"...House Arc, a 150-square-foot structure of hollow steel tubes. Not only
can the 3,000-pound modular home withstand high winds, it can also be boxed
into a 120 cubic-foot (i.e., 5x6x4) freight container and shipped off to its
next destination."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-...105300240.html

On Jun 3, 7:02*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"...House Arc, a 150-square-foot structure of hollow steel tubes. Not only
can the 3,000-pound modular home withstand high winds, it can also be boxed
into a 120 cubic-foot (i.e., 5x6x4) freight container and shipped off to its
next destination."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-...signed-1053002...

How is a 150 sq ft reusable house that costs $55,000
any better than a FEMA trailer ?

Besides needing tools to assemble (which may not
be readily available in a disaster area immediately
after the disaster) being very expensive and large
in freight volume compared to tents and cots...

This sounds like it is not a first line response item,
more of an intermediate plan for after things in a
disaster area have been stabilized as a stop-gap
measure while those displaced by the event are
waiting for the permanent housing to be rebuilt...

Evan wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:02 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"...House Arc, a 150-square-foot structure of hollow steel tubes.
Not only can the 3,000-pound modular home withstand high winds, it
can also be boxed into a 120 cubic-foot (i.e., 5x6x4) freight
container and shipped off to its next destination."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-...signed-1053002...

How is a 150 sq ft reusable house that costs $55,000
any better than a FEMA trailer ?

Well, it is, as you said, "reusable." The FEMA trailers are not. Or at least
I've never seen any on the market. Further, they are probably usable at the
get-go and do not subject the occupants to deadly (some say) formaldehyde
fumes.


Besides needing tools to assemble (which may not
be readily available in a disaster area immediately
after the disaster) being very expensive and large
in freight volume compared to tents and cots...


Good point. For a mere $1,000 extra, the designers could include a "tool
kit" of necessary items.

This sounds like it is not a first line response item,
more of an intermediate plan for after things in a
disaster area have been stabilized as a stop-gap
measure while those displaced by the event are
waiting for the permanent housing to be rebuilt...

Or a back-yard apartment for your mother-in-law. Or a hunting cabin in the
woods.

On the latter, I'd be afraid someone could disassemble the thing and steal
it. Then, on the other hand, who but a Manhattanite would believe 150 sq ft
is a livable space. A monkey at the Bronx Zoo has more square feet in his
cage.

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:42:53 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On Jun 3, 7:02*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"...House Arc, a 150-square-foot structure of hollow steel tubes. Not only
can the 3,000-pound modular home withstand high winds, it can also be boxed
into a 120 cubic-foot (i.e., 5x6x4) freight container and shipped off to its
next destination."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-...signed-1053002...

How is a 150 sq ft reusable house that costs $55,000
any better than a FEMA trailer ?

If you'll remember that FEMA is part of the US government, I think you've
answered your own question.

Besides needing tools to assemble (which may not
be readily available in a disaster area immediately
after the disaster) being very expensive and large
in freight volume compared to tents and cots...

Include the tools.

This sounds like it is not a first line response item,
more of an intermediate plan for after things in a
disaster area have been stabilized as a stop-gap
measure while those displaced by the event are
waiting for the permanent housing to be rebuilt...

You think people will be allowed to sleep in tents?

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:42:53 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On Jun 3, 7:02 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"...House Arc, a 150-square-foot structure of hollow steel tubes.
Not only can the 3,000-pound modular home withstand high winds, it
can also be boxed into a 120 cubic-foot (i.e., 5x6x4) freight
container and shipped off to its next destination."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-...signed-1053002...

How is a 150 sq ft reusable house that costs $55,000
any better than a FEMA trailer ?

If you'll remember that FEMA is part of the US government, I think
you've answered your own question.

Besides needing tools to assemble (which may not
be readily available in a disaster area immediately
after the disaster) being very expensive and large
in freight volume compared to tents and cots...

Include the tools.

This sounds like it is not a first line response item,
more of an intermediate plan for after things in a
disaster area have been stabilized as a stop-gap
measure while those displaced by the event are
waiting for the permanent housing to be rebuilt...

You think people will be allowed to sleep in tents?

They were allowed to sleep in tents during the Israelite exodus from Egypt
up to the present-day Occupy movement. So I guess it's possible.

On Jun 3, 1:42*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Evan wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:02 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"...House Arc, a 150-square-foot structure of hollow steel tubes.
Not only can the 3,000-pound modular home withstand high winds, it
can also be boxed into a 120 cubic-foot (i.e., 5x6x4) freight
container and shipped off to its next destination."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-...signed-1053002....

How is a 150 sq ft reusable house that costs $55,000
any better than a FEMA trailer ?

Well, it is, as you said, "reusable." The FEMA trailers are not. Or at least
I've never seen any on the market. Further, they are probably usable at the
get-go and do not subject the occupants to deadly (some say) formaldehyde
fumes.



Besides needing tools to assemble (which may not
be readily available in a disaster area immediately
after the disaster) being very expensive and large
in freight volume compared to tents and cots...

Good point. For a mere $1,000 extra, the designers could include a "tool
kit" of necessary items.

This sounds like it is not a first line response item,
more of an intermediate plan for after things in a
disaster area have been stabilized as a stop-gap
measure while those displaced by the event are
waiting for the permanent housing to be rebuilt...

Or a back-yard apartment for your mother-in-law. Or a hunting cabin in the
woods.

On the latter, I'd be afraid someone could disassemble the thing and steal
it. Then, on the other hand, who but a Manhattanite would believe 150 sq ft
is a livable space. A monkey at the Bronx Zoo has more square feet in his
cage.

"Reusable" under perfect conditions in that someone saved
the packing crate during use... That someone takes care
to not lose any pieces during the dismantlement process...
That it remains undamaged after use...

$55,000 is a lot of cinder blocks and mortar... It is even
more tents and cots... But for ONE emergency shelter
dwelling that is reusable ? Pricey...

Manufactured homes need to be acceptable to and
approved by your local AHJ in order for you to erect
them as a dwelling unit... $55,000 is a rather expensive
150 sq ft "shed"...

$1,000 extra for tools, eh ? How much extra for furnishings
so someone can live in the thing ? Better include some of
those tents and cots anyway... Not to mention fully illustrated
non-written assembly guides so they can be deployed anywhere
in the world and assembled like a Lego play set...

While it is green in that it is reusable, it still sounds too
expensive
and the ROI would take a while to see... Even single use tents
and cots would see more utility as they can be sent into a 3rd
world situation with limited sanitation capabilities and left for the
indigenous personnel to keep -- your reusable kit hut would have
to be brought back to a central warehouse somewhere, completely
cleaned and sterilized and checked to see if it can be put back
together -- further increasing the costs... A torn tent can be sewn
and patched with many various technologies ranging from low to high...

On Jun 3, 2:40*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:42:53 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On Jun 3, 7:02*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"...House Arc, a 150-square-foot structure of hollow steel tubes. Not only
can the 3,000-pound modular home withstand high winds, it can also be boxed
into a 120 cubic-foot (i.e., 5x6x4) freight container and shipped off to its
next destination."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-...signed-1053002....

How is a 150 sq ft reusable house that costs $55,000
any better than a FEMA trailer ?

If you'll remember that FEMA is part of the US government, I think you've
answered your own question.

Besides needing tools to assemble (which may not
be readily available in a disaster area immediately
after the disaster) being very expensive and large
in freight volume compared to tents and cots...

Include the tools.

This sounds like it is not a first line response item,
more of an intermediate plan for after things in a
disaster area have been stabilized as a stop-gap
measure while those displaced by the event are
waiting for the permanent housing to be rebuilt...

You think people will be allowed to sleep in tents?

Yes, I think in a disaster area people are allowed
to sleep in tents when every building in the area
lays ruined in piles of debris... Even more so in
a 3rd world country where a tent might be considered
a luxury accommodation...

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 23:23:25 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On Jun 3, 2:40*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:42:53 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On Jun 3, 7:02*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"...House Arc, a 150-square-foot structure of hollow steel tubes. Not only
can the 3,000-pound modular home withstand high winds, it can also be boxed
into a 120 cubic-foot (i.e., 5x6x4) freight container and shipped off to its
next destination."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-...signed-1053002...

How is a 150 sq ft reusable house that costs $55,000
any better than a FEMA trailer ?

If you'll remember that FEMA is part of the US government, I think you've
answered your own question.

Besides needing tools to assemble (which may not
be readily available in a disaster area immediately
after the disaster) being very expensive and large
in freight volume compared to tents and cots...

Include the tools.

This sounds like it is not a first line response item,
more of an intermediate plan for after things in a
disaster area have been stabilized as a stop-gap
measure while those displaced by the event are
waiting for the permanent housing to be rebuilt...

You think people will be allowed to sleep in tents?

Yes, I think in a disaster area people are allowed
to sleep in tents when every building in the area
lays ruined in piles of debris... Even more so in
a 3rd world country where a tent might be considered
a luxury accommodation...

You really are dense.