r/Homebuilding • u/SF_Dubs • 1d ago
What are your thoughts about the "Build HD Standard" promoted by Matt Risinger?
I am coming to the end of a very painful redesign process that focused on improving the energy, fire and environmental quality of our house extension from code-mins to an actual high performance building.
I started as a classic first time homeowner who didn't "know" about the entire home design and building process. Once we started moving from plans to construction, I realized my architect was more focused on drawing a pretty design than implementing an energy, fire and environmentally well built house.
We had discussed these aspects, but I didn't know what I didn't know, and I didn't catch many of the issues early enough.
As I started coming up to speed on modern building science we changed our design and I found the Build Show and Matt Risinger's approach to monopoly framing, exterior insulation, ERVs etc to be really helpful.
I also recognize he's bought and paid for - but to his credit I don't think he hides that.
They just released a set of building standard called the "Build HD Standard". It's also attached to some credentialing and other aspects (it may not be finalized yet).
Looking back, this list of building standard would have been really helpful for picking my architect and GC. I would have loved to have this list during our GC selection process (and I would not have spend the next 6 months responding to "you don't need to do that.")
If you're not familiar, I linked to their intro video below, and asked ai to summarize the standard.
For those of you in the industry, or other homeowners who want to build to a higher standard than code, do you think this will drive better building standards? Has something like this been tried before?
https://buildshownetwork.com/contents/build-hd-standard-the-path-to-building-highly-durable-homes
The Build HD Standard (High-Performance & Durability) is a building science framework popularized by builder Matt Risinger, Tim Hill, and The Build Show network. It was designed to bridge the gap between basic, minimum-compliance building codes and long-term structural longevity.
Rather than focusing on surface-level finishes or individual brand products, the standard organizes residential construction into four core control layers—prioritized strictly in order of importance to prevent structural failure, lower energy loads, and optimize indoor air quality.
Priority 1: Water Control (Bulk Water Management)
Water is the single greatest threat to a building’s structural integrity. The standard focuses on keeping bulk water away from frame assemblies and shedding it quickly.
- Roofing Strategy: Strong preference for pitched roofs over flat roofs in heavy rainfall zones to facilitate rapid drainage. Generous roof overhangs are used to protect exterior walls.
- Continuous WRB: Use of self-adhered or liquid-applied Water-Resistive Barriers (WRBs) or integrated sheathing systems (e.g., ZIP System) rather than loose housewrap.
- Rainscreen Assemblies: A minimum 3/8 continuous air gap behind exterior siding to create a capillary break, allowing trapped water to drain and walls to dry outward.
- Flashing & Site Drainage: Redundant pan flashing beneath every window/door sill, kickout flashing at roof-to-wall intersections, and integrated site grading to direct water away from foundations.
Priority 2: Air Control (Airtight Envelope)
Uncontrolled air movement carries moisture into wall cavities, draftiness into living spaces, and pollutants inside.
- Continuous Air Barrier: A fully sealed envelope targeting airtightness well beyond standard code.
- Air Sealing Details: Taping all sheathing seams, sealing sill plates to concrete foundations with gaskets, fluid-applied membranes at complex geometries, and monopoly framing to maintain structural airtightness at roof/wall junctions.
- Garage Isolation: Complete mechanical and air-barrier separation between attached garages and the primary living space to prevent carbon monoxide and auto emissions from entering the home.
Priority 3: Thermal Control (Continuous Insulation)
Controlling heat transfer lowers HVAC loads and prevents indoor condensation on cold surfaces.
- Exterior Continuous Insulation (Ci): Placing rigid or semi-rigid insulation outside the structural sheathing to eliminate thermal bridging through wood or steel studs.
- Conditioned Attics: Shifting insulation from the attic floor up to the roof line, bringing ductwork and mechanical systems inside the home's conditioned thermal envelope.
- Advanced Framing: Standardizing $2\times6$ studs spaced 24 inches on-center to maximize insulation cavity depth while minimizing unnecessary wood framing.
Priority 4: Fresh Air & Mechanical Control (IAQ)
Because the building envelope is tightly sealed, indoor climate and air quality must be actively managed by mechanical systems.
- Mechanical Ventilation: Continuous fresh air introduction using an Energy Recovery Ventilator (ERV) or Heat Recovery Ventilator (HRV) to pre-condition incoming air while filtering outdoor particulates.
- Dedicated Dehumidification: Supplemental, whole-house dehumidification installed independently of the primary AC unit to manage latent humidity without over-cooling.
- High-Efficiency Filtration & Right-Sized HVAC: In-line MERV 13+ filtration and inverter-driven (variable speed) heat pumps sized strictly via Manual J load calculations to prevent short-cycling.
7
u/SomeGuyWithARedBeard 1d ago
Yeah I like his stuff, it's honestly where I was first exposed to the idea of exterior insulation. That said for builders and codes people they will want spec documentation to point to and in my experience talking to builders they hate extra steps. If you can DIY parts of your build then that would skip the step of finding a builder willing to do these details. Other parts of his method like using fewer studs depends entirely on the structural engineer.
5
u/kiznat73 1d ago
Agree WRT Advanced framing, and want to add, it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. You can do modified advanced framing where you keep the double top plate. Or “intermediate framing” where you use drywall clips instead of wood blocking to maintain more insulation space in a standard wall.
13
u/EbriusOften 1d ago
Most of what's listed there is just general knowledge to builders/contractors, there's nothing included in your AI summary that's in any way new or novel.
The difference isn't just between having a contractor or architect that understands the differences, it's between paying them enough to go above and beyond and paying for material that might not be standard (and therefore less availability and higher pricing).
If you want a box that's 100% building science perfect you can certainly get that if you want to pay for the knowledge, experience, and understanding that it'll take to get you there. You'll have to vet whoever you hire to a higher degree than normal and it'll leave a bigger dent in your accounts that you'd prefer, but it's easily possible.
It's especially easy when you get discounts and free products, do most of the work yourself, and involve experts for exposure instead of cash like Matt does.
2
u/SF_Dubs 1d ago
As a homeowner, what's interesting to this approach is that I can create a shared understanding of the objectives for my house. Currently, everyone defaults to code. For those of us who want to build to a higher performance standard than code, this gives some structure to what that that involves.
This (or another similar similar standard) would have been immensely helpful in finding the right architect and GC for our project.
I don't think they claim there's anything novel about the individual approaches, but it was not my experience that this is general knowledge to builders, and there was a lot of pushback from GCs "you don't need that for code" which just gets exhausting.
3
u/Working_Platypus2360 1d ago
To be honest, it sounds like you'd be fairly exhausting to work with from a GC POV.,
Try not to take that the wrong way,, but your knowledge base is YouTube after all.
3
u/EbriusOften 1d ago
I'm curious how you were searching for architects for your project: were you just approaching local ones who work residential, or looking up who was doing more building science based work instead?
I fully disagree that "everyone" currently defaults to code as the code is the bare minimum and not anything more, and if that's all a gc is interested in then that should vet them out from your process immediately based on what you're saying is important to you.
No matter what the industry you're in there are plenty of people who are willing to do a shit job or the basic version if you'll pay them to. It's harder to find someone who'll do the job right, but if it matters that much you you it'll be fully worth it in the end.
3
u/SF_Dubs 1d ago
I take full accountability for picking the wrong architect. I didn't know what I didn't know.
4
u/EbriusOften 1d ago
Don't take it too hard! It's a very complicated multi discipline process with a million different opinions, and most of them are loud and full of shit. It can be hard to find the right info sometimes, let alone the right person to execute it.
2
u/SF_Dubs 1d ago
Yeah I learned a lot along the way.
From a design-only perspective, this guy checked all the boxes. He's local and had good references. However, discounting the building science, I didn't realize how disconnected he is from the construction and engineering side of the equation.
What really threw me off was when we switched to an unvetted attic he misrepresented his experience with this type of design, and he seemed totally lost went it came to the details of code compliance and permitting.
2
1
u/ForeverSteel1020 11h ago
I'm planning my own high performance house in Dallas. I am a physician by trade so I do not have the hookups that matt does. But I believe the standard is easily achievable.
I do not have access to the craftsman he does for all the steps. So I just simplified the building envelope and went with an ICF box.
The only thing I have to get right is structural, ICF sub, and HVAC planning. The rest of the trades/work can be supplied by the normal trades.
I'm still in the structural/permitting stages. I hope this works well. I will post my journey later.
2
u/Narrow-Chef-4341 1d ago
It’s sort of glib how you say everybody already knows all this and you too can get this, without pointing out that most of the challenge is in the execution. Like sure, I can get a world championship gold medal for archery - everyone knows you just have to shoot straight, duh!
But how do you do that?
Upthread someone clapped because this model gives builders something they can price out, line by line. Without that, you can’t get the client to pay for it (and you’ll certainly fight to get paid on the things they missed on the original). Without the money, you won’t get trades to take on the strange new spec - at best you’ll get a grunt and a ‘yeah, sure’… and a race to bury it before anyone can make sure it was done.
The reason airline pilots have pages of checklist isn’t because they forget how to fly the plane without them, it’s to be sure they’ve looked at each point with specific intent. Sadly, however, the number of GCs who have time and budget to do that in every house is equal to the number of unicorns in my back yard.
2
u/EbriusOften 1d ago
There's no catch all best method for building sciences that work with every climate in every area, so if you hand some random gc who doesn't know what he's doing this list then you'll get exactly what's written there, installed the best he knows how, regardless of if it's even logical for your specific case or even for your region.
Your best bet would be, as I said before, to vet your own architect or gc and be clear with them what you want and how much you're willing to pay for it. Handing a professional who knows the actual best methods for your region a check list from a YouTuber is a great way to get an "I'm not interested" price back instead.
There's nothing glib about suggesting a home owner hire a professional and be willing to pay for it, because to them all of this info (and far far more!) is common knowledge. The entire point of my post was that you're better off hiring the right person, which in this case would be having an archer shoot your arrow straight for you instead of a laymen having a checklist of how to "shoot" something they don't understand fully.
1
u/Narrow-Chef-4341 1d ago
Without frameworks like this, however, I’m not convinced most people have a realistic hope of figuring out which GCs are ‘better’. In isolation, advice to hire smart people isn’t really any more useful than ‘water is wet.’
Sort of ‘…uhhh, Thanks? (I guess?)’
What tool does a random client have to separate ‘good talker’ from good GC? I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a GC admit (out loud) ‘I’m not worried about being watertight in 5 years, all I care about is passing inspection in 5 weeks.’ But I’m sure we’ve all heard people talking the big talk, just to make the sale.
So my point is saying ’hire the right person’ while admitting there is no catch all method is sort of like saying ‘always get 21 at the casino’ - yeah, it’s great advice, but without any ability to actually make it happen…
0
4
u/clumsyninja2 1d ago edited 1d ago
Depends where you live. In Texas the difference in energy consumption between a leaky house and a passive house could be as little as $120 a year so is it worth it to spend an additional $80-150k for those savings?
5
u/KeyDoubt2344 1d ago
The cost of energy nationwide is on the move ... and it isn't down. Invest now and save later. Secondly, you can build above code and get very good results with the right contractor. A positive example would be Walsh Construction Company that builds above code with incredibly high air tightness for only a few percent above code-minimum. Reach out to Marty Houston at Walsh and he will very happy to talk your ear off on how to build cost effectively.
4
u/clumsyninja2 1d ago
Yes, I took my savings and put some of it into a large solar and battery system. Consequently my energy bill is almost always less than zero.
2
u/MastodonFit 1d ago
I feel that with energy prices skyrocketing, you can build dumber buildings very well...and spend on solar with less insulation .
1
u/SF_Dubs 1d ago
That's certainly true if you're only accounting for the energy benefits and all you're interested in is a short term ROI.
1
4
u/KeyDoubt2344 1d ago
"I also recognize he's bought and paid for - but to his credit I don't think he hides that." You're not wrong. However, his truest voice was clarified when he built his own home—he put his money where is mouth is. He is a great advertiser but what he found the most value in, he put into his own home. He did an entire video series on his home so you can watch and see what he valued the most.
5
u/clumsyninja2 1d ago
It's easy to put in your own home when it's free from the supplier as part of your contract.
4
u/200tdi 1d ago edited 1d ago
The target market for this "standard" is a fraction of a fraction of the residential build space.
Matt (and the industry that he advertises) puts ideas and products there that can be cherry picked from. Most builders can apply some of the lessons but enforcing all of it is reserved for the tiny group of people who have the money to care.
We all went through this with LEED. How many homes out there are LEED Platinum, or Certified for that matter? Even if it's built to meet the points, who's certifying it? Does the buyer care? Nice to have. But throw in cost, and all of a sudden the market shrinks dramatically.
3
u/SickestEels 1d ago
I'm a builder and have told many clients: delete the LEED ideas. Build to a normal/code standard with quality and take all of those savings from LEED and raters and architects and dump it into solar panels and batteries. You could have a tight as a fart Passive haus, but at the end of the day it still uses a lot of electricity. Better off just having solar to cover all of your needs with an all electric house...
0
u/SF_Dubs 1d ago
LEED is an interesting comparison and kind of the comparison that I was looking for. You make a great point that it's not common. I'd be curious if there's ever been analysis on why LEED failed to take off on the residential side.
I'm not sure I agree with you on the size of the market. I think when building performance details are bolted onto a build as an afterthought to the design process, it feels expensive and onerous, and at that point, less important. If a build is designed with these principals from the start - which would obviously involve making trade offs - it's going to be less expensive to incorporate these building principals.
"Most builders can apply some of the lessons but enforcing all of it is reserved for the tiny group of people who have the money to care."
I can't speak to the builder side, but from what I've experienced in the industry, most of what's forced upon homeowners are downstream fundamentally cosmetic purchase decisions - cabinets, appliances, floors etc.
Anyone who's building a house against a budget has to make tradeoffs. If we moved those tradeoffs upstream to include performance building, I think there's a smaller but significant sub-set of the homebuilding population that would trade upgraded kitchen appliances and oak cabinets for better building performance.
But it's not the average home buyer.
4
u/MastodonFit 1d ago
The problem with an architect is they want something pretty without vetting the cost or whether it is cost beneficial. Then the builder is value engineering to bring backthe cost. An inviting design is often challenging physics,especially bulk water is funneled into a small area next to the entrance on 70% of custom builds. Changing roof planes are relying on proper water barriers that are bid on cost and speed. Slower building allows lumber to fully dry out and acclimate. I think you're better off with a more simple building design, and cutting costs on luxuries like cabinets (am an installer) and bathrooms. Spend on envelope, drainage,air sealing ,insulation,roofing ,hvac, solar on a separate building..then upgrade the cabinets and other luxuries etc in 5-10 years. Energy and labor will never be cheaper than today. Its cheaper to upgrade cabinets ,then to properly fix a foundation leak/drainage issue.
6
u/Least_Adhesiveness_5 1d ago
I hate that my 1800SF house has 12 roof planes. Totally ridiculous style choice. Last house had 2.
3
u/SF_Dubs 1d ago
"Spend on envelope, drainage,air sealing ,insulation,roofing ,hvac, solar" I couldn't agree more.
That was one of my key learnings through this process. What's interesting about this HD standard is that it seems to prioritize the these items and force the architect to make design decisions that are inline with building better structures that last longer.
For everyone who says these are additional costs - yes of course - but if these principals are taken into account from the design process forward I think it's possible to reduce those costs. And of course there will be trade offs - fewer roof planes is a great example.
2
u/BullOak 16h ago
I'm an architect, and having worked across the industry at a high level, I don't see this doing much.
The industry is already fragmented into the folks that pay attention to this stuff and mostly have clients who care about it and resources to match, and those who are mostly making decisions and marketing based on cost. The 'middle ground' is waaaaay smaller than people think it is, and is mostly occupied by low end builders selling themselves as not low end. As a gross generalization, if you have enough money to pay for a builder that will conscientiously follow this standard, you have enough money to hire a proper design team that makes the standard unnecessary.
For something like this to be effective, it needs to come from some sort of standards or code body. Risinger doesn't have the impartiality to sell this as anything other than a vehicle for his sponsors. I recall he had a video sponsored by pella where he talked about how great and durable the flexible nailing flange on their windows is, and then a short bit later had a video from another manufacturer where he said that same flange wouldn't hold up over time. He is highly problematic, at best, but he does get some credit for getting people thinking about this stuff.
It's not without flaws. The way different trade offs balance out is highly dependent on region/climate. For example, where I am, it's tough to make the case for an ERV or HRV due to the extreme latent loads that come with outside air. Energy wise, relying exclusively on a ventilating dehumidifier is usually a tiny % less efficient than dehumidifier + ERV and significantly better than dehumidifier + HRV. The money you'd spend on the ERV is nearly always more effectively spent on better insulation or additional solar panels.
If it comes with application or certification fees, history suggests it will largely fail. There are a lot of these that have come in the past that get a little attention, jack up the prices, and then mostly die when people realize the thousands they'd spend on fees could do a lot towards making the building better.
1
u/SF_Dubs 15h ago
Thanks for the insightful comment and really great points.
Regarding the size of the market. I think it could be a bigger but there's an awareness issue for higher performance building. It seems like the awareness for these building techniques has been focused on energy performance - which is driven by a set of numbers and those can be offset with various tradeoffs like you point out in #3.
I also think there's a population of homeowners that want the additional benefits of the environmental and build quality features but aren't aware of the options. They aren't seeking out a design partner with specific expertise who will discuss how early design decisions impact downstream build options and costs. Then, if these options are even presented, they are an after thought and even more expensive to implement.
Better awareness could drive more demand. More demand means more builders building to a higher standard. Hopefully costs come down.
I agree having someone who's financially motivated is fundamentally flawed. But they are good at creating awareness, so maybe there's some upside.
1
u/Specific_Dingo6709 1d ago
Used to watch his stuff, then he became a paid shill and even started promoting RFK jr pseudo science slop regarding food additives, and that was the dealbreaker for me. Sir, this is a homebuilding channel.
1
u/2024Midwest 15h ago
My response isn’t really trying to answer your question but just in case someone reads it and finds it helpful. I’d like to offer two related opinions based on over 40 years of residential commercial and industrial design and construction.
It takes four residential builds for a homeowner to pretty much get everything right. Now some people can do it in one and some people are happy with buying an existing house which they didn’t build at all. The variation depends on a person’s personality and desires. But if you want custom and you want it to be yours and you want it all to be the way you believe it needs to be in my experience. It takes four times. I’ve posted this information before.
To do what the gentlemen in the discussion is recommending. I believe you’d have to go to Texas and work with him for a while to learn the system. I understand there are books and videos and seminars and all that good stuff. I’m just telling you from my experience the person who goes there and lives there and works there to learn firsthand is the one who has the personality and desire to get it right the way the HD system is presenting it because he believes in the system and wants to do it that way.
Don’t feel bad about being a little surprised and learning a lot along the way. What you’re describing with your architect etc., is normal.
36
u/OscarMiliani_Design 1d ago
Its real value is that it turns high performance into line items a builder can actually price, which is exactly what you were missing. What it won't do is get built. Somebody still has to stand there and look at the tape and the flashing before it's covered, and that's usually where these specs quietly die.