Slashdot Mirror


Build a House Out of Recycled Cardboard

Uosdwis writes "Well for a better environmental option to a new house that is affordable, "low cost". Australia architects Stutchbury and Pape have created a house out of recycled cardboard, Velcro, nylon wing nuts and tape. Also , most of the house is recyclable too. It can be built in six hours by two people and can be transportable in a light commercial vehicle. Viva homeownership!" We had a story a few years about a school built out of cardboard.

21 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. uh oh by Frogmum · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd watch where I spilled fluids.

    1. Re:uh oh by Haydn+Fenton · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well.. I assume this is very similar to the building mentioned in a previous slashdot story, which has a comment containing the following:

      "The building has been treated for both water, and fire, and strength. The strength tests they used were the following: (1) The strongest man in Great Britain took a sledge hammer to one of the tubes. It was only slightly dented. I'd imagine Lumber acts the same way when he takes a sledge hammer to it. (2) They built a test bridge out of the material, and drove a 1 ton van onto it, which did not dent at all. The fire test involved taking a flame thrower to untreated and treated cardboard. The untreated burned pretty good, but the treated charred, but remained physically mostly in tact (similar to lumber). Don't expect it to survive burning jet fuel, but it should do okay. The water test involved the local fire department hosing the place down with fire hoses. The inside remained dry, with no leaks or damp spots. However, its life is only expected to be 20 years. Which really isn't that bad, for a recycable building."

      Seems pretty damn durable for a cardboard building. Cheap, relatively long lasting (for the material), environmentally friendly, these things would be cool to live in, although I can almost guarantee they won't take off.

    2. Re:uh oh by mabinogi · · Score: 4, Funny

      > although I can almost guarantee they won't take off.

      except in a strong wind!

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
  2. Obvious... by MagicDude · · Score: 4, Funny

    Step 1 - Get laid off from job, live in cardboard box on street.

    Step 2 - Convince media that this is the future of housing materials.

    Step 3 - Profit!

  3. Re:Blah screw cardboard!!! by icepick72 · · Score: 4, Funny
    made from paper pulp and recycled PET

    I wondered where all the animals went in that picture.

  4. Price by metlin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The site says -

    At a purchase price of just $35,000 this is a genuine short-term housing option that could be used in a variety of applications.

    So, is that US $35,000 or AU $35,000?

    If it's the latter, it's really quite cheap and could be helpful to build cheap, sustainable housing. Hell, I'm an out-door buff and I'd love to buy one of these that can be reused when I go on long treks and climbs.

    Sure as hell beats living in a tent for weeks on end.

    I can see folks like archaelogists loving this sort of thing - they go on long digs where they'd really need to set shop, and nothing would come close to something like this. Best of all, this provides for an excellent place for storing artifacts and the like and in setting shop.

    However, I think that for Joe Regular to buy it, it would perhaps need to be a *little* cheaper - US $5,000 or so.

  5. Building equity in the Bay Area by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Hello, I'd like to order ten plain cheeze pizzas..."

  6. Ironic future? by wcitechnologies · · Score: 4, Funny
    Years from now when everybody uses cardboard to build their houses, all of the stone and brick ones will be torn down and turned into rubble.

    High society will live in elegant, custom constructed cardboard houses, and people who are down on their luck will be found, living in alleys in shitty brick houses.

    --
    Electrons are free; it is moving them that becomes expensive.
  7. Pffft! Weekenders! by Cally · · Score: 3, Interesting
    (Pardon me, I feel compelled to relapse into the local vernacular for a moment...) A'roight owld butt? Ow bist g'wan on?

    *cough* that's better. Now, the fact is that down the in (British) West Country, we've been building sustainable housing for years. here's a straw house, for example - alas it fell foul of the planning regs and the local council are insisting it be demolished; but it'll be back up in a day or two.

    --
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    1. Re:Pffft! Weekenders! by rangefinder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Keep fighting. Straw bale is the housing material of the future far more so than cardboard. Here in Ontario, Canada, even with extremes of temperature and humidity, it's more acceptable every year, as each zoning district sees other places ok'ing it. From what I understand, millions of tons of straw are burnt as waste every year.

      In fact, not far from here stands what is thought to be the largest load-bearing straw bale structure in North America, the Robins' Nest Retreat, and even closer is the straw bale home built by Chris Magwood of Camel's Back Construction. With Peter Mack, Magwood wrote Straw Bale Building, which is definitive, thorough, and recommended. (Magwood, incidentally, is off the grid.)

      Of course, authorities are more likely to accept structures that are thought to be permanent and safe. (For example, a post-and-beam structure with straw bale infill is a known quantity in this area.) I would worry that tearing a house down quickly only proves that... it can be torn down quickly. Good luck.

      And oh yeah, before someone asks: tests by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation show that a properly built straw bale wall has a two hour fire rating - twice that required of conventional construction.

  8. Die in a horribly predictable fire? by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's how I read it when you say things like that.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  9. Re:Wait by AchilleTalon · · Score: 3, Funny
    It has heating built-in, you don't need oil anymore, just a match...

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  10. What can you afford? by Tau+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Suppose it lasts 10 years; that's roughly $2000 per year depreciation plus interest on a loan, which at 8% would start at $1600/year. Call it $300/month.

    How many poor families are paying a lot more than $300 month and still have utility bills that the cardboard house doesn't need? Plenty, I bet. I bet you are too.

    --
    Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
  11. Old hat. by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, you can make houses out of almost anything.
    Thomas Edison was playing with this idea almost 100 years ago (with concrete prefabricated house shells). The bad news is that a shed is still a shed. Unless you have damp course (to stop water from the soil) you will have serious problems with our friends the fungi. After WWII, in the UK, there was an attempt to rebuild infrastructure using "prefab" houses (mostly asbestos etc). Took a long time to get everyone out of what was supposed to be temporary housing even there in UK. Nice in theory, ugly in practice. Might be fun here in the med where its drier though...

    Now, which island do i want my cardboard house on.
    (2000+ to choose from)?

    Cheers,
    Andy Allen
    Athens Greece

  12. Technical issues by FredThompson · · Score: 4, Informative

    Cardboard is a solid fiber material, used for thin boxes (think, toothpaste tube box) and tablet backings. Corrugated is the proper term for the material with flat sheets separated by fluted sheets.

    As far as waterproofing, it's actually quite economical to make corrugated products completely waterproof. Just last monnth I was at the TAPPI/AICC SuperCorrExpo in Atlanta. That's the every-4-years trade show for corrugated machinery. The booth across the aisle from one of mine had a laminating machine which can coat paper with polyurethane. They had a little waterfall display which showed how resistant the board was. http://www.kohlercoating.com/

    There was a similar display in another booth but their sample was only coating the outer surface, not all surfaces during the corrugating process. Similar methods are used to ship some delicate vegetables packed in ice to grocery stores.

    We have a patent on a metering machine which allows cold adhesives to be used during the corrugating process. All other methods use large amounts of heat and steam to soften the paper and get the glue (cornstarch) to stick. The "normal" method reduces the strength of the board. We've done experiments with our machine to use multiple layers of medium (the wavy paper in the middle) and various cold adhesives which result in corrugated board almost as strong as solid wood. It was so strong traditional knives in converting machinery could not cut it.

    When we did those experiments years ago I wondered about the market for "disposable" housing. The design shown in this article is hideously awkward. I was thinking more about single-level block-type housing which could be made from standardized flat pieces of our super-strong board. Throw in the full waterproofing I've mentioned above and you'd have pretty good pre-fab with strength and environmental resistance somewhere between wood and steel with a fraction of the weight. I'd envisioned something sort of like the flat pieces of a gingerbread house. The edges could even be made notched to hold the boards in place while some form of glue and reinforcement could be used to join the boards.

    Having said all of that, corrugated steel is highly transportable and darn strong. It would be as easily worked by hand but it's more durable than any wood-based product.

    The sample shown in the article is a joke. There's no way to economically treat corrugated after it's made. You could immerse it in polymers and take care to force it through all the flute spaces but it will still have huge structural weaknesses and be vulnerable to water. The vast majority of paper fibers used to make corrugated and non-print-surface cardboard outside the U.S. use recycled fibers which are shorter than virgin and very weak. Recycling paper breaks the fibers down. Strength of paper comes from multiple adhesions of fibers and proper adhesive. Recycled board is just not suited for something like housing.

  13. Re:Home sweet home by Gorobei · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wasn't the resolution to this disconnect the "Projects"

    Basically, yes. Believing that people really just need a door to lock and place to sleep lead to the rational (but wrong) conclusion that projects would be an efficient solution.

    People need a roof over their heads, but even the lockable door is questionable: most people in my NYC apartment don't lock their doors.

    Christopher Alexander and Jane Jacobs have both written about what makes a successful residence, and monolithic blocks of cookie-cutter apartments isn't it. You need a graduation of public to private areas, places for people to gather both as individuals and groups, 24-hour activity in some places, a mix of commericial and residential at all levels, inviting outdoor areas, good public transit, etc.

    It's virtual impossible to "fix" a giant low-income apartment building, but here are a few things you could do:

    1) Convert 1 apartment per floor into a convenience store. Have long hours, and staff it as much as possible with people from the building. You want people to meet their neighbors, and small stores are a good way to do it. An active store = more foot traffic = less crime.

    2) Add day-care centers (1 per 10 floors or so.) A mother with a child can't get a job unless there is someplace to leave her kid now and then.

    3) Add a small health clinic. This is cheaper than the hospital's ER.

    4) Break up the homogeneity: make a few two-storey rooms. Make these micro-community centers that show movies, host lectures, religious services, birthday parties, etc.

    There are hundred more things you could do, but all are concerned with moving from a concrete box full of little locked apartments to a community where people know each other.

  14. Politics of poverty by poptones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is no different than the skillion other "homes for poor people" sales pitches. So what? We already have habitat for humanity and they're in just about every community in the US. Fact is this is all about nothing but selling shit and putting more people in debt, because people in debt are going to be "more responsible" and feed the machine.

    You want to provide people a chance at home ownership, get rid of the bullshit local "building codes" that exist for no other reason than to keep contractors and hardware stores in business. There are homes all over Euroupe, Asia, and the Mideast that have stood for hundreds of years and are made of nothing more than mud. Cob homes, in some parts of the world, are now becoming "fashionable" again and sought by well-to-do who want something with quality and character - attributes long lost to modern construction. But because building a cob home doesn't financially benefit anyone but the nearest dirt farm and an army of unskilled laborers, it's disallowed in just about any non-rural area in the US.

    At the other end of the affordable/quality spectrum, you can buy a used trailer home in ths country for just a couple thousand dollars - but most local ordinances won't allow people to put these low cost homes on their own fucking property.

    You want to afford poor people the opportunity to own their own homes, give them the freedom to do with their own property as they see fit. Set appropriate national MIMIMUM standards for sanitation and structural integrity and set barriers to local communities mandating higher, purely politically motivated, standards.

    1. Re:Politics of poverty by 0111+1110 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After having torn down and rebuilt a good section of my own house, and having done my own plumbing and electrical work, I don't think the building codes are unreasonable at all. I think they actually make a lot of sense. The trick is to understand why the codes are in place. They are really just a list of good building practices.

      The real problem is licensing. More specifically, the laws prohibiting the hiring of unlicensed tradespeople. Plumbers in my area (of the US) get upwards of $100/hour. I could do a similar job (to code) for $10/hour, but it would be illegal for anyone to hire me.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    2. Re:Politics of poverty by wass · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You want to provide people a chance at home ownership, get rid of the bullshit local "building codes" that exist for no other reason than to keep contractors and hardware stores in business.

      You seem to be a really paranoid person, do you actually really believe this in your conspiracy-theory mindset? Okay, sure building codes can be a real pain in the ass sometimes, but they are essential other times.It's the attitude like yours that encourages demolishing antique colonial-era houses to put up cookie-cutter rowhomes with vinyl siding. It's the attitude like yours that drives non-Americans to claim we have no culture.

      Have you ever been to Santa Fe or Laos, in New Mexico? These cities are really cool because most houses are built of adobe. I'm not sure if city law requires this (it probably does), but it's really neat to walk around there and feel it. If someone dumped a few trailer homes in the middle if the adobe houses, it would ruin the character of the city. Do you think restrictions to preserve a city's character are there to keep the adobe hardware stores in business?

      Another example is Savannah, Georgia. That city center is one of the most beautiful I've seen. It's one of the first planned cities in the USA, and there are lots of parks amidst all the ante-bellum character mansions. I don't know what kind of building codes exist there, but I do know that some hotel chains (I forget which) built hotels in the city center. These hotels were built very cheaply and stand our like a sore thumb against the rest of the city center. Again, do you think they should be able to build what they want, create eye-sores, destroy heritage and character, just to save a few bucks?

      Okay, another example now comes from the neighborhood in Baltimore where my girlfriend and I just bought our house. This area is designated 'historic' by the city and state, and this is to preserve the historic character and charm of the neighborhood. (Our house is in the cheapest little corner of the entire neighborhood, most of the other houses there are huge mansions).

      When you drive around this area, the houses are really pretty and quaint, and we want to preserve this character for the future. This means any major construction projects or paintings have to meet the approval of the architectural board. if we didn't do this, the character would be lost. Already some cheap-ass home 'flippers' (ie, they buy a house, do the cheapest shoddy renovations they can, and sell it for double the price later) tried to get away with very cheap non-characteristic 'repairs'. Luckily, most of their attempts failed. Note that this is only the outside appearance of the house. You are free to do what you want inside.

      If you want to put up a trailer home to save costs, then you shouldn't be living in this neighborhood but in the thousands of other places that such a home would be allowed.

      You might not be able to comprehend this, but there's actually character and culture here in the states, some of which is architectural. And it's not a conspiracy to want to preserve the living history.

      --

      make world, not war

    3. Re:Politics of poverty by Reziac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In most areas anyone can do the work, so long as it passes inspection afterward. But in some states it is illegal for anyone not licensed to do the work at all.

      As you imply, it's not the building codes that are at fault; it's the licensing and permits (which I rant about in another post).

      What the parent was really talking about was not building codes, but rather CC&Rs (aka covenants). These have nothing to do with building codes, and everything to do with "maintaining property values". Except that last is being grossly overapplied, often in ways that don't make any sense.

      One example was the requirement in some California communities that all roofs be cedar-shake, so they'd all look nice the same way. But cedar is a high-oil wood, and even with fire-retardant, it's like storing gasoline on your roof -- as the big Oakland fire finally demonstrated in terms that even CC&R enforcement fanatics could understand. (Over 900 houses burned, mainly due to the susceptibility of cedar shake roofs to ignition by flying embers.) Suddenly they were no longer so interested in forcing people with fireproof tile roofs to replace them with cedar shakes.

      Another example: I once looked at buying some acreage out in the middle of nowhere. It was at the very end of the road, right next to the oil lease (hardly a thing of beauty), and not visible from any other buildable property. Nonetheless, the owner-before-last (who was an architect and general contractor) had put a shitload of CC&Rs on it, such as minimum house size (rather too large for the shape of the lot), type of fencing allowed, and get this, even the colour you could paint your mailbox!! Needless to say, I didn't buy the place.

      In a world that actually gave a shit about affordable housing, this isolated acreage would have allowed inexpensive housing such as a trailer, or a house built of cardboard, straw, bottles, or whatever. In California, guaranteeing contractor profits trumps affordability and even common sense.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  15. My house is 50 years old by purduephotog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, 54 now. But I'm not counting (save for the $15K I've put into it- or in that case, not saved).

    I live in the snow region which, as of last year, had up to 3 foot deep snow ON MY ROOF. That the house occupies approximately 800 sq foot on the ground, thats about 3000 cubic feet of snow sitting above my head.

    No offense to the posters of this article, but... That house is absolutely worthless in my region. But I'm sure that won't stop people from going on and on about how the US is a wasteful society and should model themselves after this... blah blah blah.

    Parent is right. A house is a permanent structure and stays that way save for natural disaster, fire, or intentional destruction.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be wandering up onto the roof with another 400 lbs of salt soon- in preparation of the winter.