| zeroHouse, The Winged Lego Pile Of Tomorrow |
| Written by Magnus Hølvold | ||
| Saturday, 05 April 2008 | ||
|
But the features of zeroHouse are enough to make EcoGeek stand up with Inhabitat and salute. All the power for the house comes from that wing-like protrusion at the top. The solar panels up there provide more than enough sunlight on a regular day and on a full charge, you can go for an entire week with no sun at all. Additionally, the rainwater cistern can hold 2,700 gallons (10,220 liters) of water which is distributed by gravity to the various rooms of the house, nixing the need for any pumps. There's also a composting system in place that takes care of organic waste. I'd like to express some level of concern over the "house brain" they refer to as the system that controls how the whole house works, though. As a geek and fan of a certain science-fiction film, "house brains" make me uncomfortable. Sadly, now I have to ruin it by complaining a little. One of my favourite features of prefab homes is the chance of properly modular buildings. If I had my way, I'd sit on a computer and put a future house together in a lego-like fashion from parts available to me. An assembly crew would come next week and, over the next couple of days, they'd assemble all the pieces. Hey presto: New, fully customised house for me! If I wanted another room later on, I'd order an extra module and they'd come and slide it on to the rest of the construction. So why don't Specht Harpman ever make these kinds of houses? They call the various levels of the house "modules," because that's obviously how it's assembled. Why not expand on that and make it properly modular? They obviously have the know-how to create both well-designed and sustainable houses. But to me, it looks more like the lego airplane my two-year-old nephew made this Christmas than a home built for nature lovers. Their design has the effect of making the house look like an intrusion on the otherwise serene landscapes. The house even looks like it wants to fly away from the scenes, perched with those solar panels sticking out like wings (Right above the patio, I might add!) ready for take-off. Don't get me wrong, it has a lot of awesome ideas and features within it, they're just wrapped too tightly in "master architect" pretensions and impersonal design choices. via Inhabitat
Comments
(11)
good points
written by serenitynerdfighter , April 05, 2008
good points! not the prettiest house ever, and if you want local municipalities to ok houses like these then they have to fit into the architechtural landscapes already resent in a given city. i dig the lego idea XD
...
written by serenitynerdfighter , April 05, 2008
umm, present not resent, lol...wouldn't seem to let me edit, ah well. I remain the typo queen, XD
Fly away......
written by rob , April 05, 2008
The wing part could become reality in a high wind. The amount of leverage from those "wings" could rip the house apart.
I would also dispute that prefabs are more eco friendly than traditional brick, or stone buildings. They may use less materials to build, but how long will they last, 50 years at most? Whereas some of the stone built cottages in my village are over three hundred years old.
not the best
written by solar wi , April 05, 2008
Putting all solar on a house is not always the best option right now depending on where you get the solar panels because the ones made in China are not made with respect to the environment and the toxic materials used to make it just get thrown out the back door(in a sense). That's why the U.S. solar companies are moving over seas, less environmental restrictions.
House Brains
written by Jay , April 06, 2008
Never mind 2001 -- did you see Demon Seed?
Cool but EXPENSIVE
written by net97surferx , April 06, 2008
This is the second article I've read on the zero house. While it sounds like an eco Geeks' ream come true -- it is way overpriced for what it is offering!
The house only has 650 square feet of living space and costs a whooping $350,000, or $530 per square foot. I'm sorry, but for all they gee whiz aspect of it all.... that seems way too expensive to be considered anything other than an 'designer/architects' dreamy boondoggle.
...
written by MarkR , April 07, 2008
While I would love to have a self sustaining house for our property in Colorado. I wouldn't be caught dead with this thing.
1. Way over priced for something that looks like a bunch of 12x8 concrete box culverts stacked and strapped together. If I wanted to live in something that homeless people live in I wouldn't pay that much. I'd be more likely to live in a bunch of shipping containers put together. That would be a hell of a lot cheaper and I'd be recycling. 2. a computer brain? Way to complex for something that will be off the grid. What happens when the computer goes down? Call support, and wait for them to get a flight out to where your at and maybe a week later you will be up and running. I give them an B for effort. An F for design aesthetics and an F for user friendliness and an overall grade of an F.
Pretty Amazing
written by Mark Warner , April 07, 2008
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...121757.htm
I think people -- including zoning boards -- will have to evolve to a point where they accept unorthodox architecture over traditional. In other words, they are going to have to consider that the future of the planet is more important than tradition. Solar and water collection, and low energy principals can't be incorporated optimally in the popular McMansion look of pseudo-Colonial, Tuscan or whatever. I happen to think a lot of traditional architecture is either boring or ugly. There are very few homes that have beautiful proportions and are a pleasure to behold. Most are ticky-tacky boxes anyway, with absurd references to traditional style. It was said that studies show that one of the primary reasons people stated as choosing the Prius over the Honda hybrid was that the Prius stuck out as being a hybrid. Perhaps people will also enjoy the distinction of living in a conspicuously green home, even if it looks futuristic. I couldn't find the reference to $350,000, but if that is true, it is ridiculous. GreenMobile (link above) is award winning, prototype due out soon, and slated for production (for Katrina victims first), and it does most of what this guy's design does for well under $100,000 and is larger as well.GreenMobile supposedly attacks the issues of easy to manufacture, affordable, green, DURABLE, self sustaining, and modular/adaptable. Maybe the only thing about it that is bad, is when the prototype is produced (due out soon) it might not look like a house that everyone wants. I'll reserve judgment on looks for when it comes out and they show the interior.
...
written by net97surferx , April 07, 2008
The amount was referenced by several architectural journals when the zeroHouse was 'the thing' during the fall of 2007. I did two minutes of googling and found the magazine article blogged out the yingyang.
$350,000
written by net97surferx , April 07, 2008
The amount was referenced by several architectural journals when the zeroHouse was 'the thing' during the fall of 2007. I did two minutes of googling and found the magazine article blogged out the yingyang.. and two links to the architectural journals right off the top page.
After folks made a bit of a stink about the $530 a square foot figure for only 650 sq. feet. The designer admitted he did it more as something to 'try' ... and considered it a 'summer rental'... like that would justify the cost??? Anyway, NOW he talks about getting it more 'prefab friendly' and hoping Europeans will buy enough to drive the per unit pricing down. I guess 'over there' they are used to NOT having much space to live/work/play in... so maybe 650 square feet is a lot???
$350,000 ... should be $150,000 at most.
written by Mark Warner , April 17, 2008
Well, I think the price for 650 sq. ft. is going to have to prefab its way down to around $100,000 for even Europeans to be looking at it seriously.
Green housing, in order to take off, is going to have to trickle up, be reasonably priced, and be manufactured/modular. We've had a people's car, in the Ford Model T, the VW, and the Prius, yet the manufacturing age has not successfully produced a mass produced house. Wright's Usonian was nicely designed, but not overly affordable nor was it manufactured or modular. Fuller's Dymaxion was imaginative, but problematic, and never evolved. Lustron faced union opposition and government tangles, otherwise today half of us might be living in them. Cusatto can't even get neighborhoods to relax their zoning restrictions on smaller new homes like hers. Why are today's best architects not trying to meet the challenge of planet survival coupled with mass produced and affordable? | ||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Science, technology gadgets and...baby seals. We're in a bit of an eco-mess, but we've got the brains to lick any problem. And that's why EcoGeek.org publishes up to ten stories daily about innovations that are saving the planet.
And if that sounds interesting to you, then congratulations, you're an EcoGeek.