Cover, a Modular Home Builder That's Modeled In Ways After Tesla, Has Raised $60 Million Series B (techcrunch.com) 113
Cover, a seven-year-old, LA-based company that manufactures fully complete wall, floor and roof panels in its factory, then transports them on a standard truck and assembles them on site, announced that it has raised $60 million in Series B funding led by Gigafund. As TechCrunch notes, this investment firm "was founded by two former Founders Fund investors who have bet heavily on SpaceX." The company's founder and CEO, Alexis Xavier Rivas, says he takes pride in being able to attract engineers from SpaceX and Tesla and likened Cover's processes to that of the automaker. From the report: The materials it is using are lightweight steel for the building frame and aluminum for the ceilings. The panels are made of a rubber composite because, as founder and CEO Alexis Xavier Rivas explains, "drywall is not designed for manufacturing or transport -- it's too brittle." Clearly, a lot of thought has been invested in how these buildings are designed. For example, the company installs all plumbing and electrical wiring in the ceiling, so that if an owner wants to run a new wire or pipe, she or he need only pop off the ceiling to do it. It sounds strange, but it's a lot less strange than sawing a series of holes in a wall, then patching them up and repainting them to achieve the same end. (It also requires less help from the kind of craftspeople like plumbers and electricians that is in short supply right now.)
Other materials used include real wood and wood composites for the floors and exterior, and solid surface countertops and bathroom floors that are nonporous, meaning they're more hygienic, as these things go, which matters increasingly to homeowners as the world emerges from a pandemic. How the materials come together is naturally even more crucial, given that with Cover, much of the focus -- and the promise -- is on both quick assembly and customization. [...] Somewhat amazingly, it says that after the foundation is complete, it can have the building built and installed within 30 days, down from the 120-window that it used to promise customers. It also offers a 100% money-back guarantee if it can't obtain the necessary permits, along with a lifetime structural warranty and a one-year warranty for everything else.
Other materials used include real wood and wood composites for the floors and exterior, and solid surface countertops and bathroom floors that are nonporous, meaning they're more hygienic, as these things go, which matters increasingly to homeowners as the world emerges from a pandemic. How the materials come together is naturally even more crucial, given that with Cover, much of the focus -- and the promise -- is on both quick assembly and customization. [...] Somewhat amazingly, it says that after the foundation is complete, it can have the building built and installed within 30 days, down from the 120-window that it used to promise customers. It also offers a 100% money-back guarantee if it can't obtain the necessary permits, along with a lifetime structural warranty and a one-year warranty for everything else.
Money is the issue (Score:5, Interesting)
If they concentrate on making it cheap, they usually have to aim at the lowest possible market, creating a crappy, cheapest home.
If they concentrate on making it good, it usually ends up being slightly more expensive than current home building practices. So people do not buy, despite the clear advantages.
People do really stupid things when building a home for the mass market. What idiot buys a home in clearly flood prone lands that is not on stilts? Or in the middle of known fire prone forests and does not build it beyond the code? (Building Code = lowest quality home you are legally allowed to build. Do NOT build to code.)
There are incredible home designs that people simply do not build, for stupid reasons. Round, concrete homes that are storm proof and look gorgeous. Wooden, octagonal homes that have 80% of the benefit of the round concrete ones, still do not get built. Earthship homes built into the sides of hills in cold areas that need practically no heating in a Montana winter.
reading is the issue (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:reading is the issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Everything you just said is silly. I admitted that paying more was one option, but said people do not want to pay more even for a better home.
As for 'my ideas', they are not mine, they are existing homes that won awards. The people that buy them love them. Generally they are wealthy, environmentalists or simply nerds that learn what is possible for a few dollars more.
Round homes are NOT space inefficient, it works great. You get more room for your money. If you are going concrete, the windows are small, but you get lots of extra same because circles give more area than squares. Glass ones give you huge picture windows.
Weird is a not a problem, it's an insult used by fools to dismiss things they do not understand. In this case it just means non-traditional. Basically you are complaining that it's always been square, so anything different is wrong.
You usually get NO triangles in an octagonal building. You either have trapezoidal rooms leading to another octagonal core, or a design with several pentagonal-ish rooms.
Go looking at Earthships, and Deltec. Tons of beautiful homes built that people love. But the extra cost means that less than 1% of people know about them, let alone live in them.
Re:reading is the issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Go looking at Earthships, and Deltec. Tons of beautiful homes built that people love. But the extra cost means that less than 1% of people know about them, let alone live in them.
Earthships were created in part to REDUCE building costs, they used a certain percentage recycled materials in the original design.
The problem with living in a round house is that everything you want to put in it is square. So you wind up either wasting a lot of space, or having to make a bunch of custom stuff that won't fit efficiently in the majority of other houses. The problem with building a round house is that everything you want to make it out of is square, unless you're building cob or dirt bag or something. If you are, that's fine, but otherwise there will be a lot of construction waste.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but you are operating under a common misunderstanding. The appeal of a circular home is that it can be larger for the same building cost, and with significantly lower heating costs. So you're correct... you do lose a square foot or two here or there in the odd spaces. But when you can build a 500 square foot circle for the cost of a 400 square foot rectangle, losing a few percent of the space to odd shapes is more than offset if the building, heating, and lighting efficiencies that are gained.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Typo: Lower cooling costs, sorry.
Re:Money is the issue (Score:4, Insightful)
My 30 year hobby (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been into building science before people heard of it. These "innovative" ideas are almost all old ones that failed in the past. Failed not because they are bad but because Americans have bad values. Short term thinking, disposable large McMansions. Take a look at many houses from cheap to big and they are trash designed for the 75 year old average American house lifespan and none are built for easy remodeling. I've inspected 3 million dollar mansions that were built almost exactly the same as as a 100k house... add a few expensive (and impractical) items and usually just more SPACE. Usually the garage becomes a storage room so it's no surprise 40% never even puts their cars in them. Why build something that will outlive you? You're dead so it can go into the landfill your grandchildren build their house upon.
Re: (Score:3)
Japan has been building houses a bit like this for decades now. Steel frame, factory made panels and cladding. Relatively easy to renovate, especially retrofitting extra cabling or plumbing, at least compared to most other types of building.
They are only designed to last about 50 years though, then pulled down and replaced. It's not good for the environment, but it is good for people. Homes are depreciating assets which keeps prices down to affordable levels, and homes are constantly evolving and innovating
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've been into building science before people heard of it. These "innovative" ideas are almost all old ones that failed in the past. Failed not because they are bad but because Americans have bad values. Short term thinking, disposable large McMansions. Take a look at many houses from cheap to big and they are trash designed for the 75 year old average American house lifespan and none are built for easy remodeling.
Bad values, or simply values different than yours? What exactly is so damn morally wrong with building a cheap, flimsy house for example on flood-prone terrain and planning ahead of time to just rebuild it once every 20 years or so once the inevitable flood or other natural disaster happens, rather than spending 10x as much money building a freaking bunker that can withstand flood, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, direct nuclear strike and Godzilla attack?
[...] Usually the garage becomes a storage room so it's no surprise 40% never even puts their cars in them.
And what exactly is the huge problem with people stor
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is why is someone building on a flood plane in the first place? Something has gone very wrong at that point.
Re: (Score:1)
The issue is why is someone building on a flood plane in the first place? Something has gone very wrong at that point.
Obviously because it's cheaper. Not everyone is lucky enough to have inherited/be able to afford/whatever flood immune land. Some people have the choice of either living with some risk of flooding, and rebuilding every once in a while when disaster strikes, or going homeless.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my point. Clearly the problem is, in your example, poverty. People shouldn't have to build on a flood plane where their home gets destroyed periodically.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly the problem is, in your example, poverty.
Or more likely greed, i.e. wanting more house than you can really afford.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is why is someone building on a flood plane in the first place? Something has gone very wrong at that point.
Why does someone build where there are hurricanes? Tornadoes? Earthquakes? Volcanoes? Fires? Rain? Fog? Snow? Hot weather? Cold weather? Wildlife? Neighbors?
Shit happens everywhere, no place is perfect. You live for the good, and prepare to deal with the bad when it happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Defensive?
Bad values result in poor decision making; priorities decide the design compromises. They are bad because the result harms everybody else and possibly even themselves. It's not merely an opinion and even so, only your RIGHT to an opinion is equal, the opinions themselves are NOT equal.
It's the definition of foolish to build on a disaster prone area; we all end up paying for the inevitable in multiple ways; it's not just the fool who pays. We have too many people with too many resources (for some)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be Levitt [wikipedia.org] and Lustron [wikipedia.org] houses. Also a LOT of commercial property [stovallcon...ioninc.com] is built using metal framing.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been into building science before people heard of it. These "innovative" ideas are almost all old ones that failed in the past. Failed not because they are bad but because Americans have bad values.
I think American values are only part of the problem. Most people don't find earthships and geodesic domes aesthetically pleasing, and building science has come a long way since those designs. Passivhaus [wikipedia.org] and to a lesser extent LEED [wikipedia.org] have seen some success.
As you alluded to, most Americans just want a big flashy home, and don't care about performance. These are the people that buy homes from real estate developers. However, people that hire architects to build custom homes, generally end up with high pe
Re: (Score:2)
I second those great recommendations! Risinger has good stuff.
Real estate developers need to be constrained; it seems like they've become too dominant. Way too many areas today (in my state) look like a car lot. Choose your color and slightly different looking model with some add-on choices get the same basic house built to minimum code requirements.
It seems that truly custom builds are for the higher economic classes; while in the past it was not. Not that I'm against factory built or a few sizes fit all
Re: (Score:2)
It is a continuation but far more extreme; in a worse direction.
A house should exist for generations. It should be able to be customized to some degree but ideally, it should not need to be remodeled. Most apartments can't be remodeled; one just moves or adapts.
Re: Money is the issue (Score:3)
It is literally the opposite of what you said bro. They are overpriced for what they offer. If they were in fact cheap, these would sell like hot cakes.
Re: Money is the issue (Score:2)
Re: Money is the issue (Score:4)
This is such a funny conversation for me, as I live in an area that is:
* Near the coast
* Has earthquakes
* Houses are normally concrete boxes (little domestic timber supply but easy access to aggregate, & concrete stands up to our powerful winter storms)
And am building... ;)
* An earthship-ish "cave house"
* With basalt-fibre rebar.
Just so you know, a couple caveats with basalt fibre rebar.
* My engineer couldn't use it everywhere; he had to use stainless steel in some places (I think around the corners between the walls and the foundation. Its properties are rather different from steel. I also had him "over-reinforce", because while FRP (including BFRP) doesn't rust (as you note, regular steel is basically a timebomb for a concrete structure that goes off once the cement carbonates all the way through), FRP does weaken over time, on a hyperbolic trajectory (the weakest / outermost fibres break in shorter timeframes, while the stronger / inward fibres last much longer). One could just use *only* stainless, but it's like 5x more expensive than non-stainless.
* FRP can be a bit of a pain with curved structures like mine. You can bend it around small arcs, but it's like a spring, it doesn't want to bend much, and wants to bounce back. For tighter arcs, you have to have custom pieces manufactured. That said: otherwise, it's generally considered a great material to work with, as it's much easier to cut, carry, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, this line from the article summary was funny: "...and solid surface countertops and bathroom floors that are nonporous, meaning they're more hygienic, as these things go, which matters increasingly to homeowners as the world emerges from a pandemic."
Maybe they should have consulted the CDC website [cdc.gov] before making that "because of the pandemic" decision.
Re: Money is the issue (Score:1)
That's freaking interesting and a bit disappointing.
I wasn't aware that basalt fiber rebar degraded too (I mean, almost everything does so it was to be expected) I am aware of the problems with regular rebar due to living in a house that was falling apart due to rebar expansion.
It's scary when concrete chunks start falling from the roof/ceiling and land on your bed. And fixing it is a mess. I would rather get a wooden or metal roof instead.
Less dangerous and easier to repair.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want something that's practically immortal, CFRP (carbon fibre reinforced polymer) rebar is staggeringly durable compared to GFRP and BFRP. Unfortunately, it's also far more expensive :P The big things with GFRP and BFRP: you want all your FRP to have an epoxy binder, they're much more durable than non-epoxy binders.
Ugh, that's terrible. Normally steel in concrete is passivated because the pH is so high, but as CO2 soaks into the cement, it converts back to limestone, progressively inwards and the
Re: (Score:2)
Since you seem to have researched this... is there any reason you can't use weathering steel rebar to avoid the rust problem? Possibly with a weathering phase before the concrete is poured?
Re: (Score:3)
The only steel that doesn't experience severe rusting inside concrete once it carbonates is stainless. There was hope ages ago that epoxy-coated steel would prove to be safe against corrosion, but it turned out not to be the case, and in some situations even degrades faster.
There is one trick that's *possible* to do to prevent regular steel from rusting, but difficult in practice, and rarely done: galvanic corrosion control, either passive (with sacrificial anodes) or active (with a small DC current). The
Re: (Score:2)
I should probably add, stainless isn't really immortal in concrete either. It does corrode over time in concrete, but not just very slowly compared to non-stainless, but also very unevenly and randomly - maybe a bad spot in one place while no damage at all in others. It's still not fully understood. But it's such a slow process that it's not a major concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time you troll this ventilator nonsense, you'll get the same fact check, no matter what variant of trolling you use [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Every time you troll this ventilator nonsense, you'll get the same fact check, no matter what variant of trolling you use [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, a modular ("mobile") home offers several advantages over a traditional stick-build home. And they don't have to look like ugly modular homes - there are plenty of modular designs that are indistinguishable from a stick build.
Granted, a big reason is they're cheap, but they don't have to be and many do offer the benefits of modern custom homes.
The reason they are often better is they're built in one spot - all the trades to build the house are under one roof, and rather than having a million sub co
Re: (Score:2)
If they concentrate on making it good, it usually ends up being slightly more expensive than current home building practices. So people do not buy, despite the clear advantages.
The cost of building a house, i.e. materials and labour, does not have much effect on the price of the house. It is the cost of land approved for housing that dictates most of the price. I presume this is why house building technology is stuck in the 19th century, or earlier. Conversely, differences in land prices are presumably why cheap houses get built in dodgy locations, because the houses would not be cheap if they were built in more favourable locations, where the land is more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
People do really stupid things when building a home for the mass market. What idiot buys a home in clearly flood prone lands that is not on stilts?
No, the idiot is US. Because WE pay for that home to be rebuilt every time it gets destroyed by a flood. There's a whole federal program just for this purpose.
Nobody should get flood relief to rebuild in the same spot, period. Anyone who gets OUR money to replace THEIR home which was sited on a flood plain should be required to buy or build the next one someplace which isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
If they concentrate on making it good, it usually ends up being slightly more expensive than current home building practices.
Current home-building practices are labor intensive and not in controlled environments and done with building materials that are essentially bought at retail prices. It seems like they should have a good shot at making this cheaper than current home building practices.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They buy them at discounted prices, but they're still typically buying retail unless they're a very big operation. If they're a big developer with their own yard/warehouse to store materials, etc. they might be buying wholesale in bulk. In many cases though, if you hire a contractor to build a house for you, they're most likely going to be a small contractor with one or maybe two crews of just a few builders and they have a contractor account at a big retailer like Home Depot or Lowes.
Also, regardless of wh
Re: (Score:2)
I'm flabbergasted by the level of intelligent, knowledgeable /.
commentary in this thread. Too bad it's so uncommon on
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe you would care to enlighten me by specifically countering each incorrect statement with some more correct facts. For example, I state: "Also, not that it's universal, but I've encountered plenty of people doing house construction work who drink all day long while they work." So, do you actually have a counter for my own anecdotal experience? Is it an incorrect statement that drinking on the job is unlikely to be acceptable in factories? Is it an incorrect statement that assemblies that may need
Been There, Done That. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>What idiot buys a home in clearly flood prone
>lands that is not on stilts?
One that can get federally subsidized insurance, of course.
It's a rational decision; the real idiots are the congresscritters that vote to fund the subsidies.
"City built below sea level floods yet again" is not breaking news, nor something that tax dollars should pay to handle.
Here's what I'm hearing... (Score:4, Insightful)
The panels are made of a rubber composite because, as founder and CEO Alexis Xavier Rivas explains, "drywall is not designed for manufacturing or transport -- it's too brittle."
If drywall isn't made for manufacturing or transport, how in the world does it end up in my Home Depot?
The bulk of my house is made up of wood, drywall, cinder block, and concrete. All these materials are easily sourced, not toxic, and easy to dispose and/or recycle. Can the same be said for rubber and wood composites?
Also, a manufactured home can be built in a week and installed in just as little time with the right team. If we really cared about the environment, manufactured homes would be a far better option.
Re:Here's what I'm hearing... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a world of difference between sheets of drywall attached to a frame with fasteners and a stack of drywall on pallets.
As far as composite woods, almost all new construction is done with at least some LVL or similar lumber products, it's stronger, cheaper, and more uniform than the fast growing pines that are otherwise used.
Manufactured homes have historically been real low end products, fortunately today there are companies out there making better products, I remember watching a this old house episode post-Sandy about a lady in NY or NJ who had her replacement home brought in as a manufactured home and it seemed to be at least as good as your average home builders workmanship and probably most importantly it didn't look like a double wide.
Re: (Score:2)
Prefab homes are getting popular in Europe and there are some really high end ones available now. You prepare the site and they turn up and assemble your house in a few days, then you just finish the interior.
As well as being well made they are very customizable. You can have as many power and network sockets as you like, and wherever you like. They just cut the holes at the factory, including through joists where needed, to make installation quick and easy.
I'd quite like to get one myself, but costs are go
Re: (Score:2)
thanks to brexit it's no longer trivial to buy the prefab from a company in the EU
Damn Johnson and his idiot cronies.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet there are other prefab home builders using panelized systems where sheetrock isn't a problem.
And these guys aren't really building "homes".
They're building granny flats.
Limited buildings tied to a primary home, placed in the back yard.
$300K for a living room, kitchenette and a tiny bedroom.
No bathroom.
Basically this is a California solution for a California problem.
Re: (Score:2)
No bathroom. Basically this is a California solution for a California problem.
So Californian grandmothers don't poop?
Re: (Score:2)
Manufactured homes have historically been real low end products, fortunately today there are companies out there making better products, I remember watching a this old house episode post-Sandy about a lady in NY or NJ who had her replacement home brought in as a manufactured home and it seemed to be at least as good as your average home builders workmanship and probably most importantly it didn't look like a double wide.
I own a modular home - built a little over 10 years ago. 2800 sq ft. downstairs, 1900 sq. ft unfinished upstairs. Total cost at the time - about $250k. This includes nicer hardwood floors, quartz countertops, geothermal HVAC, good insulation, etc. comparable amenities to stick-built homes. The manufacturer did start out with lower end amenities such as carpeted floor, laminate countertops, but we said no thanks and coordinated our own upgrades. Our estimate of an equivalent stick built home was roughl
Re: (Score:1)
The original quote was referencing hanging the drywall in the factory, then transporting that wall. Picture a stud frame with screwed drywall then transport that without pops. Would be a bitch unless the drywall was glued to the studs as well, and even then it would be iffy. Might as well just hang it on the jobsite the old fashioned labor-intensive way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, a manufactured home can be built in a week and installed in just as little time with the right team. If we really cared about the environment, manufactured homes would be a far better option.
Zoning laws make it a real mess as to where you can put a manufactured home, even if you do mount it to a real foundation. Most of the problems with affordable housing stem from the fact that actually providing a place to live for people is more like a secondary goal of the housing market. Housing behaves more like a traded commodity, where you've got all sorts of people with their hands out at any process associated with real estate, and a ton of protectionism in place to make sure no one who earns an ho
Re: Here's what I'm hearing... (Score:1)
America, land of the free, just as long as you obey and get inspected for 2000 pages of code.
Re: Here's what I'm hearing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do earthquakes in third world countries kill thousands of people, while the same earthquake in California does property damage only?
The answer is "building codes." I don't mean to defend every bit of bureaucracy surrounding the process of building a home. But give some credit where credit is due.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do earthquakes in third world countries kill thousands of people, while the same earthquake in California does property damage only?
Because in California, the houses are built of wood and can flex to absorb and dissipate the energy imparted by an earth quake.
Re: (Score:2)
California changes the building code after earthquakes in response to the damage seen from the earthquake. It is not only a matter of what materials are used for the houses but lots of other details such as how the house is attached to the foundation, how stories are joined, and what kind of bracing is needed to keep tall narrow walls from falling over sideways (sheer bracing).
One of the reasons we use so much wood in California is that a lot of simple masonry structures would not be earthquake safe (and th
Re: Here's what I'm hearing... (Score:4, Informative)
Add damp, mould, poor insulation, electrical dangers and fire hazard for starters.
Re: (Score:3)
God forbid buying a home they had no intention of living in turned out to be a bad investment, and they'd have to get real jobs like the rest of us.
Most landlords do have "real jobs". And renting out homes isn't actually "rent seeking" behavior by the definition I looked up, because renting out homes requires you to actually provide a service(the home) that you have to invest in, maintain, market, and all that.
When you first purchase a rental property, it is not uncommon for lease payment and expenses such as maintenance to be more than the rent being paid on it. You also get good numbers of landlords who are doing things like leasing out their old h
Re: (Score:1)
But of course it is, by definition.
Renters provide landowners with multiple services: maintaining assets that will appreciate in value, letting landlords know of needed maintenance, and preventing squatters from moving in.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everybody is cut out to be a home owner, not even everybody who owns a home. Some people who would be able to handle the responsibilities and risks that come with home ownership prefer not to. All in all, people are owning less and renting more in every aspect of life. This isn't a matter of not having other options. People just want everything now, except commitment and responsibility, and owning things isn't quite compatible with the instant gratification mindset. Nobody wants to hear it, but a lot of
Re: (Score:2)
But of course it is, by definition.
No. Rent seeking, despite the name, has nothing to do with rent. [google.com]
noun
the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits.
All tigers are cats. (Score:1)
Not all cats are tigers. All square are rectangles - not all rectangles are squares. Not all rent-seekers are landlords - but all landlords are rent-seekers. By definition.
Re: (Score:2)
but all landlords are rent-seekers. By definition.
No, they are only rent seekers if they try to manipulate policy such that they get more money.
If they're not lobbying, there's no rent seeking.
Re: (Score:2)
Renters don't provide maintenance, the owner has to pay for that, legally speaking. Some renters may fix things, but they also break things.
Letting landlords know about needed maintenance is probably because they broke it, and preventing squatters is iffy as well if you consider sub-letting and such.
And as Jeff mentioned, rent seeking is when you try to manipulate the laws so you get paid for doing and investing nothing.
Renting out housing requires investment and work, so isn't, by itself, rent seeking. Y
Re: (Score:1)
Maintenance isn't just replacing a broken fridge or water heater. Maintenance is maintaining the property. Are some renters slobs? Sure, but some landlords are slumlords. And if you are a landlord, would you rather be notified of a leaky upstairs toilet within 24 hours, or two months later.
Of course it is. Homeowners with shitty rates are at
Re: (Score:3)
Of course some renters are slobs and some landlords are negligent. But building maintenance is indeed more than replacing a fridge or water heater. It's more than just maintaining the appliances. It's also repainting when necessary, replacing the flooring when it wears out, replacing the roof, doing any work necessary. You're lucky to have most renters even mow the lawn in a SFD, in multiple unit buildings, that's normally done by the landlord as well. The rest is up to the landlord.
Of course it is. Homeowners with shitty rates are at least building equity - whereas all renters are paying rent that they will never see back in their pockets. For assets that have historically appreciated.
No it isn't. Just
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK there is a shortage of houses, and much of the housing stock we have is frankly shit. Oldest stock in Europe, and much of it very small and poorly built, and in desperate need of renovation.
As such, landlords are viewed with disdain because people want to buy those homes to live in. People who buy-to-let often get preferential access to homes, because there is no chain and they can pay cash. Even if they get a mortgage the fact that they aren't moving in themselves and expect to do a bit of renova
Homes as a finite resource (Score:2)
While I'll agree that homes are a finite resource, by that standard there is also a finite demand for them. I wonder what you mean by "there is no chain", this is a term I'm unfamiliar with.
Part of the problem is regulatory capture and such that have made it nearly impossible to build new housing fast enough to satisfy the people. This results in a shortage and the insane price increases you're seeing.
If the people looking to buy homes were able to contract building them, or builders were able to build so
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK a chain is where you are buying a house from someone who is also buying a house. It creates a chain of people who all need to complete the purchase on the same day, so they sell their old house and buy a new one to move into.
Chains can get long and if one sale in the chain fails then everyone else is probably screwed as well. For that reason people who have the capital in hand, i.e. they are not reliant on the sale of their current home to raise the money to buy another one, have an advantage beca
Re: (Score:2)
Ah! I actually ran into that problem when I bought my last house.
We signed the contract and gave them 3 months, so their autistic kid could finish school. They still hadn't found a house to move into, and wanted US to back out of the contract.
This being the USA, well, that would have cost us around $30k. We declined. They ended up finding a place, after we gave them another extension, but they were not happy. Because them violating the contract would cost THEM around $30k. (Basically, per contract ter
Re: (Score:2)
Most landlords do have "real jobs". And renting out homes isn't actually "rent seeking" behavior by the definition I looked up, because renting out homes requires you to actually provide a service(the home) that you have to invest in, maintain, market, and all that.
I've been a landlord, and your post is 100% true. It's not a passive investment like many people claim. It takes up a lot of time. Particularly as the property gets older and things start to break. It requires a particular skill set that most people don't have. You need to understand finance, law, construction, and customer service. If you don't have those skills, it will drive you crazy, and you will lose a lot of money like I did.
If you don't believe me, check investor forums. [bogleheads.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"If drywall isn't made for manufacturing or transport, how in the world does it end up in my Home Depot?"
You're mixing up "made for manufacturing" and "manufactured".
Of course it is manufactured, but problematic for manufacturing ready-made walls in a factory. As opposed to putting it up by hand.
What I'm wondering is where I can get hold of some of that "lightweight steel". Sounds like a wonderful material.
Re: (Score:2)
If drywall isn't made for manufacturing or transport, how in the world does it end up in my Home Depot?
With a predictable percentage of breakage, that's how. And with great annoyance.
Lots of things are shipped which are not designed to be. You could ask the same question about produce, for example. And the answer would be "with great fuckery" because putting produce in your store involves picking it early, storing it cold, gassing it so it will eventually ripen, putting it into special packaging, handling it carefully... sheet rock isn't such a PITA obviously but the example was meant to illustrate the poten
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points for you. Drywall is shit, but it's better/cheaper than the alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, IMO plywood isn't a wonderful building material either. It has the same mold problem, it's expensive, it's flammable, when it burns it releases a shitload of dioxin due to the glue.
I don't think we should be building flammable homes any more. The framing, inner and outer walls, and insulation should all have to be non-flammable by code. And anything which IS flammable should have to be relatively benign when burned. What year is it?
Re: (Score:2)
what's new? (Score:4, Interesting)
Over here in Europe, you can order a modular home and the on-site construction time is 2-4 weeks, so the same or less. That's been in existence for at least a decade, probably much longer. Wood is the primary material.
TFA does not spell out what, exactly, is so innovative about this one.
Re: (Score:3)
It's in California. So they're acting all "cutting edge" and charging 3x as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Over here in Europe, you can order a modular home and the on-site construction time is 2-4 weeks, so the same or less. That's been in existence for at least a decade, probably much longer. Wood is the primary material.
TFA does not spell out what, exactly, is so innovative about this one.
They do it on the internet. Seriuosly, that seems to be the new innovation - take an existing idea, create a website, ???, profit.
Re: (Score:2)
TFA does not spell out what, exactly, is so innovative about this one.
The innovation will primarily be in the ability to market this to US consumers, not technical innovation. Manufactured homes have a very negative stigma in the US, to the point where zoning laws very commonly restrict where they can be built. This company will not only have to compete with the cost of traditional building techniques, they will need to overcome this stigma. Their product may be better than wood frame buildings but that won't be what public perception believes in the beginning.
Re: (Score:2)
My aunt and uncle did this, in California, in the late 70s. You actually couldn't tell it was a modular home (at least I couldn't). Hell, Sears was selling modular "kit" homes through their catalog more than 100 years ago. So it's safe to say this process has been around for more than a decade.
I think their "innovation" was targeting a different audience.
Re: (Score:3)
There's other US companies doing the same. This isn't new, but this company's marketing team is doing their job.
"modular home builder" (Score:2)
They produce $300K granny flats for your backyard.
That's a living room, a kitchenette and a tiny bedroom.
Need to shit? Go in the main house or go in the bushes.
Interesting methodology.
But, well...CALIFORNIA. To say the pricing is out of whack is redundant.
Valuable for disabled + they have bathrooms!! (Score:2)
They produce $300K granny flats for your backyard.
That's a living room, a kitchenette and a tiny bedroom.
Need to shit? Go in the main house or go in the bushes.
Look at their webpage. They all have bathrooms.
I've never heard of a granny flat until today. It's very interesting. I live in the city, so there's no way one of those is going up in one of our micro yards. However, if I lived farther out, I'd love one...for relatives. Or...I'd love an insulated minimalist structure for a woodshop...if I had giant lot and tons of money.
However, the most exciting facet of a granny flat like that is for aging parents or I have some disabled relatives, including
Re: (Score:2)
https://buildcover.com/pricing [buildcover.com]
Look again, about 80% of the way down the page.
Animatic for various offerings with pricing.
They do NOT "all have bathrooms".
Prefab homes in Birmingham, UK (Score:5, Informative)
During World War 2, Birmingham was heavily bombed by the Nazis. After the war, there was a shortage of housing, and there was not enough time to assemble new houses brick by brick. So they put up prefabs, with walls, roofs, etc built in factories, then shipped to site for final assembly. These were only supposed to be temporary, until "proper" house could be built. But many of them are still standing. They turned out to be rather good, and are quite sought after.
Pipe and wires in the ceiling... (Score:2)
Why did no one else think of this brilliant idea to put pipes and wires in the ceiling? Oh, that's right, they have. And practically every house ever built has pipes and wires running in ceilings, as well as in walls. How exactly do they have a toilet, sink, dishwasher, or electrical outlet if the pipes and wires only run in the ceiling? Do they all just run down the outside of the wall to where they are used? That must look wonderful. (I'll note the article has only a single outdoor picture of one of these
Re: (Score:2)
Their "innovation" is to construct the ceilings a little like they do in office buildings, where there's an easy-to-remove panel system for access to the pipes and wires.
Re: (Score:2)
Normally pipes are in/under the floor and wires are in/above the ceiling and the floor.
Ideally you would have literally all the wiring in/over the ceiling and then coming down, and all the piping in/below the floor and then coming up, so never the twain shall meet.
Of course multistory buildings mess that all up, but for single story that would be ideal.
A Bit Closer to My Own (better) Concept.. (Score:2)
I have developed designs for a floor-plan-extrusion process, using cellular PVC. Extruders would be placed according to one's floor plan overhead. A floor is extruded out under it, raised to the overhead extruders which heat, stick, and pull the entire floor plan down (minus cutting out doors/windows). They can also be textured with rollers.
The walls are honey-combed with sufficient room for plumbing and electrical up/down. The floors with larger spaces right/left for plumbing drain and air conduit.
Minu
Re: (Score:2)
PVC is UV resistant,
No, it isn't. Anyone who has left PVC pipe uncovered knows this. It can be made UV resistant, but it isn't automatically.
fire resistant (even more so with extra chlorine),
PVC burns EASILY, you can do it easily by accident while heat gunning it to bend it. And if you add more chlorine then it produces more dioxin when it burns, and it already produces a lot.
anti-microbial, food-safe (depending on additives),
Irrelevant if you're not making plates and cups out of it.
fully recyclable, is highly self-insulating, non-brittle when frozen (using cellular PVC), and can be cut/screwed using traditional tools.
Well, that stuff is true-ish, except that PVC is brittle even when not frozen. It breaks easily, and splinters when broken.
Have you ever actually
Standard (Score:2)
Landfill and cement floors means this has been standard for 30 years. Power in the floor was popular for a while but a burst main or storm flood meant one lost power immediately. Above ground, it's easier to install a false floor.
Post Frame is the future (Score:2)
Post framed homes, rather than stick frame, are way cheaper and faster to build, and in some cases stronger. You don't need an entire poured foundation (just concrete piers), you don't need sheathing (just aluminum or steel exterior skin), and the roof is also metal so it makes traditional roofing obsolete. Blown insulation gives you quick and efficient high R-value, and you can put up either drywall or any other kind of wall. After that, you can either live in a giant empty shell if you want, or add any k
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need an entire poured foundation (just concrete piers)
This is a bad idea. Differential settling is a thing.
We used to do foundations as perimeter walls with internal piers. We don't anymore, because it results in an undulating floor in 10-20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
You can do sedimentary analysis and compaction to remediate loose soils or fill, or build a crawl space foundation and install the posts in it. It all depends on site conditions.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not possible outside of a lab to compact soil to the level it will reach over time with a lot of weight on it.
Also, this:
or build a crawl space foundation and install the posts in it.
Is exactly what I said we no longer do because of differential settling.
If you want the floor to stay flat, you're going to need a continuous foundation.
Modeled after Tesla? (Score:2)
Structural Insulated Panels (Score:2)
have been a thing for a while. I have seen a few companies who do this.
One company I know of makes panels out of MDF and sandwich in 6" of Styrofoam for insulation. Makes all the exterior and roof this way. They will also do the interior walls
They cut the equivalent of conduits in the panels before assembly for wiring/plumbing
Very quiet homes, feels solid when you are inside one.
Re: (Score:2)
MDF is fucking garbage. Either it's horribly susceptible to water damage, or it's horribly toxic when it burns, or both. It barely makes sense to make speaker boxes out of it, let alone homes.
Polystyrene foam is also ridiculously flammable, stupid toxic when burned, and sensitive to practically every solvent. RVs are generally made out of sandwiched polystyrene and it's a major factor in why they are total fucking death traps and have to have an emergency exit in every room.
Trailer park (Score:2)
I want the lightweight steel... (Score:2)
'cause the only way you get lightweight steel is to use very little of it.
Otherwise, this is more of an ad than an announcement of big funding. California is littered with companies and the remnants of them when it comes to factory built housing. bluhomes (SF Area) was a recent one that flamed out and resorbed further south in the state...