Is pier and beam the answer to high housing costs?

[HitRed]

I have not seen a pier and beam home here (Texas) younger than 50 years. Maybe they are still being built. Just not aware of it. Even Habitat Homes here have concrete foundations.

There are lots of advantages to pier and beam. No excavation. No or little concrete. Easy access to plumbing and areas under the house. Easy to adjust if the soil under the house is moving.

[Dukasaur]

There are some disadvantages, as well. Debris accumulates, and is difficult to clear out. Animals make homes there, and are similarly difficult to remove. The method works fairly well in climates that are warm or moderate all year round, but in cold climates the loss of heat is tremendous.

In any case, high housing costs have little to do with the cost of construction. Most of the cost of housing reflects the decades of land speculation which have ratcheted up the price of land to far above its economic equilibrium point.

The second major cost is rampant money-wasting at the municipal level, and the fact that most municipalities use houses as a cash cow to squeeze for cost overruns at city hall.

Construction costs are only the third-highest contributor to the cost of housing. They are not insignificant, but reducing them won't do much while #1 and #2 continue to burn hot.

[KoolBak]

They are typically not qualified for earthquake insurance.

Most homes here (without basements) are built with a concrete outer foundation ring and post / pier central construction for earthquake qualification / cost mitigation.

Your picture is of shed foundations, not homes.