The Low Down On Green Living
May 6th, 2009
Warren Buffett Company Debuts Line of Green Prefab Homes
Stumble it!
Warren Buffett isn’t the world’s second richest man for nothing. He has an unsurpassed knack for picking good companies in strong industries at the right price. Most things he’s touched have turned into gold. So it’s exciting to see that a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary called Clayton Homes has just launched a line of green prefab homes (called the i-house) that start at under $75,000 (or about $105 / square foot) excluding site costs and shipping. Clayton Homes is one of the largest manufactured housing companies in the world, having produced over 1.5 million units since 1934. They’ll clearly get the manufacturing, financing and logistics right, but can they deliver the amenities, materials and compelling designs that prospective green homeowners have come to expect from green prefab?
The first models are quite promising. Even the base version comes with a lengthy list of standard green features, including:
- Well insulated exterior walls, floor and roof (R-21, R-30 and R-30 respectively)
- Andersen low-e windows
- Metal roof designed for rainwater collection
- No-VOC paint
- High efficiency heat pump
- Dual-flush toilets
If that’s not green enough for you, then you can pick from a long list of sustainable options that includes:
- Two to four kilowatts of solar PV panels;
- Bamboo flooring;
- Tankless water heaters
- Energy Star appliances
You obviously won’t get a LEED Platinum rating on your new i-house, but you will get a very low-energy and reasonably green home at a great price point.
The i-house website has an easy-to-use configurator that allows you to create a customized home and view pricing for options and delivery in your area.
Via Jetson Green
Popularity: 15% [?]
Comments
mICHAEL tHOMAS
May 9th, 2009 at 4:22 am
Why, why, WHY are the designers of inexpensive housing so enamored of butterfly roofs?
People don’t clean/maintain the drainage systems. and water it’s shortly running down the walls. And while “nature may abhor a vacuum” it abominates a BUTTERFLY roof on low cost housing where it will often fall victim of low cost / poor quality maintenance and premature and poorly installed repalcement. - when I inspect such properties and such designs thought ruing through my mind - which is all too often confirmed as reasonable by actual condition - is “Instant slum. Just add water.”
I’d LOVE to get the boneheaded clown who designed that roof profile out with me for a day to see how such properties are actually maintained and repaired in the real world beyond the classroom and office door .
James Guglielmino
May 9th, 2009 at 4:47 am
I ask this question as a lay person (perhaps obviously). It seems that your concern is pooling water but why does it have to pool? Why not have a slight slope to the center part of the roof to allow water to drain?
Intuitively, I worry about any of these being built in areas where a great deal of snow falls. I’d appreciate your comments (JGug1@aol.com)
S.T.Hall
May 9th, 2009 at 5:25 am
I have to agree with Michael Thomas. Living in Maine, shallow-pitched roofs keep people like me employeed..:) Anything less than a 5:12 pitch around here and you’d eventually have ice damming and water damage. Frozen water can split rock so no doubt it would wreak havov in the vee area of the roof. On the other hand, I do like the applied water collection principal. This would be a great Arizona house….
Jeff Boatright
May 9th, 2009 at 6:12 am
James,
From my limited experience of home ownership and the experiences of my friends, moving water away from the house is a top, if not THE top priority. Therefore, roofs should be designed to move water away from the house as a default. That is, even if the ancillaries such as gutters and downspouts fail (through poor maintenance, damage, or whatever), the bulk of the water gets moved off the roof without pooling (which allows water to drip through and damage the interior) and moved away from the foundation.
A butterfly roof, on the other hand, does the exact opposite. If even one ancillary fails, you WILL have water damage. Even the simple and very common behavior of not keeping the leaves out of the ancillaries will cause severe problems that otherwise would cause almost no serious trouble for years.
Jeff
lisaintexas
May 9th, 2009 at 6:21 am
And the ‘green lovers’ in Bonham, Texas - where there is a Clayton Homes facility are delighted. We’re also delighted that Clayton Homes needs to add more jobs here locally!
Ryan Flegal
May 12th, 2009 at 9:27 am
I had the pleasure of touring the first i-house during my last trip to Knoxville, TN. Overall, I’m pleased. This is a substantial step forward for the modular home market. Kudos for the increased energy efficiency, relatively inexpensive solar upgrade, and the baby steps toward using more sustainably sourced materials. It would be great if Buffet and Clayton Homes would use only FSC certified lumber (they may be but no one at Clayton could tell me if the lumber was sustainably harvested). Cabinetry is off-the-shelf Ikea stuff complete with formaldehyde and other indoor toxins (again, no one there seemed to know much about this).
Clayton has a pretty good product (relatively speaking) but with just a little more effort they could make it great. Clean up the indoor air toxins (they’re already using no-VOC paints) and spend just a bit more effort sourcing some of the unseen materials like lumber and this could really take off. Hopefully these changes will come by the time these are ready for delivery to the west coast.
Joyce J. Kelly, LEED AP, NCQLP LC, Assoc. AIA
May 12th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
In selecting one of the plans for an AZ zip code, I found no option to block E-W solar gain let alone shade south-facing windows from direct gain in Summer. Efficient buildings start with site planning and awareness of and ability to accomodate the sun’s path to control daylighting.
Sue | Roof Repairs
May 12th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
I love this home and there really is nothing wrong the way that the roof has been designed this way water drainage is excellent.
Cory Kulok
May 13th, 2009 at 7:29 am
I live in Key West, Florida, love the I home, can they be build on stilt & wind factor of 165-175?
on a very tight budget, how much for that home + shipping?
Thanks,
Cory
S. Farthing
May 14th, 2009 at 6:32 am
Wow! These houses are certainly not what I am looking for. They look like a lot of wasted space to me like hallways. I wish Mr Buffet would check out the Monolithic Dome Homes.. They are Energy Efficient, Green,Hurricane Proof,Insect Proof, and will last a zillion years.
What will happen to this house in 20 years??????????
Please go to http://www.monolithic.com
Efenimore
May 14th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I like the look and idea behind these homes but in my estimation most people need extra bedrooms because they have kids to put into them and I don’t know any parent who would be willing to have their kids in a separate building…except maybe once they become teenagers. But what is realistic about a prefab home that can’t be used with children.
Dr Joe
May 15th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
To start I have to agree with Michael, The roof line is just stupid, people want normal looking homes. They want something that will blend with a neighborhood once moved in, not be the trailer on the block because that’s what it reminds me of.
I do like the kitchen and bedroom for there open air feel to them. But you need to go back to the drawing board and make something that people want to buy that is affordable and just looks great. It also must have a 5/12 pitched roof. The roof can be brought in the same way and bolted in place to make the home air tight and storm worthy. Here in Kansas we see winds of 10 to 40 on average and our storms bring 40 to 120 stright line winds. That would lead me to my next question are they basement ready??? Tornados…
Also what about a garage that is prefabed??? Most people want a garage for there cars. Think about it, it is 4 walls and a roof that could be delivered on one flat bed trailer. The walk in door would be prehung and the large doors could be purchased local to save shiping cost.
Also the Monolithic Dome home are a waste of time, yes they may have a bunch of energy saving benifits, but there ulgy and no one wants an ulgy. home.
S. Farthing
May 19th, 2009 at 6:31 am
I suppose beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. They are a lot more effiecient than any other and I think that is what we as a nation is looking for.
Christine Vernon
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
This is absolutely a great and much needed concept and it is wonderful it is being taken up by someone of standing and influence, but the design could be even more excellent if the designers would just study The Farnsworth House in Plano, IL. It is a more aesthetically pleasing model I think. True, maybe a fortune to reproduce, but the design could surely be adapted. I agree about the roof not being optimal and make the suggestion that the designers study prairie school homes. Living my whole life in houses by Frank Lloyd Wright and his students, the one essential in the design of a house I have come to appreciate are the overhanging eaves. It keeps a place so cool in the summer and provides so much shade for the interior, a wonderful feature.
Matt
June 19th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
In response to the roof comments, generally, the reason for a butterfly roof is to create a type of clerestory on both sides of the house. This in turn creates solar heating during both the winter and summer months. The sun is at a lower angle in the winter, therefore, the clerestory will allow sunlight in and create heat. In the summer, the sun is at a higher angle, thus, sunlight cannot pass through the clerestory and will cool the house.
That is mainly the reason for an angled roof. Whether or not this was the design intent is another story.
-Matt, Project Engineer
Post a Comment