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

141–150 of 317 posts

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#141

Post by brudgers »

tjic wrote: post #96
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 t…

UL exists in its incarnation because of government regulation - e.g. electrical components have UL listings because the NFPA 72(aka The National Electrical Code) requires electrical components to be listed. The same is true for the styrene panels used in the design of the structure.

The insurance under-writers (the "U" in "UL") were the driving force in establishing building codes and fire fighting as a public service. Of course the next turtle down is that property insurance allows banks to finance real property in accordance with financial regulations. [edit: the last turtle being legal title to real property recorded at the courthouse - and title to which in many places can be traced back to royal grant.]

Anyone active in the US housing industry ought to be aware that the current requiring fire sprinklers in single family dwellings is a direct result of insurance industry lobbying on the ICC. Or to put it another way, UL is part of the establishment and its members lobby heavily in favor of regulation.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#143

Post by stcredzero »

samstave wrote: post #130
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…

> Given that these domes don't float This has been an idea I have been pushing around fro a while. Building a living platform floating in the SFBay. Admittedly, this has been nothing more than a day-dream - so I am unfamiliar with what imperial entanglements attach themselves to the reality of this.... But assuming that it can be done, what would be the barrier to entry for the following scenario: * Standardized depl…

> I'll just ask the obvious: Anyone else interested in this type of thing?

http://www.seasteading.org/

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#144

Post by monkeynotes »

flovec wrote: post #113
monkeynotes wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not true! I purchased 5 acres in Southwestern CO (with mountain views!) for 2 grand in cash. I built a small cabin, and program out of it. But, it lacks luxuries for my many "projects", so now I'm building a house. http://frank.lovecch.io/projects/walden-ranch.html

You obviously do not have the requirement of living close to Vancouver BC in order to maintain an income.

As said elsewhere if one is willing to move out into a remote area you can definitely pick up land for less money ($2k cash for your own land with mountain views is blowing my mind and making me cry on the inside). Unfortunately, so much IT work is centred around metro areas and property is very expensive.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#145

Post by yetanotherphd »

jquery wrote: post #81
kpennell wrote: post #52

For those who want to work on their projects and live cheap, I've seen: Live in your car and have a hackerspace and gym membership: http://www.quora.com/Would-becoming-homeless-be-a-good-strat... Hide out at AOL office Be homeless in Swedish forest Move to foreign country where it's cheaper to live Move to a dome Added it to the list!

I love how manufactured homes aren't on this list. Oh wait, I forgot this whole thing was about status and "conspicuous authenticity", not about actually living cheaply.

"conspicuous authenticity" I like that.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#146

Post by dalke »

jquery wrote: post #81
kpennell wrote: post #52

For those who want to work on their projects and live cheap, I've seen: Live in your car and have a hackerspace and gym membership: http://www.quora.com/Would-becoming-homeless-be-a-good-strat... Hide out at AOL office Be homeless in Swedish forest Move to foreign country where it's cheaper to live Move to a dome Added it to the list!

I love how manufactured homes aren't on this list. Oh wait, I forgot this whole thing was about status and "conspicuous authenticity", not about actually living cheaply.

I noticed that "get roommates" also wasn't on the list.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#147

Post by samstave »

gbog wrote: post #140
samstave wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, as a father to three... all I could think of when reading the article was " The bliss of ignorance a 20-something, single kid-less person has... if only I could live in a Dome with no restroom "!

Well, ahem, you may be aware that in some places in the world some families have plenty of kids and no restrooms in their houses. Actually there is quite a lot of them. Restrooms is not the problem here, the problem is this focus on frameless structure. Why not just doing a tent, like in so many traditional cultures? It must be easier to build and may even be more pleasing to the eyes.

SHHH - you're insulting my armchair activist! :-)

While I am well aware that ther are billions that live in lesser conditions than the hipster-dome under discussion, one of the points of the article was that there is "inefficiency" in the home rental/ownership paradigm; while this may be true - I do not see how this is solved by sacraficing something as crucial as a bathroom (or kitchen [I lived in my house during a kitchen remodel, and I cooked using my backpacking gear for 2 months, and that FARKING SUCKED])

So - Yeah - this would be a great fort, or cool guest room, I'd not want to actually live there.

Ever have to walk from your "room" to the bathroom when there is a monsoon-like storm outside which you must traverse (at 4am). No thanks

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#148

Post by flovec »

onebaddude wrote: post #139
agilebyte wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is rent wasting money? I am not entirely sold on that idea. If you have a lot of cash that you do not need to access in a foreseeable future then maybe.

>Why is rent wasting money? It's isn't. The idea that it's wasting money, or that you're paying someone else's mortgage, or whatever other argument is thrown out there are part of one of the biggest financial misconceptions going. Do the cost/benefit of renting vs ownership, accounting for maintenance, taxes, interest rates, macro-economic conditions and whatever else and the costs should be very similar. Of course,…

> The idea that it's wasting money, or that you're paying someone else's mortgage, or whatever other argument is thrown out there are part of one of the biggest financial misconceptions going.

That I believed this was assumed, and that I was comparing _renting to purchasing a house_ was also assumed (but probably not so clear!). I was comparing renting to what the dome-builder was doing. With that said, renting vs. ownership is obviously situational.

To live 2 miles (walking distance) from downtown Denver:

~650 for rent ~150 for a garage w/ electricity ~100 for utilities

$900 month.

When I looked into buying in Denver anywhere in the same distance, I was looking at $1250 month w/ no garage, unless I lived in the Arts District (a bit rougher), and most of those houses needed to be torn down.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#149

Post by stcredzero »

xradionut wrote: post #74

I live in tornado alley in a area with extremely summer temps and the occasional wild fire. These are the domes we recommend: http://www.monolithic.com/

Monolithic domes are a wonder and a seeming paradox. You get an earthquake-proof, tornado-proof, bullet-proof, bomb-proof, collision-with-a-barrelling-semi-proof reinforced concrete structure that goes up almost instantly. But if you get a pin-prick in the vinyl airform, you have to deal with vapor-drive of water into the polyurethane foam, and your structure gets damaged.

http://www.monolithic.com/stories/vapor-drive

That said, there are ways of protecting your air-form, and if you do that, these things look to be nigh indestructible.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#150

Post by dalke »

Steward Brand, in "How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built", "asserts that the best buildings are made from low-cost, standard designs that people are familiar with, and easy to modify. In this way people can gradually change their buildings to meet their needs." (Quoting Wikipedia.)

One example was living in a trailer in New Mexico, which can be winterized by surrounding it by straw bales, then turned into walls, and expanded as needed. Another was living in an old wooden boat, on land, where it was trivial to cut a hole if you wanted it.

That's much in line with the philosophy behind this dome, which several others here agree with.

However, Brand also specifically dislikes domes, because they are difficult to expand, or to add internal divisions. For a single person, who does not need partitions or extra space, this is not a problem. (Nor would it be a problem if it were cheap to tear down and rebuild an entirely new structure.)

For a family or group of people, it is less tenable, as others here have also pointed out.

Post reply on HN