3 ms·
I like the concept but agree with your point (2). Building codes are already strict and yet often the tract houses are still shoddily built.
by ipython 4y ago
I like the concept but agree with your point (2). Building codes are already strict and yet often the tract houses are still shoddily built.
- biomcgary 4y agoI think the problem with most building codes (that I've encountered) is that they focus on process (use this material, this way) vs outcome (require this much energy, this resistance to fire). This makes building predictable, but stifles innovation. Personally, I live in a passive solar strawbale insulated house that reclaims greywater for an indoor garden, which is very awesome but was quite expensive to build. I bought it for below the build cost after it went into foreclosure after the 2008 crash (so the 2 acres it's on was essentially free).
- lazide 4y agoInnovation in building has a long history of product failures, angry owners, and lawsuits/followup laws banning or restricting it. Generally, it’s a bad idea to be using any construction product unless it’s been around at least a few generations without major issues.
- nordsieck 4y ago> Generally, it’s a bad idea to be using any construction product unless it’s been around at least a few generations without major issues. In your opinion, does that apply to stuff like 3d printed concrete houses where the material is very old but the application technology is extremely new?
- lazide 4y ago100% it does. Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic homes are another - typical materials in atypical layouts. Tons of weird issues, from leaks in difficult to access areas, to weird condensation problems with no solutions. Every building has problems. New styles of buildings or new materials create new problems with no known solutions (or no solutions at all), a surprising percentage of the time.