Those who would be able to build a home by custom-building, or in the age-old folk tradition of building in a kalaka* (mutual house building by a community), and who are financially able to do so by incorporating natural materials that are cheap but environmentally friendly and energy-saving, face bureaucratic obstacles. As a result, they are forced to resort to more expensive prefabricated industrial solutions, even if they could, because of their practicality, create their own housing.
Balaton-Highlands-style thatched half-timbered house – inspiration picture (if you open the article you will find more fairytale houses!)
On the one hand, the bureaucratisation of construction is completely understandable, I believe that this is the way construction and housing security is supposed to be demanded, but on the other hand, if one can experience the bureaucracy of a prosperous country, i.e. as a way to imagine belonging to some developed country, whereas in contrast, for a good part of the population of such a country, it is an undue financial burden, or decades of indebtedness, in exchange for this construction security.
In the old days, people (family and friends) used to build each other’s houses, and the practice of building was passed down from father to son, using simple natural knowledge. True, with much less modern (but more natural) materials, with more puritan living conditions, but more environmentally friendly. Now, with advances in technology and bureaucracy, all this popular knowledge is disappearing. Whereas even in the 1980s it was quite natural to build a family house with a kalak, now those who dare to do so – are slowly becoming some kind of exotic caveman, admired by the people of the internet.
This problem illustrates the duality of modern architecture and regulation: the desire to guarantee safety and quality can be at odds with individual possibilities, local traditions and low-budget but sustainable solutions. The tradition of the kalaka (community building) was a unique asset that not only made home building affordable, but also served to foster community spirit.
Shingle-roofed forest log cabin – inspiration image
1. The contradiction between modern building codes and natural materials
- Security and rules:
Modern building codes aim to guarantee housing security for all, but they often come at a cost and with technical requirements that make home building impossible. - Lack of certification of natural materials:
Natural materials, such as straw, earth or adobe, do not meet today’s standards because they are not uniform and cannot always be tested in the same way as industrially produced building materials. - Bureaucratic barriers:
Certificates, permits and inspections required by building authorities virtually rule out the use of traditional building technologies, even if they are proven to be long-lasting and sustainable.
Shingle-roofed forest house with masonry in natural stone – inspirational image
2. The loss of vernacular building knowledge
In the past, building knowledge was passed down from generation to generation, and this knowledge included not only how to handle materials, but also how to adapt to the environment. For example:
- Loam, straw or stone were locally available and people knew how to build houses from them.
- The kalakha system ensured that the community worked together, reducing the financial burden.
However, with the advent of modern building materials and technologies, this knowledge has slowly disappeared as it is no longer needed in practice. People are becoming increasingly dependent on industrially produced building materials, often only skilled people can use them professionally.
3. The problem of the financial burden and the debt spiral
Indebtedness is one of the most serious social problems of modern construction, especially in countries where the gap between incomes and construction costs is huge:
- People are forced to take out loans to meet building codes and requirements, which places a long-term financial burden on them.
- Industrial solutions, while they may be safer and more durable, are much more expensive than locally available natural materials.
Tiled-roofed country house with boarded gable wall, mortared stone or adobe walls – inspiration picture
4. What can be done?
Several solutions could be envisaged to improve the situation (Imagination is limited only by reality):
- Standardisation of traditional technologies:
If certain natural materials and technologies could be standardised (e.g. in the form of certified building systems for adobe or straw), this would allow their wider use. - Support programmes:
The use of traditional building technologies could be supported by the state or other organisations, for example through training programmes, material subsidies or concessionary regulation. - Revival of Kalakha:
Although it is difficult to reintroduce community building in the modern world, it could still work in small villages or self-sustaining communities if local regulations were more permissive.
Shingle-roofed, but cone-roofed, shingled gable-roofed, weatherboarded, or adobe-roofed country house – inspiration picture
5. Balance between modernity and tradition
The key question is how to strike a balance between modern building codes, reducing the financial burden and using sustainable, natural materials. This would require:
- Flexible controls to allow for individual design.
- Community programmes that support the preservation of local traditions.
- Educating people so that traditional building techniques are once again part of public thinking.
Modern bureaucracies often push the independent use of natural materials behind environmentally conscious building guidelines, and instead encourage profit-oriented industrial actors to develop sustainable technologies, which paradoxically contradicts genuine eco-political principles.
* “Kaláka” is a Hungarian term for a form of community work where people (family members and friends) come together to work towards a common goal – building a fraud house – and help each other.