9 ms·

I'd rather build my house with my own earth than go into debt [video]

48 points by ImPleadThe5th 3y ago

CalRobert 3y ago
Nice to see a focus on vernacular architecture and avoiding concrete. I just went through the process of having my own house built - a modern extension to a 200 year old vernacular cottage - and it was very frustrating how much modern architects were blindingly obsessed with concrete EVERYWHERE. And it is a horrific pollutant. While there is a lot to be said for building codes, I sometimes wonder if the increasing strictness applied to individual homes is a way to ensure nobody has the option to affordably build their own home with their own hands. (Though I only wonder, I'm not sure - because I really appreciate how great modern insulation and fire/earthquake safety is)
- xxs 3y ago
  >And it is a horrific pollutant. The CO2 produced for the manufacture of structural concrete (using ~14% cement) is estimated at 410 kg/m3 (<200kg/tonne)[0] Bricks are around 0.5kg CO2 per kg produced (500kg/tonne). Bricks have bit lower (but similar) density than concrete, say 2000kg/m3. That makes them a lot more pollutant than concrete. Brick require a lot higher labour and transport costs as well. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concre...
  - strken 3y ago
    For fired bricks, yes; I believe unfired mudbrick embodies about half the CO2 of concrete, although it hasn't got the strength of fired bricks. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285041812_Embodied_Energy_and_CO2_Analyses_of_Mud-brick_and_Cement-block_Houses https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285041812_Embodied_...
    - birracerveza 3y ago
      Maybe this is why some cultures periodically set their homes on fire. Strengthens the walls, and it's also a very efficient cleaning method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon
      - Kbelicius 3y ago
        > Maybe this is why some cultures periodically set their homes on fire. Strengthens the walls Well, the wikipedia link that you provided says that there is no evidence for that claim since the houses were destroyed in the burning. Two possible explanations on wikipedia for why it was done are recycling of building material and symbolic end of houses.
    - xxs 3y ago
      the remark was about "architects were blindingly obsessed", concrete is a 'better alternative'
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    Which is a good reason to use wood.
- op00to 3y ago
  > While there is a lot to be said for building codes, I sometimes wonder if the increasing strictness applied to individual homes is a way to ensure nobody has the option to affordably build their own home with their own hands. I doubt there's a wide-ranging conspiracy to stop people from building their own houses in the western world. I'd rather you not build a rickety ramshackle hovel next to my house. That's why we have building codes. You're certainly able to build your own house, but it can't fall over onto mine, or cause a citywide fire, or be built with poisionous elements, or ... I recently moved from a house built in 1918 to one built in 1965, and the complexity of the construction is immediately visible. The 1918 wood struction was rough hewn compared to the stuff in my 65 house. All the walls are straight in the 65 house. The 65 house stays cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. I don't have constant critter intrusion. That's just moving from a 100 year old house to a 60 year old house! The new construction in our area (all high quality - they knock down one of the old 1918 houses to build a new one, no idea about tract houses) takes the efficiency and performance a level up. This is all possible through improving building codes - no one would bother with this stuff if it wasn't required.
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    Well, codes and modern technology. Like I said I'm not sure of it, it was just a weird contrast having a 200+ year old house and a brand new one and comparing the two.
christophilus 3y ago
Those are beautiful houses. I love the idea of doing something like this, but: A) I'm lazy, and B) I live in a place that has a ton of humidity. I wonder how such buildings would fare in a non-arid climate?
- digdugdirk 3y ago
  The interesting aspect of buildings like this is the need to tailor the design to the local environment. Humidity can be dealt with through careful consideration of airflow and heating. Looking up Earthships can be a good starting point (though many of those are desert climate focused as well, it's not a necessity) for further research.
  - smeej 3y ago
    For example, I live in northern New England, which is heavy on trees and light on sand. That's why our typical "vernacular architecture" is log cabins, not mud brick structures. Different advantages and disadvantages. Different construction process. Different materials. But still more sustainable than concrete.
- mayas_ 3y ago
  they talk about water around timestamp 4:23
whoomp12341 3y ago
I always view these things as very niave. Over the years I have seen many takes on how to build homes faster/cheaper/greener. Yes, I could build a small shed out of 2x4's and plywood for a couple hundred dollars, maybe even a thousand if we want to have a multi person dwelling. BUT, is it safe from the elements, is it structural, and the aspect almost everyone overlooks is, does it have PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL. If you don't have a plan for this, its just a fort, not a home.
- ImPleadThe5th 3y ago
  I agree the video is maybe a bit overoptimistic in that it does not discuss the labor required. However I will challenge you on plumbing and electrical. RVs, Boats, and Vans have plumbing and electrical. There are wood burning stoves that are made to be used on small sail ships. If you look at the indian subcontinent water receptacles at the top of the roof is just a normal part of life. You could just as easily add solar, a stove and composting toilets to your fort and it would become quite livable by most peoples standards. These are obviously expenses, but it can be done relatively cheaply depending on what level of comfort you personally require. I for one would be fine skipping showers and having occasional power cuts at night.
  - whoomp12341 3y ago
    how about running water?
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Basic plumbing and electrical requires a lot less work (and cost) than building the structure. Getting the services to the property are the most expensive part. Fully self-sufficient (septic tank, water well and generator/solar) would be pretty expensive but still mostly a case of digging dirt and putting basic components together.
justinclift 3y ago
Wonder how well the houses shown here withstand earthquakes?
- gizmo 3y ago
  Presumably not very well, because the houses have no real foundation. But when you look at a seismic hazard map you'll see that earthquakes don't happen in large swaths of the world.
- beAbU 3y ago
  Forget about that, lets start with rain resistance.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    The secret is "be in a reasonably dry climate" - this video is about construction in Africa, after all. There are adobe structures dating all the way back to 500 BC [1] - if you've got the climate of Iran or Yemen or New Mexico it holds up adequately, especially if you only need a single storey. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe
  - cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
    A lack of rain resistance won't kill you suddenly. If mud brick or cave technology were so amazing, we'd all be living that way still. A better way would be to build structurally-sound, partially underground to moderate seasonal temperatures, against wind, hail, and forest fires, and placed to prevent floods.
- cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
  Just ask all of the Moroccans and Afghanis who are now homeless and lost entire families recently.
pulse7 3y ago
It is beautiful, but is it earthquake safe?
- amelius 3y ago
  And what open source software would you use for the structural analysis?
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  It's not like concrete buildings were automatically earthquake-safe either…
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    Reinforced concrete is far stronger than unbaked mud bricks, by pretty much any measure you care to name. Or you can simply look at the results on the ground. Afghanistan (where mud brick and adobe are popular construction materials) recently suffered several earthquakes in the magnitude 6 range. Death toll: many thousands. Anchorage, Alaska (which has modern building codes that exclude mud bricks and the like) suffered a magnitude 7.1 earthquake in 2018. Death toll: zero.
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      > Reinforced concrete is far stronger than unbaked mud bricks, by pretty much any measure you care to name. No. Reinforced concrete crumbles after a few decades due to steel expanding under corrosion (rust takes more volume than steel, making the concrete crack, increasing corrosion, and so on). So reinforced concrete is tougher, and stronger, but also much less durable. > Afghanistan (where mud brick and adobe are popular construction materials) recently suffered several earthquakes in the magnitude 6 range. > Death toll: many thousands. > Anchorage, Alaska (which has modern building codes that exclude mud bricks and the like) suffered a magnitude 7.1 earthquake in 2018. > Death toll: zero. Turkey this year, where many building where from the late 90 and later and build out of reinforced concrete (but without state-enforced regulation). Death toll: many thousands. Eh! Reinforced concrete doesn't make buildings earthquake-proof, (properly enforced) earthquake safety regulations do.
beAbU 3y ago
I did not watch the whole video, but... The video talks about "no cost at all", except it ignores the massive amount of labour and time required to hand make bricks from mud and go from there. Later on the video talks about ancient structures (pyramids, great wall, etc) that withstood the test of time, ignoring the MASSIVE human cost associated with building those things. How many people died housing a small handful of elites? In what living accommodations did thoses slaves find themselves? I can guarantee you that if ancient pharoahs had access to glass and concrete they would have used it. Especially if it made it cheaper or quicker to build what they wanted. How do you house the population on this planet without making use of cheap to produce, scalable and durable materials such as steel or concrete?
- phpnode 3y ago
  The video makes the point that a single bag of cement costs €20 in an area where the average daily wage is €10.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I don't know quantities here - how would a bag of cement compare to two days' worth of hand-making bricks in terms of building materials?
    - h0l0cube 3y ago
      Very favorably. Think of how big a bag of cement is. Using a timber mold like the one used in the video you can leave 100s (if not 1000s) of bricks to dry in one day. You need some materials like clay soil, straw and sand, some which might be sourced on-site. It might take a day or two in hot sun for the bricks to dry, but this can be done in large batches with enough space. They also can be fired in a kiln for extra strength, but that would forgo some CO2 benefits.
      - beAbU 3y ago
        You know cement is not used to make the bricks right?
Kenji 3y ago
[dead]
dgan 3y ago
Last time someone built a house like that in France, on what used to be a trash landfill (which they cleaned up before hand), local authorities made them pay on daily basis until it gets destroyed, while picturing the family as dangerous psychopaths endengearing neighbours Such initiatives have to be supported, or at least, not illegal in the country, so that it prevents any local dictator with 100 citizens from his power trip on vulnerable population Edit: https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/finistere/justice-ils-ont-6-mois-pour-detruire-leur-maison-en-terre-et-en-paille-2847728.html https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/finistere/j...
- seszett 3y ago
  I'm not sure what you are referring to but they probably just didn't have a building permit, and what they had built was likely not compliant enough to get permitted after the fact. That they had cleaned up the landfill is rather irrelevant, and in fact it means that the terrain might not have been constructible at all. Even if their project was interesting, as far as I can tell was destroyed because they didn't follow the established rules and built it illegally. But I might be wrong, feel free to send references for this thing.
  - dgan 3y ago
    https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/finistere/justice-ils-ont-6-mois-pour-detruire-leur-maison-en-terre-et-en-paille-2847728.html https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/finistere/j... Well, isn't "following construction rules" basically means "use concrete and established plans"? I hope i am wrong, but sounds like it's just impossible to satisfy regulations while building something from dirt and grass
    - cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
      It's likely impossible without serious processing like fire and reinforcement and static and dynamic simulation. Build things that use materials that aren't fire hazards and have been engineered to support themselves and the stresses they should survive are the primary imperatives of residential construction. The only reason the house I escaped a 2018 firestorm survived was that it was built to code. And the reason the house I was in in 1989 didn't collapse from a massive earthquake was it was also built to code. DIY lacking principles and conventions of civil engineering aren't cool, they're stupid for playing Russian roulette presuming they "know better". There are plenty of nontraditional housing projects that still follow sensible engineering principles.
Llamamoe 3y ago
I wish there were more easily accessible resources on how to actually do stuff like this.
- arnejenssen 3y ago
  You spotted a problem. Now this is an opportunity to build the solution you want.
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    Using the knowledge that they don't have ?
- h0l0cube 3y ago
  YouTube has you covered. These are the first links I found about rammed earth construction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjyGOOtOFik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjyGOOtOFik How to add a doorway/window... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EFWOXjvAU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EFWOXjvAU How to add electrical and plumbing conduits... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTfd2_MoNxI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTfd2_MoNxI Might not be the best videos, but there's plenty to choose from.
- cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
  Just build a log cabin and smear mud on the side. At least it won't kill you in an earthquake if it's built properly.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
thelastparadise 3y ago
I'd wager that overall quality of life would be higher if a typical software engineer from San Francisco decided to save up $500K, acquire 10+ acres of land in the heartland, and build their own house with 90% of their own labor. In the process, the mind will be forced to learn many new concepts. Lessons of project management and time management will be learned. The body will be excercised and muscle mass added, becoming more attractive to the opposite sex. Hunt, gather, garden. It's not an easier path, but perhaps it is a better path than slowly rotting away (mind and body) in an air conditioned cubicle.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  You could also hit the gym at lunch or after work lol. Though I'm also a fan of the ending of "Candide"; I think it's lovely to "cultivate your garden" (a gross attempt to summarize the moral of that work), but you can find ways to do that in the modern world.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Personally doing something like this, except not from scratch, but a major renovation. I'm not using concrete at all, I am reusing foundations, and mostly sustainable domestic wood and other recycled materials. I've been taught from a fairly young age about carpentry so I'm not ultra-green and I do use some local tradesmen, which I'm learning a lot from. I plan to do some more of my own projects so it's been great to work with them and gain more insights into how they work. I've learned an incredible amount, there is something ultra inspiring and rewarding for me when working with physical material. I find it sort of unlocks parts of my brain I forgot I had. Working in the third dimension I guess? Also, remember all that math you learned in school but hardly use? Well you'll likely be revisiting at least some of it! Which feels awesome. Regarding the time management, project management etc, it's true, you have to learn all this, but more importantly you start to have to learn to compromise and really get good at communicating with people. A mistake in the physical world can get costly very fast.
  - nuancebydefault 3y ago
    Very interesting. Do you have a website with ideas or pictures maybe?
philipwhiuk 3y ago
Grand Designs - Africa Edition
waterheater 3y ago
Building with local materials makes sense from an environmental standpoint by reducing transport energy. Since local materials will yield in different ways, architectural styles will need to adapt so buildings are resilient to the regional climate. Extreme weather in regional climates demands better quality building materials, and traditional architectural styles may adapt poorly to new climates. Earthen bricks may work fine in the Middle East, but unless the bricks are fired, they cannot survive wetter regional climates (even with their claims of being waterproof), let alone a snowy climate. On the other hand, a Scandinavian-style A-frame will keep snow from accumulating on the roof, but such a design feature is extraneous for much of the world. If you did want to build your own house using local materials, and you have wood available, rammed earth may be a better choice than unfired bricks, but it still won't perform too well in cold climates.
cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
And it will kill you and your family in an earthquake. So much for iconoclastic hipster utopian-aspirational thinking.

48 points by ImPleadThe5th 3y ago

Nice to see a focus on vernacular architecture and avoiding concrete. I just went through the process of having my own house built - a modern extension to a 200 year old vernacular cottage - and it was very frustrating how much modern architects were blindingly obsessed with concrete EVERYWHERE. And it is a horrific pollutant. While there is a lot to be said for building codes, I sometimes wonder if the increasing strictness applied to individual homes is a way to ensure nobody has the option to affordably build their own home with their own hands. (Though I only wonder, I'm not sure - because I really appreciate how great modern insulation and fire/earthquake safety is)

xxs 3y ago
>And it is a horrific pollutant. The CO2 produced for the manufacture of structural concrete (using ~14% cement) is estimated at 410 kg/m3 (<200kg/tonne)[0] Bricks are around 0.5kg CO2 per kg produced (500kg/tonne). Bricks have bit lower (but similar) density than concrete, say 2000kg/m3. That makes them a lot more pollutant than concrete. Brick require a lot higher labour and transport costs as well. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concre...
- strken 3y ago
  For fired bricks, yes; I believe unfired mudbrick embodies about half the CO2 of concrete, although it hasn't got the strength of fired bricks. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285041812_Embodied_Energy_and_CO2_Analyses_of_Mud-brick_and_Cement-block_Houses https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285041812_Embodied_...
  - birracerveza 3y ago
    Maybe this is why some cultures periodically set their homes on fire. Strengthens the walls, and it's also a very efficient cleaning method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon
    - Kbelicius 3y ago
      > Maybe this is why some cultures periodically set their homes on fire. Strengthens the walls Well, the wikipedia link that you provided says that there is no evidence for that claim since the houses were destroyed in the burning. Two possible explanations on wikipedia for why it was done are recycling of building material and symbolic end of houses.
  - xxs 3y ago
    the remark was about "architects were blindingly obsessed", concrete is a 'better alternative'
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Which is a good reason to use wood.
op00to 3y ago
> While there is a lot to be said for building codes, I sometimes wonder if the increasing strictness applied to individual homes is a way to ensure nobody has the option to affordably build their own home with their own hands. I doubt there's a wide-ranging conspiracy to stop people from building their own houses in the western world. I'd rather you not build a rickety ramshackle hovel next to my house. That's why we have building codes. You're certainly able to build your own house, but it can't fall over onto mine, or cause a citywide fire, or be built with poisionous elements, or ... I recently moved from a house built in 1918 to one built in 1965, and the complexity of the construction is immediately visible. The 1918 wood struction was rough hewn compared to the stuff in my 65 house. All the walls are straight in the 65 house. The 65 house stays cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. I don't have constant critter intrusion. That's just moving from a 100 year old house to a 60 year old house! The new construction in our area (all high quality - they knock down one of the old 1918 houses to build a new one, no idea about tract houses) takes the efficiency and performance a level up. This is all possible through improving building codes - no one would bother with this stuff if it wasn't required.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Well, codes and modern technology. Like I said I'm not sure of it, it was just a weird contrast having a 200+ year old house and a brand new one and comparing the two.

christophilus 3y ago

Those are beautiful houses. I love the idea of doing something like this, but: A) I'm lazy, and B) I live in a place that has a ton of humidity. I wonder how such buildings would fare in a non-arid climate?

digdugdirk 3y ago
The interesting aspect of buildings like this is the need to tailor the design to the local environment. Humidity can be dealt with through careful consideration of airflow and heating. Looking up Earthships can be a good starting point (though many of those are desert climate focused as well, it's not a necessity) for further research.
- smeej 3y ago
  For example, I live in northern New England, which is heavy on trees and light on sand. That's why our typical "vernacular architecture" is log cabins, not mud brick structures. Different advantages and disadvantages. Different construction process. Different materials. But still more sustainable than concrete.
mayas_ 3y ago
they talk about water around timestamp 4:23

whoomp12341 3y ago

I always view these things as very niave. Over the years I have seen many takes on how to build homes faster/cheaper/greener. Yes, I could build a small shed out of 2x4's and plywood for a couple hundred dollars, maybe even a thousand if we want to have a multi person dwelling. BUT, is it safe from the elements, is it structural, and the aspect almost everyone overlooks is, does it have PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL. If you don't have a plan for this, its just a fort, not a home.

ImPleadThe5th 3y ago
I agree the video is maybe a bit overoptimistic in that it does not discuss the labor required. However I will challenge you on plumbing and electrical. RVs, Boats, and Vans have plumbing and electrical. There are wood burning stoves that are made to be used on small sail ships. If you look at the indian subcontinent water receptacles at the top of the roof is just a normal part of life. You could just as easily add solar, a stove and composting toilets to your fort and it would become quite livable by most peoples standards. These are obviously expenses, but it can be done relatively cheaply depending on what level of comfort you personally require. I for one would be fine skipping showers and having occasional power cuts at night.
- whoomp12341 3y ago
  how about running water?
HPsquared 3y ago
Basic plumbing and electrical requires a lot less work (and cost) than building the structure. Getting the services to the property are the most expensive part. Fully self-sufficient (septic tank, water well and generator/solar) would be pretty expensive but still mostly a case of digging dirt and putting basic components together.

justinclift 3y ago

Wonder how well the houses shown here withstand earthquakes?

gizmo 3y ago
Presumably not very well, because the houses have no real foundation. But when you look at a seismic hazard map you'll see that earthquakes don't happen in large swaths of the world.
beAbU 3y ago
Forget about that, lets start with rain resistance.
- michaelt 3y ago
  The secret is "be in a reasonably dry climate" - this video is about construction in Africa, after all. There are adobe structures dating all the way back to 500 BC [1] - if you've got the climate of Iran or Yemen or New Mexico it holds up adequately, especially if you only need a single storey. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe
- cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
  A lack of rain resistance won't kill you suddenly. If mud brick or cave technology were so amazing, we'd all be living that way still. A better way would be to build structurally-sound, partially underground to moderate seasonal temperatures, against wind, hail, and forest fires, and placed to prevent floods.
cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
Just ask all of the Moroccans and Afghanis who are now homeless and lost entire families recently.

pulse7 3y ago

It is beautiful, but is it earthquake safe?

amelius 3y ago
And what open source software would you use for the structural analysis?
littlestymaar 3y ago
It's not like concrete buildings were automatically earthquake-safe either…
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  Reinforced concrete is far stronger than unbaked mud bricks, by pretty much any measure you care to name. Or you can simply look at the results on the ground. Afghanistan (where mud brick and adobe are popular construction materials) recently suffered several earthquakes in the magnitude 6 range. Death toll: many thousands. Anchorage, Alaska (which has modern building codes that exclude mud bricks and the like) suffered a magnitude 7.1 earthquake in 2018. Death toll: zero.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > Reinforced concrete is far stronger than unbaked mud bricks, by pretty much any measure you care to name. No. Reinforced concrete crumbles after a few decades due to steel expanding under corrosion (rust takes more volume than steel, making the concrete crack, increasing corrosion, and so on). So reinforced concrete is tougher, and stronger, but also much less durable. > Afghanistan (where mud brick and adobe are popular construction materials) recently suffered several earthquakes in the magnitude 6 range. > Death toll: many thousands. > Anchorage, Alaska (which has modern building codes that exclude mud bricks and the like) suffered a magnitude 7.1 earthquake in 2018. > Death toll: zero. Turkey this year, where many building where from the late 90 and later and build out of reinforced concrete (but without state-enforced regulation). Death toll: many thousands. Eh! Reinforced concrete doesn't make buildings earthquake-proof, (properly enforced) earthquake safety regulations do.

beAbU 3y ago

I did not watch the whole video, but... The video talks about "no cost at all", except it ignores the massive amount of labour and time required to hand make bricks from mud and go from there. Later on the video talks about ancient structures (pyramids, great wall, etc) that withstood the test of time, ignoring the MASSIVE human cost associated with building those things. How many people died housing a small handful of elites? In what living accommodations did thoses slaves find themselves? I can guarantee you that if ancient pharoahs had access to glass and concrete they would have used it. Especially if it made it cheaper or quicker to build what they wanted. How do you house the population on this planet without making use of cheap to produce, scalable and durable materials such as steel or concrete?

phpnode 3y ago
The video makes the point that a single bag of cement costs €20 in an area where the average daily wage is €10.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I don't know quantities here - how would a bag of cement compare to two days' worth of hand-making bricks in terms of building materials?
  - h0l0cube 3y ago
    Very favorably. Think of how big a bag of cement is. Using a timber mold like the one used in the video you can leave 100s (if not 1000s) of bricks to dry in one day. You need some materials like clay soil, straw and sand, some which might be sourced on-site. It might take a day or two in hot sun for the bricks to dry, but this can be done in large batches with enough space. They also can be fired in a kiln for extra strength, but that would forgo some CO2 benefits.
    - beAbU 3y ago
      You know cement is not used to make the bricks right?

Kenji 3y ago

[dead]

dgan 3y ago

Last time someone built a house like that in France, on what used to be a trash landfill (which they cleaned up before hand), local authorities made them pay on daily basis until it gets destroyed, while picturing the family as dangerous psychopaths endengearing neighbours Such initiatives have to be supported, or at least, not illegal in the country, so that it prevents any local dictator with 100 citizens from his power trip on vulnerable population Edit: https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/finistere/justice-ils-ont-6-mois-pour-detruire-leur-maison-en-terre-et-en-paille-2847728.html https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/finistere/j...

seszett 3y ago
I'm not sure what you are referring to but they probably just didn't have a building permit, and what they had built was likely not compliant enough to get permitted after the fact. That they had cleaned up the landfill is rather irrelevant, and in fact it means that the terrain might not have been constructible at all. Even if their project was interesting, as far as I can tell was destroyed because they didn't follow the established rules and built it illegally. But I might be wrong, feel free to send references for this thing.
- dgan 3y ago
  https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/finistere/justice-ils-ont-6-mois-pour-detruire-leur-maison-en-terre-et-en-paille-2847728.html https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/finistere/j... Well, isn't "following construction rules" basically means "use concrete and established plans"? I hope i am wrong, but sounds like it's just impossible to satisfy regulations while building something from dirt and grass
  - cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
    It's likely impossible without serious processing like fire and reinforcement and static and dynamic simulation. Build things that use materials that aren't fire hazards and have been engineered to support themselves and the stresses they should survive are the primary imperatives of residential construction. The only reason the house I escaped a 2018 firestorm survived was that it was built to code. And the reason the house I was in in 1989 didn't collapse from a massive earthquake was it was also built to code. DIY lacking principles and conventions of civil engineering aren't cool, they're stupid for playing Russian roulette presuming they "know better". There are plenty of nontraditional housing projects that still follow sensible engineering principles.

Llamamoe 3y ago

I wish there were more easily accessible resources on how to actually do stuff like this.

arnejenssen 3y ago
You spotted a problem. Now this is an opportunity to build the solution you want.
- LoganDark 3y ago
  Using the knowledge that they don't have ?
h0l0cube 3y ago
YouTube has you covered. These are the first links I found about rammed earth construction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjyGOOtOFik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjyGOOtOFik How to add a doorway/window... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EFWOXjvAU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EFWOXjvAU How to add electrical and plumbing conduits... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTfd2_MoNxI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTfd2_MoNxI Might not be the best videos, but there's plenty to choose from.
cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
Just build a log cabin and smear mud on the side. At least it won't kill you in an earthquake if it's built properly.

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

thelastparadise 3y ago

I'd wager that overall quality of life would be higher if a typical software engineer from San Francisco decided to save up $500K, acquire 10+ acres of land in the heartland, and build their own house with 90% of their own labor. In the process, the mind will be forced to learn many new concepts. Lessons of project management and time management will be learned. The body will be excercised and muscle mass added, becoming more attractive to the opposite sex. Hunt, gather, garden. It's not an easier path, but perhaps it is a better path than slowly rotting away (mind and body) in an air conditioned cubicle.

hotpotamus 3y ago
You could also hit the gym at lunch or after work lol. Though I'm also a fan of the ending of "Candide"; I think it's lovely to "cultivate your garden" (a gross attempt to summarize the moral of that work), but you can find ways to do that in the modern world.
ChatGTP 3y ago
Personally doing something like this, except not from scratch, but a major renovation. I'm not using concrete at all, I am reusing foundations, and mostly sustainable domestic wood and other recycled materials. I've been taught from a fairly young age about carpentry so I'm not ultra-green and I do use some local tradesmen, which I'm learning a lot from. I plan to do some more of my own projects so it's been great to work with them and gain more insights into how they work. I've learned an incredible amount, there is something ultra inspiring and rewarding for me when working with physical material. I find it sort of unlocks parts of my brain I forgot I had. Working in the third dimension I guess? Also, remember all that math you learned in school but hardly use? Well you'll likely be revisiting at least some of it! Which feels awesome. Regarding the time management, project management etc, it's true, you have to learn all this, but more importantly you start to have to learn to compromise and really get good at communicating with people. A mistake in the physical world can get costly very fast.
- nuancebydefault 3y ago
  Very interesting. Do you have a website with ideas or pictures maybe?

philipwhiuk 3y ago

Grand Designs - Africa Edition

waterheater 3y ago

Building with local materials makes sense from an environmental standpoint by reducing transport energy. Since local materials will yield in different ways, architectural styles will need to adapt so buildings are resilient to the regional climate. Extreme weather in regional climates demands better quality building materials, and traditional architectural styles may adapt poorly to new climates. Earthen bricks may work fine in the Middle East, but unless the bricks are fired, they cannot survive wetter regional climates (even with their claims of being waterproof), let alone a snowy climate. On the other hand, a Scandinavian-style A-frame will keep snow from accumulating on the roof, but such a design feature is extraneous for much of the world. If you did want to build your own house using local materials, and you have wood available, rammed earth may be a better choice than unfired bricks, but it still won't perform too well in cold climates.

cvccvroomvroom 3y ago

And it will kill you and your family in an earthquake. So much for iconoclastic hipster utopian-aspirational thinking.