New ways to build housing

The high cost of housing is problem in the USA. We often builds using the stick method where most of the house is built from scratch or near scratch at the site.
Not true at all in our HCOL region. All volume builders use what is usually called “panelized” construction. Walls and roofing trusses are assembled in a climate controlled factory, loaded on a truck and assembled on-site. Plumbing, electrical, drywall and other finishes are done conventionally. Even high-ish end homes are done this way except small custom builders will use stick-built technique.

I fully agree with sentiment that they don’t build starter homes anymore. All the 2-3 bedroom homes around 1200 sq ft in this area are pre-80’s vintage. Another style no longer offered is a duplex or flat built with a rental unit in the basement or 2nd floor to supplement the buyer’s income.

Builders need an incentive to build starter homes. Tax credits were very successful increasing the supply of senior housing. Another approach could be muni bonds for builders and buyers.
 
Last edited:
I've been on a search on Zillow for a new house. Under 2500 sf newer than 2010. Hardly any out there. Anywhere. Except for newer over 55 developments. I'm going to have to buy some vacant land and build.
 
I've been on a search on Zillow for a new house. Under 2500 sf newer than 2010. Hardly any out there. Anywhere. Except for newer over 55 developments. I'm going to have to buy some vacant land and build.
We're dealing with an extreme housing shortage overall in our area. In response, there's a fair amount of new construction going up in the 750-1400sf range (2-3br detached and townhouses); however, it's almost entirely deed restricted workforce housing.

Otherwise, new construction ranges from large, high-end homes on small lots in town to massive luxury homes outside of town. Many older homes in town are on 2-4 lots zoned multi-family, and so the few that come up on the market are generally being advertised for their development potential.
 
Our 10,000 resident town in Oregon has the same growing pains. It has responded with expensive (to my mind) neighborhoods with large homes but small lots, a few massive apartment building complexes (subsidized by multi-year property tax breaks), and allowing ADUs, accessory dwelling units. Kind of all about the money. The city wants to generate business, so courts the big apartment complexes with high rents and higher spending tenants. The expensive new construction home groups get charged up the wazoo for development costs, so the builders try to minimize road/sewer/sidewalk length per house. The ADUs are perhaps the least costly rental housing choice.

Expectations have changed for all though. Tenants expect newer and larger. Construction companies expect profit to match their soaring material costs, which can ramp up dramatically between bid time and job completion. Competent workers are in short supply, but even the duds expect high wages - because they too are feeling the pinch. The world's products are better engineered to have it's products last just to their expected lifetime, no longer. A recent contracted repair confirms me in my predilection to buy old. The difference between our 1880 house in Oregon and our 2003 house in California is dramatic - the Cali house has better engineering, the Oregon house has real wood and lots of it. The prefab panel homes can be built year round in warehouses using jigs and machinery to take the place of worker skill, but it's a tough deal to get some soul and thought into the finished house.



















o
 
Locally, one of the regulations is that X% of any new builds must qualify as "affordable or low income housing", either in multi family or a single home development.

When they built our new gated community four years ago, the builder opted to pay a $500k penalty instead of creating affordables. He figured the penalty was cheaper than building a set of homes only to sell them at a loss. I do wonder how this law creates another hurdle as I'm sure I paid a portion of that penalty. At one point a local town demanded 25% be affordable and, not surprisingly, all the developers lost any interest in building there. The town eventually had to reconsider.

What I also think about is how, in 10 or 15 years there might be a glut of homes as us boomers-- a significantly large population--start leaving the planet at an increasing rate.
 
Last edited:
We live on 30 acres , I built my own house 1000 sf . It is a combination weld together bolt together steel building . Four inches of closed cell foam in the walls heated and cooled by one ductless mini split . All electric home One bath and two bedrooms . Tankless water heater , heated spa . The steel is all galvanized painted guaranteed 25 years . The inside is stained bead board . Some may not like this but for us it is great . Electric bill has never exceeded 112.00 Not a show house but it is like a bunker
 
I think one of the main reasons we have a housing problem is that no one seems to want to build small houses anymore.
TLDR,
In 1950 on average a new house was 983sqft.
In 2024 on average a new house was 2,140sqft.

According to the census, "In the 1950s, the average newly-built American home had 983 square feet of floor space with an average household size of 3.37 people." In the first quarter of 2024, a single-family home newly under construction had a median 2,140 square feet of floor space, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
 
Bigger is not better.
Most of the housing market apparently disagrees with you (and me). Since 1980, the median house size in the US increased by 48%, while the average family size decreased by 10%
https://www.thezebra.com/resources/home/median-home-size-in-us/
 
Bigger costs more to buy to build, to maintain, for tax, insurance, all that jazz.
I always liked small cars better too. Freaky huh? :LOL:
 
Obviously, factory build modular homes assembled at the site will need to meet safety codes such as for earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, etc. I don't see this as a problem. I would think it would be cheaper to design and build homes to modern earthquake standards in a factory than do it on site.
Lots of modular homes around here and they tend to be high end. In fact, the nicest home on our lake was a modular home. Another modular home was a good friend... very nice home. A few others too. Fun to watch too... foundation to house in a couple days but then a fair amount of finish work.
 
How about the 3D printed houses?
It has potential, but concrete is depressing. Many of us grew up or through the 70's with the industrial concrete fad of government and educational institutions. At the time, I remember thinking they were so cool. Then, 20 years later, the cracks, mold stains, water patterns, general weathering, de-lamination of the surface, etc. made them look like an ugly mess.

The building in the UTube looks OK, even nice. But give it some time and it won't. Also, right away, water has a way of flowing down buildings during a rain that darkens in patterns which look like hell until they dry out.

No corners and all curves is a different matter.

However, just like Levittown, over time they could be renewed in look with various repairs or facades. Or you could slap them with an epoxy pretty quickly to help avoid some of the ugly.
 
Last edited:
Bigger is not better.
A friend lived in a 200 year old house. Yes, there were modernizations over the years but very often it was clear that the way people lived then is not how people live now. The rooms made placing the TVs a challenge for example. The closets were way too small and shallow. The bathrooms were tiny. The living room was 8x10!

I'll take bigger. It's how people want to live today. It's just the two of us in 3,000 Sq ft and we have 3 extra bedrooms and two extra baths, but we love the space.
 
Pre-built units show up occasionally on the series Grand Designs.
 
Houses sure are built different in design then what I grew up in. The two story square design I was raised in are a neat home but don't see them built any more.

The old story I was raised in had two rooms living/kitchen main floor and three upstairs 2 BR & bath. My parents lived in that home all their life till 2014 and still had no shower just a tub.

When they got married each had a model A or T and they trade one car for the house.

Interesting time how price and design has changed.
 
What I also think about is how, in 10 or 15 years there might be a glut of homes as us boomers-- a significantly large population--start leaving the planet at an increasing rate.
This doesn't get enough visibility. I've been reading some material by various sociologists and they are starting to raise an alarm about dropping birthrates. The birthrate has already been dropping, so when the early GenZers look for housing in 10 years, it is a cohort significantly smaller than any cohort ahead.

At the same time, the boomers will finally be giving up their iron clad grip on housing. Boomers have not only held onto primary homes longer than expected, they own multiple homes more than any other generation in history, and not always at the lake or mountains. A friend at church has two homes so that they can visit the grandkids in another city 3 hours away. This second home is in a working class neighborhood.

As an aside, those same sociologists are concerned about the way many school districts are ignoring the demographic trends. They predict a school crash and are challenging many administrations to look deeper in their plans. That is probably a discussion for a different thread.
 
"Nihil sub sole novum" In the early part of the 20th century a few companies including Sears sold tens of thousands of kit homes with many being quite large. Some are still around today after 100 years and being lived in. Like anything you would buy researching the quality and design of your purchases is important. I would have no problem buying a prefab house if it met my standards and the cost was competitive.
 
Locally, one of the regulations is that X% of any new builds must qualify as "affordable or low income housing", either in multi family or a single home development.
Yeah, it's counterproductive in the Islands. All the demands (regulations) for "affordable" housing mean (wait for it) there is NO affordable housing. Our regulatory environment means only "rich" people build homes. So-called "affordable" condos are a joke - a bad joke that "we" (our gummint) has created. And gummint wonders why people are leaving.
 
It has potential, but concrete is depressing. Many of us grew up or through the 70's with the industrial concrete fad of government and educational institutions. At the time, I remember thinking they were so cool. Then, 20 years later, the cracks, mold stains, water patterns, general weathering, de-lamination of the surface, etc. made them look like an ugly mess.

The building in the UTube looks OK, even nice. But give it some time and it won't. Also, right away, water has a way of flowing down buildings during a rain that darkens in patterns which look like hell until they dry out.

No corners and all curves is a different matter.

However, just like Levittown, over time they could be renewed in look with various repairs or facades. Or you could slap them with an epoxy pretty quickly to help avoid some of the ugly.
3D printed houses are a reality. But, like you they remind me of unpleasant things like prisons and fascist buildings in Germany and Italy left over from WW2.

I wonder if they can put rebar inside while they are printed? I would that that needs to be done for those living in earthquake zones.
 
Perhaps the reason that prefab housing hasn't caught on as much as people hoped it would is that the factory adds another cost to the build.

If it was cheaper to build in a factory then almost every large builder would do so.
 
but those small houses raised the post war families just fine and, those families were probably larger than the current average family.

LOL, having experienced it first hand, I don't think I'd describe the experience as 'just fine'.
 
LOL, having experienced it first hand, I don't think I'd describe the experience as 'just fine'.
I grew up in a little larger house. Maybe 1000sqft, 3br/1bath. No air. I wouldn't say it was just fine either when compared to how I live today. But, those houses helped people create wealth (versus renting) and usually a sense of community. I would think there's a lot of people out there today that would think being able to own one of those smaller houses would be just fine. Personally, I think the main thing they'd need is air conditioning and better insulation. Remember - they're starter homes. And, one of the main things they provide is stability.
 
Also grew up in 1000sq ft, 3br/1bath apartment. No dining room, just kitchen, nook and small living room.

My sister and I are close today, but when I was a teen and she was home from college trying to find an apartment, we almost had a lifetime-ending-never-talk-again fight due to bathroom conflict when she was in her first week of her new job. It was ugly, and I feel bad for not realizing the bind I put her in that day.
 
I grew up in a 1000 sqft, 3 br, 1.5 bath brick ranch house. 1 car attached garage. No air. Family of 4. Built in 1963. Got air in the mid 1970's. I should have kept that house instead of selling it when I remodeled it after parents passed, but DW thought it was too small.
 
Back
Top Bottom