andrewksu

I help do recruiting at LANL if you are looking for something specific, just let me know.

Average US build time is 4-6mos for production builders. In areas like CA, it's closer to 12mos.

Labor is still quite high in most major metros. NorCal is $250/sqft just for labor, $350+ turnkey.

Metal goes 100+ yrs. Doing the same thing (asphalt) and expecting different results = insanity.

Recent CA costs for a framer range $65-125/hr. That adds up fast.

Most modular just does it wrong. Doing fixed design is a great opportunity for better, deeper design. Think Apple or Tesla type design and engineering. Not many complaints around cookie cutter Audi RS7's or even Hyundais

The status quo is a home depot and it all gets figured out on the fly. We would be in a much better place with engineered kit as you describe Ford doing.

Most of the value is in the land, and the homes are no different than $200K homes in the midwest. However, they are worth more and cost more because of very high demand and limited supply of labor and land. Putting a standard new home on a property that just sold for $1.6M (a home that should, anywhere else cost $300K) allows you to flip that property for $3.2. That's in Redwood City in a decent, but not over the top (for the Peninsula) neighborhood. Same home in a different market is worth quite a bit more.

Bare minimum for non tract construction is about $250/sqft or 3x the rates in the middle of the country. For high performance homes, $600+ /sqft is not uncommon.

Construction is not perfectly competitive, especially here in the bay. Guys (builders/trades people) pick their rates because demand on them is so high. Regulation, permitting and crazy processes mean the barrier to entry are higher than ever before. It's not fixable with day labor and a spunky attitude.

That said, our current line is the Tesla Model S of homes, late next year we'll be able to offer our Model C range for a much broader market.

Thanks for the well wishes!

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.

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.

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.

It's all relative. In Des Moines it's outrageous (although still worth it!), but in the Bay Area or similar market it's a steal. Comparable homes out here can be 2-3x.

We did our fist home at $145K for 1200 sqft and can offer than again late next year. Margins are too slim to grow at that rate, re:Tesla.