There are probably plenty of exceptions, as well, like Dollar Shave Club.
Be nice if they could mainstream this style, but looks like they've got a ways to go.
Putting a new carb and a dash mat on a 70's Oldsmobile will not justify the embodied energy argument. Melt that sucker down and build a Tesla that lasts 3x longer, can be powered by the sun and is better for you in the meantime.
Our homes are also much healthier for the owners, with proper ventilation, filtering, and low/no voc materials.
Under that assumption, I would have a hard time justifying tearing down an existing home to build a Zero Energy home, as opposed to just implementing those easy efficiency wins and investing the money saved in other environmentally friendly pursuits - perhaps even helping a friend to finance similar changes to their home. Or, letting someone else buy the already built home and build somewhere I don't have to tear down an existing structure.
Of course not everyone would think this way, and people are free to do what they wish with their money, but it's how I weigh the options.
We're not the solution to the entire problem, but I entirely confident that we are a fantastic value for our customers and the most efficient home available at this price/performance.
Price is entirely depended on location, in Kansas City (our original hometown), our homes are in the upper most price tier. In the Bay Area we are at or below market rate for typical homes and significantly under for anything comparable in quality and efficiency.
In Austin and Portland (our other two focus markets for 2017) we are about at parity and a good fit for the sustainable cultures.
But alas, we are not currently a fit everywhere and for every home buyer. It's part of our vision, but just like Tesla, we have to focus on a higher end product before we can create the every-mans product.
Regarding commute, we have an option to easily and affordably add capacity to allow for 6,000 miles of EV charging with ability to go beyond. Tis the future.
Keep posted next year for our tech that stretches beyond our own walls.
We'll work at the higher end for a bit, which can accelerate our growth and allow us to make some leaps with our product and tech.
We'll then be able to come down market and offer home that are much more accessible and honestly have much more positive impact on families and the environment.
There are savings associated with producing a uniform building package with standard modifications, but there are also new costs associated with that kind of work - namely, those associated with the fact that the ideal customer is thinly spread geographically (due to interest and budget). This generally leads to higher costs for local work, even if that only includes finishes (the standard business plan for most prefab green home companies).
That kind of business structure has been perfected by market builders, but market builders do a volume of business that is tough to match, and usually within a small geographic area (ie - a subdivision). This allows them to drive down local contracting costs better than one-off projects.
Currently Acre is looking for builders in four markets according to their 'work-with-us' page. They are also looking for an architectural project manager as opposed to a construction project manager, which probably indicates their chosen role in project delivery. Outsourcing all construction activity is a good way to reduce risk, but not a good way to reduce costs.
I work for custom home builders, and I've done work with a company that has a marketing plan/delivery plan similar to Acre albeit on the East Coast.
Our system is built for speed and that is where we derive savings. Between our wall/roof system, MEP systems, and delivery method we can slash construction time 60%.
Happy to continue conversation on your experience.