3 ms·

The "disable Javascript" way of bypassing the NY Times paywall has stopped working, so can't comment on the whole article. We don't actually build houses the w

The "disable Javascript" way of bypassing the NY Times paywall has stopped working, so can't comment on the whole article. We don't actually build houses the way we did 125 years ago. The materials and methods have changed to require ever less skilled labour (e.g. drywall instead of lath & plaster, prefab roof trusses, prefab windows and prehung doors) and ever cheaper materials (e.g. PEX instead of copper and engineered joists instead of solid wood and vinyl siding and 1" thick fake stonework). What hasn't changed is that they're built as inexpensively as possible. Once factory built houses offer the cheapest way to put up what people want, that's how they will build them. It's not an ideology, it's market forces.

eesmith 3y ago
I agree with your characterization, and that's just from watching 15 years or so of This Old House, as they introduced new technology that caused my family to say "you can do that now?" The article's definition for "same way" is, "not in a factory": > Last year, only 2 percent of new single-family homes in the United States were built in factories. Two decades into the 21st century, nearly all U.S. homes are still built the old-fashioned way: one at a time, by hand. Completing a house took an average of 8.3 months in 2022, a month longer than it took to build a house of the same size back in 1971. I have a hard time understanding that "8.3 months". The article links to https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/avg_starttocomp.pdf https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/avg_starttocomp.... where the only 8.3 for 2022 is "Average Number of Months from Start to Completion of Buildings Started in Permit-Issuing Places", but for 1971 it says 4.8 months. That source also doesn't give sizes, but is for "Buildings with 1 unit". The average size of American homes was about 1,500 sq ft in 1970 and over 2,000 sq ft now (I couldn't find hard numbers comparing the years for new housing). It suggests that building codes are a reason why factory built housing hasn't taken off ("government also can push for the standardization of building materials and building regulations" ... "there is no reason for Colorado to have 300 different codes") but doesn't say how many codes there should be. That is, the article says "the county has stricter snow load regulations" than the city of Fairplay, but doesn't say that the differences are appropriate, nor does it discuss how many of those difference are due to historic districts. Nor does it mention how this would be any improvement over the existing International Building Code.
- hedora 3y ago
  A hundred years ago, you could mail order a house from the Sears catalog (they are call “craftsmen” homes). The big problem I’ve noticed with factory built in California is that the house itself is something like 25% the price and much less than half the calendar time it takes from buying land to moving into the house. So, you can save 10% in money and time, or go full custom. (No, none of what I just said should be true; hopefully it’s mostly just a California problem…)
  - eesmith 3y ago
    FWIW, Sears houses were also discussed in the article: > (Some companies reduce transportation costs by shipping homes in smaller pieces, an approach pioneered by Sears and other retailers of “build your own home” kits in the early 20th century, but that just shifts the cost from transportation to assembly.)
    - hedora 3y ago
      It is unclear to me that it’s more expensive to assemble the kit on site than in a factory. Yes, weather is an issue. However, the “factory floor” is effectively infinite size. If robots were assembling the houses and doing the finish work then they’d have a better argument. With the Sears approach, you can still have robots do most of the cutting and part of the fabrication.

eesmith 3y ago

I agree with your characterization, and that's just from watching 15 years or so of This Old House, as they introduced new technology that caused my family to say "you can do that now?" The article's definition for "same way" is, "not in a factory": > Last year, only 2 percent of new single-family homes in the United States were built in factories. Two decades into the 21st century, nearly all U.S. homes are still built the old-fashioned way: one at a time, by hand. Completing a house took an average of 8.3 months in 2022, a month longer than it took to build a house of the same size back in 1971. I have a hard time understanding that "8.3 months". The article links to https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/avg_starttocomp.pdf https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/avg_starttocomp.... where the only 8.3 for 2022 is "Average Number of Months from Start to Completion of Buildings Started in Permit-Issuing Places", but for 1971 it says 4.8 months. That source also doesn't give sizes, but is for "Buildings with 1 unit". The average size of American homes was about 1,500 sq ft in 1970 and over 2,000 sq ft now (I couldn't find hard numbers comparing the years for new housing). It suggests that building codes are a reason why factory built housing hasn't taken off ("government also can push for the standardization of building materials and building regulations" ... "there is no reason for Colorado to have 300 different codes") but doesn't say how many codes there should be. That is, the article says "the county has stricter snow load regulations" than the city of Fairplay, but doesn't say that the differences are appropriate, nor does it discuss how many of those difference are due to historic districts. Nor does it mention how this would be any improvement over the existing International Building Code.

hedora 3y ago
A hundred years ago, you could mail order a house from the Sears catalog (they are call “craftsmen” homes). The big problem I’ve noticed with factory built in California is that the house itself is something like 25% the price and much less than half the calendar time it takes from buying land to moving into the house. So, you can save 10% in money and time, or go full custom. (No, none of what I just said should be true; hopefully it’s mostly just a California problem…)
- eesmith 3y ago
  FWIW, Sears houses were also discussed in the article: > (Some companies reduce transportation costs by shipping homes in smaller pieces, an approach pioneered by Sears and other retailers of “build your own home” kits in the early 20th century, but that just shifts the cost from transportation to assembly.)
  - hedora 3y ago
    It is unclear to me that it’s more expensive to assemble the kit on site than in a factory. Yes, weather is an issue. However, the “factory floor” is effectively infinite size. If robots were assembling the houses and doing the finish work then they’d have a better argument. With the Sears approach, you can still have robots do most of the cutting and part of the fabrication.