Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

rigsomelight.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 317 posts

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#91

Post by jjoe »

finnh wrote: post #63
mattjaynes wrote: post #47

This is awesome. I especially love his focus on reducing the complex down to the very simple. He put a lot of work into simplifying the design and the payoff was huge - only 3 shapes make up the whole thing! From the article: "The three shapes we derived above amount to a remarkable simplification in fabrication and construction. We have decimated the complexity of the dome." "Decimated" is the perfect word for it. H…

Actually, "decimated" is not the perfect word for it. He's done much better than mere decimation! (Decimated means "reduced by 1/10th" ... not, as is popularly believed, "reduced to 1/10th")

It comes from latin or the french verb decimer. If you break it further it becomes cime, which means top (ex: as in top of a mountain). So you're essentially destroying that which is as high as a mountain top - not easily attainable.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#92

Post by fusiongyro »

grannyg00se wrote: post #60
wffurr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You ignored the vast majority of the practical problems pointed out in the parent link. Plumbing, roof pitch, acoustics, privacy, ventilation, insulation, etc.

I think plumbing was solved by not including it. Acoustics can be solved by not having a loud child living in there with you as can privacy. Ventilation, insulation, etc, all easy to deal with if you don't concern yourself with building codes.

You and the author are free to ignore these problems (at least, until the government evicts you from your own residence) but don't conflate ignoring a problem with solving it.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#93

Post by brudgers »

As an architect, I appreciate many of the ideas expressed via the design - in particular seeking a reduced footprint.

However, while many US jurisdictions might not require a building permit for this structure due to its size, it would typically not be exempt from building codes and as a habitable structure and more importantly as a dwelling, the design does not meet fundamental principles embodied in modern building codes.

While the principle of occupant safety is fairly obvious and its susceptibility to liberatarian objections predicable, the code embodies a further less obvious principle, that of first responder safety. Doors and windows have size and operational requirements to allow fire-fighters to get in and back out. Structural systems have structural requirements and combustibility limits for the same reason. Buildings need to be anchored to keep them from blowing into neighboring structures in a storm.

Most people are urbanized, and the structural problems of housing is harder than can be solved by tents in the wilderness. Anyplace that this is a viable alternative for long term dwelling, it is likely that so is a used trailer or a building of recycled and scavenged materials.

Again, I appreciate the design and the aesthetic effort and the ideas it expresses. I just can't get carried away over an academic exercise.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#95

Post by icambron »

sp332 wrote: post #71
finnh wrote: post #54

If you want to live in a city, it's not the cost of the house that kills you: it's the dirt. In Seattle, where I live, my property tax statement tells me that my (large, nice) house is worth roughly half as much as the land it sits on. Given that these domes don't float, you still need a place to put 'em. If your goal is to opt out of the cost of housing - an evil which this blog post expounds upon at length - your f…

Knowing that you don't need a big house gives you a lot more flexibility in choosing where to put it.

In some ways. The dome is great, but one thing it isn't is stackable.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#96

Post by tjic »

brudgers wrote: post #93

As an architect, I appreciate many of the ideas expressed via the design - in particular seeking a reduced footprint. However, while many US jurisdictions might not require a building permit for this structure due to its size, it would typically not be exempt from building codes and as a habitable structure and more importantly as a dwelling, the design does not meet fundamental principles embodied in modern building…

> While the principle of occupant safety is fairly obvious and its susceptibility to liberatarian objections predicable

As an extreme libertarian (an anarcho capitalist) and as a pretty experienced builder, I'd like to say that no libertarian I've met is against the concept of occupant safety. We are, however, fairly likely to be against the assertion that government regulations are the only way to achieve this, or the best way.

Underwriter's Labs is an example many libertarians invoke: a private free-market safety licensing firm that other firms voluntarily pay for, so that they can advertise to consumers the safety of their products.

I note that government regulation is subject to regulatory capture: one-pipe urinals (non flushing) are made illegal because it would result in less work for plumbers, efficient PEX pipes are delayed again because of concerns that it would lower housing costs, engineered lumber that is approved in one area is not approved in others, etc.

I build to code (and well above code, sometimes) because I care about safety and I care about craftsmanship, but there is a LOT that's stupid in government regulation.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#97

Post by monkeynotes »

finnh wrote: post #54

If you want to live in a city, it's not the cost of the house that kills you: it's the dirt. In Seattle, where I live, my property tax statement tells me that my (large, nice) house is worth roughly half as much as the land it sits on. Given that these domes don't float, you still need a place to put 'em. If your goal is to opt out of the cost of housing - an evil which this blog post expounds upon at length - your f…

This is exactly my dilemma. I've come up with numerous novel ways to live cheaply but all of them require a plot of land which always ruins the budget. Further compounding the problem is few banks will loan money for unbuilt land. Strangely the land is worth more than houses but in the eyes of a bank the house is what you secure the loan against.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#98

Post by peller »

@brucehauman Truly exceptional work. This post literally made my day; I can't thank you enough for spending the time to write and share it. I especially like the smart utilization of 4x8 panels with minimal waste and the tiny BOM required for construction. As someone with a fair amount of construction experience myself, the amount of engineering thought you've put into this project clearly shines through.

It's innovators like you who make this world a better place; keep up the great work and don't ever let the critics get under your skin!!

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#99

Post by qq66 »

outworlder wrote: post #70
finnh wrote: post #54

If you want to live in a city, it's not the cost of the house that kills you: it's the dirt. In Seattle, where I live, my property tax statement tells me that my (large, nice) house is worth roughly half as much as the land it sits on. Given that these domes don't float, you still need a place to put 'em. If your goal is to opt out of the cost of housing - an evil which this blog post expounds upon at length - your f…

True, to an extent. But considering that some people still live in unkempt shacks, there is some room for improvement. Mass producing the dome parts seem like a nice proposition. Might not even be for housing at first but as an addon for a existing house. Say you wanted to clear your garage and store your stuff somewhere else in the property. Maybe for government-sponsored housing programs. Or, I don't know, Africa?…

I know that a lot of the "unkempt shacks" you see in India are like that because they are on illegally squatted land, and if they build a more permanent-looking structure they will be forcibly removed. If you look from above you can see many with TV satellite dishes.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#100

Post by RyJones »

jquery wrote: post #78
RyJones wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they're cheap to acquire, but long-term, not so good. They're also very flimsy, so everything sort-of goes at once. Yes, you can spend a lot more on one and get nicer finishes, but the end state is the floor sags and none of the doors shut.

It depends on what you mean by long-term and probably how well you take care of it. Growing up, I lived in one for years with no issues. So did my best friend, for even longer (at least a decade, no issues with sagging or warping). And this was in the rainy, wet Pacific Northwest. I dare say they are better built than the flimsy plastic tent we saw linked in the OP.

No argument it's built better - and to code, no less.
Post reply on HN