It's been a while!  Here's my latest...

Consider all potential loads, most of the time I'm thinking "clear sight is not the same as clear vision". Just because we see something doesn't mean we understand it. If you plan to build it, it is sure better to understand it.

A foundation needs to support the structure under local expected gravity, uplift and lateral loads

Cons;
With post frame, load is concentrated on the soil using several small independent footings. Is the ground up to the load (as in calculate and confirm). will each settle equally? (the footings in the middle of a row experience ~twice the load of those on the ends... has this been considered?)

Posts supporting a structure under lateral load vs a perimeter wall under lateral load... no contest. What is keeping the posts upright, will they bend and break, will they slide or overturn. Resist all of these by quantifying load and resisting it. That is the engineering that is prescriptive with conventional construction. The engineering is baked in to the tables and conditions of the prescriptive code. You can step outside to the engineered provisions, this is one of those instances and some of the why it goes to engineering.

Some more in that line of thinking;

Perimeter beam, you need one capable of supporting loads from above. If continuous foundation support goes away you need beams between posts.. Look all the way up, did you line up loads above over support or do they land in the span of the beams between posts, calculate and size beams accordingly. Do you plan on a porch or deck or addition in the future, size the beams, posts, footings accordingly. Conventional construction has continuous perimeter support, not so much of an issue. Identify and support loads more carefully with post frame, or timberframe for that matter. Construction has evolved to more distributed uniform loadings and more redundancy. Lacking that uniform foundation wall under the floor you need to size the beams between posts to support the floor(s) walls and roof. 

If post frame (there's the term to search and educate on, NFBA has publications online)... if post frame were the magic bullet, why is it that in a competitive environment it has not dominated? It is faster and initially cheaper. It is not "better". In many senses, it struggles to be adequate, which is why it has become engineer required for habitable construction in most places. It is also superior in some cases, if done correctly.

One of the things I'm looking at on our slopes is the trees. Do you see "pistol butts", trees with a rolled base, belly downhill. The sign of sliding land and trees trying to remain upright.

That Thallon book is great. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It shows a lot of different methods and options. I am looking forward to going through it in depth.

For some reason, I have a soft spot for post construction (or is it pier?). It just seems so simple and rugged, and eliminates a lot of potential headaches. 

Is the only disadvantage to post construction, assuming it meets code, is not having the extra basement storage space?

Think carefully about what space you need. While the cost per square foot might be lower when increasing size to take the advantage of scale, it is still bigger and likely costs more to build. It may cost more to furnish if larger. Cost more to heat and cool. Cost more to maintain, and so on. At least that is how I look at it.

We built small and are still very happy with what we did 16 years ago. 472 square ft

I'd lean towards a "wrap and strap" approach with plates and girts, the horizontal members of the timberframe, spaced no further apart than the sheathing can span, then sheath with boards or ply/osb, wrap that in foam, strapping and siding.

For instance if you have a sill, girt at midwall and plate, vertical 3/4 ply or 1x tongue and groove would make a minimal wall. wrap in foam sheet, horizontal strapping over the foam, housewrap and vertical board and batten to side.

Has anyone built or has tips on building an imitation timber frame sips building? I was thinking maybe 12x12 using 4x* to make the timber frame then adhere rigid foam to sheet of osb and sheet of plywood and just use that to skin like you would a timber frame building? Also what glue would you use for the foam to wood bond?
I see people mention being hard to transport the fake sips but the idea would be to glue them on site

Thanks.

Really depends if the house is an investment or you plan on riding it out.

For me I see the house as a consumable I will use throughout my life, much like a car, and eventually need replaced.  Since I will be the one consuming most of it I will not benefit from building it to be of value to someone else.


There is not much marginal advantage for me to build larger so I am building a quite small house.  Since I DIY and submitted no plans and can't get a C/O and likely cannot even get it insured, I do not think anyone with a conventional mortgage will be able to buy it, and if anyone does it will probably be someone like me with not a lot of money trying to get something as affordable as possible to survive in.

Therefore I built a small house.  If I were a real estate professional, I would want a larger house, since the economies are better and there is higher demand.

If the local authorities don't have a problem with a smaller house, and it meets your needs .. .go for itl  Yes, there can be made arguments about better costs per square foot if larger, but if one followed that reasoning they would end up with a hangar for an airship.  Build just large enough to meet your needs.  Less initial costs, mortgage, energy costs, maintenance, etc, etc.  If you want to build something larger in later years, your first house might be for rental, or inlaws, .. or the best man-cave in the county. 

My wife and I are somewhat new to the idea of home building but have been offered a great deal on some land (friends of ours who have been planning to subdivide their property). We've started to research our options, modular homes, construction loans, site prep and utility installation costs- and have been trying to budget out different scenarios.

We want to build a simple cottage/cabin as affordably as possible. Cost is a priority for sure, but we also don't want a large home for various reasons and have been thinking we'd be perfectly comfortable with ~800sqft.

I've been told by two separate people with experience (an excavator and a real estate agent) that it doesn't make sense to build a small house if we're also investing in site prep. I guess the argument is in terms of price per square foot being higher and resale value being lower on a small build? I don't really get it. I'm thinking everything is still cheaper on a smaller build overall- less materials, smaller foundation, etc. plus we don't want a big house. Is this short sighted thinking? Any thoughts or advice appreciated!

[spam link removed]

Probably a computer generated spam post.  I see them all the time!