Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway23234 | Hacker News Reader

Glad you added more to that comment. I have a personal belief that "owner builder" is going to be something you're going to hear about more and more.

People that are less fortunate are going to start getting investment together to buy raw land, build a house and sell it for upwards of the salary of an AI developer at Google.

This is something people can get started on literally tomorrow.

View on HN

How do they certify that the homes are built according to the code? They do not seem to be licensed contractors or something, getting that license is not that cheap and fast, and you need quite several for a house.

You can live in a structure which is not certified as meeting the code's requirements. But selling it would be hard.

you can't get past permits and inspections without building to code. the main builder does not need to be a GC or have any kind of contractor license what-so-ever. There are still some pesky laws in the way, but it can be overcome with some fixes to red tape.

The California Building Code [1] consists of 12 volumes, the second of which (based on the International Building Codes) is 766 pages long. It is available for purchase for about $1200, or you can pay $237/year for a subscription. Despite having the force of law, it is copyrighted, which means that free copies (which do exist, floating around on the net) are technically illegal.

Houses in California cost more than a Google AI developer's salary because you have to know more than a Google AI developer to build them.

[1] https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes

That's the link I used to learn it, it's available online from that link for free. If you look at the CRC - it's an easy read, designed that way on purpose. Chapters are streamlined and much shorter, reads much faster. It's not quite a how-to guide there's definitely some challenges.

Materials costs have come down but are still rough. Big builders get the priority of supply too. People want to drive less and work from home but you can't buy "raw land" with anything to walk to or any kind of internet speed.

That's an interesting idea. Much like how China develops cities first, then moves people into them later, you seem to be suggesting individuals could build cheap houses on cheap land to incentivize infrastructure building toward and outward from new construction.

I don't think the economics work out here for the "less fortunate" because there is a certain minimum threshold of time-plus-money necessary to start this process, and I think without detailed planning provisions it will end up as worse-than-useless sprawl, but it's something to build on, if you'll excuse the pun.

Definitely will be worked out, and I wouldn't be surprised if a startup shows up to get people motivated (with advice, resources and planning assistance) and help them find investment.

This is exactly the lack of planning I insist will cause more problems than it solves.

You want to replace qualified with unqualified labor. That's not going to be competitive, or let alone possible due to the code violations that a bunch of untrained guys will inevitably produce.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com