Cob house built for £ 150 (pounds)

[Windpower]

300 sq ft

Nice article here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513154/Farmer-builds-house-just-150-using-materials-skips--current-tenant-pays-rent-MILK.html

[flyingvan]

That's a really cool link, thanks for sharing that.  I know what a lorry is, but what's a 'skip'?

[MountainDon]

Dumpster

... but a hundred and fifty pounds of what?

[Windpower]

Pounds Sterling (I didn't know how to make the  £   symbol)

[MountainDon]

I really hope you didn't think I didn't know it was British currency. After all I knew a skip was a dumpster.   I was trying to be funny.     (that's for 'embarrassed'.

Probably should have used an appropriate smiley...  like     or something. 

[rick91351]

I think someone posted something about this or a 'hobbit' house in Ireland, Scotland or England a couple years ago.  I posted I like it and thought it to be a good idea, was really cool looking.  To which if I remember right was attacked cruelly by several that it would kill the children on the inside because not built to code and on and on.  Further sighting safety violations and on and on.  To which I laid awake and vowed never to return to this site and become a Tibetan Monk or one of those Holy Men that walk naked around India.  Which lasted about five minutes went to sleep and slept quite well if I remember right.  It was forgotten about until now.  I refuse to give an opinion lest I be cut down at the knees again and all hope in humanity lost.  That said I will not restate I like it - think it to be a good idea, it is really cool looking.               

[Don_P]

Well, ok, I think it's pretty cool.
The first though that came to mind on skip was the ore carts for our old iron furnaces... I guess they did sort of look like small dumpsters.

[hpinson]

Which brings me to a question I was pondering yesterday, whilst observing a 1920's 20x30 rough-board ranch house that by all logic should have fallen over years ago given its wooden foundation, but stands to this day...

Is there any provision in the USofA for historically accurate construction or reconstruction of historical buildings?  Say one wanted to build or repair a certain log cabin or pioneer home using historic technique? Could that legally be done?

Edit: I like it too... If the roof falls in they will get showered with straw.

[rick91351]

Indeed some mining and historical areas you are required to do so if repairing.  Building new you spent a ton of money to make it new but look old.   

Me and our pastor have been sort of talking with the county about building a late 1800 church up here.  It has been very informal and sort of dreaming.  But it seems they are willing to let us do so but there is a question if it can be done and hold meeting therein.  Services - weddings and funerals. 

There are still a few of those old clap board houses around even up here in the snow country.     

[hpinson]

What do you mean by a late 1800 church? Is there a particular structure you would model on or have in mind? It would be interesting to see.

Here's the structure I saw yesterday - I'm guessing vintage 1920 or 1930.  It is built on piles that do not appear sunk into the ground.  She is surprisingly straight considering.  The other side had found glass windows that a blast from a 12 gauge had not completely broken!

[Don_P]

When I've worked on old buildings I do my best to survey what needs to be done, have a sit down conversation with the building official and explain what I would like to do and how I intend to do it. That conversation drives the next conversation with the owner, we might have to back up and figure out a plan B. As the job progresses I keep them informed of what I've found and what I intend to do. If a structure is sound then it might be fine to just repair what is there in the same manner. If it was poorly done I don't feel bound by the original builders vision. If the building is on the historic register then there are rules and provisions and generally and architect or engineer overseeing it. In typical old rather than historic houses, very often the foundation, floor and roof system were poorly done to begin with and there is no point in trying to be historically accurate with the structure of the building as far as replacing in kind, that would be the repetition of a mistake. One log home I worked on had the remains of 2 poorly executed foundations, the replacement floor system was a repetition of the first and had also failed and it had a bad set of rafters that had bowed 3". I held up the log walls and replaced everything else as well as the bottom several rows of logs. Sure I could have taken the owner's money, attempted repairs, and left the same problems to resurface again, we had that discussion. For the vast majority of old houses I'm quite thankful we have laws against building them the way they used to.

Using the rough 1920's home as an example. You could not build it prescriptively. With the water having gone through it for some time I doubt you could repair it without an engineers blessing if it is an enforcement area. For building it new, it would take some changes but you could probably come close visually and be approved.

The reason thatch was largely discontinued was fire, although I have pictures my wife took in Holland of a thatcher at work putting a new roof on a centuries old house. If it hadn't been for his boom box up on the ridge it could have been a picture from 1500. There was research some years ago that I read about on a high silica straw that was somewhat fire resistant. I do like the look of thatch but it has some drawbacks.

The code does not preclude alternative methods and materials but it does put the burden of proving those methods or materials are capable of resisting current design loads on the builder. It doesn't make me happy to have to call in a grader or engineer to bless timbers I've harvested, sawn and joined but I do understand our litigious "somebody else must be at fault" society.

[hpinson]

That is one aspect structures like this, and that Lloyd Kahn documents, that I do not understand; they are lovely, fanciful, and seemingly livable structures that would never pass code, yet they fulfill the owners/builders intended purposes.  Do the owner/ builders of these structures just go ahead and build and risk getting called out by local authority? Do they get fined? Made to tear down their structures? Jailed?  How did this man in the OP pull off such an experimental build in what seems like probably a highly regulated suburban setting? Did he just start working and damn the consequences, and is now getting by on the charm of the structure and sympathy?

Intellectually I'm with you. I understand the need for code - that thatch roofing is a fire hazard, that roofs need to support loads, and why the foundation of the ranch house above is grossly inadequate.

I ran across a book recently which was a follow-up to the lives of owner/ builders who had built similar improvised structure's in the 1960's. I can't remember its name. One thing that struck me was that almost all of the original builders had moved on, leaving the [many] problems to the subsequent residents. However many of the homes were quite solid despite their quirks.

I'm not being very coherent here... I guess my question is, how do experimental owner/ builders, who are on a tight budget, get away with what they do? Or are those days over now?

[Windpower]

From the article

Interesting that the UK allows unregulated "summer houses" even though he is 'renting it out' for milk


"Mr Buck, a former art teacher, drew the plans for the house on the back of an envelope and did not need planning permission as it was classed as a summer house."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513154/Farmer-builds-house-just-150-using-materials-skips--current-tenant-pays-rent-MILK.html#ixzz2mJ442kpd
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[rick91351]

We have went from a very lax code enforcement up here like I have written repeatedly.  It has gone to a very complaint, to over complaint code enforcement up here in the higher elevations of this county.  To the point of no building permits were allowed without an engineering stamp.  Now it is seemingly coming back to the middle of the road so long as it is a pretty simple build without a lot of weird stuff going on and ..and the inclusion of engineered trusses and required footing - foundation.  The popular pier post idea of this forum are not allowed.  Footing and continuous stem walls or footings and slab or monolithic pours.  Footing and foundation inspections are required.       

However during this time period there we a few smaller dwellings that went in under the radar.  The one that comes light the most is an older couple that lost everything in the housing bubble.  They had land free and clear up here.  He tried the less that two hundred sq ft. dogtrot approach.  He built two dwellings not connected and not on a permanent foundation.  I told him the best I could that it 'aint go'a' to work because ______________.  Seems others were telling him he had the right to so long as they were under 200 sq ft and not connected.  So they dumped all they had left in to these two dwellings and lived there until this year.  Then the building inspector came calling.  Someone got upset and filled a formal complaint.  They were 'red tagged' as the owner builder explained.  They were forced out of their dwelling.  They were indeed threatened with a fine.  They indeed need to bring them up to code after purchasing a building permit.  And if not in compliance with the eviction jail time.   

The inspector who sometimes drops in to just talk and see what is going on.  In no official capacity told me that their best case is to just bunch it and burn it.  In other words hire a crawler and shove it in to a pile and burn it.  They were thrown together that bad that there was no lets just bring it up to date.  He felt bad for the couple but for their safety and the safety of others they were evicted and in effect condemned.  Since then I understand that the fine has been dropped.  He is on his good behavior and needs to keep it that way.

As far as the church we are sort of seeking to build nothing on paper yet.  Most likely it will not get built however there are several photos we were thinking of working around.  We  have even wondered about just using hand tools.  Wow no nail gun, no worm drive saw, no power cords, no genny.....    

[Don_P]

Technically alternative buildings require the blessing of a registered design professional. Like with all current enforcement your mileage will vary wildly.  I'm having my feet held tightly to the fire now over what is IMO clearly an ag exempt building. In another jurisdiction I timbered, sawed and used the trees and rocks from the site after a brief conversation and the inspector's blessing. I've been trained to the point where an engineer asked me for a grading lesson as he inspected my timbers. I've been to the top of the ladder in my state, that individual said he personally would allow me to do what I do without outside grading or third party inspection but it was up to the local BO, who shut that door. Do I blame them, not really. It is the people pushing every limit out of blindness to all but their self interest who cause the problem. The alternative construction most people have in mind in these discussions is beneath code minimums. Unknown to them it also hinders those who do alternative work well above those minimums, they're screwing everyone.

An example from our farmers market. We have certain exemptions, one of which is that in my state a person can sell certain baked goods from an uninspected kitchen at a farmers market. One of our vendors then went on to try to sell that product in a retail business. We re-informed them of the law, not as enforcement but as information, they complained and yet almost in the same breath complained about losing part of their packaging material to mice, part of their packaging... OK Solomons, tell me how you would deal with this poor person next time they bring food to sell at the market, exempt or not I now know it is a public health concern and if they do sicken someone it will not reflect just on them, it will affect everyone there. On the other side of that equation, I've done work in approved restaurant kitchens and didn't eat out for some time... enforcement varies. The same thing I've said here, I don't build for the inspector, I try to build correctly.

As far as the why of these things. Look at some recent disasters. The public complains about the slow government response. The government asks itself why it was so overwhelmed. When the forensic engineering comes back they see that the vast majority of failures were preventable. Those unneccesary failures overwhelmed the capacity to render timely aid and cost the public many tax dollars. They raise the bar. Why? The public complained, that's us folks.

[rick91351]

I so agree with Don_P on his statement "I don't build for the inspector, I try to build correctly."  When I was running rebar in the footing of the house we are building one of the porches the rebar did not allow for a proper measured over lap.  I made a cut, tossed out that portion and bent one that would allow the proper over lap without a lot more complex bending on long pieces of rebar.  A real pain in the hind end and can be done but takes a lot of time.  Ellen was watching and helping and said that is sure wasting a lot of rebar doing it that way.  I told her that IRC does not really care about wasted rebar it is more into building safety.   

Three things pop up:  Would the building inspector have caught that?  Very doubtful he would have even said much had he caught it.    Second I refused to cut any KNOWN corners building this house.  If I allowed it in my mind in the footing what would we be willing to omit or not do in the trusses and the between?  Three there was no waste in the rebar actually on down the footing some where a chunk or piece that was needed about that size it got used up.  In fact we have marveled that that has been so little wasted in all materials.   

Another thing that Don_P wrote about was AG exempt.  Interesting the take of two inspectors on this.  Builder Bob our old inspector required that AG exempt buildings be inspected.  On one of our current inspectors out of the office and off on a drive visits explained that Bob was all messed up on that.  Clearly county codification of that law shows if you fall with in the criteria and are granted a AG Exempt permit in effect you and the country both agree that you are on your own.  It can not be inspected and they in effect are held harmless. I wonder is there a half way point.....

 

[UK4X4]

The previous mentioned UK house with the spiral roof construction.....had no planning permission and they are in the middle of fighting a demolition  order....

Summer house---pretty sure if its fully habitable and is being lived in - it too will be against planning regulations

Hope their local inpsector reads the Sun rather than the daily mail...

heres the Hobbit house article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382684/Charlie-Hague-Megan-Williams-told-pull-hobbit-home-entirely-natural-materials.html

[hpinson]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting the link. It is a footnote that well answers my question. 

[Squirl]

Thanks for the article.  I always find that interesting.  It is easy for people to put something on the internet and everybody goes ooo and ahhh, but there is no follow up.  Does it fall down, get torn down, rot, burn?  People don't usually highlight their failures and mistakes.

I do love the look of cob and thatch.  I think the house is very pretty.  Based purely on the picture, those poles look a little light for my tastes and I wouldn't choose to live in that one.  I would like to use cob to build an uninhabited outbuilding someday.  Maybe something like a small animal shelter.

You can usually get a variance to rebuild many structures with historical accuracy.  Like Don_P mentioned, it is up to you to prove that it is safe.  Hand sawn lumber or split shingle roof, probably pretty easy to get a variance.  Knob and tube wiring or asbestos siding probably isn't going to fly.

[Don_P]

That's a shame, I'm sorry they'll be losing their home.
Here is our old thread on that house. Some construction photos are there.
http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=11553.msg148273#msg148273

another old thread popped up with more on that framing type
http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=7903.5

Hand sawn lumber or split shingle roof, probably pretty easy to get a variance.

Brought up a memory... one of our local designers was working on a historic register house in Richmond and had lined up one of our old time craftsmen to split out replacement white oak shingles to replace the original material in kind. Yup...wood shakes gotta be graded.