I'm conceptualizing with a cool developer I know about how to do a mixed use project for a very low cost/sf. We're trying to be very open to pretty much any kind of gymnastics to make the pro forma work. Things we've considered:
Pre-fab (but not shipping containers): panelized exterior wall systems? Modular bathrooms in apartments?
Partnering with a granting institution to do construction using job corps/training (lots of non-profits in the neighborhood - it's an empowerment zone)
Does anyone have examples of cool *inexpensive* projects that include non-traditional construction methods? It would be lovely to look at pretty pictures of buildings today while I think about this. Thank you!
3D-H? Think Per retired from "architecture" and is doing paintings now, but he might send you a stencil for a mural for when your building's finished :)
And for inexpensive projects, maybe use discarded materials, offcuts or "harvest" demolition sites for building components good for another life. https://recyclecoach.com/blog/...
I think Habitat for Humanity in the US has stores that sell reclaimed or donated building materials even.
The building below uses the metal from old air ducts as a facade for example. Here's an "upcycled" and circular project made from reclaimed materials (in Dutch, sorry) https://www.gebouwvanhetjaar.n...
Also don't spend money on finishes, leaving things exposed and unfinished, raw, like they often do: http://www.architectendvvt.com...
And Rural Studio: http://www.ruralstudio.org of course has tons of examples, although mostly detached single family homes, maybe some inventive use of materials there.
And perhaps look at materials often not used in a (more expensive) housing or office context but that are used to quickly build industrial warehouses or farm buildings etc. and are not made (more expensive) to look "pretty".
Maybe you can also employ some people from the empowerment zone in the office as subsidised workers, to keep costs down on that side of the equation too, so they'll not only be working on the construction side of things but also the designing, maybe drafting, making models etc.
All good links, randomised, thank you. The construction labor idea in this zone is part of a much bigger conversation I'm having relative to the non-profit for which I'm board president right now. So I'm thinking along those lines, too, but figured architects here would know more about construction methods.
My advice would be to drop all discussions with "cool developer". If they want to invent an anti gravity pad, they need to seek out that architect that does that who is currently running an office on Mars.
"Modular bathrooms in apartments" like WTF. Sure, "prefabricated shower and tub enclosures" do exist, but this is regressive, not innovative.
"Cool developer" like that will have no issues wasting your time on your dime. Run away. Market is too hot for this kind of shit.
Love you Rusty! But this is a friend of mine, too. If s/he had come out of nowhere offering me "great exposure" on the project then yes, I would run. It's an existing relationship, so I feel comfortable thinking about how to make it successful in my off time. It's educational for me to explore construction methods, anyway.
Aug 24, 18 12:57 pm ·
·
Rusty!
OMG! I was totally thinking in terms of "do it for fun in your off time". There is no effort wasted if it is relegated to off time. That said, when it comes to residential construction, collective hivemind has already developed the absolute cheapest
method of constructing basic structures. It would take a visionary with unique new product to take it to next level of cheap. haha
Curious what's regressive about modular bathrooms?
Aug 24, 18 2:18 pm ·
·
Rusty!
ttuds, they are great in conditions where client needs a preassembled ADA compliant off the shelf unit. But they still require proper substrate board and waterproofing. Depending on client and contractor, that part will often be skipped out, leaving them to be cesspool of black mold living just under the cheap acrylic mold (mold on mold violence). Good quality bathrooms have shit like tile and epoxy grout. Worth every penny in the long run. If long run is a concern.
Aug 24, 18 5:51 pm ·
·
joseffischer
Remove HVAC equipment from the condos, leave a covered pit open to accept a grease trap for the restaurants, basically anything and everything you can do to cut scope out of your bucket and put it into fit-out\
And I know I said not shipping containers but this project in Christchurch, NZ - to build a shopping district QUICKLY after the terrible earthquake - is so good. It has the sense of scrappy creativity I'd like to achieve.
Haven't really seen anything that successful. The primary reason is the residential side really has made them efficient from a construction standpoint; keep to standard sized things to save installation labor costs so they don't have to cut or cope. That said:
Prefabricated paneled system. I know a large developer here that does this successfully and ships to the site for erection. I've seen third party prefab used, but often what you save in labor you'll pay in cost for the panels; best used when there are other timetable restrictions at play. Or smaller scale stuff like fips panels, strawbale construction, rammed earth, etc. which may or may not work in your area and may or may not sell well.
Depending on your local historic and available grants and tax breaks, I've seen from fairly good retrofit projects where grants offset the costs.
There's also new trends like cooperative/community housing. Think artist commune or foodie interest where certain things like kitchen/dining, entertainment, and studio spaces are shared. Sort of like a upscale dorm. How this helps is cutting down enclosed individual spaces for more bang for your buck square foot utilization; but that is totally a niche market. I could see this sort of thing working great with mixed use since you could have retail galleries, popup restaurants, etc. done by the folks who live above. Wework and Welive or cruiseship condos sort of concepts... Along those lines are dense housing concepts like a neighborhood of tiny houses (personally, I think that gets too close to a trailerpark)
Thanks mightyaa. There is actually an "upscale dorm" project very close to this (I did some work for it), and the hip vibe it brings to the neighborhood is one of the reasons this project is being considered. As you and Rusty pointed out, residential construction is already pretty much as tightly cost-controlled as it can be, barring any totally new breakthroughs.
Aug 24, 18 1:14 pm ·
·
mightyaa
Forgot to mention a trending market of retirement communal villages. Think Florida retirement village, but a lot more urban focused on community living & experiences. With many retiree's living healthy, long, active lifestyles, I think this is an undertapped market. I see these sorts buying expensive condos downtown with access to theatre, arts, etc. and most have hobby interests like art studios... Just make the living/sleeping space nice, and put everything else in communal space. If mid-highrise, I'd lay it out by floor so each floor has its own large kitchen, dining, family room, outside space, then big stuff on the lower levels like theatres, art studios, libraries, etc. Just keep breaking it from personal, to roommate shared, to extended family, to community spaces.
look at aravena's methods, it's really low cost , but it can be scaled to accommodate better finishes. Think "tenant finished" too. It may be attractive to some. And of course, size; think how much you save by reducing ceiling heights and shrinking living areas.
Every developer I've ever known is going to build radically cheaper than the next guy and pocket the difference. Be clear about the goals: is this a community service or a max profit venture (gentrification)?
mightyaa's community thinking is very good, the risk is assuming that cooperative living is desirable or even allowed.
Cheap is the well-established baseline standard and anything below that is truly sub-par with consequent effects on marketing and value. I'd lean towards adaptive reuse for value.
make sure you use local building techniques and materials. Maybe you look into the local industries and reimagine some local products as building components? You can also drive by your local junkyard lol
"...that include non-traditional construction methods?"
Well, here is the Pons Fabricius bridge in Rome that was built in 62 BC with traditional construction methods and quality materials. It has been in use ever since (2,080 years). They doubtless used workers who knew what they were doing also.
Donna, what about pre-fab metal buildings? They have the truss and girder shapes and the skin and wall systems all figured out, just choose from a catalog.
I always thought it would be cool to start with that for the enclosure, punch apertures as needed, and build a great interior "street". Like the downstate Illinois redneck version of MVRDVs markethall. See also coop himmelblau high School in LA.
Something like this... Maybe taller so you can put two or three habitable levels in inside... Customize the apertures and you're off and running.
That's a 5000 SF footprint, squeeze in 2.5 levels for 13000sf @ $130k building (slightly taller) and foundation = $10/SF shell. Add a bunch of windows and skylights and you might do the shell for $20/sf. Add $40-80/sf for interior and systems... That's still pretty low.
You could also build out the retail/ select residences but leave a bunch of units unfinished or partially finished like that Aravena project.
Best means would be getting a 'cool' GC into the conversation. Seems more helpful (and would have direct input on many of the above suggestions) than what the 'cool' developer (and you) have brought to the table thus far. No offense intended.
The job corp./training thing seems interesting - but would be a balance w/ whomever else doing the rest of the project (assuming that it would be for a limited scope only?), and also sounds like a huge time-suck in trying to set-up and negotiate. Unless your dev. friend is taking that on and/or has exp. in such things? Front end work comes out of someones equity/billable hours/lifestyle....one way or the other.
Buy kit buildings and metal buildings and do a mash up.
Aug 24, 18 4:38 pm ·
·
mightyaa
Been there, tried that on a firehouse. Unfortunately, it cost more; they don't accommodate changes, don't meet code for residential uses without significant changes, issues with planning and zoning, and issues with energy code. By the time you 'solve' these, you are better to just stick build.
This post reminds me of Shigeru Ban's paper hospital for dying AIDs patients. Of course it got him the Pritzker for being politically correct. Which is all that matters.
Really nice project. I'm not a fan of the narrow shipping-container-esque dimension limits, but if two of those could be ganged horizontally it would make for a really nice unit.
You don't need to design the structure for every possible load, you just need to stay within a certain logical bandwidth, lead bricks would not be an option obviously, it can all be easily calculated. I think James Wines/SITE at some point even envisioned Sears catalogue homes in such a structure.
Aug 28, 18 3:16 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
Rando, the sears kit house section drawing is one of my favorite arch visuals. And Ricky, have you no idea what satire is?
Aug 28, 18 7:19 am ·
·
randomised
Non, what do you mean satire? James Wines/SITE were dead serious about Highrise of Homes, they almost had the project going with a Japanese client but then the Japanese stock market crashed and so the project came tumbling down like a BEST facade.
And Rick all that can be calculated upfront, don't worry, just over dimension your structure a little bit to allow for the unknown. Here's OASE Journal #85 about Productive Uncertainty Indeterminacy in Spatial Design, Planning and Management with absolute highlight the interview with living legend N. John Habraken:
In the 1960s, as a critique of the standardization of mass housing John Habraken introduced, under the title Het Open Bouwen (Open Building), the distinction between the ‘support’ and the ‘infill’ by which a building can be adapted over time to unforeseen changes in programme and use. The design is introduced using a thematic methodology, whereby the architect shapes the support, in other words the communal. In this strategy, the architecture takes into account the changing wishes of (new) users, or in other words with the factor of time. In this interview Habraken brings this idea of the factor of time up to date, applying it not only to the lifespan of buildings but in particular to the design process itself. ‘Open building’, Habraken argues, is not confined so much to the role of the architect, but it makes it more specific and more interesting. Thinking in terms of time is crucial if architecture is to provide an answer to seemingly conflicting movements in our increasingly articulate society.
A must read!
Aug 28, 18 10:01 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
Rando, I know the history of the drawings. I should have added a line break to my Ricky comment. I read his long rant on the minutia of the scheme as satire.
Aug 28, 18 11:53 am ·
·
randomised
Yeah, the history of the project is very interesting. I actually thought that you thought my post was satire and that's what you wanted to explain to Rick, haha.
I think there are some things you can do to save on cost for residential development. (I see a lot of plans for residential development in my current job)
1 Avoid dead space, it is not necessary to have a rectilinear hallway running diagonally from a corner unit entrance, just don't enclose those niches and triangle shaped corners.
2 Bathrooms back to back where ever possible
3 Try to dimension major rooms so the ceilings and as many of the walls can be done without cutting full size sheets of drywall or other finishes.
4 Avoid L shaped kitchen countertops these always have problems fitting and lead to FHA compliance issues.
5. Locate the buildings on the site to make use of the existing public sidewalks and to reduce the length of driveways to cut down on site construction cost.
6. Always double load the parking aisles use perpendicular parking not diagonal as this can make a difference of $400-1000 per parking space cost.
7. If you do multi story buildings consider eliminating the ground floor corridors and have all ground floor units primary entry on the exterior.
8. For the bathrooms use tubs over showers wherever possible tubs are easier to install.
As for the money side of a project if you get loans from the FHA or build on government owned land from a housing authority you have to meet the UFAS standards or more likely UFAS combined with ADA which requires 5% instead of 2% Type A accessible units Per HUD’s 24 CFR Part 8 document section 504. The added cost of additional accessible units can be more than recouped by saving on the financing and or land acquisition cost. It is also possible that the housing authority can buy your developers land and then give back a cheap lease in exchange for set asides for affordable housing and possibly additional accessible housing units thus eliminating the land acquisition cost.
I also would be skeptical with the detailing and always ask is this necessary? Sometimes a streamlined minimal building with sensible landscape, massing and color scheme can look just as good as a boxy square thing with lick um and stick um colonial or Victorian do-dads added.
Sounds like a fun project, let us know how it turns out.
Super helpful common-sense advice, Peter, thank you! It's like a list I need to print out - I mean I try to be mindful of these things whenever possible anyway but to set them up as inviolable rules would be fun.
Aug 28, 18 11:06 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
I learned about this, because I don't do a lot of wood, but now that I am, this is particularly important.
In mass production maybe, site-built really no difference in efficiency and a trade-off in quality as precuts vary in length due to longitudinal shrinkage. Also you need plates, shoes, jacks, cripples, cats, bracing, and so on, which are longer and shorter. A very efficient builder I knew did an analysis and figured that a pile of 16 foot 2x4's was actually more efficient than buying assorted different lengths.
Also framing lumber quality (hem-fir) is very bad now and shorter lengths tend to be even more so.
Right, Brian Phillips. His work is great! He came to lecture here a few years ago and I had forgotten to put the $100K house in my references for this, awesome. Thank you!
This devleopor, Jon Arnold, in Kansas City has a lot of great ideas: http://www.arnolddevelopmentgr.... I've seen him speak at conferences and attended a workshop. Too many innovative ideas to remember, but a central focus is energy efficiency--they hold their investments so lower operating costs pay off.
Another energy efficient developer, in PA: http://www.onionflats.com/team.... He also speaks regularly at conferences (Passive House and similar) about how and why energy efficient design can make financial sense.
What makes something affordable? First cost only? life cycle cost? (Over how many years?) Donna's initial question references cost per square foot, so that indicates affordable is defined (solely) on a first cost basis. Depending on the construction market in a specific location, availability of labor will be a significant cost driver.
I live and work in Seattle, so our market is red-hot right now and it is really a sub-contractor's market. This means the A/E community cannot design their way to lower first costs. I suppose you could use very cheap materials and systems, but there is a limitation to how cheap you can really go for multi-family residential.
Someone mentioned adaptive reuse and I think that has some promise in an accelerated market simply because some of the building already exists... Pre-fab, panelization, CLT, etc. are not a panacea for driving first costs down. There are instances where each of those can make financial sense over another based on a host of project specific factors, but they don't inherently drive costs down as much as they keep costs from rising.
Aug 29, 18 12:35 pm ·
·
randomised
Not building is the cheapest option indeed, reappropriating unused or underused buildings to turn it into a mixed-use project can be an affordable, smart and "cool" way to have a relevant project within the existing urban fabric of a city. Tons of great examples for that, but what if you already have a plot somewhere that needs filling?
Betonbrut, I agree about costs. I was operations manager at a panelized construction company specializing in Passive Houses for a while, during their start-up phase, and we found that although we could pay our labor a bit less than skilled on-site labor, the infrastructure investment was significant enough that the end cost to the consumer was comparable to site-built. The biggest cost advantage was shorter carrying cost, as we could get a house dried in in just a few days, after a month of factory work, compared to many weeks or months for site-built.
CLT definitely has some promise in the mid-rise category, but from what I've learned at conferences about it, you need to get to 5-6 stories before the economics beat out steel and concrete. And it maxes out at about 12 stories.
Aug 29, 18 6:21 pm ·
·
betonbrut
Selling the lot at the top of the market is also a real option for developers. We have a development arm of our company and we have locked up land, entitled it and then flipped it to another developer because it didn't meet our proforma... ended up making more money in some cases than if we had developed it ourselves.
Again, the A/E community can't design their way out of these challenges. Land costs continue to rise in Seattle and unless the rental market continues to accelerate, we will begin to see less units being built, which, over time, will help accelerate the rental rates.... Until it all implodes during a recession. So, back to Donna's original question... there is a real limit to how cheap you can build something on a first cost metric alone. I think there are many creative options if you begin to change the metric by which you are analyzing a given idea.
Prefab boxes are not worth it. price ends up being about the same as stick-built and you're more constrained by the box size and system. Only reason you'd explore is if you have a short time window for erection - but that's about it. Plus - it's a lot of extra coordination and headache for the design team.
cost-cutting:
parking is a loss-leader. Push back against parking requirements and avoid putting parking in the building. Best if you don't have to put in any parking at all.
Though I think in Paris the scenario(s) is less "cool developer" and more government (Can it be both?) backed development. Maybe that can be the "granting institution"?
Sep 13, 18 8:49 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Cool ways to get cost/sf lower on a mixed-use building
Hi.
I'm conceptualizing with a cool developer I know about how to do a mixed use project for a very low cost/sf. We're trying to be very open to pretty much any kind of gymnastics to make the pro forma work. Things we've considered:
Does anyone have examples of cool *inexpensive* projects that include non-traditional construction methods? It would be lovely to look at pretty pictures of buildings today while I think about this. Thank you!
Perhaps 3D-H?
1 Featured Comment
Plus
All 26 Comments
3D-H? Think Per retired from "architecture" and is doing paintings now, but he might send you a stencil for a mural for when your building's finished :)
And for inexpensive projects, maybe use discarded materials, offcuts or "harvest" demolition sites for building components good for another life. https://recyclecoach.com/blog/...
I think Habitat for Humanity in the US has stores that sell reclaimed or donated building materials even.
The building below uses the metal from old air ducts as a facade for example.
Here's an "upcycled" and circular project made from reclaimed materials (in Dutch, sorry) https://www.gebouwvanhetjaar.n...
Also don't spend money on finishes, leaving things exposed and unfinished, raw, like they often do: http://www.architectendvvt.com...
And Rural Studio: http://www.ruralstudio.org of course has tons of examples, although mostly detached single family homes, maybe some inventive use of materials there.
And perhaps look at materials often not used in a (more expensive) housing or office context but that are used to quickly build industrial warehouses or farm buildings etc. and are not made (more expensive) to look "pretty".
Maybe you can also employ some people from the empowerment zone in the office as subsidised workers, to keep costs down on that side of the equation too, so they'll not only be working on the construction side of things but also the designing, maybe drafting, making models etc.
Hope that helped a bit.
All good links, randomised, thank you. The construction labor idea in this zone is part of a much bigger conversation I'm having relative to the non-profit for which I'm board president right now. So I'm thinking along those lines, too, but figured architects here would know more about construction methods.
(Also thank you for catching the Per reference. Hi.)
Hi Donna!
My advice would be to drop all discussions with "cool developer". If they want to invent an anti gravity pad, they need to seek out that architect that does that who is currently running an office on Mars.
"Modular bathrooms in apartments" like WTF. Sure, "prefabricated shower and tub enclosures" do exist, but this is regressive, not innovative.
"Cool developer" like that will have no issues wasting your time on your dime. Run away. Market is too hot for this kind of shit.
Love you Rusty! But this is a friend of mine, too. If s/he had come out of nowhere offering me "great exposure" on the project then yes, I would run. It's an existing relationship, so I feel comfortable thinking about how to make it successful in my off time. It's educational for me to explore construction methods, anyway.
OMG! I was totally thinking in terms of "do it for fun in your off time". There is no effort wasted if it is relegated to off time. That said, when it comes to residential construction, collective hivemind has already developed the absolute cheapest method of constructing basic structures. It would take a visionary with unique new product to take it to next level of cheap. haha
☝Truth.
Curious what's regressive about modular bathrooms?
ttuds, they are great in conditions where client needs a preassembled ADA compliant off the shelf unit. But they still require proper substrate board and waterproofing. Depending on client and contractor, that part will often be skipped out, leaving them to be cesspool of black mold living just under the cheap acrylic mold (mold on mold violence). Good quality bathrooms have shit like tile and epoxy grout. Worth every penny in the long run. If long run is a concern.
Remove HVAC equipment from the condos, leave a covered pit open to accept a grease trap for the restaurants, basically anything and everything you can do to cut scope out of your bucket and put it into fit-out\
And I know I said not shipping containers but this project in Christchurch, NZ - to build a shopping district QUICKLY after the terrible earthquake - is so good. It has the sense of scrappy creativity I'd like to achieve.
http://restart.org.nz/gallery
Haven't really seen anything that successful. The primary reason is the residential side really has made them efficient from a construction standpoint; keep to standard sized things to save installation labor costs so they don't have to cut or cope. That said:
Prefabricated paneled system. I know a large developer here that does this successfully and ships to the site for erection. I've seen third party prefab used, but often what you save in labor you'll pay in cost for the panels; best used when there are other timetable restrictions at play. Or smaller scale stuff like fips panels, strawbale construction, rammed earth, etc. which may or may not work in your area and may or may not sell well.
Depending on your local historic and available grants and tax breaks, I've seen from fairly good retrofit projects where grants offset the costs.
There's also new trends like cooperative/community housing. Think artist commune or foodie interest where certain things like kitchen/dining, entertainment, and studio spaces are shared. Sort of like a upscale dorm. How this helps is cutting down enclosed individual spaces for more bang for your buck square foot utilization; but that is totally a niche market. I could see this sort of thing working great with mixed use since you could have retail galleries, popup restaurants, etc. done by the folks who live above. Wework and Welive or cruiseship condos sort of concepts... Along those lines are dense housing concepts like a neighborhood of tiny houses (personally, I think that gets too close to a trailerpark)
Thanks mightyaa. There is actually an "upscale dorm" project very close to this (I did some work for it), and the hip vibe it brings to the neighborhood is one of the reasons this project is being considered. As you and Rusty pointed out, residential construction is already pretty much as tightly cost-controlled as it can be, barring any totally new breakthroughs.
Forgot to mention a trending market of retirement communal villages. Think Florida retirement village, but a lot more urban focused on community living & experiences. With many retiree's living healthy, long, active lifestyles, I think this is an undertapped market. I see these sorts buying expensive condos downtown with access to theatre, arts, etc. and most have hobby interests like art studios... Just make the living/sleeping space nice, and put everything else in communal space. If mid-highrise, I'd lay it out by floor so each floor has its own large kitchen, dining, family room, outside space, then big stuff on the lower levels like theatres, art studios, libraries, etc. Just keep breaking it from personal, to roommate shared, to extended family, to community spaces.
look at aravena's methods, it's really low cost , but it can be scaled to accommodate better finishes. Think "tenant finished" too. It may be attractive to some. And of course, size; think how much you save by reducing ceiling heights and shrinking living areas.
Every developer I've ever known is going to build radically cheaper than the next guy and pocket the difference. Be clear about the goals: is this a community service or a max profit venture (gentrification)?
mightyaa's community thinking is very good, the risk is assuming that cooperative living is desirable or even allowed.
Cheap is the well-established baseline standard and anything below that is truly sub-par with consequent effects on marketing and value. I'd lean towards adaptive reuse for value.
make sure you use local building techniques and materials. Maybe you look into the local industries and reimagine some local products as building components? You can also drive by your local junkyard lol
"...that include non-traditional construction methods?"
Well, here is the Pons Fabricius bridge in Rome that was built in 62 BC with traditional construction methods and quality materials. It has been in use ever since (2,080 years). They doubtless used workers who knew what they were doing also.
Donna, what about pre-fab metal buildings? They have the truss and girder shapes and the skin and wall systems all figured out, just choose from a catalog.
I always thought it would be cool to start with that for the enclosure, punch apertures as needed, and build a great interior "street". Like the downstate Illinois redneck version of MVRDVs markethall. See also coop himmelblau high School in LA.
Something like this... Maybe taller so you can put two or three habitable levels in inside... Customize the apertures and you're off and running.
That's a 5000 SF footprint, squeeze in 2.5 levels for 13000sf @ $130k building (slightly taller) and foundation = $10/SF shell. Add a bunch of windows and skylights and you might do the shell for $20/sf. Add $40-80/sf for interior and systems... That's still pretty low.
You could also build out the retail/ select residences but leave a bunch of units unfinished or partially finished like that Aravena project.
https://store.alansfactoryoutl...
Best means would be getting a 'cool' GC into the conversation. Seems more helpful (and would have direct input on many of the above suggestions) than what the 'cool' developer (and you) have brought to the table thus far. No offense intended.
The job corp./training thing seems interesting - but would be a balance w/ whomever else doing the rest of the project (assuming that it would be for a limited scope only?), and also sounds like a huge time-suck in trying to set-up and negotiate. Unless your dev. friend is taking that on and/or has exp. in such things? Front end work comes out of someones equity/billable hours/lifestyle....one way or the other.
Plus
Buy kit buildings and metal buildings and do a mash up.
Been there, tried that on a firehouse. Unfortunately, it cost more; they don't accommodate changes, don't meet code for residential uses without significant changes, issues with planning and zoning, and issues with energy code. By the time you 'solve' these, you are better to just stick build.
This post reminds me of Shigeru Ban's paper hospital for dying AIDs patients. Of course it got him the Pritzker for being politically correct. Which is all that matters.
This is a pretty decent article on modular buildings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
Maybe I need to court Katerra to take us on as a Midwestern lark?!
http://narchitects.com/work/carmel-place/ - my favorite thus far.
Really nice project. I'm not a fan of the narrow shipping-container-esque dimension limits, but if two of those could be ganged horizontally it would make for a really nice unit.
What about just building the main structure and selling/renting out the plots for the individual user to fill in?
With a more recent attempt in the Netherlands, a competition in The Hague: https://www.dearchitect.nl/arc...
Final winner: https://www.architectuur.nl/ni...
Sorry, the links are all in Dutch.
This office does modular buildings in wood: http://www.finchbuildings.com/...
https://www.curbed.com/2016/5/...
You don't need to design the structure for every possible load, you just need to stay within a certain logical bandwidth, lead bricks would not be an option obviously, it can all be easily calculated. I think James Wines/SITE at some point even envisioned Sears catalogue homes in such a structure.
Rando, the sears kit house section drawing is one of my favorite arch visuals. And Ricky, have you no idea what satire is?
Non, what do you mean satire? James Wines/SITE were dead serious about Highrise of Homes, they almost had the project going with a Japanese client but then the Japanese stock market crashed and so the project came tumbling down like a BEST facade.
And Rick all that can be calculated upfront, don't worry, just over dimension your structure a little bit to allow for the unknown. Here's OASE Journal #85 about Productive Uncertainty Indeterminacy in Spatial Design, Planning and Management with absolute highlight the interview with living legend N. John Habraken:
Define and Let Go An interview with John Habraken
In the 1960s, as a critique of the standardization of mass housing John Habraken introduced, under the title Het Open Bouwen (Open Building), the distinction between the ‘support’ and the ‘infill’ by which a building can be adapted over time to unforeseen changes in programme and use. The design is introduced using a thematic methodology, whereby the architect shapes the support, in other words the communal. In this strategy, the architecture takes into account the changing wishes of (new) users, or in other words with the factor of time. In this interview Habraken brings this idea of the factor of time up to date, applying it not only to the lifespan of buildings but in particular to the design process itself. ‘Open building’, Habraken argues, is not confined so much to the role of the architect, but it makes it more specific and more interesting. Thinking in terms of time is crucial if architecture is to provide an answer to seemingly conflicting movements in our increasingly articulate society.
A must read!
Rando, I know the history of the drawings. I should have added a line break to my Ricky comment. I read his long rant on the minutia of the scheme as satire.
Yeah, the history of the project is very interesting. I actually thought that you thought my post was satire and that's what you wanted to explain to Rick, haha.
my job here is done
Good one there Ricky. I prefer this: <:‑|
nice nipples. mus be cold in Oregon today.
.
I'm so lucky.
Ignoring is bliss.
It's like he's screaming in space, I see he's commenting, but I can't hear it!
I think there are some things you can do to save on cost for residential development. (I see a lot of plans for residential development in my current job)
1 Avoid dead space, it is not necessary to have a rectilinear hallway running diagonally from a corner unit entrance, just don't enclose those niches and triangle shaped corners.
2 Bathrooms back to back where ever possible
3 Try to dimension major rooms so the ceilings and as many of the walls can be done without cutting full size sheets of drywall or other finishes.
4 Avoid L shaped kitchen countertops these always have problems fitting and lead to FHA compliance issues.
5. Locate the buildings on the site to make use of the existing public sidewalks and to reduce the length of driveways to cut down on site construction cost.
6. Always double load the parking aisles use perpendicular parking not diagonal as this can make a difference of $400-1000 per parking space cost.
7. If you do multi story buildings consider eliminating the ground floor corridors and have all ground floor units primary entry on the exterior.
8. For the bathrooms use tubs over showers wherever possible tubs are easier to install.
As for the money side of a project if you get loans from the FHA or build on government owned land from a housing authority you have to meet the UFAS standards or more likely UFAS combined with ADA which requires 5% instead of 2% Type A accessible units Per HUD’s 24 CFR Part 8 document section 504. The added cost of additional accessible units can be more than recouped by saving on the financing and or land acquisition cost. It is also possible that the housing authority can buy your developers land and then give back a cheap lease in exchange for set asides for affordable housing and possibly additional accessible housing units thus eliminating the land acquisition cost.
I also would be skeptical with the detailing and always ask is this necessary? Sometimes a streamlined minimal building with sensible landscape, massing and color scheme can look just as good as a boxy square thing with lick um and stick um colonial or Victorian do-dads added.
Sounds like a fun project, let us know how it turns out.
Over and OUT
Peter N
Super helpful common-sense advice, Peter, thank you! It's like a list I need to print out - I mean I try to be mindful of these things whenever possible anyway but to set them up as inviolable rules would be fun.
I learned about this, because I don't do a lot of wood, but now that I am, this is particularly important.
Precut
In mass production maybe, site-built really no difference in efficiency and a trade-off in quality as precuts vary in length due to longitudinal shrinkage. Also you need plates, shoes, jacks, cripples, cats, bracing, and so on, which are longer and shorter. A very efficient builder I knew did an analysis and figured that a pile of 16 foot 2x4's was actually more efficient than buying assorted different lengths.
Also framing lumber quality (hem-fir) is very bad now and shorter lengths tend to be even more so.
Look at Interface Studio’s $100k house concept...
Right, Brian Phillips. His work is great! He came to lecture here a few years ago and I had forgotten to put the $100K house in my references for this, awesome. Thank you!
Modular Housing
Pre-fab housing units are being used in Vancouver to solve affordable house problems.
Looks horrible though...
In that case I'd prefer a dystopian stack of prefab housing units :)
(from Ready Player One)
This devleopor, Jon Arnold, in Kansas City has a lot of great ideas: http://www.arnolddevelopmentgr.... I've seen him speak at conferences and attended a workshop. Too many innovative ideas to remember, but a central focus is energy efficiency--they hold their investments so lower operating costs pay off.
Another energy efficient developer, in PA: http://www.onionflats.com/team.... He also speaks regularly at conferences (Passive House and similar) about how and why energy efficient design can make financial sense.
Not sure if this is affordable, it surely isn't sustainable, but it is student housing and it uses prefab concrete facade elements:
https://www.winhov.nl/en/proje...
What makes something affordable? First cost only? life cycle cost? (Over how many years?) Donna's initial question references cost per square foot, so that indicates affordable is defined (solely) on a first cost basis. Depending on the construction market in a specific location, availability of labor will be a significant cost driver.
I live and work in Seattle, so our market is red-hot right now and it is really a sub-contractor's market. This means the A/E community cannot design their way to lower first costs. I suppose you could use very cheap materials and systems, but there is a limitation to how cheap you can really go for multi-family residential.
Someone mentioned adaptive reuse and I think that has some promise in an accelerated market simply because some of the building already exists... Pre-fab, panelization, CLT, etc. are not a panacea for driving first costs down. There are instances where each of those can make financial sense over another based on a host of project specific factors, but they don't inherently drive costs down as much as they keep costs from rising.
Not building is the cheapest option indeed, reappropriating unused or underused buildings to turn it into a mixed-use project can be an affordable, smart and "cool" way to have a relevant project within the existing urban fabric of a city. Tons of great examples for that, but what if you already have a plot somewhere that needs filling?
Sell the lot, top of the market.
Betonbrut, I agree about costs. I was operations manager at a panelized construction company specializing in Passive Houses for a while, during their start-up phase, and we found that although we could pay our labor a bit less than skilled on-site labor, the infrastructure investment was significant enough that the end cost to the consumer was comparable to site-built. The biggest cost advantage was shorter carrying cost, as we could get a house dried in in just a few days, after a month of factory work, compared to many weeks or months for site-built.
CLT definitely has some promise in the mid-rise category, but from what I've learned at conferences about it, you need to get to 5-6 stories before the economics beat out steel and concrete. And it maxes out at about 12 stories.
Selling the lot at the top of the market is also a real option for developers. We have a development arm of our company and we have locked up land, entitled it and then flipped it to another developer because it didn't meet our proforma... ended up making more money in some cases than if we had developed it ourselves.
Again, the A/E community can't design their way out of these challenges. Land costs continue to rise in Seattle and unless the rental market continues to accelerate, we will begin to see less units being built, which, over time, will help accelerate the rental rates.... Until it all implodes during a recession. So, back to Donna's original question... there is a real limit to how cheap you can build something on a first cost metric alone. I think there are many creative options if you begin to change the metric by which you are analyzing a given idea.
This is all excellent discussion, you guys, thank you!
.
Prefab boxes are not worth it. price ends up being about the same as stick-built and you're more constrained by the box size and system. Only reason you'd explore is if you have a short time window for erection - but that's about it. Plus - it's a lot of extra coordination and headache for the design team.
cost-cutting:
parking is a loss-leader. Push back against parking requirements and avoid putting parking in the building. Best if you don't have to put in any parking at all.
Work closely with your Structural Consultant. At the right floor level, consider doing SWR. There's about 20% savings there.
Work closely with Sales & Marketing team. Your understanding of their price points dictates all the strategies that you have formulated so far.
Does this qualify?
"Designed by David Chipperfield Architects and CALQ Architecture, the44,000m² floor space complex will consist of a 161-room hotel, a youthhostel, shops, a nursery, a cultural amenity and 199 homes."
Though I think in Paris the scenario(s) is less "cool developer" and more government (Can it be both?) backed development. Maybe that can be the "granting institution"?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.