Slashdot Mirror
MIT's $1,000 House Challenge Yields Results
An anonymous reader writes "MIT's $1k House Project is an extraordinary challenge to provide safe and healthy homes for the world's burgeoning population. The Pinwheel House (PDF), a student project which helped serve as a catalyst for the challenge, has been completed in China by architect Ying chee Chui. Students have come up with a dozen or so designs to meet the challenge and improve living conditions for not just emerging economies but larger nations as well."
Where in the developing world is land $100,000 for a .25 acre lot?
And even if it was? $101,000 is a lot more affordable than $300,000.
And about that link. A link to a press release. With a link to a stupid splash page. With a link that finally goes to project?
Some of the desigs are intriguing to me. Not sure how they will hold up in some parts of the world.
THL phish sticks
This wouldn't fly in the US.
Some construction union would intervene claiming substandard construction or what-not, code violations etc, etc just to protect their jobs.
The pipe-fitters unions did the same thing when PVC piping came out--they lobbied for code changes that required copper tubing, changes that ruled out Joe-Homeowner doing the work himself. Most building codes make it very hard for the do-it-your-selfers, sometimes requiring them to actually get a contractors license. There is no reason for this if the work passes inspection--it exists simply to protect the jobs of people that need to get with the times, adapt and get on with their lives rather then holding back the rest of humanity.
I'm sure $1,000 was set just to house cost/generic baseline. Obviously, there will be lots of variables. Cost of products, labor, land, taxes. I just like house the house can be infinitely expandable, building larger pinwheels around the outside until it becomes insanely difficult to reach the center.
For people who
(i) are sufficiently intelligent to enter MIT (or similar); but
(ii) are interested in application of technology to benevolent causes rather than application of technology to their bank account
to refuse an acceptance or to leave the university and instead do what they believe is right on their own?
If you want to force any organisation to change its behaviour, as any fule kno, you withold labour. Top universities exist on the reputation of a tiny minority of dedicated academics, but their business is processing journeymen who either stop at graduation or do a small amount of research work to launch them into a high-paying commercial job.
To take an example, the director of my MSc programme resigned in angry disgust at the increasing commercialisation of higher education but most academics are too scared to leave the security of their tenure (or quasi-tenure). His action encouraged me as a student to take a look at politics in the university and higher education in general, and I aborted my research plans out of principle. Interestingly, my cousin at the LSE did the same as a final year PhD student.
If you read the article you'd see that one of the points of this project is to rebuild houses after disasters, so in that case the people already own the land.
More importantly, can you go up ... most poor places are also high density. Where it is low density, it is probably because of the elements which this house might have problems with.
What is wrong with competition?
Competition isn't inherently bad, but competition can be pointless and even a lot less useful than competition.
In general competition can be fun, it can be a challenge. But, in today's world we're expected to always compete whether we want to or not, all day every day you're expected to constantly try to be better than the other guy (or girl). We're living in a world where "Good enough" for many people means you're first on the chopping block when the next round of layoffs starts. Where "Good enough" just isn't good enough...
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Harris Rosen from here in Orlando (owner of a huge hotel chain) was trying to start a project to create $5,000 homes for victims of the Haitian earthquake. This story reminded me of that (mostly because I wanted to double check how much they thought they could build each house for).
Link.
You sound like a sad little hippie who still has a chip on his shoulder because some jocks picked on him a decade or two prior.
Where I went to school, "jocks" wouldn't have passed the entrance exam. I dislike my elite past, but I'm not going to deny it.
What is wrong with competition?
What is right with competition? There are times when it seems to work but there is nothing inherently good about it.
And you propose a losers-distribute-winnings-equally environment?
You're paying no attention. I propose that the intelligent act out of a desire to achieve good things in their discipline rather than to profit. There are 7 billion people in the world - more than enough who are both clever and benevolent. We simply have no need of the "gr8 people like me need $$$ incentive to support you!" mantra any more - it's a more outdated idea than RIAA, which is why certain groups are trying so hard to cling on to it.
The design in the PDF broke most of the build cheap rules. Things like if there's a kitchen and bathroom you put them back to back to share plumbing and drains saving on pipe. If there's no traditional kitchen or bathroom then why call them out in the plans as if they aren't included? There's options like Lorena Stoves that are basically built out of sand and clay so other than metal exhaust pipes and burner covers they require little money. Unless you are building what amounts to a shack basic plumbing and electrical will run more than a grand. The same with windows. A structure can be build with little cash other than for things like fasteners, as in nails and such, if there are materials like wood or bamboo on the property. You can do your basic dirt floor if you have linseed oil to stablize it but even that will run you a few hundred. You can build a basic house for $2,500 to $5,000 if the bulk of the materials are gathered rather than being bought but making one for a $1,000 that has plumbing and windows let alone basic wiring is impossible.
I understand that the project was formed with the developing world in mind, but I think that the concept is worth pursuing in the developed world as well.
The trouble is that all of the concepts that I read about sounded like ideas for a cabana on the beach. While that may work in spots where temps stay moderate year round, the rest of us could never make that work. Also, most of the ideas I read about sounded pretty light on engineering and heavier on design (architecture).
I'd like to see this project expanded into something resembling the next generation of manufactured/modular homes. We're in sore need of reasonably priced structures that are within the realm of an average person's abilities that retain style and form beyond an ugly box.
I agree that the developing world needs cheap ways to house their citizenry, but let's not forget to solve some of the problems that we still face here at home (in the US).
I'd happily pay you Tuesday for a biopsy today!
Depends on what you are trying to do. For instance in China a huge problem is the massive fight of people from the rural areas to the cities(whether they move legally or not, China still uses the hukou system to basically force people to stay in the area they were born in). This creates huge problems in both the rural and the urban areas. In the urban areas you have a lot of poor, usually uneducated(and often times single male) people flooding into the cities, increasing crowding, making competition for jobs even more intense, etc. Meanwhile the rural farms are left with labor shortages, shortages of young people to take over the work, etc. This in turn helps to drive up food prices which places a lot of pressure on the Chinese government.
As a result the Chinese government right now is trying to find ways to make rural living more palatable to young people so that they will stay in the countryside instead of moving to the city. Affordable, comfortable housing could go a long way towards that goal.
Monstar L
Especially, what alternative system do you propose that provides an educational and scientific environment that is on par with or at least not substantially worse than that at the MIT?
I'll have a stab at this.
At a very basic level, MIT is a series of houses filled with smart people. Maybe also some special equipment is required. If so, we might have to find for example miners and truck drivers and people who know how to build the machines that can build that specialist equipment, unless those can be found in existence all ready.
There is nothing magic about the free market and capitalism. What it can conjure up by means of millions of entrepreneurs poking in the dark to see what will stick, could also be just decided together, organized together and done together. That kind of model has brought you the best encyclopedia and maps, it could be used for other things as well. Decentralized, democratic and unoppressive just do it-ism I call it. Sometimes I call it Ralph. It doesn't matter. Point is, it's a simple concept. Everyone gets to decide on everything. And we should try to do the right thing. (What is the right thing? I don't know, everyone should get to decide on that as we go along.)
Some of the houses in the UK barely have room for the bed.
You're missing the point. What I meant was that when compared to say, my parents' generation, my generation clearly has to compete on a different level. When I was out of work straight after college my father was baffled by this, when he was that age jobs could be had by just going to a company you thought looked fun to work for and asking them for a job. And in the workplace these days the level of performance expected by each employee is higher (at least in a lot of white-collar jobs). Basically our (western) society has become a lot more competitive and for the average person I just don't think the everyday gains outweigh the cost.
Now yes, if you go back to the 19th century and the wave of industrialization that swept through the world things were worse, the point is that we took a few steps forward and then we started taking steps backwards again.
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Nevermind that. Permitting, one-time taxes, environmental reviews, and various other government fees will kill you. Worse yet, you have no idea how much all that will cost because the government agencies bill for professional services by the hour. You think AT and T would be bad as a monopoly again? At least your phone bill had a stated rate. The permitting and inspection process has no such animal. It will "cost a lot", but you have no idea how much.
That kills the project right there. A lot of us would love to do a project like that. We can predetermine the cost of the land. We can predetermine the cost of a pre-fab structure. We can even get reasonable estimates for foundations if we know the dimension of the structure; but that's as far as you can go. After that, it's anybody's guess. Unless you have money to burn, or are willing to risk not being able to complete the project within a reasonable budget, you have to say "no".
I have actually seen uncompleted projects for sale by desperate sellers. It's a sad state of affairs.
This is in California, BTW so it might not be so bad elsewhere; but something tells me it's not much better.
Huh. Second time I get to reference the Earthship guys. They've put up a map of what they call Pockets of Freedom which are places in the US that don't have building codes or allow for "experimental architecture". Too bad none of them are in my area. :-(
"Bah!" - Dogbert
This is a cute student project, but most would be considered "seasonal" shelter in even basic developed countries. I applaud the creativity, especially of the pinwheel house. Other houses sounded a bit more like a scavenger hunt that could have been done by any 5th year studio student in US architectural schools.
I would certainly hope that, given an entire year of studio work, there is more to the final product than the marketing brochure that came out of the pinwheel house. Part of the practice of architecture (which these students, we presume, would like to eventually be) is making buildings which are buildable. That means detailed drawings of each part which is not OTS hardware - but I see nothing. Does the robotics team get to draw a picture of a walking robot, or do they have to actually do piece drawings and wiring diagrams to actually build the robot?
To be fair, with skilled assembly, it is certainly better than most slum housing - but without skilled labor it may not be much better. None of the designs, save possibly the concrete roof, could be considered water tight for any length of time as initially reviewed, and few appear to have any chance of surviving a 50 year environmental event, much less protecting the occupants. I guess if they're cheap to build (just 6 years of the average 3rd world persons salary, by the website's count), you could see them as disposable and just build them again after each typhoon or earthquake.
From one of the linked sites:
"MIT 1K House is partnering with Skanska and Next Phase Studios to construct three exhibit 1K House prototypes in on MIT campus in Cambridge, MA. The project is moving forward, and the goal is to construct the prototypes by MIT Commencement on June 4, 2010. "
What I want to know it - if Skanska supposedly built 3 of these prototypes on the MIT campus in 2010, how much did it cost? I didn't see pictures, so I presume that the Skanska bid came in somewhere north of $3000 (or even the $6000 estimate for Philippines construction). IT doesn't appear that any of these houses has actually ever been built.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Maybe in America. Anywhere decent in Europe where you can get planning permission to build a house is going to be at least £100k. We don't have any unused land.
The writers created a competition, asking students, architects and businesses to compete to design the best prototype for a $300 house (their original sketch was of a one-room prefabricated shed, equipped with solar panels, water filters and a tablet computer). The winner will be announced this month. But one expert has been left out of the competition, even though her input would have saved much time and effort for those involved in conceiving the house: the person who is supposed to live in it [in Mumbai] We recently showed around a group of Dartmouth students involved in the project who are hoping to get a better grasp of their market. They had imagined a ready-made constituency of slum-dwellers eager to buy a cheap house that would necessarily be better than the shacks they’d built themselves. But the students found that the reality here is far more complex than their business plan suggested. To start with, space is scarce. There is almost no room for new construction or ready-made houses. Most residents are renters, paying $20 to $100 a month for small apartments. Those who own houses have far more equity in them than $300 — a typical home is worth at least $3,000. Many families have owned their houses for two or three generations, upgrading them as their incomes increase. With additions, these homes become what we call “tool houses,” acting as workshops, manufacturing units, warehouses and shops. They facilitate trade and production, and allow homeowners to improve their living standards over time. None of this would be possible with a $300 house, which would have to be as standardized as possible to keep costs low. No number of add-ons would be able to match the flexibility of need-based construction. In addition, construction is an important industry in neighborhoods like Dharavi. Much of the economy consists of hardware shops, carpenters, plumbers, concrete makers, masons, even real-estate agents. Importing pre-fabricated homes would put many people out of business, undercutting the very population the $300 house is intended to help. Worst of all, companies involved in producing the house may end up supporting the clearance and demolition of well-established neighborhoods to make room for it. The resulting resettlement colonies, which are multiplying at the edges of cities like Delhi and Bangalore, may at first glance look like ideal markets for the new houses, but the dislocation destroys businesses and communities.
A recent (PBS-affilliated POV) film, Good Fortune , expands further on the damage that can be done via good intentions when it comes to rehousing folks.
... it wasn't something they would have wanted. I helped vaccinate kids, which was something they wanted, and everyone won.
Many economists, journalists, physicians, and so forth have written extensively about the aid industry, and the White/Educated/Western/Elite-knows-best mentality. I certainly am no exception — I moved to Ghana with notions of making solar lights in my spare time, so that persons without grid-access could see at night, only to come to understand that this was a product that most people in the place I was living would have little interest in. It didn't matter that I'd spent months figuring out how to cram solar panels and LEDs into wire-bale jars, media blast them with garnet to diffuse the light better, and so on
For some more literature on this sort of thing, I'd recommend William Easterly's
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
"Then there's the cost of getting services to your chosen site. It costs a bit to get electricity, water, and sewerage to a building site, or to provide a drilled well and septic system in a site that's too remote for municipal services."
Mostly due to corrupt laws. Yes a pit Privy can be done properly, but a simple septic leech field is not that hard to engineer and build. Electricity is easy enough to do with very low cost scavenged parts to make wind power and heating can also be done simply by making the place solar efficient.. in Texas you really dont need heat just insulation and a central fireplace for the 2 days a year it drops below 60.
LAW states you must have X outlets per room, and XX amp of electrical service in the house. Hell they even dictate the number of Cable TV outlets required nowdays.
A 500SQ foot pinwheel home is large enough for a family of 4 to live comfortably. If you are not the typical american slob you can get away with a pair of $200.00 Harbor Freight Solar panel kits and a couple of deep cycle batteries for electricity to give you lighting for the entire home and a couple of outside lights, and if you are lucky you can charge that OLPC laptop that is used for the rich kids. if your well is properly sized you can run it also off of the solar+battery system. a propane tank outside will supply cooking, heat for home and water.
Very comfortable and sustainable.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Which is a funny way of writing $1000.
Second, that is slightly over a $1.5k more than the Chinese per capita GDP of about $4,382.
Compared to the average US per capita GDP that is about as much as a $60k house.
Do I really need to comment that?
And all that is before even getting a building permit.
Which is often the greatest single expense when building a house in the third world and other "growing democracies" due to inefficiencies of the bureaucracy and the built-in culture of bribes and corruption.
Now... as this is apparently hailed as a "low-cost home for the poor", let's go see what the really poor make.
You know, countries where that imaginary $1000 is approximately around or over the per capita GDP.
Even at a $1000 per house an average Nigerian could not afford it - regardless of the picture all those CNN commercials for Nigerian banks are trying to paint.
At $5,925 he might as well start making plans for a house made out of gold.
I just like house the house can be infinitely expandable, building larger pinwheels around the outside until it becomes insanely difficult to reach the center.
See? This is why Lex Luthor is such a brilliant criminal mind.
He knows (as did his father) that the land is the only resource they are not making more of.
Well... other than time. They are making even less of that one. But time-travel is not really his thing.
You expand UPWARD - not outward.
Expanding out wastes space. That is why all those big population centers, I think they are called cities, have all those tall buildings.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Then there's the cost of getting services to your chosen site. It costs a bit to get electricity, water, and sewerage to a building site, or to provide a drilled well and septic system in a site that's too remote for municipal services. And then there's the cost of preparing the site for the structure. In much of the world the foundation would need to be much more robust (possibly with drainage, insulation, etc.) than the bare-bones arrangement presented.
This is not to denigrate the concept of an inexpensive functional structure, which is good, but to point out that the cost of making a habitable house involves more than the headline cost of the structure itself.
Instead of doing one house, what if a developer were to build a subdivision of these houses. The infrastructure (electricity, water, sewer, phone, cable) should be a lot cheaper per house. I bet you could sell these for at least $20-30k and make a tidy profit. Depending on the subdivision amenities, and who you market it to, you could probably get more.
The South East UK is not the developing world, though you wouldn't know it from the plumbing ;)
These designs are for rural China, India & Africa.
Composting toilets. way cheaper than a sewage hookup and you get free compost for your fields. Reed bed to filter grey water and you get material for furniture and basket construction. Rain catchement with artificial pond for overflow. Way cheaper that a water hookup, and with bamboo sand bio-filters you get clean drinking water all year round as well as a place to farm fish. Solar ovens and driers and rocket stoves built out of compressed earth. Bamboo perimeter gives you privacy, construction materials and even food,mmm, pickled bamboo shoots. Lime instead of concrete 1/3 the price, fortified rammed earth foundations which are water/flood resistant.
Really you don't need much else but a basic understanding of permaculture for your region. That is living a life of leisure and luxury for more than half the population of the world. Throw in expensive solar pa.les and you'll even make the westerners happy.
You just have to stop thinking like a western sheep where economics are driven by consumption.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Ghana is not nearly as bad off as many other sub-Saharan African countries, and yet still there is much poverty. People living in the region (their equiv. of a state/county) where I used to reside are finding themselves pushed out of their houses as rents rise from $25-40/month to $100 or more per month due to an influx of oil contractors (now that Ghana has offshore oil pumping as of 2011). The problem is not $100 rents, or even $1000 rents; the problem is that some can afford such rents, and some cannot. In short, the problem is inequality. I am not so naïve as to expect the world will be perfectly fair, but surely we can strive for some basic assurances for all humans — adequate food, water, medical care, social productivity, and basic economic security.
Excellent post. But I would like to point out that if I can build the $1000 house in Ghana for $5000 and rent it out for $40 a month, I am getting a 9.6% annual return on my investment. That is a great return these days. I wouldn't claim to know how to solve the problems of inequality, but a stable home at what appears to be an affordable rental rate is surely a good start. Why not start a benevolent landlord NGO that matches capital looking for a good home with residents looking for a good home?