6 ms·

2x6 framing is much more common, to allow for thicker (and thus more effective) insulation. TBH, it is incredibly amusing that you diss the (well regulated) wo

2x6 framing is much more common, to allow for thicker (and thus more effective) insulation. TBH, it is incredibly amusing that you diss the (well regulated) wood framing and then propose eliminating all construction regulation. The cost of building homes and other buildings isn't significantly impacted by regulation at this point; most structural elements are standardized such that it would cost more to use non-conventional materials. Some significant costs are simply fixed. Grading land, digging basements, foundation, well and septic in rural areas- these things could only be done cheaper in the short term. Taking shortcuts in almost all cases would wind up with a building needing significantly costly repairs much earlier and represent a terrible ROI.

pochekailov 5y ago
I was trying to argue that building from wood framing is a terrible idea to start with. Wood easily degenerates with time, and without proper maintenance, won't survive even 200 years. Besides, even a car can get through the wall if it runs into the building. The city I grew up in (Kiev) builds only from reinforced concrete, bricks and stone. Somehow, the 2-bedroom apartment can cost 50-100K and such building can still be profitable. Another data point: the commercial building are build with the concrete. Therefore, I think that the materials price is not a significant cost in the house; neither is the labor. Current average US home price is $400K; or 5-10 average yearly salary in the area. Other countries build houses as cheap as 30-40K from high-quality materials. This brings me to the conclusion, that the difference must be the regulations, either zoning or construction. BTW, in many countries, if a person can't afford to buy a house, they buy a land and build themselves. My current understanding that in US you need licenses to perform almost any construction work.
- tyingq 5y ago
  There are some interesting observations there, but I think there's more to it. Several sources say about 30-40% of the cost of a home in the US is labor. Just the bill for the foundation and driveway for a typical US home is $7-15k (or more), so a $30-40k home seems not possible here.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    The notion that markets price accurately seems poorly supported on evidence. In the case of housing: - A chief cost of labour is itself housing, largely in the form of rents (in the economic sense), most especially of land and fiancing (interest), though also through the burdon of zoning and construction codes which further limit supply and flexibility. I'm not a fan of eliminating all regulation by any means, but there's a distinct difference between effective and ineffective or burdensome regulation. Note that the usual deregulation argument of "just let the market sort it out" is what I'm attacking principally in this comment. - Natural resource pricing in particular is exceptionally inaccurate. The entire concept of "nonrenewable resources" is equivalent to "the market price supports use at rates greater than those of formation". This applies across numerous raw resources, from timber to topsoil, but most especially to fossil fuels which are consumed at a rate 5 million times that of their formation. That's equivalent to saying that the incorporated time cost is too low by a factor of millions. - Negative externalities such as pollution, and climate change is a form of pollution, are also under-priced. This is usually seen in terms of direct energy use of housing and commercial space, but it's also present in indirect energy usage, most especially transportation. Denser and more energy-efficient designs would greatly reduce total energy use without reducing quality of life (a/k/a "economic utility"). Traditionally, construction relied heavily on locally-sourced materials. The catacombs of Paris and Rome (amongst other cities) were created in the process of quarrying stone for use in construction of the buildings above. Stone, adobe, half-timbered construction, and similar designs all incorporate locally-accessible and abundant materials, or where nonabundant materials (especially timber) are used, rely on cheaper infill materials outside structural members. Yes, modern construction affords greater hazard protections (major cities don't regularly burn down or collapse entirely in earthquakes or hurricanes), but often through methods that while economically feasible given the market distortions I'm describing here, are not especially ecologically viable. Another element of traditional construction that's somewhat poorly appreciated is that buildings were often little more than structural shells. Beginning around 1875, structures themselves began to be networked, not only with streets as they'd long been, but with utilities: water, gas, sewerage, electricity, telephone, cable, and more recently Internet service. Of these, water is probably one of the most destructive long-term, as introducing indoor plumbing creates humidity and moisture issues which can degrade the most robust of structures rapidly if poorly controlled. Fire is more immediately destructive, yes, but water acts over time. The question is one of balancing one-time construction with ongoing maintenance and repair costs. Modern housing can last a century or more, which is a pretty good return. There are cultures which practice more frequent rebuilding (notably Japan). What happens long term, and whether or not humanity proceeds on a high-tech or lower-technology path isn't clear. Whichever course lies ahead, structure and landscape are likely to see major changes.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  You can build with little to no regulation in the US in unincorporated areas. These don't exist in some states but it is very much possible.
- turtlebits 5y ago
  A properly built wood framed house can last 500 years. The key is moisture control. US home prices are high due to the property value, not the value of the structure. Wood framing only contributes to 10-15% of the cost of a home. You don't necessarily need a license to build, you just need a permit. If you're going to live in the house you're building, you can do the electrical and plumbing yourself (which typically needs a licensed worker).
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    This is only partly true. Home values have skyrocketed due to near zero interest rates- people can buy more home when paying less in interest, so more people can buy. Where I live, this has resulted in long wait times for contractors, shortages in materials (lumber more so than most) to become significantly more expensive, and- as you mentioned- land priced jumping up quite a bit. Also, even if you intend on living in the house, states vary. Between MN and WI, one allows plumbing, the other allows electrical, but neither allows you to do both (I forget which is which).
- zdragnar 5y ago
  I went through the process of planning building a home. The total cost would have been in the 250k range. The only time that a decision in the planning was made due to regulation was to defer putting living space above the garage. The division between garage and living space has higher requirements for flame retardants in the event that a car were to catch fire, so we put it off to keep costs down. Because we were building in a rural area, we had the option to stick with a gravel driveway, which I suppose zoning in most cities would prohibit. Otherwise, costs were entirely dominated by materials, labor, and the general contractor getting his cut. There is only so much you can do to eliminate costs of, say, a roof when you still have to have one. > BTW, in many countries, if a person can't afford to buy a house, they buy a land and build themselves. My current understanding that in US you need licenses to perform almost any construction work. This is only true for plumbing and electrical work, and even that varies by state. Typically, the only real requirement is that the work can pass an inspection. I have done a lot of work on the house I currently live in, up to and including building a masonry heater.
  - pochekailov 5y ago
    This is very encouraging to hear, thank you for sharing this! I am considering building my house (being my own general contractor and doing as much work myself as possible), but I was discouraged by the extreme number of regulations that seem to forbid anything, with just obtaining permits taking years and costing ~25K. Perhaps I was looking at the wrong state. The 250K range that you cite is about 5 years of my current income. I honestly think I can build the house myself faster than saving those money and paying a professional.
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      Mind you, that number predates the crazy surge in lumber prices the past few years. From what I hear, lumber started coming back down, but I don't know how much. State construction code is generally pretty easy to meet- it is a dense, but not unintelligible read. Where you will likely have issues will be zoning restrictions in the US, especially in larger cities and suburbs- as you mentioned, getting permits can be spendy. On the other hand, there are added costs to living in the country as well. Septic systems can end up being expensive if the topography and soil conditions aren't favorable. Likewise, drilling a well for water can also run $10-20k, depending on how far you are above the water table. You might not have access to natural gas, which means longer term spending more money on propane for heat and cooking (unless you live in the south). Internet and cell options will be one, maybe two choices, and woe be to you of your only option is satellite internet (except maybe starlink I suppose). The last thing you want to do is rush into it. Research, research, research. Ask questions, and consider paying a local contractor for consultation before you start.

pochekailov 5y ago

I was trying to argue that building from wood framing is a terrible idea to start with. Wood easily degenerates with time, and without proper maintenance, won't survive even 200 years. Besides, even a car can get through the wall if it runs into the building. The city I grew up in (Kiev) builds only from reinforced concrete, bricks and stone. Somehow, the 2-bedroom apartment can cost 50-100K and such building can still be profitable. Another data point: the commercial building are build with the concrete. Therefore, I think that the materials price is not a significant cost in the house; neither is the labor. Current average US home price is $400K; or 5-10 average yearly salary in the area. Other countries build houses as cheap as 30-40K from high-quality materials. This brings me to the conclusion, that the difference must be the regulations, either zoning or construction. BTW, in many countries, if a person can't afford to buy a house, they buy a land and build themselves. My current understanding that in US you need licenses to perform almost any construction work.

tyingq 5y ago
There are some interesting observations there, but I think there's more to it. Several sources say about 30-40% of the cost of a home in the US is labor. Just the bill for the foundation and driveway for a typical US home is $7-15k (or more), so a $30-40k home seems not possible here.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  The notion that markets price accurately seems poorly supported on evidence. In the case of housing: - A chief cost of labour is itself housing, largely in the form of rents (in the economic sense), most especially of land and fiancing (interest), though also through the burdon of zoning and construction codes which further limit supply and flexibility. I'm not a fan of eliminating all regulation by any means, but there's a distinct difference between effective and ineffective or burdensome regulation. Note that the usual deregulation argument of "just let the market sort it out" is what I'm attacking principally in this comment. - Natural resource pricing in particular is exceptionally inaccurate. The entire concept of "nonrenewable resources" is equivalent to "the market price supports use at rates greater than those of formation". This applies across numerous raw resources, from timber to topsoil, but most especially to fossil fuels which are consumed at a rate 5 million times that of their formation. That's equivalent to saying that the incorporated time cost is too low by a factor of millions. - Negative externalities such as pollution, and climate change is a form of pollution, are also under-priced. This is usually seen in terms of direct energy use of housing and commercial space, but it's also present in indirect energy usage, most especially transportation. Denser and more energy-efficient designs would greatly reduce total energy use without reducing quality of life (a/k/a "economic utility"). Traditionally, construction relied heavily on locally-sourced materials. The catacombs of Paris and Rome (amongst other cities) were created in the process of quarrying stone for use in construction of the buildings above. Stone, adobe, half-timbered construction, and similar designs all incorporate locally-accessible and abundant materials, or where nonabundant materials (especially timber) are used, rely on cheaper infill materials outside structural members. Yes, modern construction affords greater hazard protections (major cities don't regularly burn down or collapse entirely in earthquakes or hurricanes), but often through methods that while economically feasible given the market distortions I'm describing here, are not especially ecologically viable. Another element of traditional construction that's somewhat poorly appreciated is that buildings were often little more than structural shells. Beginning around 1875, structures themselves began to be networked, not only with streets as they'd long been, but with utilities: water, gas, sewerage, electricity, telephone, cable, and more recently Internet service. Of these, water is probably one of the most destructive long-term, as introducing indoor plumbing creates humidity and moisture issues which can degrade the most robust of structures rapidly if poorly controlled. Fire is more immediately destructive, yes, but water acts over time. The question is one of balancing one-time construction with ongoing maintenance and repair costs. Modern housing can last a century or more, which is a pretty good return. There are cultures which practice more frequent rebuilding (notably Japan). What happens long term, and whether or not humanity proceeds on a high-tech or lower-technology path isn't clear. Whichever course lies ahead, structure and landscape are likely to see major changes.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
You can build with little to no regulation in the US in unincorporated areas. These don't exist in some states but it is very much possible.
turtlebits 5y ago
A properly built wood framed house can last 500 years. The key is moisture control. US home prices are high due to the property value, not the value of the structure. Wood framing only contributes to 10-15% of the cost of a home. You don't necessarily need a license to build, you just need a permit. If you're going to live in the house you're building, you can do the electrical and plumbing yourself (which typically needs a licensed worker).
- zdragnar 5y ago
  This is only partly true. Home values have skyrocketed due to near zero interest rates- people can buy more home when paying less in interest, so more people can buy. Where I live, this has resulted in long wait times for contractors, shortages in materials (lumber more so than most) to become significantly more expensive, and- as you mentioned- land priced jumping up quite a bit. Also, even if you intend on living in the house, states vary. Between MN and WI, one allows plumbing, the other allows electrical, but neither allows you to do both (I forget which is which).
zdragnar 5y ago
I went through the process of planning building a home. The total cost would have been in the 250k range. The only time that a decision in the planning was made due to regulation was to defer putting living space above the garage. The division between garage and living space has higher requirements for flame retardants in the event that a car were to catch fire, so we put it off to keep costs down. Because we were building in a rural area, we had the option to stick with a gravel driveway, which I suppose zoning in most cities would prohibit. Otherwise, costs were entirely dominated by materials, labor, and the general contractor getting his cut. There is only so much you can do to eliminate costs of, say, a roof when you still have to have one. > BTW, in many countries, if a person can't afford to buy a house, they buy a land and build themselves. My current understanding that in US you need licenses to perform almost any construction work. This is only true for plumbing and electrical work, and even that varies by state. Typically, the only real requirement is that the work can pass an inspection. I have done a lot of work on the house I currently live in, up to and including building a masonry heater.
- pochekailov 5y ago
  This is very encouraging to hear, thank you for sharing this! I am considering building my house (being my own general contractor and doing as much work myself as possible), but I was discouraged by the extreme number of regulations that seem to forbid anything, with just obtaining permits taking years and costing ~25K. Perhaps I was looking at the wrong state. The 250K range that you cite is about 5 years of my current income. I honestly think I can build the house myself faster than saving those money and paying a professional.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    Mind you, that number predates the crazy surge in lumber prices the past few years. From what I hear, lumber started coming back down, but I don't know how much. State construction code is generally pretty easy to meet- it is a dense, but not unintelligible read. Where you will likely have issues will be zoning restrictions in the US, especially in larger cities and suburbs- as you mentioned, getting permits can be spendy. On the other hand, there are added costs to living in the country as well. Septic systems can end up being expensive if the topography and soil conditions aren't favorable. Likewise, drilling a well for water can also run $10-20k, depending on how far you are above the water table. You might not have access to natural gas, which means longer term spending more money on propane for heat and cooking (unless you live in the south). Internet and cell options will be one, maybe two choices, and woe be to you of your only option is satellite internet (except maybe starlink I suppose). The last thing you want to do is rush into it. Research, research, research. Ask questions, and consider paying a local contractor for consultation before you start.