Building house

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Building house

Post by doodle » Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:12 am

PS,

For plumbing, do you think a pex system with a manifold is the way to go?

Also, for heating water...gas or electric water heater....or does solar make economic sense?
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Building house

Post by Pointedstick » Sun Jan 19, 2014 9:07 am

doodle wrote: PS,

Couple of questions....how does one attach roofing to an SIP? Also, how does one dress up the underside of one in a cathedral type ceiling?
They actually make steel SIPs that are topped with the roof surface itself, so it's a totally all-in-one product. Very cool stuff: http://www.kingspanpanels.us/products/c ... -seam-roof

If you wanted to get a steel SIP and then attach the roof surface to it, I'll admit I don't actually know the best way to do this in your climate. Might want to talk to a contractor, but don't let them talk you into wood SIPs. Totally inappropriate for the Florida climate IMHO.

As for the underside, you'd just drywall it like any other ceiling. The drywall screws will penetrate the metal and dig into the high-density foam. I would recommend using cementboard instead of drywall in the whole house because it's more moisture resistant and doesn't have any paper that can make a tempting target for termites.

doodle wrote: As with most things in my life I believe in function over form, but I also need to conform to the architecture of the neighborhood and hopefully build a structure which will have some resale value. If none of that mattered I would probably just build a concrete dome. Ughhh...the tyranny of convention.
I'm totally with you on this, but the kind of house we're discussing would actually have a very "conventional" appearance. Besides, I wouldn't actually recommend a dome for Florida because of the rain and moisture. Concrete is very porous, so you'd have to protect it with a roof anyway to get any serious longevity out of the structure, and once you're doing that, you might as well make it a square building and just blend in with the neighborhood.

doodle wrote: Anyways, on the topic of roofing, I'm leaning towards a flatish hip roof 3 or 4/12 slope instead of a steep gable one like you advocated. Although the gable roof would be better for a hot climate like Florida, especially if I could open some ventilation at the top to blow out the hot air, I think they are less resistant to high winds.
Low slope is a good idea. In terms of cost, I would recommend gable rather than hip, simply because it's simpler and there will be fewer roof surfaces (two rectangles vs two triangles and two parallelograms, assuming a rectangular house). The beauty of the all-in-one SIP and roof panel is that there's nothing for the wind to get under and pull the roof off. And since it would be a cathedral ceiling design, with the lower part of the roof making up the ceiling, there's no attic for wind to enter, so you completely eliminate the complicated topic of attic ventilation.

doodle wrote: As far as insulation and having a sealed building, I am also a bit worried about moisture. I have heard that really tight buildings in damp climates can develop mold issues.

I'm thinking of going with precast or regular block construction and just using trees, largish eaves, and intelligent window placement to cut down on heat. I'm a big fan of passive solutions rather than sealing things up tight and air conditioning my space.....thoughts?
"Sick building syndrome" in a well-sealed building will be a problem with any masonry construction simply because it's so naturally strong and tight compared to a stick-framed building, so even if you built a block wall with no exterior insulation, you'd still want to install a ventilation system or open the windows a lot.

And keep in mind that if you wind up having a lot of interior thermal mass (i.e. block of concrete walls without interior insulation), then once your house is at a temperature you like, you can open the windows for ventilation without it disturbing the interior temperature for many hours because the mass walls are absorbing any temperature differentials between the interior temperature and the temperature of the wind.

Using shading and site orientation is a very smart idea. Keep in mind that to more you use your roof to block the sun, the better your roof has to be about reflecting heat, which is why I recommend a metal roof surface with a ton of insulation.

But let's face the facts: you're in Florida. It's hot and humid year-round. Air conditioning is a pretty natural solution to both problems. You won't need to run it 24/7 if you design the building envelope and shading properly, but when you do run it, these good design decisions will maximize its benefit while reducing the amount of time it needs to run.

doodle wrote: For plumbing, do you think a pex system with a manifold is the way to go?

Also, for heating water...gas or electric water heater....or does solar make economic sense?
Yes a PEX manifold is a great solution. Keep in mind that PEX degrades in sunlight so it needs to hidden in the wall... then again this is true of PVC as well. You might even be able to do your own plumbing with PEX. See http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/11/ ... -with-pex/

A solar water heater is a no-brainer if the insolation of the site supports it, IMHO. In your climate sunlight is waste since you don't really ever need to heat the house, so transforming some of that waste into a factor of production by using a solar water heater is a smart idea. Even if it's not able to heat the water entirely, it can be more of a solar "pre-heater" to take some of the load off the conventional heater. As for gas vs electric, it depends on local utility rates and insolation. Here in New Mexico, gas is $0.6 a therm--well below the national average, so it's a no-brainer for me. The economics may be different in Florida, especially considering that you can generate your own electricity on-site but not your own gas. In a place with abundant sun, and high electricity and gas rates, solar electrical generation can also be cost-effective.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Building house

Post by doodle » Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:21 am

Something is messed up...

How could I get this for under 3000 dollars in the 1920s.. http://www.searsarchives.com/homes/imag ... 12050a.jpg
Which adjusted for inflation would be the equivalent of about 50,000 dollars today?

Today the technology that we have to manufacture bricks, cut lumber, pour cement, drill holes, shoot nails etc. is so much more efficient and advanced yet the same house today would cost me probably 200,000 dollars today if I even could find craftsman able to build it.

Why has construction got more expensive and crappier despite huge advances in facilitating technology?
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Building house

Post by Pointedstick » Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:52 am

doodle wrote: Something is messed up...

How could I get this for under 3000 dollars in the 1920s.. http://www.searsarchives.com/homes/imag ... 12050a.jpg
Which adjusted for inflation would be the equivalent of about 50,000 dollars today?

Today the technology that we have to manufacture bricks, cut lumber, pour cement, drill holes, shoot nails etc. is so much more efficient and advanced yet the same house today would cost me probably 200,000 dollars today if I even could find craftsman able to build it.

Why has construction got more expensive and crappier despite huge advances in facilitating technology?
First of all, that was a kit home and you were only paying for the materials and supplying your own labor, which would jack the price up if you hired any help. Notice they also didn't include the components for wiring, plumbing, heating, or cooling, and I believe you also needed to pour your own foundation too. None of that stuff is cheap. Finally, notice that the roof material they supplied was cedar shingles, which would crack, rot, and mold within a decade or two.

If you shelled out $50,000 for this kit today, were it available in its original form, you would find that you still needed to pay for the plumbing, wiring, heating and cooling appliances and associated infrastructure, and that you had a house without insulation, that needed a new roof in ten years, was a termite magnet firetrap (everything appears to be made out of wood) and had no resistance to hurricanes whatsoever. Don't fall for the "everything was better in the past!" trap!


That said, you have a point. Modern houses can be ridiculously expensive. And here are, in my opinion, the reasons (in no particular order):
- Larger average home size (increases the magnitude of everything else)
- FAR higher labor costs
- Required liability insurance, worker's comp, etc. for hired labor
- Larger, more sophisticated electrical wiring and plumbing systems with more receptacles and fixtures
- Larger and nicer kitchens
- More and nicer bathrooms
- Byzantine building codes (here, see for yourself: http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/2009/)
- Licenses and certifications and inspections required for everything
- Higher insulation and air sealing requirements and expectations due to vastly higher heating and cooling costs
- Old growth lumber is no longer available at reasonable prices for environmental reasons


Basically, houses were cheaper during a time when fuel was cheap, labor was cheap, labor protections were low, integrated systems were simpler, expectations of home size and luxury were lower, government oversight was vastly smaller (in many cases non-existent) and finally, a big part is the attempt to salvage a failing paradigm (stick-framed homes) with increasing complexity now that it's showing its age during a time when houses are required to be more energy efficient and disaster resistant. Modern stick-framed homes need to be bolted to the foundation, braced with hurricane ties, fireblocked, insulated in the stud bays, drywalled, treated to resist termites, sheathed with OSB, a foam insulation board, and a moisture barrier, covered with siding, etc… all this stuff adds up compared to a vastly simpler, stronger, and more efficient concrete wall that basically consists of exterior sheathing, insulation, and concrete and is naturally immune to fire, termites, and hurricanes and has far better energy performance. Like I've said, don't let anyone talk you into building a stick-framed house in Florida!

Labor is a big, big part as well. When I was volunteering for Habitat for Humanity, they would repeatedly stress how valuable our participation was because paid labor accounted for 2/3 of the price of an average home. The guys you see working on houses are probably making between $15 and $25 an hour; far more for the plumbers and electricians (side note: if you're a poor college grad with a ton of debt, become a plumber or electrician).

That said, IMHO it is perfectly possible to build a reasonable house for $50,000 today. You would just need to keep it to under 1,000 square feet and one bathroom, skip the garage, build the kitchen cabinets yourself out of plywood, skip the granite, the garbage disposal, and the dishwasher, don't insulate the walls or attic, use cheap vinyl siding and single-paned windows, etc. You would have a house that largely mimics something built in 1920. Would you actually want to live in that house? That's another question…
Last edited by Pointedstick on Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14226
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Building house

Post by dualstow » Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:18 pm

Pointedstick wrote:
That said, IMHO it is perfectly possible to build a reasonable house for $50,000 today. You would just need to keep it to under 1,000 square feet and one bathroom, skip the garage, build the kitchen cabinets yourself out of plywood, skip the granite, the garbage disposal, and the dishwasher, don't insulate the walls or attic, use cheap vinyl siding and single-paned windows, etc. You would have a house that largely mimics something built in 1920. Would you actually want to live in that house? That's another question…
I don't know that I would be happy in this house, but I love it. I love the idea of it, and I love the sheds.
Freedom in 704 Square Feet
JAN 22, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/garde ... -feet.html
RIP Marcello Gandini
clacy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:16 pm

Re: Building house

Post by clacy » Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:35 pm

As PS already pointed out, it ALWAYS costs more than you think.  Contractors will never quote updgrades or keep extra margin for unforeseen issues, and there are typically a few problems that occur which cause you to spend more money.
FarmerD
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:37 pm

Re: Building house

Post by FarmerD » Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:26 pm

The most overlooked part of your home is the concrete foundation, sidewalk/steps, driveway, etc.  Many contractors just slap down some concrete haphazardly.  If they do, in a couple years you will begin to see ugly cracks popping up everywhere.  To prevent this, follow a few simple steps.

1. Ensure subgrade is properly prepared.  A lot of contractors just level the dirt a little then slap down the concrete mix on the dirt.  Make sure the subgrade area is level and has a nice thick layer of wet gravel. 
2. Ensure the right amounts of cement, sand, and aggregate is used.  Contractors love to skimp on the expensive cement and use more water and sand than they should. 

3.  Use the proper thickness of concrete.  Using less concrete will mean a foundation that isn’t as strong.

3. Ensure the concrete is properly jointed.  Concrete needs to jointed in squares.  If you don’t joint it this way, the concrete will crack in such a way so that it is jointed into squares. 

4. Cure the concrete.  Curing means to keep the concrete moist so the chemical reaction in the concrete is allowed to continue until finished.  I’ve tested properly cured concrete and compared to uncured concrete, it will have 2-3 times the strength.  Most people will immediately cover the concrete with plastic sheeting for up to three weeks (hence the name “21 day Portland Cement”? ) although 10-14 days is usually sufficient.  During this time you may need to sprinkle water on the concrete otherwise the chemical reaction in the cement may cease.

http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete ... asics.html
http://www.concreteconstruction.net/sit ... -prep.aspx
http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete ... te_mix.htm

Since most people don’t know anything about concrete, contractors will often cut corners.  My brother hired a contractor to pour the foundation for 2 pole sheds.  The contractor skimped badly on the cement, and didn’t cure the concrete.  We bored 2 test holes in the sheds after they were done and took the samples to a testing laboratory where they performed compression tests.  The tests showed the concrete has a compression strength of 12,000 psi compared to the 30,000 PSI standard for Agricultural Buildings.  We showed the results to the contractor and told him to tear it up and start over or we’d sue.  He tore it up and did it right without a word. 
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Building house

Post by doodle » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:36 pm

So I took the first steps last week to clear the land. Had a massive 80 foot tall oak tree removed from the property. Good riddance! Not only are they nasty trees that drop leaves, acorns, and pollen everywhere, but sleeping with that hulking giant above my head knowing that a wind storm could bring it down on top of me meant it had to go. It wasn't cheap either....2300 dollars to get that sucker cut down and hauled away. I initially thought about doing it myself but eventually decided to bring in the professionals. It took 7 guys with chainsaws, chippers, stump grinders, bobcats, and a dump truck the better part of whole day to take it down. Had i gone at the project alone it probably would have taken me a decade. As impressive as the spectacle of watching the thing come down was, it was also my first lesson in the bottomless money pit that homeownership can be and it has taken me back to the drawing board in terms of home designs again. So, I'm coming back here for advice and input.

Here is my situation:

I am a minimalist. I have no desire to have a family. I have little desire to spend my time and money maintaining and paying taxes and insurance on a giant structure as well as the considerable loan interest. I currently live in a condo (which I own) however I would like to have some space to start growing my own food and a small garage to work on projects....so a house seemed like the natural solution.

Up to now I have been looking at traditional 3/2 floor plans in the 1200 to 1500 square foot range. Although I don't need or desire that much space to maintain, I have had resale value in the back on my head. A number of real estate professionals have told me that I need at least 2 bedrooms and 2 baths and over 1200 square feet to ever be able to sell it again. I am afraid to build a structure that has no market value.

On the other hand, I read articles like this and I can immediately identify with this couples philosophy. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/garde ... .html?_r=0

Ideally, if i take the concern of resale off the table (and I intend to live in this house for awhile...more that 7-10 years...if not forever) I would just build an open concept 1/1 in the 700 to 800 square foot range and put up a 300-400 square foot garage in the back. This would allow me to have plenty of space for gardening on the land, allow me to cool using solar, lower my taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs and keep away pesky long term house guests :-)

BUT!! Am I throwing good money at a bad investment by creating a house tailored for my needs without thinking about resale? How would you guys approach this problem? What would you do? Do you think that a house this size is truly unmarketable or is this simply a market segment that is so underrepresented that it is hard for realtors to evaluate?
Last edited by doodle on Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Building house

Post by doodle » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:09 pm

Thinking about it some more and working again on sketches I think the best solution will be to build the 1/1 that I want right now with a very logical point of connection for the addition of a second bedroom and bath. Maybe the day will come when I need it, maybe it won't. No sense in building it today for an unknown future
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Building house

Post by Pointedstick » Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:16 pm

It's a pickle, for sure. Knowing the local market is crucial. For example, here in New Mexico, you could build your dream house, call it a "casita" and it would sell in a week, especially if you incorporated a lot of thermal mass into the walls, put vigas on the ceilings and called it adobe. People would go nuts over it. Small houses like the one you want are common and desired …but not in suburbia. You'd have to build it in the city on a smaller lot than you might be comfortable with. There are always trade-offs. I see Craigslist ads for people selling beautiful houses a bit like the one you want to build for like $40k because it takes two hours to get there out in the boonies and you need a lifted truck to brave the unpaved roads.

You should probably listen to the pros regarding what sells in your local market, but remember that it's local, and conditions may be different elsewhere, even close by. I just bought and am living in a 3/2 1,100 square foot ranch house and I beat out a number of hungry investors who salivated over the property. Around here, you can definitely sell a house under 1,200 square feet.

"Bottomless money pit" is right, though. The bills I've faced in the last month are staggering. $5k for a new septic system, $2k for re-done gas plumbing, $2k for new engineered hardwood floors (materials alone, DIY project), the list goes on and on. I'm dreading the estimate for a new roof. Do yourself and future buyers a favor and put on a metal roof, either metal shingles or standing seam. Avoid exposed fastener R-panel types, since they won't last as long and will eventually leak.


How's this for an idea: since you're still in the design phase, design the house in such a way that you can live in it the way you want to and reconfigure it for resale later relatively cheaply. You need a bedroom and a bathroom, duh. So create interior spaces that could easily accommodate additional bedrooms and bathrooms. Make the bathroom a primary public one, and add plumbing stub-outs in a framed wall of your bedroom to easily add a master bathroom. Include a workshop type room that could easily be converted into a second bedroom. Build the garage in such a way that it could easily become a third bedroom, and design the floorplan to easily accommodate a logically-located carport or detached garage.

I would personally avoid planning for future additions. Additions are ridiculously expensive because you need to expand and logically tie into the existing foundation and roof, and these are not inexpensive tasks. Same with walls, siding, plumbing and electrical, not to mention HVAC. My parents built an addition when I was a kid and it made more financial sense to include A SECOND FURNACE than tie into the existing HVAC system. What a mess!
Last edited by Pointedstick on Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Building house

Post by Pointedstick » Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:48 pm

Another thing to think about is that two bedrooms is incredibly easy to design for. If you have a house that's a rectangle, for example, just put an interior wall between the two long outside walls to divide the house into a square and a smaller rectangle, then divide the smaller rectangle in half with another wall. Tada! Now you have two bedrooms that open into the open-concept living/kitchen area without needing a space-wasting hallway. After you go beyond two bedrooms, it gets harder to avoid having hallways or lofts. My 3-bedroom house has a 76 wasted feet of hallway. Design to avoid that!
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Building house

Post by doodle » Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:16 am

After clearing the plot, I've gone in circles about what kind of structure to build. Initially I was leaning towards a rectangular hip roof bungalow in the 1400-1500 square foot range to be built in a traditional arrangement with a general contractor, but my personal philosophy of frugality, minimalism, and self reliance kept butting heads with such a mainstream approach. That being the case, I have dialed things down in size and been looking at simpler styles of building that I would be able to accomplish on my own. One particular style that has potential I think for the novice owner builder are these Texas Hill Country Cabins. Nice wide porch for Florida summers, energy efficient metal roof, simple gable roof structure and rectangular layout. I'm thinking of something in this style now in the 900 square foot range 1 bed 1 bath with loft and designing for potential of future bedroom and bath addition. I am about one mile outside of downtown area of city so there is market for smaller structures. http://www.houzz.com/photos/1942608/Hil ... or-houston

Here is another beauty http://www.houzz.com/photos/2497799/Fre ... use-porch-

The limestone veneer certainly adds a lot to the design, but I'm thinking an earthy colored smooth stucco with stone accents might provide a similar effect on a smaller budget.

Another large chunk of my time over the last month has been dedicated to researching building materials and techniques. There are so many options to choose from its incredible. Being in South Florida, pest and wind resistance are at the top of my list when evaluating any material. Initially I was leaning towards standard CMU...however, I would need to get some practice laying mortar joints before I felt comfortable building a house using them. I was a bit wary of ICF with the pest/insect invasion issue as well as potential moisture and mold problems. Currently, I'm kind of attracted to these: http://www.apexblock.com/...strong, easy dry stack construction, good R value, pest/fire resistant.

As for roof, I'm strongly leaning towards metal. I like the look of clay tile roofs but the cost, weight, and energy efficiency can't compare. On a simple gable roof a metal roof should also be a snap to install especially with all the panels cut to length.

As far as the roof structure I'm still debating this...trusses would seem to be the easiest route....I need about a 26 foot span on my design and a truss would allow me to forgo having to worry about internal load bearing walls. That being said, they also eliminate the possibility for a sleeping loft so I have been looking at some post and beam options with rafters. Not sure yet on this....

Anyways, in addition to all this I have been doing a lot of volunteering at habitat for humanity and picking the site foremans brains out there as well as learning the practical side of putting up a structure. It's been a lot of fun and it's great to work outdoors with ones hands. This whole process really has me contemplating a future career change into a building trade potentially.

I am playing around with some architectural CAD programs online right now and as soon as I get closer to a final design I will post again. Any advice or suggestions are always welcome of course.
Last edited by doodle on Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Building house

Post by doodle » Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:28 am

Another thing to think about is that two bedrooms is incredibly easy to design for. If you have a house that's a rectangle, for example, just put an interior wall between the two long outside walls to divide the house into a square and a smaller rectangle, then divide the smaller rectangle in half with another wall. Tada! Now you have two bedrooms that open into the open-concept living/kitchen area without needing a space-wasting hallway. After you go beyond two bedrooms, it gets harder to avoid having hallways or lofts. My 3-bedroom house has a 76 wasted feet of hallway. Design to avoid that!
This is kind of what I have done but where would the bathroom go in such a design? It would have to be incorporated into one of the bedrooms....anytime a guest wanted to use the loo they would have to enter through a bedroom, right?
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Building house

Post by doodle » Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:31 am

On the subject of design, this is one of the more interesting ones I have come across in a while: http://m.imgur.com/a/Ps7Ta
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Building house

Post by Pointedstick » Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:49 pm

This is really exciting, doodle. I'm so happy for you!

One thing I really want to stress is that when you do construction-related activities yourself as a DIYer, it will take 500% more time and effort than you think and plan for, pretty much guaranteed, irrespective of how much planning you do. I too took the "volunteer at HFH to get experience" approach and am now a proud new homeowner tacking renovation projects on my own, and this has been my experience. I can actually do everything (awesome) but it takes a long time. And I don't even have a commute anymore; I work from home now. So depending on your work situation, you might not have many hours per day to do this work, and you also need to plan for physical and mental exhaustion, too. Don't expect to want to mortar a course of cinder blocks after a tough workday.

I'm not saying you can't do it yourself, you CAN! It'll just take you a really long time, and you have to plan for that. How will you protect your in-progress house from the rain? What will you do if a work emergency comes up in the middle of a concrete pour? Do you have the physical abilities or specialized equipment necessary to move bulky and heavy objects all by yourself?
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Building house

Post by Pointedstick » Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:59 pm

You can get trusses that permit a loft or room; they're called (sensibly enough) "room in attic" trusses.

If you like CMU, there's always dry-stack. You can do the whole house that way and then cover the surfaces with surface-bonding cement. Then just screw two inches of EPS foam to the surface and stucco it. Check out http://drystacked.com/

As for the $9,000 dream home, I believe that guy did it in Thailand or somewhere like that. Labor and materials are a lot cheaper in southeast Asia. ;) Without cold temperatures or building codes (or just simple bribes to get officials to look the other way), that's going to save a lot of money too. Those are simply unavoidable differences when you start talking about building in the USA or any developed country.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Building house

Post by I Shrugged » Wed Apr 02, 2014 5:18 pm

I'd say build what you want.  The resale market might not be as big but you will still sell it.  If you have some land, as it sounds, I think buyers would be more flexible on the house anyway.
Stay free, my friends.
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Building house

Post by doodle » Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:37 am

Ok...philosophical question here....what is the point of a bedroom or sleeping space that is much larger than the mattress? It seems that if the purpose of a bedroom is a place where you go to lay down and close your eyes it is pretty inefficient to design a space that is large enough to hold a large family gathering in. Watching HGTV though I'm flabbergasted by the number of people that want 400 square foot bedrooms. It seems like that space would be better utilized in common areas where people gather like the kitchen or family room. Any agree that small bedrooms make much more sense?
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Building house

Post by Pointedstick » Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:44 am

doodle wrote: Ok...philosophical question here....what is the point of a bedroom or sleeping space that is much larger than the mattress? It seems that if the purpose of a bedroom is a place where you go to lay down and close your eyes it is pretty inefficient to design a space that is large enough to hold a large family gathering in. Watching HGTV though I'm flabbergasted by the number of people that want 400 square foot bedrooms. It seems like that space would be better utilized in common areas where people gather like the kitchen or family room. Any agree that small bedrooms make much more sense?
I completely agree. Can't tell what the point is. Most large bedrooms that I've seen have simply had huge unused areas. Increases heating and cooling loads required to maintain nighttime comfort, too. If the bedroom can fit a mattress big enough for the number of people sleeping in it, plus their end tables, and maybe a bureau and a bookshelf, it's big enough!

And if you're going to turn it into an office, you're replacing  the biggest piece of furniture (the bed) with a smaller one (desk and chair). No reason why it needs to be huge.

My favorite HGTV insanity is bedrooms as big as living rooms and walk-in closets and dedicated master bathrooms as big as sensibly-sized bedrooms. A modern master suite can be like 700 square feet. Madness, I tell you! Madness!
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Building house

Post by doodle » Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:09 am

Another thing that makes no sense to me is the five or six burner stove and large oven.....especially for people who live in smaller houses and don't cook thanksgiving size feasts. I think it would make more sense to regain counter space lost to stove top and then simply buy a couple of these: http://www.amazon.com/Max-Burton-6000-1 ... ion+burner

Honestly, when was the last time you used more than two burners at the same time?

To replace the oven I Think a cabinet mounted microwave / oven combo would do the trick nicely: http://www.amazon.com/Cuisinart-CMW-200 ... wave+combo
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
l82start
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:51 pm

Re: Building house

Post by l82start » Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:31 pm

those look awesome. if i ever take up simple living they will be on the list.   
-Government 2020+ - a BANANA REPUBLIC - if you can keep it

-Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Building house

Post by Pointedstick » Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:51 pm

My wife and I bake and frequently cook with more than two burners. Never more than four, though, and for that reason, we got the simplest gas oven we could find. Those five burner ovens are nothing more than status symbols. We were at a family member's house for thanksgiving, and THEY had one of those Viking stoves with like 6 burners. I don't think more than 4 were ever in use at once.

Keep in mind the cost of electricity when you think about those induction burners. 1800 watts = about $0.20/hour, depending on electricity prices. By contrast, the hottest burner on my gas oven is 9,000 BTUs, which is 9% of a therm, which is about $1.00, for a grand total of $0.09 an hour.

Of course, if you're not plumbing the house for gas, it won't be worth it because with no heating appliance, modest use, and a small house, the base charge will undoubtedly be higher than your usage fees.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Building house

Post by Pointedstick » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:46 am

doodle wrote: Not a big fan of gas....it kind of scares me actually. Besides I want to run a lot of this off of solar panels.

As far as cooking goes though induction seems like the best way to go. You can program precise temperatures, set them to timers, they respond to adjustments immediately like gas, and because the heating element doesn't get hot they should heat the house less (of particular benefit in Florida)
I totally get being scared of gas. It scares me too. And I also don't like how you kind of can't do it yourself, because you really can blow yourself up. You're in a good situation being in Florida; your needs are mostly cooling which is going to be electricity no matter what for a mechanical system. But anywhere it gets cold, electric heating is outrageously expensive. Gas just makes more financial sense when you want to heat things. And unless you're planning to have a solar hot water preheater (which would be awesome, but complicated), an electric storage water heater is going to be about three or four times as expensive to run on an annual basis as gas for the same quantity of heat produced.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Building house

Post by doodle » Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:21 pm

I don't live up north but it seems like there are many types of home heating that could be better incorporated into homes than gas furnaces.

If i was building a house up north i would be looking at passive solar using window placement and thermalmass and one of these babies built onto some structure that could hold and radiate the stored heat for hours. url]http://jotul.com/us/home[/url]

That combined with good insulation and windows should do the trick.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Building house

Post by Pointedstick » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:56 am

doodle wrote: I don't live up north but it seems like there are many types of home heating that could be better incorporated into homes than gas furnaces.

If i was building a house up north i would be looking at passive solar using window placement and thermalmass and one of these babies built onto some structure that could hold and radiate the stored heat for hours. url]http://jotul.com/us/home[/url]

That combined with good insulation and windows should do the trick.
It's a lot more complicated than that. Passive solar does not work well in cold climates without an enormous amount of design work. It usually winds up being "active solar" with fans and blowers and heat pumps, and at that point, you pretty much have a solar-assisted HVAC system, which is a fancy way of saying that you have what everyone else has, only worse since the interior thermal mass takes longer to heat and cool compared to houses with low mass but high insulation. If you're freezing in your mass house with a heating system that's small (e.g. ductless mini-split heat pump) or difficult to fine-tune (e.g. wood stove), it will take hours for the mass to absorb the heat you're trying to fill the house with because convection and conduction will cause the hotter air to be robbed of its heat when it touches the cold thermal mass until the thermal mass has absorbed enough heat from the air that the two are roughly in equilibrium.

This actually makes passive solar houses well-suited to being equipped with conventional HVAC systems that would otherwise be grossly oversized for a low-mass-high-insulation Passivehaus-type structure. If you're cold, you turn on your 60,000 BTU furnace and it can rapidly heat the thermal masses the way a 20,000 BTU heat pump could rapidly heat a massless superinsulated interior space. But the difference is that once the thermal mass is charged with this heat, it will retain it far longer compared to the only superinsulated space because in addition to insulation, it also has storage capacity. So maybe you'll only have to run your large conventional heater once every two days, and such equipment itself will be far cheaper and easier to purchase and have serviced than the more esoteric small heaters and coolers that superinsulated houses typically require. Ductless mini-split heat pump systems can cost like $5,000! By contrast, you can get a 60,000 BTU 98% efficient gas furnace for half that.

My ideal in a cold northern climate would be a high-mass house with about R-40+ insulation on all sides (including under the slab, and more in the ceiling) that's sized and situated so that solar irradiance can directly heat it right up to the point where any more would make it overheat on hot days. Then for the small number of days where the sun isn't enough, it would have a conventional gas furnace. In climates like the desert southwest where you can count on a lot of sun year-round, the gas furnace would be supplemented or replaced by a solar thermal radiant heat system with the collection panels located elsewhere on the property so they could be as big as required. If designed properly, such a house could have heating bills that were practically zero.

Of course, all of this can simply be bypassed by rolling back your standards of comfort 100 years or so.  ;)
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Post Reply