If Sears wont do it, I think that leaves the door open for someone else. I’ve done some googling and found Shelter-Kit, a company that sells kit homes in the model of Sears. Their homes seem to be styled for rural lots, though (one kit is called the “barn house”) and I want something meant for a dense, urban neighborhood.

Current technology could even improve on the Sears model. A prospective buyer could start out with a basic plan and customize it digitally. Their plans and materials order would update on the fly, and they could get instant feedback on price. They could input characteristics about their lot, like orientation, grade, and surrounding trees and buildings, and the company’s software could recommend plans that maximize passive solar heating and solar panel placement.

I believe we now live at the intersection of two important trends; one is that of customization and on-demand everything, and the other is of craft as a rejection of mass consumerism (think Etsy). Building your own custom home lies at that intersection, and that market will only grow in the near future. I’m there, and I want to build my own house!

The New York Times just posted an article called ”Prefab, High-Concept and Green” which profiles an affordable, low-maintenance home with sustainable features. I can’t argue that it has some sustainable features: denim insulation, corn husk shelving, and a good attention to the sun all make this house innovative compared to your average domicile. But affordable and low maintenance? Seriously?

First of all, the house is 4200 square feet, and the family consists of two parents and a baby. Who wants to clean 4200 square feet of floors? Think of all the dusting. That’s a lot of house to clean for a small family. Also, the notion that a 4200 square foot house is green is ridiculous. The house is twice as large as the US average, which is already twice as large as the 1950 average. They can insulate with all the denim they want, but they’re heating a house four times too big.

At over 4000 square feet, it’s probably not surprising that this house is far from affordable. I’m from the midwest, so my concept of an affordable house is definitely different than someone in Los Angeles, where this house is located. But seriously, New York Times, you’re going to tell us that $528,000 is affordable? In this economy? In this housing market? They make the point that this price for an architect-designed house is quite good, but again, I don’t understand why they needed such a huge house. This house is so far out of reach of most people, including New York Times readers, that the use of affordable is laughable.

I suppose they needed all that square footage to cram in all of the novel features, like a spiral staircase, ramp (!), red kitchen, exposed beams, and walls of glass. The house looks more like a garish internet startup’s office, not an “affordable” and “low-maintenance” house.

The next time the New York Times does a piece on sustainable living, I hope it’s a 1000 square foot house for less than $150,000. I really think that’s the sweet spot, especially in a market that has realized how many people have stretched themselves to buy houses that are too big and paid too much for them. Let’s get the conversation back to reality.

(Picture from New York Times and Claudio Santini)