Page 1 of 1
Would you be interested in....
Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:19 am
A flat-pack, (mostly) put-it-together-yourself home? Think Ikea on a MUCH bigger scale.
On architect and myself are working on something unique and I was just wondering if that concept completely scares people or not.
We're working on some ideas to get a modern home system under $150/sq ft at 1800-2000 sq ft -- while still offering some of the elements that make homes like Kappe's LivingHomes so spectacular. We're aiming for something like that but designed for people who can't afford $900k + land + site work.
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:27 am
It's a good idea. Several metal building systems offer these kind of 'kits", but they are more often reserved for utilitarian uses such as warehouses and barns. Over the last twenty years they have become more popular with churches and schools, typically with limited budgets. It's a good fit. But I have yet to see the idea carry over to the residential market. I'm curious, tell me more...
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 3:34 pm
ive been interested in something like this for several years, but i guess my only fear is public perception as far as re-sale value. technically, its a modular home on a typical spread footing foundation.
i really like the flatpak system by the lazor office. the only problem i see is that this could only be a feasible solution as "affordable" family housing in a limited market of regions. of course, california would be one of those markets.
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:42 pm
Nice. Go thru this photoset.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/flatpakhou ... 570777466/
Let's see what you're up to, Stephen. It's a crying need. . .
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:55 pm
already exist. see my article in California Modern from last Summer
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:54 pm
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:37 pm
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:49 pm
been there, done that. good luck finding land.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:03 pm
The man is SUCH a downer. . .
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:33 pm
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:36 am
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:57 am
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:04 am
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:06 am
I think its a great idea (but not necessarily a new one). Look at Karl Koch's techbuilt homes and many of Norman Cherner's low cost designs in which all major components (wall, floor, and roof panels) were built on 4 foot modules. The techbuilts were delivered on a truck and could be assembled in a few days.
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:28 am
Regarding in-fill opportunities, I posted this one last year in a different thread, where a house was built on the rear of a R2 lot -- which allows two properties..
It is in Culver City -- featured in Dwell -- and was built this way as the lot had to have 4 covered parking spaces -- 2 for this house and one for the original smaller house at the front of the lot.
There's a lot of R2 properties in SoCal and many have a smaller property at the rear which is typically rented. In this case the guy who built this lives in the modern one and rents out the front. Obviously, having rental income changes the financing dynamic, if one can accept sharing one's lot, and not all areas require the 4 parking spaces.
Maybe one could build two new, modern, smaller footprint ,houses on such lots.
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:14 pm
I happened to visit that house on a tour I gave last weekend. Really nice. And a "green" manifesto. Using an R-2 lot like that is a creative way of redeveloping. One could live in the front unit while building the new back unit and then move in and build a new unit in front. Not that this is happening at that house though.
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:10 pm
here are some links to architects/builders I profiled.
I really liked the Yeh + Jerrard design.
Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:47 pm