4 ms·

Most of your requirements seem to be driven by local customs, culture and existing materials, not actual local conditions. The expectation that a non-ventilate

by yholio 5y ago

Most of your requirements seem to be driven by local customs, culture and existing materials, not actual local conditions. The expectation that a non-ventilated underside will lead to mold and air quality problems is strictly a wood frame issue. A gravel base with a hard EPS insulator and a continuous hydro proofing membrane will prevent all the issues raised, and is a common construction technique even in rainy climates. As long as the floor level is elevated more than 30-40 cm from soil level, it will stop all seasonal floods; and if you live in a swamp where you regularly have floods over 30 cm, that's a rare situation that requires particular solutions, not relevant to 99% of the housing stock. Similarly, the idea that rain should not touch the walls. If the walls are hydro proofed and water resistant, the rain will simply run over them and into the ground. The goal is to have a durable house where water does not come in, we should not be prejudiced against any technical solution that achieves it. Why should a house built from polystyrene foam last centuries? Do you own any car that lasts centuries? Why can't a 50 year house be good enough, if it means you can provide very cheap housing to a destitute family for two generations, breaking the cycle of poverty and allowing the grandchildren to replace the structure with something more durable and up to date when they will be able to?

Gravityloss 5y ago
Good points. In general, water running down the sides will wick to places you don't want it to. Everything gets a lot harder. You have openings in the wall like doors and windows that now have to be designed for a lot more water coming in there. Is it really a good design choice? And then it will run down the side and get to the base of the building too... Believe me, flat roofs and no eaves have been attempted here with gusto for the last 60 years, with billions in investment and billions lost. So many apartment buildings have leaking roofs. It's absolutely a terrible waste and personal financial issue for a lot of families. For the last 10 years, buildings have started to have eaves and sloped roofs again. Basement renovations are not cheap or easy either. It's like software where you have one interface and then internal functions that operate on internal state. You don't suddenly do some reading of some config from disk deep down in some helper method. If the architecture is good, it's easy to reason about and easy to modify. About housing price, yes, sure, some styrofoam dome housing can work in a temporary matter. But even there, the design can make a huge difference. Water will come in or will go into cracks and there will be mold. If you design it with a bit more care, maybe that styrofoam house can last for 50 years instead of 10?
dahfizz 5y ago
> Why can't a 50 year house be good enough, if it means you can provide very cheap housing to a destitute family for two generations, breaking the cycle of poverty and allowing the grandchildren to replace the structure with something more durable and up to date when they will be able to? Ruining a homes resale value, and forcing a family to buy a new home every generation, would absolutely exacerbate poverty rather than alleviate it. It's the classic "it's expensive to be poor" situation - a poor person has to buy cheap boots twice a year. A rich person can buy expensive boots that last a lifetime, and saves money overall. I guess it depends on how cheap you think a styrofoam house would be, but I am skeptical. Even if you get significant savings on material costs, you still need to pay for labor. Labor is typically ~40% of the cost to build a home.
- ericmay 5y ago
  I'd also add for society it's a cost-benefit analysis. New houses require the usage of resources, they require workers to build the house, etc. Idk if 50 years is long enough, 1,000 years is probably too long, but it's definitely something worth further investigation. It also depends on the climate and potential for disaster. 1,000 year homes in Florida with hurricanes? Probably not. Ohio? Yea that might make sense. -edit- To add I also enjoy and wish we took more advantages of past techniques to build homes in harmony with the environment. Easier to think of examples are things like painting a home white in the Mediterranean, or a-frame homes for snow to slide off, etc. versus how we just copy/paste generica American suburban homes that rely on materials moreso than smart design. It's like cities and towns. We already figured out how to do this in the best way hundreds of years ago (small towns in Europe) but we just keep not doing it in favor of bad design.

by yholio 5y ago

Gravityloss 5y ago

Good points. In general, water running down the sides will wick to places you don't want it to. Everything gets a lot harder. You have openings in the wall like doors and windows that now have to be designed for a lot more water coming in there. Is it really a good design choice? And then it will run down the side and get to the base of the building too... Believe me, flat roofs and no eaves have been attempted here with gusto for the last 60 years, with billions in investment and billions lost. So many apartment buildings have leaking roofs. It's absolutely a terrible waste and personal financial issue for a lot of families. For the last 10 years, buildings have started to have eaves and sloped roofs again. Basement renovations are not cheap or easy either. It's like software where you have one interface and then internal functions that operate on internal state. You don't suddenly do some reading of some config from disk deep down in some helper method. If the architecture is good, it's easy to reason about and easy to modify. About housing price, yes, sure, some styrofoam dome housing can work in a temporary matter. But even there, the design can make a huge difference. Water will come in or will go into cracks and there will be mold. If you design it with a bit more care, maybe that styrofoam house can last for 50 years instead of 10?

dahfizz 5y ago

> Why can't a 50 year house be good enough, if it means you can provide very cheap housing to a destitute family for two generations, breaking the cycle of poverty and allowing the grandchildren to replace the structure with something more durable and up to date when they will be able to? Ruining a homes resale value, and forcing a family to buy a new home every generation, would absolutely exacerbate poverty rather than alleviate it. It's the classic "it's expensive to be poor" situation - a poor person has to buy cheap boots twice a year. A rich person can buy expensive boots that last a lifetime, and saves money overall. I guess it depends on how cheap you think a styrofoam house would be, but I am skeptical. Even if you get significant savings on material costs, you still need to pay for labor. Labor is typically ~40% of the cost to build a home.

ericmay 5y ago
I'd also add for society it's a cost-benefit analysis. New houses require the usage of resources, they require workers to build the house, etc. Idk if 50 years is long enough, 1,000 years is probably too long, but it's definitely something worth further investigation. It also depends on the climate and potential for disaster. 1,000 year homes in Florida with hurricanes? Probably not. Ohio? Yea that might make sense. -edit- To add I also enjoy and wish we took more advantages of past techniques to build homes in harmony with the environment. Easier to think of examples are things like painting a home white in the Mediterranean, or a-frame homes for snow to slide off, etc. versus how we just copy/paste generica American suburban homes that rely on materials moreso than smart design. It's like cities and towns. We already figured out how to do this in the best way hundreds of years ago (small towns in Europe) but we just keep not doing it in favor of bad design.