May 24, 2013 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Looks interesting. Will they give tours someday?
eco-friendly, thats funny.... they tore down a lot of woods.. to build a 4,200 sq. ft house, just for 2 people to live.. (eco-friendly) go to the corner of the house and think about that one..
Spot on. The greenest house is the one that is already built and the one near services. Certainly not one that requires driving 14 miles to buy groceries.
Because we all know that trees cannot possibly be replanted.
Round has always been considered an architectural failure. People usually figure that out(after its to late though). How about that round jr high school they tore down because, well, it was round. I think it is fine these folks are building the house of their choice but I think the accolades pretty much stop there. Eco-friendly is easy to say but hard to do and I think this one is mostly easy to say. Enjoy finding home furnishings with round backs. Things always seem to wind up pointed in the wrong direction in a round house too. Wasted space, how ecological is that?
I'd be very interested in seeing references for the all-encompassing statement: "Round has always been considered an architectural failure."
4200 square feet is anything but eco friendly. The house looks nowhere close to that size however.
Confucius say: Calculate square feet in round house, easy as pi.
In this case, the diameter of a 2100sf. house would be a little under 52 feet across...probably pretty close based on the appearance of the (standard?) 36" / 3' front door.
Down side is building materials are generally made for square houses/corners and standard 8' ceilings. A lot of wasted corners/ends in circle construction.
Why is it every time someone does something new and interesting (especially if there's any mention of taking the environment into account) a bunch of online commenters show up to bash it? For the record, it's 2 miles to 2 different grocery stores. According to the article, they built the house because they wanted to build the house. Is that not a good enough reason anymore?
The problem is that this house isn't green. These people are free to do whatever they like but they are out there in public thumping their chests about being eco-friendly when that is a big freaking joke. Even driving 2 miles to get necessities isn't green, nor is anything dwelling that large.
No, they're not thumping their chests about it being eco-friendly. That's what YOU read into it, for reasons I don't understand.
Uh, try re-reading the headline.
Did the homeowners write the headline, too?
So I guess in your world life revolves Wal-Mart and Target. Little wonder why you don't understand the larger issues and assume anyone who knows anything is a "Debbie Downer."
Good for you for trying to be eco-friendly but before you start bragging about no excess trash when you were finished remember that you "bought a kit". If you would have had any excess it would have meant you did not put the house together right....I wonder how much excess was leftover at the factory where it was built???? Probably the same as there would have been if it had been built from the beginning here. And you would have helped our local economy by providing jobs here.
"...I wonder how much excess was leftover at the factory where it was built???? Probably the same as there would have been if it had been built from the beginning here...."
Manufacturing processes for pre-fab/kit homes tend to be more efficient with materials than typical on-site stick built homes.
Take more land for selfish use. Murder trees and grass and multitudes of insects. Destroy food supplies for deer and other animals of all kinds. Water run off increased. Solar gain increased. Air pollution from energy consumed. Eco-friendly. Spin the lie. Fewer people, fewer selfish choices.
Man, you need your meds changed.
Hey toe and other naysayers: Unless your holier-than-thou response was written from an off-grid home with a locally-made, eco-friendly computer, you sound just as ridiculous as the right-wingers when they attempt to flaunt their morality as superior. I'm sure an observer could find fault with your lifestyle as not green enough....
154,000 isn't much of a bargain and what did te land cost?
Negativity is the name of the game on this website. Don't listen to it. It's causing their negative driven brains to rot. And why would the cost of the land be of anyone's business? It's a nice house, built by nice people I'm sure, who have chosen to do their own thing.
I have thought round is a good way to go, never figured out how to do the interior walls.
I would like to see how they did that.
I think it is hilarious that folks on here always find something to complain about.
I don't think most of you have a clue about eco-friendly. My Mother used to reuse bread sacks for cryin-out-loud. It was called thrifty in those days. My folks lived through the depression, you understand.
If you really want to be eco-friendly, build a house that lasts hundreds of years. Most homes are built to last 50 years or less, in this country. No one will build a house like that, because the initial costs are too high per square foot.
I wonder how may of you eco terrorists bought a used Caddy as apposed to a new Prius.
You can buy a good Sedan Deville for 8 grand. Probably does close to 25-30 mpg on the road.
Hell no, you buy a used Volvo and feel good about it. I bet a Sedan DeVille would get better gas milage than a Volvo, and be cheaper to maintain. Use your damned heads.
Great points. It's more eco-friendly--- by far--- to drive an older car and keep it running. It would also be much better to build a house that will last many years, but that's a concept that is just beyond our culture at this point. The particle board monstrosities being slapped together by our class act developers won't likely even endure the mortgage.
Buy the way...kit homes are usually better quality that one banged out of sticks on-site.
The manufactures can contract better materials, and they use those materials with less waste.
I would be willing to bet that the manufactures on this home recycle a lot of waste material as well.
So, what I am saying is:
You eco-terroists don't have any idea what you are taking about.
From what I have read about kit homes is that they are more energy efficient.
Well Mac, , i don't know about the "eco terrorist", nor do you but I certainly do know there is a lot of speculation and betting going on with you. You don't know much of what your talking about but your talking anyway.
I don't know what company built their house. I do know what most companies like that do, because I have researched it.
As far as building housed better...thats a European thing, and like buckjennings said, those types of homes don't fit our culture. We move around a lot, hence disposable homes.
I don't think there is a newer home in Lawrence that isn't disposable. I doubt the former Castle tea room will be here in 400 years, nice as it is.
It is really strange to go to the UK and vist a pub housed in a building that is 500 years old.
Boy what a bunch of negative nay sayers. Let's hear about your eco friendly built homes. Hopfully they are smart enough not to read all the crap that is written on this post.
The naysayers are doing the same thing to infill development. There side as infill development is better....However when a local developer decides to do infill develop these same knuckleheads oppose it.
I applaud the individuals building their new home...Enjoy it and do not listen to the individuals here who are only about tearing others down. Just have compassion for them, because they must lead miserable lives, if all they have to worry about is what :you" do.
Liberal that video is hilarious!
Again, is it really so difficult to grasp the idea that the primary complaint here is that these people are thumping their chests about being green when they are anything but? Or has our lousy public education system failed you as well?
They are not thumping their chests. Not about the house being round. Not about the house being from a kit. Not about the house being eco-friendly.
I wish this couple the best of luck with their new home but calling it eco-freindly is nothing but greenwashing. There are sooooo many things about the project that aren't eco-freindly. The shape of the home is structurally and physically wasteful. You only have to look at the picture of the radial floor joist layout to realize that the floor joists become so close together at the center bearing point that it is almost solid wood!
Eco-freindly in this day and age has to mean anti-sprawl, rehab, brownfield development, infill etc... Building a new home in the woods on the edge of town is strike one since you are taking ground that was previously woods, habitat or agricultural land, all very precious.
Buying the home and having it trucked in from the east cost is very wasteful and fails to utilize local materials and labor.
The only two things that could be considered eco-freindly about this home is that it was manufactured in a controlled environment and that they have insulated it very well.
A bank of north facing windows? really? What about passive solar?
I don't begrudge these nice folks building their dream but calling this eco-freindly is really a travesty of journalism. Perhaps the writer could do some research into what really makes something eco-freindly. There are loads and loads of good information sources out there if one looks.
Wasteful with wood? Depending on where the wood comes from, using wood can be a carbon sink. If this wood is farmed and is not taken from natural habitat, the wood used to construct a house can represent a substantial amount of carbon dioxide that has been converted into the organic compounds within the tree.
Moving about the country via truck can be wasteful (a train would have been better), but if they eliminated foreign construction sources, this dramatically cuts down on the carbon foot-print.
Passive solar? Considering the insulation, I would imagine that they are trying to avoid passive solar. Avoid losing heat in the winter. Avoid gaining excess heat in the summer. Heating and cooling a house can drive up energy costs.
Perhaps you need to do some reading about passive solar. It is really simple and only requires some thermal mass, a window and a well planned window overhang. Simple and effective. The overhang blocks the sun in the summer and allows it in the winter. With a well insulated house you can really save on heating bills without adversely affecting cooling bills.
You are right in that I did need to do some reading about passive solar. Now that I have, your characterization of it being "simple" makes me think that you need to do the same.
For one, the angle of the sun seems to indicate that the ground the house sits on slopes up to the south side. This means that the house only has one floor exposed on the side that would receive insolation. This makes modeling heat transfer in an energy efficient manner much more complex.
Two, the south side of the building should be unobstructed. It isn't. There is a thicket of trees on the south side of the building that would greatly impact the design.
Three, the house is cylindrical rather than rectangular. Even the basic rectangular home requires the design of an experienced professional and proper placement of rooms. You need someone with detailed knowledge before trying to apply passive solar building techniques to a cylindrical house (and you will need to pay for that level of expertise as well).
Finally, a simple overhang fails to compensate for temperature. You may think that the summer solstice should be hot, but the truth is that the hottest days of the year take place one to two months after the solstice. Outside temperature is always delayed from the angle of the sun. To screen off the heat during the warm days in the summer and early fall, you set yourself up to fail to heat during cold days in the late winter and spring. The only way around this is to have the overhang adjustable depending on outside temperature, at which point the overhang quickly increases in expense and complexity.
Making a efficient passive solar building is not a simple process and trying to apply those principles to a house that faces the environmental and structural challenges of this one make it anything but a slam dunk. It is a lot easier for you to criticize than it is to actually put your criticisms in practice.
People are free to build whatever they like but it's perfectly reasonable to point out that this thing is anything but "eco-friendly." As for being negative, I suppose realism means you're a "Debbie Downer."
cheryl crow recommends one square of toilet paper after using the restroom. walmart built an enviromental store on south iowa that has a wood roof, and runs it with electricity and has no natural gas. most electric hand dryers claim to save the environment by saving trees failing to mention that dirty coal is released into the atmosphere to power the dryer.
Let's give these people a break. They didn't ask to have this article written. They are just doing something different and the Journal World reported on it. Eco-friendly is a description not exactly a defined term.
great video, did you notice most of the whiners are gutless wonders that
wont even post with their own name , but have to hide behind an alias?
i bet most of them are just jeasous because they live in thier parents basements
beause they cant get a real job.
Looks very nice. I hope the owners enjoy their new home. We re trying to help - we have gone CFL except for the lights on dimmers. I'm glad they could afford to do even more.
Shhhh ... it's actually my spaceship in disguise!
Now if I can only find someone to fix its stardrive, I can get off this stinking rock.
The only eco-friendly house on virgin land is a tent.
All of the complainers, typical for the Lawrence crowd, need to go back to either picking their noses, collecting ear wax or cleaning their belly buttons of accumuated lint. Best of luck to the round housers.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·