Tapatalk

EcoUrban Homes

EcoUrban Homes

1,282
AdministratorAdministrator
1,282

PostMay 16, 2007#1

Modular homes the next wave way of green building

By Riddhi Trivedi-St. Clair

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

05/16/2007





It may seem a little far-fetched, but Jay Swoboda wants to build moderately priced houses that have some of the highest green building standards in the country, and construct them within weeks instead of months.



Swoboda is a principal in EcoUrban Homes, a St. Louis company that plans to use modular construction techniques to build eco-friendly houses that provide all of the amenities of new construction and are priced from $199,000 to $250,000.



While modular houses don't have the best image among buyers, many experts believe the term can be synonymous with high-quality construction. Some even claim it may be the future of the house-building industry as construction costs, environmental issues and energy prices start to play greater roles in house-buying decisions.



Swoboda is starting his company's marketing by building three model houses in the Tower Grove East and Benton Park West neighborhoods. The first one was trucked in from the factory and installed on its foundation in Tower Grove East two weeks ago. Advertisement



Now the interiors are being finished with a target completion of about three weeks.



"That is one of the big advantages of modular homes," Swoboda said on a house tour. "From the time you sign a contract it takes about 60 days to deliver the home instead of the months it takes with traditional home building."



The first one will be a two-bedroom, 2 1/2-bath, 1,800-square-foot house with a two-car garage. The first floor will have bamboo flooring and 9-foot ceilings with the same available for the second floor as an upgrade.



The kitchen also will have high-efficiency fluorescent can lighting and indirect lighting in the dining area. Designer counter­tops are an upgrade.



"We are trying to get as much natural light into the home as possible," Swoboda said.



To that end, the front and the back of the house will have large windows. To minimize energy consumption and heat loss, the windows are high-efficiency, dual-paned, argon-filled and tinted. All of the outside walls are thicker than in a standard traditionally built house .



The house is formed by using two modules each on the lower and upper floor front-to-back. Because of the modular construction, Swoboda is able to put 18 inches of foam between the two floors for sound insulation.



The master bedroom is 18 feet by 14 feet, with an additional small sitting area near the entrance, and the guest bedroom is 15 feet by 11 feet. Both have large closets.



"The emphasis is on livability," Swoboda said.

Read More

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMay 16, 2007#2

This is awesome - very impressive that it's happening in St. Louis City! If anyone's down around this area could you take a couple pics?

90
New MemberNew Member
90

PostMay 16, 2007#3

very cool.

he/she/they have a website: http://ecourbanhomes.com/

and a blog w/ photos: http://www.ecourban.blogspot.com/

1,770
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,770

PostMay 16, 2007#4

This in Fox Park, not TGE. Very cool though. I'll ahve to check it out. I hope they look nice, but I am all for their eco-friendliness.

154
Junior MemberJunior Member
154

PostMay 17, 2007#5

This is one of my fave websites...

They have lotsa stuff on prefab houses, among other green things.



http://inhabitat.com/

2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostMay 17, 2007#6

Can't wait to see pics of finished houses.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMay 17, 2007#7

I E-mailed Jay at Ecourban Homes and got a quick response - sounds like they'd like to explore other parts of the city as well. Here's hoping they make it to the Grove!

3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostMay 27, 2007#8

So, if being in an ecofriendly house is the utmost importance, with the goal of helping the environment and all, then why wouldn't you just buy one of our THOUSANDS of existing vacant houses and REUSE that instead of building a complelely new house?



Is this not the same concept of using recycled goods versus new? Or is the "green building" just a "feel good" trend.



I'm not trying to be a di*k, but I'm honestly curious. What has a lower "impact" on the environment, reusing an old house, or building a new eco-friendly one? I'd assume a house that already exists would be better.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMay 27, 2007#9

Very true - I like the point you're making. I guess an Eco-friendly home is the best way to go with a new home - so I think it's fantastic that some of the new homes being built are being done as well as possible. Also, many of the existing homes are not energy efficient and in some cases need to be gutted, new custom-sized windows installed, etc. In some cases I'd bet that a ~$200K eco-friendly home is better than everything that would be done to reuse an existing home.

8,907
Life MemberLife Member
8,907

PostMay 28, 2007#10

those are some pretty sweet double-wides!

2,953
Life MemberLife Member
2,953

PostMay 28, 2007#11

JCity,



While I'm no expert, I would guess that building new has lower long term impact on it's energy expenditures.



Unless you wanted to take an older building, and completely reconfigure it to be a green building, which, I would bet would be extraordinarily expensive.

1,282
AdministratorAdministrator
1,282

PostMay 29, 2007#12


12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostMay 29, 2007#13

This Old House on PBS has been rehabbing a small bungalow in Austin, TX., trying to atain the highest LEED rating possible. Maybe it's possible to have the best of both worlds.

801
Super MemberSuper Member
801

PostMay 29, 2007#14

I can see why these current fads of recycling and "green" buildings are so popular, but they are so misguided. If governments didn't award legal monopolies to utility companies and garbage collection, etc. we wouldn't need to be "environmentally aware" or have campaigns to conserve and other such bs.



That is because we would have what we have in every other industry, a free price system that actually reflected available resources.







Hence, if blank (fresh water, electricity, oil, etc) were to become scarce, the price would rise to reflect this scarcity and people would accordingly reduce consumption in response to the higher prices. There would not need to be campaigns of awareness of the shortage because the prices would solve the problem on their own.



If there weren't monopolies and price controls on energy, we would not get brownouts during the summer due to the increased demand for airconditioning. If we didn't have arbitrary prices on water, we would not have commercials and the news reminding us not to water our lawns or leave tapwater running because the people that do those things would have to pay the actual price.



I'm not in anyway against reigning in consumption. I want lower water bills and electricity bills. I want to use less gas. But it's because I want to spend less money on these things, not because I'm trying to feel better about myself or than my neighbors.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMay 29, 2007#15

^ That works in theory - unless there's a tipping point in the supply of oil/water/etc. And markets are not unfailingly rational. Regardless of regulations and the market, I believe we have a moral obligation to conserve.

1,770
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,770

PostMay 29, 2007#16

I took a tour last week. I was very impressed with Jay, and the home in general. Yes, using, or "recycling" an existing home is clearly a "green" thing to do, but I think that there is an important place for these new homes in our city. For one thing, they cannot qualify for the level of LEED cert. that they want unless they use a piece of land that has already been developed, and is now vacant. They are not doing any demolitions, simply filling in the gaps that already exist in the neighborhoods. The homes are aesthetically nice, they are modern, but jive with the streetscape in setback and scale, and use some brick in the facade. They do not try (and fail) to be "historic" but rather make their own statement, something that is lacking in our city's neighborhoods. NO VINYL SIDING!!! The homes are incredibly efficient and use an immense amount of recycled materials, ecologically friendly products, and forward thinking appliances. They must keep track of their waste for the certification as well and when I was there the house was very far along and they had somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 pounds of wood waste so far. (My impression) They are designing and building these homes in an effort to attract primarily young, educated, middle income folks to the neighborhoods. People to whom energy efficiency and "green" products appeal, but also people who may not be interested in re-habbing. There are plenty of folks out there who are interested in city living and walkable urban environments, but would prefer a new house. These homes fill that niche, and do it in a tasteful and environmentally conscious way.

7,803
Life MemberLife Member
7,803

PostMay 29, 2007#17

I like the idea of the buildings a lot; but they need something a little wider for my tastes.

710
Senior MemberSenior Member
710

PostMay 30, 2007#18

dweebe wrote:I like the idea of the buildings a lot; but they need something a little wider for my tastes.


ouch.

7,803
Life MemberLife Member
7,803

PostMay 30, 2007#19

warwickland wrote:
dweebe wrote:I like the idea of the buildings a lot; but they need something a little wider for my tastes.


ouch.


They just seem too much like the south city "cracker box/shotgun style" houses I'm not a fan of. Hey: that's just my personal taste.

696
Senior MemberSenior Member
696

PostMay 30, 2007#20

For narrow city lots, this is the kind of floorplan that is appropriate, IMO. To make it wider, you'd have to widen the lots (typical city lot being what, 30-35 ft.?)...there goes density.

I like these...the floor plans and the style. Very nice. And urban.

7,803
Life MemberLife Member
7,803

PostMay 31, 2007#21

Marmar wrote:For narrow city lots, this is the kind of floorplan that is appropriate, IMO. To make it wider, you'd have to widen the lots (typical city lot being what, 30-35 ft.?)...there goes density.

I like these...the floor plans and the style. Very nice. And urban.


You're right for a good majority of lots in the city east of Kingshighway. :?

But if I was building on a larger lot (western part of the city, Holly Hills, Maplewood, Richmond Heights, U City) I would at least like the option for a wider home.

710
Senior MemberSenior Member
710

PostJun 01, 2007#22

dweebe wrote:
warwickland wrote:
dweebe wrote:I like the idea of the buildings a lot; but they need something a little wider for my tastes.


ouch.


They just seem too much like the south city "cracker box/shotgun style" houses I'm not a fan of. Hey: that's just my personal taste.


only mildly offended :) i personally adore the st. louis city brick shotguns...they are unique on this continent (i havent seen them really anywhere else in brick form without a gable) and i want one. although, i think "crackerbox," and i think overland, missouri or prairie village, kansas (inner kc metro).

513
Senior MemberSenior Member
513

PostJun 05, 2007#23


12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostJun 05, 2007#24

^Hey, that's kinda cool! I like it.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 05, 2007#25

It really is great to start to see a wider variety of homes in the city. New construction downtown (or even mention thereof) always seems to elicit oohs and aahs, but LEED single family housing built exclusively on vacant lots in the city - WOOHOO! (I think there should be more excitement about this) And the more I think about it, places like Gaslight Square and even Botanical Heights are huge for the city - though I'm in favor of the infill. Here's to hoping that a couple hundred of these are built in the city over the next few years - north, south, The Grove . . .

Read more posts (32 remaining)