4 ms·

I've seen just about all of the above, and a few more: * Cheap out on just about anything that you need a lot of (knobs, drawer pulls, light switches) * Cut t

I've seen just about all of the above, and a few more: * Cheap out on just about anything that you need a lot of (knobs, drawer pulls, light switches) * Cut tile or flooring at unusual angles to avoid having to do more complex cuts * Use the cheapest lighting and plumbing fixtures possible I've actually had friends buying new construction homes tell me that they've told the builder NOT to install certain things because they didn't want to be saddled with whatever "builder grade" materials the contractor was going to use. Imagine that! Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a new house, but you already don't trust the builder not to cut corners! Where's the craftsmanship?

StillBored 6y ago
MDF: Particularly in most cabinetry. That stuff should be illegal because the cheap plumbing fixtures will invariably leak, and when that happens now your cabinet is ruined too. I think similarly for OSB, and don't believe a word about how its a good building material, but thankfully i've only seen it crumble once so far. Mostly I suspect because its not been in to many buildings for 30+ years of heat and moisture cycling.
- Lammy 6y ago
  OSB's given me way too many splinters to want to work with it even if it's a fine material :p
lotsofpulp 6y ago
> Imagine that! Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a new house, but you already don't trust the builder not to cut corners! Where's the craftsmanship? The craftsmanship is there, but 95% of people can’t afford it. It starts all the way from the fact that suppose you and your competitor are looking to purchase a parcel of land to develop a community. You make a nice plan that retains nice old growth trees, gives adequate space for eaves, design better than minimum standards drainage, insulation materials, etc. Your competitor draws up plans and cuts all of those niceties out, and saves a few million dollars on costs. Now the competitor can offer to pay a few million more for the same parcel of land. Guess who gets to develop it?
- brendoelfrendo 6y ago
  I think this is true, but only part of the equation. I think you certainly could build a house at average-suburban-prices without cutting corners, but your profit margins would be lower or you'd have to compromise somewhere else. For example, the market has optimized around square footage, $/sqft is the most important metric for many consumers, ergo a smaller but better built house won't sell (or, at least, won't sell for a price that justifies the extra expense). Nobody ever got rich by leaving money on the table. The disadvantage of living in a seller's market is that it's also a builder's market; when homes sell as fast as they're being built regardless of quality, there's little pressure on builders to improve quality.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    The only solution to that is to raise the minimum standards by making building codes more strict. But that raises the cost of the housing, and then you have people claiming the government is restricting housing development and pricing people out. It's all a very delicate balance that gets thrown way off especially due to the securitization of the asset for 30+ years at artificially low future taxpayer subsidized interest rates. A lot of the calculations about value of fixtures and finishes in a house in a high demand area get de-valued by buyers because the land value (and the land value's increase) is worth so much more than the structure that sits on it, that as a buyer, you can't afford to value things like proper fit and finish and materials unless you're looking at very high value homes, otherwise another buyer will come in and take it.
  - StillBored 6y ago
    All things being equal the price per sqft actually tends to go down with the larger houses, because of simple geometry and the expensive parts (kitchens & bathrooms) remain fairly constant. AKA a three bedroom two bath 2000sqft house isn't much more expensive to build than a three bedroom two bath 1300 square foot house. Particularly if the designer manages to get most of the plumbing/etc on a common wall. This fact seems to continue through its lifetime if you compare houses in many neighborhoods, the house prices are fairly similar, while the $/sqft will vary wildly.

StillBored 6y ago

MDF: Particularly in most cabinetry. That stuff should be illegal because the cheap plumbing fixtures will invariably leak, and when that happens now your cabinet is ruined too. I think similarly for OSB, and don't believe a word about how its a good building material, but thankfully i've only seen it crumble once so far. Mostly I suspect because its not been in to many buildings for 30+ years of heat and moisture cycling.

Lammy 6y ago
OSB's given me way too many splinters to want to work with it even if it's a fine material :p

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> Imagine that! Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a new house, but you already don't trust the builder not to cut corners! Where's the craftsmanship? The craftsmanship is there, but 95% of people can’t afford it. It starts all the way from the fact that suppose you and your competitor are looking to purchase a parcel of land to develop a community. You make a nice plan that retains nice old growth trees, gives adequate space for eaves, design better than minimum standards drainage, insulation materials, etc. Your competitor draws up plans and cuts all of those niceties out, and saves a few million dollars on costs. Now the competitor can offer to pay a few million more for the same parcel of land. Guess who gets to develop it?

brendoelfrendo 6y ago
I think this is true, but only part of the equation. I think you certainly could build a house at average-suburban-prices without cutting corners, but your profit margins would be lower or you'd have to compromise somewhere else. For example, the market has optimized around square footage, $/sqft is the most important metric for many consumers, ergo a smaller but better built house won't sell (or, at least, won't sell for a price that justifies the extra expense). Nobody ever got rich by leaving money on the table. The disadvantage of living in a seller's market is that it's also a builder's market; when homes sell as fast as they're being built regardless of quality, there's little pressure on builders to improve quality.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  The only solution to that is to raise the minimum standards by making building codes more strict. But that raises the cost of the housing, and then you have people claiming the government is restricting housing development and pricing people out. It's all a very delicate balance that gets thrown way off especially due to the securitization of the asset for 30+ years at artificially low future taxpayer subsidized interest rates. A lot of the calculations about value of fixtures and finishes in a house in a high demand area get de-valued by buyers because the land value (and the land value's increase) is worth so much more than the structure that sits on it, that as a buyer, you can't afford to value things like proper fit and finish and materials unless you're looking at very high value homes, otherwise another buyer will come in and take it.
- StillBored 6y ago
  All things being equal the price per sqft actually tends to go down with the larger houses, because of simple geometry and the expensive parts (kitchens & bathrooms) remain fairly constant. AKA a three bedroom two bath 2000sqft house isn't much more expensive to build than a three bedroom two bath 1300 square foot house. Particularly if the designer manages to get most of the plumbing/etc on a common wall. This fact seems to continue through its lifetime if you compare houses in many neighborhoods, the house prices are fairly similar, while the $/sqft will vary wildly.