okay, so this house is pretty much butt-ugly, but it costs under $200,000 and it has zero energy output, meaning the house "produces as much energy as it consumes in a year." this makes me scratch my head just as much as the fact that we don't see too many electric cars zipping around yet. if it's possible to build a house that basically doesn't use any resources, for the going rate (this one is in oklahoma), why wouldn't we be doing that more often?
environmental friendliness aside, this is my dream house:
and not entirely aside, either, since theoretically "the house comes in flat pieces that are assembled on site to cut down on cost and environmental impact." i imagine my flatpack house on a quirky urban site of some sort, but you can organize the panels and glass and whatnot however you want, to direct your view to your pretty little backyard garden or a nice flowering tree or whatever. and i love the idea of putting all the pieces together, designing it with stickers on graph paper (like an ikea kitchen!), and seeing it assembled like a big lego house.
2 comments:
I'm kind of scared by both houses, but after seeing Gore's movie last night, I'm so rocket-flash horrified by every single planetary moment that I'm willing to try anything. Funny you mentioned Ikea, since Michael and I just went there today... where we promptly bought fluorescent energy-saving bulbs. If only we'd biked there instead of driven.
i do/don't want to see that movie -- it is playing here right now, and i keep kind of putting it off. but don't be scared by my flatpack house! you should see the inside, it's not all weird and cold, it's very appealing. david, where would your dream land be? out in the country?
Post a Comment