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

211–220 of 317 posts

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#211

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#212

Post by bdcs »

flatline wrote: post #136
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.

Rent is generally quite cheap in Colorado, at least it was when I lived around Boulder. I remember seeing this interactive map, but now I can't read it on my phone to justify my claim: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calcula... At some point, buying is definitely the best investment, often times if you rent, you are basically paying the mortgage without any of the incentives of owning.

Buying vs renting is definitely not the best investment. You must consider that the down payment put into, e.g., stocks can earn a serious return (perhaps enough to pay the rent), while you avoid property taxes, maintenance, etc.

From Shiller himself: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/owning-a-home-isn...

In fact, a study (I can dig up the source if requested) found that owning a house vs renting has very, VERY rarely made financial sense in the last 50 years in the USA. Yes, real estate exploded, but so did many other investment vehicles. Keep in mind you can rent a ranch-style home in the suburbs, not just metropolitan apartments.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#213

Post by ars_technician »

agilebyte wrote: post #128
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)

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.

You are not building equity when renting. If you plan to be in a location for more than a year, it's worth buying a home. Mortgage payments (minus interest) are then just going back into your own pocket vs. rent which is going into your landlord's pocket. Even if you never want to do your own maintenance, you can pay a handyman and still be far ahead in cash.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#215

Post by GeneralMayhem »

netcan wrote: post #120
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…

What would this need to make it permit-able?

Walls that can survive a moderate-to-severe thunderstorm would probably be a good first step.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#216

Post by rwmj »

monkeynotes wrote: post #144
flovec wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This idea you need to live physically near a place to have an IT job needs to die. I'm working (at Red Hat) with a large team, several of whom I have never met, many of them I will only meet twice a year at most. We've got the internet - video conferencing, chatrooms, asynch messaging, distributed source repositories, distributed code review, remote shells. We all can and do work very well remotely.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#217

Post by duncan_bayne »

lifeformed wrote: post #197
duncan_bayne wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I was assuming that you'd want power and water to the property.

That Montana property is beautiful though. Sometimes I'm jealous of you folks in the US; not only do you get rain, you're allowed modern firearms as well.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#218

Post by 3838 »

bargl wrote: post #80
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?…

Africa would be an awesome idea, but you'd have to do a lot of work with the locals to get them to see this as a viable shelter. I worked on a project that tried to bring new types of homes to Haiti. This was a HUGE problem because if the locals don't like it (no matter how cool) your idea won't take off. The fact is that most Haitians thought that wood and corrugated metal were what a "house" was (assuming you could…

i remember someone who did a lot of aid work in africa said something similar - various ngo's would come to a village and build stuff and the locals weren't interested - have heard similar in the amazon.

for instance someone had built communal latrines which were unused.

his starting point was asking the villagers what they wanted to do

they said "the chiefs house is a mess" - so they worked on that first, then built individual latrines for each house and made other improvements - they were able to do this by finding out what the locals wanted and working on that, if he'd just gone and built a bunch of stuff that he wanted to he would have been much less successful.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#219

Post by dredmorbius »

ars_technician wrote: post #213
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.

You are not building equity when renting. If you plan to be in a location for more than a year, it's worth buying a home. Mortgage payments (minus interest) are then just going back into your own pocket vs. rent which is going into your landlord's pocket. Even if you never want to do your own maintenance, you can pay a handyman and still be far ahead in cash.

You are not building equity when renting.

If the net cost of renting is lower than the net cost of renting money to own a mortgage, then you've still got the option of investing in other assets which may appreciate over time. Say, a business. Which represents real net economic growth, not merely asset inflation.

If you plan to be in a location for more than a year, it's worth buying a home.

Stating that as a blanket recommendation is so false it's not even wrong.

A buy-vs-rent decision depends on a great many factors, including transaction costs (high for real estate sales), moving costs, appreciation risks, etc. There are many areas where even a 10-15 year tenancy may favor renting over buying.

Mortgage payments (minus interest) are then just going back into your own pocket.

Not if your property's under water. Haven't we learned anything?

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#220

Post by markkanof »

ars_technician wrote: post #213
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.

You are not building equity when renting. If you plan to be in a location for more than a year, it's worth buying a home. Mortgage payments (minus interest) are then just going back into your own pocket vs. rent which is going into your landlord's pocket. Even if you never want to do your own maintenance, you can pay a handyman and still be far ahead in cash.

This is extremely optimistic. It's usually more like if you are going to stay in a place for 3-5 years then maybe it's worth buying. The first few years you are paying almost all interest and not much principle. In addition you need to factor in transaction costs (realtor fees, lending fees, etc.). Plus it can often take close to a year to go through the full cycle of buying and then selling a home. Using your one year rule just isn't realistic.
Post reply on HN