Hacker News Reader

Comment by CyberDildonics | Hacker News Reader

You are ignoring the tens of thousands of hours pre-built builders put into streamlining designs that can be put on almost any plot of land.

No they aren't. This thread was started by someone saying "The idea of planning a house without taking into account the site where it will sit will never produce a good house.".

Both of you (and everyone) is saying this isn't true.

View on HN

I'm actually taking issue with that assertion - mid-sized builders absolutely don't have that kind of time put into the designs of their house. They build one and iterate on the problems - it's not so different from software. I know - we've had quite a few problems related to being the 2nd iteration of a new house plan for a builder.

Just think of how shitty it would be to be #1. There is a lot to be gained by being house #10 or 100 in terms of design cleanup. Achitecture houses that are one off will always have weird quirks because its the first of iteration or cost a ton to address those issues .

I think the "good house" would need to be defined first.

Like, going by objective measures like "how well it is insulated and how much it costs to cool/heat it", or "how well it uses the space of the plot" most of them fall well within "good", partly because at least on insulation level most countries require them to be at least decent.

But how well that fits the new owners ? Now that's where there would be actual benefit from either customization or doing it from scratch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com