I think the solution to reduce housing costs is simple and three-fold.
First: most people can build a house. It's really not difficult. Today's homes are quite complex in terms of their layers of parts, and constantly varying building codes don't help. But if you can swing a hammer and push a saw, you can build a house.
Ikea has shown it's not only possible, but profitable, to sell virtually everything that goes in a home to consumers and have them put it together themselves. So why not the rest of the house too? We've done it before: Sears shipped people houses on the railroad along with instructions and (eventually) pre-fab parts. They sold them for 30 years. https://www.amusingplanet.com/2021/06/sears-mail-order-homes...
A huge chunk of the cost of a home is the labor. So let the homeowner handle more of it! They can build in stages, offsetting costs and building at their own pace. And if somebody gets tired of doing it themselves, they can always hire a contractor.
Second: customers interest in having a unique home is a huge cost. So let's focus on building either the variable parts, or on making a "core home" that can be customized after the fact by customers. Most homes are just boxes. It should be possible for us to construct some basic designs that can then be modified or "spruced up" by the homeowner later. Most of the features that make a home look unique could be turned into add-ons, so that we could focus on efficiency of the bare home, and let customers take on additional cost when and if they choose.
Third: most people don't need huge houses! Due to the increasing cost of renting, most renters rent apartments that are absolutely tiny by comparison to the average new home. We can reduce housing costs further by simply making the building smaller, and gaining efficiencies by taking advantage of that smaller size. Want a bigger home? By having simpler designs by default with add-on exteriors, we can make it much easier to add extensions on to houses. Simply unbolt the exterior facade, build on your extension, and bolt the facades back on. This allows us to spend less money on materials and labor, while still allowing the consumer to add to the property over time.
I think it's a bit reductive to say that if you can push a saw and swing a hammer that you can build a house. Sure in theory, but the idea runs into a lot of problems quickly.
1. Navigating the permitting process
2. Finding a lender willing to finance a self-built home.
3. Learning the complicated trades (plumbing/electrical/foundation)
4. Affording to take the time to build a house.
Just #4 alone makes this a non-starter for most people. The average home takes between 6-9 months to build, and that's with an experienced crew. Learning as you go would easily add 6 months to this. Affording to take a year off to build is just not something "most people" can do.
I have a neighbor who is a building contractor. He built his house on his weekends, doing the majority of the work himself. It took him over a year, and he has the skills, tools, and knowledge. Joe Six Pack isn't going to know enough to avoid the pitfalls that can make this a disaster.
> most people can build a house. It's really not difficult
You would appreciate some help with raising the walls, but that's certainly doable alone. Raising the rafters, though, requires at least two people with good upper body strength. Or a very ingenious tackle system.
First: most people can build a house. It's really not difficult. Today's homes are quite complex in terms of their layers of parts, and constantly varying building codes don't help. But if you can swing a hammer and push a saw, you can build a house.
Ikea has shown it's not only possible, but profitable, to sell virtually everything that goes in a home to consumers and have them put it together themselves. So why not the rest of the house too? We've done it before: Sears shipped people houses on the railroad along with instructions and (eventually) pre-fab parts. They sold them for 30 years. https://www.amusingplanet.com/2021/06/sears-mail-order-homes...
A huge chunk of the cost of a home is the labor. So let the homeowner handle more of it! They can build in stages, offsetting costs and building at their own pace. And if somebody gets tired of doing it themselves, they can always hire a contractor.
Second: customers interest in having a unique home is a huge cost. So let's focus on building either the variable parts, or on making a "core home" that can be customized after the fact by customers. Most homes are just boxes. It should be possible for us to construct some basic designs that can then be modified or "spruced up" by the homeowner later. Most of the features that make a home look unique could be turned into add-ons, so that we could focus on efficiency of the bare home, and let customers take on additional cost when and if they choose.
Third: most people don't need huge houses! Due to the increasing cost of renting, most renters rent apartments that are absolutely tiny by comparison to the average new home. We can reduce housing costs further by simply making the building smaller, and gaining efficiencies by taking advantage of that smaller size. Want a bigger home? By having simpler designs by default with add-on exteriors, we can make it much easier to add extensions on to houses. Simply unbolt the exterior facade, build on your extension, and bolt the facades back on. This allows us to spend less money on materials and labor, while still allowing the consumer to add to the property over time.