h a l f b a k e r y
If you can read this you are not following too closely.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Habitat for Humanity is a great idea and I don't want to discredit the general concept or the big hearted people that work on the project, but...
If we're going to build houses for financially challenged people (Or for anyone, really) why not make them durable and more self-sufficient? Understandably
there is reason to make it easily affordable in the first place, but we need to look at the long-term efficiency of the program. (My benevolence and strong feelings on this topic are about to send me on a tangent..my apologies.) Save for some great advance in man's understanding of physics the concept of energy conservation will be necessary for human’s survival for a long time. The best way to conserve heat energy in a habitat is to use (you guessed it!) earth to insulate it. And to face it's exposed side towards the sun. While the inner construction and working of the house could also be built with longevity in mind (as everything should be built to decrease the work load.), the submerged shell could be built to last a millennium or so. The concept is that 1000 years from now man will still be technologically ignorant to a degree that this shell will still provide a valuable function. The shells would vary in size and shape so that not all homes would look the same. The inside could be remodeled without compromising the structural integrity of the home. Perhaps certain beams would be permanent. All the problems of underground building can be anticipated and avoided. This could be construed as an "everyone should do this" idea. Well yes, everyone should (But for just one or a few to, is still logical)...and if the population stabilized and then decreased as it must, humanely or not, we could see enough logically built, diverse habitats for everyone. A certain percentage of the construction/plumbing/electrician/etc. facet of society could switch over to maintenance (minimized by initial logical construction and manufacturing). The rest could be retrained in other areas. Less work over all--evenly distribute the remaining work--15 hour work week for everyone in a certain middle age range. Whew. I'm sure many of you know this story. Perhaps this is beyond the grasp of a government program. A benevolent wealthy person could purchase land, build a cluster of such houses (A cluster could also benefit from certain potential communal efficiencies.) and create manageable mortgage situations for everyone including the financially challenged. A sliding scale could allow the more wealthy to compensate for the less wealthy. Then it could be financially rewarding for the developer. Instead of losing money out of benevolence, money would be gained so that the benevolence could be repeated. In the long run-within one's life span, I believe-the energy savings would outweigh the added cost of construction. Then again, what I envision is one really durable shell with some pretty nice long lasting guts.
Annotation:
|
| |
[jscottpete], are you a Lord of the Rings fan? This sounds a lot like a hobbit hole. |
|
| |
[ghillie] Yeah it's a pretty cool plot. Kudos to that dude (his name is not in my menory bank) who composed the story and to the people in the movie industry who put it on the big screen. My ideas and understanding concerning underground dwellings evolved independant from that aspect of that plot. Underground dwellings provide many benefits to the conscious entites inside and outside of them. Such construction is viable and logical. I think. |
|
| |
i think its a great idea!! and whats wrong with lord of the rings?? |
|
| |
Over all i thought of it more as a "someone could"--as in someone far more wealthy than I. Such wealth would be a criterion for many ideas on this site. The "everyone should" element is a side opinion of mine as it might be of many half bakers regarding some of his/her own ideas. |
|
| |
I know of man's cave dwelling history. This would be the production of a high number of durable "caves" in locations where caves don't exist-elevated plots with access to well water and a nice view. |
|
| |
Would these caves have paragraph breaks ? |
|
| |
[jutta] Yes, either built into a hill at a higher elevation or built at a raised elevationand then covered with various appropriate materials starting with sand and gravel and topping it off with fertile soil. You do know all the benefits of an underground house yes? Well that isn't original either. I was just trying to take it to a higher level technologically and socio-economically. |
|
| |
There is already a substantial movement afoot in the architectural disciplines to put soil and gardens on rooftops. This is not far removed from that and certinly nothing new. |
|
| |
I think you would be better to come up with a durable, waterproof material for these Mole Domes, and market that idea. |
|
| |
Aluminium fits the bill: It's light, very durable, waterproof, a good conductor of heat and very plentiful in the Earth's crust. There is a high energy cost in initial processing, but it's a one-off cost. |
|
| |
I think aluminum leaches and is harmful. |
|
| |
In Cumbria, UK a couple have built a low energy house into the hillside like this. It is covered on 3 sides by soil and the 4th side is all glass. It has incredibly low energy requirements to run it, making it pretty 'green'. However, that only way of building a treutcture strong enough to resist the pressure of all that earth pressing in on it was to use lots of concrete. Concrete is very energy intensive in its production and possibly the least 'green' construction material. |
|
| |
If it is 'green' in content but not green because of energy consumed then the solution is simple. Use clean energy. Having to create the significant amount of clean energy is worthwhile considering the future energy savings--and considering it would be more feasabe for the house to run entirely on clean energy. |
|
| |
Well, underground homes have been done before, and basically it's a big shell which you burry into the side of a hil. |
|
| |
However, it would be nice to implement this idea for Habitats for Humanity. |
|
| |
Would double as a fallout shelter. |
|
| |
(sidenote, anything could be made to be a "lets all do this" idea) |
|
| |
If these are dug straight down into the ground then they're completely covered with earth anyway and if they're carved out of rock then they have their own durable shell. If you stick them all right underground then it doesn't matter what way they are facing. Install some of those light shafts which reflect daylight inside and Bob's yer uncle.
Or roof them all with plexi-glass (frosted over the loo of course). |
|
| |
Plus, as long as you have no immediate neighbours, it should be a piece of cake to build an extension. |
|
| |
For a second there, I thought that jscottpete was going to suggest that Habitat for Humanity 2.0 would have something to do with the proposed Moon colony... |
|
| |
[cloudface] Yes, we should colonize the entire far side of the moon ultimately. First we need to get things in order on Earth. Efficiency could expedite this benevolent order. Underground structures lend them selves to this efficiency. The more the better. The sooner the better. Let's get the ball rolling. |
|
| |
[shonagon53] I am proposing the building of many of them in semi-self-sustaining communities as a humanitarian yet profitable and therefore reproducable venture. |
|
| |
Do I have to address this paragraph issue? |
|
| |
the concept of berm houses and their energy efficiency have been around for a while, but it's the basic premise of doing something right the first time around (as in the Habitat for Humanity houses) that it sinks in a bit. Strawbale houses are another great alternative to overcoming the heating/cooling problem. Not only do energy efficient houses make sense long term, but they also help the inhabitants who won't be stuck with as huge an energy bill like other houses. |
|
| |