Tuesday, May 26, 2009
How To Build A house Of Character For Three Grand
The Economic Voice: How To Build A house Of Character For Three Grand
No this is not a joke....you CAN build a house for the price of a house deposit in 1998 and yes it will have character and be energy efficient.....and there is no con or draw backs EXCEPT getting the planning permission may be a little challenging.
In these times alternative schemes which provide cheap housing are the necessity and not the luxury and if they blend into the countryside like these houses do then this may well be the way forward for a good proportion of housing in this country. Would I live in one?......in a heartbeat.
Posted by titaniccaptain @ 11:17 AM (1292 views) Add Comment
44 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. bidin'matime said...
Try this link to the Independent article with a picture and contruction notes. (Link picked up from comments on TC's blog)
2. dbc reed said...
It's the price of land that's the problem ( to be honest the writer mentions this but then wishfully thinks the problem away).
Oh dear it looks like all the land taxers who write in here have been wasting their time: inflated land values being their entire point.C'est la vie (or what passes for it).
3. icarus said...
Build your house with sandbags http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/10/10/sandbag-house-mma-architects/
4. stillthinking said...
exactly, the whole thing is the price of land and planning permission. the price of construction never rose above inflation, if anything with the influx of polish builder, houses became cheaper to construct throughout the boom.
5. crunchy said...
Buy some woodland and dig!
6. wdbeast said...
stillthinking@4 -
You are quite right. Sadly the other thing which has suffered is the build quality, it doesn't appear that most of the large building companies spend much more than £3k on building their houses already!
Cheap cr4p houses that will not last more than one generation.
7. crunchy said...
Unfortunately the housing system is geared towards enslavement. That's the biggest challenge. The build is simple.
8. crunchy said...
The tinkers are the thinkers, but branded as the stinkers.
9. titaniccaptain said...
Of course land price is the problem no one is saying any different....................BUT...................construction costs for a low impact home 3k-4k, construction cost for a similar size house using modern building techniques would be 15k-25k depending on taste.......
Also land price has only been held up because the majority of mortgages are for completed houses and in order to qualify for a mortgage the house must meet certain building regs.......I think you know where I am going with this!!!
10. Cashrichassetpoor said...
I've thought the price of land and more importantly the price of planning permission has been one of the causes of our housing boom. A friend of mine owns some land and it trying to get planning permission for it and has been for some time. Currently it's worth £300/acre, with planning permission it's going to be worth more like £300,000 per acre.
11. titaniccaptain said...
Sorry forgot to add that the building regs affect the valuation in order to get the price that the seller wants and the mortgage.
12. crunchy said...
Woodland is the way to go, but try building on it.
Anyone got a green double decker bus for sale?
13. crunchy said...
You are in the system or out. That's the way it works. Enslavement or Outcast!
14. icarus said...
crunchy - does this enslavement come from government planning and regulation or from a financial system that operates purely on its own behalf and creates huge debt overhead? Or from somewhere else?
15. crunchy said...
All. It also comes from the already enslaved.
16. contrails are not a conspiracy (formerly npnh) said...
I'd rather live in a caravan. At least you have some mod cons!
17. crunchy said...
15. contrails are not a conspiracy (formerly npnh) said...I'd rather live in a caravan. At least you have some mod cons!
.crunch.........Along with some mod pros! Which is the greater of the two and why? That should keep you busy!
The tinkers are the thinkers, but branded as the stinkers
18. p. doff said...
@16
You remind me of a lad I used to know in school. He used to come up with these 'one-liners' that were designed to give the impresion of superior knowledge. He also had a habit of singing 'I know somerthing you don't know', to the other kids in the playground.
NPNH. With you on the caravan. I don't think it's a practical proposition for everybody to build a 'den' out of stuff they've swiped from their local skip.
BTW, there are even cheaper dwellings, which can be built entirely of natural materials. They call them tents.
Silly hippie article IMHO
19. crunchy said...
17. p. doff Yep, that was me and I have never changed because it is so much more fun than being a bore!
20. crunchy said...
Cameron is saying power to the people...Silly hippie article IMHO. LOL
LUV IT!
21. icarus said...
p. doff @17 - the lad became a politician but he wasn't successful - he had no followers because people didn't understand where he was going and he made no attempt to explain.
22. contrails are not a conspiracy (formerly npnh) said...
Crunchy:
Mod cons = modern conveniences = (I guess) mod pros???
23. crunchy said...
20. icarus How does one explain the unexplainable? Is that not why we here blog endlessly about the same riddle.
The fun is in the riddle not the solving of it. It's like life, and life is to be enjoyed never solved.
Again... The fun is in the riddle. The tease is in the solution.
24. icarus said...
crunchy @ Catch 22 - But enslavement is no fun. Now if there are bad guys operating a system which enslaves us it's worth doing more than riddling and teasing.
25. crunchy said...
Has it ever been different? We enslave ourselves more often than not for the want of freedom.
26. icarus said...
Then you should be on a philosophy blog rather than an economic/political one.
27. uncle tom said...
Many years ago I was quite interested in the concept of minimalist living, but rather grew out of it..
I did take time out to study pre-industrial revolution construction methods, and in particular, the green oak frame method of house building.
That so many of these old houses have not only survived, but are actively sought after, despite a very simple and inexpensive construction method; makes a bit of a mockery of modern building regulations.
If you look at the building regs and planning restrictions today, it is possible to identify several areas that needlessly increase construction costs; most notably:
1) Foundations - there is absolutely no need to build a timber framed house on absolutely rigid footings; a small amount of 'give' will not adversely affect those living inside.
On most sites, it is quite sufficient to clear the topsoil, lay a couple of inches of compacted chalk, and then set the bricks or blocks used to support the groundsill with a soft lime mortar instead of Portland cement - far cheaper than the Fort Knox specifications that builders have to comply with.
2) Heavy roofs - most UK planners deny builders the option of using lightweight panels for roofing, insisting instead on clay, slate or concrete tile. This greatly increases the weight of the roof and amount of timber needed for its support; it also increases the required load bearing capacity of the walls.
Hardly any houses in North America or Australasia use real tile any more, although many use textured panels that give the same appearance. The saving in cost is considerable.
28. Philip9134 said...
uncle tom 1) the foundations of Australian brick veneer buildings are a minimum of 450 mm by 500-600mm with a floor of at least 200mm. This is always on a sandy bed or highly stable soil, for clay or highly reactive soil it requires a pier and beam where by the piers are sunk to sometimes 5 or more meters the beam can be 1meter by 1 meter. I mention this because in the UK we have what the Australians term as highly reactive soil, therefore we cannot build on small raft slabs.
2) the use of corrugated iron roofs are a cheep method of building, if you have ever tried to hold a conversation under a corrugated iron roof while it was raining you would soon go back to the old clay one.
29. crunchy said...
25. icarus said...Then you should be on a philosophy blog rather than an economic/political one
You were asking the questions not me. Go figure icarus.
30. titaniccaptain said...
@uncle tom 26
Exactly.......there are many different types of construction methods that go against the constraints of modern building regs which are equally viable for construction and a damn site cheaper.
You don't have to buy into the hippie lifestyle to learn from projects like Lammas but you can take a look at groundbreaking an innovative construction methods like theirs and use their ideas for your potential construction ideas if you have any. And as you rightly point out preindustrial revolution houses are some of the most sought after.....my house is over 400 years old and is still standing without foundations and will still be here when everything built in the past 10 years has fallen down.
@Icarus 3
Nice link...again it shows that houses don't have to be built from concrete blocks and bricks.
@WDbeast 6
As has been shown recently modern show homes don't meet the regs for the housing association even at the price of 200k......makes you wonder if building regs serve any other purpose other than meeting the requirements of lenders which in turn keeps the price of the property high and does not necessarily serve the greater good of the occupier. And the difference between this type of build and a modern build is if your modern build falls down 3 years after construction then it will cost you an arm and a leg to rebuild it if a low impact house falls down in a few years.....who cares you just rebuild it for 3k!!!
@contrails are not a conspiracy (formerly npnh)
No reason why you can't have all your mod cons in this type of dwelling........you can take what you want from these type of dwellings....you don't have to follow the construction all the way but take ideas of how you would want to build your house.
If I built one it would have Sky, internet connection and an en-suite bathroom.
@p.doff
"there are even cheaper dwellings, which can be built entirely of natural materials. They call them tents.".......hmmmm ok
As for the hippie element of the story...........not my cup of tea either but you can still learn form their methods......just because you may live in a barn conversion it doesn't make you a horse....
31. icarus said...
crunchy @27 - I merely asked you to explain/expand on enslavement and I'm still waiting for an answer. Why should I "go figure" what it is?
32. crunchy said...
13. icarus said...crunchy - does this enslavement come from government planning and regulation or from a financial system that operates purely on its own behalf and creates huge debt overhead? Or from somewhere else?
14. crunchy said...All. It also comes from the already enslaved.
Icarus, that was a very to the point answer and one that needs no more elaborate explanation.
33. icarus said...
Enslavement comes from the already enslaved. OK
34. crunchy said...
You may get it one day. If you don't understand what I mean you will most likely not need to concern yourself with such matters.
35. uncle tom said...
Philip,
When I first saw a brick veneer building constructed here, I was rather depressed; it seemed to encompass the worst of all worlds - the need for total rigidity combined with a design that was otherwise essentially ephemeral.
You can't generalise about UK soil conditions, we have a complete cocktail here; but where the soil is reactive (clay that expands and contracts dependant on moisture levels) then a wholly timber frame design is preferable.
Simple tin roofs do make a row when it rains, but modern roofing panels that have thermal insulation bonded to the underside, are no noisier than slate or tile.
36. p. doff said...
@34
You're doing it again ....'I know something you don't know' Nah nah n'nah nah.
Titanic ...... 'If I built one it would have Sky, internet connection and an en-suite bathroom'. Well you can forget about the £3K build cost then. I've just fitted a new en-suite and doing it myself, including all the plumbing and wiring, it still came to £3,200. That already doubles the build cost of the 'abode', and doesn't include the ancillary plumbing and water heating that you would need.
In house building, the basic bricks and mortar shell is relatively cheap. What costs (apart from the land) is the finishing, services and fittings. If you are not a tree hugger and you want all the mod-cons, then you have to be prepared to pay. Personally, I had enough of 'roughing it' in a hovel when I was a student, and I have no desire to repeat the experience.
37. titaniccaptain said...
@P.doff
Agreed.....adding the en-suite and sky etc....will add to the cost...BUT still cheaper than a Barrett home and esthetically a lot more pleasing.....by the way that must be some en-suite for over 3k. I recently priced one up on the cheap and it came to half of that....
This is another point actually...character is something we have been missing in architecture (with regards to small dwellings that are affordable) now for some years so I find the low impact ideas a breath of fresh air.
Also one advantage that I should have mentioned is that low impact houses open the way to building withing the green areas of the U.K. currently not being developed because of the impact it will have visually on the landscape....if someone decided to develop the field next to me in the Brecon Beacons National Park and stick a cul-de-sac where there currently is a beautifull view I would be devastated.
But if someone was to develop the land for a low impact community for normal people (Not yogurt weavers) then I may not be over the moon but it would be the lesser of two evils.
38. titaniccaptain said...
@P.doff
Agreed.....adding the en-suite and sky etc....will add to the cost...BUT still cheaper than a Barrett home and esthetically a lot more pleasing.....by the way that must be some en-suite for over 3k. I recently priced one up on the cheap and it came to half of that....
This is another point actually...character is something we have been missing in architecture (with regards to small dwellings that are affordable) now for some years so I find the low impact ideas a breath of fresh air.
Also one advantage that I should have mentioned is that low impact houses open the way to building withing the green areas of the U.K. currently not being developed because of the impact it will have visually on the landscape....if someone decided to develop the field next to me in the Brecon Beacons National Park and stick a cul-de-sac where there currently is a beautifull view I would be devastated.
But if someone was to develop the land for a low impact community for normal people (Not yogurt weavers) then I may not be over the moon but it would be the lesser of two evils.
39. crunchy said...
36. p. doff ... It is not beyond possibility that I do.
There are some answers that have to be earnt before they can be truely learnt.
The "Nah nah nah" is in your mind, not mine.
It seems strange that someone that is perceived by yourself to be a fool attracts your attention.
40. p. doff said...
@39.
It's impossible to be in awe of the Wizard of Oz when you've looked behind the curtain.
41. p. doff said...
Titanic. I do know what you mean, from personal experience.
42. crunchy said...
I couldn't agree more. Being in awe of someone or thing that does not exist is Toto nonesense.
Do we need to be in awe and humbled by something greater than ourselves, that may exist beyond this realm....YES!
but it is your prerogative to disagree... A home without curtains would be my favoured choice, as I still like the double decker parked in
a woodland idea.
43. p. doff said...
Cue Cliff Richard singing Summer Holiday. LOL
44. crunchy said...
I was thinking more on the lines of On the Buses, but without Olive, or Cliff come to that! lol