5 ms·

I doubt this house would make it to 50 years in places with a moderate climate. The lack of insulation makes it way too expensive to use as a dwelling or office

I doubt this house would make it to 50 years in places with a moderate climate. The lack of insulation makes it way too expensive to use as a dwelling or office (ignoring that you could not get a building permit in many places because it would not be able to meet energy efficiency guidelines). It is mentioned as a detail to be worked out but it is a critical detail. Around here not being able to be made energy efficient in a cost effective way is one of the main reasons old houses are torn down. It will be torn down long before it has a chance to become historical.

dr_orpheus 5y ago
> Adding interior insulation makes the house much more comfortable, but also changes the thermal dynamics, potentially causing freeze/thaw damage in the brick, and allowing moisture to accumulate between the brick and the insulation. This is one of the many details that would need to be worked out for the complete design of the home. Yeah, this comment struck me as a more major detail to be worked out compared to the other many details listed. Most of the others had multiple options with different drawbacks and benefits but either would work. This seems like we still haven't reached a solution for the exterior walls.
- EricE 5y ago
  Yup, that's when I stopped reading. It's clear the author has little practical, real world experience with building. In another comment I pointed out if he started watching Matt Risinger's YouTube channel he would see that things like his concern about bricks and moisture have been solved problems, with even better solutions that handle the issue better while decreasing construction time and cost. Also is 1000 years really necessary for the vast majority of housing? There has to be a balance to these things and that seems like way overshooting for most needs. Rather than shooting for something silly like 1000 years, how about focusing on building to climate of the area the home is in? I'm thinking of the picture from about 4 or five years ago of the major hurricane in Florida where an entire area is wiped out except for one house that looked practically untouched. The home owner spent about 20% more and got something that survived a major hurricane. 20% more is far more feasible and will get at least some people's attention - but what this person is advocating is a complete non starter for any kind of broad adoption. The costs are just too great. Another example is all the above ground housing in tornado prone areas. We should be building partially buried houses with domed earthen roofs - no sharp edges sticking above the ground for wind to get under or drive debris into at high speed. Would be simple to implement - partial in ground houses have been a thing since the 70's and had their share of problems but as time and experience builds, we have techniques and new materials to make their construction pretty routine (and they can still be light and airy inside despite being partially underground). The real problem is people - a major culture change is required to drive acceptance of different home styles. Good luck with that. Maybe if the government stopped handing out disaster relief funds unless the funds required people to take steps like the above to prevent future disasters on the same scale - might be the only way to get people to think more of long term consequences. The tales of the grasshopper and ant (and the cultural analogs) are thousands of years old for a reason. It's far easier, short term, to be a grasshopper :p
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    > partial in ground houses have been a thing since the 70's and had their share of problems Yes, and if you build one, you’re almost certain to have these problems, while at the same time, tornado is almost certain to not actually hit your house.
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    > It's clear the author has little practical, real world experience with building. Who gives a damn? Is anyone reading this and checking their $2 million bank account to start a build? It's a thought exercise and a fun one that has generated some cool ideas in my head and some good discussion. It's one thing to comment on mistakes or corrections to be made, but it's frustrating to see someone go "this is silly and the author is stupid".

dr_orpheus 5y ago

> Adding interior insulation makes the house much more comfortable, but also changes the thermal dynamics, potentially causing freeze/thaw damage in the brick, and allowing moisture to accumulate between the brick and the insulation. This is one of the many details that would need to be worked out for the complete design of the home. Yeah, this comment struck me as a more major detail to be worked out compared to the other many details listed. Most of the others had multiple options with different drawbacks and benefits but either would work. This seems like we still haven't reached a solution for the exterior walls.

EricE 5y ago
Yup, that's when I stopped reading. It's clear the author has little practical, real world experience with building. In another comment I pointed out if he started watching Matt Risinger's YouTube channel he would see that things like his concern about bricks and moisture have been solved problems, with even better solutions that handle the issue better while decreasing construction time and cost. Also is 1000 years really necessary for the vast majority of housing? There has to be a balance to these things and that seems like way overshooting for most needs. Rather than shooting for something silly like 1000 years, how about focusing on building to climate of the area the home is in? I'm thinking of the picture from about 4 or five years ago of the major hurricane in Florida where an entire area is wiped out except for one house that looked practically untouched. The home owner spent about 20% more and got something that survived a major hurricane. 20% more is far more feasible and will get at least some people's attention - but what this person is advocating is a complete non starter for any kind of broad adoption. The costs are just too great. Another example is all the above ground housing in tornado prone areas. We should be building partially buried houses with domed earthen roofs - no sharp edges sticking above the ground for wind to get under or drive debris into at high speed. Would be simple to implement - partial in ground houses have been a thing since the 70's and had their share of problems but as time and experience builds, we have techniques and new materials to make their construction pretty routine (and they can still be light and airy inside despite being partially underground). The real problem is people - a major culture change is required to drive acceptance of different home styles. Good luck with that. Maybe if the government stopped handing out disaster relief funds unless the funds required people to take steps like the above to prevent future disasters on the same scale - might be the only way to get people to think more of long term consequences. The tales of the grasshopper and ant (and the cultural analogs) are thousands of years old for a reason. It's far easier, short term, to be a grasshopper :p
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  > partial in ground houses have been a thing since the 70's and had their share of problems Yes, and if you build one, you’re almost certain to have these problems, while at the same time, tornado is almost certain to not actually hit your house.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  > It's clear the author has little practical, real world experience with building. Who gives a damn? Is anyone reading this and checking their $2 million bank account to start a build? It's a thought exercise and a fun one that has generated some cool ideas in my head and some good discussion. It's one thing to comment on mistakes or corrections to be made, but it's frustrating to see someone go "this is silly and the author is stupid".