In the early days of the Rural Studio, Smith said the program focused on making their homes as affordable as possible, resulting in what the team called the “20K Project.”
While the nickname was not a hard rule, the Rural Studio regularly lived up to the challenge of only spending $20,000 on the materials needed for each project.
The challenge also taught them an important lesson: Building a “cheap house” by saving on materials doesn’t equal “affordable housing,” nor does it always save the homeowner in the long run.
“Sometimes, getting folks into a house that actually costs more to build is actually what’s the most affordable,” Smith said.
What Smith means is if an architect focuses solely on getting a home’s final cost as low as possible, they’ll skip on things like energy efficiency. But that’s ignoring how most people actually budget for a home — as a monthly expense through their mortgage. Once you consider homeownership as a monthly cost, other expenses can be factored in, like utility bills.
The studio figured out a cost-effective equation — spending $5,000 to make a house energy efficient pays for itself if it lowers the power bill by $25 a month.
That’s a win for everyone — the homeowner gets a more valuable house, a more valuable home is less risky for a bank to approve a loan and less energy gets wasted, so it’s a win for the planet.