Hacker News Reader

Comment by ashark | Hacker News Reader

Went to check them out. Their houses are beautiful, but they truly are targeting the high end—double the price of a mid-tier-fixtures McMansion-build-quality house of similar size, at least around here. I'm also not sure how I'd get one of them built anywhere near the city here without buying a house in a no-HOA, low-home-value neighborhood and demolishing the house already on it, which'd be throwing away a ton of money on both the demo and putting such an expensive house in such a crap neighborhood. You could build one out in the country, but so much for being green (assuming you have a commute to the city).

Be nice if they could mainstream this style, but looks like they've got a ways to go.

View on HN

Hey, this is Andrew (Acre Founder). Thanks for the comments.

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.

Oh, right, I knew you guys looked familiar! KC as well. You've observed the same thing about this market, then—tons of very inexpensive (and usually also cheap) houses. I think it'll be easier to justify this kind of spending if/when the market proves you can recoup the added cost on resale. That's what kept us from considering some of the pricier but more eco-friendly options when we bought a new house recently.

Yeah, KC and much of the middle of the country, there is very little fat in pricing and slow growth. Our first home built in KC was for $145K. Same general concept and performance, but a much more simple/affordable material and finish package. Slim margins for a fledgling company!

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.

I would question someone's actual motives if they demolished a house so they could build a new one in name of sustainability. How much time would it take to recuperate that full rebuild vs. just retrofitting the already existing house?

When the cost balance makes the new house cheaper than a retrofit.

Embodied energy is certainly worth considering, but major retrofits of homes built in the 60's or earlier are hugely inefficient and result in a home that looks better, but performs no better energy wise. You CANNOT retrofit to Zero Energy with out significant cash outlays or at all.

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.

Maybe I'm wrong, but my assumption is the difference between "standard home" and "standard home with solar + other easy wins" (such as tearing out your lawn in SoCal, where I live) is overall "better" than going from those easy wins to a Zero Energy home. I would guess it's also location dependent though.

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.

Certainly in the short run those are more cost effective and less intensive options, but homes built 50 years ago do have a very short lifespan remaining and will consume gobs of energy every day until they are plowed under. Zero Energy refits are cost prohibitive, so at best, you'll have a band aid. Ultimately, It's a sunk cost fallacy.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com