Thoughts on Clayton's i-house

I heard someone recently mention that mobile home communities, and particularly, the more upscale versions, could benefit from a condo-type set up regarding ownership of the land. I'm not sure if that would change the dynamics at all, but there's seriously something wrong with the concept of mortgaging yourself for 30 years to $200k, $300k, $400k, $500k, and more.

Like you say, though, I really hope this endeavor succeeds. Clayton is so big, the ramifications could be enormous.

I live in a manufactured home in Alberta Canada. It is designed for a very cold climate, of course, with Energy-Star windows, R20 walls,R40 ceilings and floors. It is 76' long and 20' wide, not very stylish and with not very many natural materials, but it is comfortable and easy to heat. I think it is efficient enough to qualify as green. We are not in a "trailer court" but on an acreage so I cannot speak about that situation.

I live in a manufactured home in Alberta Canada. It is designed for a very cold climate, of course, with Energy-Star windows, R20 walls,R40 ceilings and floors. It is 76' long and 20' wide, not very stylish and with not very many natural materials, but it is comfortable and easy to heat. I think it is efficient enough to qualify as green. We are not in a "trailer court" but on an acreage so I cannot speak about that situation.

That Kaufmann design is outstanding - it really takes the 'mobile home' into a modern design.

I went to see the i-house today where it sits across from the Knoxville Airport. Well made, of quality materials, I feel however that it will fail for one reason: Price. Next to the $100,000 i-house was another Clayton creation, twice the size and not as well made, but never the less, $34,500.

The green movement suffers from a simple economic reality that Toyota realized from the get-go: If the reduced cost of operation does not come close to the difference in price to a similar vehicle, then it will not sell. A Prius makes up it's price difference, the i-house will not.

It will sell to those who are more concerned about the environment than the average person, but that makes up only the early adopters. If there are enough of those to allow construction of the i-house at an economy of scale that will make the purchase of such a small home attractive, then great. I doubt it will happen.

Any idea as to when the clayton i-house may be marketed?

The I-house claim is it is much cheaper than stick built, and quote $200 - $300 a square foot for stick. Don't know where they get their figures, but their per square foot price for the i-house (no lot) at $100 to $130 a sq.ft. is WAY above totally custom stick built that includes the lot in our area. Who's going to buy a "green" house trailer that costs more than a custom built home?? Can' see it myself, until the price goes "market".

I think it's a great IDEA, and I really do want to try and go green but the price is ridiculous. With real estate prices so low, there is NO way I can justify paying 100K+ for a glorified trailer, with no land, that I will have to put in a trailer park to live. If I want to avoid a trailer park (which I would NEVER live in) then I'm going to have to spend tens of thousands more for land, permits, slab, driveway..ect. ect.

In contrast, there are really beautiful houses for sale around the corner on nice fenced lots, in a family subdivision for $140K. Which would I buy? A nice house in a nice family subdivision or a fancy trailer in a trailer park? You have to be kidding? This is why I don't think it will succeed.

People that don't have the credit or money for the house in the subdivision can't or won't pay that price for a trailer when they can get a larger "double wide" for less. You can dress it up all you want with titles like modular, manufactured ect., but a trailer is a trailer is a trailer. And I don't want to live in one.

I wish home builders would come up with a similar idea for homes in 140-200K price range. That would sell. If it's not feasible due to cost, that's a great place for the government to dump some of that stimulus money. Into green subsidies in home construction. That would be a better use for my tax dollars than some of what I have seen so far.

Just my ten cents worth. :)

When i heard about the release, I jumped to see what the i-house was all about. I would love to place a mobile/modular home on some land, but the toxins prohibit it. The idea that thought was put into a "green" mobile home is great. I am however not hearing any reports on the materials used to build it. Is it free of the toxic building materials that mobile homes are know for? Second, the cost is way over the top!!! It has totally missed the mark for this type of housing need. I hope people are not desperate enough to get stuck with it, but if it fails does this put a black mark on corporate ideas of a market for green modular homes? I hope not. Green needs to mean green in your wallet too! We are faced with ecological and economical issues. Booo on Buffet for making it so expensive.

I agree the figures seem a little high - $100-200 per sq ft including land seems to be the norm. That won't get you high-end finish materials (granite, hardwoods, tile, etc), but it will get you a nice house and some land.

I think the i-house concept may be a hit for people looking for a part-time or vacation type house. It could really take off if they can get some celebrities to buy into it.

The specs on the house look nice - metal roof, 6 inch walls, tankless water heater, bamboo flooring, roof to enable catching of rain water, etc.

Estimated cost for heating and electricity is only $1/day - in Omaha. $30/month sounds pretty good to me!

They could put together several "homes" to get a larger home, but I think that may defeat the purpose of the design.

I will agree with some of the other comments that it is a cool idea but far to costly for what your getting. One bedroom come-on now I can buy a brand new stick built home for that in our area, land and all. Get more realistic and you may sell them.

I will agree with some of the other comments that it is a cool idea but far to costly for what your getting. One bedroom come-on now I can buy a brand new stick built home for that in our area, land and all. Get more realistic and you may sell them.

this house sucks

this house cant have an intellagent or civil coment

I am a builder in Nashville, Tn. Here are a few thoughts on the 'trailer i-home'. Manufactured housing is flatly more sustainable than current site built houses because of its ability to be almost waste free. The idea that they are essentially trailers is only accurate if you leave them as such when they arrive on the lot. These units CAN be place on foundations and then there is little to no difference between them and on site construction. From what I read, they are using 2x6 construction for their exterior walls to allow for more insulation. Most of the people reading this don't live in houses with 2x6 walls. Standard is 2x4. Also, I've looked at the undercarriage of a trailer home and it's set on steel I beams. If you add a good permanent foundation to it, and inspect the i house thoroughly before purchase to make sure that all structural elements are on par or better than site built and, in my opinion, you've got yourself a better house than the average homebuyer for many reasons, not the least of which being that quality control in a warehouse is easier than on a job site and you can place the house on land with minimal disturbance to the lot.

Manufactured modular houses makes sooo much sense. Once it really hits economies of scale, it will lead home sales if people will take the time to learn that what makes a house is not whether it arrives on a trailer but how it is literally built. Oh, and whoever said you have to put a trailered house in a trailer park is completely wrong. There is nothing to stop someone from putting a trailer home *almost anywhere when it is placed on a permanent foundation. Homeowners associations and historical overlays can prevent it, but they can prevent the type of site built house too.

If Clayton has truly made a solid product that meets high standards of engineering quality and is not the minimum allowed by law mobile homes of the 60's and 70's, then they are on the razor's edge of what is to come in housing. If they are making a solid product, which it seems that they are, then I support them and urge prospective homebuyers to compare the i-house to the exact same design and components and certainty of quality that they would pay for with a general contractor like me. Seriously, I'd love to see those numbers.

I agree with Mack2. I read about the iHouse and was immediately intrigued by the design and the "green-ness" of the structure. But I was taken aback by the assertion of Chris Nicely (Clayton marketing vice president) that "A stick-built house with similar features could range from $200 to $300 a square foot to start"

Like Mack2 said, I don't know where they are getting their numbers but stick-built houses are much cheaper here in Ohio. I called a couple of local custom home builders and priced about 15 of their models. The price of construction ranged from $59.94-$84.21per sq. ft., and that includes a poured concrete basement and a two car garage on houses ranging from 1922 to 2839 sq. ft.

The iHouse costs are $91.20 and $103.59 per sq. ft. for houses of 1023 and 723 sq. ft. respectively. And they do not include a poured concrete basement or a two car garage.

None of the costs given above include real estate costs so I believe they are comparable.

Now maybe the green features are worth the price difference, but I can't find what the specifics of them (solar panels, etc.) are on the Clayton iHouse website. IMHO, it would take a lot of fancy technology to justify the much higher price.

So, barring some really expensive technology built into the iHouse that was not described in what I've read about them, the iHouses do not appear to be cost competitive in a free market. Very few people will pay nearly 100% more for a home just because it is green.

In addition to cost there is the "serious disconnect between those who understood the building and those who understood the ownership model" which Mr. Alter feels is "insurmountable". All in all, the iHouse looks like a loser to me.

Regrettably, it does not look like this product will do much to advance the green agenda.

i live in a trailer and if they take out the carpeting and reduce the VOCs in the trailer it would justify the greeness for me. It would give more people an entryway into green living. One of the problems I see is whether or not most people can care for a technically green house. We need to start somewhere to get folks out of the older homes. I mean the antique properties. Perhaps the govenment should study the car voucher program and see if it could be apply to green housing.

People don't like apartments or condos because you cannot control who you neighbors are and you can't exile everyone. I know I value my privacy and feel a lot safer in a separate house rather than living in an apartment complex.

There is no way, with a volume of 7230cf, R20 Walls R30 roof and floor, that this building with a completely electrically-fuelled (just read their specs) HVAC system can operate for $1-a-day as claimed. We just ran analysis using the data in their specsheet and got results of $7/day when the unit is located in Toronto, Canada. Greenwashing alert.

This would work well in resort towns like Vail and Aspen for employee housing if you could find the land to put them.

It's a SIMS House!

I live in northern California and will confirm that in this part of the country building costs, even for a relatively modest stick-built home, will typically run from $150-200 per square foot, excluding land costs which start at about $100,000 per city lot and rise quickly from there. So, a well-designed, truly "green" home, even a modular one at $100 p.s.f. would compete favorably with a stick at typical local costs. I'd like to believe that the i-house will start a trend towards affordale, greener housing and that we may even see "mobile home parks" that have more space and better amenities than what we have been used to. I'd like to hear about developers who are involved or contemplating this kind of project.

I live in a mobile home park in Oceanside, California. We have 328 homes in our park. The residents own 1/328 of the entire park, and reserve funds, and the exclusive use of their lot. A very nice place to live. Our bylaws however, forbid single wide homes, which is what these would qualify as, but if you could design this as a double wide, with one side not as long as the other from the front back, these homes would be a great fit here in our little bit of heaven.

I live in a mobile home park in Oceanside, California. We have 328 homes in our park. The residents own 1/328 of the entire park, and reserve funds, and the exclusive use of their lot. A very nice place to live. Our bylaws however, forbid single wide homes, which is what these would qualify as, but if you could design this as a double wide, with one side not as long as the other from the front back, these homes would be a great fit here in our little bit of heaven.

Stephan Brown wrote: "I live in northern California and will confirm that in this part of the country building costs, even for a relatively modest stick-built home, will typically run from $150-200 per square foot, excluding land costs"

Wow! I've heard that housing costs are high in California. But that is ridiculous. How can you afford to own a home?

According to the U.S. Social Security Administration the median wage was $25,737 in 2007 while the average wage in the same year was $38,760. See the following URL for details:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html

I don't see how the median or average wage-earner can afford a house in California if a medium sized 2000 sq.ft. house runs between $300,000 and $400,000.

The same sized house would run around $110,000 to $160,00 in south-west Ohio for new construction.

I know the weather is nice in California (I have visited on occasion) but it's not THAT nice. :-)

Maybe the iHouse will sell in California if the prices really are that crazy out there. But it will not sell anywhere else in the country where housing costs are more reasonable.

This is precisely the kind of marketing which makes management look completely brain-dead. The trailer market is working class, and it was designed to give the working class enough housing to keep them from organizing for better wages. These families would benefit most from solarization and ecological architecture, and they can't afford The World's Richest Man's little dream-house.

I've been inside of Claytons with closet-sized livingrooms adjoined by "garden" baths nearly as large as the communal spaces--egregiously bad design.

When the solar trailer is available for the laboring man and woman, we will see a substantial reduction in greenhouse gases and fewer families in economic crisis.

Stephen Brown - Clayton himself is developing a pre-fab neighborhood here in the Knoxville area (I am a Knoxville native)

Also, for everyone that keeps referring to this thing as a "trailer" you are entirely wrong. This house is only delivered on a trailer but it is entirely a modular home. That means it is customizable, the one shown in the photo is 800 sf but it comes with the option of adding more modules for more space and can be configured in any manner desired.

This is not a new concept guys Sears started doing it in 1908 with their kit homes.

After surviving many hurricanes and dealing with the insurance companies, insurance premiuims, property taxes-it just makes sense-this will be our vacation home at the beach! I would never live in a trailer but would live in an i-house

This thing is just plain ugly. For $100,000, a "modular" home would have to have some style before I bought it. It looks like it is a puzzle badly put together.

I live ~30 min outside Philadelphia in a 55-year-old ranch house. Most of the houses in our neighborhood are showing their age: single-pane windows with rotting wood frames, ancient wiring, no insulation in the walls, utterly tacky "remodel" jobs...the list goes on. At 1,300 sq. ft. our house is average size for the neighborhood. Many of the families in our neighborhood are single-parent, low-income families and there is a corresponding rise in domestic violence, vandalism, and petty theft. Houses in my subdivision that are in any kind of livable condition sell for $200K and more, although if you're willing to commute 30 - 60 minutes for work, you can buy a lot more house for your money in a more rural setting. At these figures the i-home doesn't sound so outrageous.

It does feel a little weird to read the blog and the comments here with all the references to "blue-collar" buyers and "the working man and woman," as though people who live in neighborhoods like mine are somehow a foreign subspecies. I happen to live in a very expensive market, yet I choose to live below my means. Does that make me so different?

There has to be something done for young families. There is no such thing in our area as "affordable" housing. We live in NJ. 2 parents working full time doesn't come close to being able to afford a house payment in this state. The i-house is a good idea, but, in NJ they are so greedy, that you aren't allowed to buy a trailer/modular and put it on your on property. You are FORCED to put it in a trailer park (with lot rents costing more than mortagage payments in a normal state!). Or, you HAVE to buy a $400,000-500,000 house! Who can afford that? The normal people are being pushed out by the encroaching New Yorkers and Philadelphians. I-house for $75,000, sure works for me, but only if YOU get NJ to allow them on your own property. NJ requires any new house to be minimum 1,500 square feet, excluding basement, attic, or garage. Oh, and it HAS to have minimum of 3 bedrooms.

love the concept
a modular can be as good as site built... and I am thinking about it...

BUT...
1) WHO is financing? Where are the comparables?
2) the pics I've found show awesome until I see the bathroom... standard crap there, are the interior doors that light crap too?
3) how exactly do you reach those controls on that top stacked drier? it's at least 4" above the top of the refrigerator???

I need to find a display unit.