Click HERE FOR A VIRTUAL TOUR, of the iHouse, from Clayton media.
As far as these 360 degree home tours go, they don't get much better. This is very nice. In its pan, the camera "fisheyes" here and there, making a doorway look twice as wide as it is, but at least it quickly reverts to a view of what is real. Considering there are many manufactured home models, which are in production, for which there are NO photographs, this shows Clayton is taking their new green home seriously and are proud of it.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
New article about the iHouse
KNOXVILLE’S GREEN HOUSE EFFECT. Lengthy article with some new information about the iHouse, and some other green houses in the Knoxville area. Although they look a little computer enhanced, the two new iHouse photos in the slide show (to right of article) are nice. They make the house look good.
Among other things, Clayton has plans for a model just under 1000 sq. ft. that will sell for around $100,000. Very good. I gather that it will not include the extra flex room. Models of the iHouse are planned to be for sale in May. Also mentioned, the position of the flex room has some flexibility, and doesn’t have to be the dot in the “i” of the iHouse.
In the article, Kevin Clayton mentions that interest in the iHouse doubled show attendance at the Knoxville home show in late October. This has great potential to increase attendance at manufactured home shows, especially in places like California and Arizona.
Many people gave a gag reflex about manufactured housing, and the prospect of a radically different green home, and an affordable one, might be enough to draw the more moderate among them to a show of manufactured homes. The iHouse capitalizes on people’s increasing interest in green homes, and those interested in the modern style.
It is time for people’s interest to shift from bigger houses and granite counter tops, to green, especially lower energy usage. Also, why can't "future house" intersect with affordable house, as it does in the iHouse, rather than being an unaffordable architectural vision filled with expensive electronic gadgetry.
There’s no lack of interest and curiosity about green houses. Here is an article about the Passive House that has remained at number one position of the NY Times “most e-mailed” list for a few days now.
When googling for images of the many styles of these fascinating passive houses, built with R-60 insulation and no furnaces, it is helpful to search for “passivhaus,” since most of them are in Germany and Scandinavia. Thousands have been built there.
Remarkably, they use one tenth to one twentieth the energy of an average house. With Germany years ahead of the U.S. in solar and alternative energy usage in general, it is good to see Clayton bringing something green to the masses, who can’t afford the 10% to 50% extra over the average house price, that green usually entails.
Among other things, Clayton has plans for a model just under 1000 sq. ft. that will sell for around $100,000. Very good. I gather that it will not include the extra flex room. Models of the iHouse are planned to be for sale in May. Also mentioned, the position of the flex room has some flexibility, and doesn’t have to be the dot in the “i” of the iHouse.
In the article, Kevin Clayton mentions that interest in the iHouse doubled show attendance at the Knoxville home show in late October. This has great potential to increase attendance at manufactured home shows, especially in places like California and Arizona.
Many people gave a gag reflex about manufactured housing, and the prospect of a radically different green home, and an affordable one, might be enough to draw the more moderate among them to a show of manufactured homes. The iHouse capitalizes on people’s increasing interest in green homes, and those interested in the modern style.
It is time for people’s interest to shift from bigger houses and granite counter tops, to green, especially lower energy usage. Also, why can't "future house" intersect with affordable house, as it does in the iHouse, rather than being an unaffordable architectural vision filled with expensive electronic gadgetry.
There’s no lack of interest and curiosity about green houses. Here is an article about the Passive House that has remained at number one position of the NY Times “most e-mailed” list for a few days now.
When googling for images of the many styles of these fascinating passive houses, built with R-60 insulation and no furnaces, it is helpful to search for “passivhaus,” since most of them are in Germany and Scandinavia. Thousands have been built there.
Remarkably, they use one tenth to one twentieth the energy of an average house. With Germany years ahead of the U.S. in solar and alternative energy usage in general, it is good to see Clayton bringing something green to the masses, who can’t afford the 10% to 50% extra over the average house price, that green usually entails.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Interview with a guy who toured the i-house at the Knoxville show
GREENOTTER: Since architecture is one of those things you
have to experience, walk through and feel -- and I haven’t seen the i-house -- "Atomic" has been kind enough to consent to answer some questions. He toured the Clayton i-house at Clayton's show in Knoxville earlier this month, November, 2008.
Here’s a copy of the link below, to some photos he took, where we can finally get a better look at the red cube 2nd bedroom/flex structure:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30226797@N05/
GREENOTTER: As someone who likes to build things myself, although they don't always turn out like I anticipated, I like to look at manufactured homes and even RVs, to get ideas of how they do layout, and what works in a space, especially smaller spaces.
Did you go to the show to see the i-house specifically or just to see
the show in general?
ATOMIC: I heard a radio commercial about the show and the iHouse, which is the only reason I knew it was going on. I've been interested in building my own house and, currently paying a $200-$300 electric bill, am planning on building something energy efficient, possibly off grid if I can make it happen.
GREENOTTER: What were your first thoughts on the outside appearance of the i-house?
ATOMIC: I liked it. I like modernistic structures, but I'm also into Roman and Victorian structures, 60's tv and radios, "mad scientist" labs, and Steampunk. Tastes may vary. ;)
The Cement board siding is a good idea however the metal bars between them looks a bit tacky and having to repaint the red section would be a bother in highly sunny areas. I've seen many houses in corrugated steel; if you can get the steel in colors it'd be a nice alternative. As is, the unit looks like a single wide trailer and I was informed by one person it would be labeled as one, then by another who said they would be working to prevent it from being classified as one.
GREENOTTER: Yes, one of the newspaper articles mentioned something about them working on zoning issues, and I thought it was probably the singlewide/doublewide problem. I live in an area now, where everyone has two acres or more, and the zoning allows doublewide manufactured homes, but no single section homes.
What did you think of the separate second bedroom upon first seeing it. Did you know what it was?
ATOMIC: I like it, but more as an office space then as a bedroom. As you mentioned in your blog, people won't want to have their kids in a separate structure at night and anyone going to and from will have to endure the weather, including being rained upon since it's not a covered entrance.
GREENOTTER: When you went in the house, how did the living/kitchen area feel as a space, especially with the ceiling sloping longitudinally (it looks like it might do that from the roof line), and gradually, from the kitchen to the end of the living room. That right there strikes me as something very different and I don't know how it would feel. Was it strange or cool, you know, was it a room you step into and think "this feels really nice," or the kind that is more "this would take some getting used to"?
ATOMIC: I didn't notice the slope of the ceiling from the inside; I believe its level. If it’s not level, then the angle wasn't noticeable.)
On a comment you made about the washer/dryer combo in the kitchen: it has a set of doors in front of it that close, hiding it from view and dampening the sound.
I like the setup they have in it, what I felt was a mix of modern and Japanese culture. That being said, most people will be putting big bad faux wood cabinets in it (the "American standard" they already own) , which won't make the space as appealing.
GREENOTTER: How about the windows? Did it seem like too many windows for that size space?
ATOMIC: Actually, I felt it had a distinct *lack* of windows.
With the way the building is setup all the windows would be facing the owners front yard. Let’s face it, we don't always put a building’s front side facing South for the best solar gain in winter, but instead houses usually face the street. Personally I want to see my back yard more then I do the road: if they reversed the plans and had all the large windows facing the back of the house and small, long "slot" windows above 6' facing the front I think it would make it more enjoyable.
GREENOTTER: I don’t know if manufactured home builders sometimes do reverse plans. Regular home plans sometimes come that way.
You mentioned that there was a serious lack of closet
space and they were using at least one free standing closet. My
thought with that may be that given the smaller size, they wanted to
show the prototype as being spacious, but that a regular closet might
be an option, at least for the master bedroom.
ATOMIC: If you look at your posted picture of the bedroom the tall doors to the left and right of the bed are the "closets." I believe you are correct in that they wanted it to look spacious, but I was hearing several women talking about the lack of closets, which echoed my opinion.
GREENOTTER: What were the bathrooms like? Sleek and modern, or more like the ones in their other homes?
ATOMIC: The bathrooms were nice, but they could do away with the door to the master bedroom in the bathroom in the main unit. With a place this small the extra door isn't necessary AND getting rid of it would add valuable "wall space" in the master.
GREENOTTER: Between the wall thickness in the photo, the bamboo
floors, and the Andersen windows, did the interior have a feeling of
higher quality from other homes in the show?
ATOMIC: The bamboo floors were noticeable to me since I've researched them, but I'd think the average person will just think "hardwood floors", however that’s not a bad thing. The only thing I really noticed with the walls is that the windows have wood beams across their intersections, which makes a nice architectural feature that is enhanced by the thickness of the wall. the things that make the inside interesting is the decor they put in and the table surface above the kitchen sink which is a metallic laminate.
GREENOTTER: Thanks for mentioning that you asked one of the designers, that the price would be about ($130,000). Do you know if that is the base price or would that come with solar panels?
ATOMIC: Sadly I was informed this is the base price, that the solar panels are optional.
GREENOTTER: Before your photo, I'd never seen a photo of the façade of the 2nd bedroom structure. Was it good looking? And how about the interior of that? Nice layout?
ATOMIC: It was kept basic and minimal, though there was a decent rack setup on the inside right. not much could be said about it though, since it's kept as an open space except for the bathroom. I uploaded a few pictures I took of it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30226797@N05/
GREENOTTER: Yes! The money shot I’ve been wanting to see, the front of the cube “flex” room. And I like it. If that cube were made as a slightly bigger house, I’d point that big sliding door to the South and have great solar gain.
Did they let you climb to the roof deck? From your photo, I can tell they let some people up there.
ATOMIC: Yes, and this is one feature I LOVE about it. I have two acres of land on top of a mountain and I've been trying to plan out how to do just that exact thing, which would allow me a much better view of the surrounding mountains and sky. Not only that, but it lets you use what would normally be wasted space, increasing your "yard" size. (and as a not so random thought, you could close it in, seal up the drains under the deck, and have yet another enclosed space to live in!)
GREENOTTER: Do you think the deck structure linking the two parts of the house comes with it, and that there were things under it like an electrical conduit and/or water pipes?
ATOMIC: If not, it should be, if for anything but the fact they're advertising it with it. That is a question I did not ask, but it should be. The electric box is on the back side of the red cube and the water and electric lines do run under the deck.
GREENOTTER: So, the house is set up for solar, "solar-ready," and they probably will offer off-grid and grid-tie options.
ATOMIC: Yes, the off-grid setup of having the panels charge batteries is something you would have to pay extra for. Same with collecting the rain from the roof for reuse in the toilet and garden (Though they weren't sure if that was going to be done or just go to a rain barrel.)
I asked one associate and was told the electric bill wound be around $65 a month. Another said around $35, which I'm guessing this price would be with the solar panels installed.
GREENOTTER: Finally, did you notice other people's reaction? What did they make of the house. Were they curious….anyone laughing, scoffing, or marveling at it, that kind of thing.
ATOMIC: Most people were impressed by it and liked the way it looks on the inside, curious and unsure about the outside appearance, loved the rooftop deck, and loved the idea of the low power consumption, but many agreed it's small, needs a closet, and didn't like being exposed to the elements when going to the second bedroom.
GREENOTTER: Did you see any other homes in the show that you'd think would be a better way to spend $130,000, if you had it to spend that day?
ATOMIC: Yes, I did in fact see one, and it was around $55k. A double wide that was under or around 1k sq ft. It didn't have that "trailer" feel to it that most single or double wides have and could pass as a true home in appearance. Not only that but many places are putting restrictions on land that prevents single wides from being brought in, and despite its small size this would allow it to bypass that restriction. With this price you could cover the roof in solar panels for less then the price difference!
GREENOTTER: Yup, that’s exactly my feeling about the Karsten (now owned by Clayton) RC-2 with dormer option, but it might jack up the price putting in Andersen windows instead of the standard fare.
Thank you for your answers. I appreciate it, and if there is anyone else out there who saw the house, or would like me to post your photos or a link to them, please leave a comment, or contact me at zorastro(at)gmail(dot)com.
have to experience, walk through and feel -- and I haven’t seen the i-house -- "Atomic" has been kind enough to consent to answer some questions. He toured the Clayton i-house at Clayton's show in Knoxville earlier this month, November, 2008.
Here’s a copy of the link below, to some photos he took, where we can finally get a better look at the red cube 2nd bedroom/flex structure:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30226797@N05/
GREENOTTER: As someone who likes to build things myself, although they don't always turn out like I anticipated, I like to look at manufactured homes and even RVs, to get ideas of how they do layout, and what works in a space, especially smaller spaces.
Did you go to the show to see the i-house specifically or just to see
the show in general?
ATOMIC: I heard a radio commercial about the show and the iHouse, which is the only reason I knew it was going on. I've been interested in building my own house and, currently paying a $200-$300 electric bill, am planning on building something energy efficient, possibly off grid if I can make it happen.
GREENOTTER: What were your first thoughts on the outside appearance of the i-house?
ATOMIC: I liked it. I like modernistic structures, but I'm also into Roman and Victorian structures, 60's tv and radios, "mad scientist" labs, and Steampunk. Tastes may vary. ;)
The Cement board siding is a good idea however the metal bars between them looks a bit tacky and having to repaint the red section would be a bother in highly sunny areas. I've seen many houses in corrugated steel; if you can get the steel in colors it'd be a nice alternative. As is, the unit looks like a single wide trailer and I was informed by one person it would be labeled as one, then by another who said they would be working to prevent it from being classified as one.
GREENOTTER: Yes, one of the newspaper articles mentioned something about them working on zoning issues, and I thought it was probably the singlewide/doublewide problem. I live in an area now, where everyone has two acres or more, and the zoning allows doublewide manufactured homes, but no single section homes.
What did you think of the separate second bedroom upon first seeing it. Did you know what it was?
ATOMIC: I like it, but more as an office space then as a bedroom. As you mentioned in your blog, people won't want to have their kids in a separate structure at night and anyone going to and from will have to endure the weather, including being rained upon since it's not a covered entrance.
GREENOTTER: When you went in the house, how did the living/kitchen area feel as a space, especially with the ceiling sloping longitudinally (it looks like it might do that from the roof line), and gradually, from the kitchen to the end of the living room. That right there strikes me as something very different and I don't know how it would feel. Was it strange or cool, you know, was it a room you step into and think "this feels really nice," or the kind that is more "this would take some getting used to"?
ATOMIC: I didn't notice the slope of the ceiling from the inside; I believe its level. If it’s not level, then the angle wasn't noticeable.)
On a comment you made about the washer/dryer combo in the kitchen: it has a set of doors in front of it that close, hiding it from view and dampening the sound.
I like the setup they have in it, what I felt was a mix of modern and Japanese culture. That being said, most people will be putting big bad faux wood cabinets in it (the "American standard" they already own) , which won't make the space as appealing.
GREENOTTER: How about the windows? Did it seem like too many windows for that size space?
ATOMIC: Actually, I felt it had a distinct *lack* of windows.
With the way the building is setup all the windows would be facing the owners front yard. Let’s face it, we don't always put a building’s front side facing South for the best solar gain in winter, but instead houses usually face the street. Personally I want to see my back yard more then I do the road: if they reversed the plans and had all the large windows facing the back of the house and small, long "slot" windows above 6' facing the front I think it would make it more enjoyable.
GREENOTTER: I don’t know if manufactured home builders sometimes do reverse plans. Regular home plans sometimes come that way.
You mentioned that there was a serious lack of closet
space and they were using at least one free standing closet. My
thought with that may be that given the smaller size, they wanted to
show the prototype as being spacious, but that a regular closet might
be an option, at least for the master bedroom.
ATOMIC: If you look at your posted picture of the bedroom the tall doors to the left and right of the bed are the "closets." I believe you are correct in that they wanted it to look spacious, but I was hearing several women talking about the lack of closets, which echoed my opinion.
GREENOTTER: What were the bathrooms like? Sleek and modern, or more like the ones in their other homes?
ATOMIC: The bathrooms were nice, but they could do away with the door to the master bedroom in the bathroom in the main unit. With a place this small the extra door isn't necessary AND getting rid of it would add valuable "wall space" in the master.
GREENOTTER: Between the wall thickness in the photo, the bamboo
floors, and the Andersen windows, did the interior have a feeling of
higher quality from other homes in the show?
ATOMIC: The bamboo floors were noticeable to me since I've researched them, but I'd think the average person will just think "hardwood floors", however that’s not a bad thing. The only thing I really noticed with the walls is that the windows have wood beams across their intersections, which makes a nice architectural feature that is enhanced by the thickness of the wall. the things that make the inside interesting is the decor they put in and the table surface above the kitchen sink which is a metallic laminate.
GREENOTTER: Thanks for mentioning that you asked one of the designers, that the price would be about ($130,000). Do you know if that is the base price or would that come with solar panels?
ATOMIC: Sadly I was informed this is the base price, that the solar panels are optional.
GREENOTTER: Before your photo, I'd never seen a photo of the façade of the 2nd bedroom structure. Was it good looking? And how about the interior of that? Nice layout?
ATOMIC: It was kept basic and minimal, though there was a decent rack setup on the inside right. not much could be said about it though, since it's kept as an open space except for the bathroom. I uploaded a few pictures I took of it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30226797@N05/
GREENOTTER: Yes! The money shot I’ve been wanting to see, the front of the cube “flex” room. And I like it. If that cube were made as a slightly bigger house, I’d point that big sliding door to the South and have great solar gain.
Did they let you climb to the roof deck? From your photo, I can tell they let some people up there.
ATOMIC: Yes, and this is one feature I LOVE about it. I have two acres of land on top of a mountain and I've been trying to plan out how to do just that exact thing, which would allow me a much better view of the surrounding mountains and sky. Not only that, but it lets you use what would normally be wasted space, increasing your "yard" size. (and as a not so random thought, you could close it in, seal up the drains under the deck, and have yet another enclosed space to live in!)
GREENOTTER: Do you think the deck structure linking the two parts of the house comes with it, and that there were things under it like an electrical conduit and/or water pipes?
ATOMIC: If not, it should be, if for anything but the fact they're advertising it with it. That is a question I did not ask, but it should be. The electric box is on the back side of the red cube and the water and electric lines do run under the deck.
GREENOTTER: So, the house is set up for solar, "solar-ready," and they probably will offer off-grid and grid-tie options.
ATOMIC: Yes, the off-grid setup of having the panels charge batteries is something you would have to pay extra for. Same with collecting the rain from the roof for reuse in the toilet and garden (Though they weren't sure if that was going to be done or just go to a rain barrel.)
I asked one associate and was told the electric bill wound be around $65 a month. Another said around $35, which I'm guessing this price would be with the solar panels installed.
GREENOTTER: Finally, did you notice other people's reaction? What did they make of the house. Were they curious….anyone laughing, scoffing, or marveling at it, that kind of thing.
ATOMIC: Most people were impressed by it and liked the way it looks on the inside, curious and unsure about the outside appearance, loved the rooftop deck, and loved the idea of the low power consumption, but many agreed it's small, needs a closet, and didn't like being exposed to the elements when going to the second bedroom.
GREENOTTER: Did you see any other homes in the show that you'd think would be a better way to spend $130,000, if you had it to spend that day?
ATOMIC: Yes, I did in fact see one, and it was around $55k. A double wide that was under or around 1k sq ft. It didn't have that "trailer" feel to it that most single or double wides have and could pass as a true home in appearance. Not only that but many places are putting restrictions on land that prevents single wides from being brought in, and despite its small size this would allow it to bypass that restriction. With this price you could cover the roof in solar panels for less then the price difference!
GREENOTTER: Yup, that’s exactly my feeling about the Karsten (now owned by Clayton) RC-2 with dormer option, but it might jack up the price putting in Andersen windows instead of the standard fare.
Thank you for your answers. I appreciate it, and if there is anyone else out there who saw the house, or would like me to post your photos or a link to them, please leave a comment, or contact me at zorastro(at)gmail(dot)com.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Will modernism kill Clayton's i-house
HERE are some nice modernist green designs, finalists in a competition for designers come up with a $100,000 green house. They are designed for coastal flood areas, and there's no telling what the houses will cost by the time more than a few get built.
One may wonder, why I am blogging the Clayton i-house specifically. Again, while dozens of designs may come from competitions and private architects, few of these individuals or companies have the resources of a company like Clayton to mass produce and market it. Mass production not only helps keep a price low, it can also help a home become popular and available in more areas.
Affordability of Ford's Model T or the Volkswagen are what contributed to making them successful. If a home works well -- is energy efficient -- and is good quality, buyers will also warm to buying an affordable mass produced home.
The question is, will modernism kill a new house's mass popularity, even if it is all those things.
One may wonder, why I am blogging the Clayton i-house specifically. Again, while dozens of designs may come from competitions and private architects, few of these individuals or companies have the resources of a company like Clayton to mass produce and market it. Mass production not only helps keep a price low, it can also help a home become popular and available in more areas.
Affordability of Ford's Model T or the Volkswagen are what contributed to making them successful. If a home works well -- is energy efficient -- and is good quality, buyers will also warm to buying an affordable mass produced home.
The question is, will modernism kill a new house's mass popularity, even if it is all those things.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Suggestions to Clayton about the design of a green manufactured home
1. Keep it simple and affordable.
A house with bamboo flooring, tankless water heaters etc. is obviously going to cost more than baseline homes with no upgrades, but keep the price close to average. Save the buyer money and energy by cutting down on square feet. Remember, the Prius debuted at around $20,000, which is low/mid-priced.
I think the Cavco "Freedom" solar park model is a good example of simple, good green design, and it is reasonably affordable relative to other park models (400 sq. ft.), but from an energy standpoint (as well as solid construction) R-11 insulation and 2 x 4 walls are disappointing. It would have been nice to see SIPS walls with R-20 or more.
A “green” double-wide around a thousand square feet would be fine. It can be done with making the master bedroom small and the 2nd bedroom even smaller. A home of 700 to 1000 feet would gain a market for small families, retirees, single people, and vacation home buyers.
As a country, we have become a nation encouraged to shop and want more than we can afford. In homes, including manufactured homes, the idea that bigger is always better, is part of the problem. Smaller is going to be back, and energy efficient is going to be "in" for several years ahead. The new home market is faltering at this point. People can buy foreclosures at bargain prices. However, I expect that well designed manufactured homes will have a market in the new homes market, especially for the approaching bulge in baby boomer retirees.
An example of a nifty interior floor plan and an attractive exterior in a smaller doublewide, is the 864 sq. Karsten RC-2, with the dormer option. It is their smallest model. Without the dormers, the interior loses its character (light, aesthetic appeal) and feeling of spaciousness. I've toured one, both ways, with and without dormers. On the web, there isn’t a photo or even a drawing of the exterior of the home. Instead the Karsten website shows a drawing of a generic home when you do the “brochure.” I took many photos of this charming house a few years ago, but lost them when my hard disk got fried in a lightning storm.
One reason I like this particular home, the RC-2, from the standpoint of heat conservation, is the lack of registers and heating ducts. The home is designed to have the central heater, with passive circulation throughout the house. No ducts losing energy, or getting dirty. No sound of fans blowing through ducts. It is both the design and the small size of the home that allows this. It probably never sold well for the lack of a 2nd bathroom. Karsten is now owned by Clayton.
2. How about a model of manufactured home with R-30 to R-50 walls, that are a foot or more thick. The higher thickness would be best suited to areas with winter climates with temps below freezing.
Insulation is the most cost effective way of improving efficiency, and thicker walls, usually necessary to fit in more insulation, give a home a feeling of permanence and quality. For the thicker walls and frame structure, engineered woods, SIPS, or a sandwich of blown-in insulation between two sheets of oriented strand board, such as in Dr. Feist's "passivhaus" See article in THE NEW YORK TIMES.
Feist's passive houses, have R-60 walls, and are heated in the winter by appliances and human occupants, or supplemental heating by a very small heater. They use less than one tenth the energy of an average home of the same size. In the last decade thousands of these passive homes have been built in Europe, and architects like Karin Klingenberg carry on his work in the U.S.
3. Forget water catchment for a while.
While water catchment might be good for some remote locations, people who want it can get put on rain gutters and do it themselves if they need it. Instead, center the design around passive and active solar. So, a roof (shed, gable, or split gable with clerestory windows), oriented from 40 to 60 degrees. Use the same heavy gauge metal as is on the i-house. And silver is a good color.
Passive solar design should include one or two double-door sized windows on the South side, including one in the bedroom on the south side smaller windows on East and West and just a few small windows on the North side.
There’s a problem using a shed roof, for solar panels, in that if you want passive solar orientation, the high wall ends up on the north side. That can be avoided by using a flat ceiling inside. If using a flat ceiling, make it 9 feet high.
4. On option of slotted rolling shades, for the large windows on the south of the house. Insulated shades with a reflective or white exterior (for summer).
5. Use a conventional door for main entry into the house, instead of a sliding door.
6. Stick with the Andersen windows, bamboo flooring, Ikea cabinets, tankless water. All those features are well worth the extra money.
------------
One thing I see that might be right about a flatter roof depends on how many homes are sold to parks, where people don’t have an option of facing the home and its roof for optimal southern exposure.
One other thing I'd like to see a manufactured home company do: A garage with apartment above unit, with the apartment about four hundred to 550 square feet. Again, it would have multiple uses: garage and guest house, vacation home, mother-in-law home, extra rental income, or home for a single person.
Lastly, as via my suggestion in an earlier post. If the design for the i-home ends up undergoing drastic alterations, or being scrapped, consider expanding the 2nd bedroom into a tiny home. I think on its own, or maybe something a little larger, it would make a nice cottage. I would like to see a photo of it head on, and also the inside.
While I saw a Prius at a local dealer when it first came out, and then some driving around, it is very hard for people in some states to see a new model home. Dealers carry only a few models. In New Mexico, I've never seen a "park model" anywhere, although I know they must be somewhere. A few dealers have one model on display. In Phoenix they are all over. How many people can go to a show?
So, please take some videos, or at least comprehensive photos, of all your homes, no matter how fancy or humble. I watch amateur videos that some RV dealers do on youtube or their sites. Even though they don't bother with extra lighting, and they are usually bad quality, I like seeing the tour. Dealers of manufactured homes don't seem to be doing many videos like that. I'd like to see a video tour of the i-house. It would prime people's interest in the green direction of manufactured housing.
A house with bamboo flooring, tankless water heaters etc. is obviously going to cost more than baseline homes with no upgrades, but keep the price close to average. Save the buyer money and energy by cutting down on square feet. Remember, the Prius debuted at around $20,000, which is low/mid-priced.
I think the Cavco "Freedom" solar park model is a good example of simple, good green design, and it is reasonably affordable relative to other park models (400 sq. ft.), but from an energy standpoint (as well as solid construction) R-11 insulation and 2 x 4 walls are disappointing. It would have been nice to see SIPS walls with R-20 or more.
A “green” double-wide around a thousand square feet would be fine. It can be done with making the master bedroom small and the 2nd bedroom even smaller. A home of 700 to 1000 feet would gain a market for small families, retirees, single people, and vacation home buyers.
As a country, we have become a nation encouraged to shop and want more than we can afford. In homes, including manufactured homes, the idea that bigger is always better, is part of the problem. Smaller is going to be back, and energy efficient is going to be "in" for several years ahead. The new home market is faltering at this point. People can buy foreclosures at bargain prices. However, I expect that well designed manufactured homes will have a market in the new homes market, especially for the approaching bulge in baby boomer retirees.
An example of a nifty interior floor plan and an attractive exterior in a smaller doublewide, is the 864 sq. Karsten RC-2, with the dormer option. It is their smallest model. Without the dormers, the interior loses its character (light, aesthetic appeal) and feeling of spaciousness. I've toured one, both ways, with and without dormers. On the web, there isn’t a photo or even a drawing of the exterior of the home. Instead the Karsten website shows a drawing of a generic home when you do the “brochure.” I took many photos of this charming house a few years ago, but lost them when my hard disk got fried in a lightning storm.
One reason I like this particular home, the RC-2, from the standpoint of heat conservation, is the lack of registers and heating ducts. The home is designed to have the central heater, with passive circulation throughout the house. No ducts losing energy, or getting dirty. No sound of fans blowing through ducts. It is both the design and the small size of the home that allows this. It probably never sold well for the lack of a 2nd bathroom. Karsten is now owned by Clayton.
2. How about a model of manufactured home with R-30 to R-50 walls, that are a foot or more thick. The higher thickness would be best suited to areas with winter climates with temps below freezing.
Insulation is the most cost effective way of improving efficiency, and thicker walls, usually necessary to fit in more insulation, give a home a feeling of permanence and quality. For the thicker walls and frame structure, engineered woods, SIPS, or a sandwich of blown-in insulation between two sheets of oriented strand board, such as in Dr. Feist's "passivhaus" See article in THE NEW YORK TIMES.
Feist's passive houses, have R-60 walls, and are heated in the winter by appliances and human occupants, or supplemental heating by a very small heater. They use less than one tenth the energy of an average home of the same size. In the last decade thousands of these passive homes have been built in Europe, and architects like Karin Klingenberg carry on his work in the U.S.
3. Forget water catchment for a while.
While water catchment might be good for some remote locations, people who want it can get put on rain gutters and do it themselves if they need it. Instead, center the design around passive and active solar. So, a roof (shed, gable, or split gable with clerestory windows), oriented from 40 to 60 degrees. Use the same heavy gauge metal as is on the i-house. And silver is a good color.
Passive solar design should include one or two double-door sized windows on the South side, including one in the bedroom on the south side smaller windows on East and West and just a few small windows on the North side.
There’s a problem using a shed roof, for solar panels, in that if you want passive solar orientation, the high wall ends up on the north side. That can be avoided by using a flat ceiling inside. If using a flat ceiling, make it 9 feet high.
4. On option of slotted rolling shades, for the large windows on the south of the house. Insulated shades with a reflective or white exterior (for summer).
5. Use a conventional door for main entry into the house, instead of a sliding door.
6. Stick with the Andersen windows, bamboo flooring, Ikea cabinets, tankless water. All those features are well worth the extra money.
------------
One thing I see that might be right about a flatter roof depends on how many homes are sold to parks, where people don’t have an option of facing the home and its roof for optimal southern exposure.
One other thing I'd like to see a manufactured home company do: A garage with apartment above unit, with the apartment about four hundred to 550 square feet. Again, it would have multiple uses: garage and guest house, vacation home, mother-in-law home, extra rental income, or home for a single person.
Lastly, as via my suggestion in an earlier post. If the design for the i-home ends up undergoing drastic alterations, or being scrapped, consider expanding the 2nd bedroom into a tiny home. I think on its own, or maybe something a little larger, it would make a nice cottage. I would like to see a photo of it head on, and also the inside.
While I saw a Prius at a local dealer when it first came out, and then some driving around, it is very hard for people in some states to see a new model home. Dealers carry only a few models. In New Mexico, I've never seen a "park model" anywhere, although I know they must be somewhere. A few dealers have one model on display. In Phoenix they are all over. How many people can go to a show?
So, please take some videos, or at least comprehensive photos, of all your homes, no matter how fancy or humble. I watch amateur videos that some RV dealers do on youtube or their sites. Even though they don't bother with extra lighting, and they are usually bad quality, I like seeing the tour. Dealers of manufactured homes don't seem to be doing many videos like that. I'd like to see a video tour of the i-house. It would prime people's interest in the green direction of manufactured housing.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
The wutizit factor of Clayton's i-house
MIT designed House-of-the-Future had "it," at Disneyland.
Fuller’s Dymaxion house had it.
And the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile has it, and it tastes good.
Clayton's i-house
Although it doesn’t look like a food item, the i-house has it too, a high wutizit factor. It is the type of structure that might cause a passerby to say:
“What is it?”
“Some kind of single-wide right near a utility shed or phone company switching shack?”
When people are looking for a house, they don’t usually want a high wutizit factor, even if the three top priorities of “location, location, location” are perfect. If you see people pointing at your house, you want it to be because it is handsome or cute, not because they are trying to figure out what it is.
Marianne Cusato’s tiniest “Katrina Cottage,” at 300 sq. ft., is both handsome and cute:
Following the tradition of a vernacular -- in this case the shotgun style of Louisiana and Florida -- and if the proportions and quality of the house are done well, then a general acceptance will follow, right?
EXCEPT, there are issues of size and zoning, which has been a big stumbling block for the Katrina Cottage since its introduction in 2005.
People not living in them, apparently feel good about the toxic FEMA trailers are disposable, and will be gone some day, to a landfill, but the residents of of some neighborhoods in New Orleans, shudder at the prospect of communities of attractive small cottages, less than a thousand sq. ft., that could stick around.
Cusato’s designs use a vernacular in a way that makes it sing. They have proportion and style. Log siding on a double wide manufactured home is successful at evoking the charm of a log cabin, on some manufactured homes, but on others it just looks like lipstick on a hockey mom. Cement plank costs less, and it doesn’t rot and termites won’t eat it.
Modernism doesn’t have as much of a reference point. It is not following an existing style, even a fake-look tradition, like log siding is supposed to look like a log cabin. It isn’t easy to make a house look good when creating something brand new. “Keep it simple” would be a good plan to follow for a manufacturer to keep costs down.
Wealthy people can afford to buy new modern style houses, no matter how unusual the design, because they don’t have much of their net worth tied up in a house. Middle and lower class people have to worry about resale value. After working thirty years to pay off a mortgage, most want their house to be worth as much as possible.
Few people make outside appearance their top priority when buying a house. With all the ugly houses around, that is obvious. However, most people veer toward traditional, even if it is referencing a style that ends up not being all that successful.
I know what it is like living in a house that attracts attention for being odd. Years ago, I bought this funny looking 1930's owner-built cottage in a picturesque mountain town in Colorado:
You can laugh if you want. I did the first time I saw it. It is hard to tell from the photo, but the window on the 2nd story is somewhat to the left of center from the picture window in the story below. It has two entrances in the front, with two stair cases. The one on the right is curved. People used to ask me if it were a duplex. The condensed vertical proportions of the house make it look different too. The hipped roof is different too. I thought I’d get used to the way it looked, but I didn’t. When my brother saw it, he dubbed it the “Hobbit House.” It is set back in the cliff and looks bad on all sides.
Inside, the house was cozy, sunny and practical. The first floor ceiling was too low, another thing I never got used to. A side wall with big windows overlooks a neighbor’s terraced flower gardens. Fortunately, the house is elevated about six feet higher than street level, and the street in front was steep. People didn’t look at my house when driving by. It wasn’t in a high traffic area anyway. People on foot would stare at it though, the few who might take a stroll in the neighborhood.
That town was full of quirky little houses, and some of them were cute and interesting. Mine was just odd. Not one person ever called it cute upon seeing the outside.
My priority in buying the house was location, and the location in that town was expensive. The price I paid was a steal for the property alone. It tripled in value in six years. For the same price, I could have had a nearly new townhouse in a neighboring town that was boring, and noisy when people went to work in the morning. From this house, I could run a few blocks and be up in trails in the mountains, walk downtown along a pretty creek, and even go in caves.
So, I bought into a funny looking house, for the property value and location. For initial buyers of the i-house, they have to take a chance on the way it looks. No property comes with the i-house.
Why didn’t Clayton go for a simpler double-wide design?
Introduced this summer, here’s a photo of the Cavco solar “Freedom” park model, which can be used off grid.
Most “park models” are 400 sq. ft., and look similar. They have regular peaked roofs, sometimes with added gables. They are classified as an RV. Snowbirds live in them in Arizona and Florida. I’m showing this, because it is a fine design.
Although its construction -- with 2 x 4 sidewalls and R11 insulation -- is not nearly as good as the i-home, it is a nice looking style. They went with a simple shed roof (for the solar panels) and clean lines. Inside, they use Ikea cabinets and bamboo floors, just like the i-house. The solar park model is on the market now, starting at about $45,000, and according to one article, a company person says they are “flying out the door.”
I wish they’d fly out the door with better insulation, but the size and the way their manufacturing facility is tooled, probably puts a restriction on that.
The feeling of solidity in a house has a lot to do with wall thickness. Seeing a thick inside perimeter of a window, for example, reminds you that you are in a house, not an RV.
Except if offered as an upgrade, nearly all single-wide trailers use 2 x 4s in the sidewalls instead of 2 x 6’s. It appears the I-house uses 2 x 6’s, at least.
Clayton has alluded to the fact they’ve spent a lot of money making this i-home. I don’t understand why they didn’t put more effort into its appearance.
I like modernism. But will the i-house look good or fit in anywhere?
Fuller’s Dymaxion house had it.
And the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile has it, and it tastes good.
Clayton's i-house
Although it doesn’t look like a food item, the i-house has it too, a high wutizit factor. It is the type of structure that might cause a passerby to say:
“What is it?”
“Some kind of single-wide right near a utility shed or phone company switching shack?”
When people are looking for a house, they don’t usually want a high wutizit factor, even if the three top priorities of “location, location, location” are perfect. If you see people pointing at your house, you want it to be because it is handsome or cute, not because they are trying to figure out what it is.
Marianne Cusato’s tiniest “Katrina Cottage,” at 300 sq. ft., is both handsome and cute:
Following the tradition of a vernacular -- in this case the shotgun style of Louisiana and Florida -- and if the proportions and quality of the house are done well, then a general acceptance will follow, right?
EXCEPT, there are issues of size and zoning, which has been a big stumbling block for the Katrina Cottage since its introduction in 2005.
People not living in them, apparently feel good about the toxic FEMA trailers are disposable, and will be gone some day, to a landfill, but the residents of of some neighborhoods in New Orleans, shudder at the prospect of communities of attractive small cottages, less than a thousand sq. ft., that could stick around.
Cusato’s designs use a vernacular in a way that makes it sing. They have proportion and style. Log siding on a double wide manufactured home is successful at evoking the charm of a log cabin, on some manufactured homes, but on others it just looks like lipstick on a hockey mom. Cement plank costs less, and it doesn’t rot and termites won’t eat it.
Modernism doesn’t have as much of a reference point. It is not following an existing style, even a fake-look tradition, like log siding is supposed to look like a log cabin. It isn’t easy to make a house look good when creating something brand new. “Keep it simple” would be a good plan to follow for a manufacturer to keep costs down.
Wealthy people can afford to buy new modern style houses, no matter how unusual the design, because they don’t have much of their net worth tied up in a house. Middle and lower class people have to worry about resale value. After working thirty years to pay off a mortgage, most want their house to be worth as much as possible.
Few people make outside appearance their top priority when buying a house. With all the ugly houses around, that is obvious. However, most people veer toward traditional, even if it is referencing a style that ends up not being all that successful.
I know what it is like living in a house that attracts attention for being odd. Years ago, I bought this funny looking 1930's owner-built cottage in a picturesque mountain town in Colorado:
You can laugh if you want. I did the first time I saw it. It is hard to tell from the photo, but the window on the 2nd story is somewhat to the left of center from the picture window in the story below. It has two entrances in the front, with two stair cases. The one on the right is curved. People used to ask me if it were a duplex. The condensed vertical proportions of the house make it look different too. The hipped roof is different too. I thought I’d get used to the way it looked, but I didn’t. When my brother saw it, he dubbed it the “Hobbit House.” It is set back in the cliff and looks bad on all sides.
Inside, the house was cozy, sunny and practical. The first floor ceiling was too low, another thing I never got used to. A side wall with big windows overlooks a neighbor’s terraced flower gardens. Fortunately, the house is elevated about six feet higher than street level, and the street in front was steep. People didn’t look at my house when driving by. It wasn’t in a high traffic area anyway. People on foot would stare at it though, the few who might take a stroll in the neighborhood.
That town was full of quirky little houses, and some of them were cute and interesting. Mine was just odd. Not one person ever called it cute upon seeing the outside.
My priority in buying the house was location, and the location in that town was expensive. The price I paid was a steal for the property alone. It tripled in value in six years. For the same price, I could have had a nearly new townhouse in a neighboring town that was boring, and noisy when people went to work in the morning. From this house, I could run a few blocks and be up in trails in the mountains, walk downtown along a pretty creek, and even go in caves.
So, I bought into a funny looking house, for the property value and location. For initial buyers of the i-house, they have to take a chance on the way it looks. No property comes with the i-house.
Why didn’t Clayton go for a simpler double-wide design?
Introduced this summer, here’s a photo of the Cavco solar “Freedom” park model, which can be used off grid.
Most “park models” are 400 sq. ft., and look similar. They have regular peaked roofs, sometimes with added gables. They are classified as an RV. Snowbirds live in them in Arizona and Florida. I’m showing this, because it is a fine design.
Although its construction -- with 2 x 4 sidewalls and R11 insulation -- is not nearly as good as the i-home, it is a nice looking style. They went with a simple shed roof (for the solar panels) and clean lines. Inside, they use Ikea cabinets and bamboo floors, just like the i-house. The solar park model is on the market now, starting at about $45,000, and according to one article, a company person says they are “flying out the door.”
I wish they’d fly out the door with better insulation, but the size and the way their manufacturing facility is tooled, probably puts a restriction on that.
The feeling of solidity in a house has a lot to do with wall thickness. Seeing a thick inside perimeter of a window, for example, reminds you that you are in a house, not an RV.
Except if offered as an upgrade, nearly all single-wide trailers use 2 x 4s in the sidewalls instead of 2 x 6’s. It appears the I-house uses 2 x 6’s, at least.
Clayton has alluded to the fact they’ve spent a lot of money making this i-home. I don’t understand why they didn’t put more effort into its appearance.
I like modernism. But will the i-house look good or fit in anywhere?
Sunday, November 2, 2008
A tale of two parts: Clayton’s revolutionary green i-house
When I first read the article in the Knoxville newspaper (find link in my first post of this blog), announcing the debut of Clayton’s first green manufactured home at their home show, perhaps the most striking thing about it, is not the butterfly roof for rain catchment, or its ability to accept solar panels, but that it comes with a 2nd bedroom and bath which is detached from the main home. The orange structure with stairs on the side is the second bedroom/bath. In effect, it is like a guest house, or it could be used that way.
My mind started spinning with the advantages and possible disadvantages of that feature alone. After thinking about it for a while, I concluded that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages for me, and probably for many other people too. In fact, it would be great.
ADVANTAGES:
When it comes to guests, I know how practical it is to have a home with a split bedroom design, and a 2nd bathroom of course. A few years ago, I lived in a newer home -- a custom stick-built adobe imitation -- before my stocks went south and I downsized. The home was only 1400 sq. feet, but had two bedrooms, each with bath, and each bedroom was on the opposite side of the house, diagonally. That was a better design than having to put guests in the room next door, or even across a hall. It gives everyone more privacy.
Better yet, would be having a home like the Clayton i-house, where you could put guests in their own separate guest house.
It would also make sense for people with older children, or an elderly parent, to give them their own space. A separate guest house is usually a luxury item that only wealthy people can afford.
DISADVANTAGES:
Anyone with smaller children, or an elder they need to keep a close eye on, putting them in a separate structure might make them feel a little isolated, or difficult to monitor. However, in this age of technology, an audio or video monitor might be an option. Also, some people have homes large enough, that even having a split bedroom plan, especially one upstairs and one down, makes bedrooms farther away from each other than this separate house.
During the winter, someone sleeping in the second bedroom, would need to go outside when they wanted to come over for breakfast or enter the main house for any reason. If they were in the main house, and needed something from the 2nd bedroom, they would have to step outside. Doing that would allow heat to escape.
However, would the difficulty of going outside be that much worse than going up and down a flight of stairs in a two story house. It would probably be easier.
One other disadvantage of the two part structure, is that more walls to the outside decrease energy efficiency. Along with that, more wall per enclosed square feet, takes more material to make.
SUGGESTIONS TO CLAYTON:
Design the 2nd bedroom so that it comes in two models. One as it is now, a 2nd bedroom and bath. Offer another floor plan as a small one-room cabin with kitchenette, that could be purchased separately from what is now the main part of the house.
In that way, Clayton could sell the small unit as a vacation cabin, or as a guest house. With the tiny house movement heating up, and people vacationing and even living in homes that are 100 sq. feet and less, this, at about 200 sq. ft., would be fine.
With regard to design, the orange/red 2nd bedroom structure is especially attractive. I like the proportions, the stairs, the roof deck, and the size. Not only does it in no way look like a trailer, it looks better to me than pretty much all the prefab cottages, cubes and homes that were shown at the Museum of Modern Art this summer.
Used as a summer cabin, the roof deck would be handy for enjoying a view, eating outside, or pitching a tent to use as a extra sleeping room in warmer weather.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
