Originally posted by twhiteheadCement blocks are not a green building material*. Rammed earth is. It is used in many hotter climates. As for higher ceilings and more trees, I have no problem with either.
If it is truly so affordable then why not send us (Zambians) the plans as we are always ready to save a few bucks especially when it comes to building. But its got to be cheaper than cement blocks - the current norm for most houses in Zambia.
Although your quote suggests it is no better than bricks or concrete????
I must also note that most villagers ...[text shortened]... as mortar.
The best ways to cool a house in Zambia are:
1. Higher ceilings.
2. Plant trees.
*For the environmental impacts of cement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cement#Environmental_impacts
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI agree. The problems are cost, and know how. If rammed earth is cheaper, then the problem is know how.
Cement blocks are not a green building material*. Rammed earth is.
I also believe that rammed earth is less waterproof. That might be a problem in Zambia where we have very heavy storms.
The first step would be to send the necessary equipment and instructions to someone in Zambia then they can do some demonstrations and get the idea going.
If its significantly cheaper than cement and the necessary equipment is readily available, I'll mention it to my sister and see if she is interested. She is a farmer and cheaper building materials are always welcome to farmers. They are also quite good at spreading the word when something good comes along.
Originally posted by whodeyI'm going to get a jump ahead of everyone else. I am collecting refrigerator boxes. If I get a couple more I will have a bathroom too.
Not to worry, another 4 years of Obama and we will all be living in cob houses.
Incidently, can you put butter and salt on them and eat them?
Originally posted by rwingettActually I think the house you pointed us to is a good example of materialist consumerism.
Good, then I guess we're all agreed. We can begin dismantling the bloated apparatus of materialist consumerism and usher in the new sustainable society.
Anyway, here are some far better ideas for cities:
&feature=g-all-u
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat was fairly impressive, I'll admit. And while I agree with much of what he says, I'm not completely sold. Here's my problem with the whole thing: The solutions put forward in the video are all about higher technology, greater algorithms, greater levels of hierarchy and specialization, and an increasing lack of any meaningful control by the individual in his surroundings.
Actually I think the house you pointed us to is a good example of materialist consumerism.
Anyway, here are some far better ideas for cities:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM_hPk4rmMM&feature=g-all-u
What I find appealing about the house I highlighted is that it was built by the owner himself, under his own power. It didn't require ever greater levels of technology and specialization to bring it into being. It was a low cost, low tech, locally engineered solution, requiring basic, honest human labor to bring into being. While it certainly isn't necessary for everyone to build their own house, it would be beneficial if they could. At least in theory. Your approach requires an ever increasing level of reliance on technocrats and capital intensive solutions to the point where the individual is a mere spectator in some of the most fundamental aspects of his life. I truly believe that my house of the future is more morally empowering than your technocrat's paradise.
I will grant you, however, that our potentially catastrophic overpopulation problem means that we may have no choice but to embark upon plans as your video outlines. But I think they are merely necessary evils that must be endured until such time as our population has been stabilized and decreased to the point that we can construct a meaningfully humane living arrangement. I don't believe that your mega-cities, however cleverly arranged they may be, can provide that.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettAnd I believe that bringing the world population down to a size such that all of us can live in 5 bedroom houses like your example, will take several hundred years - and may never actually happen. Meanwhile most of us have to live in cities. Not only are cities far more efficient in just about every way, but they also have a much lower impact on the environment.
I will grant you, however, that our potentially catastrophic overpopulation problem means that we may have no choice but to embark upon plans as your video outlines. But I think they are merely necessary evils that must be endured until such time as our population has been stabilized and decreased to the point that we can construct a meaningfully humane liv ...[text shortened]... I don't believe that your mega-cities, however cleverly arranged they may be, can provide that.
If the Chinese were to follow your example, there would be no land left to grow food, or for national parks etc.
In Zambia we have plenty of land and this means that cities and towns tend to sprawl. However I believe this is fundamentally wrong and is a very large part of what is keeping us poor.
The savings of compact living are so enormous that they far outweigh any savings your dream house may have. Lets say your dream house saved 20% on building costs and 20% on heating costs. This is nothing when compared to apartment blocks that can save 90% on things like roads, water, sewerage, powerlines, transport in fact just about anything that needs to get too or from the house.
I must also add that what to rich people like you is low cost, to many of us is way too expensive to even contemplate. I couldn't even afford the plot of land to build on.
Rammed earth and cob construction do have practical limitations. In the US building this way is more expensive due to higher labor costs. In the third world it is practical because labor is much less expensive. Also, the site must be carefully chosen if you live in a rainy area because both of these building methods are very sensitive to water. The dirt work required to make sure that water flows away from the house might be beyond many homeowners. It also requires a larger than usual roof to make sure that rain is kept off the structure.
All of that said, in the southwest US, it is a very practical option because of the insulating qualities of such homes and because it is such a dry climate.
Originally posted by joe beyserInteresting. 500 million was the approximate world population in 1650. It would be a nice long term target to aim for...assuming it could be done voluntarily.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
Someone installed them and is quite a mysterious monument to sustainable human habitation of the planet.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou seem to be fixated on the house's size in proportion to the number of occupants. It is irrelevant. I could be scaled to any size or arrangement you deem appropriate. What is important is its method of construction, low demand on resources and its principle of generating no waste (as with composting toilets and graywater irrigation). I agree with you that it would be beneficial if, instead of being built as an individual family house, it were to instead be laid out as a housing co-op. Such a structure could accommodate many more people, with their own smallish private living space and several common areas. There's no reason you couldn't build a whole rammed earth of such structures, although there would be a theoretical upper limit to how many stories you could have, I suppose. But there's no intrinsic reason you couldn't have higher population densities in similarly constructed buildings.
And I believe that bringing the world population down to a size such that all of us can live in 5 bedroom houses like your example, will take several hundred years - and may never actually happen. Meanwhile most of us have to live in cities. Not only are cities far more efficient in just about every way, but they also have a much lower impact on the envir ...[text shortened]... is way too expensive to even contemplate. I couldn't even afford the plot of land to build on.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI'd like to see you build a ten or twenty story rammed earth block of flats.
You seem to be fixated on the house's size in proportion to the number of occupants. It is irrelevant. I could be scaled to any size or arrangement you deem appropriate.
- we use gray water for our garden at the block of flats I live in.
- I would like to see composting toilets come into fashion in cities. It would save an enormous amount of water and of course can be used as fertilizer replacement. I don't see it actually happening though - people are too dirt conscious these days to the point that our 'cleanliness' is harming us. I have an ongoing complaint about useless/harmful 'cleaning' products such as antibacterial soaps, toilet sanitizers, mouthwashes etc
But my point still stands. The one single thing that has the absolute biggest impact when it comes to saving the environment etc is compact living. Having more people using facilities and having people travelling shorter distances on average. These two factors are far more important than anything that you can think of to put in your dream house and are totally ignored by your dream house example. You keep on and on saying 'well we could do that too' but this shows that you are missing the point. Its like calling a gas guzzling car your dream car because its tires were made from recycled material.