|
|
|
|
|
by mothballed
288 days ago
|
|
>What did you actually end up avoiding that would cost so much? (yes means yes it was avoided) Architect/plans/structure permitting? yes yes partially yes (rubber stamp permit) Minimum space/setbacks? avoided square foot requirements, but there were required setbacks that were legally meaningless since they were smaller than the road easements. Grid hookups ? yes Merely skipping inspections, or did you skimp on actual code compliance? skipped inspections and code compliance was not checked. AZ, area with lots of stable jobs |
|
It sounds like the main cost savings was the square foot requirement? Literally just building less structure?
Then maybe followed by grid hookups, the cost of which would have been higher due to being in a less-developed area with cheaper land? With alternatives these days, grid hookups shouldn't really be required for any house, but the state walks on individuals with all the care of a human walking on ants.
Of course there's also the builder overhead, in that professional developers are making a profit based on what the market is willing to pay over the actual cost to build (due to cheap money loans).
To be clear by "code compliance" I meant building things still to code such that they would pass a hypothetical inspection, as opposed to "good enough works for me". Like for example I'd guess that an electric kitchen range will work just fine off of a 12-2 NM. The code has a large margin of safety because over time problems tend to multiply. I tend to do a lot of DIY electrical (legal here), but I make sure to follow the NEC so that an unexpected inspector would have a harder time declaring it "unsafe", so insurance doesn't have any argument that the work was derelict (not that this really matters), and primarily because I accept that I've got unknown unknowns and I don't want to die in a house fire.