Hello!

I've enjoyed reading this forum for a while now, and thought this might be the right group to ask for a critique!

I am an architect and home energy rater in Asheville, NC, and just got my new company up and running that specializes in stock house plans that are tailored specifically to energy-efficiency and meeting the intent of the various green certifications that are out there. The goal is to make the designs flexible enough that they could be built using any technology available, whether it be SIP's, ICF, traditional frame, etc. Energy models have been done on all of them, which makes analysis of various systems, insulation, and equipment quick and easy to do. I have had tremendous success locally getting these houses to qualify for the various tax incentives and rebates - all prior to breaking ground.

Since I have been doing this work as a hobby of sorts (the energy rating company is the primary business), I am just now getting enough designs put together that it made sense to thrown them online. The majority are 2-story, although 1-story designs are in the works. I also have a few passive solar houses that I want to get up as well.

I was hoping that you all could give me some feedback as to whether these are the kinds of designs that are wanted in other parts of the country. I have had great interest here locally, and would love to see some of these designs built elsewhere. All comments are welcome - good or bad! Specific details you would want to see in a house design, things that you want to see removed, specific size requirements that people in your area want, etc.

Thanks in advance!

www.ssquareddesignstudio.com

Van,

I'll bite...
I....like quite a few here, are here to learn and incorporate Green building and new technologies into the investment, called..Home.
one thing that made me curious, was your comment about making designs "Flexible" enough.

Also like others, (I imagine) Have decided on a "floor plan" from an Architect..basic predrawn, DIY construction set of drawings.
Through reading on this forum, it has pretty much presented itself that any (worth their salt) ICF installer can build the walls from those drawings.


I have looked at the predominate winds, Suns path, and GeoThermals..because I intend on using all three sources.

I ask this honestly....what have I missed? Should I take the "basic design package" to someone and have them put final touches on the Green technologies?

In the upper midwest these designs would not be profitable without attached garages and full basements.  Bailey V1 would make a good habitat or city home thats the only hope I see.  You might find a niche in larger metro areas but as a spec in population 100,000 +/- area in the upper midwest you would not sell these like traditional larger open floorplans if at all unless you could cheapen them enough and have land cheap enough to offer unreal starter home price points.  Here those might be adapted into 2nd home designs.
The problem here would be fitting the look into subdivisions, they would look great as infill construction but lower property values prohibit that from making economic sense.
As investment properties they dont make sense either when you can build multi-family, unless zoning or something prohibits it.  Just my opinion and not trashing your designs at all, just the reality of the average consumer; there will always be a niche finding your designs appealing just figure out who that is and market to them.

You are on the right track if you believe, as I do, that the McMansion will go the way of the dinosaur in the long stretch of stagflation in front of us. But I am not sure you can just go back to traditional designs. You need open floor plans and lots of glass for a small home to live big. Because small houses are by their nature efficient, you shouldn't let the energy tail wag the dog. Design a home that has a genuine sense of place, accepting that it will have elements that aren't efficient, and find ways to compensate.

I appreciate the thoughts. I knew that garages would be an issue in some parts of the country - in the Southeast, they are not as prevalent, especially in smaller homes close to town. Most of these are able to accommodate full basements. The focus really is trying to build energy-efficiently on a budget. All of the builders in our area of the country are having to figure out how to build on much smaller budgets than they were working with 2 years ago. T

I think the big push we're seeing in our area is to much smaller, traditional-looking homes, smaller building lots (less than .25 acre), and closer to downtown. Part of this is the cost of housing in our area, which is high. Part of this is the mindset of the people that are moving to this area, which tend to be greener than normal. We've had great success with these regionally, so it's interesting to hear how these might not be what people are looking for in other areas of the country.

I tend to agree with toddm that the future of the housing is going to skew much smaller than it is right now. Our area is already seeing this push, hence the direction these designs are heading.

I appreciate the feedback, though. It's extremely helpful and would love to hear more from people about these designs and the trends that people are seeing in their areas of the country!

Van,
I can see how those plans would work in your area (which is beautiful by the way) or anywhere housing costs are high and I think you would find success in large markets (chicago, mpls/st paul and other larger metro areas) where infill construction makes sense to get a home without long commutes and one thats low maintenance and easy on the pocketbook. As infill homes they need to look traditional to fit in but I agree with todd that people will want the modern open plans or at least the feel of openess.

Good efficient designs

its all Greek to me!

To be honest when I first opened the web page I was excited as I started to navigate though it I found small menial imperfections (scroll bar does not move down all the way to read the last line of text). The plans look very general and outside dimensions would be helpful for lot sizing.

Not trying to bash the site, just giving some honest feedback.

I actually like the plans for what they were intended. The PDFS make the dimensions clear and you have interesting ideas you don't see in all the plans. I find a few of the layouts to be awkward but that may just be my personal preferences. For example, I don't like plans where the entry/foyer isn't clearly defined.

If you haven't already, you might also want to check if your idea for Buddy is doable for your target audience. We proposed it to our municipal government and got turned down for a permit.

Other than that, the site is well done and it's easy to find everything :)

I like what you are doing.

Some thoughts though:
a) as another mentioned you really need to open up small floor plans either by omitting partitions or larger windows. Not sure about the first with your plans but you could definitely offer larger windows on the side elevations without effecting the architectural style on the frontage.
b) most of your plans have no main floor access to the back yard (without going through the master bedroom). On at least one of the plans it might be possible to stack the washer and dryer and squeeze in a rear door.
c) some of your plans are actually "one and a half story" since the second floor area is 40-60% of the main. Some people actually look for "one and a half story" homes.
d) on your 1.5 story plans consider pushing the pony walls a bit farther into the attic space. Sure the headroom will be less but the added floor area and sense of space is worth it. I've saw a lottery "prize home" here with 4' headroom over the master bed headboard. Also done where a bedroom was a simple shed dormer and the floor was "extended" a couple of feet under the regular 12:12 attic.
e) some plans have no closet near the front door making it awkward.

John

Excellent comments, everyone. Much appreciated!

The navigation issues with certain web browsers is a problem I am currently trying to get worked out - specifically internet explorer. I actually may be moving to a new interface using something like Wordpress which should resolve a lot of these issues.

Permitting for the Buddy would be highly dependent on your plan review department. We see a lot of these types of "apartment above garage" plans go through here in our area. It doesn't surprise me that other areas would not allow it, though.

John7, excellent points all around. The only reason I didn't push the pony walls out farther than I did was to allow for a more traditional height in the closets. If I push it out any more on the one side, it kills the ability to use a 6'-8" high closet door. It could easily be pushed out on the opposite side, though.

As for window sizes, you could easily add more glass, and not hurt the overall layout of space. As an energy rater, though, I try and limit glass wherever I can only because of the impact that windows have on the thermal envelope. Energy Star compares these houses to a "standard" version of the house which contains an 18% glass to floor area ratio. The more glass you use, the more it impacts that comparison to the standard. It's a bit of a catch-22... aesthetics versus performance. I totally see why people would want more window area, though.

The closet issue is one I have been struggling with, and have some versions of these plans where I have included one near the front door. It visually separates the living and dining room areas a bit, but the one version of the house that was built that turned out pretty nice. Also, if there is no basement, then the areas I have designated for the stair going down can be used for a closet as well.

I think you are on the right track. Strictly from an economic point of view, people will be forced to scale back/down. They already are...
The Kayleigh 24 pdf link brings up a 28ft wide Kayleigh...