Good photo essay of the different types of prefab housing. Touches on the history too.
http://news.com.com/2300-11392_3-6205133-1.html?tag=ne.gall.pg
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Dangerous electrical work and widespread misconceptions cause fires, deaths, and $1.5 billion in property damage annually.
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Fine Homebuilding Magazine
Fine Home Building
Follow
-
Fine Homebuilding
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial Now -
GBA Prime
Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
Replies
I toured a modular home factory about 5 yrs ago ...
I'd buy / sell / live in one.
some facets were better than traditional.
Jeff
Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
the Modular Home factory I toured built houses ...
not trailers.
I think House when I hear modular ... not trailer.
set on foundations ... just built in boxes.
subdivisions ... not trailer parks.
never saw a 2 story 4-5-or-6 box trailer.
Jeff Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
Jeff,
You are correct, modulars are houses, not trailers. I went down memory lane with the trailer thing and got the trailer, uhh, modular, turned the wrong way, sorry. I was very naughty.
modulars are houses, not trailers...modulars are houses, not trailers...modulars are houses, not trailers...
How many times should I write it, Jeff?
Just curious Jeff, have you ever lived in a home that you built, yourself?
Nope.
and I doubt I ever will.
have no plans to do such.
too many great old houses around here already.
I also highly doubt I'll live in a new and or newer subdivision.
same reason.
Jeff Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
A couple of completely anecdotal experiences that make me wary of modular homes:
Dwell Magazine regularly showcases high end versions as "the way of the future", and I notice they all have outrageous per sq ft costs.
All the local manufacturers seem to employ nothing but laborers. None of the skilled trades or craftsmen you meet on site.
A friend had her mod home delivered last week and couldn't get Hydro to hook up the power because the main panel was installed upside down with no main breaker. This tends to support my observation that, like most factory work, things are being done by people who don't understand the implications of what they are doing.
Then again, it could just be that I am in my late 40's and don't like new things.
Well they can be made inexpensively but then you got yourself a glorified trailer home.As for defects you call and complain to the local rep. My experience has been they fix things pretty quick.
I spent my first 20 years in a 1957 vintage 10' x 45' trailer. It was a beautiful thing. It had wood paneling, not vinyl veneer, but the good plywood type with real oak veneer. The cabinets were of 3/4" birch ply. The plumbing was undersized, and the walls were about 2 1/2" thick, so it didn't have much insulation. But it had lots of windows and you felt like you were in something nice. When modulars came along, I was shocked by how crappy they were. I realize that there is a difference between trailers and modulars, but the common thing is they are both built in a factory. That old trailer would cost a pretty penny to reproduce today, so I guess that's why everything feels so cheap in the new ones.
Prosopis, besides the cost issues, as trailers got larger the overall weight became a huge factor. I started life in a 1957 New Moon ... 8 x 40 or so. Real wood, real porcelain fixtures, etc.
When we upgraded to a 1965 New Moon, 10 x 55, things were noticeably cheaper and lighter. But still a lot of real wood and decent quality built-ins.
But I was shocked to see my mother's 1995 14 x 70. All plastic, even the sinks and faucets. "Baseboards" are just vinyl tape. All junk, but lightweight enough to get that behemoth down the road in one piece.
Allen
Allen,
Good point. They have gotten much bigger, and when you see them going down the highway, they're pretty limber.
As a kid, we lived in a trailer park. Anyone who hasn't lived in a well managed trailer park just wouldn't understand how great it can be. The phrase, "Trailer trash", would've never been dreamed of if all trailers were located in nice parks like ours was. That place was pretty ideal. We had social gatherings in the recreation hall, there was a playground. There were some nice plusses to it. When I was 17 my dad bought a piece of land that was a bit out of town and we moved the trailer there. We had 10 times the space but it was not nearly as nice an experience overall. We were never as chummy with our neighbors in the new place as we were in the old one. There was no sense of community like we had in the park. I believe the new place accelerated my mom's death. Close relationships are critical to good health, and I think the isolation she felt in the new place contributed to her dying at only 62. Of course, smoking like a chimney didn't help either!
I think those little cottages they built on Bainbridge Island, Washington, are about the ideal setup. The bungalow court seems to be a great way to go. They are small, detached, solidly built, handsome, woody, and have that community thing going on. They are a bit pricey, however. I am a drafter and I would love to be involved in projects like that. I wonder if someone couldn't pre-fab little houses like those and bring them to the site?
Oh, well, I'm way off topic. Sorry. I will go look at the newest modulars this week to see if they have gotten better.
Randy
So few developments pay any attention to the public gathering spaces that can help form a community. Trailers or monster houses, everyone just wants as much private space as they can afford.
A guy I work with just put a deck on his trailer and now he has to shoo the neighbours off it to go to bed. Other than his deck, there is no where but the mailboxes to meet people.
Seems to me that guy could have a side business putting decks on his neighbors trailers.
Hey, Fingers,
I hope we are just going through a phase. Eventually we'll have to realize the big house on a big lot and stay away from the icky neighbors mentality is not good for us.
Cheers,
Randy
Oh yeah...
I know -I- have always wanted to feel like I was in an airport lobby, when sitting in my own living room...
Luka,
I feel your pain, times 2! I hate buildings like the one in the picture you attached. I don't know anyone who would like to live in that house. Seriously, I don't know anyone who would like it. I don't understand why some architects are so in love with that branch of modern. You nailed it when you compared it to an air terminal. The sad part is that it's not even good design for an air terminal! That sterile, non-functional, type of design has given the term "Modern Architecture" a bad name. If you use the term to a client, as in, "Your site and program would be fulfilled very effectively with a house designed along the principles of 'Modern Architecture'", the prospect will grab his hat and run out of the office. It is a pity, because modern is really a broad term that basically means larger windows, better interior/exterior connection, articulated ceiling heights and a plan that doesn't look like a section through a honeycomb. That is a very wide open definition that includes, with only a little bending, virtually every house built in the country today. Yes, even the ones that the plan books call "Colonial". With that said, Luka, you hand picked a photo of the worst design of the bunch. There were others that looked great, and they were every bit as much "Modern Architecture". It's a pity that the ones that looked good cost over $200 a square foot.
Regards,
Randy
Agreed on every count.
Yeh... That'll work.
Reinvent,
I took a long look at the web-site about modulars. There is some good looking stuff there. $300 bucks a square foot, Wow! I thought pre-fabbing was supposed to reduce costs. I wonder what the site built cost would be for the same design. I remember when I was a kid in the sixties that the press was always saying that in the future, all houses would be factory built! By that time, almost every famous architect had designed some sort of gizmo/fastener/panel-system/can-opener that would revolutionize the housing industry. Well, I stopped holding my breath long ago.
Paradoxically, I dream of owning a company that will pre-fab houses in the 150-300 square foot range. I think there are a few people out there who want a little get-a-way house, and like the turn-key idea.
Regards,
Randy
have you seen jay shafers work?
http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/products.htmi live in a tiny house i designed and built, probably smaller then you are talking about (its 112 sq ft). but have been working on prefabing concepts for the design. the one in the attachment is sitting on pier blocks and could easily be raised and set on a flatbed truck. i agree there could be a market for these.
sorry missed the attachment..
Many of the modulars and the single/double wides are nowhere near the high end prices. There are two builders here in VA within 30 minutes and I toured the factory on one. I was impressed. The quality was as good as most site built homes and prices were about 50-60% of the cost.
The new ones come with 6" walls and real insulation. Many of the doublewides have 5/12 or 6/12 roofs, dormers, bump outs/extensions, etc. and can't be distinguished from site built without a good inspection.
I was brought up to hate them, but now I own a singlewide that I use for a vacation rental and a doublewide that I rent also. I could live in either one without any shame.
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
To paraphrase Shakespeare, "A trailer by any other name is still a trailer. Color coded NM cable is tailor made for trailer assy. crews, if they were laying sod, crew leader would be yelling "Green side up, Green side up". They do look nicer now, but still the same goofy wiring, plumbing, and so on...
To paraphrase Shakespeare, "A trailer by any other name is still a trailer. Color coded NM cable is tailor made for trailer assy. crews, if they were laying sod, crew leader would be yelling "Green side up, Green side up". They do look nicer now, but still the same goofy wiring, plumbing, and so on...
Don't confuse "mobile home" and "modular home". I have been in modular homes that have the same electrical, copper water supply, etc, etc as all the stick built homes surrounding them. Whereas a lot of 'mobile homes' might have plastic sinks and funky wiring and plumbing, etc..
In general, I wouldn't have any problem with living in a modular home. Although it probably depends on the company involved. But that's true whether you're buying a prefab or a stick built home.jt8
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly.
I said 'I don't know.'"
-- Mark Twain
John,
Well said. It seems only smart, and fair, to evaluate each modulo or trailer, on an individual basis.
Hey, I like that Mark Twain quote. My dad had a poem on his wall that had a similar sentiment:
My scattered bits of wisdom I endeavor to reveal,
The abundance of my ignorance I struggle to conceal.
This revealing and concealing has set a pattern so,
that now not even I am sure exactly what I know!
Our old friend, Anonymous, wrote that.
I would love to be able to say that my own mouth was instructed and checked by the piercing confession of that poem. Alas, not a chance. It seems a day never passes that I don't find I am still trying to make it seem like I know more than I do. I am sure I'm the only one so afflicted.
Cheers,
Randy
Two years ago we had put up a Wisconsin Homes six-section modular loft home, 2100 sq.ft main level and 400 sq. ft. loft on a lake in the UP of Michigan. We actually went to the factory and saw the home being built. Let me tell you, they are built like bomb shelters. The house was built in seven days and set in ten hours. After two years, zero construction problems. The entire project, excavation, 2100 sq.ft. basement, well, septic, grading, HVAC and plumbing came to $128.00/ sq. ft. Each of the six sections were built so solidly that shipping and craning in caused no cracked drywall or even sticky windows. Further, this was a top-of-the-line project. Hickory cabinets with crown, knotty pine cathedral ceiling, oversize windows, six panel oak veneer doors throughout, whirlpool tub, capped shower and tub, Corian countertops, all stained oak bases and casings, oak railings, you name it. We love the house!
JP,
Yeah, I'm familiar with Tumbleweed houses. He has been getting some good publicity lately and he deserves it. He does a good job.
I like your house, very nice. Simple and straight forward for easier construction. Does it have the bed above in a loft? Does it have a 3/4 bath and a kitchen? I like the height, and the clearstory windows. Having light in from above and a view of the sky makes a house of any size feel much better. Of course, every house, no matter how small, needs a porch. Very nice! Other than Tumbleweeds, who has inspired you?
I got the bug for dinky places by seeing Jeff Milstein's little houses that were originally published in Family Circle magazine in the seventies. I was a kid and thought they were really cool. I never really forgot them. Lester Walker brought Milstein's and many other little houses to the forefront in his wonderful book, "Tiny Houses". One of my very favorite little houses was designed and built by Kendall Thurston as a treehouse on the banks of the Suwannee River in Florida. (Isn't that cool?!) I know that house only from Peter Nelson's book "Treehouse". That house is probably the most perfectly proportioned piece of architecture I've ever seen. He deserves an award from the AIA! I'd love to know what has happened to him and his house since the book was published.
"Tiny Houses", had an article on a Portable Shelter Cart designed by Christopher Egan. It was an entry in a contest for designing shelter for the urban homeless. It had two bunks, a shower and a toilet in an area of about 5 x 11 feet. The carts were never actually built, but they were to be towed by truck to various locations about the city. That got me wondering how small can you go?. For quite awhile I doodled around on 2 different designs for what are essentially micro-mini R.V.s. One is hauled by a pedal tricycle, like the kind they use in China. The other one is pulled by hand. Neither have a shower, but both have a cook stove, chemical toilet, and a bed. I never firmed up the designs on either, just doodle stage.
Three other teeny designs that I think are worthy to look at for ideas are the houseboat "Retreat" by William Atkin. Best source "Handmade Houseboats", I can't remember the author. Atkin, who was a naval architect, did a great job with the layout. Gypsy Caravans, or vardos, are interesting. Plenty of stuff on the web on them, but a good book is "The English Gypsy Caravan" by Ward-Jackson & Harvey. Last for now is the hut featured in Ann Clines' book, "A Hut of Ones' Own".
Thanks for posting the pictures, its a neat house. You live in it full time?
Cheers,
Randy
Randy, Thanks for all the referances. Some im familiar with and others are new to me. Have you seen pete nelsons newest book "treehouses of the world?" He has certainly provoked my interest in tiny spaces and prefabed buildings. I've been lucky enough to be involved on a few of his projects in the last year. He tends to prefab certain parts of his treehouses and then ship them to the site.
I live in my tiny house full time with my girlfriend. It has a full kitchen and loft but the composting toilet and solar shower are outside. Id like to design another house at about 200 sq ft and include a full bath. After a year in this space that sounds like an extravegant amount of sq footage!
have you heard about the homeless carts that were used in i believe san fran.? maybe thats what you were referencing already? I love the challenge of creating a functional, comfortable space with such limited sq footage. Seems more difficult then doing so in a conventional house. Every inch matters!
thats a great idea.Haga su trabajo de fricken
JP,
I like the woody feel of your house. I think that's one reason I like smaller houses, you can use wood everywhere and it doesn't bust the bank. I agree about the fun of the challenge of designing small. I laugh at those TV shows where they have 6,000 square feet and a 5 million dollar budget and half the time they still don't get a good design. And, oh, the owner really can't afford it after all, so he has to sell it and never gets to live in it. The challenge is where the fun is. I'm guessing you have about $10-12 K invested in materials? It sounds like you've got a great girlfriend. You're pretty clever, JP. Now that you've tested her devotion by seeing if she'd stick with you in the 8x14, are you gonna marry her and settle into the 200 square footer?
That Peter Nelson guy is pretty sharp. He gets to do what every guy would love to do, and it seems like he's paying the bills too! Very cool.
I saw one other cart design besides the one I mentioned earlier. I can't remember where it was located, may have been S.F. It was a telescoping tube thing, Is that the one?
Have you seen this site? Good chat on tiny houses.
http://countryplans.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
We probably should be good boys, and start a new strand on tiny houses, or talk off forum. I'd be happy to share my ideas, and you certainly have some worthwhile insights.
Best Regards,
Randy
Please don't move your discussion off forum. I'm really enjoying it.
I designed a house for clients who had spent years living in Japan. During construction they stayed in a trailer ingeniously laid out and equipped with Japanese appliances - all designed for tight spaces. In some ways I was embarrassed that the house they moved into could not re-capture the intimate feel of their temporary accommodation
yer not allowed to move this offsite until you have more posts than the Farming pictures thread in the Photo Gallery....1236 and counting. (|:>)SamT
I find the modern prefabs quite nice and would definitely love to live in one. I an see how some would feel they're 'sterile' but others find them quite practical. I live in a '27 tudor now and love all the old details as well. I appreciate both styles equally well.It's the McMansions that I can't stand. The big issue is that there is rarely any logic to the design. "let's put 7 different peaks on the roof just because we can". Blech.I live in the Twin Cities and we have 3 of the modern prefab companies in town...HiveModular, WeeHouse (great group of guys), and the FlatPack house.NONE of them are cheap, as mentioned. The problem is that while they're prefab, they're not mass market yet. Like anything prefab, you start seeing the savings in volume. The other issue is that they're still selling to a slightly 'snooty' high-end design clientèle that's not afraid of the prices, so, why not? Might as well sell to the market that's willing to pay.I'm waiting for someone to come along and build a modernist trailer park. A good trailer park, IMHO, is a wonderful bit of urban development. Single homes, high density, community shared services (parks, common buildings, etc.) Alas, the houses are still ugly and cheap. ;o)
a few years back i was living in aspen (ok in the back of my truck with my dog and tools, but i parked it in aspen) and read about an architect and his wife that couldnt afford to buy in town so they leased a site in a trailer park on the edge of town and built a really cool modern version of a single wide trailer. It looked only a little bit funny next to all the actual old single wides. They did a great job of using design details from the trailers and then kicking it up a notch. There may be pics online somewhere, i havent checked.
thanks for the reference to the cottage company, looking at there website i was reminded of the write up they got in Sarah Susankas 2nd book. I think the zoning changes they have helped instigate in a few washington towns are great. (more or less if you want to build 2 houses that are 700' each on a lot zoned for 1 "regular" house that would generally be 2000' or more then they approve it . in these days of subdivisions with 2500 sq ft. minimum requirements its kind of refreshing.
JP,
So, you were slumming in Aspen one summer. Weren't you worried about the risk of getting mugged? Those millionaire ski-bums can be pretty rough! LOL. That's a great story. Was that the same dog that's by your front porch in the photo?
JP, I am a book crazed fool. My subjects of interest are primarily architecture and woodworking. I own dozens of books on both of those subjects and I frequent the libraries and bookstores almost as much as a homeless guy. (Cheaper than the bars, no risk of getting a DUI, or of any hot looking bar-flies ogling my studley body! LOLx2. Had to ask the wife how to spell studley, she shot back with R-A-N-D-Y. Good gal, that! Probably a bit near-sighted though.) So, yes, I have seen a couple articles on the house in Aspen you are referring to. I can't remember what books or magazines, though. Sorry. I agree, it's a good house. I'd like to check it out sometime if I ever get to Colorado.
You mention the folks at the web-site I put up was involved in some zoning reforms. I wasn't aware of that. I'll have to check into it. The man behind the web-site, John Raabe, has been around a long time, fighting for truth, justice and the American way. Well, at least common sense.
They have a good forum over there for those who like the little houses.
Hey, what line of work you in? Sounds like contracting.
Cheers,
Randy
Hi, Darrel,
Thanks for chiming in! Good points.
Hey, folks, Reinvent, was the one who actually started this strand and posted the excellent web-link. Feel free to throw a little lovin' his way!
Darrel, as I was saying, you make good points. I too, like modern, love it really, but let me ask you something. Did you really look at the picture that Luka posted in his letter? I believe you were responding to my response to his post. He clipped a photo from the article that Reinvent, had originally put up. Darrel, I can understand you saying that you like modern, but, you know there are different kinds of modern. Do you mean you like every branch of modern equally? Most don't. Did you really look at that picture? Are you saying you really like that, that, well, living room, thing?
Did I hear you sheepishly admit you hadn't looked at it? Well, that's OK. I've done the same myself.
Now, really that picture illustrates the worst of what is called the "International Style". This is hard to explain without getting too long winded, but those guys who started the International Style in the mid 1920's hi-jacked the modern movement that had started forming over 30 years before. The 19th century brought in new materials/technology that opened up new opportunities and challenges in design. Some of the earlier guys to meet the challenge, and who had a wide influence on the architects of the 20th century were F.L. Wright, Adolph Loos, Otto Wagner, and others. These guys maintained the earlier era's appreciation for natural materials, pattern, & scale in their work. The founder's of the International Style, who included many, but two can stand in as scapegoats for the rest, were, Le Corbusier, and Walter Gropius, to name them. These two, especially, Corbu, did more to mess up the world than anyone other two guys except, maybe Hitler and Stalin. Well, Mao, will get mad at me if I don't mention him too, but I digress. Oh, since I mentioned Mao, can I mention Gropius's buddy, Mies van der Rohe? Well, Corbusier, was so bad in his younger days (look at Villa Savoye) that even he couldn't stand it. He changed his ways midway through his career, and gave us something really charming, Ronchaump! But, that was too late. The architecture schools had fallen in love with the International Style's sparse blandness, and their spawn felt obliged to blight us for 40 years. Gropius, himself wasn't that bad, Bauhaus, is a good design. The problem is that good design is very hard to achieve under any conditions, and 50 times harder when you strip something down to the bones. (Reread that last sentence over and over again. It is the heart of the whole issue!) Most of the next crew to come along didn't have near the skill and so they did what any group does when they suck at something, they change the definition of what "Good" is. (We can look at Rap music, maybe?) So, for years to follow, horrible work was held up to be admired! (Think about Lincoln Center, in New York, groan.) This sounds like a Marx Brother's farce, but it is true. There were guys, and gals, who managed to make really good looking architecture during that period, but they were the exceptions. I told you this would be long winded, but I will try to bring it on home now. The photo in question, the one of the, well, living room (I really hate to call it that, but that is certainly the room name the architect put on the floor plan for that chunk of concrete bounded by glass) well that room is typical of the worst of the International Style. A person in that space would feel completely exposed, even when fully dressed, no less! There is no sense of enclosure, womb, shelter, "back", call it what you want. Go put a lawn chair on the Bonneville Salt Flats, and that is the feeling you'd have in that living room. It totally disregards the human psychological need for a sense of security! The materials offer no warmth, no sense of nature. Interestingly, metals can provide a feeling of warmth when arranged to display some significant pattern or rhythm. There is virtually no pattern or rhythm in that space. You better be happy with the regularity of the column spacing because that's all you get for either. The space has to remain pure, so the furniture has to go. Don't even think about owning any books or magazines. Did you notice the sparsity of furniture in the photo? Not very practical, really.
Richard Nuetra, a true-blue modernist, one who the International Style crowd embraced as one of their own, busted out with exposed wood siding and brick in the 40's. It was a delightful change that he continued with until his death. Those are great houses, worthy subjects for any designer to learn from, including the architect I am relentlessly filleting. Neutra's earlier work has virtually everything else right, the right proportions, scale, and even landscaping, but they feel cold. Nuetra was a great architect who, while at an impressionable age, got caught up in the International Style propaganda. He wasted many years before he discovered that the benefits of modern architecture are actually hindered by the pursuit of perfectly flat planes of white stucco, concrete and metal!
The moral is, the whole gang would have saved the world a lot of grief had they stuck more closely to Wright's and Loo's views. Wright was wrong on a number of things, mostly his details, but he got more right than the International guys did. Most of them eventually came to see that, just like Nuetra did. Many of the other modern style modular houses shown in that same article are more in keeping with Wright's branch of modern. Earthier materials, modulated ceiling heights, lots of glass, but not too much. Most people respond well to designs like that. Only die-hard, Daughters of the Mayflower, would object to living in a house like those.
Well, that concludes today's lecture on modern architecture. Next class, we will look at the impact of early Zoroastrian philosophy on three-legged racing at the Iowa State Fair. Until then, keep the oily side down.
Cheers,
Randy
Randy, that's a great essay. Well-written, especially for that time of night!
Allen
Allen,
Thanks, for the compliment. Writing your thoughts for an intelligent audience forces a person to look hard at what they believe to be true. I am waiting for the architects out there to nail me on something. But, actually, I am sure I will learn something in the process, that is the best part.
Thanks, again.
Regards,
Randy
"Do you mean you like every branch of modern equally?"Of course not. That's why we have different styles of architecture to begin with...to each their own.That said, I'd take something like Luka posted over nearly every house built in most subdivisions these days.What I appreciate is thoughtful design. I also like the aesthetic of modernism, though am perfectly fine admitting it's not for everyone.The glass boxes are great...if you have the view and the lot...which most folks don't. ;o)
Darrel,
Fair enough. Taste is, well, uh, a matter of taste. (I sure was brilliant there?)
I would love to hear you explain more about your interest in that branch of modern. May I ask, do you subscribe to Dwell magazine? I am earnest, no set-up involved. I'm just surprised.
Regards,
Randy
I used to subscribe to Dwell.I'm a huge fan of Houses magazine out of Australia. They seem to really 'get' modern residential architecture down there. Highly practical. Innovative. Interesting.Whether or not one likes a particular aesthetic is certainly a personal choice and hard to argue one way or the other. It's a bit harder to argue the quality or lack-there-of of design process, though. Good design is good design regardless of the particular aesthetic (as long as the client likes it). But bad design is universal. For some reason, America tolerates bad design at a disturbingly high level.
I agree with you about Australian modern. To my mind it differs from the stuff in Dwell in two ways.
It is site specific - the houses in Dwell always look as thought they had been dropped by helicopter, and their surroundings are just a back drop which doesn't affect the design.
There is a much larger response to climate and environment in the Aussie houses I've seem. The form itself is used to shade and cool. They aren't just a series of boxes with cool detailing.
Some really interesting stuff being built down there.
I posted my previous response before reading yours. Yes, exactly. I agree 100%.Though, to be fair, some of the siting issues in the US is that most sub/urban sites are already surrounded by vinyl clad behemoths, so nothing really fits in there. ;o)
Hi, Darrel,
I agree on your take on Dwell magazine. I think they started out ok, then they just became another House and Garden kind of thing.
I hear what you are saying about design, but I have concluded that there really isn't no such thing as good or bad design. Really. For true. Here's my logic. I don't like hauling groceries, so I value having the garage near the kitchen. That is good design, right? Well, many clients don't seem to give a rip. Oblivious. Here's another, people think zoning the house is the zenith of good design. Put the kid's rooms on the opposite side of the house from the master. That's cool. But wait, that gives the best situation to the bedrooms, they get windows on adjacent walls. The great room, however, gets stuck in the middle and gets daylight and views via one direction only. I know that there is usually some way around that, but look at houses being built, that arrangement is extremely common, over half, I'd say. I've never heard anyone carp about it but me. Who is right? Who gets to define what good design is? Most designers, including architects, don't spend any time educating the client BEFORE they start hashing out the floor plan, let alone the program! Everyone lives in a house, therefore they are all experts in house design! It is almost impossible to give advice to someone who thinks they are as much an expert as the person who has dedicated their life to studying the subject. Truth is, many professionals actually don't know much more than the client. Of course they know the codes, and the local zoning, and where the Simpson H2.5s go. But do you really think clients believe they are living the high life when they come home from work, and get to enjoy the heavenly aroma of dirty laundry as they pass through the laundry room?! That's another common item in houses you see. Why? Because the client isn't as big an expert as he thinks, or else he would never accept such crud. And the designer is just as oblivious, or else he'd never even think about funneling his clients through the laundry room! Finally, if a designer doesn't understand how awful those things are, why would he/she be sensitive about the proportions of the place?
Oh, there I went again.
I got a book from the library the other day on Australian houses. It's called "New Australian Style". Very good stuff. They do seem to be more concerned with the site and climate than we are, on average.
Cheerio,
Randy
"I got a book from the library the other day on Australian houses. It's called "New Australian Style". Very good stuff. They do seem to be more concerned with the site and climate than we are, on average."
Part of it may simply be culture, another environmental. They have nowhere near the climate differences as in the 'states. Big problems such as sun control can be addressed nationally, whereas here it becomes more regional and fragmented.
Have also noticed Australian designs seem to adopt more Asian features. Where aesthetics are more integrated with site conditions as a cultural norm.
SHTRUM,
Very helpful incites, thanks.
Randy
"I hear what you are saying about design, but I have concluded that there really isn't no such thing as good or bad design. Really."To measure the success of design, there has to be context...specifically: a problem and/or request that needs a solution.Sand that, it's not really design. It might be art. Or decoration. Or whatever, but without a defined goal, it's not really design.At least IMHO.So, via your example, having the kitchen next to the garage is an ideal design solution for your needs."They do seem to be more concerned with the site and climate than we are, on average."Yes. I think, overall, their definition of 'modernism' is a bit more truer to the original intent. They use industrial materials for their true industrial intent. It just happens they look good too. While I do see in the US a lot of modernism being a bit contrived. Yea, we didn't NEED corrugated siding, it just looked cool. A nitpick, perhaps (I'm a sucker for corrugated siding myself)...
Hi, Darrel,
Thanks for the good comments.
It looks like you understand the issues involved and see the paradox of what constitutes "Good" design. You define it as meeting a need or answering a request. That's correct. Good design is subjective, it's merely an opinion. It may be mine, the client's, the government's even. But there are no absolutes. Let's look at an extreme example. Someone may say that a certain electrical code eliminates a potentially lethal condition, so it is good design, right?. Even that's just subjective. In a 3rd world country our electrical code would save lives, but the cost would be beyond their ability to pay for it. They are willing to put up with the extra deaths from electrical shock because they need the money to buy food . People dying is a bad thing, goes without saying. A guy, here in the states, wires an addition to his home. He turns in no plans, gets no permits or inspections and he wires it unsafely. He notices no problems at first and is happy with his "Good" work. He saved a bunch of money by doing the work himself and avoiding the permitting process. A week later his wife is electrocuted. The man actually loved his wife, and he feels terrible about her death. He changes his mind about the wiring job he did. Was the wiring bad from the start? He was happy with it then. We know it had the potential to kill someone, and that's bad, right? However, we kill thousands each year in car wrecks because we make a trade.
The electrocuted wife didn't know she would get shorted in the trade her husband made. (Pun always intended!) From what gets built, you sense that folks are not as aware of some of the basic lay-out options and how they impact the quality of the home owner's life. If they deliberately reject a good principle of design because it conflicted with something of a higher priority, then fine. But, please, someone explain to me - In a 4,000 square foot house, don't you think they have 30 square feet to waste on a hall from the garage so the owner doesn't have to escort his house guests through the laundry room?! The home owner didn't think to tell the designer that he didn't want to go through the laundry room like most of his fellow Americans. The designer, of course, should have asked. I was at a friends house, he and all his house guests, had to go through the master bedroom to get to his backyard. Two bedrooms gained 18 square feet apiece by not having a hall. He felt it was a fair trade, but he knew he was involved in a trade. He got something out of it.
Many times people just get robbed. The design of their house deprives them of conveniences and offers no compensation, not even in cost. Who makes the choices? "Good" design isn't merely giving the client what they ask for. That's like giving a 5 year old what they ask for. The difference is that this 5 year old is writing the check. Britney Spears is what you get when a child runs the show. But who is worse, Britney, or the adults who were in her life when she was a minor? Who is worse, the designer, or the client? Who is supposed to be the wise one? The designer takes money for something he claims a proficiency in. He should be knowledgeable enough to instruct and guide the client. As I said last time, most clients think they are experts on house design. After all, they have lived in one their whole life. So, if the client won't follow good counsel, does the designer tell him to find another designer? Usually that doesn't happen.
About the corrugated steel as siding, it has become pretty common here in Tucson where stucco is the only other material that holds up to the sun. I imagine the Australians use it for the same reason. Like you, I too, like its looks, but it is easy to use too much of it so you must provide enough contrast.
Must shut up now.
Regards,
Randy
Thanks for the props.People seem to forget the title of this thread is Modular Homes are getting BETTER. As in they have come along way, there is still room for improvement, and they are not necessarily the best.I worked on a modular house a few years ago and overall thought it was a decent structure.Here is another interesting link.http://news.com.com/2300-11392_3-6207190-1.html?tag=ne.gall.pg
Reinvent,
Yeah, I know, I have wandered hither and yon, away from the intent of your original post. I'm sorry. The problem is, I haven't seen a modular in years, except for a double wide trailer going down the freeway a couple months ago. I suppose that don't even count, 'cause it weren't a real modular, just a piddly trailer. Shucks.
Although you didn't get any from me, you have gotten some excellent feed back from several guys who have personal experience.
I like that pod thingy on the web-link from your last post. I think the interior would look better if they had a shelf across the front, just below the clearstory windows. It would cover the seem in the wall board and provide a mount for upward and/or downward pointing can lights. The seems in the ceiling are not to my taste, sorta tacky looking. They could fix that pretty easy though. They could also take the clearstories up flush with the underside of the ceiling by getting rid of the beam above. That would make it look better too. You get that continuous ceiling plane that runs from inside to out. See, I just added a couple extra grand to the price with my little tweaks. It's soo easy to do.
Take Care,
Randy
P.S. The solar idea is kinda lame. Boy, that's a big subject, and definitely off topic!
Here is another link on the subject.http://www.news.com/1606-2_3-6205373.html
Reinvent,
Yep, thems is real houses. No relation to trailers except they both come from factories. They look well constructed and attractive. I wonder how the electrical is on them, since that has been brought up by some of the other guys.
You know, I figured I had killed this strand pretty well with my last rant. There hadn't been a peep for days, except for the deafening sound of the crickets that is! To defend my last statement's relevance, and maybe even sanity, it doesn't matter if a house is built on site or in a factory, someone is making decisions about its form that will impact the lives of those who will live in it for years to come. As a freelance drafter who works for others who do the designing, I have seen plenty of houses come off my computer that miss out on too many opportunities to be delightful places to live. I stare at this screen all day and wonder why. What is said in those conversations between the client and the architect, or designer? I've worked for both, and yes architects tend to produce a better job than designers, by my view anyway, but not by the amount you'd imagine. I think they need the work, so they won't tell the client to hit the road when they refuse to give up on some really bad idea they're fixated on. A friend of mine says you have to give the client what he asks for. Well, would you go to a doctor who has that philosophy? "Mr. Smith, you look pretty sick. What do you think I should do for you? I have years of training that you don't have, but I want to give you what you want." Is that nutty? Can you say malpractice?
On the other hand, we all have seen horrible buildings that were the result of an architect given carte blanche. Oh, well.
Sincerely,
Randy
I'm waiting for someone to come along and build a modernist trailer parkBut modulars are not trailers, they are everybit a stick built house and in most case better built than a stick built..Haga su trabajo de fricken
I do alot of sub work a guy who does Wausu homes in this area. When you start at 7 A.M. and by 1 P.M. you have a complete home.
2 x 6 walls most of the trim on cabinets mounted, it was eye opening to me.
We will be setting one this week, I can take a few pics if you like.
Nailer
That sounds interesting. Do it. Take some pics.
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
$200-300 per square foot!?! My home has approximately 2550 heated square footage. That would make it $510K-765K. I hope the quality, efficiency, and everything else is in keeping as this is 2-3 times what I paid for the match-stick cookie home.
No, I am not saying I got a good home (cookie ain't no steak), but I have to wonder about this offering, too. Why not a factory custom SIP home?
Most of the houses featured in FineHomebuilding list per sq ft prices in that range. I notice some must be so embarrassingly expensive their per sq ft are listed as n/a.
Out of nearly a half-century of housebuilding, I've spent about a quarter of it in the manufactured housing industry. Other than a few artsy-fartsy indulgences where everything including the footers was treated as fine sculpture, the factory stuff was my best work. I've seen many -- hell, most site-built mansions that would never make it out the door of a singlewide plant (and not because of the size). The level of quality control possible (though not inherent) in a factory situation is extraordinarily difficult and expensive to achieve in the field. Think of bringing in a bunch of subs to build a car in your driveway and imagine how hard it would be to achieve Honda quality!
The distinction between mobile & modular is not necessarily great. I've worked in plants where it was a check-box on any given design. It generally denoted changes in the floor structure (because a modular can't benefit from the metal chassis) and a few plumbing/electrical details. The main point of the modular option was to circumvent zoning prejudice. You see something similar in conventional construction when covenants force a 10/12 roof where the building & climate don't justify it. The main thing I missed when designing factory houses was feedback from the site. But many subdivisions pose so many arbitrary restrictions that it still feels a lot like designing with blinders on.
Now that my beloved 3,000 sq.ft. 1892 Victorian is the property of My Dear Ex, I finally get to live in my dream house -- an old Airstream.
}}}}
Ted,
Thanks for your input. An insiders' perspective is very helpful. Others have said pretty much what you did, but it is good hearing from someone who has seen so much of it.
Cheers,
Randy