3 ms·
Cylinders and cones (and thus yurts) do have advantages. Spheres don’t. They are much more difficult to construct, and are unstable on a flat surface. If we a
by JackFr 3y ago
Cylinders and cones (and thus yurts) do have advantages. Spheres don’t. They are much more difficult to construct, and are unstable on a flat surface.
If we a giving credit for whimsy, full marks for the sphere houses. But scoring as a place to live? Failure.
- cstross 3y agoSpheres minimize surface area per unit of volume. As heat loss in a building is proportional to its exposed surface area, this means they're potentially very thermally efficient. (Less good for collecting sunlight if you're going to cover them in PV panels, though.)
- misja111 3y agoThis is a great argument, except that the extra space that makes the building so efficient compared to a cube, is space that mostly can't be used.
- c4mpute 3y agoYurts typically do not have furniture of the kind one would have in a fixed home. And even very primitive fixed huts are typically rectangular.