

MIT's $1000 House Project - chaostheory
http://web.mit.edu/1khouse/contents.htm

======
sedachv
This is a project that has good intentions but at best ambiguous outcomes.
Low-density housing without plumbing is an ecological disaster. Besides, the
idea of single-family dwellings is becoming less relevant with the current
trend of urbanization.

If you really want to provide housing for the poor, you need to revisit the
ideas of Le Corbusier in light of the findings of Christopher Alexander.

~~~
dataman85
Can you point to a webpage/book discussing "the ideas of Le Corbusier in light
of the findings of Christopher Alexander"?

Google didn't really help, and it sounds like you have something specific in
mind.

~~~
sedachv
Owen Hatherley's _Militant Modernism_ is a good overview of what modernism (Le
Corbusier's side) was supposed to be about, what went wrong, and some ideas
for the future. I helped Owen translate some documents for the research behind
the book, but I don't agree with him on many of the conclusions in the book.

Where I think Alexander's work comes in is where the Modernism movement
started - rationalism in architecture. _A Pattern Language_ is essentially a
set of inductive inferences about what works in urban planning and what
doesn't. A lot of what went wrong with modernist projects stem from ignoring
reality.

I think project cities like Germany's Vauban
([http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.html))
embody this spirit. Soleri's Arcosanti is also built with very much the same
intentions. I think Soleri's work can actually be a good example of "Corbusier
meets Alexander," but most people seem to only remember him for the arcologies
in Blade Runner...

------
ctdonath
Glad to see this project underway. On all fronts, technology has reached a
point where seriously viable personal infrastructure can be had for very low
costs. I've been mulling over how to have my kids buy/build real estate for no
more than $10k before they graduate high school (that plus each starting a
business is a priority).

For a reference point, consider the Tumbleweed houses:
<http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/> which are quality, albeit small, homes
which have been built for as little as $10,000.

Also check out <http://tinyhouseblog.com/> for other small & affordable
housing styles.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
In Northeast Minnesota (and in many other low population density states, I'd
imagine) you can buy land for well under $10k/acre and many counties have no
building codes in effect.

But if you're trying to do this for $10k near a major population center, best
of luck to you!

~~~
ctdonath
Major population centers are expensive, and for a reason. If you can't afford
it, don't live there (just like living in the opposite extremes:
deserts/mountains are nice, but very hard to live in so don't). Lots of places
_are_ affordable; there are even some towns that will _give_ you land,
outright ownership for free, if only you'll live on it for a few years and
build a decent home. There are also a lot of abandoned/tax-
delinquent/foreclosed properties which are undesirable for most normal 6-digit
homes but would work well for creative/eclectic dwellings.

------
simon_weber
The news on the link is old. They recently built the first prototype:
[http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/1k-house-
prototype-0915.h...](http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/1k-house-
prototype-0915.html)

------
garrison
I don't know much about the MIT project, but a criticism of a related project
is available in a nytimes op-ed at
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/opinion/01srivastava.html>

I have strong doubts that mass-produced anything is the key to solving
poverty. Having people rely on outsourced production rather than encouraging
the local construction industry is no way to empower them.

EDIT: That said, having such housing available for rebuilding after a natural
disaster doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

------
radu_floricica
Where I live (Bucharest) building costs are already low compared to
infrastructure costs. In order to develop a piece of land you could build a
decent house for a reasonable price (not $1000, but maybe $10,000). The
problem is that bringing water, sewage, electricity and optionally natural gas
and internet makes a joke of this number.

I've been fantasizing about a startup which would buy cheap, agricultural land
and build an infrastructure core into it, not necessarily connected to the
grid. Probably more expensive over time, but might be cheaper in the
beginning.

------
EastCoastLA
This would help in many situations including The Tent City of New Jersey:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2021173/Americas-
cit...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2021173/Americas-city-broken-
dreams-50-jobless-destitute-people-set-forest-community-New-Yorks-
doorstep.html)

------
cabalamat
Something similar is PFNC
<[http://www.pfnc.net/index.htm>](http://www.pfnc.net/index.htm>), who aim to
manufacture houses out of shipping containers, with an on-site cost of
$15,000.

------
mcantelon
Related: [http://www.indianexpress.com/news/tata-to-launch-nano-
homes-...](http://www.indianexpress.com/news/tata-to-launch-nano-homes-
rs-32k/817936/)

------
mkramlich
my favorite was the A-frame. looked the simplest, cheapest, most likely to
achieve the $1k goal, and easy to put large numbers of them in a horizontal
smaller land area. I only looked at about half the designs hough.

------
vvpan
I wish I was an architect rather than a programmer...

~~~
benatkin
Get the right kind of experience as a programmer for a few years and you can
be a software architect. :p

~~~
sliverstorm
Or perhaps even a architecture software architect!

~~~
r00fus
Hell, you could eventually be an architecture astronaut:
<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html>

------
ThaddeusQuay2
No. Think bigger. 1M people at $150K each, living in the biggest and nicest
castle ever devised. This is the kind of thing we need, if we are to move up
the Kardashev Scale.

<http://www.tdrinc.com/ultima.html> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Tsui>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale>

~~~
schiffern
Why is it a desirable goal to move up the Kardashev scale?

If you believe the transhumanists, our brains will live in computers long
before we'll spread out across the solar system. We'll be using energy and
space more efficiently, not just using 'more.'

~~~
nitrogen
_Why is it a desirable goal to move up the Kardashev scale?_

Quite simply, moving up the Kardashev scale need not harm the desires of those
who want to live in their own version of harmony with nature, while satisfying
the desires of those who prefer continually advancing technology. Preserving
the status quo, forcing urbanization, or reverting to a more agrarian society
also will satisfy the naturists/locavores/etc., but at the expense of the
technologists/futurists.

Thus, from a utilitarian perspective, technological advancement provides
greater net satisfaction than technological stagnation.

~~~
schiffern
_Quite simply, moving up the Kardashev scale need not harm the desires of
those who want to live in their own version of harmony with nature, while
satisfying the desires of those who prefer continually advancing technology._

Maybe it _needn't_ , but if history is any indication it _does_.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02diamond.html?pag...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02diamond.html?pagewanted=all)

 _Preserving the status quo, forcing urbanization, or reverting to a more
agrarian society also will satisfy the naturists/locavores/etc., but at the
expense of the technologists/futurists. Thus, from a utilitarian perspective,
technological advancement provides greater net satisfaction than technological
stagnation._

Either the interests of the two groups are compatible, or they are not. You
can't say that they are when one group gets what they want, but they aren't
when the competing group does.

Of course in reality there's a vast spectrum of coexistence and compromise.
Your argument boils down to a carefully selected excluded middle.

Not that it matters, since your conclusion begs the question anyway by
equating technological progress (presumably as measured by the proxy of energy
consumption) with utilitarian satisfaction. Certainly there's a correlation up
to a point (vaccines, plumbing, healthcare, etc). But if you look at
quantitative happiness metrics in the US they've been stagnant for the past 60
years, while per-capita energy consumption has doubled.

It's naïve linear thinking to say that additional energy/stuff consumption
will increase our happiness. I call it the Drinking Undergrad Fallacy. The
eponymous poor sap tells himself, "if three drinks makes me feel good, then 9
drinks will make me feel three times as good!"

