11 ms·

Here's the thing: The idea of planning a house without taking into account the site where it will sit will never produce a good house. Would a pre-existing pla

Here's the thing: The idea of planning a house without taking into account the site where it will sit will never produce a good house. Would a pre-existing plan account for the sun exposure of your land? Would it have a roof that makes sense for how much it rains or snows? Would getting sunlight in the bedroom also mean facing traffic? Would it take advantage of elevation for views or make sure to block a nearby neighbour? Would it deal well with moisture, or fires, or access roads? Would you build a porch where you can laze away late summer afternoons and feel everything's just right with the world, or a place to dry laundry where nobody goes? If you really want to design your own house (a great idea), look up materials around A Pattern Language instead. Learn what makes a great house, then design a plan incorporating those ideas but customised towards your plot and your needs.

samtho 3y ago
I’ve worked in construction, maybe this was true for post-and-beam and perhaps some other methods where you are using what is available from nature. Historically, for example, log cabins are popular in the woods because logs are plentiful and adobe was used in desert environments because of the abundance of sand, lime, binders, etc. I would not build a solid wood home in the desert of New Mexico for the same reason why I wouldn’t build a masonry house in the forests. Today, we have all but perfected the manufacturing of, developed logistics for, and codified laws governing building standards focused on raw building materials that you can order from a lumber yard or even Home Depot. Modern building construction, at least in North America, is based around the “balloon framing” idea that the walls support subsequent floors and the roof, maybe with a load bearing wall in the middle somewhere. With 2x6 framing members, you can go up to 3 floors in some jurisdictions without additional engineering sign off. As long as there is a flat platform to build the first floor, you can build up. The foundation is the only thing that would require custom construction, with a pier and beam, you need to drive your pier 1-3ft below the frost line and with a slab or basement foundation, you also need to reach below the frost line, but requirements differ between codes. Drainage is another area that needs special attention and is 100% custom for each project.
- rascul 3y ago
  > Modern building construction, at least in North America, is based around the “balloon framing” idea that the walls support subsequent floors and the roof, maybe with a load bearing wall in the middle somewhere. I think you're getting balloon and platform framing mixed up.
  - samtho 3y ago
    Yes, I did.
- hedgehog 3y ago
  One nit, what we do today is platform framing. Balloon framing fell out of favor for probably two reasons, one it is not very fire safe (vertical channels in the walls), and two it's cheaper to build with shorter lumber.
- avar 3y ago
  > Historically, for example, log cabins are popular in the woods because logs are plentiful [...] I wouldn’t build a masonry house in the forests. Why not? Perhaps the US is different, but in mainland Europe you'll find plenty of brick houses in the forest. Yes, historically you'd build a log cabin out of materials found on-site, but is anyone doing that anymore? Presumably you'd want logs shipped from elsewhere, if only to get ones that have dried out already. At that point, why would it be prohibitively expensive to choose other building materials?
Dowwie 3y ago
Nearly every new home that has been developed in my town for the last 5 years looks exactly the same, with the exact same floor plan. These new houses replace old houses that also looked exactly the same with same floor plan. It's a fugly two-family townhouse. Good houses don't matter to buyers in a seller's market. Poor architecture, poor execution, poor everything and yet they're selling. Only the rich can afford good houses.
- ilyt 3y ago
  Pretty much. Even if custom costed exactly same money, it still means someone would need to wait 1-2 years before it is built vs just moving in to new house within a month
- turtlebits 3y ago
  Developers go cheap. It's very rare to be in the position to build your own home, as you'll never do it cheaper than a mass market/spec builder. It's almost always cheaper to just sell your property and buy something already existing. If you do end up building custom, it's almost a waste to find free plans, as you'll want to customize to your liking as much as possible.
nradov 3y ago
Reading "A Pattern Language" is, frankly, a waste of time for anyone looking to design and build a house where people can actually live on a reasonable budget. A few of the patterns are decent, but most are outdated for modern lifestyles or appear to have been contrived to push the authors' biased opinions on how people ought to live. Many of them would be ridiculously expensive and consume an unreasonable amount of space for minimal utility. If you were to actually design a house the way they seem to recommend it would end up being 8000 ft² (including outbuildings) and looking like some weird cross between an ancient Roman villa, a Victorian mansion, and a Hobbit hole. The market for rich eccentrics who want that sort of thing is pretty small. There is a reason that book is held in higher regard by software architects than by real residential architects.
- harrylove 3y ago
  I think it's hyperbolic to call it a waste of time. I think the book (and the related books and principles) deserve a critical reading. In the first section titled "Using This Book" he mentions several important details that I think you are missing in your critique. One, it is meant to be read alongside The Timeless Way of Building. It is not simply a how-to manual. Two, it comes from experience gleaned in the field working as an architect and builder. It is not simply highbrow art, mysticism, or eccentricity. Three, the patterns are separate from implementation: "[You] can use the solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice." He goes on to distinguish patterns in which he believes an invariant property has been established from those in which more research is needed. He even states that some patterns are just a guess and shows how to identify those in the description of each pattern. Lastly, he states there is a danger that people will assume that this one pattern language should stand for all time: "Is it not true that there is a danger that people might come to rely on this one printed language, instead of developing their own languages, in their own minds? The fact is, we have written this book as a first step in the society-wide process by which people will gradually become conscious of their own pattern languages, and work to improve them." The purpose of the book and its principles is not to recreate an aesthetic through pastiche. You are meant to use the principles in the book to create your own language that works for your context. A pattern that works for me in my environment may not work for you. That fact doesn't nullify the value of the pattern. The purpose of the two books together is to acknowledge that humans have deep feelings about the environments they inhabit. Whether those feelings can be explained or not is beside the point. The point is that we have them. These feelings happen across cultures and time. When we apply those feelings about our environments to the built world, several patterns seem to emerge. Hence, you get the concept of pattern languages. Alexander takes the bold step of not only acknowledging human feelings but centering them in the discussion about how the world should be built. This point should interest those who are sympathetic to the Agile Manifesto, or to principles of user-centered design, or to product design and product management. This fact is also likely why certain interests are uncomfortable with his work. Powerful interests do not, in general, like to lose power, and change is expensive. Later works, including his series on The Nature of Order go deeper into his exploration of these principles, even the possibility of an objective evaluation of beauty. And yes, there is a bit of woo going on which can make some people feel uncomfortable. We are all capable thinkers. You can decide for yourself which ideas resonate and which do not. Personally, I found that his ideas changed the way I experience the world, including giving me the ability to evaluate the kind of home I want to live in and how to optimize that home to increase my own happiness. I may not ever get the chance to build my own home. But I have a voice. I participate in society. I believe the world could and should do better than optimize itself for money. I believe I am not unique in finding the books useful. (edited for clarity)
ilyt 3y ago
> Would a pre-existing plan account for the sun exposure of your land? Would it have a roof that makes sense for how much it rains or snows? Would getting sunlight in the bedroom also mean facing traffic? Would it take advantage of elevation for views or make sure to block a nearby neighbour? Would it deal well with moisture, or fires, or access roads? Would you build a porch where you can laze away late summer afternoons and feel everything's just right with the world, or a place to dry laundry where nobody goes? Would you, the first-time-house designer be able to accommodate for all those issues? Or even know they exist in the first place? > If you really want to design your own house (a great idea), look up materials around A Pattern Language instead. Learn what makes a great house, then design a plan incorporating those ideas but customised towards your plot and your needs. Horrible idea. By all means be the input in the process, but pick someone that actually knows how building works and that can instantly point out any misunderstanding or lacks of knowledge you have.
worik 3y ago
> Here's the thing: The idea of planning a house without taking into account the site where it will sit will never produce a good house. That is untrue Perhaps not the "best possible" but relocation of houses is very common and practical. Kitset houses are transforming the industry
ShakataGaNai 3y ago
Also, don't forget local building codes. They vary a lot from location to location. You might theoretically be able to spec out a house that complies with most building codes, but it would probably look really funny and be hilariously expensive. A roof pitched for heavy snow with storm shutters for hurricanes would stand out like a sore thumb in Arizona.
exabrial 3y ago
I was coming here to say this. This is far more complicated that the author appreciates.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bluGill 3y ago
While you are not wrong, those requirements are the same for all houses. Your typical signal family neighborhood has the following requirements: There will be room to store at least 3 cars, and at least 2 of them will be indoors. The path from the street to where the cars are stored will avoid hitting things with the car. All this means that every house will have a 3 car garage up front with a straight driveway to the road. A 3 car garage defines how wide your lot will be. All houses look the same because the car defines so much about how the house must look. It rains everywhere, so you will account for that in all houses so you can take any plan knowing rain is accounted for. Views are the only thing that might be different, and most people don't live where the views are worth worrying about - unless you live in a rural area your view is the other houses in your neighborhood.
- krab 3y ago
  How many cars? 8-O Our house will have a space for one car (under a roof but not in the garage) a motorbike and some bikes (all bikes in a shed). If some of the kids will have their own car before they move out (IMHO 40 % chance), they can park on the street.
  - mgkimsal 3y ago
    > they can park on the street. If the HOA allows it... ;)
    - krab 3y ago
      In our city, that's the responsibility of the city council and their traffic signs. Actually, there is only an equivalent of HOA for apartment blocks. House owners are usually only bound by law and personal relationships with neighbors (I'm in CZ).
      - krab 3y ago
        Check street view to get an idea how such a street looks like. Not my place but fairly similar feeling. https://maps.app.goo.gl/AUurWkVyhLMxzmHWA https://maps.app.goo.gl/AUurWkVyhLMxzmHWA My point is that the needs may be very different according to context.
Tangurena2 3y ago
> The idea of planning a house without taking into account the site where it will sit will never produce a good house. There's a free software tool from National Renewable Energy Labs that lets you make a rough sketch of your house, including orientation and try alternate features to determine if adding more insulation would be worth it. Or a more efficient furnace. Each airport (at least in the US) measures weather (temp, wind speed/direction, humidity, cloudiness, etc) every hour. Local climate files will have the past 20 years of weather so you can evaluate the costs/benefits of different systems with your actual records. https://www.nrel.gov/buildings/beopt.html https://www.nrel.gov/buildings/beopt.html Disclaimer: I worked on an older version of this tool.
- insaneirish 3y ago
  Love BEopt! It’s definitely a favorite in the “construction nerd” community (such as https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/ https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/). I used it quite a bit in making design choices for an extensive renovation on my own home.
- disposition2 3y ago
  Thanks for sharing! While the original query was in regards to building a new home, this seems like a great tool (and is advertised as such) for checking out existing homes (especially older homes) as well.
lostapathy 3y ago
This gets said a lot - but in practice, very little housing is built that way. The mega builders that build big developments certainly don't match up house plans with the way lots are oriented, and that's where most houses are built. I'm not trying to argue we shouldn't work on that, but to just dismiss off the shelf house plans entirely because "you have to build for the site" is rejecting the reality of how things are done. At the very least, a repository of plans that was categorized simply by the orientation it was optimized for would be a step ahead of how most housing is planned and built today.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  Anyone who has driven through a bunch of tract homes knows this to be true. The homes are built to maximize the number of homes in the available space and nothing else. If you really don't believe me just survey home owners in those now 2-year old tract homes. Even if the actual houses have excellent construction you'll discover the builder completely declined to take into account things like drainage of the lot or how maintenance can be performed.
  - datavirtue 3y ago
    [flagged]
- ilyt 3y ago
  They just want to sell a bunch of houses quickly, not to create perfect houses. Good enough is quite literally good enough for them. There will be compromises because they build for average buyer, not for you. And people that are looking for a house usually want to move there as soon as possible, doing custom not only means you need to pay more but that you also have to wait longer and pay for the place you're currently living extra year or two. Ideally all would start from some common plans then architect would customize it based on the future home owner input but that's frankly expensive.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    I think ideally we would all live in modest, reasonably sized simple rectangular houses that are built to last, to be energy efficient, and which achieve low cost through standard designs. The "then architect" part of the process results in McMansions that are awful to live in, are environmentally disastrous, and contribute to the growing unaffordability of housing for all but the upper classes.
electrondood 3y ago
+1 to A Pattern Language. That is an incredible book. It's like a system design template dictionary for homes, spaces, cities, etc.
paulusthe 3y ago
> If you really want to design your own house (a great idea), look up materials around A Pattern Language instead. Learn what makes a great house, then design a plan incorporating those ideas but customised towards your plot and your needs. I get this is hn where diy ethos runs deep, but please don't do this. Hire someone to design it and oversee construction for you. Expertise exists and matters.

samtho 3y ago

I’ve worked in construction, maybe this was true for post-and-beam and perhaps some other methods where you are using what is available from nature. Historically, for example, log cabins are popular in the woods because logs are plentiful and adobe was used in desert environments because of the abundance of sand, lime, binders, etc. I would not build a solid wood home in the desert of New Mexico for the same reason why I wouldn’t build a masonry house in the forests. Today, we have all but perfected the manufacturing of, developed logistics for, and codified laws governing building standards focused on raw building materials that you can order from a lumber yard or even Home Depot. Modern building construction, at least in North America, is based around the “balloon framing” idea that the walls support subsequent floors and the roof, maybe with a load bearing wall in the middle somewhere. With 2x6 framing members, you can go up to 3 floors in some jurisdictions without additional engineering sign off. As long as there is a flat platform to build the first floor, you can build up. The foundation is the only thing that would require custom construction, with a pier and beam, you need to drive your pier 1-3ft below the frost line and with a slab or basement foundation, you also need to reach below the frost line, but requirements differ between codes. Drainage is another area that needs special attention and is 100% custom for each project.

rascul 3y ago
> Modern building construction, at least in North America, is based around the “balloon framing” idea that the walls support subsequent floors and the roof, maybe with a load bearing wall in the middle somewhere. I think you're getting balloon and platform framing mixed up.
- samtho 3y ago
  Yes, I did.
hedgehog 3y ago
One nit, what we do today is platform framing. Balloon framing fell out of favor for probably two reasons, one it is not very fire safe (vertical channels in the walls), and two it's cheaper to build with shorter lumber.
avar 3y ago
> Historically, for example, log cabins are popular in the woods because logs are plentiful [...] I wouldn’t build a masonry house in the forests. Why not? Perhaps the US is different, but in mainland Europe you'll find plenty of brick houses in the forest. Yes, historically you'd build a log cabin out of materials found on-site, but is anyone doing that anymore? Presumably you'd want logs shipped from elsewhere, if only to get ones that have dried out already. At that point, why would it be prohibitively expensive to choose other building materials?

Dowwie 3y ago

Nearly every new home that has been developed in my town for the last 5 years looks exactly the same, with the exact same floor plan. These new houses replace old houses that also looked exactly the same with same floor plan. It's a fugly two-family townhouse. Good houses don't matter to buyers in a seller's market. Poor architecture, poor execution, poor everything and yet they're selling. Only the rich can afford good houses.

ilyt 3y ago
Pretty much. Even if custom costed exactly same money, it still means someone would need to wait 1-2 years before it is built vs just moving in to new house within a month
turtlebits 3y ago
Developers go cheap. It's very rare to be in the position to build your own home, as you'll never do it cheaper than a mass market/spec builder. It's almost always cheaper to just sell your property and buy something already existing. If you do end up building custom, it's almost a waste to find free plans, as you'll want to customize to your liking as much as possible.

nradov 3y ago

Reading "A Pattern Language" is, frankly, a waste of time for anyone looking to design and build a house where people can actually live on a reasonable budget. A few of the patterns are decent, but most are outdated for modern lifestyles or appear to have been contrived to push the authors' biased opinions on how people ought to live. Many of them would be ridiculously expensive and consume an unreasonable amount of space for minimal utility. If you were to actually design a house the way they seem to recommend it would end up being 8000 ft² (including outbuildings) and looking like some weird cross between an ancient Roman villa, a Victorian mansion, and a Hobbit hole. The market for rich eccentrics who want that sort of thing is pretty small. There is a reason that book is held in higher regard by software architects than by real residential architects.

harrylove 3y ago
I think it's hyperbolic to call it a waste of time. I think the book (and the related books and principles) deserve a critical reading. In the first section titled "Using This Book" he mentions several important details that I think you are missing in your critique. One, it is meant to be read alongside The Timeless Way of Building. It is not simply a how-to manual. Two, it comes from experience gleaned in the field working as an architect and builder. It is not simply highbrow art, mysticism, or eccentricity. Three, the patterns are separate from implementation: "[You] can use the solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice." He goes on to distinguish patterns in which he believes an invariant property has been established from those in which more research is needed. He even states that some patterns are just a guess and shows how to identify those in the description of each pattern. Lastly, he states there is a danger that people will assume that this one pattern language should stand for all time: "Is it not true that there is a danger that people might come to rely on this one printed language, instead of developing their own languages, in their own minds? The fact is, we have written this book as a first step in the society-wide process by which people will gradually become conscious of their own pattern languages, and work to improve them." The purpose of the book and its principles is not to recreate an aesthetic through pastiche. You are meant to use the principles in the book to create your own language that works for your context. A pattern that works for me in my environment may not work for you. That fact doesn't nullify the value of the pattern. The purpose of the two books together is to acknowledge that humans have deep feelings about the environments they inhabit. Whether those feelings can be explained or not is beside the point. The point is that we have them. These feelings happen across cultures and time. When we apply those feelings about our environments to the built world, several patterns seem to emerge. Hence, you get the concept of pattern languages. Alexander takes the bold step of not only acknowledging human feelings but centering them in the discussion about how the world should be built. This point should interest those who are sympathetic to the Agile Manifesto, or to principles of user-centered design, or to product design and product management. This fact is also likely why certain interests are uncomfortable with his work. Powerful interests do not, in general, like to lose power, and change is expensive. Later works, including his series on The Nature of Order go deeper into his exploration of these principles, even the possibility of an objective evaluation of beauty. And yes, there is a bit of woo going on which can make some people feel uncomfortable. We are all capable thinkers. You can decide for yourself which ideas resonate and which do not. Personally, I found that his ideas changed the way I experience the world, including giving me the ability to evaluate the kind of home I want to live in and how to optimize that home to increase my own happiness. I may not ever get the chance to build my own home. But I have a voice. I participate in society. I believe the world could and should do better than optimize itself for money. I believe I am not unique in finding the books useful. (edited for clarity)

ilyt 3y ago

> Would a pre-existing plan account for the sun exposure of your land? Would it have a roof that makes sense for how much it rains or snows? Would getting sunlight in the bedroom also mean facing traffic? Would it take advantage of elevation for views or make sure to block a nearby neighbour? Would it deal well with moisture, or fires, or access roads? Would you build a porch where you can laze away late summer afternoons and feel everything's just right with the world, or a place to dry laundry where nobody goes? Would you, the first-time-house designer be able to accommodate for all those issues? Or even know they exist in the first place? > If you really want to design your own house (a great idea), look up materials around A Pattern Language instead. Learn what makes a great house, then design a plan incorporating those ideas but customised towards your plot and your needs. Horrible idea. By all means be the input in the process, but pick someone that actually knows how building works and that can instantly point out any misunderstanding or lacks of knowledge you have.

worik 3y ago

> Here's the thing: The idea of planning a house without taking into account the site where it will sit will never produce a good house. That is untrue Perhaps not the "best possible" but relocation of houses is very common and practical. Kitset houses are transforming the industry

ShakataGaNai 3y ago

Also, don't forget local building codes. They vary a lot from location to location. You might theoretically be able to spec out a house that complies with most building codes, but it would probably look really funny and be hilariously expensive. A roof pitched for heavy snow with storm shutters for hurricanes would stand out like a sore thumb in Arizona.

exabrial 3y ago

I was coming here to say this. This is far more complicated that the author appreciates.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bluGill 3y ago

While you are not wrong, those requirements are the same for all houses. Your typical signal family neighborhood has the following requirements: There will be room to store at least 3 cars, and at least 2 of them will be indoors. The path from the street to where the cars are stored will avoid hitting things with the car. All this means that every house will have a 3 car garage up front with a straight driveway to the road. A 3 car garage defines how wide your lot will be. All houses look the same because the car defines so much about how the house must look. It rains everywhere, so you will account for that in all houses so you can take any plan knowing rain is accounted for. Views are the only thing that might be different, and most people don't live where the views are worth worrying about - unless you live in a rural area your view is the other houses in your neighborhood.

krab 3y ago
How many cars? 8-O Our house will have a space for one car (under a roof but not in the garage) a motorbike and some bikes (all bikes in a shed). If some of the kids will have their own car before they move out (IMHO 40 % chance), they can park on the street.
- mgkimsal 3y ago
  > they can park on the street. If the HOA allows it... ;)
  - krab 3y ago
    In our city, that's the responsibility of the city council and their traffic signs. Actually, there is only an equivalent of HOA for apartment blocks. House owners are usually only bound by law and personal relationships with neighbors (I'm in CZ).
    - krab 3y ago
      Check street view to get an idea how such a street looks like. Not my place but fairly similar feeling. https://maps.app.goo.gl/AUurWkVyhLMxzmHWA https://maps.app.goo.gl/AUurWkVyhLMxzmHWA My point is that the needs may be very different according to context.

Tangurena2 3y ago

> The idea of planning a house without taking into account the site where it will sit will never produce a good house. There's a free software tool from National Renewable Energy Labs that lets you make a rough sketch of your house, including orientation and try alternate features to determine if adding more insulation would be worth it. Or a more efficient furnace. Each airport (at least in the US) measures weather (temp, wind speed/direction, humidity, cloudiness, etc) every hour. Local climate files will have the past 20 years of weather so you can evaluate the costs/benefits of different systems with your actual records. https://www.nrel.gov/buildings/beopt.html https://www.nrel.gov/buildings/beopt.html Disclaimer: I worked on an older version of this tool.

insaneirish 3y ago
Love BEopt! It’s definitely a favorite in the “construction nerd” community (such as https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/ https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/). I used it quite a bit in making design choices for an extensive renovation on my own home.
disposition2 3y ago
Thanks for sharing! While the original query was in regards to building a new home, this seems like a great tool (and is advertised as such) for checking out existing homes (especially older homes) as well.

lostapathy 3y ago

This gets said a lot - but in practice, very little housing is built that way. The mega builders that build big developments certainly don't match up house plans with the way lots are oriented, and that's where most houses are built. I'm not trying to argue we shouldn't work on that, but to just dismiss off the shelf house plans entirely because "you have to build for the site" is rejecting the reality of how things are done. At the very least, a repository of plans that was categorized simply by the orientation it was optimized for would be a step ahead of how most housing is planned and built today.

sidewndr46 3y ago
Anyone who has driven through a bunch of tract homes knows this to be true. The homes are built to maximize the number of homes in the available space and nothing else. If you really don't believe me just survey home owners in those now 2-year old tract homes. Even if the actual houses have excellent construction you'll discover the builder completely declined to take into account things like drainage of the lot or how maintenance can be performed.
- datavirtue 3y ago
  [flagged]
ilyt 3y ago
They just want to sell a bunch of houses quickly, not to create perfect houses. Good enough is quite literally good enough for them. There will be compromises because they build for average buyer, not for you. And people that are looking for a house usually want to move there as soon as possible, doing custom not only means you need to pay more but that you also have to wait longer and pay for the place you're currently living extra year or two. Ideally all would start from some common plans then architect would customize it based on the future home owner input but that's frankly expensive.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  I think ideally we would all live in modest, reasonably sized simple rectangular houses that are built to last, to be energy efficient, and which achieve low cost through standard designs. The "then architect" part of the process results in McMansions that are awful to live in, are environmentally disastrous, and contribute to the growing unaffordability of housing for all but the upper classes.

electrondood 3y ago

+1 to A Pattern Language. That is an incredible book. It's like a system design template dictionary for homes, spaces, cities, etc.

paulusthe 3y ago

> If you really want to design your own house (a great idea), look up materials around A Pattern Language instead. Learn what makes a great house, then design a plan incorporating those ideas but customised towards your plot and your needs. I get this is hn where diy ethos runs deep, but please don't do this. Hire someone to design it and oversee construction for you. Expertise exists and matters.