TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

WikiHouse – Open source, modular, wood based, zero carbon housing

505 pointsby xor99over 2 years ago

31 comments

rmahover 2 years ago
Two things...<p>First, looking through their design guide (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wikihouse.cc&#x2F;guides&#x2F;design" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wikihouse.cc&#x2F;guides&#x2F;design</a>), the only thing they mention is that space (32mm in walls, I guess, and 70mm under ceilings) is provided.<p>Given that the plumbing, electrical, ventilation, appliances, etc. are the majority of the cost of a home, I find this a bit odd. A typical American full bathroom costs something like $5k to $20k (and up... way up) depending on the quality. A kitchen can cost multiple times more. Sure, you can build them cheaper, but that&#x27;s the rub... most people who are in the market to purchase a home don&#x27;t want low-end bathrooms and kitchens. Or windows. Or lighting. Or wall fixtures. Or anything really.<p>Second, IMO, the problem with affordable housing is not a construction cost problem. We can build small, livable (for various definitions) homes for $50k (or less) today, ignoring land costs. But the regulatory costs, the land costs, the <i>market demands</i> all make building such homes a non-profitable endeavor. Why build 20 $50k homes on the land and make $200k profit when you can build 10 $500k homes and make $1mil in profit?<p>The affordable housing crisis in the America do not have a technical solution, only a socio-political one. And since nearly all the power related to zoning, building costs, etc are managed at the local and state level, that means engaging with local politics.
评论 #32751760 未加载
评论 #32754817 未加载
评论 #32751494 未加载
评论 #32752241 未加载
评论 #32751562 未加载
评论 #32799792 未加载
samwillisover 2 years ago
I really like the concept of this, it&#x27;s basically a step further on from SIPs (structural insulated panels) by having standard composable blocks. The things I think are particularly good:<p>- Standardising on screw pile foundations. Standard concrete foundations are often be about 30% of the build cost, with the quantity of earth removed and cement used it&#x27;s a massive part of the carbon footprint of a home. For a &quot;light weight&quot; timber construction, screw piles are the future.<p>- Having services recesses and notches built into the panels, and there is no need to batten the internal walls for boarding. this will increase the speed of construction significantly.<p>- Being an &quot;Open&quot; standard allows any timber frame or prefab construction company to adopt it.<p>My one concern (I wouldn&#x27;t go as far as criticism) is that the panels have a somewhat complex manufacturing process by having to be CNC machined. Realisticly they almost always will be, but I would have liked to see the panels designed to be constructed a little more simply - you will always have to make changes on site.<p>I wander why they went with ply over OSB, they have similar structural properties but OSB can be cheeper.
评论 #32750481 未加载
评论 #32749409 未加载
评论 #32750739 未加载
评论 #32752371 未加载
throwaway4adayover 2 years ago
I think this is overly complicating the process. If you want an open source DIY method of building a home, just learn basic framing and construction. It&#x27;s not hard, lots of people have built their own homes, you just need some common sense and a willingness to learn.<p>If you want to go all in on modular, wood based, zero carbon housing then learn how to build a timber frame house. If you really want zero carbon you can use only hand tools and harvest your own trees.<p>Wikihouse seems more for people who want to buy something off the shelf, pretty much a kit house. That&#x27;s not a bad thing since it takes a lot of effort to build something as big as a house and lots of people don&#x27;t want to do that. But I don&#x27;t think this should be sold as a solution for DIYers since the existing methods already satisfy the listed requirements.
评论 #32752742 未加载
评论 #32756945 未加载
评论 #32754994 未加载
评论 #32751295 未加载
评论 #32759533 未加载
评论 #32758105 未加载
评论 #32752305 未加载
评论 #32752085 未加载
评论 #32751707 未加载
dangover 2 years ago
Related:<p><i>Facit Homes, Wikihouse, and the Plywood Frame</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27666320" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27666320</a> - June 2021 (33 comments)<p><i>WikiHouse – Open source buildings and interiors for self-build</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13856917" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13856917</a> - March 2017 (53 comments)<p><i>The WikiHouse chassis system [pdf]</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13029982" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13029982</a> - Nov 2016 (1 comment)<p><i>WikiHouse&#x27;s DIY kits are the open-source way to build a house</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=5768030" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=5768030</a> - May 2013 (3 comments)
debacleover 2 years ago
Stick based construction is already incredibly time, resource, and labor efficient.<p>SIPs are neat (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sips.org&#x2F;what-are-sips" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sips.org&#x2F;what-are-sips</a>), but even they are an added cost.<p>Dirt-based construction is an intriguing idea, but generally you are trading materials cost (which is already relatively low) for quite a bit of labor cost.<p>A system that cheaply allows for enduring dirt-based construction would be an interesting advancement, but I&#x27;m not sure how universal that system would be.
评论 #32750957 未加载
评论 #32750182 未加载
评论 #32750885 未加载
design-of-homesover 2 years ago
My first impressions are favourable. There are contraints though, as the design guide acknowledges:<p>&gt; WikiHouse is intended for buildings of up to 3 storeys. This covers 95% of all buildings, and allows gentle density neighbourhoods of up to around 75 dwellings per hectare.<p>&gt; The main constraint on height is not gravity, but wind. In high winds, lightweight structures are more prone to slight lateral flexing, which is not allowed within most building codes. Further structural research and testing is ongoing.
评论 #32749318 未加载
hedgehogover 2 years ago
This is interesting. The Walter Segal self-build method is another approach that aims to use common materials (lumber, plywood, insulation) with little cutting so as to reduce labor and allow for later disassembly+reuse.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;theprepared.org&#x2F;features-feed&#x2F;segal-method" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;theprepared.org&#x2F;features-feed&#x2F;segal-method</a><p>With many of these less common methods it&#x27;s more work to show safety, code compliance, etc. For example the Segal method doesn&#x27;t really allow for modern levels of air sealing and insulation.
评论 #32753150 未加载
throwaway787544over 2 years ago
Frame is just a small part of the cost and complexity of building a house. Considering you still need the CNC, and expensive materials, and a contractor, this doesn&#x27;t seem like a win.<p>On the contrary, I&#x27;d rather see more open designs for modern post-frame homes. They&#x27;re lighter, cheaper, simpler, faster, and provide some design benefits. The only real downside is zoning needs to catch up.
jbuover 2 years ago
One of these went up near me. Pretty cool. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=nfTkW87vmUQ" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=nfTkW87vmUQ</a>
评论 #32749500 未加载
评论 #32750667 未加载
WillAdamsover 2 years ago
I&#x27;m still surprised that no one has made a CNC specifically designed to be:<p>- carried on a truck - used while in place on the truck or is easily removed from it and then set up - which has an interface suited to a job site in terms of setting up a design and cutting<p>The Shapr3D seems to get some jobsite use, and there is at least one digital saw where one plugs in a dimension and the stop moves to the correct position for the cut --- the Yeti SmartBench seems like it might be a contender in this space, but still not seeing the CAD&#x2F;CAM interface which would make it workable.<p>Really miss Saltire&#x27;s SketchRight and FutureWave&#x27;s SmartSketch for quick jobsite sketches.
评论 #32750531 未加载
评论 #32750809 未加载
评论 #32750470 未加载
评论 #32750451 未加载
评论 #32751062 未加载
tengbretsonover 2 years ago
This looks neat, but having to submit a structural engineer&#x27;s inspection report before they sell you the materials is absurd.
评论 #32751047 未加载
theptipover 2 years ago
This is cool. The model of distributed local fabrication is one that I think we’ll see more of in future as automation becomes more capable and cheaper.<p>This seems to fix one of the big problems with pre-fab houses, that they are expensive to ship long distances, and therefore can’t benefit from economy-of-scale centralized manufacturing.
int0x2eover 2 years ago
If I was designing this, I would only have a small set of &quot;SKUs&quot; with minimal customization, and then go all out on economies of scale.<p>If 10% of houses switched to a single &quot;system&quot; with a small set of SKUs, such that everything is optmized for manufacturing, shipping and assembly - you could reduce the cost of construction significantly. This is basically an extension of the IKEA model for the house itself instead of just the furniture.
maxehmookauover 2 years ago
So we used WikiHouse construction to build a community centre in our local park. You can see a timelapse here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=nfTkW87vmUQ" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=nfTkW87vmUQ</a><p>Took 4 people 6 days to build it. Slotted together like lego, it was quite something to watch.
mikestaubover 2 years ago
Another interesting option is Earthships: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;earthshipstore.com&#x2F;collections&#x2F;construction-drawings-offgrid&#x2F;products&#x2F;4bed-3bath-construction-drawings" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;earthshipstore.com&#x2F;collections&#x2F;construction-drawings...</a>
ElijahLynnover 2 years ago
MMM, I might just have to build a home office away from the house with WikiHouse! I&#x27;ve been dreaming of something like this!
phantomathkgover 2 years ago
Genuine question, other than the cover hero image title, where does it explain how come this is zero carbon?
teleforceover 2 years ago
Wow, this can be a great foundation for open source bike and motorcycle communicator intercom [1].<p>Does this support mesh networking to extend the coverage?<p>[1]FreedConn:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.fdcdz.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.fdcdz.com&#x2F;</a>
greenie_beansover 2 years ago
how is this zero carbon? logging is very carbon intensive. and, i&#x27;m not an expert, but from what i&#x27;ve read as a layperson, doesn&#x27;t removing trees cause a loss of the carbon that&#x27;s stored in the soil?
评论 #32751184 未加载
评论 #32751273 未加载
评论 #32751621 未加载
corwinstephenover 2 years ago
The physical world is headed in the same direction as the internet. In 20 years, the built environment is going to be entirely comprised of identical materials and trademarked by a tiny handful of monopoly companies.
goatcodeover 2 years ago
You forgot &quot;ridiculously expensive.&quot; I got excited by this project several years ago, but like most of its sort: it&#x27;s completely inaccessible for what it is.
评论 #32751359 未加载
kthejoker2over 2 years ago
Been re-reading Walden ( <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gutenberg.org&#x2F;files&#x2F;205&#x2F;205-h&#x2F;205-h.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gutenberg.org&#x2F;files&#x2F;205&#x2F;205-h&#x2F;205-h.htm</a> ) lately, so eyeopening compared to our strange &quot;modern&quot; world:<p>&gt; And when the farmer has got his house, he may not be the richer but the poorer for it, and it be the house that has got him.<p>&gt; It is possible to invent a house still more convenient and luxurious than we have, which yet all would admit that man could not afford to pay for. Shall we always study to obtain more of these things, and not sometimes to be content with less? Shall the respectable citizen thus gravely teach, by precept and example, the necessity of the young man’s providing a certain number of superfluous glow-shoes, and umbrellas, and empty guest chambers for empty guests, before he dies?<p>And the coup de grace, his own accounting of building his own house:<p>&gt; The exact cost of my house, paying the usual price for such materials as I used, but not counting the work, all of which was done by myself, was as follows; and I give the details because very few are able to tell exactly what their houses cost, and fewer still, if any, the separate cost of the various materials which compose them:—<p>&gt; Boards.......................... $ 8.03½, mostly shanty boards.<p>&gt; Refuse shingles for roof sides,.. 4.00<p>&gt; Laths,........................... 1.25<p>&gt; Two second-hand windows with glass,................... 2.43<p>&gt; One thousand old brick,.......... 4.00<p>&gt; Two casks of lime,............... 2.40 That was high.<p>&gt; Hair,............................ 0.31 More than I needed.<p>&gt; Mantle-tree iron,................ 0.15<p>&gt; Nails,........................... 3.90<p>&gt; Hinges and screws,............... 0.14<p>&gt; Latch,........................... 0.10<p>&gt; Chalk,........................... 0.01<p>&gt; Transportation,.................. 1.40 I carried a good part on my back.<p>&gt; In all,..................... $28.12½<p>&gt; These are all the materials excepting the timber stones and sand, which I claimed by squatter’s right. I have also a small wood-shed adjoining, made chiefly of the stuff which was left after building the house.<p>&gt; I intend to build me a house which will surpass any on the main street in Concord in grandeur and luxury, as soon as it pleases me as much and will cost me no more than my present one.
yositoover 2 years ago
If wood-based housing can be considered &quot;zero carbon&quot;, I must be confused about the definition of &quot;zero carbon&quot;.
评论 #32819069 未加载
parkerswebover 2 years ago
Does anyone know of a similar project for garden offices?
评论 #32751690 未加载
评论 #32751401 未加载
fareeshover 2 years ago
How do these hold up in stormy weather?
评论 #32752442 未加载
dr_dshivover 2 years ago
I have questions on fire safety. I lost some close friends recently to a fire. I had never thought about it before.
评论 #32749081 未加载
评论 #32749155 未加载
评论 #32749201 未加载
评论 #32749086 未加载
shafyyover 2 years ago
The use of &quot;Carbon negative&quot; really grinds my gears. Carbon negative would mean that by building this house, you actually remove carbon from the atmosphere. No, you don&#x27;t remove CO2 from the atmosphere by buliding this house.<p>Yes, trees remove carbon, but now you&#x27;ve just cut them down and released a bunch of carbon in that process (plus all the CO2 you emit, you know, building the actual house).<p>Edit: Ok, looking more through their website I came across this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wikihouse.cc&#x2F;product" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wikihouse.cc&#x2F;product</a> They say that the upfront carbon cost of building a WikiHouse is - 17T CO2, compared to a normal house of + 30T CO2. This is so fucking misleading, I&#x27;ve just lost all respect for the makers of this. I think it&#x27;s a great project, but once you start bullshitting like this, you can get the hell out.
评论 #32749407 未加载
评论 #32750721 未加载
评论 #32750629 未加载
评论 #32749794 未加载
评论 #32749990 未加载
评论 #32750656 未加载
skylanhover 2 years ago
I see.<p>Another wood-house project created by civil engineering or building material science graduates (Leeds Beckett University)--similar to the last one.<p>Build costs similar to brick (ouch!), requires a specific CNC operator to build panels (supply chain ouch!), and creates an integrated house (ouch! to any renovations using conventional materials; ouch! to system longevity).<p>I hate these as they&#x27;re basically the results of a couple of graduate students operating under a innovation grant.<p>The practical results of this are that someone is going to find a local CNC operator (within 320km based on the study), find out the costs of buying 300 sheets of quality 7-layer plywood and running a custom project with the CNC operator, find a local engineer willing to sign off on the project (for insurance, mortgage, and to maintain the 10 year defect free period), and then have to find a local labour contractor willing to use their building materials as the structure.<p>After all that legwork, they&#x27;re going to go with a traditional building contractor.
评论 #32749882 未加载
评论 #32750555 未加载
评论 #32749542 未加载
评论 #32749729 未加载
评论 #32750625 未加载
kgranover 2 years ago
Says zero-carbon, proceeds to show single-family detached homes in a suburban setting, mostly accessible by car only.<p>P.S. The concrete foundations look far from zero-carbon.
评论 #32750224 未加载
评论 #32750584 未加载
评论 #32750614 未加载
fasteddie31003over 2 years ago
Just buy some 2x4&#x27;s and plywood and start building. It&#x27;s not that hard. Building does not have to be this complicated. The building systems and products out today make it incredibly easy and (before the ridiculously low interest rates) pretty cheap.
评论 #32751274 未加载
评论 #32750621 未加载
huetiusover 2 years ago
The responses here are critical —- some useful, some not so useful.<p>I’m happy to see this project and would like to see more like it, even if this is not quite ready for show time. The possibility of using advances in technology and open source methods to allow people to make more stuff for themselves and their communities in a way that is efficient and feasible is exciting to me.
评论 #32750653 未加载
评论 #32750726 未加载
评论 #32750651 未加载