HUD-1 UNIVERSAL HOME™ PROTOTYPE
1860 FM 1332 JOURDANTON, TEXAS 78026 | INFO@UDCINC.ORG | 830-200-1419
© 2024. SVM Universal Design Consortium LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED | Terms & Condoitions
BACK
TYPE: Residential/ Low to Moderate Income Universal Home™
SERIES: 009 Prototype
YEAR: 2008
CLIENT: San Angelo Community Development Department
LOCATION: San Angelo, Texas
SIZE: 1,386 (3 Bed, 2 Bath, 1 Car)
PERFORMANCE STUDY
STUDY DURATION: 3 Years
AVG. ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER MONTH: 971.4 Kwh
NET METERED/ PHOTOVOLTAIC: +1,012 Kwh
CONSTRUCTION
WALL ASSEMBLY: 2x4 Lite Frame
ROOF SYSTEM: Standing Seam
TOTAL COST: *$182,500
COST PER SQUARE FOOT: $133.11
*Actual Retail cost was $80,000 with HUD HOME Grant application.
DESIGN AND PURPOSE
HUD-1 is one of three prototype Universal Homes™ designed and constructed in San Angelo, Texas for the San Angelo Community Development Department. Other prototypes of the same layout, size and orientation included HUD-2 (Lime stabilized Compressed Earth Block) and HUD-3 (Cement Stabilized Compressed Earth Block). HUD-1 was the first of these prototypes to be constructed to much praise and fanfare, receiving the distinction of being the first HUD funded Low to Moderate Income home to receive the US Green Building Council’s LEED for Homes Platinum rating.
HUD-1 was designed to explore and study Universal Home™ design standard strategies in material and system integration for a lite frame constructed home. HUD-1 uses a standard 2x4 lite frame wall system with a brick veneer with the integration of nine (9) performance strategies. As with other Universal Home™ prototypes, the study focused on five areas: 1) Construction cost, 2) Knowledge of technical aspects of construction method or trainability, 3) Code adaptability and use, 4) Longevity of Building Type and 5) Building Performance.
Note:
1. HUD-1 identified home recipient knowledge and awareness deficiencies that resulted in unorthodox use of the facility. Specifically, the home recipient altered her lifestyle, allowing the windows of the home to remain open while she smoked, with the HVAC system activated, that resulted in an unexpected increase in electrical monthly expenditures during the first few months of operation. Prompting UDC to focus more attention on homeowner education, training and proficiency prior to handover.
2. HUD-1 utilized a grey water collection and reuse system, where grey water was collected in a below grade containment tank, pumped out and pressurized for use in a drip irrigation system for landscaping. This system proved inefficient, lacking proper filtration to collect physical containments such as the home recipient’s hair during bathing, these particulates penetrated the collection tank and quickly rendered the drip irrigation inoperative. Future Grey water collection systems were removed from HUD-2, HUD-3 designs.
3. HUD-1 was equipped with a small photovoltaic system and Net metered configured to allow for the reimbursement of electrical production back into the Power Grid. HUD-1 was the first home to be Net Metered in San Angelo, being a learning experience for all. The negotiated electrical purchase rate of $0.06 cents per Kwh was substantially less than the $0.11 cent rate. Even more egregious was the 3-year term that afforded the homeowner no renewal or extension beyond 36 months. The photovoltaic system produced. The price for purchase and installation of the system verses its benefits negated any tangible return on investment. In fact, the system (if calculated over the live of the photovoltaic system) doubled the monthly home electrical expenditures. The inclusion of the future photovoltaic systems was discontinued.
4. HUD-1 was showcased in numerous local, state, National and International television broadcasts, Blogs and written publications. Media Publications. However, the nature of the San Angelo program, specifically to provide housing for Low to Moderate Income families evoked substantial backlash from San Angelo residents that spilled over into the city council meetings that revolved around the use of Taxpayers money being used for such programs. This came as a surprise, since a vast majority of the money allocated for the projects was in the form of Federal Community Development Block (CDBG) and HOME Investment Grants. Future planned concept homes were quickly tailored back. This had a dramatic influence on future community development activities, where the city management approach could become politically problematic. Future projects were thought to be better organized using a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO).
PROTOTYPE COMPARISON CHART
