flat pack brick house

[alan2here]

A conventional house, made of bricks, wood, metal pipes etc... takes many professionals a long time to construct and so is expensive for labour costs and relies on there being people with these skills available. If the process was simplified but kept to resemble a conventional house, for example:

 

Bricks shaped like jigsaw pieces at either end requiring no cement.

Those bendy pipes made of many small segments like the sort you get for showers that screw on either end.

 

etc... such that the house could be built by anyone from simple instructions then do you think the extra cost of production would outweigh the labour cost saving?

[Leader Bee]

I seem to remember an initiative whereby prefabricated homes were developed from cargo containers in a modular design. I think prefabricated homes of this fashion would be much cheaper that jigsaw shaped bricks which will still require an amount of skill to put together.

 

Heres a link: http://www.fabprefab.com/fabfiles/containerbayhome.htm

 

Though they don't look particularly appealing to us it may be that these could be a great solution for third world countries. Further googling however indicates there are other pre-fabricated buildings that look more like something we would feel comfortable living in.

[alan2here]

I don't like the idea of something that only poor countries might like. However, wow :¬) that looks fantastic.

 

http://www.containercity.com/

 

I bet containers are really cheep and they could look like nice, upmarket expensive houses inside, you could even buy a room at a time to expand your home! but it's all probbably dirt cheap. Rain could be quite noisy but it should be ok. You could combine thease with easy pipes and the such as well. Would rust be a problem?

[CaptainPanic]

A conventional house, made of bricks, wood, metal pipes etc... takes many professionals a long time to construct and so is expensive for labour costs and relies on there being people with these skills available. If the process was simplified but kept to resemble a conventional house, for example:

 

Bricks shaped like jigsaw pieces at either end requiring no cement.

Those bendy pipes made of many small segments like the sort you get for showers that screw on either end.

 

etc... such that the house could be built by anyone from simple instructions then do you think the extra cost of production would outweigh the labour cost saving?

 

I'd be worried about insulation if you use the jigsaw pieces. If no air gets through then it may work.

In a similar fashion, I'd be worried about insulation and comfort in the containers as well. A single brick wall with a roof on it is cheap enough. It's the double walls, the double glazing, large windows, spaceous kitchen and bathroom that make a house expensive. And of course, you still need some ground to build it on.

 

Finally, I am not sure that the container city needs no foundation. In construction, a lot of time and money is spent on the foundation (especially in the Netherlands). Once the foundation is in place, the pre-fab concrete slabs make it easy to build quickly.

 

Sorry for being a bit skeptical about the suggested ideas.

[alan2here]

Reguarding land ownership costs with the containers it's a bit easyer as it's a bit like a caravan park but where the caravans are stacked in a pattern, it can all be moved easily, one could for example rent the ground it was on then move it to some ground they owned later.

 

reguarding foundations, there may need exist sometimes. Building on a hard surface is cirtainly no problem, no foundations required, a single unit could even be put on a soft surface and alloud to sink in a little and there should be no subsidence problems, would just need to make sure it didn't become slanted, not that I'm sugesting building one on mud without any foundations would be a good idea but it shows how flexable it is.

 

I don't know for sure if the zigsaw bricks would work. I didn't imagine there would be any gaps but with no cerment I guess there could be.

 

See the inside of thease

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65C9OLvmjpI

 

Was there something you had in mind which was different than this and that would work differntly than if it were in a brick house, you could replace the laminate flooring with fluffy carpets or my preferance which is to add a rug on top, add more skirting boards, huge comfy sofa, mount more modern lights into the ceiling and walls as they appear to be added inside the container, devide up the inside with interiour wooden, glass-brick, cloth walls etc... Hell, marble pillars and stained diamond sections in the windows with all the money you save over a conventional house if it was all done reasonably efficently.

Edited August 30, 2010 by alan2here

[forufes]

A conventional house, made of bricks, wood, metal pipes etc... takes many professionals a long time to construct and so is expensive for labour costs and relies on there being people with these skills available. If the process was simplified but kept to resemble a conventional house, for example:

 

Bricks shaped like jigsaw pieces at either end requiring no cement.

Those bendy pipes made of many small segments like the sort you get for showers that screw on either end.

 

etc... such that the house could be built by anyone from simple instructions then do you think the extra cost of production would outweigh the labour cost saving?

the headache you'll save in building is but relocated in manufacturing.

 

you either buy cheap simple materials and put some effort into building with it.

or buy materials which had effort put into them to make using them effortless for you.

 

and i guess the former is cheaper.

[Mr Skeptic]

By moving the production to a factory you can increase efficiency. You can either buy cheap materials to make your nails with, or buy pre-made nails. Which do you think will be easier/cheaper?

 

For the house of course some of the efficiency is lost in greater transport costs (it is hollow and so bulkier), but for portable houses I think it would work out.

[alan2here]

I just worked out the cost for a container city to add one unit (for most people thats for one house). I included the bare bones and some stuff to make it feel homely as well, it came to about £6500.

Edited September 13, 2010 by alan2here

[alan2here]

I saw this as well recently, which I love.

Edited September 27, 2010 by alan2here

[Externet]

Not a single brick here, but some of the flat pack part; its design is to drool. Get your beach size towel as a bib now :

 

---> http://dornob.com/open-house-modern-fold-out-mobile-home-design/

[alan2here]

Thanks Externet, it looks good. It's nice to see a combination of efficent space, nice looking, cheap, folding etc... but also with curves.

 

I was in London for the day recently and saw in that day amoung many other things the container city. It really is verry nice.

Edited September 27, 2010 by alan2here

[Dune]

I don't like the idea of something that only poor countries might like. However, wow :¬) that looks fantastic.

 

http://www.containercity.com/

 

I bet containers are really cheep and they could look like nice, upmarket expensive houses inside, you could even buy a room at a time to expand your home! but it's all probbably dirt cheap. Rain could be quite noisy but it should be ok. You could combine thease with easy pipes and the such as well. Would rust be a problem?

 

Rust would potentialy not be a problem , depending upon the extremity of the enviroment, since containers are made from corten steel.

http://en.wikipedia....eathering_steel

 

The plumbing issue has already been addressed with this product; http://www.pexsupply.com/PEX-Plumbing-515000

 

Certainly, as we move towards greater population density the need for housing creation efficiency will become acute.

 

I beleive China is addressing this issue with modular plastic housing. (no link)

Edited November 8, 2010 by Dune

[Cena]

A house is a home, building or structure that is a dwelling or place for habitation by human beings. The term includes many kinds of dwellings ranging from rudimentary huts of nomadic tribes to free standing individual structures.In some contexts, "house" may mean the same as dwelling, residence, home, abode, lodging, accommodation, or housing, among other meanings. The social unit that lives in a house is known as a household.undermount sink

Edited November 19, 2010 by Cena

[alan2here]

Does Pex plumbing suport high presure and other such problems associated with real life plumbing situations? If so that looks fantastic as well.

[InigoMontoya]

Google for "ICF" (Insulated Concrete Form) construction. Basically you build a structure out of hollow styrofoam blocks that you glue together. Need a window? Just cut a hole in the styrofoam! When your structure is complete, you pump concrete into the void (remember, the blocks are hollow). When the concrete cures, it provides a very sturdy/durable structure while the foam blocks provide insulation. Obviously there's a bit more to it, but that's the basic concept. Materials are more expensive than traditional methods, but there are a lot of savings on the labor side of the fence and the final result is superior.

Edited January 8, 2011 by InigoMontoya

[MrWorld]

I don't like the idea of something that only poor countries might like. However, wow :¬) that looks fantastic.

 

http://www.containercity.com/

 

I bet containers are really cheep and they could look like nice, upmarket expensive houses inside, you could even buy a room at a time to expand your home! but it's all probbably dirt cheap. Rain could be quite noisy but it should be ok. You could combine thease with easy pipes and the such as well. Would rust be a problem?

 

 

 

Check out this one. it got an higher "desidn faktor"

 

Container building Hilfiger Denim

 

 

[Leader Bee]

Since this thread was necro'd I suppose i'll take the opportunity to ask about the ICF construction; While it looks like a great concept, "waiting for the concrete to cure" sounds like it could be a downside. Obviously the Hoover dam was a lot bigger and thicker and they used cooling techniques to harden it quickly, otherwise it would have taken 100 years to harden using conventional pouring methods(source) but i'd assume a residential scale program wouldn't use such techniques and wonder what the waiting time would be... especially since you've also insulated it with foam, for it to harden so that work could begin on the interior - not even considering when it might be habitable?

[Airbrush]

Interesting ideas above. I was wondering about using recycled materials for building materials. Also, somehow, using the actual dirt from the property as building materials. If they dig down 5 or 10 feet deep, and somehow press the dirt into bricks with fiber reinforcement and insulating materials, that can be cemented together and stacked in a dome like an ice igloo? The house would be over 1/2 below ground level, and therefore very resistant to storms and tsunamis.

 

If excavating dirt can be done cheeply, you could build entire multi-storied houses underground. Houses would be invisible from view and the environment would look natural.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Airbrush

[InigoMontoya]

Since this thread was necro'd I suppose i'll take the opportunity to ask about the ICF construction; While it looks like a great concept, "waiting for the concrete to cure" sounds like it could be a downside. Obviously the Hoover dam was a lot bigger and thicker and they used cooling techniques to harden it quickly, otherwise it would have taken 100 years to harden using conventional pouring methods(source) but i'd assume a residential scale program wouldn't use such techniques and wonder what the waiting time would be... especially since you've also insulated it with foam, for it to harden so that work could begin on the interior - not even considering when it might be habitable?

You pour one story per day.

 

You wait 24 hours after the last pour.

 

The concrete is obviously not at full strength, but you can continue working.

[Hal.]

Simplicity , link

 

 

 

This design is attributed to Andreas Strauss who can only be

encouraging debate of his work by letting a picture of his design

loose on the internet .

[CaptainPanic]

Interesting ideas above. I was wondering about using recycled materials for building materials. Also, somehow, using the actual dirt from the property as building materials. If they dig down 5 or 10 feet deep, and somehow press the dirt into bricks with fiber reinforcement and insulating materials, that can be cemented together and stacked in a dome like an ice igloo? The house would be over 1/2 below ground level, and therefore very resistant to storms and tsunamis.

 

If excavating dirt can be done cheeply, you could build entire multi-storied houses underground. Houses would be invisible from view and the environment would look natural.

Building a cellar / basement has been done for millenia. And mixing small stones, sand or clay into cement or concrete has also been done for ages (literally, since the Romans have invented cement and concrete).

 

Until that point, history seems to agree with you. However, I think one of the main reasons that people like to live above ground, rather than under it in Hobbit-style houses is daylight. Windows are really important. And, more recently also because we stack multiple houses on top of each other in large apartment buildings to achieve sufficient population density. You can't do all that under ground.

 

Then there is the issue of ground water. Building a basement is not so much a matter of digging a big hole in the ground. Far more important is to keep the groundwater out. In the Netherlands for example, groundwater is typically less than half a meter below the surface... sometimes as little as 20 cm.

 

Finally, one practical problem with an igloo is that you don't have straight walls to put something against. The curvature would require custom made (expensive) furniture... unless all igloos in the world would have the same size and shape (and therefore the same curvatures).

[alan2here]

you don't have straight walls to put something against. The curvature would require custom made (expensive) furniture.

 

I don't like the idea of an earth brick igloo but this is not a valid reason against it. You just end up with some space behind the sofa, like you often get anyway, many people use this space as storage. It can't be that hard to make a bendy skirting board and skirting boards guarentee a gap behind practically everything else anyway, nothing wrong with making this a curved gap, more room for multi-sockets, in extreme cases a standing lamp.

 

If you want a kitchin and for this to have a fairly standard design then the units could be mounted onto something wooden and have that attached to the inside edge of the building to create a sort of for example octagonal instead of smoothly curved part of the house.

[CaptainPanic]

I don't like the idea of an earth brick igloo but this is not a valid reason against it. You just end up with some space behind the sofa, like you often get anyway, many people use this space as storage. It can't be that hard to make a bendy skirting board and skirting boards guarentee a gap behind practically everything else anyway, nothing wrong with making this a curved gap, more room for multi-sockets, in extreme cases a standing lamp.

 

If you want a kitchin and for this to have a fairly standard design then the units could be mounted onto something wooden and have that attached to the inside edge of the building to create a sort of for example octagonal instead of smoothly curved part of the house.

If the dome is a perfect sphere, and if we assume that most furniture would be 25% of the height of the highest point of the ceiling, then (using simple maths: cos(sin^-1(0.25)) = 0.968, and the resulting surface is pi*0.968^2 = 0.9375, meaning we lose 0.0625) we can calculate that you still lose 6.25% of your total surface area. This percentage increases quickly as you get taller furniture.

 

It's not a show stopper, but you cannot totally dismiss it either. 6.25% of the total area is a lot more than just a little space behind the couch.

[Airbrush]

If the dome is a perfect sphere, and if we assume that most furniture would be 25% of the height of the highest point of the ceiling, then (using simple maths: cos(sin^-1(0.25)) = 0.968, and the resulting surface is pi*0.968^2 = 0.9375, meaning we lose 0.0625) we can calculate that you still lose 6.25% of your total surface area. This percentage increases quickly as you get taller furniture.

 

It's not a show stopper, but you cannot totally dismiss it either. 6.25% of the total area is a lot more than just a little space behind the couch.

 

Then the ceilings can be higher. The walls can be straight vertical up to 8 feet, then the arching dome begins. I think the above argument is irrelevant. Keeping out water from an underground dwelling, however, is a significant issue. Just make sure the inside is very water proof. Water channels can drain away rain water away from and under the house. If the house is 50% below ground level, just build the below ground level like a boat. This would be able to survive a tsunami and the worst storms, in coastal areas prone to such disasters. Probably not good in the Netherlands.

 

I think one of the main reasons that people like to live above ground, rather than under it in Hobbit-style houses is daylight. Windows are really important.

 

Yes windows are important, but there can be sky lights and light can be channeled by reflectors. Electric light is the only light many office or factory workers ever see all day. There can be artificial windows to make the living space seem more traditional and appealing.

 

When people ever live on Mars, they will certainly use underground dwellings and use dirt as a building material.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Airbrush