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

191–200 of 317 posts

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#191

Post by dsuth »

qq66 wrote: post #99
outworlder wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In that case, this kind of dome is easily demountable, and offers a lot more protection from the elements than a shack. On the downside, that would also make it easy for people to steal your walls.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#192

Post by ams6110 »

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…

As a practical matter, anywhere that you can get away with living in one of these is not going to be someplace where "first responders" are going to be close enough to make a difference.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#193

Post by dsuth »

icambron wrote: post #157
netcan wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it is. It's light. Maybe you could have giant shelves with domes on them.

But then you need structural supports to hold up the shelves, which is what the dome is designed to avoid. The low wall weight would help, I suppose, but you still need to hold up everything inside the units. Once you're pouring concrete onto rebar, it seems like you might as well just have an apartment block.

You could support a stack with scaffolding.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#194

Post by dsuth »

nobodysfool wrote: post #68
aclevername wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I'm curious as to how the bathroom is laid out, where you go for any and all of those purposes. This "house" is missing a lot of viable (standard) infrastructure to be considered what we usually call a house in North America. It's closer to that of a very small travel trailer, or a tent. All in all I still love the idea.

This doesn't have a bathroom, it's just a place to sleep and work. Think of it like a workroom, or greenhouse. It was built on a foundation of masonry blocks and 2x4s If you wanted plumbing, you could certainly add it. That's the idea, you build it yourself.

I wonder at what point the structure would become non self-supporting though, in terms of scaling up the size.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#195

Post by qq66 »

dsuth wrote: post #191
qq66 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In that case, this kind of dome is easily demountable, and offers a lot more protection from the elements than a shack. On the downside, that would also make it easy for people to steal your walls.

It's not about making the dome easy to take down -- it has to look like a dilapidated temporary installation. Perhaps if you covered it with cardboard and corrugated steel it would be allowed to remain.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#196

Post by lizardking »

saidajigumi wrote: post #153
flovec wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're renting, right? Isn't part of the point not to be wasting capital on rent? (I'm a CO man myself)

"Wasting capital on rent" may be the worst nonsense in our financial folklore. Always run the numbers. Rent vs. mortgage calculators and spreadsheets are readily available. Understand the factors they use, and perhaps tweak for your own needs and priorities. I'm glad that I did, as I completely dodged the disaster that was the housing bubble as a result -- my rent always looked like a killer deal compared to nutso ho…

I bought right around the peak of the bubble in early 2006. Even with prices being what they were at the time, my mortgage wasn't much higher than rent was for comparable homes in my neighborhood. After having a couple of roommates move in I was paying very little to live. I sold the house early last year and actually made a small profit after doing a few renovations. I know my experience may not be typical but if you stay away from places with crazy inflated home values and are willing to deal with the headaches of owning a home, it's not too hard to turn a little profit. With renting it is a certainty that will not be the case.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#197

Post by lifeformed »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #170
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…

Depends where you live - if you're capable of working remotely, land can be incredibly cheap. AUD$49,000 gets you this: http://www.realestate.com.au/200677503 "2.5 acres [10,117 m2 or 108,900 ft2] with a large flat area at the front of the block and some scattered timber at the back. Electricity at the front of the block and rural/town water available."

Just 2.5 acres? Here's 160 acres for $39,000: http://www.marktwite.com/Drexel-montana-hunting-land-for-sal...

Of course, that puts you in the middle of nowhere, but it's like $240 an acre.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#198

Post by LAMike »

ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #173

You know what would be awesome. If everyone on Hacker News pitched into a fund, bought some land out in the middle a beautiful but isolated place in the rockies and created a weekend getaway for coders using something similar to these little Geodesic Dome houses.

Hacker paradise... with farming powered by Aurdiuno robots and a mini hyperloop that takes you anywhre on the property in a second haha

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#199

Post by Goladus »

marknowotarski wrote: post #127

As I look at the dome versus the trees I wonder: Why do animals seek to isolate themselves from the environment and plants seek to permeate it? No judgement, just curious.

I wouldn't say that's an accurate generalization for all plants.

But to the extent it's true, my theory is because most plants are by nature immobile. Sunlight is everywhere so moving much would be a waste of energy. So plants grow, shrink, open, close, turn, hibernate, but they can not move to a more sheltered location. They must stay where their roots are and face whatever hostile conditions they might encounter (winds, cold, snow, rain, predators, etc.). Mobile, food-hunting animals, on the other hand tend to have fewer natural defenses against harsh environmental conditions and predators. So they rely on shelters (found or built) for protection instead. Mammals adapted to a particular type of harsh conditions are less likely to seek shelter from them. (eg American Bison, for example, are adapted to handle cold and snow.) Cold-blooded reptiles may use shelters but at times environment may compel them to leave the shelter in order to bask in the sun to increase their body temperature.

It's also partly a semantic issue. "Environment" tends to imply a background that contains mobile actors. Stationary plants thus are environment, moreso than animals.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#200

Post by pseut »

monkeynotes wrote: post #101
finnh wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure, I'm being pedantic. But, if it's called out as "the perfect word" I assume the OP would want to know (just like I welcomed the correction when I first learned it).

If we are going to be pedantic I will point out an accepted dictionary definition of 'decimate' is as follows: > to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague. If the acceptance criteria of for use as 'the perfect word' is that it matches as precisely as possible to its definition then I think the OP was on track. I think it is interesting trivia that the origins of the word com…

Of all the words in the english language, it was the worst. Latin too.
Post reply on HN