6 ms·

Excavation is expensive and that's the main reason people don't use it. Trains are hard to build in established areas but self-driving cars, ride sharing, and h

Excavation is expensive and that's the main reason people don't use it. Trains are hard to build in established areas but self-driving cars, ride sharing, and hyper loop point to new ways enabled by technology. I agree that zoning is the big political obstacle. But I feel like some development entrepreneurs could convince some cities and make some great examples of dense livable neighborhoods.

abakker 11y ago
In can't help but think that the only real answer to getting housing to be appropriately cheap is to manufacture it 100% off site and bring it to the site in easy to assemble pieces.
- surfmike 11y ago
  edit: The more I think about it, the more I think this is important regardless of the cost of land. If it became cheaper to "start over" and redevelop underused lots, you could scale up density a lot faster. In that vein, technology to make demolition cheaper/faster would help too. --- original: That's definitely part of it. But cost of land often dwarfs the construction costs. And some things like excavation (which lets you avoid wasting land on low-value uses) need to be done on site.
  - abakker 11y ago
    The major cost in time is also weather related. Materials are damaged if they sit in the rain, things have to be done in a specific order, in many places the livable build season is short (in the rocky mountain states, eg.) and the opportunity fir error is huge. If things arrive as a mostly prefab kit, then things are faster to put up on site, which avoids tons of complexity. It especially avoids a lot of the challenges with multiple subcontractors and scheduling. Making demolition cheaper and easier would be a major improvement. Of course, demolition is one area where care is very important, for safety of the workers and the environment. It is amazing the types of hazmat that are in old buildings and houses. (Asbestos, lead, mercury, etc.) Containing it all is very hard.
- imtringued 11y ago
  Isn't that the whole point of prefab houses?

abakker 11y ago

In can't help but think that the only real answer to getting housing to be appropriately cheap is to manufacture it 100% off site and bring it to the site in easy to assemble pieces.

surfmike 11y ago
edit: The more I think about it, the more I think this is important regardless of the cost of land. If it became cheaper to "start over" and redevelop underused lots, you could scale up density a lot faster. In that vein, technology to make demolition cheaper/faster would help too. --- original: That's definitely part of it. But cost of land often dwarfs the construction costs. And some things like excavation (which lets you avoid wasting land on low-value uses) need to be done on site.
- abakker 11y ago
  The major cost in time is also weather related. Materials are damaged if they sit in the rain, things have to be done in a specific order, in many places the livable build season is short (in the rocky mountain states, eg.) and the opportunity fir error is huge. If things arrive as a mostly prefab kit, then things are faster to put up on site, which avoids tons of complexity. It especially avoids a lot of the challenges with multiple subcontractors and scheduling. Making demolition cheaper and easier would be a major improvement. Of course, demolition is one area where care is very important, for safety of the workers and the environment. It is amazing the types of hazmat that are in old buildings and houses. (Asbestos, lead, mercury, etc.) Containing it all is very hard.
imtringued 11y ago
Isn't that the whole point of prefab houses?