excluding land cost of course.
I think we have a thread on this going back sometime.
and development charges, connection fees, septic tank, air tightness testing, . Also would now need renewable energy for compliance with building regulations. There are probably some other costs as well.
It was featured on the Dermot Bannon programme, awful ugly yolk.
Conventional wisdom says black shouldn’t be used for a house. As conventional wisdom changes, that view may change. There is a black house in the village I live in (an art gallery) and it looks quite attractive. As stephens says, it black blends in to the background. I predict that if it were used more, it would be accepted well. I would warn against making an opinion on something new before waiting to see how it actually ‘feels’ like living around one. First impressions, conventional wisdom and all that can be misleading
95% of rural houses built in the last 20 years are fugly, it’s gonna be hard to get worse than that. However, I’m not asking you to accept it’s not ugly, I’m suggesting to look at it from outside the box.
The revolutionary thing about this is not the design or the colour, it’s the fact that it can be done without a mortgage by most people, with no requirement for wet trades, so it can be done using help who are not skilled at soecialized elements of construction.
Separately, if form should follow function, this idea is a winner. No mortgage, hardly any heating bills, much more comfortable to live in than 90% of the existing stock, and plenty of light into the living area.
Not having a mortgage gives you freedoms in life most people can only dream about.
What’s that got to do with the price of eggs? 
Agreed. What is great about the design and especially the fact that Dominic has left the plans available for the world is that it starts a discourse on what houses can be. The design of modern houses is very much dictated by the fact that banks lend money - and without that, people simply would not buy into how things are built.
The price of land etc. is also due to the amount of money that banks were willing to lend.
For me what is noticeable in particular in this house is the extent to which he has paid attention to reducing the costs of electrics, waste water and construction materials (see the usage of the panels and his foundation method for example).
In a normal one off house, those are simply non-issues for most people.
It would be fantastic to get the cost of housing down to a manageable level, a level where you could save for a few years and pay it off. This lifetime of debt thing is built upon alot of unnecessary cost.
Allow people freedom to design their own homes and we would see a revolution in design. Currently a property must be similiar to existing property in an area. Nonsensical, outdated, parochial, backward thinking. Worst of all it smothers new thinking and innovation.
I wouldn’t say that is true. There are very few planners I know who actually follow that rule. There is a thing of “if houses here are generally 2 storey, yours should be too” - but that’s about it.
Which is where site value tax comes in. Thus you pay yearly .Even better, you stop paying this money to speculators, developers, estate agents, auctioneers, armies of property middle men, and various politicians gathered around the ‘trough’. Instead, the rightful beneficiaries get the benefit. ie. all people who live in this country. And no mortgage needed.
Site value tax is on top of the other charges. Not in substitution.
And if they are pebble-dashed, then yours must be too…
And if the have concrete gate pillars, then yours must too…
And if they have slate roofs, then yours must too…
I think it’s apt to thank Dominic for making his plans and experiences public. We need much more of this sort of thing, not just in the construction industry.
The thing is only about 40 sq m.
I’d say closer to 100 incl upstairs
Surely would be cost effective to make the frame wider, or would that reduce structural integrity too much?
I wouldnt mind it being twice the size if there was a frame on view indoors.
I dont think there are many limitations on size, but simiplicity is key for keeping costs down, as well as heat loss. Increasing the building up to say 150sq m shouldnt add more than another 10k on to the cost,
If it hasn’t been noted already the black is the increase solar energy.
Enduring design, effective design, universal design, brilliant design, living sustain design and so forth is nothing less than striving for equilibrium between beauty and function, replicating the genius of universe.
That’s about all we need in terms of planning laws, design laws and so on in that we don’t need any other than the appreciation of universal law.
Its finite system with infinite iterations. Anything other is is irrelevant a novel distraction for learning purposes on the path to equilibrium.
What I love about his approach is exactly the same one I’ve had in my head for years. Not a concrete flor plate but simple raised mounted structure on smaller concrete feet. They don’t seem to be more than slabs. No radon worries I guess either!
I think this concept can be taken further to a point where a house can have both a detachable platform of non-invasive pylons using alternative materials than even concrete which means that if you are not happy you can reposition your living accommodation. The idea of planting some immovable is absurd with all we know now.
I like the way he has used the form of 8x4 sheets to dictate somewhat the design + as an aesthetic, to a point. There is little need for cutting equaling less waste and the idea of making walls out of brick these days is a costly flat-world-thinking mistake. MASS doe not equally QUALITY.
Quality trumps quantity through synergistic design.
I would also approach any design with 8x4 sheeting as a formal base unit. I would also employ the golden ratio.
However I think using the very formal shape he has wasted materials but more importantly design opportunity!
I am not gone on the joicing approach. Old and new concepts of carpentry could have been used very well here and I see a far to architecturally linear thinking.
I can’t fully see it but the kitchen appears to be located in the belly of the house, an interesting idea but a windowless kitchen is really a very bad idea. Do I need to explain why 
(apologies if I have that wrong)
I am optimistic and delighted to see this as much as I was when it was originally posted some time ago and I think has shown what was widely believed by many but they had no real example to point to. In that it is priceless. Our vernacular needs to start again and our creativity allowed engage.
I also know that if we can all get ourselves beyond this highly inefficient concept of owning land as opposed to owning our freedom to allow responsible approaches to how we live on the land we can break free of the dying system and achieve something far greater than even exist today and is required to move to higher planes of great total understanding.
Overall however I think this is great.
You have to trust your instinct and the instinct of others otherwise you’ll end up eternally frustrated.
A correction to the above post I can now see from the plans there is small window in the kitchen. Hurray! 