1924 book: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Reinforced_Concrete_and...
I'm guessing the issue here isn't that these techniques are innovative, it's that they've done their homework and the tolerances are tighter. If you construct them properly, they're more than sufficient. Emphasis on if. An inspector can't just walk in and eyeball something using his 30 years of experience to judge adequacy.[1] That's the problem--the classic tradeoff between administrative efficiency vs accuracy.
[1] The irony is that an inspector circa 1950 probably would have been able to do that.
Re: House Costs Just $20k-But It’s Nicer Than Yours
#4What a needlessly abrasive headline.
Re: House Costs Just $20k-But It’s Nicer Than Yours
#5Would these be feasible for the entire state? For example, could I get a permit to build one of these in a coastal region?
Re: House Costs Just $20k-But It’s Nicer Than Yours
#6The bulk of a "house" price in populated areas is the cost of the land.
That's why rundown, dilapidated, etc "homes" in the Bay Area are so expensive. You're paying for the land. So a $20k home is still going to cost you a stupid amount.
If you go out to the middle of nowhere, you can get huge, and amazing, homes for less that $100k (because no one wants to live there).
Re: House Costs Just $20k-But It’s Nicer Than Yours
#7I'm curious about why they decided to design a one bedroom home. In my midwest hometown of ~10,000 people (which was also the biggest town for ~12 miles in any direction), one bedroom homes essentially don't exist (I checked Zillow and there's exactly 4 listed as for sale or recently sold).
Re: House Costs Just $20k-But It’s Nicer Than Yours
#8The bulk of a "house" price in populated areas is the cost of the land . That's why rundown, dilapidated, etc "homes" in the Bay Area are so expensive. You're paying for the land. So a $20k home is still going to cost you a stupid amount. If you go out to the middle of nowhere, you can get huge, and amazing, homes for less that $100k (because no one wants to live there).
> If you go out to the middle of nowhere, you can get huge, and amazing, homes for less that $100k (because no one wants to live there).
In flyover country, the land is pretty close to free and typically you can buy the house at a discount to what it would cost to rebuild the same structure.
Re: House Costs Just $20k-But It’s Nicer Than Yours
#9It's $20k for materials and labor. Market forces would suggest that's not what the cost of the real estate would be.
Re: House Costs Just $20k-But It’s Nicer Than Yours
#10What I want to know is how we can incorporate some of the innovations that they used (such as cantilvers for the foundation) into traditionally built houses. Also, how we tweak building codes to allow for these new innovations so that the houses pass inspection without having to have days long classes to explain to inspectors that yes, they really are safe?
I don't think the cantilevers are innovations. Here's a description and explanation of cantilevered footings from a 1924 book: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Reinforced_Concrete_and... I'm guessing the issue here isn't that these techniques are innovative, it's that they've done their homework and the tolerances are tighter. If you construct them properly, they're more than sufficient. Emphasis on if . An inspe…
The interesting problem they solved is building with cantilevers efficiently in the context of a small home. Historically cantilevers were considered exotic and expensive with Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water being one of the few well known examples of residences using cantilevers.