Golly, that's great!

All it lacks are three axles, a propane tank and a hitch.

You're entitled to your opinions, Abe, but what matters most here is that:
(1) The neighbors who had the most to lose from having this form of alternative construction in their midst, voluntarily gave up the deed restrictions that were standing in the way of what they ended up building, and
(2) It appraised 74% higher than what they put into construction.

I think you're outvoted.

Does the butt-ugliness of it count for anything?

I think you're outvoted.

you're the only one voting, John.

it is, in fact, a cantilevered trailer situated on two acres, owned by pretentious gits.

the most perverse statements in the article are their straight-faced claims about the "zero footprint" and calling it a "model of compact green construction."

i'd go so far as to say this is an ideal example of what's wrong with the slickly packaged soft-porn that is labeled "sustainability."

Nothing, and I mean nuh-thing, on the internet has made me as ill as this aricle. Except, maybe, that guy who wept Leave Brittney Alone on youtube. That came pretty close, but the absence of false-modesty, self-satisfaction and namedropping Niketown makes it a very, very distant second.

Aw, come on, look at the bright side. The more boxes like this one that they build in the Gorge, the fewer they'll have time to inflict on Portland.

you're the only one voting, John.

I didn't vote; it was the neighbors and the appraiser I cited. The design isn't actually not my style.

But if I had to choose between this and the typical house in this neighborhood (and it sounds like the typical house was well in excess of the 1400 sq ft / 2 car garage that was required by the deed restrictions that they had to overturn), I'd take this.

I thought it was cool. I'm with John Rettig on this one. It's certainly cooler than the brick-faced, vinyl-sided oversized planbook "tudors" that probably fill out the rest of that neighborhood.

They did something unique that fits their needs and has less of an impact on everyone else in the world than a typical house would. Hard to get too upset about that.

the typical house in this neighborhood

It's certainly cooler than the brick-faced, vinyl-sided oversized planbook "tudors" that probably fill out the rest of that neighborhood.

the "1400sf" was a requirement for that lot by the previous owner--not the surrounding neighborhood. give the article a closer read.

They did something unique that fits their needs and has less of an impact on everyone else in the world than a typical house would.

what a low bar for success: "not as bad as some others." decorating the box with some "eco friendly" baubles does not make it good, or "sustainable." it's several thousand pounds of concrete foundation, metal and plastic, filled with a few thousand pounds of more steel and plastic.

do that make sense? they place has a serious footprint that began at the factory and does not end until the thing has decomposed back into topsoil.

the appraiser I cited
no, it was a real estate agent.

ecohuman,

The deed restriction was put in when the larger lot was subdivided by the previous owner, i.e., all the lots in that "neighborhood" had the restriction. That's why these people had to get all the other homeowners to sign off on their house design.

If people are going to live in houses, there will be some environmental impact. Trying to minimize that impact in whatever way is probably a good idea. I doubt if it is helpful to angrily berate people who don't meet the unobtainable model of perfection you seem to be insisting upon.

"...it is, in fact, a cantilevered trailer situated on two acres, owned by pretentious gits."
--------------

The best one phrase summary I have seen yet.

These gits (I have no idea either) remind me of the guy driving the old Lincoln Town Car, belching black smoke, with the Prius badge glued on trunk.

Hey, any git can save the planet, eh?

The deed restriction was put in when the larger lot was subdivided by the previous owner, i.e., all the lots in that "neighborhood" had the restriction.

all the lots the previous owner subdivided had that restriction. i don't read whether or not other houses existed around those 16 parcels--but i suspect they did, given the location.

Trying to minimize that impact in whatever way is probably a good idea.

i completely agree--we only differ in what constitutes "minimizing."

I doubt if it is helpful to angrily berate people who don't meet the unobtainable model of perfection you seem to be insisting upon.

my reading of the article left me thinking "what pretentious nonsense." it didn't make me angry--it made me laugh at its absurdity. when people say "we're both very orthogonal" and the house was to "literally have no footprint", only a humorless wonk wouldn't bust out laughing.

so, you see, i both laugh at it and call it what it is--pretentious nonsense.

it's not about some Amish ideal, it's about calling things what they are. and a "noticeably large concrete box" topped with several tons of plastic and steel materials and Ikea furniture is not, and never will be, "sustainable."

all the lots the previous owner subdivided had that restriction. i don't read whether or not other houses existed around those 16 parcels--but i suspect they did, given the location.

No individual lot owner would place more restrictions on a lot, absent any similar restrictions on adjacent lots. Why make something harder to sell, just to benefit the neighbors? So it most likely would have been recorded with the subdivision approval as a mechanism to mutually elevate lot prices.

And the real point to take out of this article shouldn't be the aesthetics, or lack thereof (remember, I admitted it's not really my style of design). It's the question of why county ordinances should even allow minimum square footage and garage space restrictions to be recorded in the first place. I would offer that Ecohuman and I probably aren't that far apart on this issue.

No individual lot owner would place more restrictions on a lot, absent any similar restrictions on adjacent lots.

that happens all the time, actually. i have firsthand experience of it.

And the real point to take out of this article shouldn't be the aesthetics, or lack thereof

who's just talking about aesthetics? not me.

It's the question of why county ordinances should even allow minimum square footage and garage space restrictions to be recorded in the first place. I would offer that Ecohuman and I probably aren't that far apart on this issue.

i agree.

The following comments are not to crit the owners, but the gist of the article.

Building in a flood plain, even if the occupied floor is above the high water line, is Green or Sustainable?

Many homes now built (mine is over 32 years) have water conserving toilets, on demand water heaters, and solar tubes (they have been around for 15 years). It is interesting how one can be "green" while many already are without the official "green label". This kind of thinking worries me concerning Dan Saltzman's proposed "green tax". The tax will create a whole new bureaucracy that is ripe for corruption from architects, designers, green certification companies, plan checkers, inspectors, builders, installers, to green product labeling bureaus.

Measure 39 said making a larger parcel of land into 16, two acre parcels is bad; and this parcel is near a winery and farms. But in this case the land was divided BEFORE M39 was enacted. What gives-why is this ok and meets the "green" criteria? Seems like the opposite to me.

What is "green" about having a second home with a 150 mile round trip commute, but it's ok to knock those who are running "errands" back at their only residence? And what is "green" about ridiculing "weeding" a garden-I thought gardens were green?

Rettig, your "74%" higher appraised cost analysis is not giving the real picture. One must add to the supposed $216T hard cost, the architectural costs, engineering, permits, SDCs, road, services, utility hookups, insurance, septic tank, and 2 acre land costs. And the owners took some risk too that should be compensated. Being conservative, those costs would likely approach or pass the $375,000 real estate agent's estimate.

I forgot, the last time I was involved in well drilling for a project in Hood River Co. 18 years ago, the well cost over $12,000 dollars. Today's cost, maybe $20,000. I'm assuming the 16 lot subdivision has no communal water system.

Hey, if this is the new thing in "Sustainable Living" I guess people need to get used it. The elite make the rules. You can bet there will be more like this with the new rules Tom and Co. are implementing. Condos and little homes like this. Enjoy.

"What is "green" about having a second home with a 150 mile round trip commute, but it's ok to knock those who are running "errands" back at their only residence?"
--------------

Great point.

I have a 375 mile round trip commute that I haven't made in over a two years. I work from home 100%, and since my boss and other co-workers are in other states, driving into the Oregon office just to sit in an Dilbert cubicle on a conference call seems rather foolish.

So, in fact my commute is between my bedroom and my homeoffice (unless I give up the commute and grab my laptop and work from my bed).

No amount of Prius driving will ever be more ecological than that.

jeez, you guys are pretty harsh when it comes to other people's tastes in architecture!

it looks nothing like a trailer home to me. i have personally never seen a mid century styled trailer home, although i know they exist.

One reader's interpretation:

AIA eye.

Oh.