$300 sq ft

maybe a little less than $300/sq.ft., but I really doubt $150/sq.ft. for hard and soft costs. Not in SoCal.

BTW, who the hell would be building a 250 home development now?

there is no way $100-150/sf includes permit and development fees. And that many homes? best think about infrastructure costs and city taxes too. that was way off the mark. maybe just for framing, but not with finish materials if you're mid high end.

but I'll tell you what... if you make the devel. green and take advantage of all state and federal incentives and just have to worry about getting water you might be able to claim low sf costs after the fact in like 10-20 years of off the grid or high offset grid usage.

what cha all think?

Most low-end production building in So Cal (high desert, inland empire, etc) is built below $75/sf. You can do mid-range product like you are speaking of on a production scale definitely below $150/sf. Including city fees, permit fees, etc is too much of a wild card as it varies greatly by where the project is. If you consider hard cost only on the production level you can get near $100/sf.

Production framing costs are below $8/sf labor and maybe the same or less per foot for materials.

tlmII

thanks for the clarification, I was feeling a bit cynical.

What do you think about masonry and/or concrete for the desert? instead of wood framing. I would love to see a development that would last long after you and I are gone.

"tlmII" post regarding housing direct construction costs is spot on. In the good times (2003-2006) we were building a 3,250 SF tract home with a medium spec. level (ie. entry grade finishes and fixtures) for a direct cost of $68.00 per SF. This is a typical 2 story, stucco exterior, slab on grade house.

The economy of scale is the main factor in the SF cost namely, that we would tie in material and subcontractor pricing during buy-out for multiple phases of 60 to 225 homes.

Now be aware that this is DIRECT COST of the house itself meaning all other costs (ie. Finished Lot Costs, impact fess, city fees, etc.) are not included. Also General Conditions (ie. staffing, site construction managers, etc.) are not factored into this direct cost.

Case in point are the Impact Fees and building permit fees associated with tract housing (Prop. 13) as these typically run from $58,000. to upwards of $80,000. per LOT!

My take on building a subdivision tract out of masonry/concrete is that it would never ever pencil out in a proforma because of the cost. That is why we simply do not see this type of construction on Southern Cal homes. I would venture the cost to be in the $145. to $180. range.

Yes a masonry house would last better than a couple of life times, but why - the lifespan of a "stick-built" homes is 40 to 50 years and then its time for new design and different living environments.

Regards, Don
The Southern Cal Builder/Developer.

until we get 50 to 75 year mortgages, for get about masonry or concrete in relation to stud.

forget....

I just feel it's a shame and part of the world war II housing demise we are experiencing now, the wood homes that were built are falling apart. I think a home should last generations, as a home is about family. American thinking is about gratification, and selfish luxury. I think you should pass on a home to your grandchildren and not a rotting pile of wood with several coats of paint and termites, it's just not fair to them. It's a burden to the family, and most later generations have to deal with an expensive remodel or facing having to sell because they can't afford to give the home the TLC it will require by then. Hence, the loss of part of the family and the memories.

But I guess this string is about develoment and money, my bad.

There are a few tracts that were developed in Whittier, CA that were built of CMU. I think the developer had a heart. And I need to understand or have explained to me how that it would cost more. Particularily in the long run, and with sustainable techniques in addition to self sufficient energy generation. I think if we built like this generations ago instead of temporary housing, i.e. wood framing, our nation would be better off right now and pollution would have been less.

We can aid developers and supply worthless mortgage pits or educate the public and offer a worthy investment.

I think it's our job and rsponsibilty as architects and designers. You choose.

Nice hijack dcozb. I have a two story home built in c1863.

Stone foundation
Slab on grade
First story = triple wythe brick bearing wall
Second Story = brick veneer with wood stud backup
Wood Framed Roof

This home has undergone at least two remodels that I am aware of. The wood structure is existing and for the most part, structurally sound. The home is in Wisconsin, so I know termites and carpenter ants in the southwest might be a little more of a pest, but I don't see the problem building with wood.

In hurricane prone areas building with CMU or concrete might be a no brainer, but I thought in SoCal becuase of the seismic req's, wood was actually a good material.

BTW, I am amazed that socal could build for $68/sf. Any guess as to what kind of escalation you would use for one single family home versus 60-250?

"We can aid developers and supply worthless mortgage pits or educate the public and offer a worthy investment.

I think it's our job and rsponsibilty as architects and designers. You choose."

Last I understood it, architecture was a service industry. If you are working for a developer, isn't it your responsibility to aid them? And if you are not working for a developer, then who are you working for? Academia? Anyone who builds anything is a developer.

All housing is temporary. I don't think there is anything wrong with a building crumbling to the ground. Are we trying to build the pyramids here? Family's change all the time. Why can't the homes they live in change as well?

I mainly work for private home owners, I guess you can call them micro-developers. And would love the opportunity to work for a proper developer on 250 homes. I would do my best to make it a sustainable community and I think this includes long-term maintanance of the structures. And I can't front, right now, if they wanted wood then so be it, write me a check! But I would feel a little guilty when i know it could be better.

The climate in socal is hot and dry, we overuse a/c and put a burden on our infrastructure every summer. It just seems to me that masonry or concrete would help lessen this demand. And it's true that a wood framed house will widthstand an earthquake better with flexible diaphrams than a concrete or masonry one.

I think homes can change, in fact I think it would be great to see additions to homes by the next generation instead of fixing the problems of a crumbling house.

I'm looking at this from a standpoint of national desperation I guess and personal bias. If and when I or my siblings inherate our family house I know it's gonna need a lot of work, mainly due to being wood-framed.

I think wood is best for orniment, and adorment, and celebrating the beauty of it.

Maybe I'm just full of archibabble. But it's how I feel. I'm not trying to argue with anyone.

One last thought....

Here in LA we have about 15 sq. miles or so of ghetto in south central and Long Beach. ALL of the homes are falling apart, they have reached their age limit. Most of the people can't afford to fix or rebuild, it's a problem. I know I'm gonna get a response like "too bad or boo hoo" but the families would be better off if they didn't have to think about 2nd or 3rd morgages to fix the house. It's not like it's creating many jobs fixing these homes, just more work for the City to inspect, cite, and enforce building codes. Because most of the fixes are band-aids and ad-hoc. This isn't just a problem in LA, it's national in big cities.

Maybe I should post this stuff in "academia". Thanks for reading.

"My take on building a subdivision tract out of masonry/concrete is that it would never ever pencil out in a proforma because of the cost. That is why we simply do not see this type of construction on Southern Cal homes. I would venture the cost to be in the $145. to $180. range."

Does anyone have an idea on what construction prices are now? I have heard anecdotally that on the east coast construction prices have gone down 35-40% due to much more competitive bidding and cheaper materials. I also heard that compared to California, labor constitutes a much larger portion of total construction costs.

And yeh lot finishing fees and building permit fees are a killer. I heard of an investor picking up finished lots for 15-20k a pop late last yr in Vegas even though they didnt plan on building anything for a while.

...are you hiring off-the-books labor?

The southwest definitely has a larger illegal/legal hispanic workforce that works cheaper. The unions that exist out there don't have nearly the pull that they do in the midwest and the east coast. That could be a couple of reasons for your price discrepancy. Some material prices have gone down, but alot of the price discounting is from plain, good old fashioned competition. I have seen some desperate contractors put in bids with 0 profit margin just to win jobs. In a hard bid situation their plan is to make a profit through buyout and change orders. Not a great way to make a living but it is the free market at work right now.

I would like to know if materials are getting cheaper.....not in my hood! Contractors are looking at their pricing structure, but most are just cutting back on help and keeping everything in the same spectrum as far as pricing goes. No big bargains here.

Yeh the zero profit margin w change order thing is in full effect. although not contractors, a couple consultants we worked with in past 6 mo were doing this. And we knew this going in. But still cheaper than a couple yrs ago.

wurdan youre def right about the larger non unionized workforce. You think it happens bc of the culture out here or is it just too large of an area when you consider southern california for a union to police. I mean I see projects going on here and there and Im sure more than a few have off the books labor.

I don't know why the unions haven't taken a hold in the southwest. I would guess that because the midwest and east coast were the traditional industrial centers of the country where the unions developed, it would have been an easy move for the unions to enter into other fields in those areas. The guy who had a union job in the factory would promote the union to his brother who was a carpenter, etc. I would definitely say it has a lot to do with the culture of these different places. I've spoken with non-union people in cali and they simply told me that the union had nothing to offer them. The union would have no problem policing that big an area if anyone was interested in being a member. No members = no dues = no big juicy union rep job. Interesting to hear about the zero profit margin on the design side.