7 ms·

$47k might sound cheap. However: 1. It ignores the cost of land, or more specifically, building permits. Houses are fairly cheap to build; the right to build

by Lazare 10y ago

$47k might sound cheap. However: 1. It ignores the cost of land, or more specifically, building permits. Houses are fairly cheap to build; the right to build one in a desirable area is amazingly expensive. 2. It ignores the cost of labour, which added a fair bit then and a lot more now (cf. Baumol's cost disease). 3. It ignores changes in house size, quality, fixtures, whiteware, plumbing, insulation, glazing, efficiency, safety, fire risk, etc. You could buy what that $47k got you, today, for quite a bit less (the cost of building materials has been headed down steadily). But...why would you want to?

carsongross 10y ago
Do you think you could get the materials (including the finished details) for this house for $47k? Why don't we see $150k new builds with this level of fractal detail and material quality then? Or at $500k? Yes, wiring costs money, but come on.
- Lazare 10y ago
  > Why don't we see $150k new builds with this level of fractal detail and material quality then? Or at $500k? I think you're hugely underestimating the impact of labour, land/permits, and house size. People with $500k to spend on a house don't want a 1250 foot 1 bathroom house in an undesirable neighborhood, no matter how much "fractal detail" it may have, but if they did they could build one. Like...it's not rocket science. The materials are all things which are still being made, and they're not appreciably more expensive now than in 1921. It's not some lost secret of the ancients. It's just not something people do, because it's a moderately expensive way to get a fairly crappy house unless you have pretty unique tastes. But you totally can do it. That's why places like this exist: https://www.thehousedesigners.com https://www.thehousedesigners.com
  - carsongross 10y ago
    The house above is 1600-1700 square feet, small by modern standards, and needs two more bathrooms (which are expensive rooms). I think you could safely double the materials cost to get something close to what a modern family would want, larger, with wiring, air, etc: $94k Labor is typically about the cost of the materials. So double the cost again. $188k A rule of thumb is the house should cost about 3x what the lot you build on does. Obviously this varies wildly, but let's use it for an example, because it gets us to a nice round number of 250k. I just don't see new builds in that price range anywhere even approaching the quality and aesthetics of this house. That's not to say that in rust-belt towns you can't buy old homes of a similar era for around that cost (or much less, if the economy has tanked, e.g. detroit) but new builds in that price range are gonna be stucco sh*t boxes. When I say "fractal detail" I mean that the house has visual interest at different scales: the eaves are interesting up close, at five feet, at fifty feet, etc. It's detailing (often disparaged, and sometimes fairly, as ornament) that requires a level of care and craftsmanship to execute far out of proportion to, say, slapping up a long stucco wall with some flashing. I suppose I'm not going to convince anyone of much, but I think that many of the excuses for the atrociousness of modern buildings are intellectually lazy.
    - lisper 10y ago
      > A rule of thumb is the house should cost about 3x what the lot you build on does. You obviously don't live in California. ;-)
      - lostlogin 10y ago
        Or anywhere I can name. Where does this apply?
        danielvf 10y ago
        Looking at local listings about 30 minutes away from Charlotte NC, I see a .40 acre lot for sale in a reasonable neighborhood for $50,000. homes on the same street are selling for between $200,000 to $275,000.
        lostlogin 10y ago
        That's not something I can easily imagine. A building cost that low just isn't possible in New Zealand as far as I can tell.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    >I think you're hugely underestimating the impact of labour, land/permits, and house size. Land is the only one of those that has really skyrocketed in price. That was driven by politics.
- amyjess 10y ago
  What do you think homes in trailer parks are? They are the successors to this house: cheap prefab homes that you put in a place where you rent land. A quick Google search for double-wide housing brings up this guy for $43k: http://www.montysheavybuilthomes.com/index.php?pageID=16284_2 http://www.montysheavybuilthomes.com/index.php?pageID=16284_...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mcguire 10y ago
  You can't get those materials at that price, if at all.
zip1234 10y ago
Agree. I have a 1928 kit house. No bathroom on main floor (as in this house). How many people would do that today?
- carsongross 10y ago
  Totally. Double the cost of the house materials to get bathroom downstairs and a proper master bedroom/bath and make everything bigger. It's still less that $100k. That's a lot of money left over for land, labor, air condition, electricity and all the rest. You couldn't touch that today, as evidence by the fact that most new builds under $500k aren't even remotely comparable.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >new builds under $500k aren't even remotely comparable. Look beyond crowded cities and $400k will buy you an amazing house. The cost is mainly in the land.
  - zip1234 10y ago
    With kit homes is you do all the labor yourself. If that is factored in, you can get a bit closer. Menards, which is a home improvement retailer in the midwest, sells kits for homes still. See here: https://www.menards.com/main/building-materials/books-building-plans/home-plans/shop-all-home-projects/c-9919.htm?Spec_ShopbyStyle_facet=Two+Story+Homes&ipp=24 https://www.menards.com/main/building-materials/books-buildi... $70k in materials for a 1700 sq foot home.
    - warfangle 10y ago
      And almost all of those fall in the 5-7 range oen the hell-o-meter.
      - lscharen 10y ago
        Well, if you skipped the dormers, the Heathwood doesn't seem too terrible.
internaut 10y ago
> You could buy what that $47k got you, today, for quite a bit less Demonstrate this please. Without materials substitutions. Genuinely interested in the answers. The cost of raw materials is very high as far as I know. You can't get good hardwood, copper and so on without paying top dollar. Same goes for slate, trim. I know that because I am actually attempting to build a tiny house in a traditional style for a little higher than 50k. This would be a very valid comparison because it is; 1. Ignores cost of land. 2. Labour is free. 3. Doesn't ignore mod-cons. I think the real difference is a normal person could have afforded the older house with a legal status!
- WildUtah 10y ago
  Given the hand turned moldings in virgin old growth hardwoods and endangered tropical softwoods, you couldn't match the quality of the original materials today at any price. Near substitutes would ring you well into seven figures. But you can get many better materials, also. Wallboard is better than plaster. Steel framing in essential members is better than the best wood. Vapor barrier, waterproofing, insulated windows. Things have changed. A direct comparison is hard. Changes in land use regulation are going to cost you a lot more than material changes.
  - internaut 10y ago
    I agree. Building science technology has been great but I wish the botany biotech people would get on with making hardwoods that grow in a year with hundreds of rings (artificial wintering). Maybe this is off topic but I have seen no serious innovation from biotech. GM food is mostly banned in Europe, but even outside of food we should be seeing great strides in raw material production to a higher standard and I'm just not seeing it. I feel that most people building today optimize for the cheapest per sq ft, but if you are a builder owner and are a geek, you can really buy some amazing materials and employ some clever methods like advanced framing. You can construct a house with an energy bill of $100 a year if you want. I think the future is in building smaller and smarter. > Changes in land use regulation are going to cost you a lot more than material changes. That's a fact. However I'm going for a tiny/small house in the countryside so I'll just dodge that bullet.

by Lazare 10y ago

carsongross 10y ago

Do you think you could get the materials (including the finished details) for this house for $47k? Why don't we see $150k new builds with this level of fractal detail and material quality then? Or at $500k? Yes, wiring costs money, but come on.

Lazare 10y ago
> Why don't we see $150k new builds with this level of fractal detail and material quality then? Or at $500k? I think you're hugely underestimating the impact of labour, land/permits, and house size. People with $500k to spend on a house don't want a 1250 foot 1 bathroom house in an undesirable neighborhood, no matter how much "fractal detail" it may have, but if they did they could build one. Like...it's not rocket science. The materials are all things which are still being made, and they're not appreciably more expensive now than in 1921. It's not some lost secret of the ancients. It's just not something people do, because it's a moderately expensive way to get a fairly crappy house unless you have pretty unique tastes. But you totally can do it. That's why places like this exist: https://www.thehousedesigners.com https://www.thehousedesigners.com
- carsongross 10y ago
  The house above is 1600-1700 square feet, small by modern standards, and needs two more bathrooms (which are expensive rooms). I think you could safely double the materials cost to get something close to what a modern family would want, larger, with wiring, air, etc: $94k Labor is typically about the cost of the materials. So double the cost again. $188k A rule of thumb is the house should cost about 3x what the lot you build on does. Obviously this varies wildly, but let's use it for an example, because it gets us to a nice round number of 250k. I just don't see new builds in that price range anywhere even approaching the quality and aesthetics of this house. That's not to say that in rust-belt towns you can't buy old homes of a similar era for around that cost (or much less, if the economy has tanked, e.g. detroit) but new builds in that price range are gonna be stucco sh*t boxes. When I say "fractal detail" I mean that the house has visual interest at different scales: the eaves are interesting up close, at five feet, at fifty feet, etc. It's detailing (often disparaged, and sometimes fairly, as ornament) that requires a level of care and craftsmanship to execute far out of proportion to, say, slapping up a long stucco wall with some flashing. I suppose I'm not going to convince anyone of much, but I think that many of the excuses for the atrociousness of modern buildings are intellectually lazy.
  - lisper 10y ago
    > A rule of thumb is the house should cost about 3x what the lot you build on does. You obviously don't live in California. ;-)
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      Or anywhere I can name. Where does this apply?
      - danielvf 10y ago
        Looking at local listings about 30 minutes away from Charlotte NC, I see a .40 acre lot for sale in a reasonable neighborhood for $50,000. homes on the same street are selling for between $200,000 to $275,000.
        lostlogin 10y ago
        That's not something I can easily imagine. A building cost that low just isn't possible in New Zealand as far as I can tell.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >I think you're hugely underestimating the impact of labour, land/permits, and house size. Land is the only one of those that has really skyrocketed in price. That was driven by politics.
amyjess 10y ago
What do you think homes in trailer parks are? They are the successors to this house: cheap prefab homes that you put in a place where you rent land. A quick Google search for double-wide housing brings up this guy for $43k: http://www.montysheavybuilthomes.com/index.php?pageID=16284_2 http://www.montysheavybuilthomes.com/index.php?pageID=16284_...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mcguire 10y ago
You can't get those materials at that price, if at all.

zip1234 10y ago

Agree. I have a 1928 kit house. No bathroom on main floor (as in this house). How many people would do that today?

carsongross 10y ago
Totally. Double the cost of the house materials to get bathroom downstairs and a proper master bedroom/bath and make everything bigger. It's still less that $100k. That's a lot of money left over for land, labor, air condition, electricity and all the rest. You couldn't touch that today, as evidence by the fact that most new builds under $500k aren't even remotely comparable.
- hueving 10y ago
  >new builds under $500k aren't even remotely comparable. Look beyond crowded cities and $400k will buy you an amazing house. The cost is mainly in the land.
- zip1234 10y ago
  With kit homes is you do all the labor yourself. If that is factored in, you can get a bit closer. Menards, which is a home improvement retailer in the midwest, sells kits for homes still. See here: https://www.menards.com/main/building-materials/books-building-plans/home-plans/shop-all-home-projects/c-9919.htm?Spec_ShopbyStyle_facet=Two+Story+Homes&ipp=24 https://www.menards.com/main/building-materials/books-buildi... $70k in materials for a 1700 sq foot home.
  - warfangle 10y ago
    And almost all of those fall in the 5-7 range oen the hell-o-meter.
    - lscharen 10y ago
      Well, if you skipped the dormers, the Heathwood doesn't seem too terrible.

internaut 10y ago

> You could buy what that $47k got you, today, for quite a bit less Demonstrate this please. Without materials substitutions. Genuinely interested in the answers. The cost of raw materials is very high as far as I know. You can't get good hardwood, copper and so on without paying top dollar. Same goes for slate, trim. I know that because I am actually attempting to build a tiny house in a traditional style for a little higher than 50k. This would be a very valid comparison because it is; 1. Ignores cost of land. 2. Labour is free. 3. Doesn't ignore mod-cons. I think the real difference is a normal person could have afforded the older house with a legal status!

WildUtah 10y ago
Given the hand turned moldings in virgin old growth hardwoods and endangered tropical softwoods, you couldn't match the quality of the original materials today at any price. Near substitutes would ring you well into seven figures. But you can get many better materials, also. Wallboard is better than plaster. Steel framing in essential members is better than the best wood. Vapor barrier, waterproofing, insulated windows. Things have changed. A direct comparison is hard. Changes in land use regulation are going to cost you a lot more than material changes.
- internaut 10y ago
  I agree. Building science technology has been great but I wish the botany biotech people would get on with making hardwoods that grow in a year with hundreds of rings (artificial wintering). Maybe this is off topic but I have seen no serious innovation from biotech. GM food is mostly banned in Europe, but even outside of food we should be seeing great strides in raw material production to a higher standard and I'm just not seeing it. I feel that most people building today optimize for the cheapest per sq ft, but if you are a builder owner and are a geek, you can really buy some amazing materials and employ some clever methods like advanced framing. You can construct a house with an energy bill of $100 a year if you want. I think the future is in building smaller and smarter. > Changes in land use regulation are going to cost you a lot more than material changes. That's a fact. However I'm going for a tiny/small house in the countryside so I'll just dodge that bullet.