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

121–130 of 317 posts

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#121

Post by smoyer »

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'd actually try going green in one of these - a composting toilet (http://www.letsgogreen.com/index.html) and plumbing that collects rainwater, then drains into a gray-water tank to be used on the gardens.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#122

Post by sp332 »

saalweachter wrote: post #112

Is this significantly cheaper than a standard frame structure with comparable amenities? I priced out the materials for building a small "office shed" with no electricity or running water, and came up with a price tag of something like $2000 for a 10x10 structure, assuming completely conventional 2x4's, fiberglass insulation, and off-the-shelf doors and windows. I've not yet followed through on it, but I feel pretty…

10x10 is half the floor space of this dome.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#123

Post by mpyne »

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…

Regulatory stupidity is hardly limited to the government though. Have you never tried to implement a Microsoft "standard"?

While UL is certainly nice enough, how many people know to look for it when they buy appliances? And how does this avoid in general the problem that if UL becomes too onerous, the affected appliance makers simply start their own voluntary licensing firm with better results?

"Oh, but people would never fall for that!" Sure they would, that was the whole point to the "Intel Inside" marketing campaign.

So while I deeply appreciate the types of examples you point out (getting to see them every day from within the bowels of Mount DoD), I worry that when people talk about the problems with "government _______" that they focus on 'government' and don't pay attention at all to the inherent problems with _______.

But just as government can't fix the issues inherent in problems, they are not always the inherent problem themselves.

(P.S. guess who is the only entity to ever tell me to 'look for UL'?... the government, that's who, during our yearly fire safety briefs).

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#124

Post by molsongolden »

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

The SLV! I am strongly considering buying a plot there but the lack of water is the trade off. Can you provide a ballpark for your construction costs? Are you drilling a well, burying a tank and hauling water, or something else? What's the nearest town? Have you had trouble with burglars/vandals while leaving your cabin unattended for long periods of time?

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#126

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

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.

Actually, not necessarily. A lot of zoning regulations in cities require a minimum square footage of a house.

And a lot of zoning rules also prohibit nonstandard construction. It's terribly frustrating when you're looking at alternative building methods.

In some states you're pretty mostly stuck building in either really rural towns or in unincorporated locations.

My own favorite alternative building technique is a "monolithic dome." [1] You get a form (an inflatable balloon in the shape you want the house, effectively) and literally spray a concrete and foam mixture on the inside; you can make a small house like OP or a huge building. Insulation is amazing, and it's weather-proof. They're rated safe against tornadoes, for instance. As a bonus, it's also fireproof, so you can put one up in the mountains and not worry about forest fires destroying it.

The frameless dome is a neat trick and an elegant design, but there are a dozen other techniques I'd rather use to build a "simple" home. It's more art project than practical building method.

[1] http://www.monolithic.com/

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#128

Post by agilebyte »

flovec wrote: post #115
SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I moved to Colorado from the SF Bay Area. I'm near Boulder and Denver, and can walk to a dozen restaurants, a grocery store, a bar, multiple cafes, and a big library with free Internet access (oddly enough, almost ALL of the above have free Internet access, now that I think of it -- even the grocery store). And if you like public transit, I'm really close to multiple bus lines, but the city I live in is also very bik…

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.

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#129

Post by saalweachter »

sp332 wrote: post #122
saalweachter wrote: post #112

Is this significantly cheaper than a standard frame structure with comparable amenities? I priced out the materials for building a small "office shed" with no electricity or running water, and came up with a price tag of something like $2000 for a 10x10 structure, assuming completely conventional 2x4's, fiberglass insulation, and off-the-shelf doors and windows. I've not yet followed through on it, but I feel pretty…

10x10 is half the floor space of this dome.

Yes. The structure I priced out was also only 8 feet tall.

About half the cost -- if I recall -- was doors, windows, and skylights, and the other half was the walls, ceiling, and floor. So you'd expect a structure with roughly double the surface area to be roughly $3000 instead of $2000. Depending on material choices, you would probably end up with a cost of between $2000 and $4000 by the time you put the last coat of paint on it. Again, having not actually followed through I don't have a final bill of materials. I could have over-estimated the cost of something, or forgotten something else entirely.

But the point is the same. Is $2100 really that cheap, when compared to a $4000 stick-frame structure with comparable function, or is it only cheap when compared to a $40,000 house with a bathroom, kitchen, furnace, water heater, and appliances?

Re: The Frameless Geodesic Dome I currently live in

#130

Post by samstave »

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 deployment platforms.

* Assume a Hex shape

* Standardized MEP+IT infra in the base of each platform.

* Set solar capacity for each platform

* A range of models of living spaces

* Communal-esque structure for shared work/meeting type spaces

* [a range of other options, I could go on and on]

---

I do not know the legal preclusions to an idea such as this... and clearly there are costing issues. But if you can have an open design for the platforms, figure out how to get them economically built - and provide the standards/spec requirements for the on-platform structures.. it may be viable, and while this has long been just a thought-exercise for me; I'll just ask the obvious: Anyone else interested in this type of thing?

Post reply on HN