I read this article a little while ago:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...ing-exhibition
I thought it was pretty interesting.
The idea of being able to pretty much design your own house and have it be cheaper than buying one is pretty great.
I'd love to have a go at it. Has anyone done it? Know anyone who's done it?
Thought this was going to be like self-driving cars.
My auntie built her own house (well not her physically, but you know what I mean) and it was pretty impressive from what I remember. She sold it not long after and apparently made a decent profit, considering it wasn't in a very good area.
I'm a twit
Wait, you cannot buy a piece of land and build a house in the UK?
Of course you can.Originally Posted by Pepe
How did this thread lead you to that conclusion?
The first paragraphs of that article sort of did, together with this:
If not physically, then how did she build it?
He means she had actual builders do it, rather than literally build it with her own hands.
Then she didn't build her own house in the way meant by the article, correct?
It still counts as a self-build if she designed it/instructed the architects what she wanted and that.
I haven't read the article yet but I'd guess not. There doesn't seem to be much that's unusual about Baz's story, to me.
Alright. Because the article talks about 'sweat equity' where 'the cost of the lease was reduced by a sum equivalent to the value of the self-builder’s labour to build the house'
Agreed. Some nice ideas in the article though.
Didn't read the article, soz.
I'm a twit
It's all good, Boydy is the one we demand answers from at this point.
I do quite like the idea of 'community-led housing.' Profiting from real estate, housing in particular, is one of those things that fuck me off.
Generally self-build just means buying an already built house.
In this specific instance of these Walter Segal system houses in the article, they're so simple to put together people can actually do the physical building themselves.
The thread's for both, really, but with more emphasis on the latter since it seems more interesting.
Everyone else knew what I was on about, don't go 'demanding answers' from me just to take the pressure off you being an idiot in the first place.
We got him on the ropes lads.
You what?
*not buying an already built house.
i.e. building it yourself - either physically yourself or employing others to do it for you.
Lots of flip-flopping going on here.
Mum and Dad built their own house, we moved in the day of England v Spain at Euro 96. I distinctly remember taking a wheelbarrow full of something up the road as the shootout was going on.
What is to actually stop developers just throwing up pre-fabricated houses? Is it not worth doing so given the costs of the land? Because the ones that were built after the Second World War are still going strong in Hull (and presumably other cities), so I would happily live in one as an 'affordable house'.
Nothing. Presumably there isn't as much margin in it. Shame really as the Germans sell some half decent ones that come as a kit.
Are they the ones with the metal on the outside? My parents have lived in one for about 30 years and it's been fine.
You'd assume they'd be a lot cheaper than brick built.
My nan had one of those. I think they're a type of Wimpey 'no-fines' house. Provided you can make them look a bit less depressing (I think that's why they started putting metal on them) they would surely do a job with more modern contruction/insulation techniques.
Harrow is a shithole. Someone would set that car on fire.
That's pretty cool but why have you posted it in here?
Wasn't sure where to put it and it definitely doesn't deserve its own thread. I think this is a good home for it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
