Welcome to a robust comparison between building an earth house and a conventional one. This analysis focuses on providing useful information for architects, interior designers, and the real estate industry, among other similar professions. Our goal is to help you make an informed decision about these two conceptions of building. So, let’s hop into defining what these homes are.

First, we understand that Earth Homes come from compact raw materials like earth, lime, and gravel. They represent a sustainable, modern, and luxurious approach to house construction. On the other hand, a Conventional Home, widely prevalent in America, mainly comprises a wooden-frame structure joined by nails with walls covered ‘Stucco,’ a Portland cement mix, and roofs covered in asphalt shingles.

Diving into the cost aspect, building an Earth Home offers unique challenges and advantages. Considering materials, tires, glass bottles, and aluminum cans form a substantial part, having an element of recycling involved. Earthship construction also involves a lot of concrete, contributing around 10% of the world’s greenhouse gases. Labor costs come as a significant factor as it is labor-intensive, and the timeline for construction could go up to two years.

Conventional homes, on the conventional sense, lend more predictability to costs and construction processes. Materials used are readily available, and labor costs vary based on location and specific building designs. They typically have a shorter construction timeline and could potentially attract a higher resale value. However, having less emphasis on sustainability means potentially higher operational and maintenance costs.

Comparing the two models, an earth home may cost close to a conventional home in terms of initial investment. Both types of construction can potentially be funded through loans. However, the availability of such financing may vary based on the lending institution.

Discussing advantages, living in an Earth Home comes as excellent energy efficiency, minimization of environmental impact, and potential for self-sustainability due to features like in-house vegetable growth. On the flip side, living in a Conventional Home makes construction easier with readily available materials, and it promises a quicker construction.

Of course, both models come with their drawbacks. Earth Homes may not function as intended, especially if built outside the New Mexican region, where the original designs were created. Conventional Homes may lack sustainablility features and could imply higher operational and maintenance costs.

To answer your potential inquiries, building an earth home will indeed offer certain pros such as energy efficiency, use of recycled materials, and a potential for self-sustainability. Comparatively, a rammed earth home comes at a cost higher than that of a conventional home owing to its labor intensity and possibly higher material costs. However, they do come with a high resale value, making up for higher initial investment cost. Also, Adobe construction is considered one of the oldest due to the long historical usage of its basic ingredient mix of sand and clay across various cultures. It is less favorable in cooler, wetter climates due to longer brick drying times, which, if uneven or delayed, can lead to structural weaknesses within the bricks.

Wrapping up our discussion, a cost comparison of building an earth home and a conventional one requires consideration of several factors. While an earth home connects you closer to nature with sustainability and self-sufficiency, a conventional home offers speed in construction and higher potential for resale value. Your choice would depend on what you value more in your dwellings.