|Domes and Pattern Languages||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Thomas Alexander (Thoscompuserve.com)|
|Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:33:55 -0500|
Vinnay, >>[Do people not come up with round floor plans because of] prior conditioning and expectations about how houses are "supposed" to look.<< Check out A Pattern Language and ask this question again. >>Wikkiups and Tepis both have round floorplans.<< Don't know about Wikkiups, but don't tepis have very few rooms per building? They were also working with quite a bit of land per family, so they could afford to waste some. Further, weren't they basically temporary structures? >>I personally feel that buildings shouldn't consume such a huge percentage of our personal resources<< Land costs money too. You've got to make good use of it. >> these criteria, while the might form excellent social spaces, violate a number of the rules-of-thumb for environmentally sound building.<< Really? Should we sacrifice good places for this? Are unsuitable places which use less material (or whatever the advantages of domes may be) better than places which actually meet our needs? I'm not talking about opulence. I'm talking about making the most of what you have by making the building actually function well. You say later that domes are not suited for urban situations? Is it sustainable for even more people to move out of the cities? >>Long and thin buildings lose heat fast...<< The pattern "Long Thin House" is meant, fundamentally, to solve the problem of making a house feel spacious with limited resources available. With a circle floorplan, you're stuck in the room next door to your housemates. You can't go to the other end of the house if you need some time alone. It might be worth a little more heat - or you could make up the difference with more insulation and build a smaller, yet larger feeling house. >>as do corner rooms with two exposed walls.<< You don't need a corner room to get "Light on Two Sides of Every Room." >>Courtyards are even worse, maximising how much of the space is exposed to the elements.<< If it triples the usable space in your home, wouldn't it be worth it? One side of the courtyard could be a neighbor's house or a garage or something else, too. >>Depends if one cuts and carries one's own firewood, or plugs a chequebook into the national grid.<< Is firewood sustainable? (Not that I'm against it myself, but historically, some countries cleared entire forrests for firewood.) We do agree, however, that domes are more suited for isolated situations than for high density, (though I would include cohousing as "high density.) >>the amount of fine timber used a long, thin house is much greater<< Alexander, incidentally, is against the use of timber for building houses. >>in an "unlimited resources" culture, I could easilly see the ease with which a long, thin house could be layed out for easy social spaces, division and grouping of function, flow of trafic and other such considerations.<< I think you missed the point. I'm saying that although you say a dome costs half as much as a conventional home, I'm saying that since the spaces both inside and outside the dome are forced to comply with the shape of the dome, rather than vice-versa, the dome has less than half the utility (usefulness?) of a conventional home (in any application my narrow mind can imagine.) You're paying less, getting less, and wasting land, another limited resource. BTW, my town library doesn't have the books, but I was able to get them on inter-library loan. Thos
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.