Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by internaut | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

internaut

> You could buy what that $47k got you, today, for quite a bit less

Demonstrate this please. Without materials substitutions. Genuinely interested in the answers.

The cost of raw materials is very high as far as I know.

You can't get good hardwood, copper and so on without paying top dollar. Same goes for slate, trim.

I know that because I am actually attempting to build a tiny house in a traditional style for a little higher than 50k.

This would be a very valid comparison because it is;

1. Ignores cost of land. 2. Labour is free. 3. Doesn't ignore mod-cons.

I think the real difference is a normal person could have afforded the older house with a legal status!

View on HN

Given the hand turned moldings in virgin old growth hardwoods and endangered tropical softwoods, you couldn't match the quality of the original materials today at any price. Near substitutes would ring you well into seven figures.

But you can get many better materials, also. Wallboard is better than plaster. Steel framing in essential members is better than the best wood. Vapor barrier, waterproofing, insulated windows.

Things have changed. A direct comparison is hard. Changes in land use regulation are going to cost you a lot more than material changes.

I agree. Building science technology has been great but I wish the botany biotech people would get on with making hardwoods that grow in a year with hundreds of rings (artificial wintering). Maybe this is off topic but I have seen no serious innovation from biotech. GM food is mostly banned in Europe, but even outside of food we should be seeing great strides in raw material production to a higher standard and I'm just not seeing it.

I feel that most people building today optimize for the cheapest per sq ft, but if you are a builder owner and are a geek, you can really buy some amazing materials and employ some clever methods like advanced framing. You can construct a house with an energy bill of $100 a year if you want.

I think the future is in building smaller and smarter.

> Changes in land use regulation are going to cost you a lot more than material changes.

That's a fact. However I'm going for a tiny/small house in the countryside so I'll just dodge that bullet.

> Demonstrate this please.

https://www.menards.com/main/building-materials/landscaping-...

Has an extra bathroom, an extra 2-car garage. And modern electrical, and plumbing.

It's not pretty at all. But it's $7k cheaper ($40k), safe, and is to-code legal in most places.

https://www.menards.com/main/building-materials/landscaping-...

Has 1.5 extra bathrooms, an extra 2-car garage, and modern electrical and plumbing. Probably a closer match to the style, at roughly that price ($46,600). Also to-code legal in most places.

- - -

Obviously we're never going to get an exact match in materials. In many cases, you wouldn't want to -- a lot of safety standards have improved since then. But "you can buy what $47k got you for quite a bit less" is a reasonably accurate claim.

If anything -- kit houses at the $47k price tag are probably much nicer today than the were back in the day. (more space, more amenities, safer, etc)

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. No word on the materials but that does seem quite reasonable. I'm not sure why I don't see more people buying these then.

I'm guessing getting a Lot in a good zip code, and then having to match housing requirements from local zoning or the HOA is what drives prices. Rival goods basically.

> I'm not sure why I don't see more people buying these then.

I think one major hangup is finding the labour.

I have almost no construction skill, and also work a full time job. I can't take on a kit house myself without becoming homeless in the process. Any contractors I talk to are so busy they are booked out months (or years) in advance.

Another hangup seems to be the design. Any contractors I have found who are willing to build, only ever want to build/sell you a house they designed. And they all seem to exclusively want to design/build suburban homes on huge empty lots that (in my opinion) look like dated McMansions.

I would love to build a small (900sqft - 1400sqft) modern kit/prefab house on a small urban lot like this: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3920/14620317361_5766da68c1_z.... or http://prefabcosm.com/media/photos/2008/01/12/ecube1398.jpg

Every home builder I've ever talked to will only (exclusively) build huge (1800sqft - 3000+sqft) homes, on large empty suburban lots, that all look like this: http://www.mayberryhomes.com/CmImageDir/inventory_1695.JPG or https://nhs-dynamic.secure.footprint.net/Images/Homes/AllenE...

I'm generally familiar with SF bay area construction costs so let me use that as an example. That "Saratoga" house is about 1,800 sq. ft; the cost to merely frame 1,800 sq. ft two-floor new construction on the SF peninsula is about $120,000-$130,000 assuming no steel. That does not include foundation, roof, flooring, plumbing, HVAC, insulation, drywall, painting, siding, cabinetry, doors, windows, etc.--which could be 5x-12x more depending on finishes.

That sum also does not include general contractor overhead and profit of perhaps 12%, architect fees, building permit fees, structural engineering fees, planning review fees, school district permit tax, road impact fees, civil engineering fees, landscape architect fees, Title 24 consultant fees, soils engineering fees, etc.

If you were magically given a vacant lot for free in Palo Alto and wanted to build that house as shown with a basement, it would probably cost you about $2M in construction costs today. Again, that's assuming you got the land for free.

Out of curiosity, any idea if framing requirements are similar nowadays? Id assume the there was more framing now days to help in earthquakes, increasing cost. However this is a guess.

Many of these old houses are balloon framed, which is cheaper and faster to build, but allows fire to spread to the roof in <7 minutes in most cases.

There's more strapping with earthquake straps I imagine.

I was talking to a lady /u/sixup on reddit about her (excellent) Tiny House in Vancouver. She was thinking of getting these blocks of rubber inter-dispersed with thin plates of steel. This would go under her house and hold it upright. Earthquakes wouldn't do anything to such a house, and it's not expensive. So if you're worried about that and can lift your house, I'd do it.

Framing requirements have become far, far stricter. Here's one construction project currently being framed on the SF peninsula: https://goo.gl/photos/hdDmcqWkEuQenvku9

It's a one-story room with a 9' ceiling height. The structural engineer specified two massive Simpson Strong-Walls, side by side. There was barely any room for the window, which had to be askew as a result. A local architect tells me the requirements were far less onerous even a decade ago.

Also foundation requirements have increased as well. You may be on a flat lot with no history of problems based on a soils analysis, but end up having to drill piers anyway. Just in case. Your municipality wants them. Which will likely increase foundation costs by tens of thousands of dollars--so much for affordable SF bay area housing!

I know one fellow building a new home on the SF peninsula who spent $500,000 to pour a roughly 1,000 sq. ft basement. (Small lot, not much outdoor space, so he was determined to have a place for his kids to play in.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com