I went and looked at some of these modular homes, and found they are
very costly compared to stick built homes. But the sales people
insisted they are better. I was allowed to go to one of the sites
where they were placing a home on the foundation. What I saw was a
house built of all sorts of oddly sized lumber covered with lots of
particle board. The roofs are hinged and when they are lifted into
place, they are extremely flimsy. The siding is plastic, and looked
cheap. The amount of damage that occurred during setting the home on
the foundation was hard to believe. They cracked some of the sill
plates, busted off the pvc sewer drain pipes, ripped out some wiring
and crushed at least half of the furnace ducting. The walls cracked
noticably, and when the roof was hinged into place, several rows of
shingles were torn and damaged. The guys doing the work said this was
all normal and they repair everything after the house is set.

I dont know about you, but a new home should not be patched together
and require a hundred or more repairs.

I also noticed that they joining walls end up being almost 10 inches
thick and consist of way too much lumber. In fact, in order to keep
these homes in one piece during the move, they all consist of way too
much lumber. In the end, the house looks attractive, but they are not
structurally sound, and are filled with flaws, patched items and other
defects.

I decided that I will build a stick built home which will be superior
and in the end, much less costly. I know my home will outlast all of
those modulars too.

J Tamier

I heard rumors these homes are of poor quality. They look great on the
outside. Posts like this can save you so many problems if you take the time
and do some research.

miker


wrote in message
...
I went and looked at some of these modular homes, and found they are
very costly compared to stick built homes. But the sales people
insisted they are better. I was allowed to go to one of the sites
where they were placing a home on the foundation. What I saw was a
house built of all sorts of oddly sized lumber covered with lots of
particle board. The roofs are hinged and when they are lifted into
place, they are extremely flimsy. The siding is plastic, and looked
cheap. The amount of damage that occurred during setting the home on
the foundation was hard to believe. They cracked some of the sill
plates, busted off the pvc sewer drain pipes, ripped out some wiring
and crushed at least half of the furnace ducting. The walls cracked
noticably, and when the roof was hinged into place, several rows of
shingles were torn and damaged. The guys doing the work said this was
all normal and they repair everything after the house is set.

I dont know about you, but a new home should not be patched together
and require a hundred or more repairs.

I also noticed that they joining walls end up being almost 10 inches
thick and consist of way too much lumber. In fact, in order to keep
these homes in one piece during the move, they all consist of way too
much lumber. In the end, the house looks attractive, but they are not
structurally sound, and are filled with flaws, patched items and other
defects.

I decided that I will build a stick built home which will be superior
and in the end, much less costly. I know my home will outlast all of
those modulars too.

J Tamier

miker wrote:

I heard rumors these homes are of poor quality. They look great on the
outside. Posts like this can save you so many problems if you take the time
and do some research.

miker

Posts like this typically represent nothing more than the rantings of a
paranoid low end site builder and are utterly worthless.

Just like with site builders, quality varies tremendously which is why
you have to carefully investigate any builder you are considering,
whether they are site built or modular. Whether site built or modular,
outside of the few builders using SIPs, both type are "stick" built.

The modular are "stick" built inside a very large building using
accurate jigs and cutting and are protected from weather. This means
that despite the false claims of "waste" and excess material at section
joints, they actually save material by eliminating the typical site
built waste from mistakes and less than ideal cuts.

The modular do have the limitations of transportable size to contend
with, but this doesn't affect quality, it only affects design options.
Even here, the high end modular homes often include site built portions
for design elements that are too big to transport effectively in a
factory built configuration.

Since everyone builds to the same building code, all of the homes
whether site built, modular or hybrid are entirely safe, structurally
sound and to code. High end homes of either type typically exceed code
requirements by a significant amount, giving the impression that the
lower end homes are sub standard, but this is simply not the case.

For any given quality level a modular home is often superior in
measurable ways, from more precise framing, to faster construction with
lower labor costs, to the elimination of the risk of having your freshly
framed house rained on before it is sheathed and closed in. It even
eliminates most of the builders and subcontractors risk of tools stolen
from the job site.

I have heard from several other people, not just this forum post that
modular homes are not the way to go. Its true that the quality can vary from
different builders by having it just meet code is scary. I remember one guy
telling me that you can actually break into one of these homes with an xacto
knife. The hightech lightweight materials used today make it easy. How knows
it these is any thruth to this but it made me laugh.

miker



"Pete C." wrote in message
...
miker wrote:

I heard rumors these homes are of poor quality. They look great on the
outside. Posts like this can save you so many problems if you take the
time
and do some research.

miker

Posts like this typically represent nothing more than the rantings of a
paranoid low end site builder and are utterly worthless.

Just like with site builders, quality varies tremendously which is why
you have to carefully investigate any builder you are considering,
whether they are site built or modular. Whether site built or modular,
outside of the few builders using SIPs, both type are "stick" built.

The modular are "stick" built inside a very large building using
accurate jigs and cutting and are protected from weather. This means
that despite the false claims of "waste" and excess material at section
joints, they actually save material by eliminating the typical site
built waste from mistakes and less than ideal cuts.

The modular do have the limitations of transportable size to contend
with, but this doesn't affect quality, it only affects design options.
Even here, the high end modular homes often include site built portions
for design elements that are too big to transport effectively in a
factory built configuration.

Since everyone builds to the same building code, all of the homes
whether site built, modular or hybrid are entirely safe, structurally
sound and to code. High end homes of either type typically exceed code
requirements by a significant amount, giving the impression that the
lower end homes are sub standard, but this is simply not the case.

For any given quality level a modular home is often superior in
measurable ways, from more precise framing, to faster construction with
lower labor costs, to the elimination of the risk of having your freshly
framed house rained on before it is sheathed and closed in. It even
eliminates most of the builders and subcontractors risk of tools stolen
from the job site.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:42:54 GMT, "miker"
wrote:

I heard rumors these homes are of poor quality. They look great on the
outside. Posts like this can save you so many problems if you take the time
and do some research.

miker


wrote in message
.. .
I went and looked at some of these modular homes, and found they are
very costly compared to stick built homes. But the sales people
insisted they are better. I was allowed to go to one of the sites
where they were placing a home on the foundation. What I saw was a
house built of all sorts of oddly sized lumber covered with lots of
particle board. The roofs are hinged and when they are lifted into
place, they are extremely flimsy. The siding is plastic, and looked
cheap. The amount of damage that occurred during setting the home on
the foundation was hard to believe. They cracked some of the sill
plates, busted off the pvc sewer drain pipes, ripped out some wiring
and crushed at least half of the furnace ducting. The walls cracked
noticably, and when the roof was hinged into place, several rows of
shingles were torn and damaged. The guys doing the work said this was
all normal and they repair everything after the house is set.

I dont know about you, but a new home should not be patched together
and require a hundred or more repairs.

I also noticed that they joining walls end up being almost 10 inches
thick and consist of way too much lumber. In fact, in order to keep
these homes in one piece during the move, they all consist of way too
much lumber. In the end, the house looks attractive, but they are not
structurally sound, and are filled with flaws, patched items and other
defects.

I decided that I will build a stick built home which will be superior
and in the end, much less costly. I know my home will outlast all of
those modulars too.

J Tamier



I am not in the business as a builder at all. At the same time I know
how to build, and am capable of building my own home except the
foundation. I did my shopping and am telling what I found. As far as
doing the building inside being easier for the workers, I will agree
because there is not the chance of weather issues. I also know that
rain can cause problems when building a stick home. On the other
hand, people have built stick homes forever and they all survived. If
they are built properly, so the roof is covered before any interior
work, there should not be any problems.

These modular homes had 2x3 studs on the interior walls, where the
units connect together. They leave a large gap in between them. so
the end result is about a 10 inch thick wall, which is ugly and the
two halves are never fully attached, only the floor. I went back and
looked at the place when it was completed, since they had an "open
house". The roofing shingles that were patched did not match
precisely in color. The patched cracks in the walls were noticable,
several cabinet and room doors did nto fit right, the siding showed a
noticable patch where the two halves were joined, and the siding on
the two halves did not line up well, I saw the broken pipes in the
basement had been patched together with fernco couplings rather than
solid glue joints, and the crushed furnace duct still contained
sections that were dented and had been pounded out. The basement had
steel posts every 8 feet or so, which really cuts the basement up.
When I asked why there are so many posts, they said that it's required
on those homes, which tells me there is no real structural soundness,
since must stick built homes have 2 or 3 posts at most. The carpeting
which was installed at the factory was coated with mud from when it
was set, there was a ton of garbage that was apparently used to
protect and reinforce the pieces during shipping (and the buyer does
pay for all of that). I could go on with all the defects I saw.....

When they were setting the place, the workers just let things break
and really did not seem to care. Sure, there are probably other
companies that are more careful, but even if that's the case, I was
not at all impressed by these homes, and they cost a fortune compared
to traditional construction. I know I will never buy one of them. In
reality, they are nothing more than glorified large versions of
trailer homes.

wrote:

When they were setting the place, the workers just let things break
and really did not seem to care. Sure, there are probably other
companies that are more careful, but even if that's the case, I was
not at all impressed by these homes, and they cost a fortune compared
to traditional construction. I know I will never buy one of them. In
reality, they are nothing more than glorified large versions of
trailer homes.


Hmmm.... It sounds like your beef is with the installers....

OTOH, last time I checked, on a square foot basis, these homes cost
about 1/4 of a stick built home. You add HVAC, foundation, etc., and
the final cost is still about 60% of a stick built home. I'm not sure
where you get your figures.

miker wrote:

I have heard from several other people, not just this forum post that
modular homes are not the way to go.

Again, mostly rumor spread by site builders and bad experiences from low
end modular which is no better or worse than low end site built.

Its true that the quality can vary from
different builders by having it just meet code is scary.

There is nothing wrong with a home that "just meets code", unless you
overpay for it. Not everyone needs or can afford an overbuilt mansion.

I remember one guy
telling me that you can actually break into one of these homes with an xacto
knife.

That concept also applies to virtually all site built homes as well.
People try to secure the hell out of the obvious things like doors and
windows while ignoring other areas that are plenty vulnerable.

The hightech lightweight materials used today make it easy.

The same hightech lightweight materials use on most site built homes as
well.

How knows
it these is any thruth to this but it made me laugh.

The truth is that there are adequate homes and there are high end homes
and both classes can be found in both site and modular building
techniques.

CptDondo wrote:

wrote:

When they were setting the place, the workers just let things break
and really did not seem to care. Sure, there are probably other
companies that are more careful, but even if that's the case, I was
not at all impressed by these homes, and they cost a fortune compared
to traditional construction. I know I will never buy one of them. In
reality, they are nothing more than glorified large versions of
trailer homes.


Hmmm.... It sounds like your beef is with the installers....

OTOH, last time I checked, on a square foot basis, these homes cost
about 1/4 of a stick built home. You add HVAC, foundation, etc., and
the final cost is still about 60% of a stick built home. I'm not sure
where you get your figures.

What figures? It's all hype and conjecture, perhaps based on looking at
a single example of a low end modular home.

Look at a comparable low end site built home and you'll find all the
same issues. Look at a high end home, site built or modular and you'll
find none of these issues.

The cost comments are of course wild nonsense as any examples of
comparable quality construction between site built and modular always
show significant cost savings with modular.

If I were to build a new home today, I would build it myself, using ICF
construction for much of it. I would rent a warehouse bay in a nearby
industrial area and I would "modular" build a good deal in this bay
myself to truck over to the site. It would be closer to "panelized"
construction so I could lift the sections with a rental telehandler
instead of a full fledged crane.

I heard rumors these homes are of poor quality. They look great on the
outside. Posts like this can save you so many problems if you take the time
and do some research.

miker

It would appear the OP has become convinced that 'modular' homes are
not built well?

There is one in our area that was delivered in two sections some 25+
years ago from its factory some 500 miles away. It looks completely
normal and apart from an approximately eight inch thick middle wall
appeared to be built to normal Canadian housing standards for a 'stick'
home. It has served its original and present owners without any
problems or sagging etc. It took less than a day to place it on its
previously poured concrete basement and no damage occurred. Within a
few days the electricity water and sewer was hooked up and people were
living in it.

I happened to visit the factory on other business and saw nothing that
was below standard or seemed to use excessive wood! Just ordinary
houses built all year round, each in two pieces etc. inside a big dry
ex-aircraft hangar.

I would emphasize this is a 'factory built home' not a factory built
sometimes called tow able or flat bed transportable 'mobile' home; some
of which are of the flimsy (per the reference to entry with a box
cutter utility knife!) construction akin to that of a cheap camper!

As people have built and bought more elaborate homes in recent years
the 'factory builts' never seemed to catch on in this province. Also at
that time period (1970s) I guess so many of us were willing and capable
with the help of a couple of local carpenters to 'build our own'. We
did twice (including wells and septic tanks) sticking with single
storey construction. And even now in my 70s I can maintain most of it
with just a step ladder.

Stick with simple construction; avoiding things such as roof dormers,
bay windows. Avoid if possible roof gutters by using a larger overhang
to get water away from footings, gutters cause rot in soffit edge
board. Make sure you have good drainage 'before' you pour (or concrete
block build your basement) Weeping tile and a sump essential most
places.

But IMO there is nothing wrong with modular construction. Many were
built to slightly more economical standards (e;g. slightly lower
ceilings to reduce heating cost) and were shipped to northern
communities. Also some 'design' modular homes have been built and
shipped from Canada to places such as Iceland, Denmark etc.

Personally have found that wood frame (either 2 by 4 or now more
commonly 2 by 6) homes are easy to build; easy to modify and maintain,
can be well insulated and stand up well in this cold windy climate.
Wood frame, with very occasionally some brick veneer, is the commonest
building method here. In our capital city and larger towns there many
traditionally built several storey wooden homes which are well over 100
years old. Most of them need ladders and safety ropes/slings to work on
their roofs and chimneys etc. We also have some flat roofed two storey
homes; some of which were built abutting each other quickly after a
major fire around 1895? Still in use but much modified many were built
with raw stick flattened on two sides to for nailing to. Some boards
are well over a foot wide; don't see lumber like that these days in
this norther climate.

Good luck.

In article ,
says...
I have heard from several other people, not just this forum post that
modular homes are not the way to go. Its true that the quality can vary from
different builders by having it just meet code is scary. I remember one guy
telling me that you can actually break into one of these homes with an xacto
knife. The hightech lightweight materials used today make it easy. How knows
it these is any thruth to this but it made me laugh.

I've seen stick-built houses the same way. Sheetrock interior,
studs/insulation, foam board, then vinyl siding.

--
Keith

krw wrote:

I've seen stick-built houses the same way. Sheetrock interior,
studs/insulation, foam board, then vinyl siding.

Yep. The US government is actually promoting this in order to reduce
the amount of wood used in a typical house, as well as to increase the
average R-value of a given wall.

There was an article in Fine Homebuilding a while back.

Chris

Here's the reality;

Stick-built home.... $250,000

Modular home..... $65,000

We all wish we could afford stick-built.


rj

In article ,
says...
|krw wrote:
|
| I've seen stick-built houses the same way. Sheetrock interior,
| studs/insulation, foam board, then vinyl siding.
|

The first time I saw this was a new house in 1982.
The technique scared the heck out of me.

In article ,
says...
In article ,
says...
|krw wrote:
|
| I've seen stick-built houses the same way. Sheetrock interior,
| studs/insulation, foam board, then vinyl siding.
|

The first time I saw this was a new house in 1982.

I saw it shortly after that.

The technique scared the heck out of me.

Likewise!

--
Keith

Looks to me like he is exagerating grossly the installer. Any
purchaser that accepted that disaster would be out of his mind.

As to the description of the constructions standards of that one house
he supposedly looked at - that builder would be out of business by the
time he sold only a few.

Harry K

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:11:06 GMT, Steven Stone
wrote:

In article ,
says...
|krw wrote:
|
| I've seen stick-built houses the same way. Sheetrock interior,
| studs/insulation, foam board, then vinyl siding.
|

The first time I saw this was a new house in 1982.
The technique scared the heck out of me.

I can't see why, as long as they're putting in
appropriate diagonal bracing.

Chris Friesen writes:
krw wrote:

I've seen stick-built houses the same way. Sheetrock interior,
studs/insulation, foam board, then vinyl siding.

Yep. The US government is actually promoting this in order to reduce
the amount of wood used in a typical house, as well as to increase the
average R-value of a given wall.

There was an article in Fine Homebuilding a while back.

Chris

Yeah, but if you are referring to the same Fine Homebuilding issue
that I am, then you may recall that the foam was on top of the wooden
sheathing (not in place of)