#1 By: Rob Beschizza, September 10th, 2013 10:34
#2 By: Cris_Overlord, September 10th, 2013 10:46
as cool as it is, I'd say calling it a "home" is a bit of a stretch... a cabin? sure. a shelter? certainly. but a home? No bathroom, no kitchen, no bathing facilities?
maybe I'm a Western culture snob.
#3 By: Keith_Ulysses_Welch, September 10th, 2013 11:03
Agreed. Also, with the bolts going all the way through, leakage might be a problem.
#4 By: Jason Andresen, September 10th, 2013 11:26
I agree. This is an extravagant tent, not a house.
#5 By: Danny Donny Clark, September 10th, 2013 11:37
An extravagant tent is not so different from a house. The point of the concept is to challenge traditional waste of space. Add a small compost toilet outside, and voila! A gas stove and filtered rain water- boom! A kitchen! My sister had a much smaller 'house' made of wattle and daub, which was very liveable. It's all about thinking (and living) outside the box.
#6 By: David Forbes, September 10th, 2013 11:39
This is a cabin, not a full house, but it does its job very well. And the design is stunning. There's nothing to it!
For what it's worth, I grew up in a dome not much bigger than this (26' dia.). We eventually had running water, a bathroom and A/C.
#7 By: Red, September 10th, 2013 11:47
Did anyone see a mention of fire testing that I missed? I know that small, self-supporting yurts built of foamboard insulation alone turned out to have unexpectedly severe fire problems, due to the structure acting a bit like a rocket stove. It's kind of hard to imagine the interior plastic helping all that much, but I'd love to be wrong.
#8 By: Jason Andresen, September 10th, 2013 11:54
Given that it is just one room and is tiny, I would hope that it would be easy to get out in case of fire.
I also have a minor complaint with people who call bathrooms and kitchens a waste of space. It is cheating if you boast all about how tiny your house is when you have to have external facilities for everything but sleeping/office space. It's like those gadgets that advertise how super tiny they are, but come with a power brick the size of an actual brick.
#9 By: Jardine, September 10th, 2013 11:55
I'd call it a shed, but it's quite a nice shed. I really like the idea of dome houses in areas prone to tornadoes and hurricanes. Bigger than this though.
#10 By: Jim Grinsfelder, September 10th, 2013 12:00
I think at 209 Sq. Feet and $2,100, people who want a place to eat and poo and clean themselves could build 2 more domes, one for a bathroom (and storage) and another for a kitchen (and storage). And at 627 sq feet and $6,300, it'd be pretty damn cool and still small and, most important, it wouldn't leave me house-poor.
#11 By: Tim Quinn, September 10th, 2013 12:00
This is a proof of concept more than a feasible project. I endorse that approach, but I still have to wonder how this structure is going to hold up to the scourge of all buildings brave enough to put something above ground, that is, the wind. No skeleton and bolts through plastic won't hold up for long. Nice for a summer maybe. You would not want to be asleep in there during a severe storm.
#12 By: Kenneth, September 10th, 2013 12:04
#13 By: billstewart, September 10th, 2013 12:07
It's a geodesic dome. Isn't leaking sort of a requirement?
#14 By: Paul Davis, September 10th, 2013 12:12
#15 By: Tavie, September 10th, 2013 12:24
This is the answer! This is it! THIS IS HOW I CAN LIVE OUT MY DREAM OF LIVING IN SPACESHIP EARTH!
#16 By: Jason Andresen, September 10th, 2013 12:24
You still have to own the land. Typically the land is about half the cost of a home, so you're only saving a little under 50% to live like this.
Although this is a moot point since there is absolutely no way this house is going to pass a home inspection. You're going to have to set this up in someone's back yard and call it a shed, or well outside of town and just middle finger anybody who mentions the phrase "building codes".
#17 By: Jim Grinsfelder, September 10th, 2013 12:55
Land can be rented or there's squatting. These plasti-domes are said to be easy to take apart and reassemble.
#18 By: E Et, September 10th, 2013 13:05
#19 By: Fogbert, September 10th, 2013 13:12
Interesting. It also has the added bonus in that anyone can relieve the owner of all their worldly possessions with nothing more than a drywall saw.
Where I think the concept would play though, is instances where you'd need cheap, quick shelter such as in response to natural disasters.
#20 By: Jon Konrath, September 10th, 2013 13:13
Foamboard is typically impregnated with a flame retardant, so it won't burst into flames when it's around a high heat source. Generally, it melts away from a fire or heat, which is kinda-sorta a safety feature, unless you happen to be standing under it and the liquid drops on you, in which it's really bad. It also gives off toxic fumes when it melts, so yeah, a fire is going to be a really bad time with one of these. There's also the issue of outgassing, which makes long-term use an issue.
The way to do it would be to drywall the interior, but you'd probably need a frame to do that, and the price would go up and portability would be shot. And if price and portability isn't an issue, you'd be better off just doing a drywall interior/EPS foam core/steel-reinforced concrete exterior dome, which is going to cost ten times as much, but it would survive a hurricane and pass any building code requirements you threw at it.
next page →