RE: Re(2): Homelessness in America



> From: Cat [mailto:cathrynm at mailexcite dot com]
> >Maybe we should be thinking more about houses that benefit 
> from geodesic structural principles but aren't necessarily spherical?

> With the gables and other structural differences - 
> away from spherical - aren't you adding to the 
> material used/cost of the house?  The point being,
> domes require less raw material to build, thereby
> saving money and natural resources...right?  Back to
> square one!

I don't think anyone in this forum disagrees that domes, all by
themselves, are better than traditional square housing in virtually any
quantifiable way. The problem that has been pointed out, with Habitat
for Humanity among other organizations, is that domes are "weird." 

You can't fight an unreasonable statement with reason. All of the
statistics, numbers, anecdotes, comparisons, and declarative statements
in the world can't fight "It's weird." Habitat knows this, and I'm sure
that many of the engineers and builders in that organization would like
to spend time and money building domes, or other alternative housing
solutions, but they don't because they rely on donations, and rich
people don't donate money for weird stuff. 

I'm with you, Cat, but they're not.

all for now
Jeremy Nottingham




This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.