[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

GBlist: Re: Housing Costs



On 8/16/97 7:00 AM Barry Goldberg wrote:

>Our cohousing group is reaching the point where we have to consider our
>decisions on what construction technologies to use.  I'm trying to put
>together a chart comparing costs and other considerations for the
>options we are looking at.  I know trying to compare square foot costs
>for diferenet technologies is very crude and inaccurate and will vary
>because of where we live--southwest Colorado.  It can help give us a
>picture of what's realistic and affordable though.

If you come up with such a chart, please share it.  I've done them for 
specific projects, but never in a general sense.  Frankly, due to the 
many variables, some of which you allude to, I agree that its not 
possible to make general and accurate comparisons.  In the alternative 
literature, many claims are made ("Build your straw bale house for 
$20/SF") but these claims have minimial relevence unless one exactly 
duplicates the project alluded to.  (I wrote an article in the current 
issue of Communities Magazine which describes this very syndrom;  its 
called "How NOT To Build Your Own House").

Having said that, here are a few general comments.  This is not going to 
be what your group wants to hear, but education is an important part of 
the process.

1.  The ONLY way to compare costs is to design a sample home, and then 
bid it out to all the contractors who do the different methods of 
construction you are interested in.  This requires blueprints, and more 
time and effort than most people are willing to expend.  Claims, 
estimates, comparison charts, and whatnot are all fluff;  actual bids are 
the only reality for your situation, using your design, in your locality.

2.  As I said befor, beware low-ball claims;  they are usually not 
comparing apples to apples.

3.  Here's an observation that will speed up your process:  "adobe", 
"stick-frame", "strawbale", etc are all descriptions of *wall systems*.  
The rest of the house may be identical.  Since the walls account for only 
about 15% of the total cost, all the different building systems affect 
the overall cost of the structure far less than one expects.  

4.  My favorite observation to clients:  An efficient *design* is the 
easist place to save money, not in the method of construction.   Adobe 
houses for example, can cost far more or far less than a stick frame;  
the design causes the cost to vary more than the material.  And, the type 
of finishes, exteriors, interiors, and appliances chosen will affect the 
cost even more!   Thus, even the best comparison charts will never come 
close to estimating final costs a house (unless, as I said, an actual 
design has been let out to bid).

5. You requested "square foot costs" - don't forget "operating costs" and 
"lifecycle costs".  It makes a huge diffference.  Repairs, maintainance, 
and energy requirements all affect your bottom line, and vary widely.

6. Stucco.  Thats the key.  You'll never read this in any book, see it in 
any magazine, but its the insight you'll want to remember.  All the 
alternative wall systems are stuccoed, and thats where the money is.  The 
wall systems themselves are usually cheaper than stick framing, but 
stucco can cost a bundle, and varies hugely depending on how you do it, 
so don't miss this.  If you DIY, and use real mud then it costs almost 
nothing, while if you sub out the standard 3-coat application, its a 
fortune, which is why these comparison charts will always be so 
incomplete.  If a framed house uses an EIFS, then the cost instantly goes 
right up to that of any alternative system, so have fun comparing.

Finally, here's my shoot-from-the-hip, personal comments on your list ---

>What I want to compare is the following, in terms of square foot costs,
>ease of construction, options for sweat equity and owner builder
>participation:

>	*standard stick frame construction

Buy pre-manufactured homes instead;   in terms of money and time, 
certainly the best value today of anything.  No kidding.

>	*energy efficient stick frame construction	

If not factory built, then this is the only way to stick frame.  Bottom 
line is cheaper than standard method.

>	*straw bale

Wonderfull buildings that work well.  Contrary to how people tend to 
think, this is largely a SUBjective decision;  people relate to the 
"Three Little Pigs" story in different ways!  Certainly costs a little 
more than stick frame, but is much better both in terms of aesthetics, 
quality, and performance.  Is often built by owners, with no permit, 
using volunteer labor, and with minimal finishing, which lowers the cost, 
thus fooling other prospective owners.  Could be problems doing a small 
subdivision, due to limited materials and subcontractors.  Not always 
easy to obtain mortgages, fire insurance, and building permits.  If 
permitted, then it will probably have to be timber framed, which uses as 
much wood as efficient stick framing.

>	*sraw clay	

If you have a few years to spend, this produces an incredible building 
with great heart and soul.  I couldn't help but note, in India they don't 
build this way because its too labor intensive!   A sobering thought 
considering our lifestyles.

>	*earth block
>	*adobe
>	*poured earth (rammed earth)

I have run the numbers on these three, and they are almost identical.  
Again, I think it comes down to what people *feel* good about.   Earth 
construction obviously works really well, is well accepted (in the SW), 
and one can even find subcontractors in your area to do it all.  The 
problem with these is insulation;  nowadays one adds foam to the 
exterior, or (in the case of earth block) builds double walls and fills 
in the space with insulation.  Prior to our current standards of comfort, 
the pure earth walls sufficed on their own.  Like straw bale, one loses a 
lot of sleep during the construction phase if a period of rainy weather 
sets in.

>	*anything else

* Insulated concrete forms.  This works quite well, has no drawbacks 
(except the high EE of cement), and the owner can DIY.   Subjective issue 
again:  most people hate the sound of "concrete", and don't want their 
house made of it.

* Concrete block.  If you run the numbers, you'll find that its actually 
cheaper, easier, and stronger to build an adobe house out of CMU's.  Once 
its stuccoed, you can't tell the dif.

* Hebel Block (someone mentioned this yesterday).  Costs a fortune, 
because Hebel somehow hasn't really gotten going in the US.  Nice 
product.  An entire cohousing community in Australia is built with Hebel 
Blocks.

* Various other alternative blocks.  There are too many varieties to 
comment on.

* Manufactured houses.  The best value, although subjective sentiments 
will totally rule this one out for you.

* Pumice-crete.  After annoyingly thorough research, this is what I'm 
doing.  Integrally structural and insulative at the same time;  easy 
application of 2-coat stucco.

* Concrete.  My personal idle thought:  figure out a complete wall system 
that integrates structure, insulation, and aesthetic finish with a cost 
effective method.


Buzz Burrell  *  buzz@diac.com  *  4439 Driftwood Pl, Boulder, CO 80301

Project Manager: Geneva Cohousing Community - 176 acres N of Lyons, CO 
Owner: Bolder Building - solar adobe house finished 7/96
                       - pumice-crete house began 2/97 
Co-founder: Colorado Friends of Tibet - hosted The Dalai Lama 5/97

*     *     *      *      *      *       *      *      *      *      *

______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by CREST <www.crest.org>
Environmental Building News <www.ebuild.com> and Oikos <www.oikos.com>
For  instructions send  e-mail to  greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
______________________________________________________________________