Not to be picky but -- was the idea that the materials cost no more than $99K?

It worries me that the emphasis that Americans put upon affordability is often at the expense of someone else's fair wage. Assuming it takes a bare minimum of 3 people working full time over 6 months at minimum wage plus health benefits an worker's comp, this home would enjoy labor costs alone of around $30K. That doesn't include the cost of the plans themselves (architects generally charge $100hr minimum or 10% of the cost of the home, so let's say $9K) or the lot (in Houston? we'll be conservative and say $60K for a lot without improvements).

So you're looking at a base minimum cost of close to $200K for this home without any skilled labor costs applied. Or you're talking about free materials and no foreman.

I love love love the intention here, to encourage intelligent design on a budget, but I also feel like it would benefit our society as a whole if we were honest, realistic and fair about what design and manufacturing on this scale really costs--when we pay a fair wage. And the truth is that undocumented laborers make up a large part of the construction workforce in Houston.

Is that $99k to build or $99k including lot?

Because there's just no way you're going to sell any house for less than $99K unless it's way out in the suburbs, or in Saskatchewan. Which makes it just as big a greenhouse gas villian as a house "less green".

from the website:
http://www.the99khouse.com/program.html
A 3-bedroom, 1½ to 2-bathroom, single-family house up to 1,400 SF and appropriate for four people. If a garage is included, its SF must be included in the total number of SF of the project. Carports need not be included in SF but will add to construction cost. Two on-site parking places are required, but they do not have to be covered and can be one behind the other. The design should be flexible and appropriate for construction, either as infill or as block redevelopment within Houston’s underdeveloped inner city neighborhoods.
All entries should address the following considerations:
• Climate in the Gulf Coast region
• Maintenance and material life span
• Energy efficiency (www.energystar.gov)
• Affordability ≤ 99K
• LARA guidelines: (www.houstontx.gov/lara/)
• The principles of Social, Economic, Environmental Design

ernie:
dont understand what you mean by "no way you're going to sell any house for less than $99K"
why not? i dont think its a for profit project. house is built in "underdeveloped inner city neighborhoods"

From the 99K House Competition guidelines.."The $99,000 construction limit must include construction costs, financing, closing costs, commissions, overhead, and profit. The actual construction budget in the Houston area will be approximately $75,000. The lot and infrastructure are not included in this figure." If your not from the Houston area, Texas has a very moderate cost of living. It would be a tremendous step forward to offer sustainable housing to a community that normally cannot afford the AC bill in the summer. Cross Ventilation and insulating properties will be very welcome in the gulf coast areas just like they are in NOLA. I can't wait to see the construction finished. Lots will run between 15 - 25 K, but land is available in under served neighborhoods for reasonable rate.

Very interesting. I'm currently in a 1200 sq ft 3 bedroom duplex on a city lot in Vancouver, and this is really quite an interesting design. Making excellent use of the interior space and using sustainable materials is fantastic.

Were anything ever to happen to our house, something like this would be a great replacement.

Too bad they didn't choose Karrie Jacobs as one of the judges, after her exhaustive quest for "The Perfect $100,000 House":

http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-100-000-House-America/dp/0670037613

Unless I am not quite with it, the operating costs for a house are quite expensive, be it air or heat or a combination of the two. These eat up a lot of any budget and really should be considered in the overall cost of a house.
Since our infrastructure has not gotten up to speed with reliable and friendly public transportation other than a very few cities, commuting costs should also be considered. It seems ironic that our forefathers figured out much of this by living in "tight" communities where you could walk to almost everything you needed on a daily basis. And for those in the snow belt, they built their houses close to the road to minimize the work of shoveling out to get on the road or to the barn.
How about looking at the "total cost" of owning a house and working to generate loyality again to and with the function that provides economic prowess

Unless I am not quite with it, the operating costs for a house are quite expensive, be it air or heat or a combination of the two. These eat up a lot of any budget and really should be considered in the overall cost of a house.
Since our infrastructure has not gotten up to speed with reliable and friendly public transportation other than a very few cities, commuting costs should also be considered. It seems ironic that our forefathers figured out much of this by living in "tight" communities where you could walk to almost everything you needed on a daily basis. And for those in the snow belt, they built their houses close to the road to minimize the work of shoveling out to get on the road or to the barn.
How about looking at the "total cost" of owning a house and working to generate loyality again to and with the function that provides economic prowess

to bad they don,t try in New England with minus weather and 100" of snow .flat roof don,t cut it

Papafrank:

if you read my comment it says the house will be built in the innercity. i would assume public transport would be accessible.
as far as operating costs: "The compact envelope reduces first costs and energy consumption."
you're going to have operating costs with any house.

Well I on the other hand, I like the pressure to come up with a design that is green, modern, and under 100K. They guy before me saying "be realistic", well as for his profession he is probably a contractor that does not want to loss buisness. I have to say that from my experience my Father built a nice 3 bedroom 2 bath 2 car garage brick home with us doing a lot of the work and our own contracting for $70,000, where as the contractors we approched prior to building the home ourselves wanted no less than $150,000 to build the same home. So yeah lets be realistic because it can be done.

I like the IdeaBox even better! It only costs $75K, and is actually already being produced!! Not just a concept, but something you can order. As soon as they expand to the East Coast, I'm ording one pronto. I emailed the company and they said they hope one day to spread East--so I'm excited! They look lovely, and for 5K more, you can go off grid and they'll do integrated solar panel roofing. They actually look like homes, not warehouses of cold glass (no offense to people that like this style, its just not me). The IdeaBox comes in 450 or 800 sq ft--1-2 bd, 1-2 bath. I also think we should look at Tumbleweed, Martin, and Katrina houses for these inner-city poor (and everyone else too!). Martin houses are 33K. Of course, that's not for families though. Too small.

Affordable environmentally sensitive urban housing, what's not ot like about a project like this. I hope it succeeds but I'm surprised that the design incorporates rather conventional looking stick framing as opposed to SIP or another factory-built modular component. It seems like the construction time and cost coudl be greatly reduced if more components were preconstructed in a factory and hauled to the site.

Or you could save money and resources by rehabing an old home. Most pre-air conditioning era homes were built with passive solar designs.
Repoint some old windows, add insulation, install energy efficient appliances and heating systems. You can also add solar panels/shingles to existing roofs, rain barrels to pre-existing gutters and even install a cistern and/or a grey water recycling system to conserve even more resources.
Many inner city areas have inexpensive older homes literally dying to be renewed/recycled.
The more work you do yourself, the more money you can save. If you're smart, invite/bribe (BBQ & beer) your skilled friends and neighbors for assistance. Granted time, effort, and patience are required.

Another problem I see with this is the use of balloon construction. With balloon construction, any fire that starts in the basement has a raceway to the attic. You're guaranteeing that if the house catches fire, that it will burn to the ground.

Also, there's no reference to a sprinkler system. Some communities today require them. And based on the costs of a sprinkler system, if you've got city water, then there's no reason to not put one in. They cost between $3,000 and $5,000 USD to install when constructing. A sprinkler system changes what started off as a room and contents fire into a water damage and smoke damage cleanup. Also, as far as I know there have been no fire fatalities in sprinklered buildings.

James Rosse
Firefighter/EMT

I find it slightly mind boggling that this piece of wooden tornado-fodder wins an award. A long-term "green" house should be built to last a century or more: build it like a miniature cathedral. Why not build the entire structure out of brick? It costs a lot up front, but will not burn, will resist the worst storms, and you don't have to worry about nonsense like painting, roofing shingles, and termites. Think "brutalist cathedral." The true waste in house construction is in expensive, repeated maintenance of poorly-thought-out (plannedly obsolescent?) structures.

Having watched unchecked developers rape Florida, packing people onto the land in densities (Food distribution braking down would quickly cause total anarchy because everything to eat in the 'burbs comes from WalMart.) that it cannot possibly support, I find the idea of another quick and cheap wood-frame house with some "green" spin to be very depressing. Stack 'em 3 stories deep in flimsy disposable structures, pump all the fresh water out of the ground, and then make a fortune rebuilding the little matchstick structures when they rot or are destroyed by storms every few decades. Lots of costly pesticide treatments, painting (not aesthetic silliness, but to protect the wood from rotting), roof repairs make wood frame houses far from green, even if there isn't a hurricane or tornado.

Did anyone notice how this design follows the traditional American Four-square concept? Four square rooms on top of four square rooms. This design was very popular for the pattern-book houses after the turn of the century. Cheap and easy to build.

I used to live in a house pretty similar that was built in the 20s. Despite its lack of insulation, it was relatively inexpensive to heat and cool; granted, we did wear sweaters in the winter and spent most of our time in the basement in the summer. A cube design minimizes heat gain/loss by minimizing surface area compared to volume.

Although it has its flaws, it's a great design compared to the conspicuous homes you see most places.

I have absolutely no idea how this house won a competition that one of the reference critieria was design for a hot/humid climate. It is absolutely shocking. There is nothing about this house that is suitable for a hot humid climate.
Where are the eaves? The solar shading for the walls? Where are the high celings? Where is the cross ventilation?

As a good reference check out: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/environ/housedesign/HSWW_d.shtml

Timber is a very good material to use especially with a hot humid climate. Any traditional house in a hot/humid environment is always built in timber as it has a low thermal mass. You will never see a brick house as it has too geat a thermal mass. Also timber soaks up the CO2 when it is growing.

This house is just another example of 'greenwash' dressed up as science. It is a pity because the competition looked like it actually wanted to do something different. Instead it pretty much kept to the same tried and tired designs.

This sounds like a great project idea. My only thought is that if your going to put effort into the inner city, there are plenty of existing structures you could rehab green instead of starting from scratch.

building a new home, the idea for green construction would be to reduce exterior surface area for radiance/absorbtion. building in a shaded area and a geodesic dome would do this. a box is the most inefficient way to contain a volume. this was popular in the 70's. kits were sold with framing connectors. in mass production it would cost much less and have many flexible floor plans.