Table of Contents
Introduction – Do we really know what we’re building, and why? (Audio Only)
In today’s audio post I’m questioning whether architects and designers are making building system decisions based on evidence – or just industry habit.
Not supplier incentives. Not “what we’ve always done.” But an actual, evidence-based reason for why timber frame over masonry was the right choice for that specific project remit.
Less than 1% of houses globally are designed for known clients. In New Zealand, 56% of homes, old and new, are officially too unhealthy to live in. Meanwhile, our clients research a $70,000 car more thoroughly than the million-dollar home they’re about to buy.
When the Canterbury earthquake hit, houses built with certain high-performance structural systems suffered mainly cosmetic damage – yet many traditional builds were completely destroyed.
How many of us ever question whether our structural choices could literally save lives?
The question our industry overlooks: Can we defend our most fundamental design decisions beyond code minimum? And what exactly are we selling our clients?
Audio Transcript
Do we really know what we’re building — and why?
Sounds like a silly question, doesn’t it? But let’s think about it.
Picture this: two houses, side by side. Same street, similar size, same ground conditions. Identical in every way — except one’s timber frame, the other’s brick and block.
Why?
What drove those choices?
It’s not the facade — you could put the same cedar weatherboard or brick skin on either.
If you’re a designer or builder, could you honestly justify your choice? Not “we’ve always done it this way”, not “the supplier pushed it” — but a clear, rational reason for that building system, for that client, in that place.
When I studied civil and structural engineering in the 90s, we only covered steel and reinforced concrete — commercial buildings. Multi‑storey offices, bridges, hospitals. Barely a word about housing.
Yet houses outnumber commercial buildings exponentially — and they still need proper engineering calcs. So why so little focus? Is it less risk to life, less money, less complexity — or just the assumption that “we only build one way here”?
The truth is, most people designing homes haven’t been trained to compare building systems — to weigh the merits and choose the one that best serves the client’s safety, comfort, and budget.
Here’s the kicker: less than 1% of houses worldwide are designed for known clients. The rest are speculation builds for people the developer will never meet.
So how do property developers optimise for health, comfort, or resilience when they’re juggling councils, planners, banks, suppliers, price hikes, and trades who aren’t overly efficient, or don’t turn up? What’s the “right” quality? Would you live in the houses you design or build?
In New Zealand, 56% of homes — including new builds — are officially classified as too unhealthy to live in, according to Asthma NZ. And yet their videos on the subject barely get the views and attention they deserve.
Recent US research found nearly two‑thirds of buyers think it’s not important for their house to have a strong foundation, walls, or roof. But a third said an updated kitchen is important. Granite worktops over structural integrity.
In the US, over 60% of buyers don’t bother with a structural survey. Three‑quarters of first‑time buyers compromise on space and quality just to get on the ladder. Four‑fifths move back in with parents to save for a deposit. Poor parents!
Globally, housing unaffordability is directly affecting birth rates.
And here’s why choosing the right building system matters:
In the 2011 Canterbury earthquake, which unfortunately killed 185 people, not one of the houses built using the structural system I chose for my own home suffered structural damage. Not one. Meanwhile, many traditionally built houses were damaged beyond repair or lost entirely. Could better building system choices saved lives?
So with over 20,000 earthquakes being registered in New Zealand on average each year, did any Christchurch homeowners ever question whether their homes were built to survive an earthquake of this magnitude? Probably not.
And unlike the car industry, where premium models often use higher‑quality parts, many “luxury” houses are built exactly the same way as budget ones — same methods, same materials — just bigger, in nicer locations, with fancier fittings.
We spend more time researching a $60,000 car — which loses value the moment you drive it away — than a million‑dollar house, which should appreciate if it’s well built.
So, here’s the challenge:
If you’re in the industry, when was the last time you truly justified your building system to a client?
If you’re a homeowner, do you care what your house is made of? Is it strong, resilient, safe, and healthy?
These choices affect your heating bills, your family’s air quality, whether your home will survive the next storm, or flood, and how much maintenance you’ll face in your spare time.
Right now, building is getting more expensive, we’re delivering smaller houses, with less profit for everyone. Builders aren’t making money, clients aren’t getting value, and the only happy people are the bankers — who know absolutely nothing about building. Remember, Bankers lend you an umbrella when it’s sunny — and ask for it back when it rains.
A friend once told me everyone should live in tiny houses, my retort, we punish criminals by putting them in small confined spaces you know. I lived on a boat for six months that was in the middle of vast empty oceans — but I couldn’t wait to get back to a proper house and a big garden.
The good news?
We’re developing tools to help solve these design and specification challenges. If you want to know more, visit buildreview.org or contact me directly.
So, I’ll leave you with one final question:
Do we really know what we’re building — and why?
Related
Discover & Diagnose: Building Systems Assessment
Building Systems 101 – Are you Making the Right Choice?
3 Building Systems Compared: SIPS, ICF, and Traditional Timber Framing
