Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Naturally, seismology provides the answer.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                     

Architecture Acres

 Put nice old houses "out to pasture" when someone wants the lot but not the house.
 
(0) 		  [vote for,
against]

Have different areas. One area where low-income people can rent/buy the donated houses less expensively. Surround or enclose this with truly exceptional older buildings both residential and commercial into a village of individual interpretive centers.

See Annotations #23, #24 & #25 by thecat on June 21.

—thecat, Jun 13 2003

Cargo Lifter http://www.cargolifter.com/
[kbecker, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]

Int'l Ass. of Structural Movers http://www.iasm.org/
and Shakers [thumbwax, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]

One expensive house moving project... http://www.vintagev.../pages/Park_Ave.htm
... and he only moved part of his house (scroll down to 1918) [scad mientist, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]

Interpretive Centers http://www.heritageinterp.com/systems.htm
Parks, archaelogical sites, theme parks, peat bogs, etc. Seems to cover everything that's not a building. [DrCurry, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]


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.



Annotation:







       Nice thought, but how do you propose that the houses with any kind of foundation be moved (especially those with large/deep basements)?   

       And moving them would be a big problem, as well.
—Pseudonym #3, Jun 14 2003
   

       A lot of US houses, even the fancy ones, have just some wooden beams underneath. Many just rest on adjustable jacks with some bricks as foundation. If they do have a basement one may have leave that behind. Moving could be done with the CargoLifter (see link) 160 metric tons are enough for most houses. Cost will come down if enough houses are moved.
—kbecker, Jun 14 2003
   

       Houses are moved all the time around Seattle, especially on the waterfront where they use a barge to move them. Some very large ones, too. Sometimes they move them in sections on the road. A foundation to accomodate is built at the new site.
—bristolz, Jun 14 2003
   

       //Houses are moved all the time around Seattle//
I thought those were house boats? And the ones with basements -- house barges.
—ldischler, Jun 14 2003
   

       No. I mean land-based houses that are moved to a new location via the water. This is done quite a bit with very high-priced waterfront where the new owners want to build a manse of their own design but the house already on the land is historically significant or valuable enough to move.
—bristolz, Jun 14 2003
   

       This is a very common practice. But the costs of moving vs. demolishing houses mean that only houses too expensive for low income buyers or renters are likely to be moved.
—DrCurry, Jun 14 2003
   

       [DrCurry] Even very expensive houses could be moved if there is no buyer and the donation is tax deductible. "Habitat for Humanity" could handle the donations.
—kbecker, Jun 14 2003
   

       Exactly kbecker!(How about a big woo hoo for Habitat for Humanity).
—thecat, Jun 16 2003
   

       Nope, I think you'll still find the economics favor building new affordable housing rather than moving the old stuff.   

       (I am all in favor of preserving old buildings, though.)
—DrCurry, Jun 16 2003
   

       Woo Hoo!!! (Doh! not quick enough)   

       Oh, and I think this is a great idea. Demolition and disposal is quite expensive, and I could imagine that gifting away a house could save enough to at least pay for some of the house moving cost.
—Worldgineer, Jun 16 2003
   

       Here in New York, they moved an entire Broadway theatre from one end of a block to the other (I forget why; they hadda make room for some new Disney crap or something). They somehow contrived to put this entire building on rails and slide it. Quite an engineering feat.
—snarfyguy, Jun 16 2003
   

       The inside of the theater was landmarked, or they'd've just bulldozed it. They also move lighthouses this way, given the propensity of cliffs to move inland by a few inches every year.
—DrCurry, Jun 16 2003
   

       My best guess is town planning jargon for gardens.
—DrCurry, Jun 16 2003
   

       [snarfyguy] Maybe because they had downgraded the theatre to off-Broadway shows.
—FarmerJohn, Jun 16 2003
   

       I learned recently, by the way, the term "Broadway theatre" has nothing to do with a theatre's proximity to Broadway; rather, it refers to seating capacity.
—snarfyguy, Jun 16 2003
   

       DrCurry: Ever seen Cape Hattaras?
—supercat, Jun 16 2003
   

       sp: Hatteras
—waugsqueke, Jun 16 2003
   

       Now I regret having deleted my "Architecture Preserves" idea, which proposed exactly what this idea proposes, but for much less easily-moved structures, and included both a Palladio Paddock and a Mies Wander Row.
—beauxeault, Jun 17 2003
   

       [R...S...] I agree. I have been meaning to amend my idea "slightly" for some time. Practically since posting actually. A fully blended neighborhood is better. So all nice houses of all economic stratas should go in and the cost would be a proportion of the "retail". In fact because it would be like the best mix of an old-fashioned neighborhood and the best new ideas of urban planners the lower-income houses (the cute little small ones) would be at a - fraction (ie: 3/4) and the higher income houses (the larger ones and select small ones) would be at a + fraction (ie. 5/4).
—thecat, Jun 21 2003
   

       [jutta]//a village of individual interpretive centers//   

       This was where I originally took into consideration that just low income houses with nothing else would be ... well, would be Detroit (see 2 annotations above). I have personal experience of that type of development in the neighborhood right next to mine which is high-density, low-income. Then it spreads it blight to its surroundings.   

       The interpretive centers would be the best of the best the commercial buildings but also residental so in the original idea the perimeter or the core (or maybe something more distributed -if in a artisticly/aesteticly structured way) would avoid that.   

       So, the residental i-c's would be for people of greater means who buy into the idea of a fully integrated neighborhood and preserving the nicest old houses that lots of people don't want (change, etc).   

       The commercial i-c's would keep the area vibrant and somewhat self-contained. No need to jump into the gas-guzzler to do everything. A little theatre, a little hardware store. Etc.
—thecat, Jun 21 2003
   

       [DrCurry] Like the link (Americans use their flag [nicer than ours] in such neat ways - I love the American Flag Butterfly [it even moves slowly and gracefully]) but it's not done, done, done.   

       Mine would have people living there and the interpretive aspects. These would be linked by a symbiotic quality. Only one place has that sort of baked (Celebration, FL) but it is in a very controlled, very capitalistic way and the interpretive quality is more the Disney influence than a diverse mix and actual interp's (like individual cultural resource centers for different nationalities so you can learn about your neighbors and the world) that is what I am talking about.
—thecat, Jun 21 2003
   

       [TomBomb] Yes. [beauxeault] How was your's the same and how was it different.   

       I'd be interested in hearing more about these.
—thecat, Jun 21 2003
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle