I might get a better answer on GBA, but any building performance folks you'd recommend connecting with in the SF Bay Area? I'm not in the building industry at all, but love hearing talks and daydreaming about changing careers. Finding some material for folks outside of the PNW, New England, and the South West would be amazing. Temperate climates like the bay seem especially challenging to get specific info for, so maybe it's a case where I need to understand the principles well and apply it myself.
Love the book by the way; it's what I wish I'd had when I was looking to buy my first home. I'm going to be gifting it to a few people in my family over the next few years.
> I might get a better answer on GBA, but any building performance folks you'd recommend connecting with in the SF Bay Area?
I'm halfway down that road, having completed a high performance remodel in the Bay Area, and contemplated a career shift into some adjacent field.
High performance building is not as organized a movement here, but instead a patchwork of architects, contractors and consultants that I had to assemble for my project. Assembling a team that was willing to work in a high performance modality was probably the hardest part. It's still unfamiliar to many customers and professionals.
I also did a good amount of the high performance work on my house, so I got to know the principles and practicals pretty well. It was a lot of work, but I enjoyed the process and the learnings (and living in the result).
Would you be open to sharing some details about your project(s)? Things like costs, who you worked with, guiding principles, etc. would be amazing. I feel like maybe finding the kind of people that will do high performance work is just outside of my budget, so I'm curious what you did and with what resources.
Dan do you ever talk about retro fitting old houses at your monthly talks.
It would wonderful to learn what can be done to existing (my home is 1880’s) buildings to improve their performance.
Not exactly the same, but my city is retrofitting a lot of Soviet-era apartment blocks to bring them up to modern standards. They are made out of concrete with no insulation and were built when (natural) gas was basically free.
The bulk of the work is wrapping the building in 25cm of rigid foam exterior insulation, replacing windows and making sure that they are fairly air tight. They aren't adding mechanical ventilation, as installation would cause too much disruption to residents who are living there. Heating systems are being upgraded to newer units if they are old and inefficient (still powered by gas or district heating, no heat pumps).
The main issue with older buildings is often you want to maintain the 'character' so wrapping the building in external insulation and replacing the facade isn't always an option. However if you have a building made of masonry this is the best way to insulate it, as the masonry then acts as a thermal mass to keep temperatures inside more stable (in both hot and cold weather). These apartment blocks were ugly concrete that nobody wants to ever see again though, so it's not an issue here :-)
>The bulk of the work is wrapping the building in 25cm of rigid foam exterior insulation, replacing windows and making sure that they are fairly air tight. They aren't adding mechanical ventilation, as installation would cause too much disruption to residents who are living there.
Hmmm, like the worst possible idea (air tight + not adequate ventilation), the early (10-15 years ago) "Class A" or "Class B" new buldings made here without appropriate ventilation have given lots of problems (humidity/mould).
The only possible remedy being daily manual ventilation, i.e. open windows for 10/15 minutes every single day (but many people won't or cannot do it).
I'm looking at building a home as a first time home owner in the next few years. One thing I'm wondering is how many headaches can I avoid if I just choose an expensive builder and not try to haggle or save a buck at every turn? I just want a 2-bedroom, 1,000 sq ft bungalow and am willing to pay 60-70% more than the average $/sqft in my city if they do a good job. I'd rather have a nice small place rather than a huge place full of issues and corner cutting. Can I just throw more money at the problem so that I'm less stressed and offload more decisions to the builders?
Unfortunately, if you want it done right, you really have to be involved. Frequent checking on the work and hounding the people to fix it. Which also means you need to know enough about construction to ask the right questions to figure out what's right or not. It's very hard to effectively contract that out. If you can date/marry someone in construction/architecture, and let them supervise, it helps.
You can just pay more and get probably more quality materials, but not necessarily get better workmanship. Saving time by taking shortcuts is just going to happen unless you call them on it a lot.
One thing to keep in mind though, it's good to know what you want, but also be flexible, for example, if you can adjust a bit and get a standard size window instead of your specific window, it will reduce the cost now and probably in the future (unless standards change), doorways are similar... if you get a standard sized door, it makes life much easier.
> Frequent checking on the work and hounding the people to fix it.
Isn't this partially what you pay your architect for? If you're willing to pay top dollar you should be able to find one that's very hands on and coordinates the whole building process as your representative.
This neatly summarizes the dynamics of so many client-contractor relationships. Takes real professional integrity not to exploit the information asymmetry, which I regrettably found to be in short supply in the building trades, at least in the UK.
This is true, but it can be improved. For example, offer a bonus for excellent air tightness and insulation, which can be tested once the home shell is complete. Hire an inspector 1 or 2 times to critique construction along the way.
If the agent insures the quality and is contractually bound to pay all expenses for repair and maintenance, that could avoid a major chunk of the principal-agent problem.
Good luck with enforcing the contract. The cost to prove the agent made the error (and not you or the manufacturer or time) and then other legal costs would probably almost always outweigh the cost to just fix the problem.
It might be possible to materially minimize the probability of error to have 2 agents, one that checks the others’ work. But that also will get costly.
An architect that will do field supervision on a 1,000 sq. ft. house is going to be quite rare. You're more or less relegated to a freshly-minted architect, who may or may not be qualified (not enough experience) to do the kind of double-checking needed.
Of course, paying more money could certainly help, but now you're paying 2,500 sq. ft. prices for a 1,000 sq. ft. house.
There's not really a replacement for doing daily or at least twice-weekly inspections yourself. The architect may catch some things but miss a completely botched plumbing job. And just for fun, every issue you catch will become a fight with the sub-contractor.
Our Architect in Ireland did this for us. He found the builders and also hired a QS and other people to manage cost. It was not at all cheap but well worth it as we were in no position to supervise ourselves. Even for a modest build, it was well worth the cost.
I can't understand how people can spend $$$ on building a new house but try to go cheap on the Architect... All you get is a McMansion.
I just had a house built in Ireland. Our architect was fairly cheap but it was that or nothing. It was a kit house and the builders still half-assed most things (they HATED the idea of making a house reasonably airtight for one) so I've been cleaning up their mess.
I hear you, one would expect a kit house to be fairly straightforward, without needing too much input from an architect. Sorry to hear about your builders (though not surprised). What I had in mind when I made my comment though was my parent's neighbourhood in rural Ireland. A modest bungalow in a field that is now dwarfed by huge McMansions 3x the size every 300m in a strip 10km long. Each one massive, asymmetrical, uniquely ugly, and obviously sketched out on the back of a cigarette packet rather than designed by a competent architect.
Bonus points for a huge set of gates with fancy piers and walls, because god forbid any of your neighbours might swing by casually and say hello. But hurray for the tight-knit rural community right? /rant
hah, honestly the experience has me working on getting out of Ireland. It was a mistake to move here, and doubly one to sink money in to an extension to make our cottage more livable. If it helps, I don't think we're part of one-off ribbon development since the original cottage was 200+ years old. I understand now why the heritage officer was so delighted to meet some chump who didn't realize there's a reason houses in the midlands are so cheap.... and here I thought I was an easy bike ride from a train station with regular service to Heuston, how could it go wrong?
The extension is, in my view, quite nice. We tried to get away with some crazy newfangled ideas like "eaves" and "bug screens" but Ireland shot us down there. People think we're insane not building it out of cinderblocks already.
Speaking of that tight-knit rural community, mostly I know that people can break the law with no consequences and won't talk to anyone their family hasn't known for at least 3 generations. And walking is bizarre and dangerous; the councillor thought I was joking when I asked about getting a footpath to the village 700 meters away.
Of course, if Ireland weren't kicking and screaming about building apartments in the middle of cities neat jobs, schools, transport, and amenities, it would be in a much better position.
Would be happy to compare notes! Email is in my bio.
The architect isn't present at all times. When I paid a company to put some new flooring, paints, etc a few years ago, the interior architect told the guys "the floorboards must always be placed in the direction of light, from the window wall towards the opposite wall". The following morning, I came early into the room, and the guy was dutifully aligning floorboards in the wrong direction. "What are you doing? You're supposed to lay them this way, not that way" "Oh, just testing". My ass. The guy had already forgotten the instructions he received the night before.
In the toilets, the painter dutifully painted shut the plumbing and valves access panel ("you must open the panel before painting everything. And please don't paint the valves"). The electrician was about to pierce a hole between floors 1 foot away from the walls to pass cables through as I stopped him. Etc.
When having an house built, you (or the architect, or some other responsible person with a working brain) must be there looking at everything all the time. And even with that, they will fuck up. They'll lay alternating tiles in the wrong pattern. They'll build stairs of uneven height. They'll put a window in the kitchen that won't open because it hits the faucet. They'll set up doors that open on the wrong side (all of these happened to my in-laws when getting their home built, and they were there watching every day). They'll fuck up every time you don't watch, every single time.
> Architects are about end results and "vision". General contractors, while imperfect, should be about getting it built.
Plenty of architects care about getting the details right. Check out Steve Baczek, who is online a lot, and is very interested in building science details.
I think some architects will offer this kind of supervision of the project as a service. I don’t know to what extent these are handled by different people at the firm from the design part but I expect there are small firms where one person can do both.
I think it’s wrong to think that all architects are like celebrity architects. If you’re designing a house there may be room for weird designs (if that’s what the client wants) but I think there’s also just a lot of technical or boring details that are handled by architects too.
On home construction, some people use an architect to get their plans stamped and that's it. Those architects aren't supervising construction at all.
But, if you've hired the architect to supervise construction, you've still got to supervise the architect. Maybe you only have to hound the architect to get issues fixed and let them figure out who fixes it, though; and they'll likely get a lot of things fixed without you, but you'll still get better results with regular supervision than hands off.
>Isn't this partially what you pay your architect for? If you're willing to pay top dollar you should be able to find one that's very hands on and coordinates the whole building process as your representative.
It is amazing how separate most architects are from the actual implementation. I sort of wish architects were required to apprentice as builders before doing design.
I recently built a custom house with a long time friend as the architect and have a family member I could talk to who is an architect. Additionally there was a structural engineer involved in the project for things like truss design and sheer calculations I could talk. That's a lot of talent and experience in residential and commercial design!
On the other hand my father is a general contractor and I have some construction experience and grew up around roofers, framers, etc.
All the architects I talked to frequently had very low visibility into the difficulty and cost factors of their design proposals.
For example: flush baseboards make the wall super clean and don't get dinged up. But no indie contractors in our area can install them.
Curves on drywall interior walls will match the curves in the plastered exterior walls - but while wetted 1/4 inch drywall will bend a pretty tight inside curve it can't be attached to an outside curve because it pulls through the fasteners - I ended up kerf cutting plywood to make the bend, priming it for adhesion and plastering the curves with help from a high end plaster specialist.
High windows downstairs go all the way to the ceiling inside which looks more balanced on the outside... but would require a small "vault" in the otherwise flat ceiling... Which would have affected the framing of the wall, required at least one custom floor truss instead of a standard TJI, made for super complicated trim in the affected rooms, required a very non-standard window size, and an expensive plaster detail at each such window. On my investigation it was going to be at least $25K to make 4 windows 8" taller!
In my experience custom home building architects generally were not very construction aware. Talking about installation practices or costs usually resulted in advice to "get a bid"! Despite being very pleased with my architectural collaboration I don't think hands-on supervision of actual building practice is likely a realistic expectation from a typical architect.
I’ve worked in construction. For independent Architects, you get plan and some schematics, but that’s it. An architectural firm may provide the white glove treatment by managing the build, getting engineers involved, and basically making sure it’s done right. It is not cheap and most certainly not accessible to the average home builder.
No. That’s still a lottery and you are basically saying I’m paying more, so I expect a better service. This does not guarantee results. At all.
What you want is a third party.
Someone who understands the trade and the codes and will check in on the building site daily and will make sure everything is being done correctly. And if it’s not, will stop work and put everyone in their place.
I frankly have no idea what the term for that is in America, but we call them freelance foremen where I’m from. Current going rate per month is roughly 1.5x minimum wage in my country.
May sound like a lot of money for someone just doing checking, but that’s only until you find out how expensive lack of oversight can be.
Ask around, many building companies offer these services, so company a builds the house, and an inspector from unrelated company b does the daily inspection. But ideally you’d find a one man band man, who’s really gonna be on your side.
That person is called a construction supervisor: someone hired by the owner who makes sure the contractor is doing good work and not ripping you off, as well as keeping the owner in line and making sure they don’t get in the contractor’s way, delay decisions etc.
Around here they aren’t interested in projects under $5M.
In some parts of the world, mine in Europe included, those guys are required by law and are usually employed by the municipality (but the construction project owners are charged for their services via a special fee).
They take on some personal responsibility for the way the construction project is handled (at least for the things that fall within their purview).
That sounds like building inspectors in the US. They vary widely in competence, but all will ensure the permit fees are paid and property taxes raised; most will ensure the work is done to code; approximately none will ensure the work is built to plan details.
That is annoying part - even if you could overspend and match salary for the guy - it still not guaranteed they will work for you. Mostly because anyone who is good is swamped with requests and can choose what they will work on.
I think Dvele (http://dvele.com) is one option in the US for this. I'd love to hear about others. They build in SD and ship in the lower 48 afaik. Would love to hear other options. Our budget to expand and my opinion of gc's after hearing an unending litany of horror stories are at the point that I'd be quite glad to pay a premium for a known, factory-made product.
I don't know, from experience Huf Haus is (while being very expensive) offering a level of quality (both in the construction and in the details/personalization) that I haven't seen in other EU firms, it is very possible that there are US firms at the same level, though from the little I have seen they are on par on the "other" EU ones (possibly good, but not exceptionally good).
If I recall correctly, Huf Haus is around since forever, before WW1, and they continuously evolved, their solutions are more than well tested, as "perfect" as they can be.
The great advantage of the "fully integrated pre-fab" (such as Huf House and similar) is that IF/WHEN the project is done, the result will be exactly what has been designed, the great disadvantage is that once the project has been approved, NO changes are possible (and again from experience it is a rare case that the customer/owner is capable of fully understand the project in all its details).
Back to the OP question the issue (generally speaking and in my experience) is about coordination of the various figures involved, typically here (EU, Italy) you will have several people:
1) land surveyor
2) architect (here the architect is more about design than building)
3) engineer (structural)
4) engineer (hydraulics)
5) engineer (electric)
6) general contractor or builder
7) various sub-contractors (electrician, plumber, etc.)
The common issue is that each of them (usually) have a somewhat "narrow" view, limited to their particular field, and often (please read as "always") they don't communicate properly among them and with the customer/owner.
The exception (as well usually) is, or should be, the general contractor, but an experienced enough one is unlikely to be available for a single house building or will dedicate to it too little time.
Mind you each of the figures I mentioned are in most cases very good at what they do, but, in the absence of someone who coordinates the project and execution, it is common that the result is not as good as it could be.
There are (were) people (shameless plug I am or was one of them) that while not specialists in anything have the experience and capability to coordinate these people and - also important - "translate" and "interpret" the desires of the customer/owner, the "project manager" and/or "site manager" that could be either paid by the general contractor or by the customer/owner.
Sometimes (not often) the architect (or the builder) has these capabilities, or is part of a largish firm that can provide such a resource for the project.
Since this has a cost, and building is generally a cost competitive field, this added cost is one of those that in recent years has been (generally speaking) either cut or reduced to the minimum (like giving - say - five or six building sites to the same person, which won't have the needed time to follow in detail each of them).
So, in a nutshell (and as always) it all depends on the people, you might be able to find a builder (usually small firms, almost familiar ones) that can do this or you might be able to find an architect studio (as well a smallish, but not too small one) that can provide you with this service, or maybe you can find and hire yourself such a manager/coordinator.
I agree with everything you said, this is why I think pre-fab is the way to go. It's like ordering a car, high industrial quality and few/no surprises. Other readers should keep in mind the pre-fabs we are talking have nothing to do with park homes. It's more like a Lego that is assembled onsite.
Regarding Huf Haus alternatives, there are a few German brands that are quite similar. Baufritz for instance is also old, and manufactures outstanding houses: https://www.baufritz.com/uk. The problem is that, unlike Huf Haus, they are not willing to do cheap (<€800k) projects. Huf can do smaller bungalows, which will be expensive per sqm but still less than a half out what Baufritz would be willing to consider.
For smaller stuff, in the UK there is https://wudl.co.uk, which builds pretty nice things. I also love https://www.echoliving.co.uk, although this is just a high-end cabin builder. Very different.
A good architect will be this third party and hold the GC's feet to the fire. The GC might not care about you and repeat business, but they will likely care a lot more about keeping a good architect & firm happier with a decent reputation. Plus, the architect is used to helping this process.
I thought architects are designers who are not experts on the technical details of things like constructions (strength, earthquake proofness, wind proofing), heating/cooling, humidity issues, electrical installation building codes, proper tubing, insulation materials, sound proofing etc.
That's the experience / knowledge I'd want to hire for oversight.
I don't see how a designer is the best person for that but then maybe my idea about architects mostly being desk-bound designers focused on estatics is totally wrong?
> maybe my idea about architects mostly being desk-bound designers focused on estatics is totally wrong?
Yep, it’s totally wrong. No doubt there are some architects/engineers who focus strictly on design. An architect/engineer is generally “in charge” of a construction project in the US, at least for commercial construction, which is the segment where most of the architects work.
I’m just a lowly subcontractor PM but the GC generally works for the architect/engineer.
Edit: New building projects will have multiple drawing sets: architectural, structural, civil, landscape, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, low voltage systems, fire protection, as well as others depending on the project specifics, but all of these engineers are coordinated by the architect.
Not all architects know. Source -- Am in month 21 of a construction project. Have caught more than a dozen mistakes made by both the architect and the GC's subcontractors.
But that's normal, there are varying degrees of competence in each trade. If someone asks who should they hire to develop a software solution, the answer is "a software company", even if there are software companies that develop awful software full of bugs.
Slightly sarcastic a bit, but isn't the point of all that engineering schooling, certification, titles, social prestige etc some kind of assurance that those people don't make mistakes? Or if they do, very slight ones? In a sense you cannot have it both ways right?
The idea behind is surely that, but it doesn't mean they can screw things anyway... the difference is that they will be accountable by law for it (which is an important difference, especially if compared to the world of THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS")
I guess in theory that would be true, but in practice (at least where I live), there is no accountability. So yes, doctors, lawyers, architects/engineers etc, get all the prestige and social status, without the downsides.
There was an exception though, like 10 years ago where the doctor was removing a patient's appendix and damaged major artheries. The poor patient lost the leg and the other one is not functioning well. They've sued privately (and had top lawyers) and after a very long process they've kind of won some meagre settlement. What was actually interesting was the fact that the major regional hospital never had a "doctor's error" in the last 20 years, only so called "complications" (which was "nobody's fault").
Doctors (and similar) don't get insurance against damages at all. Why would they?
You cannot state such things without specifying where you are. In some places (and/or industries or market segments, even), architects are 'just the design person', sometimes even not really doing technical design but just function and aesthetics. In others they are engineers who do (besides design) very hands-on oversight of all sorts of contractors.
I think statement like this need a country name to be included. I. Germany the architect is responsible to also manage contractors and that they do the right thing. The architect can however employ a 'Bauleiter', a foreman?
This is what a builder would do in North America, they're the general contractor and will generally budget for you, manage the project and the trades. They'll ensure quality and be your point of contact. Typically where I'm at they charge 15% of the total time and materials of the build.
My expectation is that the general contractor's attitude towards quality would be completely random. Some are gonna be great and some are gonna cut every corner they think they can hide from you. And then the buy side of the market isn't sophisticated enough for it to be easy to identify which is which.
And like for renovations, lots will bid the easy project and do it as fast as they can vs ensuring that anything that comes up is addressed well.
> Someone who understands the trade and the codes and will check in on the building site daily and will make sure everything is being done correctly. And if it’s not, will stop work and put everyone in their place. I frankly have no idea what the term for that is in America ...
My thinking was also to go with a reputable pre-fab house provider or a low-energy/emissions house.
I would hope that the higher requirements will set you up with a better builder. Not guaranteed though.
Pre-fab houses/ components do require more rigor for foundation etc.
Invest 40-50 hours of your time, and do the following:
1) interview 5-6 contractors/builders; then, go look at 2-3 houses that they finished - you pick them, don't let them pick. Try to observe bad issues - here's a funny video about "snagging" [0].
2) pick one. Ask a lawyer to draw a contract and have them sign it. The lawyer should be experienced in construction contracts. A good contractor/builder will be comfortable signing a fair contract.
3) find a friend (architect, civil engineer) who will, for a modest amount, be your sounding board, and help you through the various phases of the project.
>go look at 2-3 houses that they finished - you pick them, don't let them pick.
Does this work in practice? How can you "pick them" without the builder telling you which houses they built? Do you expect people living in the houses to let you wander around their homes looking for contractor flaws?
You ask them for the last X houses they've built and pick randomly. People are generally happy to do this: this proves to them their house is good enough for their contractor to show to others and most people don't move into a finished house right away anyway.
I haven't build myself but two friends have had to go legal on the builder and architect. A few lessons from these.
Don't hire friends or family.
Make sure the builder is registered and isn't a director of other companies that have defaulted.
Have a signed contract or agreement in place.
If doing payment in stages make sure that what you are paying for has been completed and has been signed off by your engineer.
Take as many photos and videos as you can as often as you can, use a drone to get to awkward unsafe areas and record video. Include all major structural and sealing work. Even good builders/window installers etc make genuine mistakes, photos of what was done make inside a wall make it easier to attribute liability if there is an issue.
These are some key points from two terrible cases, don't let them scare you and enjoy it.
>Can I just throw more money at the problem so that I'm less stressed and offload more decisions to the builders?
Yes you can. It requires two things:
1) you need to hire a builder who has experience with commercial and/or industrial construction. Hire the same type of builder that you wanted to build a small dental clinic. Tell them explicitly that you want everything to build built with the same standards as their commercial clients. Even if they are well intentioned, you don't want to be the beta tester for a builder trying to expand in a new type of construction. Most of the work will also be done by subcontractors, so you want to hire someone with a list of contacts filled with companies who typically do high quality work for highly demanding client.
2) Hire a structural engineer and architect to check their work. If you can only hire one, the engineer is more important, a shitty finish material or bad interior lightning is easier to fix than a cracked foundation. The engineer needs to be on site to check the work at the critical moments to make sure it's done right (eg. before pouring concrete). He needs to have the authority to stop work if it's bad and/or force them to redo it. they also need to approve the plans and the product that will be installed. It is common practice in government contracts that the builder has to submit for approval the spec sheet for most of the products that they want to install.
Basically, you want to follow the same procedure a large city would use but skip some of the red tape that don't apply to you.
The contract is very important, I would recommend copying it from whatever is the most used one in your region for public work. It's probably gonna be a >200 page monster but it will cover every single situation you could possibly imagine and provide a fair way to resolve the situation.
I think this advice isn't just throwing money at the problem, your suggestion sinks time into creating a mini-bureaucracy to ensure quality decision making. That mini-bureaucracy may in itself may make it hard to source/retain the various contractors you're suggesting.
For example I imagine it would be quite hard to source a small dental clinic builder who does high quality work and is also willing to sign a 200-page city level government procurement contracts without significant negotiation or persuasion.
>your suggestion sinks time into creating a mini-bureaucracy to ensure quality decision making
My main suggestion is to hire an engineer/architect, they will manage all of this crap. They will work FOR you and not for the contractor and money doesn't come out of their pocket when they reject something.
>For example I imagine it would be quite hard to source a small dental clinic builder who does high quality work
It's not, they don't need to know how to design it, they just need to have done commercial work before and be used to work on a project that has architects/engineers watching them. Dental clinic was just a random example. Government buildings might have been a better one.
>and is also willing to sign a 200-page city level government procurement contracts without significant negotiation or persuasion.
In every region, there should be one contract that everyone is used to work with and that is fairly balanced. You should not write a new one or try to negotiate clauses. They are long because they have a clause for almost every possible type of conflict that could happen. No one actually reads them cover-to-cover because it's mostly just common sense or things that don't apply but someone has to put it in writing to make it official. If the project goes well, you will never open it.
It provides instructions on things like how to approve an extra and payment schedules, how to fire them, how to reject work, how to contest a decisions from the expert, maximum delays for important things, etc. If you want a hands-off approach, it will protect you. The more involved you want to be, the less you need it.
I've done this twice by hiring a family friend as the builder once, and hiring a one-man builder another time, both times it worked out for me, was mostly headache-free, they both had excellent worksmanship. I built with a big company once and it was a nightmare. There are always headaches though, you need to expect them so you don't go crazy when it inevitably arrives. Good luck! :)
You might have trouble finding good builders for such a small job. Depends on the market I suppose. Also you'll run in to restrictions on some land, some areas will not let you build really small places that are out of proportion to the neighbourhood. Depends how fancy you're talking.
But doing a really nice small space is a great strategy for saving money. You can use nice materials since you dont have a lot. Doing a lot of quality built-ins (cabinetry and the like) also will make a huge difference -- and is a necessity when going small.
I've only built two houses for myself that are large custom builds. Dont really know about kit homes. From what I hear that they dont really solve a ton of money as people always overestimate the cost of the structure and underestimate site prep and finishing which are the same whether your house is custom or pre fabricated.
Small but bespoke. It's the only way. Stuff, the actual materials things, they have their own designs. Better to shape them in your image, than have them shape you in theirs.
My tip is get yourself an experienced independent agent/manager to supervise the build - or treat it as one semester of a college course on how to build houses, and accept the costs that you would expect (with the full realisation that you are going to have to do two more to "graduate").
When I first did projects I got caught repeatedly with items that were not on the spec sheets or costings - but were 100% required. This is one of the ways that builders manage price competition with the inexperienced. They 100% know what the rate that is likely to get quoted will be, if they want the work they will quote lower than that and will use overruns to make back to the market or somewhat above (because by then you are stuck).
An experienced project manager will catch 95% of these issues some will sneak through but they will also have the contacts to get these sorted if the builders are unreasonable. You will pay out a chunk to employ this person - sure - but this will pay you back just with the cost overrun issue (in my experience) and at the same time you will have much less day to day work on your plate. So, it's basically a "free" assistant.
Also, what's a good job? You have ideas... but experienced builders (and your manager) will know where it's really smart to spend your money.
I am just about to start construction of 750 sqft home this year. We decided to go with cross laminated timber building. Manufacturer builds walls inside their factory, bring it to construction site and put it together within day or two. The main disadvantage is that it just a "bit" more expensive.
Hire an architect. Find the directory of registered architects in your state or country, browse through the listings and chose a few that are within a hour or so of your location that do work that you like. For each architect, choose some houses on the architect’s website and ask if they will put you in touch with the owners and if they would be happy to show you around one of them. Ask the architect what went wrong and how they dealt with it. (Something goes wrong on every project). You should get a good feel for if the architect is someone you can work with from this process, you will be in a relationship with them for at least a year and a half and building is expensive and stressful. If you hire an architect for a full service they will also take care things like permits, sourcing some reliable contractors to choose from, quality control for the build process.
Ask your architect to show you visuals of what the house will be like, I guarantee you you can’t read plans like we can. They don’t need to be hyper expensive realtime ray traced renderings, if your architect works in 3D you can sit with them a look at the computer model we work with day to day, that’s enough to understand what it will be like.
Designing a house with an absolutely fixed budget is only possible if you are building a new build house on a flat serviced site and you give a minimal brief and don’t change it after the outline design and you allow a contingency. This practically never happens. After giving you a lowball hard limit on how much they have to spend I draw them a small house and pretty much all clients like to make their houses bigger as the project progresses. I always warn clients that they are going over budget because of extra floor area and I warn them not to get bamboozled into choosing insanely expensive kitchens and finishes by salespeople, but it still happens on most projects. Don’t make last minute design changes, someone will make a mistake and it will cause a cascade of changes that will cost you more or compromise the design. Don’t base your idea of what a decent budget in $/sqft is on what your neighbour self built 15 years ago, or what someone on a TV program about building houses said; the neighbour typically omits lots of costs when telling them how much their build cost e.g. groundworks, services connections, etc. Likewise the budgets people say on TV are usually absolute bullshit. Also remember that your architect doesn’t have total control over the price; what you get quoted by the contractor is what they think the market will bear and this can change considerably over the course of the 6-12 months it will take to get your permissions and finalise the detailed design.
Ok, I figured. Yeah honestly some of the new homeowner subreddits make me glad to be in an apartment. Apartment isn't perfect but it basically works and I never have to think about maintenance, vs. some noobs where it becomes 5-10 hours of work per week.
I'm not sure what you're trying to avoid. After the plan is finalized, there is a discussion between the builder and owner about materials and furnishing (e.g. flooring, countertops, cabinet style, siding, roofing, HVAC, lights, paint, etc). But once those decisions are made, it's (hopefully) off to the races. That's the way it'll be with a budget builder or a luxury builder.
The actual construction is what is crucial. All builders and their subcontractors will be in a hurry to get the job done so they can move on to the next job. I expect most are professionals and care about doing a good job, but there are plenty who are OK with a shoddy job. They'll be most likely gone when the problems in their workmanship is done.
Hang out in /r/HomeImprovement for a while and you'll see all sorts of contractor fuckups.
Getting a good builder and subcontractors is a crap shoot. My wealthy neighbors a few years ago wanted to build their dream/final home. The builder left halfway through. They found a new builder and eventually completed the project but way past the original date. They finally moved in and had to deal with so many issues that it was hurting their marriage. After about a year, they decided to sell the house. The new owners were still dealing with construction issues (for example, the crawlspace wasn't properly waterproofed and had significant water intrusion).
If you want to be hands off, buy an existing house and hire a really good inspector to tell you what kind of shape it's in. Some inspectors don't do a very good job either, so...
If you want to do things properly: you ("the investor") get a "investor's supervisor" which is a person that goes to the building site daily and checks that everything is done properly. For example every time there is something that's going to be covered up and not possible to inspect later, the contractor's crew has to wait for approval of the investor's supervisor before covering it up and continuing the work (simple example -- pouring foundations).
If they don't call your guy to sign off on it, he makes them redo that part. This is the only way to be sure they didn't just throw some garbage there or quickly covered up some shoddy work or usage of cheaper materials than agreed.
Note that you can't rely on the builder's supervisor for this, it has to be your guy. Some architects can come check the site and supervise a bit, however this is not enough and you still need an actual supervisor.
So you can kind of throw more money at it, but you still need to know what you're doing. Perhaps the closest to what you are saying is finding an architect that has reliable contractors in their rolodex. It won't save you from having to run the project properly, but there are going to be fewer issues.
Long answer: you need someone experienced you can trust. In my case it was a neighbor who owned a construction company that had built his own house. We just told him to build ours to the same spec.
Caveat one: it's more expensive. I don't own a construction company, so our spending budgets were different.
Caveat two: you will still find things you wish you had done differently. Either because you have different priorities or because your circumstances are different. In my case, he routed all the wiring through the walls with no convenient way to access or replace them. When you have electricians and drywall installers literally at your beck and call, it's not a problem: you finish up early one day, drive the guys home with some sheets of drywall in the bed, they rip up the wall, replace or add another cable, fix the drywall and go home. When you're a homeowner with a cordless drill and a hammer, you'll want everything done with maintenance in mind.
Even if you find a person you can trust to oversee the construction, you'll still want to learn enough to understand (!) and communicate your requirements to him.
1000 square feet is so small there isn't much to do and only so many ways to design it. IMHO you could easily find a small bungalow of that size, have the interior ripped out and taken down to studs, then totally rebuilt to exactly the layout you want and still be way under the cost of commissioning an architect to design something from scratch.
I'm intrigued to see that you consider 1000 sq feet (100 sq m) to be "so small". It's twice the size of the first house I owned (which was also 2 bed, and pretty typical starter size here) [1]
To me 1000 sq feet for 2 bedrooms sounds fantastic. So many ways you can use that space creatively. So many different layout options and shapes.
My recommendation would be to start with an architect. Given a good budget and defined parameters you should get something really good. And (at least here, don't know about there) architects like to be project manager as well to make sure their baby is executed well.
[1] starter apartments here can be under 200 sq feet. Not sure who wants that (they are typically quite expensive) but someone is buying them.
If you built a 1000sf detached home in North America you'd have a hell of a time selling it later on outside of some very specific conditions as it'll not be much cheaper than a 1500-2000sf home.
Home costs do not scale proportionately with their square footage. For example you still have one refrigerator in most homes regardless of size, one front door, pay base flat fees for services and trades just to show up, permitting fees, etc.
Along the same lines, adding bedrooms is basically free in terms of additional maintenance. Especially if you are not actively using them. All you will need to do is vacuum/sweep and dust in there once a month, maybe less often than that.
The only marginal financial cost will be energy required to heat and cool the space. Seeing as the original commenter is in the SeaTac area, with a temperate climate, one would think total energy costs tend to be low (I do not live there so I could be wrong).
In my market (smaller western us city), there are roughly 730 detached single family homes in the market. Only 25 are less than 1000 sq feet and none of those were built in the last 40 years.
It’s not that there aren’t any options that size, I happily spend the first decade of my adult life in residences that size, but dwellings that size are almost exclusively condos/apartments in the US. Others have noted some good reasons for that.
I'm living in the US but from a country where houses are generally smaller. Lots of land here in the US in suburban subdivisions seem to have minimum size restrictions. I think a few lots I looked at had minimums of 2500 sq ft. You don't have the freedom to build a smaller house.
In America a 1000 square foot house is small, it's just a fact. I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, and I live in 1300 square feet. But American family home buyers expect 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, a den, etc. and that just isn't possible in 1000 square feet.
Building form scratch with an architect in America is also very, very expensive. I know folks that have gone down that route and it easily doubled the final cost of their home. What could have been a 250k property cost over 500k when all was said and done. It's just not common to see done unless you are wealthy.
1000 square feet is only small in the USA. 1000 sqft is the average size of a home in Japan. 50% are smaller. There's plenty of creative ways to use 1000 sqft
This is a good idea. What I've run into is that bungalows like this exist in my area (Greater Seattle/Tacoma) but look like shit and were built 80-100 years ago. My research has shown that older homes have all manner of issues with plumbing, electrical and so on. So rebuilding it from its guts looks like it could take care of a lot of that.
Not sure where you are, but prefabs, especially panelized ones are popular choice recent years in europe. Customizable layouts, fast to build, affordable, great on energy consumption, better in earthquakes etc. Downsides would be that foundations and roof are built the same as traditional build, have to be careful what you nail through the walls (US people will be familiar with it since drywalls..), and statics-wise it's what you build initially (so if you want more floors, do it initially) and that's it whereas with traditional brick and mortar you can usually (usually provisioned) build another floor.
Although, note, the final time to turnkey may not always be much faster, depending on the market conditions.
The traditional builders told us about 24 months at current lead times.
The modular builders told us 15-20 months, but two separate modular builders told us that anyone claiming less than 18 months is probably lying and reality is closer to 24 months even for modular.
Only to confirm that anything between 18 and 24 months for building a house is plausible, anything less is usually "wishful thinking", there may be some particular exceptions, of course, but my (close to 40 years) experience in the field tells me that whenever someone tells you 12 months or so they are forgetting half of the things needed or they are overly optimistic.
And, to respect an 18 months timeline, you need a supervisor and accurate site and construction planning and a bit of luck, if any of these lack, it is going to take 24 months +.
>You want them always watching their back and being dissatisfied
Ah yes, don't let the proles be happy. You sound horrible to work for. Of course, if your boss did this to you at work, there would be endless complaints.
Sometimes the builders are also the carpenters. I would go with one of those because they will do arguably the most important part right, and they will likely have worked with the foundation team before. Electricians and plumbers often have to be certified so there is less concern there.
Getting educated so you can ask questions and observe that they properly seal the house for air and moisture is a good idea. PGH is a good resource and so is Matt Risingers channel (Build Show).
Consider tapping networks. If you find an architect you like they may know a good builder and vice versa.
Matt's channel seems to focus on innovative technology. For a slightly more traditional approach to a "spec" (speculative) house-building process, see
the "Essential Craftsman" series of 150 videos by Scott and Nate Wadsworth
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRZePj70B4IwyNn1ABhJW...
Scott is the builder, and Nate, his son, the videographer and editor. The subject matter is clearly and honestly explained, and the video, sound, and editing is generally professional quality. From survey and site prep all the through to finish and completion, I would recommend it to anyone in the US considering a bespoke or custom home.
This is probably true in the US, but in UK/Europe most buildings are made of brick/stone. People seem to think builders are dumb, but it's a very complicated job really if you are working on lots of different types of housing.
> I'm looking at building a home as a first time home owner in the next few years. One thing I'm wondering is how many headaches can I avoid if I just choose an expensive builder and not try to haggle or save a buck at every turn?
Look for architects and builders that have certifications or at least interests in Passiv house (PH) designs.
You don't need to go all the way to that level (which may cost more), but the folks interested in it will be more atuned to building science and the little details needed to achieve results.
The Pretty Good House folks created the book and 'movement' because they felt that PH was "too much" for a lot of people (builders, owners), but wanted something better than 'just' code.
The PGH folks run a podcast called BS and Beer: BS = building science. They encourage folks to hold local gatherings of builders on the topic of BS, which is how their podcast started. You may wish to see if there are any folks that hold such meetings in your area.
It’s hard. We just tried that with a design-build firm and they managed some very impressive fuck ups.
If I was gonna do it again, I would:
1) hire a separate, independent architect
2) spend more money on lawyers to review contracts up front
It’s not about haggling over pennies. It’s about catching the big fuckups while they’re little fuck ups. Also double-checking everyone’s math and putting eyes on the work every single day.
If you're willing to pay more for a better result, one option is a design-build architect, or an architect who has built houses locally and can hook you up with good contractors to get bids from.
Some of the things you pay for when you hire the most expensive builders may or may not have value for you. Expensive builders invest a lot in communication with clients. You'll have a point of contact and possibly even a web portal to help you follow the progress of construction and keep an eye on expenses, just like on a big commercial project. The amount of money you pay to get that might be better spent on better design or better materials.
If you just want the house to be built well, you don't necessarily need to go that high-end, but it's a good idea to work with somebody experienced who can help you pick the right contractor and be your representative in dealing with them through the build process.
If you want to throw money at the problem here are my suggestions.
Find a good architect that knows the building codes and is at least educated in structural engineering.
Second, you can hire someone to manage the quality of the work. This can cost between 8-12% of the project bid. They make sure work is being done to a proper standard and will can deal with the contractor if something is lacking.
It is just going to take time. You can't build until you have permits. You can't get permits without a structural engineer drawings. You can't get a structural engineer until you have architect drawings. It all just takes time. Not to mention Our contractor was a year out.
Also, availability is still difficult on a lot of items. The windows we wanted were 26 weeks out. Our tile unavailable. If you like off the shelf junk from Home Depot, then you can avoid some of that waiting, but otherwise you have to simply wait.
I believe the key is finding a generic contractor (supervisor) who is reliable and scrupulous, responsible and at the same time experienced in the construction industry practices, not afraid of quarrel and confrontation with shady contractors. Money helps as motivator and allows not to rush things through but alone is not a guarantee. Lots of independent and diverse professionals and groups with own agenda and attitude need to act in symphony to produce a satisfactory result. Not an easy feast, despite of the collective wisdom accumulated throughout the centuries construction quality suffers in most cases, to a varying degree, occupants need to get used to and ignore troubles avoidable for long long time in theory (and in practice too with the proper care).
A key component is project management, which is a job which requires a considerable amount of engagement, technical understanding, people skills and financial savvy.
I was effectively the PM for our renovation, and it turns out I suck at enough of this to never want to do it again, and this was on a pretty small place. If you've got additional cash to spend, I'd invest in having a good plan (architect) and management (ideally not you/partner or the architect).
It's like a big software project, right? You can have the best coders in the world, but if they're poorly managed and just making it up as they go along, then you're not going to get it done as fast and well as otherwise.
I recommend a look at https://healthyhomebuilders.com/ and reading their book, in particular. They explicitly use closed-cell foam and appear to use ZIP-system outer sheathing. The methods they advocate seem in agreement with high-performance building, with extra attention to indoor health. They claim the latter can be done with reasonable extra cost. The book is very informative. I found it at the library when I went specifically to look for Pretty Good House.
What you want is a good building site supervisor, who is experienced in the construction industry in general, the scale of the building under construction in particular and the local region and any peculiarities involved, as well as being fastidious and quality-focused. That's AFTER you've obtained a good, site-appropriate, well-specified design from a good architect.
Having all aspects of a bespoke residential build go well takes a lot of effort, planning, attention, money and luck. I wish you well!
No. You kind of have to know what to look for and still spend lots of time with the selected general contractor. My current gold standard of a good general contractor is Hammer & Hand out in the US Pacific Northwest [1]. Their attention to detail is more than what you see in the industry.
IMO, yes. I'm probably biased because this is basically our business. Key is finding a good build team (this could be independent architect and builder, a design-build firm, etc.), and critical that they have good trade partners (plumbers, HVAC, electrical, etc.). Do not shirk checking references and doing the legwork, but the good builders are out there.
I'd suggest buying something that's already built, if at all possible. I'm going through a custom build myself right now, and I would definitely not recommend it unless it's the only option to get what you want and you're prepared to get very hands on.
Consider a separate architect to design the place with you. They can help find a general contractor to be the "builder", but also serve as an owner's representative to oversee construction intent. They want the design done well, as well.
Get a good architect or prefab. Hard to really control for better build quailty unless someone with knowledge inspecting on site, has connection with good crew, or adverse conditions of building in open controlled.
In my experience, price is not correlated to value with tradespeople. Price is usually correlated to honesty. It’s easy to get quotes for jobs that have a huge range in price and it’s often the least expensive that will do the work right. They don’t quote you what their rate is. They quote you what they think they can get out of you. The price is correlated to how much money you have. The quality is correlated to how much you know and pay attention.
Can I just throw more money at the problem so that I'm less stressed and offload more decisions to the builders?
Do you think that would work with paying someone to write some code for you? Do you think that the highest paid consultants write the best code? Of course not. There's a high probability that you'll just pay more for a badly written app. You need someone who you know cares about the product, who comes recommended by people you trust, and ultimately someone who you can check on and verify that they're actually doing a good job.
Here double pane has been the standard for about a century and triple pane after the eighties. No problems whatsoever. I don't even know what's the standard nowadays.
Newer windows also quiet down traffic well and reduce the drafty feeling.
So there are really very few excuses to not use them.
But I don't know what's the name of the phenomenon when someone who uses some primitive technology comes out with all kinds of esoteric reasons why they would not like to use these. Can't use an electric car. Can't use fluorescent or led lights. Can't use a heat pump. Can't use induction stoves. Can't put insulation into walls. Can't use double or triple or quadruple pane windows.
"Does light really come through a multiple pane window". Yes it does.
I don't know what to call it on the consumer end, but on the builder side, it's often just laziness and greed. If they don't know how to work with a material, then it sucks. If it's hard to hire subs that know how to build something, then it doesn't meet code and won't pass inspection. If they misbid it, it will never work and needs to be redesigned.
In short, building contractors are a lot like software developers. There are some who keep up with the new materials and building systems and are excited to see new design techniques, and there are others who feel a sense of personal grievance that what they learned before they were thirty won't carry them all the way to retirement.
If energy was predictably more expensive, that would be one way to sort it out. You wouldn't buy a house or an apartment without analyzing living costs. Contractors would suddenly get very interested in building more energy efficient housing.
I've also heard that in Russia, pensioners get a free amount of energy per month. That leads to a lot of wastage. For example if the pensions could be in cash, then the person would be motivated to save energy.
You do need cultural change too though. One way is to just demand visibility, not make any demands on actions. We have a published "energy class" for apartments and houses here. Our current apartment is class F or so - so we know our living cost is more sensitive to district heat prices than a class B apartment would be (those are newer and have in general higher purchase price).
You can measure the air-tightness of a house, and in the U.S, it has become more common to do so. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of anything else you can do to measure the quality of a build after the fact. The best way to monitor quality is for somebody knowledgable to keep an eye on construction.
However, it has its pitfalls and critics. Anyway, there the energy consumption is calculated from areas and insulation U values and so forth.
Don't know what would be the actual biggest problems against launching something similar elsewhere like in USA.
Probably one could build a software product to estimate these things. Especially easy during construction if the drawing data can be used directly. If things are drawn with CAD that is. But it might be relatively easy to estimate even from photos of paper drawings...
Estimates done from the design are pretty common, and BIM programs (Building Information Management) like Revit integrate all of the construction details into the design model, so they are able to automate some of those calculations. But BIM programs are not great design tools (not sure if that's an inherent conflict or if there simply aren't any good ones) so they are not popular for smaller jobs like single-family homes where you can use drawings produced directly from a tool that provides a better user experience for design.
Unfortunately, the drawings don't give you any assurance that the construction details are done correctly. Corner-cutting aside, a contractor may depart from the design with good intentions and accidentally create a thermal bridge that sucks heat in or out of your house.
Drawing estimation, outside vs inside temp + heating energy monitoring, heat camera pictures and some kind of other measurements could probably create a reasonable certificate that would be reassuring to house buyers. Or even if the owners are the same but there was some significant renovation being done, one could do that to see if the renovation was done properly.
To be a bit more charitble, I think there are builders who choose mastery of an older skillset over good enough with an evolving set of new skillets. I don't think that's such a bad thing, to be honest. Compared to software, in a building, it's a lot more expensive if you mess up.
I agree, that's cool, but some contractors take it a step too far and bid projects on the assumption that they can replace unfamiliar techniques, materials, and design details with alternatives they can do more cheaply and easily, and then they make themselves into a problem much later in the project when the client doesn't agree to the alterations.
I think it's something that contractors even do in good faith. They read drawings and think, "Oh, I know a lot of ways to speed this project up, they're going to be super happy with my bid." They can see it'll be easier if they use a different material, move a door twelve inches this way, move the electrical to another wall, replace a difficult detail with an easier one, etc. They've probably worked on projects where those details are chosen without much care, and the client is delighted if they can speed up the project a bit by changing them.
On windows: the seal between single pane windows never fails, because it does not exist. The original windows in my house have been working for 110 years. I put storm windows over them in the winter to get a little extra efficiency.
Some of the double panes added during the 90s remodel have busted seals and need to be replaced.
It’s a minimum $1500 to get a window replaced around here with a quality modern replacement. Assuming a generous 50 year life, that’s still $30/window/year for a replacement, plus the opportunity cost of not investing that money. Economically it almost certainly does not pencil out to replace the original windows.
There are quality of life benefits as you mention, but I can understand how someone who likes the aesthetics of old single-pane wood windows would choose not to replace them.
Another difference between single and multi-pane is repairability.
The seal between the pane and the wood is usually glazing. If that’s failing, you need to replace it. You can buy glazing putty at a big box store, and see how to do it on YouTube. With a little practice, it’s about ten minutes/window. $15 in materials will do a dozen or so.
If it’s leaking between the wood, you need to caulk. That’s $3-$13 in materials/tools (depending on if you already have the gun) and a couple minutes labor.
You may also need some flashing over the top to direct the water away from the pane. This is slightly more complicated. Probably $30 and an hour or so.
If you don’t want to learn these skills, a handyman should be up to any of them.
Multi pane windows also need to be flashed and caulked, just like your single pane. The only piece that I mentioned that is different is the glazing. Glazing can be replaced, the interior seal on a multi-pane window cannot
For that matter, it's not hard to learn to cut entirely new panes for old-school windows, and the tools aren't particularly expensive. Break a modern window and you'll most likely be replacing the whole thing, frame, casing(!), and all—the entire old window becomes trash.
... however, I do prefer the modern ones, myself. Energy loss through single-pane windows is no joke.
While the feeling may be similar to a draft (moving air), the actual phenomenon is radiant heat transfer. The warmth we feel is not just air temperature (which can be less than half), but also the surface temperatures:
If you sit near a heating radiator, fireplace, or campfire, you will feel warm because energy goes from high concentration (fire) to low/er concentration (your body).
But if you sit near a badly insulating window, your body has the higher amount of energy (heat) so energy goes from you to the window. You are the radiator for the window; the window is an 'anti-radiator' (it 'attracts' heat).
The window is still a radiator. Or more accurately, will still radiate heat received from a warmer source toward a colder destination.
Heat tends towards dispersal (currently predicted, eventually, to evenly spread in all directions), so it seems wrong to say that the window "attracts" heat. Rather, it just provides lower resistance to heat transfer than the typical wall.
> But I don't know what's the name of the phenomenon when someone who uses some primitive technology comes out with all kinds of esoteric reasons why they would not like to use these. Can't use an electric car. Can't use fluorescent or led lights. Can't use a heat pump. Can't use induction stoves. Can't put insulation into walls. Can't use double or triple or quadruple pane windows.
I don't know a term for that concept, but another term comes to mind that you might consider: empathy. More specifically, you should try understand the reasons someone might choose a more "primitive" technology a newer one. Your inability to understand why someone makes certain decisions is more a failing of yours than theirs.
What would be some concequences if someone installed two old single pane windows a few inches from each other into a wall.
IE - pseudo double panes via single panes.
Would it fog up like double pane glass with a broken seal? Could you put a desiccant in there? Is there a cheap way to be able to open it if you need to? Could it be worth it because it is more repairable than a broken double pane system -- even though it would cost more?
This is quite common in old buildings in cold areas such as northern Europe, the northern United States, and Canada. Two single pane windows are place a short distance apart. There are also "storm windows," a similar concept where a new window is retrofitted to the outside of an existing single window. Both windows are usually easily openable for summertime ventilation.
The outer window can acquire significant condensation, especially if it's fully sealed. This can drip down and rot the wood sill. The outer window is not supposed to be fully sealed. There's supposed to be an air gap at the bottom so that this doesn't happen, but some installers or homeowners are unaware of this and caulk all around.
Nothing bad, it's the way double pane windows were done here for about 60 years. My current windows right in front of me are just like that. It's impractical for triple pane, then you combine multiple panes to one frame.
There are perfectly good reasons for preferring the primitive alternative for every example in your list, and as I can barely see out of my double glazed window due to condensation between the panes at the moment, they're not without their problems either.
I think if there is condensation between the panes then the sealed air cavity inside the window has been compromised- you might want to get a new window put in.
The large double glazed sliding glass door in one of my previous apartments had that issue, and it eventually became mold trapped inside the glass that was uncleanable.
For most residential home scenarios I guess that's unlikely; wouldn't it be more convenient long term to fix the broken glazed window and enjoy its benefits for the next 10-20 years [1]?
[1]: "IG units typically last from 10 to 25 years, with windows facing the equator often lasting less than 12 years. IGUs typically carry a warranty for 10 to 20 years depending upon the manufacturer.", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulated_glazing#Longevity
> Even the best windows and doors on the market perform much worse than even an average wall
New windows here in Norway are often triple or quadruple glazed, and they have a pretty good R-value; so they are not that much worse than average walls at least.
To put some numbers on "much worse" versus "not much worse":
The best window I can find from the major Danish manufacturer Velfac has a total U-value of 0.82 W/°K/m² [1]. It's a triple-glazed window with argon and coatings.
A typical insulated thin (100mm) wood-frame wall, i.e. the sort you'd use if you were building a summer house in Sweden has a U-value of 0.4 W/°K/m² [2], i.e. twice as good as the window above.
A typical rock- or glasswool insulated wood-frame wall for a modern year-round house has a U-value of 0.2 W or better, i.e. four times as good as the window above.
Wall that are so bad that they're roughly equivalent to the triple-glazed window above are something you'll mainly find in buildings from 50+ years ago, at least in Sweden. I expect Norway to be similar. [3]
'bjarneh' mentioned both triple- and quadruple-glazed windows. I've only seen quadruple used in noise-reduction applications, e.g. hotel next to a busy road. If you have a data sheet for one, it'd be interesting to see what the U-value is.
One of the posters above referred to 'R-value'. It's the reciprocal of the U-value. Wikipedia has good explanations of both, as well as typical values for windows and walls. [4,5]
References are mostly in Swedish, because the poster 'bjarneh' was talking about windows in Norway, so I wanted references for companies that actually sell things in Scandinavia.
> I've only seen quadruple used in noise-reduction applications, e.g. hotel next to a busy road.
The ones we got for our house was ordered with noise reduction, but I think that basically just meant that they did not have that little valve at the top of the windows (ventil in Norwegain perhaps also in Sweedish?).
My situation is somewhat special since I have a very old house (built around 1850) made from a timber frame construction (timmerkoja in Sweedish I guess?). So the walls were extremely poorly insulated, basically just some wool (or something similar, not 100% sure what it was) between the beams as they were put on top of each other during the build. Regular boards where added on both sides of the timber frame, but no additional insulation until we renovated the house.
The 50 year old punctured double glaze windows - that came with the house were not doing too much in terms of insulation either.
Any insulated wall will probably be better than windows, but at least here in Norway, there are a bunch of old poorly insulated houses, with double glazed windows as most everyone got these things installed when they came out:
Husmorvinduet (housewife windows) was popular since they were so simple to clean; and electricity was cheap until quite recently I guess. But any wall with actual insulation will probably beat windows for insulation; although newer windows are not as terrible as the once were.
> so I wanted references for companies that actually sell things in Scandinavia
I guess they are manufactured elsewhere; but I think the ones we ordered was delivered from Røros-vindu, but I could not find any info about actual R/U-value for the windows on their website. Just some info about what types of gas they contain and so on.
We just refurbished our house here in Norway. New windows and 10 cm extra insulation. I am shocked how well the windows perform! Ice on the outside, but nice and warm on the inside. Amazing!
That sounds like the problems that happened when they switched traffic signal lights from incandescent to LED. The incandescent lights put off enough heat to keep all the lights defrosted and visible, while the LED versions could be blocked by heavy snow/ice.
It's a different world. The amount of "fyring" (burning wood on the stove) we had to do before we did the renovation of the house was nuts. Also the "vindsperre" works pretty well.
In triple and quadruple glazing, you frequently don't get three or four layers of actual glass. The two outer layers are still glass, but the inner layers are usually thin sheets of plastic, and the voids are frequently filled with noble gasses like Argon for improved insulation.
Although I have seen in Alaska where they do double glazing windows on the outside as storm windows, then about six inches to a foot inside of that, they have another layer of double glazing. Yes, the walls are super thick.
Somehow I’d thought the voids were usually evacuated but that doesn’t really make sense with the pressure involved. Apparently it is possible to have a vacuum inside but uncommon and harder to manufacture (and you need support pillars to separate the panes). https://www.glassonweb.com/article/vacuum-insulating-glass-p...
You'd still have radiative heat transfer, even if there is a vacuum between the panes. For a given budget, you're probably better off adding more regular panes.
Aren’t new windows often coated with something opaque to IR, that way they keep heat in during winter and don’t heat up like a greenhouse in the summer?
Those are low-emissivity coatings. Very effective in reducing radiative heat transfer. This is why the glass in a vacuum flask is silvered: metals have low emissivity. These coatings aim to have low IR emissivity while still allowing visible light through (IR light gets reflected, instead of absorbed/emitted).
My point was only that a vacuum gap is still not a perfect insulator, so it's an economic trade-off.
That probably depends on where you are. Here in Amsterdam, our triple glazing is made out of all actual glass. In our house it’s made out of four 6-mm sheets of glass actually. So one double sheet that’s a sandwich with a glued layer of foil in between (like a windshield), used as a security component either on the outside (anti break-in) or on the upper floors on the inside as a way to prevent falling through the window.
For the nearly eight years that my wife and I lived in Brussels, Belgium, we lived in an old house (rented) that was built around 1910, and so we didn't have even double glazing, although we did have French Doors, and we had custom-made screens that had to be manually placed into the windows and then pinned in place with a nail instead of always attached to the outside. So, I don't have much knowledge of what current European building standards are in this space.
I do prefer the German-style double-opening windows that I saw in the house my sister-in-law was renting near Spangdalem AFB, along with the Rolladen that they had installed. But again, that was a rental in an older home.
I have been watching Laura Kampf and her "Haus Lise Lotte" project on YouTube, but again that's a 120 year old house, and they haven't gotten to replacing the windows yet.
Any suggestions for an English language channel where I could learn more about current European building standards, maybe something like Matt Risinger's "Build Show" for US building standards that I've been watching on YouTube?
Not really a problem one would be aware of. Double glazing is the default
since 50 years at least in Germany, so the manufacturing processes are quite good.
Still, leakages happen, you recognize that usually by water/steam between the two glass panes. If the windows aren't to old you can just switch out the glass leaving the plastic frames. If they're older (30 yrs) it's more economical to switch out glass and frames.
Almost all my double glazed windows have now failed and I'm looking at replacements, but my fear is that the failures are due to the amount of vibrations this house gets (I'm close to a busy road, every time a lorry goes past I can feel it in some rooms).
From what I can find, the leakage is estimated at < 1% per year. This (German) discussion references and quotes the (German) industry standard DIN EN 1279-3.
Properly constructed, I think these windows are expected to have a useful lifespan of at least 20-30 years. I think the heavier gasses are less likely to leak, so long as the window is kept intact and undamaged.
I'd expect the insulating properties of a gas at normal temperatures and pressures to depend only on the molecular mass. That's 40 for argon, and 28 for nitrogen. This web page (https://www.pressglass.com/noble-gases-and-thermal-insulatio...) says the thermal conductivities are 0,026 W/(mK) for air and 0,018 W/(mK) for argon. 26/18 is about 1.44; 40/28 is about 1.43. So perhaps the conductivity is inversely proportional to the molecular mass? In that's true then it's not a "noble" gas you want for improved insulation, but a dense gas (so not helium). You should be using tungsten hexafluoride! OK, not really: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten_hexafluoride for why not.
The heat capacity of the gas depends on both mass and molecular structure. Atoms like argon have no structure, but molecules like O2 and N2 carry extra heat energy in their vibrating bond, so they have more heat capacity per unit mass.
That's a good point. Perhaps the result of that argon/nitrogen comparison was a coincidence, or perhaps heat capacity doesn't much affect thermal conductivity.
Here's an argument that heat capacity shouldn't affect thermal conductivity in a solid: imagine a block of material with a smooth temperature gradient through it and the temperature at any point remaining constant, so there is heat flowing through it. Now imagine you have some tiny beads of some other material with a super-high heat capacity. Distribute those beads throughout the block of material, preheating each bead to the correct local temperature before inserting it. Then intuitively it seems that neither any local temperature nor the rate of flow of heat through the block should change much. Yet the heat capacity of the new composite material is significantly higher than that of the original material. Does that argument make sense? I did physics at school but not since then!
Yes, I don't think they're strongly related in a solid.
But in a gas, heat transfer is mostly driven by convection. Gas near the hot surface heats up, rises, moves to the cold surface, falls, and repeats. So what matters is the specific heat capacity * the flow rate between hot and cold surfaces.
Thanks for that explanation. So the "thermal conductivities" I quoted above, if they don't take account of convection, are perhaps not even particularly relevant. The advantage of argon over nitrogen might be greater than those numbers suggest?
I'm not exactly sure how they choose which particular gas to use, but I'm sure the lighter gasses will leak more easily.
Conceptually, it's like a thermos bottle, and you'd think that you would want a vacuum, but apparently that's hard to keep intact on windows, so a noble gas between the layers works better.
Yes, but not any old noble gas. Helium and neon, for example, have higher thermal conductivities than nitrogen. So it seems like argon is better for the job as well as being cheaper.
(While every noble gas has roughly the same heat capacity by mole/volume. Perhaps some CFCs would have been even better for insulation, but bad for the ozone layer, of course, and rightly banned?)
> Is the light noticeably more attenuated through 4 panes of glass compared to 2 or 3?
I don't notice a difference now that I have two double glazed windows on top of each other (kobla vindu - I don't know the English word for it), I'll include a picture here:
OK, an absolute nightmare to clean though. 4 surfaces on each window; and dirt/insects etc. can sneak into the space between the windows. But they look old cool and authentic I guess :-)
In the US the rating associated with this loss is called Visible Light Transmission, or VLT, and it can be quite low by percentage, especially in ‘Low-E’ windows designed for sunny climates. The nature of our perception of light intensity means that the use of a percentage of transmission might not be the best measure for the effect. I feel like something like the geometric scale of the f-numbers used in cameras would be more appropriate for how the change in light intensity feels, which I think is the intent of the VLT factor as there is also a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) that relates to the performance of the window in that regard.
Low-e windows are not just for sunny climes - it's arguably the dominant benefit of modern windows. Interestingly, when you put low emissivity layers on each pane, it doesn't matter whether it's pointing towards the inside or the outside. When pointing outwards, it reduces the propensity to radiate outwards, when on the inside it reduces the propensity to be heated by radiation. More layers are good because that increases the number of low-e layers you have - with double glazing, you only have two on the insides; with triple glazing you have 4.
I don’t think you can generalize quite that much - on buildings in heating-dominated climates, low-e windows and their accompanying low SHGC result in rejected solar energy that could otherwise be used to heat the home by day. Without proper shading, overheating can be a concern in fall and spring for south and west facing windows but in my understanding north facing glazing shouldn’t be low-e in any heating dominated climate.
It is a little worse than that: some triple glazed windows are intentionally made more opaque/green tint for 2 reasons: 1. easier on the eye when sunny outside, and 2. block up to half of solar radiation, to prevent overheating indoors
I don't think it was much of a problem historically, but anecdotally the summers have been getting worse* over the 15 years that I've been here. I finally had to break down and buy a portable air conditioner a few years ago.
*Some people enjoy having more hot days during the summer, of course.
Here in South Africa, single glazed is still a thing. I've been replacing all my windows with double glazing. I considered triple but that makes them very heavy and expensive. Benefits are both in hot summer and in the relatively cold winter.
My house in Australia is all single glazed. But where I live summers aren’t that hot (rarely over 30c) and winters aren’t cold (rarely less than 10c overnight). I’ve considered double glazing but it makes no sense really
I was never as cold indoors as in Australia. The houses have no insulation, it's almost as cold inside as it is outside. Even if it's above 10°C in Sydney in winter, it's about 15°C indoors unless you use AC for heating. Add to that just terrible craftsmanship of walls and windows.
American in Australia - the house quality, even if the building is new(er), is absolutely shocking. I'm contributing to climate change with all the heat/cool bleed from my rental. Where I never even thought about the electricity bill from where I am in the U.S., I'm spending anywhere from $60 to $250 a month depending on season, where the anecdata average is actually 2x or 3x that.
Thankfully two or three years ago, we signed up for amber.com.au which will give you real time pricing and alerts so we can be thoughtful about usage in peak demand.
I've been tracking usage via their API for ~two years
I think the “quality” actually goes down as you get newer. They are better sealed and insulated yes but…not quality - especially project homes. I own an old house (1890s) and the craftsmanship of the original portion of the house is spectacular. The 80s extensions are horrible though.
You should mention that Australian single glazed windows are also very easy going on all other aspects of the window and it's tightness to air/wind. At least the older ones.
You will save on heating, though. If it's 10C outside and that cold creeps in, it's going to be pretty cold inside unless you run lots of heaters or a fireplace all the time.
Not everyone is bothered by this though, but I think a house should have at least 21C in winter.
In Sweden, because of the crazy electricity prices, everyone is discussing right now how warm they should keep their houses. The idea is that a good citizen should save energy and therefore let the house get colder (also, to be "green" of course - but nothing like 5x more expensive energy to get people saving). They asked some politicians, most of them were saying between 19C and 21C.. one guy even said 15C, which everyone thinks is BS :D
In Minnesota, New York, and some other places in the USA, 16C indoors isn't uncommon. I turn the heat down at bedtime and my room will be 13C when I wake up. But we're crazy and just like to prove we're tough, so...
Discussion of what temperature a house should be is preposterous. A well-insulated home would obviously use less energy to keep a comfortable temperature than one with drafts all over.
Discussion should focus on energy budgets or total energy use, but that may be hard to conceptualize for the average Sven.
It's all about appearances. Everyone is now driving Teslas and electric Volvos. It's easy to make "efforts" when it shows your "virtuousity" or at least in your head, makes others admire you. You're never going to see rich people moving into much smaller homes that require 1/10th the electricity, which would actually contribute much more significantly to avoiding climate doom.
Different South African here, but I grew up in Durban and now live in Cape Town, with regular visits to Johannesburg (2-4 times a year). Single-glazing is used in all three by default, despite the climate being quite different in all cases. Durban is tropical; winter (we joke that it doesn't have one) is dry, and summers are wet, but its warm year-round. Temperatures can vary quite a bit between seasons in Joburg and Cape Town. Cape Town has a Mediterranean climate; summers are warm and windy, while winters are cold and wet, often getting to 7°C at night (it's a cloudless 25°C summers day today though). Joburg can get a little colder, although its a much more dry kind of cold.
Cape Town. It matters a lot... actually, imagine 5C or even 10C outside and that cold just coming straight through the windows. That means you'll be freezing inside. In summer it also seems to help. Yesterday was 36C here and we had 25C indoors, which would had been much worse if we didn't have roof insulation and double glazed windows.
Somehow I think that might vary a bit. 20% don't have indoor plumbing, I'd be shocked if they had 3-glass windows in those homes. Of course, standard for new construction could be it ,as I guess there is also very little new construction in poorer areas.
People that don't have indoor plumbing certainly can't afford new windows, but their old (handmade) windows are usually double-glazed for warmth (and the part of the house that has single-glazed windows and uninsulated walls is abandoned for the winter.
Source: spent a few summers fetching water from a well and crapping into an outdoor toilet.
You're describing a prescriptive vs performance certification route. The former gives per-component minimums, the latter whole-assembly minimums. Most codes allow both, but most builders choose prescriptive because it requires less thought.
I guess a ntuple-glazed window is going to have a lot less thermal mass than a wall (though presumably depends on the wall material too – thick stone walls will have more mass than wood+plaster). But I’ve little idea what the right amount of thermal mass is for a building.
Thermal mass is usually not a factor you're looking at when choosing windows; thermal resistance is.
In a nutshell, stone, concrete, metal, and glass are very good at transmitting heat, so the inside of your house will quickly be as hot (or as cold) as the outside. Plastic, wood, and especially air are very bad at transmitting heat (or good resisting to heat transmission) and this is what you want for your house. Back to windows, multiple sheets of glass are only desirable because they have an air chamber inside. Three layers of glass mean two air chambers, each at its own temperature.
I know how double glazing works but if you put a window somewhere then you aren’t putting a wall there. So I’m wondering if having a much higher % window (is less wall and more glass) will cause the building to have an importantly lower thermal mass. But I don’t really know if modern buildings would want a large or small thermal mass.
I’m confused by what you write about stone and concrete being good at transmitting heat. I thought the point was that (a) they act as an accumulator regulating the temperature because they take a lot of energy to heat up and (b) they conduct heat poorly (or worse than a window would be mm of thickness but they are much thicker) which is insulating.
Looking up random values from the web, it seems a the low numbers for a thin concrete wall (single wythe means no cavity insulation) are about 2.5x those of a coated double glazed window. A wall which is thicker or has insulation will perform much better. And this doesn’t count any insulation from plaster or cladding or whatever.
I wrote about conductivity here because that’s what your comment seemed to be about. Maybe I misunderstood your comment because it seemed to me that you were implying that windows transmit less heat than eg concrete walls (reading carefully, you don’t write that) and I thought it was a given that they transmit more heat. But my question isn’t about adding windows making a building require more heating but about adding windows making a building’s temperature harder to maintain because there are not a load of big (eg) concrete blocks in the wall releasing their heat into the air after you open the door and let a load of cold air in.
> But I don’t really know if modern buildings would want a large or small thermal mass.
This depends on climate.
When the outside temperature changes, the building will eventually get itself to the outside temperature (thermodynamics laws). How fast that change would happen exactly — depends on thermal resistance and thermal mass.
Thermal resistance acts as an amplifier (or rather diminisher) of that changing force: the higher the resistance, the lower is the force, and so more time for the change to take effect.
Thermal mass acts as a momentum against that changing force: the higher the mass, the more time for the change to take effect.
In some climates (e.g. south Europe) the outside temperature is only a problem on winter nights and on summer days. You are only fighting the outside weather for hours on end. And you can effectively make that fight with large thermal mass alone.
In other climates (e.g. north Europe) the low temperatures at winter can come for months, so you want mass, resistance, and inside heating.
I'm still amazed seeing "x panes" windows that are supoosed to be great with a "trinkle vent"/ aka adjustable gap - at the top of them to let air in/ out!!!
Exactly! I pleaded with the window company not to put vents in the new windows, as my house is already very draughty. They said it’s the law. They are cheap and poorly designed so they let in lots of noise too. And I had to tape them off because of the draught they let in even when closed.
A house does need ventilation. It's incredible how quickly humidity and carbon dioxide build up in an enclosed space from just breathing. The carbon dioxide is bad for you (reduces your ability to concentrate), and the humidity will have to condense out somewhere (on the coldest part of the house, which will usually be the windows, but wherever it is, it'll help mould to grow).
However, getting that ventilation using trickle vents in windows is just a stupid way to do it. You're letting all the heat vent out, and letting the noise in. A better way is with a mechanical ventilation heat recovery (MVHR) system. That sucks air out of some rooms (the bathroom and kitchen are recommended), and passes it through a heat exchanger before pushing it outside, while simultaneously pulling in fresh air from outside, heating it up in the heat exchanger (for free) and blowing it into other rooms (such as bedrooms and the lounge). This is the proper way to do it.
A MVHR system only really makes sense if your house is otherwise fairly non-leaky. However, if you do install it, then it can take over the bathroom and kitchen extraction, and it allows you to plug all those leaks and insulate well, without causing stale air problems.
Nowadays, with lots of places being converted to be more "energy efficient", the interventions are typically:
1) huge thickness thermal insulation on the exterior
2) double/triple gaze (airtight minus the small built-in ventilations) windows
3) NO added mechanical ventilation
The bets are on on how long it will take for people to realize that if they do not vent manually the house humidity/mould will form.
This has already happened for houses built some 10-15 years ago (the first houses built as Class A or Class B) that - even if newly built - did not usually provide mechanical ventilation.
There are on the market since a few years small "in-pipe" mechanical ventilators, including a heat exchanger, basically you make a 100 or 120 mm hole in the wall and put in it a pipe that contains the vent and heat exchanger, they are very suitable to install "as an afterthought".
Trouble is that they work on "alternate cycle", i.e. they suck air from the inside for - say - 30 seconds (warming the heat exchanger), then they push air from the outside for another 30 seconds, and they may be (or become) noisy, new models have built-on timers to be able (as an example) to switch off at night if in bedrooms or switch off in the evening in the living room, etc.
My house has plenty. I’m very sensitive to lack of fresh air, so I would know. The kitchen fitters did a terrible job and left lots of holes in the walls behind the cabinets and the floor is extremely draughty. There are huge exposed air bricks to keep the timber dry which also causes draughts everywhere downstairs even with good carpeting. And it’s open plan from the kitchen to upstairs so those draughts make their way upstairs. I also live on a hill and get plenty of prevailing wind. I spend a huge amount on energy trying to keep warm - it’s hard to know which bits to tackle to keep warm but not to cause structural and other problems…
MVHR makes total sense and sounds superior. I’m sure the builders have successfully lobbied against such a sensible suggestion for decades and that’s why we have (I imagine) such stupid and basic solutions in our building regulations.
I feel like UK houses lack infrastructure that the likes of the US and Europe have. Even kitchen ventilation is such an afterthought
That varies greatly I think. There are a lot of old houses here; built to a very different standard than a modern house. Double glazed windows has been the norm for a long time though, through the invention of the easy to clean husmorvinduet or h-vinduet:
Husmor translates to housewife, vindu to window (housewife window). Easy to clean, since they can flip around, i.e. you can wash the outside from the inside. So for most older homes, I guess it's a mix.
For new buildings; what you say holds true I think.
Speaking for myself here, my house was built around 1850-1861 (no one really knows when it was made exactly). Timber construction covered with boards on both sides; but with minimal insulation (until we started renovating the house).
There are stricter rules for building new homes now, then what they had in the 1850's of course :-). A new house built now should follow the TEK17 standard made into law in 2017 (prior versions are the TEK10 standard from 2010, TEK07 from 2007, TEK97 from 1997 etc.). They regulate everything, from how much area you should have outside to how big a shed you can set up I think. Eco friendliness is an important category though; and these are the minimum requirements that came up with a google search (in Norwegian) for your question:
Unfortunately in Norwegian as well, but they do state how much a wall/roof etc is allowed to leak; i.e. U value. As you can see (with Goole translate at least), walls should have better insulation than windows at minimum at least.
Norwegians build fairly typical Nordic homes. 198mm (8") studs with insulation between is pretty typical. Then another 48mm (2") insulated layer on the inside for services, and optionally a 50mm (2") insulation board on the outside before the cladding is applied. So 300mm (12") insulated thickness + whatever inner/outer cladding you use would be common, but up to 400mm will happen (300mm framing + 50 either side). Thicker than that is uncommon.
U would be I think ~0.18 for the worst constructions but usually better.
And yes, even the best windows have higher U than this. U=0.5 is fantastic for a window, and U=1.0 to 1.2 is common even in Nordic new construction (Standard 3-glass).
Love this new resource. I've been geeking out over what seems to be some near term changes on what it means to build a home. For the longest time it seemed to mean (in the US at least):
- wood
- waste
- lifelong high expense
- manual
and with the sudden explosion of
- 3D printed houses (https://communityimpact.com/austin/georgetown/housing-real-estate/2022/11/17/3d-printed-homes-in-georgetown-offer-new-approach-to-building-communities/)(https://www.3dwasp.com/en/3d-printer-house-crane-wasp/)
- revival of the modular home (really to many to list https://www.dwell.com/article/prefab-homes-austin-texas-f734ce25)
- prevalent home centered tech
- open source communities (https://www.opensourceecology.org)
- remote work
- decreasing solar cost
- increasing last mile internet access
I wonder how what will change in how we perceive the value of a home. If I had a lot of money I think I'd just buy a lot of land and see what sticks.
As someone that has been interested in houses and housing construction for 25 years, the biggest change is on making a house air tight. Specific levels are now called for in the building code. The construction industry is still trying to work out the kinks though and unfortunately fixing the kinks requires ever more equipment, complexity, and cost.
I was talking to a (housing) developer friend who is also into many of these technologies last year. In short, 3d printing and modularization can reduce cost, but not as much as I would have thought 10 years ago. Framing is only 1/6 of the construction code of the average house, with another 1/6 going to roofing and siding. The other 2/3 of constriction costs are things like design, permitting, dirt work, plumbing, electrical, insulation, finishes, paint, landscaping, etc, most of which aren’t substantially moved by the new techniques.
Wood has really good longevity- in the US it’s not hard to find 100+ year old houses all over the place in older settled areas. In Buffalo, NY about half the single family homes for sale are over 100 years old, and they mostly appear wood built.
My unscientific observation is that buildings are more often replaced due to changes in land use and taste than structural failure, and the structural failure modes include foundation issues, earthquakes, fire (far more common in the past), water infiltration, or can be the results of complete neglect.
Anyways, plenty of regions use concrete (what most 3d printed houses are made of) heavily in residential construction. You can look to them to compare and contrast.
> Anyways, plenty of regions use concrete (what most 3d printed houses are made of) heavily in residential construction.
Outside of apartment buildings, concrete isn't used much for residential that I've seen, except for the foundation. Not sure what you mean by "heavily" though.
I've lots of concrete houses on journeys to tropical climates- in my case, some Carribean islands and to a lesser extent SE Asia. The older ones were typically block built rather than panel built. I could also be confusing concrete/cement as I find it impossible to keep those straight.
I heard that prefab components required a lot more rigor and accuracy of the foundation so they go together as planned. This in turn does not go well together with builder that prefer to work hourly rates and cut to suit on site.
A timber frame alone is not really much prefab? Should we not make whole walls with internal and external cladding (whatever tech selected), cables and pipes or a least conduits?
In Australia, homes tend to be more an investment.
The home part just needs to be good enough, the land is the real value. A shit rundown place can be worth millions, just because of the land. The house itself gets knocked down for an apartment complex.
Nonsense. In most of the world you can tear down a bunch of houses, merge the parcels, and build an apartment building.
It might require permitting, but zoning is not an issue, because outside the US zoning tends to be based on activity nuisance levels.
In the US however zoning tends to be exclusive and a lot more specific, so you can (and cities do) zone large areas as single-family residential meaning you can not replace single family houses by MUAs without rezoning the area, a much more complicated, expensive, and lengthy proposition.
Not to mention US-style exclusive zoning also by definition precludes mixed-use developments.
It seem to me that we could have open source full plans for a few models of cost effective houses.
Then builders and prefab manufacturers could bid on the price and selection of parts to build it.
The houses I see builded here are terribly inefficient. Complex shape and roof lines with a lot of unused space. They are made to look like an old house that was upgraded multiple time instead of being one large rectangle or square with simple roof. Furthermore the ratio of exterior walls to inside space is far from optimum, resulting in larger material and heating cost than necessary.
It was fun to listen to Dan Kolbert a while back where he talked a little about this, https://www.keepcraftalive.org/keep-craft-alive-podcast-ep-1..., the (at least partly tongue-in-cheek) quote that still sticks in my mind is that his business was, until he got into high-performance building, "improving the lives of the bourgeoisie one kitchen at a time".
There's plenty to discuss about houses (if you've got time on your hands), but give me a pretty good home. Green? Where I grew up you could drive around in the woods and see old abandoned log houses turning back into land and a few rocks, all on their own. A worthy goal to work towards.
Sidetracking a little, I wish someone(s) could develop a complementary vision for the urban context. This escape to the woods ethos does not scale. Yet, it's the only one that - at least in my impression - has crystalized in some truly homely aspirational bitesize aesthetics, that seems in reach, if only one would just commit.
The closest thing I can think of was maybe "the loft", you know, think 80s cool. But they kinda suck in hindsight. The townhouse maybe, but so dependent on if the actual surroundings are tolerable, a little too large to have broad demographic appeal. Maybe the shotgun. They definitely have that cutesy thing going. Can be spacious, small, simple layouts, lot's of room for craftmanship... Just spitballing now.
It's happening with DADUs (detached living units), with one critical issue -- they're way too expensive for the average person. I'm curious what the distribution of DADUs are nationwide with respect to cost of living.
I'm curious about rain screens. One of the pages says "Perhaps the single most important thing you can do for your walls is to include a rain screen, which is like venting for your walls."
How does that work exactly? Here's how I understand it: I would have to cover an entire building with some sort of a skeleton (layer) of wood, with an air gap in between. And it will cause the rain drops to slide down to the ground instead of the wall absorbing it.
> How does that work exactly? Here's how I understand it: I would have to cover an entire building with some sort of a skeleton (layer) of wood, with an air gap in between. And it will cause the rain drops to slide down to the ground instead of the wall absorbing it.
You have external cladding to protect against bulk water, UV; it is generally metal siding, brick, stucco. You then have a >5mm air gap between that cladding and the next layer of your building:
I think the exterior insulation is kind of taking the place of the cladding or rain screen here. I suspect it also as an air gap. But I suppose you could affix a rain screen to it, although I am not sure if that's worthwhile.
I hear the term "rain screen" fairly often to describe open cladding styles.
Scroll down to "timber cladding profiles" and then "open cladding": https://www.thousandhuts.org/walls
Rather than a more closed timber cladding, like shiplap or board-on-board, there would be a gap, maybe 8mm between the cladding boards. Rain can get in, but with an effective membrane beneath, it's waterproof. And there's always ventilation, so it dries out more quickly. If the wall is built for it, the membrane should be vapor permeable and allow the building to "breath".
I'm not sure if this is as appropriate for your local buildings if they have exterior polystyrene etc. Where I am in northern Scotland many of the buildings from the past several decades are timber frame inside + cavity + a wall of concrete blocks. Those concrete blocks are basically the cladding. They have the same renders as you linked on them. While a lot of people are skipping the blockwork and just cladding the building with timber or metal instead.
You basically want something so that if water / condensation / vapor manages to penetrate the siding (and it always will), it will DRY OUT vs absorbing into whatever the next layer is.
As others have described there are wraps. We just used firring strips made out of PVC. Others do it with ripped strips of pressure treated 2x4s.
You SHOULD still do it over the exterior insulation if it is there, so there is a space for things to dry out.
The reason you see old 100+ year old uninsulated houses standing is that, while they were crappy for retaining heat and combatting airflow, they did at least always dry out after they got wet. This is even more important in a modern home where all your materials are preventing that drying out, so you have to plan for it.
I always assumed that "defenestration" was one of those words like under/overwhelmed where it's only ever used with a prefix. Cool to see a book with a section on fenestration
Some good, basic guidelines here. However a lot is going to depend on your local market and what the trades are familiar with. In smaller markets trying to push exotic techniques, technology or materials is going to be a recipe for suffering. The trades will not do a good job and/or you'll pay a crap ton for it.
Interesting. Looks like a more nitty-gritty complement to the Not So Big House movement that had a moment around the turn of the century. https://susanka.com/not-so-big-house/
My wife and I have entertained the idea of a bigger house for quite some time.
Well, that boat has sailed. Building has pretty much become unaffordable for us, unless we'd move way out to the country side. And I mean WAY out - we would spend a lot more time every day driving everywhere). We'd also have to build a rather modestly-sized home to fit it into our budget.
The thing is, the only reason we've started thinking about a new house in the first place is that - with a growing family - our current home is starting to feel a bit tight.
The only alternative would be to buy an older house and renovate it. That would possibly keep us in the general area, but financially it wouldn't be viable either. Houses here are usually priced so that if you were to get them to a modern standard, you would end up having spent the same amount of money as if you built a completely new home. Except that the old one will be, at its core, still an old house.
> Except that the old one will be, at its core, still an old house
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
I like the idea of the core of my house being true 2x4s made of hardwood, instead of scam “2x4s” where they say it’s because of their sawblades but I’d say it’s because the mills squeeze too many “2x4s” out of a log.
Why spend more for a hardwood when its not needed in framing?
And I don't think dimensional lumber is really a scam? You can go to a mill and buy rough cut wood still. Its cheaper but it also has its own possible drawbacks, you might need to dry it out, the boards will not have exact sizing like dimensional lumber and depending on your building code and the mill you buy from, you may need to get it graded and stamped for inspections. Ignoring recent price spikes, wood and framing are only a small part of the cost to build.
So my house is from the 1950s built in soviet times from whatever they got their hands on. It's in a quiet seaside inner suburb of a baltic capital.
The house is built from wooden railway sleepers arranged vertically, the whole outer wall are those beams next to each other. Structurally I guess much superior to any 2x4.
There was some insulation added in the 90s but it is still crap.
My choices here are:
1. spend a lot of money to redo insulation, change the windows change all the floors, completely redo heating and the result is still a smallish impractical and frankly ugly house inside and out.
2. tear the whole thing down, recycle the materials and build a truly modern, beautiful, practical, energy generating passivhaus. Will cost more, for sure.
3. sell the thing and try to find a similarly good plot and build on it.
No one uses hardwood 2x4 for framing houses. If they did it'd add, at minimum, six figures to your home cost with effectively no benefit. You can absolutely choose between grades of 2x4, however, and if you're working with a builder you can specify with them.
Nobody ever did. Hardwood is completely impractical to build a house with. You'd have to predrill a hole for every nail.
Also, nominal dimensions have always referred to the as-sawn size: planed size has always been smaller by the amount of planing since small-dimension stock began to be used 120-140 years ago. The only difference is that the actual (smaller) size varied widely between sawmills until the early 1960s, when the finished size was regulated.
In the USA, 2x4s were cut from old growth pine from southeastern Appalachia and railed all over. My home from the late 1800s was built with Southern Yellow Pine and I live in the Midwest. This is not technically a hardwood but in terms of density it is just as hard as most hardwoods because it has such tight rings (20-30 per inch).
Are you saying that if you remove the wall surface of an older house the studs would actually measure 2 inches by 4 inches and be made of something other than pine? How old of a house would have this type of framing?
> Local is good. While we can get materials from nearly anywhere on earth, buying locally typically keeps the carbon footprint smaller.
Is this true? Shipping things from where its more efficient to produce them I thought was better? The scale of ships and shipping containers means the carbon involved per item is pretty small.
It's not about scale, but about the efficiency of growing.
Trees, for instance, don't grow well in areas with little soil. Or for extreme example they don't grow at all in places that are cold enough. So shipping them in from places where they do make more sense then attempting to grow them locally.
I mean I'm sure there are scale advantages in gravel quarries and logging mills, but I'm not certain how much that matters.
The example I always heard about growing locally was tomatoes. Tomatoes grown in Canada, in greenhouse – and eaten in Canada – have a larger carbon impact than importing Tomatoes from Brazil where they grow without a heated greenhouse.
Trees are obviously able to grow in lots more places, but that doesn't mean they grow equally well everywhere I'm guessing. I'm not an expert but the carbon cost of moving things around the world is often quite small comparatively.
Highly recommend the book. I have one for reference and I hand them out as gifts to those I encounter interested in building sciences and pragmatic high performance homes.
It seems like a series of guiding concepts and examples for builders or clients. Custom home building seems to be the main venue for this at the moment, but a layperson like myself can use this to try and recognize a good house or think about how I might retrofit my own. It's all too expensive at the moment where I live, but I can dream and save my pennies.
I don't like that channel so much to be honest. The production value is good but it is filled with product endorsements and shiny new high-tech products
I agree about the product endorsements, but I think the show is engaging and can be eye-opening for someone who is about to have a house built and doesn't realize how much scope there is for mistakes, for people to cut corners or accidentally get little details wrong. Something like installing a waterproofing system is complicated enough that it's very easy for subs to make mistakes, and you need the contractor to understand the system, monitor the work, and call out mistakes and get them corrected. I know the reason he's showing people this is because he wants them to see value in paying him a big premium over the lowest bidder, but it's true and useful information.
Also, on a personal level, I find his enthusiasm for quality to be infectious, and it puts me in a mood to write good software.
ROI should absolutely be a part of calculation, else it would be easy to spend (even) more money on a home that's not desirable or enjoyable. The return is just not limited to money only. You likely want to get most house for your money, by various metrics.
I don't think that homelessness has much to do with construction costs: homeless people are usually not those who have $70k lying around which is not sufficient even as an initial downpayment for a home. The lack of housing is real, but it's more about regulations which forbid to build "cramped", "ugly" houses or "slums", or anything at all near elite houses which may not go down in "value".
"Investment" in this context is personal investment as a primary residence. You seem to be purposefully missing the point or cherry picking a singular definition of the word. The OP is literally a book about how to build a good home for yourself that is affordable. I'm fairly certain 90% of the audience on HN understand the housing crisis that exists and no one here is arguing for more rent-seeking with this book.
ROI: Return on investment (ROI) is a performance measure used to evaluate the efficiency or profitability of an investment or compare the efficiency of a number of different investments.
What do you think it means? "Enjoyment of my property" is an important aspect of a Cost-Benefit Analysis but it's not ROI.
Anyway, it a is a singular problem in an otherwise laudable process.
Using that definition, “efficiency of an investment” is quite apt for the characteristics of a home which do not involve monetary return. In other words, I want as much X for every dollar I put in. X can be comfort, curb appeal, U-value, etc.
I think in the context of this book its not so much ROI for an outside investor but ROI for the occupant owner and has nothing to do with homelessness. ROI is important to look at because sometimes the higher efficency upgrade does not have a good payback over its useful life.
These kind of comments are so irritating. Same kind of attitude living in the Bay Area and some people scoff at how parts of the country use Air Conditioning.
Wood is a perfectly fine for homes. You can build long lasting and efficient homes using it and in fact engineered wood is showing up in some high rise construction. Wood is historically cheap here where as in parts of Europe it is quite costly.
Aren't most single- or few-family homes made of wood? I'm living in in the farming belt (i.e. not the actual forested parts of our country) and over 80% of these houses are wooden. It's mostly apartment buildings over three floors being built using cement.
I live in Europe and probably 90% or 95% of (single family) houses here are wood, both existing and new construction. For larger homes like tuplexes/townhouses and even up to 10-apartment buildings it's quite common. Even single family houses with brick facades often have wood framing behind them.
I work in the wood-construction industry so we are trying to get more people to build from wood, so we have a pretty good picture of which regions traditionally build from wood and which don't. It's really hard to generalize across Europe as usual. If anything, wood construction is certainly becoming more popular, not less.
This is one of the areas that ML robotics companies should look into. Prefabs for whatever reason do not seem to work for the American market. Enough is enough, time to start throwing ML robotics models at zoning and building code regulations, instead of those silly game environments that DeepMind use for their RL demos. Replace those overpriced and incompetent tradespeople and builders. They do not have enough real competition and the work quality suffer. Since importing labor from mexico is politically unpopular, use robotics instead. It plays well with both sides of the aisle. Time for the blue collar workforce to experience disruption.
