3 ms·

Yeah basically this. Trying to build an eco-structure or even a mostly earthen home in the US you are basically relegated to a sparsely populated counties or ta

Yeah basically this. Trying to build an eco-structure or even a mostly earthen home in the US you are basically relegated to a sparsely populated counties or taking your chances squatting on Federal land. This was quite eye-opening to me once I had to actually attempt to find some land to build on.

bluGill 5y ago
For good reason - most of these things don't have good engineering behind them. Standard stick frame construction has good insulation values (dirt/clay/mud/cement does not), holds up to weather, earthquakes, and has reasonable fire protection (it burns but in known amounts). This is all backed up by a lot of engineering data that doesn't exist for most alternatives, they might be better, but nobody has actually run all the angles to be sure.
- bruiseralmighty 5y ago
  I don't disagree with you actually. I believe that building codes generally keep us safer and create a better standard of house. Most people don't want to become test subjects for an experimental technology. My point is just that the current building codes necessitate experimenting away from more developed areas in order to innovate and that this should not be held against examples of construction innovation. After having had to search for land I would say that I feel that building codes are perhaps not overly restrictive, but too ubiquitous. Most experimentation and innovation can only happen on small patches of remote scrubland with poor soil, deep ground water, and limited access to the internet. It would be nice if some of these projects could take place 15 minutes out of a mid-sized town rather than 40 minutes to an hour. I can see the value in enforcement within a city's limits, but we could get faster building innovation if counties and states were laxer with building codes on their unincorporated land.
mnouquet 5y ago
> Trying to build an eco-structure This doesn't even qualify as "eco-structure". R-value is pretty terrible.

bluGill 5y ago

For good reason - most of these things don't have good engineering behind them. Standard stick frame construction has good insulation values (dirt/clay/mud/cement does not), holds up to weather, earthquakes, and has reasonable fire protection (it burns but in known amounts). This is all backed up by a lot of engineering data that doesn't exist for most alternatives, they might be better, but nobody has actually run all the angles to be sure.

bruiseralmighty 5y ago
I don't disagree with you actually. I believe that building codes generally keep us safer and create a better standard of house. Most people don't want to become test subjects for an experimental technology. My point is just that the current building codes necessitate experimenting away from more developed areas in order to innovate and that this should not be held against examples of construction innovation. After having had to search for land I would say that I feel that building codes are perhaps not overly restrictive, but too ubiquitous. Most experimentation and innovation can only happen on small patches of remote scrubland with poor soil, deep ground water, and limited access to the internet. It would be nice if some of these projects could take place 15 minutes out of a mid-sized town rather than 40 minutes to an hour. I can see the value in enforcement within a city's limits, but we could get faster building innovation if counties and states were laxer with building codes on their unincorporated land.

mnouquet 5y ago

> Trying to build an eco-structure This doesn't even qualify as "eco-structure". R-value is pretty terrible.