$300 house challenge
I thought this was really interesting.
It's a challenge by a couple of economists (I think) for builders/architects to come up with a house design that can :
- replace the world's slums
- have solar power
- have adequate sanitation and ventilation
- be sturdy enough for the environment
- cost $300 or less to build
That's still a lot of money for most of the people living in the world's slums to acquire, so for the design to help anyone, there would also have to be enough micro-financing available to make it happen.
Still, it seems like a promising way to figure out how to bring down costs, and might make housing everywhere more affordable one day.
I realize housing prices here are declining, but houses were never worth their prices at the top of the bubble. And the bottom 20% in this country are no closer to owning their own home anyway. Seems like this effort might make a difference here too. :)
I was right with you up to the 300$ point. I don't think it's reasonable. No, the poorest people will never be able to afford that, but even in India or rural China, goods cost what they cost.
Basic sanitation and solar power would be near double that amount, and you haven't even built the structure. I'm basing my number on purchases I've made or my mechanics made overseas.
It's an interesting project, but I think it has dangerous potential.
A slum filled with these kinds of buildings - heavier and with more stuff in it, but not exponentially safer than what exists now, could be more disastrous than homes built with cardboard and scraps.
I would think the solar panel alone would cost that much, but I'm sure someone can come up with a great option.
I read once where in California as a demonstration they built a house out of hay bales. It was surprisingly good. They sprayed the outside with stucco to keep the vermin out. The construction was solid and the insulation value was better than most modern houses.
But of course, it didn't meet any kind of building code, especially for California. They didn't use 2x4 or joists, and the fire code was a bit of an issue.
I figure hay bales are so cheep that they're almost free, and third world building codes are pretty much non-existant. Now if you could figure out some cheep/free way to build the roof you'd be all set.
Original Post by runesplendor:
It's an interesting project, but I think it has dangerous potential.
A slum filled with these kinds of buildings - heavier and with more stuff in it, but not exponentially safer than what exists now, could be more disastrous than homes built with cardboard and scraps.
What do you mean by not safer?
That's part of it being sturdy enough for the environment - withstanding wind and rain, etc.
Or do you mean not safe regarding crime?
No, safer in being safer.
Like Knowan said about the fire risk. We can build houses out of hay bales, but should we pack a ghetto full of these things and people? Imagine the death and devastation if fire broke out? There'd be no stopping it.
Right now the hovels are typically made of scraps of plywood and cardboard, maybe some tin. When a structure collapses, it's a matter of a few hundred pounds, people can be dug out often by hand.
Start adding solar panels and the trusses to support it. Now the wall structures to support the trusses. Add the piping for basic sanitation. Water is extremely heavy, right?
If that building isn't built exponential stronger than what they have right now, they will collapse, and you won't be digging people out by hand. In fact, you won't be digging live people out. Statistically speaking I mean.
Think about earthquake codes. If you aren't building to that spec, you're adding to the potential problems, not fixing them. And there's no way to do that for 300$, I believe.
I know we can build better and safer for people, but not for 300 bucks. And my concern is that in the interest of cost saving, corners will be cut. There's a reason why that stereotype of builders exists. If they came up with a model that could be built for $1800, and then trimmed to make the 300$ cut-off, that's where I see the danger.
EDIT: Just because building codes are non-existent in 3rd world countries doesn't mean we should exploit that. There's a reason those codes were developed, and not maintaining a bare minimum standard just because India doesn't require one isn't the right answer.
Original Post by knowan:
I read once where in California as a demonstration they built a house out of hay bales. It was surprisingly good. They sprayed the outside with stucco to keep the vermin out. The construction was solid and the insulation value was better than most modern houses.
But of course, it didn't meet any kind of building code, especially for California. They didn't use 2x4 or joists, and the fire code was a bit of an issue.
I figure hay bales are so cheep that they're almost free, and third world building codes are pretty much non-existant. Now if you could figure out some cheep/free way to build the roof you'd be all set.
In a wooden frame hay is an excellent material. It insulates fantastically.
I saw a TV show about a guy who build himself a house in a British forest that way. he was producing coal and need a palce to live, but the only way he could build was buy using only natural material. Everything was fitted together, no concrete, no metal (apart from a few hinges for doors etc.) It still cost a fair bit more money than 300$.
Well, first of all, nobody participating in this project has proposed a design using hay.
And second of all, the plywood and cardboard shanties are already extremely susceptible to fire and that's one of the problems the project hopes to address.
And third, I realize an earthquake can happen anywhere, but I'm not sure all buildings in the world need to be built to the code that Japan or California have. Still, if you read about it, you'd see that safety is a major priority and a winning design would have to also be safe.
Fourth you're assuming that solar technology can not be made lighter and cheaper.
And fifth, I believe they set the $300 goal as a challenge -- but if they could accomplish this at $500 or $700 it would still be a terrific improvement, don't you think?
They don't know whether or not anyone will be able to meet the $300 criteria. But by setting that as the goal, they believe they'll find the least expensive way to make safe, affordable housing to replace slums.
Of course one could always go back to building with "free" materials at hand.
I worked with a woman that grew up in a soddy in Saskatchewan. There were many root cellars built in to sides of low hills in my home town.
ETA: My brother worked on building a hay bale home. Great insulation properties.
Cob Houses are making a comeback in some areas - but I don't think that's what they're planning to do either.
I agree with all that Nomo, I really do. It was the amount I argued, and the danger of cutting corners to make the amount. You asked me to clarify and I did.
i don't think it's particularly important that people in the developing world wouldn't be able to come up with $300. just think how far aid dollars could go with something like this. it makes a hell of a lot more sense than sending tarps, tents, and bottled water.
There is no one size fit all. The climate at the deployed location and the material availability at those locations means a whole lot.
I've been involved with building homes for poor people in certain areas of the world for a while now. $300 is tight but doable under the right circumstances and requirements.
For those who think that hay bales are cheap, check out the prices, ask a rancher and he or she will tell you otherwise.
they don't make hay-bale houses. they make straw-bale houses. straw is almost worthless.
BTW, don't be too quick to discount mud huts. I've built mud hut that are absolutely comfortable. The thick mud walls offers excellent insulation. It is a lot more resilient than you think. Rebuild and repairs take little effort.
Original Post by pgeorgian:
they don't make hay-bale houses. they make straw-bale houses. straw is almost worthless.
Straw is worthless? Not hardly.
Original Post by cajunrider:
Original Post by pgeorgian:
they don't make hay-bale houses. they make straw-bale houses. straw is almost worthless.
Straw is worthless? Not hardly.
Not where I live. Hay is fodder for horses, sheep and cows. Straw is just junk left over from the wheat thresher.
Though I suppose with the rise of biomass as fuel, it might be worth something.
One of the most shocking things I saw during a recent trip to China were the ghost cities. The rate of new development and construction is absolutely astonishing, and while it's the poor providing the inexpensive labour, the government has chosen to leave entire cities standing vacant rather than make these Peoples Liberation Army developments affordable.
yeah, straw is used for bedding and for landscaping, but by far most of it is waste.
straw-bale construction was a bit of a fad in my neck of the woods a few years ago (not here at the coast, but in the interior where it's dry), and the cost of straw was the cost of transporting the straw.
Original Post by splitrail:
One of the most shocking things I saw during a recent trip to China were the ghost cities. The rate of new development and construction is absolutely astonishing, and while it's the poor providing the inexpensive labour, the government has chosen to leave entire cities standing vacant rather than make these Peoples Liberation Army developments affordable.
That is bizarre!
I looked at a slide show of Kangbashi... a city built to hold a million people, almost uninhabited. And 1.5 million people live in a city 30 minutes away.
That's crazy.
