I love the look of that house, seems extremely cosy and well-designed.
But it's pretty hypocritical to present it as cheap and frugal.
The cost of a house is land + labor + material. Land costs depend on where you want to live, but can be the biggest factor. He mentions 1500 hours of labor, which, if you were paying somebody to do it, would be somewhere around 100000 USD (full cost of a skilled craftsman is around $60/hour). And even the 5000 dollars for materials is a fool's calculation, since he mentions using scrap materials, i.e. stuff that somebody else had to pay to produce.
If you want something truly sustainable, i.e. not something pseudo-green and feelgood-ecologigal, but something that anybody can afford, you'd unfortunately would have to go with a mass-produced high-rise block of flats.
Not a fan of the do-gooder hypocrisy here, but as an example of an architectural style that blends into nature it's adorable and looks fantastic.
Initially we had no capital and we had decided resolutely to be full time parents whilst our children were young. As you’ll appreciate to be a full time mum and part time dad our income is low, about £5,000 p.a, so a mortgage was not an option and the prospects for renting seemed grim. Providence came our way and a landowner offered us the chance to move to his woodland in west Wales to build an eco-house. There would be no formal security or long term ownership, but £2000 was available for materials, so we jumped at the idea without a backward glance.
Sounds like just the sort of risk-taking, scrappy bootstrapping story that'd do well on HN, but everyone seems to be bagging it.
ps. Scrap = things that other people are chucking away, or will have to pay to take away. Making use of it is a good thing.
He mentions 1500 hours of labor, which, if you were paying somebody to do it, would be somewhere around 100000 USD (full cost of a skilled craftsman is around $60/hour).
This statement could be used against almost anything falling under DIY, hacking, hobby work, etc. I mean, sure, you are technically correct, but who counts that, if you are having fun doing something for yourself.
Yeah, I'll bet a mass-produced high-rise in China costs way less than $5000 per one-room unit, and at practically zero land cost, too, given its vastly smaller footprint. That's a damn good point.
A used shipping container is about $2,000. You'd want to check it for chemicals. It's closer to $10,000 if you want them fitted out as something you can live in, though. I'm not sure about the charm factor.
I remember reading about this a long time ago. The builder's own website on the subject is a much better link, which presents the hows and whys:
http://www.simondale.net/house/
The OP is nothing more than a copy-paste job, though given how old it is, there might be some interesting discussion in the comments.
I believe from what I've read in the past that this was more of an exhibition piece than a long term place to live.
What bugs me about projects like this, is that they're being presented as 'sustainable' while they're the antithesis of that. If everybody would want to live like that, there wouldn't be enough room, let alone large, undisturbed areas for forests or agriculture; plus this house may have cost the builder only 5000 pounds (if you don't count the land), but that's only possible when it's a one-of-a-kind project. If you'd have to take into account the supply network needed to build a house like this, and live in it, to a reasonably comfortable standard (meaning, at the very least: warm, dry, no vermin inside, access to sewer and running water), it would become a lot more expensive, if not downright impossible.
I get the room part, but it cost him 5000 pounds because he built it out of logs and straw bales. There's not really a massive supply network needed for that sort of thing.
Also, your idea of a decent house is (obviously) not necessarily his idea of a decent house (eg. he has a composting toilet), but it looks pretty warm and dry and vermin free to me.
If your interested in cheap housing. Yurts are worth a look. They are used by half the population of Mongolia, and can be very warm. They make a great cabin retreat, but they are not quite as nice a normal american home without the added expense and convenience of plumbing, electrical, etc...
However, in there base form, they cost around $5000. See the link below for pricing:
I've got to point out, you've got to have the right climate for these earth-sunk homes. Insulation works great when it's dealing with convected air (IE protecting your house from freezing cold outside, and with building paper from a harsh wind too).
Whilst the earth provides great protection against summer heat (thermal mass), it offers you nothing against the winter cold. Seriously, I question this house surviving a winter in liveable condition. By his drawing, there's likely minimal to no foundation structure, which means his retaining walls are relying solely on their mass to hold back soil. Note that frost heaving can exert a force of 14,000PSI and you better hope your wall is big enough.
Modern built homes in cold climates (where I live, Canada) rely on footings below the frost line (so your house doesn't split in two or more pieces), the basement floor and first floor joists to supply the lateral forces to resist the freezing soil. Simply put, rocks on soil and timber shallowly buried is a serious danger if a heavy freeze gets under any of them.
That's pretty cool, and, naturally, it looks like it was founded by some hippyish individuals not far from my home town of Eugene. Where else but Oregon or Northern California would people do something like that? :-) They do look like a pretty good option for a cabin for some land in the mountains. I wonder how well they do being left alone for most of the year.
Shipping containers are often used, which can be had for half this used. Usualy a much better idea IMO. Refrigeration units offer good insulation, often alongside partial burying of them. They can also look fairly like the western norm inside.
Yurts are cool structures and relatively heat-efficient. You can find them everywhere now. In the western world at least, they are built with modern engineered materials most of the time.
What is cool about the OP is that it's totally built in the rustic style - sticks, logs, etc. This is a bit distinct from deciding to build a "yurt." For more examples, google it, or check out something like Dry Kye (http://drykyerustic.com/). Disclaimer: this is my cousin in Maine. He harvests his own materials and is especially fond of salvaging patina-ed, old-growth wood from very old abandoned barns in the Maine countryside.
Lived in a similar sturcture for about a year as a kid growing up. House didn't have enough room for myself and my brother, so we built one in our back yard. They're warmer than you'd think, quick to set up, and they last a while. Great for guest rooms, but make sure you have an outhouse available, or at least running water.
While the house cute and quaint, cozy and cheap, methinks most of us are more fond of modern straight-line homes than "hobbit" habitats.
For some time now I've been digging for info on building ultra-cheap housing, starting with an interest in log homes and branching into "tiny houses". Goal is to get my kids to earn and move into paid-off real estate by graduation.
Such things are built in the woods of Southern Oregon, and in my hipper days I had the pleasure of living in some of them, and helped to build or refit a few others.
It's all good until the roof fails catastrophically.
Here in the UK we have a show called Grand Designs on Channel 4. Its a show about self builders. One of the episodes featured a guy called Ben Law(S09E13). He is a woodsman who worked woodland in a strict conservation area. He wanted a home in his woods, and did a similar thing but on a bigger scale. For electricity, he had solar and wind power, feeding submarine batteries. He collected and purified water. Waste waster was, IIRC, fed in to a reed bed. He also had internet sorted out, cant remember how.
I cant find a decent site that shows the build, but for any one interested, it worth a google. Ben has a website, but there is not much detail there. There are also various vids on youtube.
For any one vaguely interested, this project is well worth look up.
this was such a wildly popular (for channel 4) programme that they did a follow up. He had built an extension for his new family (single originally, and let's face it the project was a form of therapy) and was / is now making a small income teaching others how to do it.
My concern, and only real defence of the construction industry, is there probably are not enough hillsides and trees to go round. But as one living opposite a building site, yes, the construction industry can stand to learn one or two sustainability lessons
In Germany: After digging out the first stone, the neighbors called the building authority and declares a full stop to your efforts until you hand in hundreds of papers and plans done by an architect and approved by a constructional engineer -.-
I've been around the Internet for a long long time and that's the first time I've seen "SCNR". As I had to search to see what it was I'd suggest you expand it in future usage.
You are right in the point you make though, continental Europe is awash with ridiculous red tape and pompous bureaucrats. Although I have to say I am surprised that the he "got away with it" in the UK as it's not much better there.
I like what he's done and I'd love to do it if I could somehow work around a few issues such as: I have a job, I can't build a house 8 hours a day for 30 weeks (1500 hours) and I can't get the land deal he did.
I'd be really interested in seeing an easily repeatable solution that doesn't come down to living in squalor.
I like what he's done and I'd love to do it if I could somehow work around a few issues such as:
I have a job:
Go down to 50-60%, adjust living expenses accordingly
I can't build a house 8 hours a day for 30 weeks (1500 hours)
So go a bit more than 30 Weeks. Let's assume you work 3 days a week (60%). If you average 4 hours a day on the days you work and 8 hours on the days you don't, you'll be done in 60 weeks. Also there is nothing that says you have to work on the project alone. If you have just one person helping you 50% of the time, then you're down to 45 weeks.
I can't get the land deal he did
Have you tried? Sure you probably won't get land next door to where you're living right now, but if you're willing to relocate finding cheap or even free land is far from impossible.
No one said that it was easy, and I'll be first to admit that it's not for me and I'm not even going to try. But I'm also sure that for someone who really wanted to do it and was willing to make the necessary sacrifices it's certainly an option.
The whole point of having that job is you can generate more value doing that than, say, spending the better part of a year building a house full-time. By spending 8 hours a day for 30 weeks writing software (or whatever you do besides HN), you can support yourself, dependents, and laborers who in turn will build you a house - that's a pretty darned good deal on your part. Good job on adding so much wealth to society!
Sure his solution isn't "easily repeatable" and involves living in squalor. He's not giving up productivity to build the house, but you would be. As such, it's a step up for him, and a step down for you. If it was "easily repeatable" it wouldn't entail 1500 hours of labor, or ~$100K to buy it.
What does resemble an "easily repeatable" solution is http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/plans where you can start with the plans for a really minimal home for $17, little box bungalows for $99, or more normal looking houses (albeit tiny) for a few hundred. Most are designed for small trailer frames, so you can build one in your spare time with supplies as cheap as you willing to get, find suitable cheap/odd land, and haul it there when ready.
Upshot is you pay high prices because the alternative is doing serious labor yourself.
How long is this house expected to last? did they remember to coat the wood? termites and woodlouse are going to be a pain in the ass in that location...and then there's the rain... and cold...
There's a reason we use modern materials, like bricks, modern insulation and tiles, to build modern homes. They work and have proven robust (although mass production has also lowered price on some less desirable materials). Nice little project though.
I can assure you, straw bales are better insulation than modern fiberglass. A family member lived on a sustainable farm where they had a 40 foot diameter roundhouse with 25 foot ceilings and an upper loft. Basically, a big volume. It was easily heated, and kept incredibly cozy, by a single woodburning stove.
Additionally, it was fully plumbed with water (though used composting toilets outside), as well as electricity.
If it rains enough, I expect that the house will collapse.
Also what about Electricity, Water and Internet (ok there is wifi) but electricity and water needs their proper setup. Gas is important too, if it gets too cold, and I expect they want to cook something.
Legendary ! that is pretty awesome. I guess there are conditions on where you can do that and thinking about it now i cant think of anywhere near me where i could do that if i wanted/could do it.
Though if i went back to where my parents came from in south east asia i could think of alot of places where that would work.
I feel like you'd need to know a lot of engineering to be able to design the thing, and still be able to sleep at night knowing it won't collapse on you.
Also how does something like this work with county inspectors?
Think about these massive Middle-Ages cathedrals done before we had Newton's Laws and modern notions of engineering. How did the architects do it? Well, they were hackers with a large budget. The architect usually had never built anything on this scale before and had no idea how their much-smaller-scale building experience would scale up. In particular, the fact that arches create sideways stresses which tend to bulge a large, open building outwards wasn't necessarily well-known by many of these architects.
So what did they do? They just tried it and saw what worked. They hacked it together. If it doesn't start buckling and collapsing in the first month, it could probably last for a couple hundred years, maybe more if the ground doesn't shift in unexpected ways. The walls started bowing out? Then we'll build structures to buttress them back in. There's a dangerous sagging happening between these two columns? Well, place a third column in there!
Of course, wood offers a lot of questions as a building material, since it's got a lot of energy in a bioactive form which lots of critters and cellular lifeforms might enjoy eating, and therefore needs to be treated in ways that might tend to prevent these critters from using it as a food source. Keeping it not-wet is an important first step which isn't discussed very well in the article.
But for what it's worth, this was the way you built houses before we had engineering. You just went for it and spent a bunch of the year working on it, and it better be successful because you've got to have a place to sleep this winter.
Based on the photographs, it does not appear to be engineered - roof supports do not appear to be of adequate depth to support live, dead, and snow loads. People can dance on that roof and under most building standards deflection is the controlling factor for structures this size.
IMO, it is highly improbably that adequate structural analysis was done on all those small twisted members because branches and stunted trunks contain so many knots and so much sapwood.
On the positive side, the approach is straight out of Christopher Alexander's A Pattern Language, and any victims of the inadequate structural design will be due to Darwinian forces.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Castle - this guy lives out in the middle of nowhere in Colorado (where he doesn't have to worry much about inspection, although he has had people raise a bit of a fuss from time to time), but he's certainly not an engineer by any means and he's built an entire, stable castle that's supported hundreds of tourists every single day for years without any incident. It turns out that most humans have a pretty good intuition for what will stand and what won't.
Also, if you're ever in CO, it's worth the visit. Really.
Also how does something like this work with county inspectors?
My experience with county inspectors is they don't build anything.
They show up to inspect the work after it's done, certify it's to standards and call it a day.
If you're real lucky you'll get an inspector who is buddies with certain contractors in the area. Woe to the poor SOB who doesn't use them - you'll have a heckuva time getting that work signed off.
Yeah boy: how would we get anything done without county inspectors.
[+] [-] elmarschraml|14 years ago|reply
But it's pretty hypocritical to present it as cheap and frugal.
The cost of a house is land + labor + material. Land costs depend on where you want to live, but can be the biggest factor. He mentions 1500 hours of labor, which, if you were paying somebody to do it, would be somewhere around 100000 USD (full cost of a skilled craftsman is around $60/hour). And even the 5000 dollars for materials is a fool's calculation, since he mentions using scrap materials, i.e. stuff that somebody else had to pay to produce.
If you want something truly sustainable, i.e. not something pseudo-green and feelgood-ecologigal, but something that anybody can afford, you'd unfortunately would have to go with a mass-produced high-rise block of flats.
Not a fan of the do-gooder hypocrisy here, but as an example of an architectural style that blends into nature it's adorable and looks fantastic.
[+] [-] anthonyb|14 years ago|reply
Initially we had no capital and we had decided resolutely to be full time parents whilst our children were young. As you’ll appreciate to be a full time mum and part time dad our income is low, about £5,000 p.a, so a mortgage was not an option and the prospects for renting seemed grim. Providence came our way and a landowner offered us the chance to move to his woodland in west Wales to build an eco-house. There would be no formal security or long term ownership, but £2000 was available for materials, so we jumped at the idea without a backward glance.
Sounds like just the sort of risk-taking, scrappy bootstrapping story that'd do well on HN, but everyone seems to be bagging it.
ps. Scrap = things that other people are chucking away, or will have to pay to take away. Making use of it is a good thing.
[+] [-] lkozma|14 years ago|reply
This statement could be used against almost anything falling under DIY, hacking, hobby work, etc. I mean, sure, you are technically correct, but who counts that, if you are having fun doing something for yourself.
[+] [-] Vivtek|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wisty|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] upthedale|14 years ago|reply
The OP is nothing more than a copy-paste job, though given how old it is, there might be some interesting discussion in the comments.
I believe from what I've read in the past that this was more of an exhibition piece than a long term place to live.
[+] [-] roel_v|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anthonyb|14 years ago|reply
Also, your idea of a decent house is (obviously) not necessarily his idea of a decent house (eg. he has a composting toilet), but it looks pretty warm and dry and vermin free to me.
[+] [-] mseebach|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nkh|14 years ago|reply
However, in there base form, they cost around $5000. See the link below for pricing:
http://www.yurts.com/products/default.aspx
(I am not affiliated with anyone selling any yurts, I just happen to like them).
[+] [-] electromagnetic|14 years ago|reply
Whilst the earth provides great protection against summer heat (thermal mass), it offers you nothing against the winter cold. Seriously, I question this house surviving a winter in liveable condition. By his drawing, there's likely minimal to no foundation structure, which means his retaining walls are relying solely on their mass to hold back soil. Note that frost heaving can exert a force of 14,000PSI and you better hope your wall is big enough.
Modern built homes in cold climates (where I live, Canada) rely on footings below the frost line (so your house doesn't split in two or more pieces), the basement floor and first floor joists to supply the lateral forces to resist the freezing soil. Simply put, rocks on soil and timber shallowly buried is a serious danger if a heavy freeze gets under any of them.
[+] [-] davidw|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polshaw|14 years ago|reply
Heres an example built with 2; http://thechive.com/2011/07/26/unbelievable-home-built-out-o...
e: also, a more aspirational one.. obviously more expensive and more containers required; http://www.lowimpactliving.com/blog/2009/07/07/affordable-sh...
[+] [-] hammock|14 years ago|reply
What is cool about the OP is that it's totally built in the rustic style - sticks, logs, etc. This is a bit distinct from deciding to build a "yurt." For more examples, google it, or check out something like Dry Kye (http://drykyerustic.com/). Disclaimer: this is my cousin in Maine. He harvests his own materials and is especially fond of salvaging patina-ed, old-growth wood from very old abandoned barns in the Maine countryside.
[+] [-] jjcm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ctdonath|14 years ago|reply
For some time now I've been digging for info on building ultra-cheap housing, starting with an interest in log homes and branching into "tiny houses". Goal is to get my kids to earn and move into paid-off real estate by graduation.
To keep it short, here's some interesting links:
Tumbleweed Houses - http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/ (plans starting at $20; in one notable case, house built for $10K)
MIT $1K house project - http://web.mit.edu/1khouse/ (seems defunct, but a noble start)
Tiny House Blog - http://tinyhouseblog.com/ (ongoing reviews of small and/or inexpensive options)
Cheap houses - https://www.google.com/search?q=cheap+houses (there is a lot of dirt-cheap real estate out there if you're flexible)
Free land - https://www.google.com/search?q=free+land (some jurisdictions will, in fact, give you land free if you'll build a house & live there a while)
[+] [-] bdg|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sodiumphosphate|14 years ago|reply
It's all good until the roof fails catastrophically.
[+] [-] alan_cx|14 years ago|reply
I cant find a decent site that shows the build, but for any one interested, it worth a google. Ben has a website, but there is not much detail there. There are also various vids on youtube.
For any one vaguely interested, this project is well worth look up.
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|14 years ago|reply
this was such a wildly popular (for channel 4) programme that they did a follow up. He had built an extension for his new family (single originally, and let's face it the project was a form of therapy) and was / is now making a small income teaching others how to do it.
My concern, and only real defence of the construction industry, is there probably are not enough hillsides and trees to go round. But as one living opposite a building site, yes, the construction industry can stand to learn one or two sustainability lessons
[+] [-] ctdonath|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roqetman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] myspy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hussong|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drats|14 years ago|reply
You are right in the point you make though, continental Europe is awash with ridiculous red tape and pompous bureaucrats. Although I have to say I am surprised that the he "got away with it" in the UK as it's not much better there.
[+] [-] vishaldpatel|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smallegan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Retric|14 years ago|reply
Which, is still great for such a cool house IMO.
[+] [-] bdg|14 years ago|reply
I'd be really interested in seeing an easily repeatable solution that doesn't come down to living in squalor.
[+] [-] dagw|14 years ago|reply
I have a job:
Go down to 50-60%, adjust living expenses accordingly
I can't build a house 8 hours a day for 30 weeks (1500 hours)
So go a bit more than 30 Weeks. Let's assume you work 3 days a week (60%). If you average 4 hours a day on the days you work and 8 hours on the days you don't, you'll be done in 60 weeks. Also there is nothing that says you have to work on the project alone. If you have just one person helping you 50% of the time, then you're down to 45 weeks.
I can't get the land deal he did
Have you tried? Sure you probably won't get land next door to where you're living right now, but if you're willing to relocate finding cheap or even free land is far from impossible.
No one said that it was easy, and I'll be first to admit that it's not for me and I'm not even going to try. But I'm also sure that for someone who really wanted to do it and was willing to make the necessary sacrifices it's certainly an option.
[+] [-] ctdonath|14 years ago|reply
Sure his solution isn't "easily repeatable" and involves living in squalor. He's not giving up productivity to build the house, but you would be. As such, it's a step up for him, and a step down for you. If it was "easily repeatable" it wouldn't entail 1500 hours of labor, or ~$100K to buy it.
What does resemble an "easily repeatable" solution is http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/plans where you can start with the plans for a really minimal home for $17, little box bungalows for $99, or more normal looking houses (albeit tiny) for a few hundred. Most are designed for small trailer frames, so you can build one in your spare time with supplies as cheap as you willing to get, find suitable cheap/odd land, and haul it there when ready.
Upshot is you pay high prices because the alternative is doing serious labor yourself.
[+] [-] ryandvm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brador|14 years ago|reply
There's a reason we use modern materials, like bricks, modern insulation and tiles, to build modern homes. They work and have proven robust (although mass production has also lowered price on some less desirable materials). Nice little project though.
[+] [-] gazrogers|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cullenking|14 years ago|reply
Additionally, it was fully plumbed with water (though used composting toilets outside), as well as electricity.
[+] [-] csomar|14 years ago|reply
If it rains enough, I expect that the house will collapse.
Also what about Electricity, Water and Internet (ok there is wifi) but electricity and water needs their proper setup. Gas is important too, if it gets too cold, and I expect they want to cook something.
[+] [-] anthonyb|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sidman|14 years ago|reply
Though if i went back to where my parents came from in south east asia i could think of alot of places where that would work.
[+] [-] sharpn|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tocomment|14 years ago|reply
Also how does something like this work with county inspectors?
[+] [-] drostie|14 years ago|reply
Think about these massive Middle-Ages cathedrals done before we had Newton's Laws and modern notions of engineering. How did the architects do it? Well, they were hackers with a large budget. The architect usually had never built anything on this scale before and had no idea how their much-smaller-scale building experience would scale up. In particular, the fact that arches create sideways stresses which tend to bulge a large, open building outwards wasn't necessarily well-known by many of these architects.
So what did they do? They just tried it and saw what worked. They hacked it together. If it doesn't start buckling and collapsing in the first month, it could probably last for a couple hundred years, maybe more if the ground doesn't shift in unexpected ways. The walls started bowing out? Then we'll build structures to buttress them back in. There's a dangerous sagging happening between these two columns? Well, place a third column in there!
Of course, wood offers a lot of questions as a building material, since it's got a lot of energy in a bioactive form which lots of critters and cellular lifeforms might enjoy eating, and therefore needs to be treated in ways that might tend to prevent these critters from using it as a food source. Keeping it not-wet is an important first step which isn't discussed very well in the article.
But for what it's worth, this was the way you built houses before we had engineering. You just went for it and spent a bunch of the year working on it, and it better be successful because you've got to have a place to sleep this winter.
[+] [-] brudgers|14 years ago|reply
IMO, it is highly improbably that adequate structural analysis was done on all those small twisted members because branches and stunted trunks contain so many knots and so much sapwood.
On the positive side, the approach is straight out of Christopher Alexander's A Pattern Language, and any victims of the inadequate structural design will be due to Darwinian forces.
http://www.patternlanguage.com/leveltwo/ca.htm
[+] [-] bri3d|14 years ago|reply
Also, if you're ever in CO, it's worth the visit. Really.
[+] [-] bdunbar|14 years ago|reply
My experience with county inspectors is they don't build anything.
They show up to inspect the work after it's done, certify it's to standards and call it a day.
If you're real lucky you'll get an inspector who is buddies with certain contractors in the area. Woe to the poor SOB who doesn't use them - you'll have a heckuva time getting that work signed off.
Yeah boy: how would we get anything done without county inspectors.
[+] [-] gutini|14 years ago|reply