
A house that costs $20k - prostoalex
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3056129/this-house-costs-just-20000-but-its-nicer-than-yours
======
ACow_Adonis
It's kind of hard for me to tell whether the house is nicer than mine when
there's so little detail in the article on the actual house.

Look, i'm more than supportive of innovative design and doing things cheaply,
but for an article that was heavy on "the house is so cheap", and "its built
kinda more like a airplane", and "it uses all this innovative stuff", there's
a startling dearth of information.

Sqm, plans, insulation, facilities, utilities, safety? Is it a house I'd want
to live in or build, or is it a $20,000 shed with furniture? I'm not being
snarky, I really want to know!

~~~
marincounty
They left out current building codes. I have a general contractor's licence.
To build anything involves so many rules/codes it's rediculious.

Every year the building department in your town/city usually includes the
latest codes, and prohibits so many things. It all sounds great until you are
paying someone to build something. The various building code manuals take up
at least two feet of space on my shelf.

Where I live, I couldn't build a cabin with wood stove. It would need a
electric plug every 6'. I couldn't even use logs to build it without approved
man made insulation. And forget the wood stove. They are illegial.

~~~
dwiel
I tried to build a nice, cheap small house and ran into these exact same
regulations. Almost all of the regulations we hit were from the 'International
Building Code' which covers a large part of the US. I'd say building a to code
house here costs at least $50k - $60k. This is just bare minimum meet the
code. To add to your list:

    
    
      - composting toilets are allowed, but you still need a sewer hookup available, just in case
      - heating had to be automatic (thermostat + gas/electric), wood stove/insert only is illegal
      - outlets every 6' and even more in the kitchen
      - stairs cant be steep, even to lofted areas and so take up more space, more $
      - minimum square foot requirements
    

We had a nice building department that helped us work around some of the
codes, but even that took a lot of time (money).

Where we were and what we were trying to do would have cost significantly less
if we were allowed to use composting toilets [1] and grey water and avoid
sewer. Many states are coming around to grey water laws, but as of now I don't
think any allow no sewer/septic, even if you don't have anything draining into
them. You have to have them for 'backup'

[1] [http://www.sun-mar.com/](http://www.sun-mar.com/)

~~~
toomuchtodo
This is why tiny houses on trailers took off; it sidesteps building code due
to them being classified as RVs.

~~~
dwiel
Except you can't legally park and live in them in many cities. Sure you can
relocate if you get caught, but how many times before they catch on and you
get in big trouble? Its a more practical way to break the rules, but in most
places you are still breaking the rules.

------
IkmoIkmo
The $20k is an aspiration (read, total bs atm), the pictures you're seeing are
for a house that cost $135k.

[http://www.artsatl.com/2016/01/serenbe-rural-studio-
artist-r...](http://www.artsatl.com/2016/01/serenbe-rural-studio-artist-
residence/)

It must be mentioned that houses carry a huge location premium, everyone knows
this. You can buy a big beautiful home in the middle of nowhere for the cost
of a studio in the middle of NY or SF.

Living isn't all that expensive, living close to where jobs are, or close to
the 'heart' of a vibrant local culture, that's expensive, and it looks like
the actual cost of building isn't the most significant part of that equation.
Land is expensive, so you need to go up, and building up and space-efficiently
(i.e. reasonably tall buildings with smart, space efficient units) is where a
lot of these 'open-source plans for cheap rural houses with materials from
Home Depot' completely do not apply.

It's a bit like building your own PC. Yeah you can build a much more powerful
machine at a cheaper rate than a Macbook... but you're forgoing all kinds of
factors like mobility which are extremely essential to many of today's
consumers. Similarly, you can build a cheap rural home and completely forgo on
extremely essential factors like proximity to jobs, culture and
infrastructure.

It's great for some people, but not for most.

~~~
tejohnso
"pictures you're seeing are for a house that cost $135k"

yet

"Smith says they have priced materials for these homes, each under 550 square
feet, at Home Depot, at about $13,000."

So it would be nice if they had detailed the real costs. As indicated, the
material cost is relatively insignificant.

------
jonstewart
The article doesn't mention this explicitly, but it sure seems as though this
tiny house project is geared towards Appalachia and the rural South.
Appalachia is generally the mountainous parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina (maybe some parts of Ohio,
too). It has its own culture and dialect. It is also the poorest region of the
United States; Appalachia is a huge component of why the US is not like other
first world countries.

In Appalachia, it is not uncommon for desperately poor families to live in
shacks or horribly broken down mobile homes, on land that's been passed down
for generations, sometimes predating US independence. So, this house helps to
solve the safe, modern, cheap problem for housing in Appalachia. Also note
that one of their goals is making it sustainable for contractors to build and
providing lots of instructions--that's to help provide jobs. There aren't a
lot of jobs in Appalachia.

So, this is why the house is not an apartment building. It's not built for
Germany.

~~~
sageabilly
My first thought when reading the article and seeing the pictures is that
there's no way this design (as depicted) would work in Appalachia without
enclosing and insulating around the bottom of the house. Otherwise, your pipes
would freeze and the house would be way, way too cold during the winter. I was
also disappointed that the article didn't go into the R-value of the house
itself as that's going to be extremely important with regards to where the
home could be built. I'm assuming it's probably pretty good, given that it's
new construction materials, but I would not want to weather out an Appalachian
winter in one unless it had been properly designed to withstand a harsh
winter.

~~~
logfromblammo
Auburn University is in Alabama. These houses are designed for the rural
South. You don't have to dig down too far to reach the frost heave line (14"
or less). The primary climate concerns are therefore summer cooling, storm
drainage, and tornadoes. When there is a freeze warning, people let their
faucets drip.

These designs could be used in Tennessee and North Carolina, but that's as far
north as I'd be willing to try them.

But then again, it's a lot easier to dig deep holes for piers than a full
basement, and you could insulate the underside of the house more thoroughly
than is usually done.

------
jernfrost
Probably nice for the US, but in much of the rest of the world, it is the
price of land which dominate the price. Any system that aims to reduce house
prices really need to deal with limited supply of land to build on.

Even on Iceland which has vast amounts of space and tiny population, house
prices are high because the areas where people want to live is in high demand.

Now if you could just build your house at any arbitrary location on Iceland
then that would not be a problem. But people needs schools for children,
hospitals, jobs etc. That limits the options.

The US has fairly cheap land because it is flat, it is easy to build
infrastructure and there are a lot of roads everywhere which you can connect
to. The city planning also space out things a lot leaving a lot of land for
building.

~~~
raggiskula
Icelander here, I'm more concerned how well does this house work in icelandic
conditions? Does it handle earthquakes well? What about regular storms? Being
wet for months end? Constant freezing and thawing? Can you put it in an active
volcano? Does if float on magma? There are lot of questions here!

~~~
luisramalho
_Does it float on magma?_

Do houses in Iceland really do that?

~~~
david-given
Only briefly.

~~~
logfromblammo
If you built a boat from SiC attached to enormous heat sinks radiating into
empty space, it would float for longer.

------
Ao7bei3s
> How do you design a home that someone living below the poverty line can
> afford

Why not rent a flat instead? Wouldn't that be much more economical (no
property prices, lower heating costs, less maintenance work, less risk, not
built on the cheap)?

I don't understand the fixation on owning a house / living in a single-family
house many americans seem to have.

~~~
DiabloD3
Rent does not build wealth. Rent is the act of transferring wealth from the
poor to the rich. Rent is, essentially, theft from society itself, it leaves
_everyone_ poorer when most people rent.

Rent in America today is identical to the serfs of old.

The post-WW2 thing the Government did with getting everyone mortgages so they
would be home owners that caused the eventual economic collapse 10 years ago?
They had the right idea, but the wrong execution.

Instead of making everyone homeowners, make everyone fiscally responsible so
that getting a mortgage wouldn't be hard for them in the first place.

I don't entirely blame them though: building Freddy and Fannie was magnitudes
easier than fixing the broken parts of American society and (lack of)
education.

This is one of the large reasons why I'm supporting Bernie, he actually has
spoken in depth about how to fix the underlying bullshit that keeps so many
Americans renters instead of being homeowners and building their personal
wealth.

It has been proven in at least one study that financial stress causes a
measurable drop in IQ: literally, being poor makes you stupid. We need less
stupid people, to put it frankly.

Edit: Don't downvote. Reply with your counter-viewpoint. HN isn't Reddit.

Edit 2: Bernie said it better than me:
[http://imgur.com/gallery/DaHIv](http://imgur.com/gallery/DaHIv)

~~~
majewsky
> Rent is, essentially, theft from society itself, it leaves everyone poorer
> when most people rent.

Not necessarily. It depends on whom you're giving the money to. If it's a
profit-oriented company or investor or the like, then I'd tend to agree with
you.

On the other hand, I'm renting my apartment from a housing cooperative that
I'm also a member of. The cooperative releases a yearly financial report
detailing that rents are for the most part used for maintaining the buildings
owned by the cooperative, and to buy new land and construct new buildings.

I consider that model very sensible; it allows me to delegate all tasks
relating to the maintenance of my apartment to people who are more competent
in this area, and who can negotiate better rates with craftspeople.

It also gives me much of the social security that people usually associate
with self-owned apartments or buildings since my lease contract literally
states that the cooperative is not allowed to throw me out of the apartment
(given that I obey the rules of the house, of course). But at the same time, I
have the flexibility to easily move to a different apartment somewhere else in
the city (or somewhere else entirely) without having to deal with selling the
apartment and buying a new one.

~~~
timwaagh
in my country this is the most common form of renting. the cooperatives
benefit from legal protections which prevent for profits from entering the
market. however it means there is no competition and prices are artificially
high. also a huge amount of corruption scandals involving the higher-ups of
housing cooperatives.

~~~
majewsky
Interesting. Over here (Germany) the prices in housing cooperatives are
actually ridiculously low, compared to the rest of the apartment market. As a
student, I lived in a single-room apartment with separate kitchen and bath, 26
square meters total, for less than 200 euros (including utilities).

~~~
timwaagh
well here (netherlands) you have zoning. they are the only ones allowed to do
anything in 'social housing' zones. the government asks higher prices (for
land) in other zones. i needed to pay off the government for 30000 when i
bought my place because it used to be in the social housing zone too. that
30k/unit needs to be factored in when comparing coops and others. i believe
legally others are not even allowed to charge under 800.

But you kinda prove my point about artificially high prices. there is no
reason for the prices here to be a lot higher than next door. I lived in a
similarly sized 1 person appartment for years. it cost me 480 euros/mo. and
that was the best deal anyone could ever get here (because in my case too, it
was from the student's coop). here the 200 euro/month would get you absolutely
nothing (not even a room).

------
flexie
They say it's nicer than my house, but apart from the price I don't see
anything nice about it. Honestly it looks really bad.

$20,000 is impressively cheap, but like with the iphone making smartphones
popular or the Tesla making electric cars popular, I think smartly built
houses aren't gonna take off until their design and specs are top notch.

------
rubidium
This house is not for you. This house is for poor people who live in rural or
urban decaying homes. Their roofs leak and collapse, their insulation in non-
existent, their plumbing doesn't work. This is a big issue, and having worked
with a number of situations like this, being able to get someone a new house
for $20K that functions would be huge.

$20K (or even $30K) for a functional, well-designed, "tornado-resistant" house
would be a big help to many in the rural and urban south.

~~~
delbel
Roof looks good to me. If its the same delta rib panels I installed, I had a
choice of a 83 year warranty or a 100 year warranty. Snow load angle looks
good also. They are off the ground and the roof extends out a bit so that the
water stays off the side. I think they are built fine.

~~~
garrettgrimsley
They were referring to poor people's homes.

------
ascorbic
I love things like this, but also saddened that in the UK the land to put it
on would cost at least ten times that amount. The planning system here is a
disgrace.

~~~
rwmj
UK housebuilding companies are sitting on (by various estimates)
400,000-600,000 plots of land which have planning permission, but they haven't
built on. That's about 3 years' worth of new houses. The reason is to hold up
prices, and because (with "ever-rising" prices) if they build in the future
they will make more profit.

There are problems in the planning system, certainly, but at the moment we
need an undeveloped land tax to stop this behaviour.

Sources: [http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/30/revealed-
hous...](http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/30/revealed-
housebuilders-sitting-on-450000-plots-of-undeveloped-land)
[http://www.local.gov.uk/media-
releases/-/journal_content/56/...](http://www.local.gov.uk/media-
releases/-/journal_content/56/10180/7632945/NEWS)

~~~
semi-extrinsic
The government is not at all interested in fixing this, because it would
probably crash the housing market. Which people (both politicians, many of the
people who elect them, and perhaps most importantly _all_ of the people who
fund their campaigns) think would be a Very Bad Thing.

Seriously, it may be hard for young people to enter the housing market. But
no-one wants to go for a solution that leaves the people who do own houses
today with mortgages bigger than what their house is worth on the market. You
don't help 10% of people by screwing over another 70%.

~~~
Brakenshire
The government also now has a direct liability to a fall in the housing market
through Help To Buy.

------
jdc
Looks like a PR piece.

[http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

[https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Rural%20Studio%27s%202...](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Rural%20Studio%27s%2020K%20House&tbm=nws)

[http://www.prweb.com/releases/ruralstudiosept15/artfarmseren...](http://www.prweb.com/releases/ruralstudiosept15/artfarmserenbe/prweb12940933.htm)

~~~
rloc
It worked, the story is ranked 3 right now on HN.

------
chvid
Reads too much like an advertisement piece.

Building a 60 m2 wooden shack have always been cheap compared to a proper
house.

Much of the cost of a house lies in the cost of land and the cost of
connecting it to water and electricity.

These costs are high because of scarcity and the policies of cities. Policies
that ensures that values of houses do not fall and people do not go under
water in debt, that areas are filled with proper gentry, that there are nice
open spaces, nature, farmland etc.

Even if you could build a house for 0 dollars many places would still have an
affordability issue.

------
jensen123
I think it's really impressive that they were able to build a house like that
for only 20K.

The article mentions zoning laws and size requirements, which I found odd. Do
many places not allow houses below a certain size to be built?

~~~
NoGravitas
It's extremely common in the US.

~~~
jensen123
Huh, that doesn't make any sense to me. Smaller houses would make cities more
walkable/livable and thus be better for people's health and the environment.

Do people want those kinds of laws in order to protect their "investment"? I
mean, I guess maybe your house will be worth more if all the other houses
nearby are large and thus expensive?

Of course, now in the digital age, I guess such laws seem sillier than they
did earlier. You no longer need a huge amount of books, music records, train
set, pinball machines, billiard table etc., since you can fit all those things
in a small computer.

~~~
logfromblammo
In general, it's to prevent poor people or single people from moving into the
neighborhood. The suburbs want middle class families, with children, and
everyone else can FOAD.

They don't _want_ to be walkable, because then the financial threshold of car
ownership is not a requirement for getting there.

Extend the idea of a playpen to older kids, and that is an American suburban
subdivision. The inconvenience and unaffordability are features, not bugs.

------
yusufp
I think the idea of approaching things like this from first principles is a
great way to create change.

Everything we take for granted could potentially be made in a much better way
for a lower price. It will be interesting to see applications of this thinking
in other areas.

------
huuu
Material cost of houses is already 'cheap'.

But you also need a place to build it. In The Netherlands ground prices range
from $100 - $500 per m².

Then you need sewage, electricity, gas, labor, and so on. I don't think you
could make those much cheaper.

~~~
rubidium
Yes, but this is the state of Georgia in the United States. You could buy a
nice sized lot plenty big enough for this house in a poor part of the city for
$0.5-3K.

------
lukasm
There was a company in Poland that was building houses like that - they went
bust. The main problem is cultural. People look at it and see a shed and they
want a "proper" house. "Can I retire here?" "Is it an investment?". What is
more, there is a segway syndrome (you like a dork). You will be that weird guy
that lives in this weird house. And there is a liquidity problem.

------
thesz
After surveying the house designs, I can't help but share this:
[http://inhabitat.com/magical-dome-house-in-remote-
thailand-c...](http://inhabitat.com/magical-dome-house-in-remote-thailand-
constructed-in-six-weeks-for-just-8000/)

$8000 for 3 room house with small pool, which is so fun that it looks like
toy.

------
kriro
It doesn't look very sturdy, which seems to be a wrong assumption on my part
[1], but 20k for a decent house is nice...assuming you own the land already.
For comparison, how much do the Amish-houses cost (materials) and how long do
they take to build them? I only know them from movies but they seem like low-
cost/quickbuild type houses, too.

Edit: Building instructions for this could be a good application for a VR-
based tutorial :)

[1]: "They're built more like airplanes than houses, which allows us to have
them far exceed structural requirements. ... We're using material much more
efficiently. But the problem is your local code official doesn't understand
that. They look at the documents, and the house is immediately denied a permit
simply because the code officials didn't understand it."

------
fweespeech
[http://www.artsatl.com/2016/01/serenbe-rural-studio-
artist-r...](http://www.artsatl.com/2016/01/serenbe-rural-studio-artist-
residence/)

> And $20,000 is still an aspiration. These two cottages and the deck between
> them cost $135,000 to build. Smith is hoping that if a contractor
> understands process, he can bring it in more cheaply. Smith will be able to
> test that hypothesis: Nygren is invested in the collaboration and the
> concept. He intends to build more cottages and will be raising funds to do
> so. He says,

This title is misleading. It is $67,500 / house and the costs are on par with
new construction for a similar structure. :/

------
noja
Excluding all costs apart from material. Yeah, it doesn't cost 20k.

~~~
rgbrgb
> How do you design a home that someone living below the poverty line can
> afford, but that anyone would want—while also providing a living wage for
> the local construction team that builds it?

Material is $14k.

~~~
roel_v
6k = 12 working days for a builder skilled enough to do everything from
working an excavator to hooking up hvac. So they're claiming a house that can
be build in 12 day, by a single person, ready to move in? Clickbait.

~~~
imtringued
Prefab houses can be built in a single day. In fact in china they built a
prefab skyscraper in 15 days.

~~~
roel_v
Including plumbing, flooring, electricity, hooking up utilities etc. ? Please
cite your sources because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

~~~
jholman
[https://www.google.ca/search?q=china+skyscraper+15+days](https://www.google.ca/search?q=china+skyscraper+15+days)

It's been discussed on HN half a dozen times. "Extraordinary claims" is a
context-dependent idea.

~~~
roel_v
Yes, I know about the skyscraper, I meant the 'build home in a single day'
part.

------
beat
People have been building homes cheaper than that for a long time now. What
makes this different?

When I was a kid, I spent a lot of time on my grandfather's farm in southern
Kentucky. I didn't realize it, but it was rural poverty. He didn't have
electricity or running water (this was the early 1970s). But at least it was a
wood house, with glass windows and doors and a decent fireplace and a coal-
burning stove.

Back in the far back of the same property, up a dirt trail in the woods, an
old black man lived alone in a shack. One room, walls made out of tar paper
and corrugated steel. That's a house that can survive in that kind of terrain,
and it cost a lot less than $20k. (Interestingly, my father treated that old
man with great respect and deference. My father didn't respect _anyone_ , so
it boggled me, even as a small child.)

Around the world, entire neighborhoods of "shantytowns" arise around cities,
made from the discarded junk of richer people. Shelter is shelter. People
build it because they _can 't_ make a living wage and pay someone else to
build a house for them...

------
avelis
It's fascinating to see innovation in this space.

I am also curious to see how the mortgage and realtor industry responds to
this type of demand in the future.

~~~
SwellJoe
As noted in the article, the current mortgage situation isn't good at all.

I wanted to buy land a couple of years ago, to build a tiny house on. I went
in willing/able to put a 30-40% down payment on the property, with plans to
build my own tiny house completely self-funded over the next year or so. The
banks were simply not at all equipped to address that. Despite my excellent
credit (high 700s) and low debt, and the cash to make the down payment and
good income, they made it clear that I would be able to get a loan on a
regular sized house with much less money down, but would not be able to get a
loan on just a piece of land with plans to put a tiny house on it.

They were also willing to talk about loaning money for the land, _if_ I could
show how I was going to afford to build a "regular" house on the property
(requiring going through a builder and getting a loan on the future house). In
short, the was no way, short of paying for the property entirely out of pocket
I would be able to buy land and build my own tiny house on it.

It was incredibly frustrating. I mean, I'm talking to these folks and they
are, with a straight face, saying, "Well, as a first time home buyer, you
could put 5%-15% down and buy a house, with the bank loaning you the other
~$160,000." And, I'd say, "OK, but what if I put $25,000 down, and only borrow
$50,000 from the bank, and buy a piece of land, and over the next year I build
myself a house on that land." And, they'd reply, "That's just not gonna
happen."

So, several banks would have been happy to loan me $160k with $16k down on a
full-sized house, but no one was willing to loan me $50k with $25k down on
land for a tiny house.

I gave up on buying at that time. Will save up and pay cash for a plot of land
in another year or two, and build my tiny house then.

I doubt it will change any time soon. Home builders have no motivation to
build smaller, banks have no interest in betting on self-built homes. Which is
understandable to some degree...but, the sheer hardheadedness of the response
was really surprising, to me. I'd always assumed I would have no trouble
getting whatever kind of loan I wanted, as long as I brought enough cash to
the table. But, for land-only deals, many banks want to see 50% or more down
payment, which is silly.

So, tiny houses remain mostly the privilege of those wealthy enough to afford
to buy land without a mortgage, or those who don't mind living in places where
land is very, very cheap. It's also possible to park a tiny house in a trailer
park or RV park (and I know some folks who do that), but that misses the point
of home ownership, for me.

~~~
techsupporter
If you're interested in knowing why, it's because mortgages are sold as
securities these days (and have been since before the Big Collapse). If your
mortgage is significantly not like the other mortgages, it can't be bundled
and sold into the pool of other securitized mortgages. That means your lender
has to carry the note itself and the overwhelming majority of lenders--banks
and brokers--don't do that.

The other problem: banks need a property that, if foreclosed upon, can be sold
to recoup their investment. A friend of mine is having this exact problem. He
has a house that could withstand a bomb being dropped on it but it is built to
_his_ preferences and the banks he has visited to inquire about refinancing
have all said that a sale would be difficult. Too risky to use as collateral
since they can't be relatively certain of recovering against loss.

What you're looking for is a "portfolio loan," where the financial institution
keeps your loan on its own books. Some credit unions do this (mine does) in
situations like yours. The interest will be commensurate with the credit
union's guess of how easy your property will be to resell (both in the opinion
of the underwriter and of the outside, independent appraiser) to pay for the
risk but it can be done.

~~~
SwellJoe
Thanks for the explanation, and it mirrors the explanation I got from the loan
officer at my credit union.

On this point:

"What you're looking for is a "portfolio loan," where the financial
institution keeps your loan on its own books. Some credit unions do this (mine
does) in situations like yours. The interest will be commensurate with the
credit union's guess of how easy your property will be to resell (both in the
opinion of the underwriter and of the outside, independent appraiser) to pay
for the risk but it can be done."

It was the credit union that said, "We could maybe get you a loan on the land
if you can put 50% down." The bank I've been using for 20 years flat out said
"no way, we only do land loans for businesses for new construction, and they
have to have a plan and funding lined up to complete the construction".

It all seems vaguely rotten and corrupt, to me...but, well, I don't know the
motivation for it. I'll just keep saving, and pay cash. Or maybe I'll buy land
where it's cheaper. Maybe I won't always value living within biking distance
of a city with good live music as highly as I do now.

~~~
ghaff
Basically, as parent said, they're concerned that doing something oddball with
the land will actually decrease its value or at least have some unknown effect
on its value that they have no experience to evaluate.

Add to that, post-2008, most banks/credit unions are just going to err on the
side of just not making the loan rather than making one which has some
unquantifiable risk associated with it.

That said, it's all a bit arbitrary. I live in a relatively normal house on
some very nice property but the house has enough quirks (it's very old) that I
fully expect that whoever buys it some day will just build a new house.

------
brianbreslin
Slightly off topic, but what would a modern looking pre-fab house cost? I've
always wanted to buy a piece of land somewhere rural and have a house built so
I can take mini getaway vacations with my dog.

~~~
gravypod
I have always wanted to toy with this idea. I'd love to save up a nice chunk
of change and build something like this.

I'd like a small house out in the middle of the country.

A bathroom with shower, a kitchen with a stove, and a single living space.

Solar panels, backup batteries, well with pump and filter, and a internet
hookup (satellite/landline).

I was hoping to find that this article would talk about the prospects of
building something like that, but unfortunately this article is not exactly
what is in my "dream".

------
ben_bai
I like the concept of small and cheap houses, unfortunately in my country,
Europe/Germany this would not qualify as a house built to the newest
regulations. It's just a shack.

------
adrianN
I would be scared to buy a house that uses non-standard construction methods.
Not because I don't trust the plans, but because even with cookie cutter
houses, the construction people mess up a lot of things and you really have to
pay an additional person to check the construction. Trying to get construction
companies to build a house using novel techniques and do it without major
errors is, I imagine, quite an undertaking.

~~~
derefr
Unless, perhaps, one of the advantages in these alternative construction
techniques is that they're more construction-error-tolerant. That's, for
example, one of the key advantages in suspension bridges: any individual
support cable can be installed in a stupid out-of-tolerance way, because load
is just redirected evenly to all the other cables. Usually, in fact, "cheaper
to build" almost always means "because the materials and techniques used mean
that even a sloppy construction process will still produce good results."

------
robotresearcher
But it cost nearly 7X that amount. From another article about the same
property:

> And $20,000 is still an aspiration. These two cottages and the deck between
> them cost $135,000 to build.

[http://www.artsatl.com/2016/01/serenbe-rural-studio-
artist-r...](http://www.artsatl.com/2016/01/serenbe-rural-studio-artist-
residence/)

------
apurvadave
It seems like there are lot of comments about how this kind of house wouldn't
work (yes, this won't work in downtown NYC). But it also seems like there are
lots of communities - poor, displaced - that would benefit massively. I'm a
big fan of projects like this, even if they only serve to push the innovation
of affordable housing further.

------
donatj
It's not nicer than mine. Maybe on dollar to metric niceness, but it's much
smaller and offers fewer amenities.

------
protomyth
I would love to see a bit more of these. I do wonder if they have a version
with insulation that would work in a northern climate. This would be a great
project for the reservation I work on simply because it is impossible to get a
home loan on the reservation. It would be interesting to see mass production.

------
rgbrgb
Aesthetically not really sure, but definitely a cool idea. Here's hoping they
build some of these in the Bay! I can see people buying these in expensive
areas to offset the cost of the land.

Kind of reminds me Modern Shed [0].

[0]: [http://www.modern-shed.com/](http://www.modern-shed.com/)

------
sageikosa
All other things aside, the cost of buying a home in densely populated region
with situational amenities such as subsidized schools, hospitals, fire
stations, zoned shopping districts, reliable power, water, sewer and
communication network access is also largely about the real estate market in
the area.

------
no_wave
Terrible article... no mention of plumbing, toilets, heating, ductwork, or
electricity, which are the main factors that dictate how normal houses are
designed (which is why materials like cob aren't the game-changers that their
devoted proponents claim).

------
yitchelle
20K? Would love to see the itemised material costs, labour cost, adminstration
fees for building this. Also have a projected on-going maintenance costs as
well.

At the end of the day, the aim of this house is "a home that someone living
below the poverty line can afford."

~~~
Already__Taken
The article pretty clearly states it's just material costs.

~~~
yitchelle
My point is what is the real cost of living in this house, can the folks
living under the poverty live really afford to live in it?

------
Raticide
Around where I live it's the land that costs you the most, so it doesn't
really matter what the house costs. Hell, some people buy a property and give
away the building for free to anyone that's willing to move it off their land.

------
dharma1
Not of personal use for me, but they should just put the plans on github or
even a blog. Couldn't find any detail on the site
([http://www.ruralstudio.org/](http://www.ruralstudio.org/))

------
listic
Historical weather records in the vicinity:
[http://en.tutiempo.net/climate/2015/ws-722286.html](http://en.tutiempo.net/climate/2015/ws-722286.html)

------
badthingfactory
"This House Costs Just $20,000—But It’s Nicer Than Yours"

later:

"In Serenbe, their first problem was a zoning issue: The houses were too
small."

It sounds like this house is probably not nicer than mine. Titles like this
really annoy me for some reason.

------
pkaye
So the location is in a small town somewhere so likely not many job around.
That means either you are okay with a homestead type of living or are rich
enough to buy this as a second home.

------
evthewolf
If you consider the cost of land (in Ireland) you'll still spend a fortune and
end up with a pretty small place. For one / two this could work, imagine
having a family in there!

------
pbreit
The unfortunate thing about "modern prefab" is that it is so dang expensive
when the minimalist designs with builds in a controlled environment should be
inexpensive.

------
up_and_up
They said the actual cost for building the structure is $67,000. Not sure if
that includes items like well and septic, etc which are 1000's of dollars.

------
rplnt
Yeah, there's no way I'm clicking on this clickbait title.

