8 ms·

I like the ethos but to me it's pointed in entirely the wrong direction. Why not just make standard sections of 2x4 or 2x6 framing? Start standardizing window s

I like the ethos but to me it's pointed in entirely the wrong direction. Why not just make standard sections of 2x4 or 2x6 framing? Start standardizing window sealing details? Literally anything that will actually get some use? Instead we get opensource plywood boxes? Using plywood for all of the structural components means if you get a leak, which all houses get, you are in danger of much more significant damage than lumber framing. And with this system you still need to do all the normal things to build a house (get a designer, route plumbing, electrical, get a civil engineer, install all that stuff, etc.) just instead of framing you have custom blocks you need made. I just don't think these make sense.

mglz 3y ago
I think it's about this solution being easy to make with CNC routers. Traditional framing is not made for automation, so they went to precut sheets of plywood. It's similar to 3D printing: You could make a doorstop in 30 seconds from a block of wood and a saw, or you could print it in 1 hour from plastic. The second option is better if you have no saw and a printer.
- throwaway4aday 3y ago
  It seems like it would be much, much slower to CNC all the plywood and insulation and assemble the boxes and then put the boxes together than it would be to just frame a wall, sheet it and put insulation batts in. Having access to and operating a CNC also seems harder than learning to use a skill saw and hammer a nail. It feels like they're trying to apply abstraction to construction where you just have one unit that can be adapted to work for everything but they don't realize that already exists and it's called dimensional lumber.
  - mglz 3y ago
    > It feels like they're trying to apply abstraction to construction [...] As is tradition :)
    - throwaway4aday 3y ago
      We can fix anything with another layer of indirection!
avidphantasm 3y ago
All good points, especially about the risk of leaks on the material. I've also heard anecdotally that framing is the cheapest part of the house.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  It looks like framing usually takes two weeks to a month. Whole house takes 8 months. The lumber is a good chunk of money, but comparable to wallboard.
vmfunction 3y ago
what about A frame housing? Is that easier? Don't know much about building house. Just heard it is an easy way to build house with friends and some help.
cycomanic 3y ago
It's funny how every country thinks their approach to building is good and everything else has huge problems. For example Germans tend to think wooden houses will not last. The approach taken here is similar to what people are commonly doing in Scandinavia. Most generally almost all houses are pre fabricated in factories and assembled on site. The actual blocks vary quite a bit, mostly they are large wall sections, but there are approaches using blocks like this. There is also a manufacturer that makes all sections out of plywood. With all of the approaches I have never heard of issues with leakage. In fact they tend to be much more tight then houses build on site (often meeting passive house standards).
- class3shock 3y ago
  Structural Insulated Panels - SIPs (which I think is what you are talking about) have arguments in their favor as they actually benefit from many of the upsides of building things in factories vs on an individual/onsite basis. These do not seem like they'll realize any of those (since you are just prefabing a component comparable to a sheet or board as opposed to a whole wall). SIPS absolutely do have issues with leakage, the same as any construction method. Joints, penetrations, windows, etc. can all be sources, same as in traditional framing, the difference is again that plywood / osb / glued together wood scraps are atrocious at handling moisture. I do think they are interesting though, more reading for the curious below. https://buildingscience.com/documents/enclosures-that-work/high-r-value-wall-assemblies/high-r-wall-sips-wall-construction https://buildingscience.com/documents/enclosures-that-work/h... One of the benefits of SIPs for airtightness is that the layer that provides that is built in (or atleast can be) at the factory. This eliminates alot of the variables that hurt airtightness when you are building onsite (working in temps/humidity where seals don't get installed right, poor workmanship, etc.).
quaestio 3y ago
And what about recycled foamed PVC boards instead of plywood? They have decent mechanical properties (12-15MPa)
jtriangle 3y ago
It's a flawed solution based on a misunderstanding of how houses are actually built/designed/engineered. Most of what you see being built today is dimensioned based on available timber. It's part of why all the houses look the same, because it's the most efficient way to build. Everything structural gets built with 2x4's or prefab trusses (which are also made of 2x4's), windows are all standard sizes, as are cabinets and flooring, and siding, and trim, and if you weren't terribly concerned with building homes that were interesting to look at, you could probably optimize all of this further on the design side of things and then prefab things like walls and door frames then lego them together and wind up with something much nicer and likely cheaper than what they're doing. The premise isn't terribly flawed though, prefab everything into 4x8ft panels, standardize your roof trussing, standardize your layout, and you can probably dig up a little more margin for builders to put directly in their pockets, and have perfectly cookie cutter houses with no regard to the environment they're placed in. Not really a neighborhood I'd like to live in, but, also not too dissimilar from what most of america lives in, so, I suppose it's tolerable.
- lucideer 3y ago
  > based on a misunderstanding of how houses are actually built/designed/engineered. Most of what you see being built today is dimensioned based on available timber. It's part of why all the houses look the same It's worth pointing out that this is a UK-based project (where typical houses are concrete construction). A lot of the comments dismissing it are suggesting it should conform to American standards on the assumptions that those standards are universal. As an open-source initiative it should certainly have a broader perspective than being purely UK-centric, but replacing that with a US-centric one isn't the solution.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > Everything structural gets built with 2x4's or prefab trusses (which are also made of 2x4's) Neither of these statements are true. 2x6's are commonly used for a variety of reasons in vertical placement. 2x8/2x10 and even 2x12 are still common for floor joists where manufactured beams (e.g. I-beams) are not used. Trusses are not always built with 2x4s either. I'd also mention (as a recently certified firefighter) that the use of trusses in modern construction causes real headaches for the fire service: a minor failure in one part of one truss can lead the entire roof surface to become a collapse hazard. They are efficient uses of lumber but have few other merits as a construction technique.
francis_t_catte 3y ago
wait until you learn about 'engineered beams' I shudder thinking about all the structures built with those things that're one undetected bathtub drain leak away from serious structural failure.
- SamBam 3y ago
  I'm confused. Do you have evidence that an engineered beam will fail faster due to water damage than a beam made from 2x4s? Weatherproof LVLs are actually much more water resistant than a regular solid piece of pine. Even indoor engineered beams are quite water resistant.
hkt 3y ago
Marine plywood is a thing that obviates the problem somewhat. Admittedly though, a very very expensive thing. When that's factored in, you may as well build with straw bales. (really, it is great, and much cheaper)
ivyirwin 3y ago
The last time wikihouse showed up on HN (September '23) I did a deep dive on the process I still haven't come out of. 20 years ago as a grad student getting my masters in architecture, I definitely would have had similar comments to most of what's on this page. But I don't feel that way any more and I'm actually disappointed by the negativity toward this project – not because it's not warranted, but if this were a software project I feel like the criticism would be more constructive rather than so dismissive. WH is not a perfect system, but the approach is commendable for its comprehensive take on building systems. And building systems are broken. For the past two years I've been trying to build my own house (using a contractor), and even as a trained architect the process is ridiculously opaque, costs are exorbitant, and quality control is difficult to manage. I applaud the fact that WH has tried to tackle the entire structure (and for that matter the entire building process – their parent organization has additional projects [0] for design, local building codes, and innovative financing structures). Yes, in the US 2x framing is cheap and relatively inexpensive, but is still complex in its own ways. Floor systems are different from wall systems are different from roof systems. I like that WH has tried to make one unit type (plywood boxes) work for the different systems. Is it the most efficient way? Probably not, but it affords other opportunities. From an ideological perspective I also like that they prioritize sustainability, low energy use, and accessibility of design information to laypeople. On top of that, they've organized their building information like a programmer – they use GitHub to track versions and even have the start of a components database. They are an API short of making this really something the HN community could easily play with. That said they have a long way to go. Framing a house is the easy part. I think if they could standardize the interface for cladding and interior finishes they would be in a better position to disrupt the building industry, but for now contractors will still be a requirement – so there goes your budget and quality. [0] https://www.opensystemslab.io/projects https://www.opensystemslab.io/projects
- pmayrgundter 3y ago
  That's really interesting about Github-based versioning. My company (bldrs.ai) makes a webapp that views IFC (soon STEP) and has github integration, so any *.ifc path on GH can be pasted into our search for viz. I'm not seeing any IFC files on Wikihouse repos, but they look old (https://github.com/wikihouse https://github.com/wikihouse). Do you know where they're hosting?
pmontra 3y ago
They are registered in England and Wales and they write about millimeters. I guess that they don't have 2x4 and 2x6 frames. Maybe houses there are built in a totally different way.
- helboi4 3y ago
  Yes, houses in England are not made from frames almost ever. They are made of solid brick. It was always so confusing to hear about Americans punching through walls. You can't do that here. There's no wood.
  - pimlottc 3y ago
    People talk about punching through /interior/ walls, which is typically drywall in the US.
    - helboi4 3y ago
      Yeah even interior walls here are mainly brick. Dry walls only exist in conversions where walls have been added that did not exist in the original construction. Even then, making thin walls like that is highly frowned upon and seen as a bit of a bodge job because the standard for the sturdiness of walls is high here.
- scrivna 3y ago
  Houses in England are generally made from clay bricks, not wood

mglz 3y ago

I think it's about this solution being easy to make with CNC routers. Traditional framing is not made for automation, so they went to precut sheets of plywood. It's similar to 3D printing: You could make a doorstop in 30 seconds from a block of wood and a saw, or you could print it in 1 hour from plastic. The second option is better if you have no saw and a printer.

throwaway4aday 3y ago
It seems like it would be much, much slower to CNC all the plywood and insulation and assemble the boxes and then put the boxes together than it would be to just frame a wall, sheet it and put insulation batts in. Having access to and operating a CNC also seems harder than learning to use a skill saw and hammer a nail. It feels like they're trying to apply abstraction to construction where you just have one unit that can be adapted to work for everything but they don't realize that already exists and it's called dimensional lumber.
- mglz 3y ago
  > It feels like they're trying to apply abstraction to construction [...] As is tradition :)
  - throwaway4aday 3y ago
    We can fix anything with another layer of indirection!

avidphantasm 3y ago

All good points, especially about the risk of leaks on the material. I've also heard anecdotally that framing is the cheapest part of the house.

ianburrell 3y ago
It looks like framing usually takes two weeks to a month. Whole house takes 8 months. The lumber is a good chunk of money, but comparable to wallboard.

vmfunction 3y ago

what about A frame housing? Is that easier? Don't know much about building house. Just heard it is an easy way to build house with friends and some help.

cycomanic 3y ago

It's funny how every country thinks their approach to building is good and everything else has huge problems. For example Germans tend to think wooden houses will not last. The approach taken here is similar to what people are commonly doing in Scandinavia. Most generally almost all houses are pre fabricated in factories and assembled on site. The actual blocks vary quite a bit, mostly they are large wall sections, but there are approaches using blocks like this. There is also a manufacturer that makes all sections out of plywood. With all of the approaches I have never heard of issues with leakage. In fact they tend to be much more tight then houses build on site (often meeting passive house standards).

class3shock 3y ago
Structural Insulated Panels - SIPs (which I think is what you are talking about) have arguments in their favor as they actually benefit from many of the upsides of building things in factories vs on an individual/onsite basis. These do not seem like they'll realize any of those (since you are just prefabing a component comparable to a sheet or board as opposed to a whole wall). SIPS absolutely do have issues with leakage, the same as any construction method. Joints, penetrations, windows, etc. can all be sources, same as in traditional framing, the difference is again that plywood / osb / glued together wood scraps are atrocious at handling moisture. I do think they are interesting though, more reading for the curious below. https://buildingscience.com/documents/enclosures-that-work/high-r-value-wall-assemblies/high-r-wall-sips-wall-construction https://buildingscience.com/documents/enclosures-that-work/h... One of the benefits of SIPs for airtightness is that the layer that provides that is built in (or atleast can be) at the factory. This eliminates alot of the variables that hurt airtightness when you are building onsite (working in temps/humidity where seals don't get installed right, poor workmanship, etc.).

quaestio 3y ago

And what about recycled foamed PVC boards instead of plywood? They have decent mechanical properties (12-15MPa)

jtriangle 3y ago

It's a flawed solution based on a misunderstanding of how houses are actually built/designed/engineered. Most of what you see being built today is dimensioned based on available timber. It's part of why all the houses look the same, because it's the most efficient way to build. Everything structural gets built with 2x4's or prefab trusses (which are also made of 2x4's), windows are all standard sizes, as are cabinets and flooring, and siding, and trim, and if you weren't terribly concerned with building homes that were interesting to look at, you could probably optimize all of this further on the design side of things and then prefab things like walls and door frames then lego them together and wind up with something much nicer and likely cheaper than what they're doing. The premise isn't terribly flawed though, prefab everything into 4x8ft panels, standardize your roof trussing, standardize your layout, and you can probably dig up a little more margin for builders to put directly in their pockets, and have perfectly cookie cutter houses with no regard to the environment they're placed in. Not really a neighborhood I'd like to live in, but, also not too dissimilar from what most of america lives in, so, I suppose it's tolerable.

lucideer 3y ago
> based on a misunderstanding of how houses are actually built/designed/engineered. Most of what you see being built today is dimensioned based on available timber. It's part of why all the houses look the same It's worth pointing out that this is a UK-based project (where typical houses are concrete construction). A lot of the comments dismissing it are suggesting it should conform to American standards on the assumptions that those standards are universal. As an open-source initiative it should certainly have a broader perspective than being purely UK-centric, but replacing that with a US-centric one isn't the solution.
PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> Everything structural gets built with 2x4's or prefab trusses (which are also made of 2x4's) Neither of these statements are true. 2x6's are commonly used for a variety of reasons in vertical placement. 2x8/2x10 and even 2x12 are still common for floor joists where manufactured beams (e.g. I-beams) are not used. Trusses are not always built with 2x4s either. I'd also mention (as a recently certified firefighter) that the use of trusses in modern construction causes real headaches for the fire service: a minor failure in one part of one truss can lead the entire roof surface to become a collapse hazard. They are efficient uses of lumber but have few other merits as a construction technique.

francis_t_catte 3y ago

wait until you learn about 'engineered beams' I shudder thinking about all the structures built with those things that're one undetected bathtub drain leak away from serious structural failure.

SamBam 3y ago
I'm confused. Do you have evidence that an engineered beam will fail faster due to water damage than a beam made from 2x4s? Weatherproof LVLs are actually much more water resistant than a regular solid piece of pine. Even indoor engineered beams are quite water resistant.

hkt 3y ago

Marine plywood is a thing that obviates the problem somewhat. Admittedly though, a very very expensive thing. When that's factored in, you may as well build with straw bales. (really, it is great, and much cheaper)

ivyirwin 3y ago

The last time wikihouse showed up on HN (September '23) I did a deep dive on the process I still haven't come out of. 20 years ago as a grad student getting my masters in architecture, I definitely would have had similar comments to most of what's on this page. But I don't feel that way any more and I'm actually disappointed by the negativity toward this project – not because it's not warranted, but if this were a software project I feel like the criticism would be more constructive rather than so dismissive. WH is not a perfect system, but the approach is commendable for its comprehensive take on building systems. And building systems are broken. For the past two years I've been trying to build my own house (using a contractor), and even as a trained architect the process is ridiculously opaque, costs are exorbitant, and quality control is difficult to manage. I applaud the fact that WH has tried to tackle the entire structure (and for that matter the entire building process – their parent organization has additional projects [0] for design, local building codes, and innovative financing structures). Yes, in the US 2x framing is cheap and relatively inexpensive, but is still complex in its own ways. Floor systems are different from wall systems are different from roof systems. I like that WH has tried to make one unit type (plywood boxes) work for the different systems. Is it the most efficient way? Probably not, but it affords other opportunities. From an ideological perspective I also like that they prioritize sustainability, low energy use, and accessibility of design information to laypeople. On top of that, they've organized their building information like a programmer – they use GitHub to track versions and even have the start of a components database. They are an API short of making this really something the HN community could easily play with. That said they have a long way to go. Framing a house is the easy part. I think if they could standardize the interface for cladding and interior finishes they would be in a better position to disrupt the building industry, but for now contractors will still be a requirement – so there goes your budget and quality. [0] https://www.opensystemslab.io/projects https://www.opensystemslab.io/projects

pmayrgundter 3y ago
That's really interesting about Github-based versioning. My company (bldrs.ai) makes a webapp that views IFC (soon STEP) and has github integration, so any *.ifc path on GH can be pasted into our search for viz. I'm not seeing any IFC files on Wikihouse repos, but they look old (https://github.com/wikihouse https://github.com/wikihouse). Do you know where they're hosting?

pmontra 3y ago

They are registered in England and Wales and they write about millimeters. I guess that they don't have 2x4 and 2x6 frames. Maybe houses there are built in a totally different way.

helboi4 3y ago
Yes, houses in England are not made from frames almost ever. They are made of solid brick. It was always so confusing to hear about Americans punching through walls. You can't do that here. There's no wood.
- pimlottc 3y ago
  People talk about punching through /interior/ walls, which is typically drywall in the US.
  - helboi4 3y ago
    Yeah even interior walls here are mainly brick. Dry walls only exist in conversions where walls have been added that did not exist in the original construction. Even then, making thin walls like that is highly frowned upon and seen as a bit of a bodge job because the standard for the sturdiness of walls is high here.
scrivna 3y ago
Houses in England are generally made from clay bricks, not wood