More Building Matters
For many years, and including a few recent articles here on GBA, I’ve written about building truly affordable homes—starter homes, not the euphemistic “attainable” or “workforce” housing we hear about today. The shift in language reflects a deeper issue: we’ve abandoned affordable housing. It’s not that demand has disappeared; many builders have stopped trying.
Achieving Affordable High-Performance Homes – GreenBuildingAdvisor
The Past and Future of Self-Building – GreenBuildingAdvisor
Building Affordable Houses—20 Years Later – GreenBuildingAdvisor
Some blame rising costs, but I think it’s also a lack of knowledge. I still build affordably. When I began, I had no choice—I had little money. I learned to build on a shoestring budget, and in the process I discovered something deeper: housing is a gift. Helping someone take that first step on the housing ladder is one of the most meaningful things a builder can do.
Architect Andres Duany says that housing affordability is today’s single greatest architectural challenge. He’s recommended me as a value-engineering consultant to builders struggling with cost. Just yesterday I spent the day helping an HOA in Seattle lower the price of a renovation. Lowering costs is critical. For many buyers—especially young ones—price is the single most important factor. If we want to build homes that those who read GBA would admire—homes that are comfortable, durable, energy-efficient, and low carbon, for more than the few wealthy people we build them for now—building affordable is paramount.
Despite a pressing and nearly desperate demand, the challenge of producing low-cost housing has intensified, leading some (but not all) to declare it an unattainable goal. Yet my commitment to affordable housing has remained steadfast. Over the years, I’ve developed further strategies to reduce costs and enhance construction efficiency. The homes I initially built and…
Weekly Newsletter
Get building science and energy efficiency advice, plus special offers, in your inbox.
This article is only available to GBA Prime Members
Sign up for a free trial and get instant access to this article as well as GBA’s complete library of premium articles and construction details.
Start Free TrialAlready a member? Log in
15 Comments
As always, Ruiz provides a thought provoking piece. I want to highlight a few points.
In the section "Affordable Layout" he describes the American Foursquare, a solution that goes back 2 centuries. Isn't it interesting that problems we face today we solved 2 centuries ago? One more element that makes it economical is that it typically has a structural wall dividing the plan roughly in half, thereby reducing the floor and roof spans and allowing for smaller lumber. In addition to the MEP efficiencies Ruiz mentions I would add, eliminate the basement. Build on a slab on grade (or piers as he suggests). With frost protection this can be done in any climate and on the vast majority of soils. Basement cubage built to a reasonable standard almost certainly costs more per unit volume. Instead, work a mechanical room into the ground level of the house. If you live in Tornado Alley consider making it or a large closet space into a safe space.
By the way, Frank Lloyd Wright's "Fireproof House for $5000" was also an American Foursquare, just given his special imaginative twist.
Lennar's Henley, at 661 sq.ft. and $148,000 price tag comes to $224 per sq.ft. Their other, larger models, come in at almost the identical unit price. So, unfortunately this solution means simply spending less to get less. It doesn't represent an actual increase in economic efficiency. (I was tempted to go on a political rant here but deleted it.)
The R30 wall and continuous exterior insulation are certainly adding cost and complication to new construction.
I don't think spending less to get less (the smaller house at the same price/sf) is necessarily a bad thing though, if the house fits a need. I don't need a large SUV to shuttle around myself and my wife, so I buy a more practical sized vehicle at a proportionally lower price point. If I don't have kids, and don't need the 2500-3500 sqft house that my local market is almost exclusively building, I (likely unsuccessfully) try to find a smaller house.
A smaller house doesn't have to be both smaller and value engineered, to fit a need.
Hi Chris, great point. I totally agree on the need for a wider variety of housing types, including small homes like the Henley model mentioned in the article. I'm also happy to see Lennar doing away with the garage. More homes in mild climates could certainly do without the massive garages that are the norm. In my very small design business I always encourage clients to reconsider garages, in favor of carports. If they plan on using the garage as a shop space or for storage then I suggest they're better off designing space for those needs. Usually the advice takes.
Where is your practice? I love the idea of smaller houses and I'm wondering if you're getting some buy in from your clients in that too?
Jollygreen and Chris in NC, I have nothing to add to your thoughtful comments — enjoy reading the conversation and learning some new angles. Thank you both for reading and contributing to the conversation.
Fernando,
I agree with you and Andres - this is the fundamental building issue of our times, with huge societal implications. Good for you for making a career out of engaging with it.
One of the biggest problems I'm running up against are that the fixed costs for a house here are the same whether you build something small and affordable, or something much larger.
Land and servicing costs are fairly independent of house size, and our approval process now necessitates a growing list of consultants (designer, structural and geotechnical engineers, ecologists, and energy modellers) regardless of what is proposed.
One thing I think makes sense when you are consciously building to a basic standard, is to design in both easy access to things that might get upgraded later, and the possibility of expanding the house later on.
Fernando, first off, I’m a huge fan of your work and your willingness to share it, thank you!
That said, regarding the opening paragraph, the differing terminology is not that workforce and attainable housing are necessarily compromised versions of “affordable” housing; it’s that the nomenclature is evolving.
You, like many others, are still using “affordable” as a blanket label for lower cost (in your case VERY low cost) housing. But the trend is for its use to be limited to “capital A Affordable”, deed restricted housing tied to AMI, whether through LIHTC, inclusionary zoning, or other programs.
Workforce housing typically refers to non-deed restricted housing for households at 80–120% of AMI, and attainable housing has become the new umbrella term for what used to be called affordable: housing regular people can realistically afford, regardless of restrictions.
So when projects are described as workforce or attainable, they may or may not be at a lower price point than what has historically been called “affordable” homes, they’re just using the more modern, nuanced vocabulary.
Dear Malcolm,
Reducing construction costs while working with subcontractors is no small task. I’ve always approached it by building my own in-house crews and partnering with subs who buy into the vision of affordable housing. The key is allowing them to carve out a margin through repetition and efficiency. It takes persistence—and a fair amount of salesmanship with both subs and suppliers. You’ll kiss a lot of frogs. But five years in, you’ve got a lean, mean, affordable construction machine.
You raise a crucial point: “...design in both easy access to things that might get upgraded later.” I’ve always anticipated future improvements in two ways. First, I’d design for optional expansions—larger decks, added bathrooms, room extensions—tailored to lot size and layout. Buyers almost never pursued them (I recall only one), but the latent possibility helped close the sale. It reassured buyers they could grow into the house if it wasn’t quite their dream at move-in.
Second, I drew a clear line between what’s easy to upgrade and what’s not. Ceiling lights? Go cheap. Shower valves? Spend the money. If it’s buried in the wall or expensive to revisit, install quality up front. If it’s visible and simple to swap later, save the budget. That principle served me well.
Yes, Bcade. I understand, and it troubles me deeply. There’s a saying: “Nobody wants affordable.” Why? Because it implies poor people—and we don’t like poor people, especially in our neighborhoods. I’ve worked on many projects with nonprofit partners, but always on a small scale: simple homes, duplexes, modest multifamily—not the massive LIHTC-style developments. I know developers who do those. Their “affordable units” often cost close to $1 million per front door.
It’s not the residents I object to—it’s the method. I share your discomfort with how we currently build subsidized housing. Maybe the problem starts with language. Instead of “affordable,” we should say “highly subsidized housing,” and drop “affordable” altogether when referring to this type of public housing. The term has been stretched so far it no longer means what most people think it does.
I’ve also grown cynical about euphemisms like “attainable” or “achievable.” Too often, builders begin with the intention of delivering something genuinely affordable, fail to hit the mark, and then shift the language to match the revised price point. It’s not just misleading—it erodes trust.
Great article as always Fernando. I have a spec sitting and just the other morning I texted a friend that perhaps I didn't heed your advice on page 10 of Building an Affordable House enough:
"Before designing your home, you have to research your market and decide who you're building for. You can guarantee the broadest appeal by staying within the boundaries of good taste - as defined by the community you're building for... The neighborhood you're building in represents your best guide to the local market. Most buyers and bankers prefer plain vanilla when it comes to housing. This conservative approach offends some designers and creative builders who are out to change the world. If you're one of these, have at it. You'll get over it after your first foreclosure. Your buyer's aesthetic needs to come first, not yours. But if your market demands innovation, and some do, then provide it."
Ouch. :)
I too have thought a foursquare on a slab is the perfect base for low cost, high value construction.
Can anyone add to my list of where high performance and affordable building intersect?
Simple shapes
Designed HVAC including ductwork in the conditioned space, a central return, short supply runs, and a right sized system.
Dryer and cooktop make up air provided by a window
Advanced Framing
Unconditioned vented attic
Consolidated plumbing
Sheet sidings like vinyl and steel
Range hoods cost $150 and greatly improve indoor air quality, which leads directly to occupant health. They should never be omitted on any project.
Otherwise I like your list ;-)
Right, window for passive make up air purposes if the home were tight enough to require it. :)
Agreed
Hi thomaskansas,
When people ask me how to merge affordability and high performance, I tell them: you can’t do both fully. Not at once. You have to choose your tilt—decide how much weight you give to each. If affordability is your priority, devote 80% of your effort to driving down cost and 20% to boosting performance. You’ll find smart trade-offs, just like the ones you outlined.
In some markets—like the Northeast—performance sells. In others, like the Midwest where I built for years, there was little buyer demand for “green.” So I focused on measures that both saved money and improved function: beefed-up insulation to reduce HVAC size, better windows to avoid warranty calls. Had the market cared more, I would’ve done more. That’s the point: know your buyer. Don’t design spec homes for yourself.
For example, I’m deeply invested in New Urbanism. But in my affordable homes, I always included a garage—one or two cars—because for many buyers, especially those upgrading from apartments, walking groceries through the rain was a dealbreaker. The garage was often the reason they bought. My Vietnamese buyers valued an enclosed kitchen with a properly vented range hood. I was the only builder offering both at the lower end. Other builders were designing for their own lifestyle—open kitchens and no ventilation. My personal home is nothing like these houses. But when I’m not the buyer, my preferences don’t matter much. That’s how you deliver what people actually want.
Adding to your list:
Air Sealing First, Insulation Second – A tight envelope yields the biggest energy gains per dollar. Focus on sealing top plates, rim joists, and penetrations before adding more R-value.
Mini-split HVAC Systems – In smaller homes, ductless or ducted mini-splits eliminate bulky ductwork, reduce material costs, and improve efficiency—especially when combined with compact floorplans.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply Fernando!
Log in or become a member to post a comment.
Sign up Log in