Can't buy, so going to build a house.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:35 pm

Been looking for a house to buy now, for 9 months, and making zero progress. So, we've decided to buy a section and build a house.

Here's a plan from the house, it's not the latest iteration, but is close.

It is loosely based on Frank Lloyd Wright's very first "Usonian" home: that of Herbert Jacobs, of Madison, Wisconsin. Built in 1937. Here's the official web site: http://www.usonia1.com

That house is generally held to be one of the pivotal house designs of the 20th century. FLW made several innovations with this home:

1) World's first "Carport". He invented the word, and described it thus, "An automobile is not a horse, and does not require a barn." You can imagine that back in 1937, the car industry was just starting to be able to make cars which didn't leak like crazy when left in the rain.

2) First domestic dwelling to ever have underfloor heating of the concrete floor slab by way of steam pipes. Several banks refused to fund the building of the house because of the "radical" heating solution. FLW called it "Gravity Heat" - and it did work, but nearly so well as he claimed it did. The pipes were buired in sand, totally below the floor slab, when they should have been inside the concrete. Instead of pumping hot water through the pipes, he pumped steam - and at that time no one knew that steam (unlike water) follows the hottest pipe. So, it took many many days of constant heating before the floor was an even temperature.

3) It was one of the first house designs where food did not "magically appear" from some hidden kitchen: the housewife was treated to a kitchen which was the central hub of the house. Unheard of in the day.

Anyway - Emma and I are looking forward to the building process, and only hope we can afford all the features of the home! Wish us luck.

Vindicator · Post by **Vindicator** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:45 pm

Is the ownership of a Lamborghini a requirement for building this house? If so, its too rich for my taste

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:53 pm

Your grammar sucks.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 7:42 pm

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:05 pm

Mobius should have written something more like this: wrote:My wife and I have been looking for a house to buy for the last 9 months, but we haven't made any progress. So instead, we have decided to buy a parcel and build a house.

This is the plan for the house, although it isn't the latest iteration, it is close:

It is loosely based on Frank Lloyd Wright's very first "Usonian" home, that of Herbert Jacobs, of Madison, Wisconsin, which was built in 1937. Here's the URL of the official web site: http://www.usonia1.com

That home is generally considered to be one of the most pivotal house designs of the 20th century because F.L.W. made several innovations such as:

1) The world's first "Carport". He invented the word, and described it thusly, "An automobile is not a horse, and does not require a barn." You can imagine that back in 1937, the car industry was just begining to build cars which didn't leak like heavily when left in the rain.

2) It was the first domestic dwelling to ever have underfloor heating of the concrete floor slab by way of steam pipes. Several banks refused to fund the building of the house because of the "radical" heating solution. F.L.W. called it "Gravity Heat"; it did work, but not nearly so well as he claimed. The pipes were buried in sand, below the floor slab, when they should have been inside the concrete. Instead of pumping hot water through the pipes, he pumped steam; at that time no one knew that steam (unlike water) follows the hottest pipe. It took many many days of constant heating before the floor was an even temperature.

3) It was one of the first house designed where food did not "magically appear" from some hidden kitchen. The owner was treated to a kitchen which was the central hub of the house. Unheard of in the day.

Anyway, Emma and I are looking forward to the building process, and only hope we can afford all the features of the home! Wish us luck.

but, what would i know... i am lazy and use ...'s too much and have bad grammer and make run on sentences and things like that and such...

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:23 pm

Mobi, you have any elevations? Also a long ranch style house is more expensive to build (and to heat)than a two story. Are you planing on FLW wood trim and "designed for the house wood furniture" touches?

Hahnenkam · Post by **Hahnenkam** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:39 pm

Sounds cool Mobius; Good luck.

woodchip wrote:a long ranch style house is more expensive to build (and to heat)than a two story.

The heating makes sense to me, but why is it more expensive to build than a two story?

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 9:44 pm

carports suck, get a garage

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 9:54 pm

garage? oh look at mr. la-di-da-dee frenchman!

what? i call it a car-hole.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:02 pm

house sux, thread sux, barf, fart, burp....

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:49 pm

Just remember, FLW houses may look awesome, but they have a reputation for being impracticle to live in. Most of them are all form, and no function.

Couver_ · Post by **Couver_** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:55 pm

Look really nice Mobius don't forget to get a hottub!!

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:20 pm

ccb056 wrote:carports suck, get a garage

X2. Carport? That's probably a trend he started that eliminated a possibility of a bottom-floor with an opening under the car so you can easily do repairs and change the oil without jacking up the car. Not unlike some garages in Europe. Besides you will always need storage space.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:21 pm

Aim lower.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:22 pm

Vertigo 99 wrote:garage? oh look at mr. la-di-da-dee frenchman!

what? i call it a car-hole.

boo ya simpsons reference!!!

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:50 am

I'm not sure, but it seems to me like you have an incredible amount of in-house walls and corridors.

Also, you have almost no room for storage. You know, you have to keep your vaccuum cleaner, your toilet paper stock, your skiing and fishing gear, etc.. someplace when you're not using it.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:27 am

will_kill wrote:house sux, thread sux, barf, fart, burp....

...I'm just jealous

Phoenix Red · Post by **Phoenix Red** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:29 am

This house has got some serious tiny going on. Not only is the amount of actual floorspace small, all the twists and turns will make it FEEL cramped. Not cozy, just plain cramped.

Trichord's right about the lack of storage area. I also notice your kitchen is going to have room for pots OR pans, and certainly none for counters.

You sure you have to make it so small?

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:39 am

Actually, at first glance it does seem kinda small, but I eventually noticed that practically one whole side of the house is open, either by bay windows or some sort of sliding contraption that opens up the entire wall in some areas. It won't seem small...unless your an NBA star or Sasquatch.

BUBBALOU · Post by **BUBBALOU** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:46 am

That is a gawd awful design, who wants to do a slalom to get to the bedroom?. Only part in this layout that has basic funtion is the kitchen (work triangle).

This design is from the old wifebeater/barefoot days!

before you jump into this mobiless walk through one!

Behemoth · Post by **Behemoth** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:51 am

So you have that countach AND the TT roadster in your pic?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:47 am

Hahnenkam wrote:
woodchip wrote:a long ranch style house is more expensive to build (and to heat)than a two story.
The heating makes sense to me, but why is it more expensive to build than a two story?

1) You have more roof area to cover (trusses, plywood, shingles). Also more attic insulation in a long ranch style.

2) You have more footing to dig and pour and if there is a basement, more basement walls. a wood floor over a first floor is much cheaper to build.

Pun · Post by **Pun** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:02 am

I like the basic layout. Everything would be lit really nice with this layout. I like the way the master BR is away from the main activity areas of the house. This would be a nice house for a couple with no or one kid.

I'd change some things. The fron door slams you right into a wall. I'd try to open it up a bit in that area. Also, yeah, you really need to add some closets and storage. The dining area seems cramped as well and somewhat of an afterthought. How about a fireplace on the far east wall of the great room?

Phoenix Red · Post by **Phoenix Red** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:06 am

Good eye on the front door Pun, that could use a little work. More space for eating is also a good call. That little table will be overfull with any large meal set out on it, and sitting on the wall side of the table will be a hassle getting in and out.

Mobi if you're dead set on 1 story, how about expanding the bedroom wing to be 4 feet wider, and setting some closets in the "west" wall?

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:46 am

i wouldnt be comfortable sitting on a toliet that faced a door that led outside... instead of a door that led to a closet.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:22 pm

I have to agree, you have too many internal walls which makes for precicely jack for storage. Alot of builders are doing the exact same thing around here. Theres so many big houses that have so many frelling rooms that you can't store anything! I *really* suggest you take a look at some older houses and see how they're laid out.

Capm · Post by **Capm** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:04 am

Personally, I like domehomes better than ranch - there are lots of advantages to them.

These are some decent examples of floor plans:
http://www.domehome.com/newplan.htm

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:04 am

Geodesics are cool... a lot of hippies built them in the 60s with no clue what great designs they'd stumbled upon.

Pun · Post by **Pun** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:39 am

What's so great about 'em?

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:00 am

Check out this dome home:

http://www.domehome.com/t_sb2.htm

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:19 am

One thing you may want to keep an eye on is re-sale. Don't design something so "You" that no one will want to buy it when you go to sell. Also look at expandability. Will you readily be able to add on if you so choose?

Capm · Post by **Capm** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:59 pm

What's so great about 'em?

Well for one, they're more energy efficient, 2 better wind-load characteristics (snow load also)
The structure is physicly stronger because of the design itself, not just because its round.

If you look through pictures of hurricane wreckage - often the only homes that survive are dome or round style homes - often with only superficial damage.

thats just for starters...

Pun · Post by **Pun** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:40 am

Capm wrote:
What's so great about 'em?
Well for one, they're more energy efficient, 2 better wind-load characteristics (snow load also)
The structure is physicly stronger because of the design itself, not just because its round.

If you look through pictures of hurricane wreckage - often the only homes that survive are dome or round style homes - often with only superficial damage.

thats just for starters...

Rubbish! Most people dont have to worry about wind and snow loads. I don't see dome houses as being more practical at all. Why would the fact that it's round make it more energy efficient? Wouldn't all the heat concentrate in the top of the dome? I think you could build a conventionally designed house that's plenty strong, energy efficient, more aesthetically pleasing, easier to furnish and much more practical than living in a bubble.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:50 am

Lothar wrote:Geodesics are cool... a lot of hippies built them in the 60s with no clue what great designs they'd stumbled upon.

Actually, alot of the "hippies" were highly educated folk from white-collar families. The long-hair, drugs and free love was all a part of there rebellion against mainstream society. You may not believe it, but, the "accidental" discovery, was by no means an accident. It was actually the result of some good acid.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:53 pm

Actually Pun, he has a point. There was a special on the Weather Channel that aired not too long before Katrina hit about some dude building such a house. When Charlie (or whatever hurricane it was that hit), his house took very little damage. The rest of the houses nearby were demolished. But yes, like you mentioned, there are trade-offs.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:09 pm

will_kill wrote:
Lothar wrote:Geodesics are cool... a lot of hippies built them in the 60s with no clue what great designs they'd stumbled upon.
Actually, alot of the "hippies" were highly educated folk from white-collar families.

Well, yes, I know... even so, most of them didn't realize just how cool the geometric system they stumbled upon was.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:17 pm

Trouble is geodome houses are not traditional and may not have a good investment value when you go to sell.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:28 pm

Lothar wrote:
will_kill wrote:
Lothar wrote:Geodesics are cool... a lot of hippies built them in the 60s with no clue what great designs they'd stumbled upon.
Actually, alot of the "hippies" were highly educated folk from white-collar families.
Well, yes, I know... even so, most of them didn't realize just how cool the geometric system they stumbled upon was.

If we're talking about hippys, i doubt that. As far as demographics go, hippys rarely make uninformed choices. Everything has to have a greater meaning to them.
Likely these white-collar hippys decided to be trend-setters and build these weird geodesic houses. Since the design had easily demonstratable advantages, other hippys - being cultural creatives - were eager and willing to go against the social grain for the sake of a good idea once they were clued in.

i like hippys

hey you're all into maths and those geo-build sticks things hey! i bet you have some interesting things to say about geometry

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:18 pm

roid wrote:hey you're all into maths and those geo-build sticks things hey! i bet you have some interesting things to say about geometry :)

Yes... specifically, about this particular type of geometry.

Two of the principle designers of the geo-build-stick-thingies were Steve Baer and Clark Richert, who lived in Drop City. Steve Baer is one of the best-known builders of geodesic structures, and he also founded Zomeworks, which later became Zometool Inc. He wrote the first advanced mathematical analysis of the geometric system, but even he only really saw the tip of the iceberg back then.

There's still quite a bit of research being done on the geometry right now. The architecture hasn't really been touched in a while, though.

Phoenix Red · Post by **Phoenix Red** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:18 am

Pun:
Yeah, the heat goes to the top of the dome, but it does that in a square house. The difference is the top of a dome is smaller than the top of a square, so it takes less to heat the top of a dome.
At least that's my understanding.

I agree that round rooms are retarded though.

Can't buy, so going to build a house.

Can't buy, so going to build a house.

Re: Can't buy, so going to build a house.