KPA, here's something that might interest you - http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/kitsap/bir/news/31944124.html

I know a bit about the project because my nephew is the brain child and my son is helping with some of the engineering for the car. This electric car is for real. What's great out west is that so many of the Governor's push GREEN and give all kinds of incentives for developement. They feel, and I have to agree, that someone will be the GREEN capital of the nation - which will bring the jobs of the future - why not invest in making a new silicon valley called GREEN.

But that’s another problem, you won’t see the influence you local government has on your national government when they all run crying they’re going broke from people getting off the grid. And it won’t just be the government, it will be TVA, Pilot, Atmos, etc. They all stand to lose.

Was able to take a sneak peak at the i-house today in person. I was wrong about what I had written above in regard to TVA. According to Mr. Clayton, TVA is very much behind this type product. As he stated, TVA's problem is power consumption at peak operation. For the most part they are power rich, but at peak periods during the summer, they get maxed out. Since more generation of water is unlikely with current dam structures, most new homes would only add to peak stress. The i-House will help alleviate that stress. Especially if the next generation of cars do trend to be electric powered.

So in Mr. Clayton's experience, municipalities and power providers will be a friend - not a foe. At any rate, the home is something to see. If you have ever looked at a piece of land, but discounted it because no power or water could be run to it - you must get to the Knoxville Convention Center to see what Clayton has for you. And it's free to visit.

A more thorough post on my visit to follow later.

I wish I could tour this house. I looked at pictures of it and the interior looks great. Although I have no investment in Clayton, I wouldn't mind if manufactured housing would leap ahead of conventional construction and take over a huge portion of the green housing market, by making affordable, sturdy, durable, low-maintenance, low-energy homes.

That would be a great about-face for manufactured housing, which during the 60's through 80's produced energy wasting horrors. Even now R-11 is the max insulation in single wide homes, and park model RVs, even Cavco's new solar park model.

I see two major obstacles they face, aside from the ones mentioned above about zoning:

1. First, a manufactured green house needs to be a modernist house, and people don't embrace modern architecture, which is why manufactured housing has traditionally done cheap looking imitations of "real" ranch houses, or log cabins etc. that aren't that good looking or energy efficient to begin with, but the manufactured versions look even worse. Therefore, many neighborhoods zone against all manufactured housing. And many don't even allow modernist standard built homes.

Form follows function, and an ideal energy efficient manufactured home is going to need to be modernist.

2. Besides it working well -- let's assume it does -- Clayton needs to design something so good looking, inside and out, that people will want it EVEN THOUGH it is modernist, and most importantly, that it in no way resembles a single wide trailer. Unfortunately, just looking at photos, I feel they have failed at that in the main part of this i-house, because it looks like a single wide trailer. Any house that is long and narrow, is going to have this problem.

On the other hand, for the bedroom addition with roof deck, although I haven't seen photos of all but one angle, THAT part not only looks great -- to me at least -- it doesn't look like a manufactured home at all. I figure that is what really needs to be done with the whole home.
-------------------------
However, if this turns out to actually FUNCTION really well, and be well built, and priced reasonably, who knows, maybe people will overcome how different it looks, and flock to it in droves.

For example, the Prius looks different too, if a bit funny, and owners liked that about it, so much so that Honda redesigned its hybrid to look different, and it ends up looking like a Prius.

I'm looking forward to reading more details on this house. For example, the solar panels lie flat, at a slight angle, because of longitudinal roof angle for water catchment. Are they going to be something you can angle up, like in the winter, when the sun is at a much lower angle on the horizon? Otherwise, they aren't going to work well.

Bamboo flooring is beautiful, and renewable, and it will be nice to see that going into green homes, and more manufactured homes that are going greener.
------------------
Presently, not only do we face the problem of no manufactured housing allowed, but there are neighborhoods that don't even allow solar panels on roofs! This thinking is going to need to change along with the McMansion mentality. Small and energy efficient are both going to need to be regarded as beautiful, and valuable, for the planet.

However, as I've said, it would help if manufactures make them look beautiful.

Marty, thanks for coming in.

I think you are correct in your belief people have historically shied away from contemporary while clinging to all things traditional. My impression was, Clayton understands this product will probably have it's largest effect those 45 and younger. But with the off the grid concept, many soon to be retiring baby boomers may show interest in the i-house as a vacation or "get away" home.

Still, we are experiencing much faster technological shifts - which are leading to rapid societal shifts. Remember what a big deal switching from rotary telephones to push button was? Now kids switch "phones" a couple times of year, with each model offering more than before.

Now may be the time modern makes serious inroads. At least that's my hope. There is always fear of the unknown, but the "unknown" doesn't exactly loom like it used to.

As far as the style looking like a trailer, yes it is rectangular in design. But as Mr. Clayton explained, 16 foot wide is the max width for road travel. Being in the pre-fab business also puts you in the transportation business and some things are unavoidable. That said, the thought of slide outs for more room were not out of the question when brought up. But that goes back to the bedroom additions. Start with the base unit and expand accordingly. Maybe have a clover leaf design and structure in the corridors between. I don't know, but the possibilities are limitless.

Anyway, if you live in the area, you are welcome to take a free tour that runs through Nov 2nd at the Knoxville Convention Center. As stated, the display model is a prototype. All Clayton employees, including Mr. Clayton, were very open to suggestions and ideas. Go by and share what you think.

You must have found this post via a search. Please also check out the most current; http://www.blounttalk.com/b2evolution/blogs/index.php/2008/10/31/10-31-08ihouse-jpg?blog=2

I wish I could come to the show. Unfortunately, I live a thousand miles away, but thanks for the invitation. I first read of this house in the Knoxville newspaper, having done a search about this on google. THAT is how much I'm interested in this sort of thing. I was expecting a major manufacturer to be making a green manufactured home soon, so I do a search for it once a month, to even get a jump on such news, before it is on the several "green" sites I read.

There's a prof of architecture in Mississippi who won a big award for his solar manufactured house, "greenmobile" design and the prototype was supposed to be out by now, but it is stuck in a lot of red tape, probably indefinitely.

Perhaps it is more appropriate that such designs come out of architects within the manufactured home industry -- like this Clayton home. I'm not sure.

I understand the width limitations, for making it down a highway. But, that's what double-wide homes are all about, looking more conventional, similar to the dimensions and floor plan of stick-built houses. Besides, there's nothing energy efficient about the shape of a long, thin home, like a single wides. A circle, like a dome home, encloses the most space with the least amount of wall, yet they have other big problems. Roofs leak. Drywall is ten times harder and more costly to do on a dome.

But, yes, I wonder why they didn't consider a design more like Michelle Kaufmann's doublewide, GLIDEHOUSE. Could be that their single-wide equipment was more adaptable to manufacture.

Young people today are indeed quicker to adapt, but a house is different from a cell phone in that it is the largest and most important purchase most of us make. If you are sinking a good portion of your future earnings, or savings, on a piece of land and a manufactured home, any home buyer also considers its ability to hold its value or preferably increase in value, and how easy it will be to sell when you move.

My house before this one, I bought not because it was ideal for me, but because it was such a beautiful house I knew I could sell it easily, and I did. I sold it not even using a realtor, without even listing it.

Your touch tone phone analogy doesn't fit. I'm in my 50's. I was there for that. Everyone would have switched to touch tone the instant it was offered, if it had been similarly priced or Ma Bell dropped by with with replacement phones. This was certainly not a matter of people not wanting to adapt to new technology because it was unorthodox. As I remember, it was one of the few new things, most people didn't even care about, and for good reason.

In fact, everyone wanted color TV, and even the first PC, (even when they didn't know what to do with it), except that new technology cost so much back then. The first PC cost over $2500. I paid over a $1000 for a toy model, the Commodore. Color TVs started out at something like $500, which would be like $5000 today.

Back to touch tone phones. For years, touch tone service cost EXTRA, and not only that, Ma Bell had control of the "instrument." And a touch tone "instrument," probably cost more than a regular phone to rent from Ma Bell, or maybe it came free with paying extra for the new service. When they disenfranchised, finally. you could not only buy your own phone, at a fraction of the cost of renting or buying one from Ma Bell, but you could choose your own long distance carrier.

With the phones, at first Bell claimed that using another "instrument," other than a Bell phone, might harm their equipment...wiring...phone lines. It was all a farce. I'm not a know-it-all, I just read a funny article about all this several years ago and it stuck in my mind.

I considered buying an off grid home in Taos, NM several years ago. One thing you have to consider in a home, about solar panels, is that what happens if after buying your home, they come out with a fantastic advancement in solar panels, where they cost a fraction of what they used to and produce twice as much power. Then you are left with an outdated bunch of equipment, with little value. At least this seems to be a relatively minor issue with this Clayton home.

Back to Clayton though. The fantastic prospect of this home is the possibility that it won't be like the green homes, or solar homes, built by smaller companies, which can cost around $200,000 + $30,000 - $50,000 for solar panels you want added on. Clayton, being a major player, will be able to price them reasonably. Certainly, people will be willing to pay a little extra for bamboo floors, instead of Pergo, or better insulation, and better quality windows.

Toyota took a loss on pricing the first Prius around $20,000, but it sure got them selling. Maybe Clayton will consider getting them out that way, so more people see them, and become interested.

People won't jump on a Prius, or a Clayton i-house, unless it is really a great product. This isn't a yo-yo, a hoola hoop or an i-phone. It is a house.

Lastly, everyone knows that when you buy a cell phone, you will probably be getting another one in a year or two at the most, but houses are different. Five year old cell phones are worthless. Hundred year old houses can be worth a lot. Houses are even different than buying a car, but I think a car is the best analogy.