When I look at the pictures of this house, I have something like the feeling you get when you start to drink a glass of water and suddenly realize you were really dehydrated.
I often feel it when I see handmade things. There's something missing in manufactured stuff. It's information poor.
My parent's own a 200+ year old house in France that has an amazing amount of tactile information held in it. To stick with the feel of the building we manually plastered the inside walls, which with exposed wooden beams in every room looks amazing.
Each wall is unique in how it settled, each beam is unique in the cuts. The original upstairs floor was beautiful as it was hundreds of solid beams of wood 30 feet long, sadly most of it had been affected by wood worm on the surface ( everything had been hit by wood worms on the surface but miraculously the density of the oak or something seemed to keep them out of the core).
While I like the convenience of manufactured products, they all lack the heart and soul that's held in a handmade product. Often they seem to be lacking in quality too, possibly due to the fact that it's the materials not the labor that now costs the most.
A few years ago I took a class on timberframing ... and part of the class was building a timber frame house.
There's a family that - RIGHT NOW - is sitting, eating, and sleeping feet away from beams that I hand planed and joints that I layed out, cut, and chiseled.
That's a pretty cool feeling.
There are also a handful of friends and family members who have peppermills and salad bowls in their kitchen, that they use every day, that I made on my lathe.
I'm a big fan of making stuff with your own hands. (I even took today off from work so that I could sharpen some of my bowl gouges and work on some projects in the shop).
I recommend that folks give it a shot.
(And now, the obligatory plug - although I swear that I didn't plan it when I started this post! - if you're thinking of picking up a craft and don't know where to start, check out my startup http://smartflix.com )
Last night, I disagreed with this, but wasn't sure why, so I didn't post.
One reason I prefer manufactured things to handmade things is that the manufactured ones seem "right" in a way that the handmade ones never really do. When I make something by hand, it's never really done, because I can always see imperfections and problems. When something is made by machine, even the imperfections and problems seem like part of it, rather than mistakes, because the machine (ideally) does the same thing every time. It appeals to my sense of completion.
Another reason to prefer manufactured things to handmade (or custom) things is precisely that there's less information associated. It's more relaxing -- less cluttered, in the same sense as the Stuff essay ( http://www.paulgraham.com/stuff.html ).
I agree, and while I think part of it is the organic nature of the subject, I also think some of that feeling comes from that fantastic quality of the photography. It just looks like a fairytale.
I think you make an important point. It looks great but obviously the guy who built it had an eye for visual design and put a lot of effort into finding the exact right location. Duplicating his setup would be next to impossible.
Conceptually though you could take any old patch of land and build a log cabin with the same functionality and general feel of nature (first one that came up on google: http://www.lincolnlogs.com/askabe.html)
When looking at the design I immediately thought of a Yurt. I guess primarily due to the roof structure. In this case, he just built it into the ground.
There are actually several companies building modern yurts. It's one of those fleeting thoughts of escapism I often have that is about buying some land and putting a yurt on it.
There is more to it than being information-rich or information-poor. A pile of junk is information-rich, but it's not beautiful. It comes down to style and taste.
The house looks organic. Like it has been grown instead of built. Gaudi's buildings have the same style. I think there is a lot of appeal in the organic style, it's a pity it's so rare.
The computational properties of style are explored in Douglas Hofstadter's book "Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies" (I recommend it to any hacker interested in aesthetics or cognitive science, but it is not an easy read):
Interestingly, computers can eventually make an assembly line produce unique stylish (organic or otherwise) things. Fractal images are, after all, beautiful, even being totally regular. Certain amount of randomness can do wonders.
Of course computers are similarly supposed to enable mass customization for physical things which is probably more important economically, and it hasn't happened yet.
I don't think it's the amount of information that we crave. Traditional japanese living spaces would compress well, yet they look like personal, interesting places to inhabit. Conversely, a messy manufactured home is information rich, but I don't think it would quench your 'thirst' in the same way.
I think it's meaning we crave, and if we can get it with a better signal to noise ratio, that's more peace of mind for us.
That said, the 'noise' in the shape and texture of natural materials compresses away as generic texture. I think we have evolved to interpret that effortlessly in hardware. The noise of a waterfall can give us peace while the noise of traffic usually has the opposite effect.
More interestingly, we can selectively turn off this mechanism to appreciate natural shapes and textures in their full depth. A tree can be very information rich if we direct our attention to it, while at the same time it's easy to filter it out as 'ok, tree here' without further anxiety. A landscape typically has a lot of information in it, but if we can find a pattern that summarizes its overall shape, its beauty just hits us as something really simple, without need for intense attention or effort in interpretation.
I wouldn't disagree that merely increasing information content is not enough. Adding noise would do that. But I think a lot of the reason traditional Japanese houses feel comforting is that they do not, in fact, compress well. Close up, they're not simple: in the textures of the natural materials, the details of the handmade joints, etc.
There seems to be some sort of difference though. A manufactured version of traditional Japanese houses would feel a lot closer to the handmade then a manufactured version of this hobbit house.
Christopher Alexander (the original design pattern guy) has a somewhat similar view. Except that he took four books to say it. The books are quite beautiful though.
That's insane (in the cool sense). It seems like you can basically build the house and if no one complains, no one will ever bother you. if someone does complain, you file for the permit as a "Retrospective Application", and it may still be approved.
I live just outside of DC and did most of the building on our house. Every time I stuck a shovel in the ground there was some (often extremely clueless) "official" tittering over my shoulder about what fees and approvals I had to have in advance of applying for any permissions I might need to secure the professional opinion of some registered somethin-or-other that might pertain to something I might think of building. Its a severe understatement to say that this sort of thing is comically impossible where I live.
Something tells me that policies more like these would go a very long way toward encouraging greener housing in this country.
Something tells me that policies more like these would go a very long way toward encouraging greener housing in this country
Yes, but that would also result in people being able to build houses for $5,000 (plus one man-year of inexpert labor, granted), and there are a lot of people who would be discomfited by that, so I don't expect those policies to go anywhere.
Yeah yeah, I know, I know, it has everything to do with public safety and nothing to do with the fact that everything touching housing, from designing to building to selling, is controlled by guilds. (Guilds which could be replaced pretty much wholesale by recent immigrants or other dirt-cheap non-expert labor. After all, if a non-expert can snap together freaking Bag End in the English countryside, how much guild-approved expertise do you really need?)
Yes; I'm sure if he were doing it in Camden or Shoreditch or Clapham (right on the outskirts of the capital), he would have gotten a lot of grief for it. Imagine, however, making this in West Virginia; that's tantamount to Wales, in comparison.
I wish people could enjoy and appreciate a house like this or a self sufficient hobby farm, or a "down-shifting" lifestyle without it being part of some greater anti-industrial ideology.
Why does eating locally need to be justified in terms of food miles or global warming?
Why does the author here who has obviously taken on a very enjoyable & fulfilling project creating something beautiful, need to take a poke at manufactured housing as some sort of evil (which makes housing more affordable for other people). Why can't it just be that he doesn't like manufactured housing.
You ask an odd question, paraphrased: "Why can't he be some of the things he is, while not being others?" Part of the reason he's done it is because he has these views. You can't ask him to separate them out. And I can understand it, because I share some of his views. If anything, it's admirable that he's walking the walk as well as talking the talk.
Some people do enjoy living 'off the grid' (so to speak) and aren't as radical as this guy. They just less likely to set up web sites about what they've done, as they've no motivation to promote their message (if they even have one).
I'd prefer to stay away of calling him radical. Both building & living in that house seems pleasant to me and to many of the commentators here.
As I suppose is implied above, I challenge the notion that in this case (and many others), ideas about ecologically sustainability really do logically imply that people should build their own houses, live off the grid, eat locally grown foods, make their own yoghurt etc.
I think That the case is mixed (at best). I think that this is all besides the point anyway. I think that many people enjoy building their own houses, live off the grid, eat locally grown foods & make their own yoghurt. However, they seem to want these things to be moral imperatives, not just preferences.
Superficially, it's similar to people that like to photograph unusual doors or meet descendants of historical characters. It gives them a framework to travel & meet people. I have no issues with that.
But this case is problematic because it's political. it implies there are benefits to this far beyond the personal enjoyment of the individual.
I think the house is beautiful. I appreciate that he is an ethical consumer with regards to his chosen building materials. But I reject the case that manufactured housing is bad.
However, they seem to want these things to be moral imperatives, not just preferences.
I think that sentence summarizes well the point you want to make. I'm sure there are people who do have a preference to live this way without any eco-political agendas. I think I might be one of them. The thought of being able to live independently from society (in terms of sustainability and self-sufficiency) is intriguing to me, just because it means that I am relatively protected from external forces which I have little control over.
What's the difference between a moral imperative and an extremely strong preference, I wonder? For example, I like peanut butter a lot, and I think torture is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. The first is a preference; the second is a moral imperative. If asked to defend either proposition, I can say only, "I am convinced that this is true."
There are, of course, lots of arguments for or against torture or peanut butter, but they aren't moral propositions. For peanut butter, they might be about health; for torture, they might be about what's legal, or what works to stop terrorism.
One difference I notice is that preferences extend just to myself, while moral claims extend beyond me, i.e. I think it's fine if you don't like peanut butter, but what I think is moral I think applies to everyone (modulo my uncertainty about it).
Perhaps that gets at what irks some people about the article-- the builder's implying not just that his way is good, but that your way is bad. (In this case, he makes his case in a pleasant enough tone, but I think it's fair to say that he condemns the modern system of housing and land management.)
That's an interesting line of thought. I also share the opinion that preference, aesthetic or otherwise, is intimately related to ethics.
"There are, of course, lots of arguments for or against torture or peanut butter, but they aren't moral propositions. For peanut butter, they might be about health; for torture, they might be about what's legal, or what works to stop terrorism."
That's quite an assertion. It borders on Nihilism. You imply that there is no different between preference & what we see as morals.
I don't think you're free and clear though. There are all sorts of ways to draw a distinction between the two. From a utilitarian perspective, you could argue that torturing causes pain & is therefore bad. From a rights/liberty perspective, you could argue that it violates some ones rights or liberties. Form the Kantian/Deontological or many other perspectives, you'd see that you would not want torture to be widespread or that it is inherently wrong.
Basically, almost to the extent that morality can be said to exist, torture can be said to be wrong. Peanut butter eating can be said to be right. Hobbit houses are quite clearly in the peanut butter category.
In a more practical sense, you just answer the question about whether you should coerce or encourage others to eat peanut butter, stop torturing or build hobbit houses for any reason other then that they will enjoy it.
I've just been blown away reading this fantasic debate - thank you. I really hear netsp's point. I am the author and It makes me feel like apologising for being so judgemental.
I started out on this road as one of the "people who do have a preference to live this way without any eco-political agendas", at least not that I was consciously aware of. Then I think two main things happened.
1. I was subject to a positive feedback loop that goes roughly
- the more time I spent in nature
- the more I loved and understood it
- the more concern I had for ecological issues
- the more i wanted to live more harmoniously with nature
- the more inclination to workwith and care for the land
- the more time spent in nature
and so on
after some years seems i've inadvertently drifted into a position where i'm questionably become a radical and i definitely do have a concious eco-political agenda
2. I have experienced the resistance to the sort of thing we're doing. It simply goes against the status quo which there are many vested interests in preserving. So I see that whilst the construction industry is causing investment and in turn economic growth it must be preserved and expanded. Where it's business can be made more complex,there are new markets and room for growth. Then I see the industry satisfying the needs of growth and profit before its customers needs for shelter which could actually be achieved more effectively in simpler ways.
So if I sound critical or angry its the part of me that feels like people are being conned into expensive, unhealthy houses without being allowed or even told about the alternatives.
I am critical of conventional modern houses. I am NOT critical of people who live in them. I would like to be sure that they have the choice and that they understand the implications of their choice.
I am critical of modern construction techniques and of modern agriculture because they are not sustainable ie. they cannot continue to work in this way - this is a practical problem for us all regardless of whether or not it is a moral one. Finding systems to provide food and shelter for the long term are important problems that will require good design and judgement. I hope that in trying to practice and share good judgement of these systems I don't come across as judgemental of the people who use them.
I hope I haven't come across as critical at your expense. I was very intrigued by your project and I read the site more or less cover to cover. The house is very beautiful. I also agree with much of what you say (and the things you didn't say) about zoning restrictions being used in a way which is harmful. I do not think there is sound economic reasoning compelling governments to artificially inflate housing prices. I think if anything, the opposite is true.
Regarding the discussion here: Most of what I was saying doesn't necessarily apply directly to you but vaguely to that part of the "sustainability movement" that I don't have a name for. That is people who have a certain aesthetic (for lack of a better word) preference for home grown foods, locally produced goods, traditional practices and such. A lot of it seems to be reactionary to industrialisation.
Ecological arguments (with climate change being the contemporary variety) become a vehicle for making this preference part of something bigger. Often the arguments themselves are very silly. 'Food miles', are a perfect example. That is, the ecological effect is zero, harmful or negligible relative to the level of advocacy. At other times they are not silly in this way. That is, the proposed action or lifestyle may be actually ecologically beneficial. I'd like to note that I am inclined to think this project falls into this latter category. However, I am also inclined to think that it is not a scalable solution and is therefore unlikely to be part of a wide solution to the ecological problems it averts. Regardless, the logic is still backwards.
The ecological arguments are not the starting point with houses such as these the logical solution. I think that if mass produced housing or increased scale agriculture turned out to be solutions to the same ecological problems, they would not have the same advocates. The house (or a hobby farm or local produce), is a preconceived end searching for a grand Raison d'Etre. This sort of flawed logic opens doors for the type of illogic you can see in food miles. More harmfully, it opens the doors to bad government decisions or outright exploitation such as the (now dead, I hope) US plan for ethonol production.
The other reason this rubs me the wrong way is precisely because it is beautiful. Just like garden markets & hobby farms, I like this house. I would be very proud of it if it were mine. I am frustrated that those that share my preference feel they need more of a justification then this.
In any case, the overwhelming response here is positive. Even the criticism is not really a criticism of you or the project, but of a general phenomenon.
I may be near Wales in about a year. If I am, I think I'll be tempted to drive by for a peak.
William Gibson gives an interesting perspective on this sort of world view in the documentary "No Maps For These Territories":
"I think what I'm most aware of is the extent to which people are unaware of the extent to which they've been penetrated and co-opted by their technology. I mean, I take it for granted that I've been, but I think a lot of people today have this sort of Rousseau-esque idea that it's possible for humans to return to the natural state.
But in fact I think that it's not, and if it were, they really wouldn't like it.
I mean, I'm immune to a number of really terrible diseases, because I was inoculated against them as a child - that's technology.
I'm a male human in my 50's and I still have most of my teeth - that's technology.
I'm myopic, to the point of near blindness, and yet I can see - that's technology.
It's too close to us to be very aware of it, if we could be stripped of it - which we can't be, because it's actually altered our physical being, we'd be pretty unhappy; and we'd start dying big time!"
I think it's pretty cool that he had a go at this, but how does he know that it's actually structurally sound?
I'm not sure how things are in Wales, but here in Missouri, you have to be concerned about things like high winds, earthquakes, etc, not to mention how your house fares if a fire starts. I'm guessing hay bale insulation isn't too fire retardant.
Most houses around here are built to stock plans, and the loads on the floors/roof have been calculated by a professional. I'd be a bit weary of hanging out in that place in storm. (Note: I know nothing of likelihood of thunderstorms in Wales. People built houses like this for hundreds of years in England so it's not that harebrained).
One of my friends built a large community of affordable straw-bale housing in Afghanistan. The officials thought it was a joke, so came over and shot their machine guns into one of the buildings. The bullets didn't penetrate the walls, so they were impressed and gave them the thumbs up to go ahead.
A pile of phone books makes a great backstop for bullets when loading and unloading firearms. I imagine that the straw-bale works under the same principle. Neat stuff.
High winds aren't such a problem, it's built into the ground which will help negate a lot. The soil cladding is going to help a lot; I'm used to the high winds we get in England (I'm sure they're comparable) and I'm used to the tiles being ripped off the roof, so from that perspective it could well be better than traditional building in the UK.
Earthquakes aren't too much of a concern in the UK, however being in the ground can help with this. Also the major damage in earthquakes is to rigid structures (primarily concrete, then brick) that cannot flex, there's been lots of designs to deal with all these problems, but the simple matter is that the lower a building is to the ground and the more flexible construction material is you're better off. However, you never know until you try.
As for fire retardation it's possibly a lot worse than your average house in the UK, I don't think I've ever been in a non-brick home in the UK. I bet it will possibly be more damaging to the structure, however the bigger concern is that is it more likely to cause a fire? If you're following proper electrical designs then probably not. However, if he used exclusively 12V then I severely doubt he'd ever have a fire through the electrical system, and thats my opinion having worked as an electrician. When my parents bought a 200+ year old house in France, the building had very old school wiring, it was coated like a sock and the house had never had a fire. So with modern materials you're probably safe.
In case a fire actually started; as with a lot someone fell a sleep smoking for instance. Well you'd be surprised huge hunks of wood really hate setting on fire, so I doubt the structural supports would go up before you could get out. Also if the insulation is behind a good coating of plaster, it's fire proof. I've used scrap drywall quite frequently as a backer for a paper incinerator and it usually lasts for about 30 minutes despite very hot flames (paper gets air faster and thus burns hotter). I'd say if you put the amount of plaster you're supposed to when manually rendering a wall, I'd give it an equal time before it started giving away.
All in all, from the experience I've had I'd say it would be reasonably safe. You've also got to consider, living in a city you're more likely to die through other means than you are in the country.
Personally, I'd have misgivings living in it. All my knowledge tells me that a huge oak beam holding up the floor has more structural support than the floor I'm currently sat on. However, it would still creep me out. My biggest concern is, how do you keep track of wood rotting when you don't have access to a large area of the building.
If all exterior walls were constructed of brick, and I'd built the supports (I'd definitely use brick for a lot of the load bearing structure) then I'd definitely sleep in one.
Things that you need to be concerned about in CA, MO, and other places that have hurricanes, tornadoes, and earth quakes: rafter ties and joist ties to keep the roof from flying off and to make the framing a continuous unit. The framing needs to be bolted to the foundation. You dont want the thing to collapse in a 6.5 earthquake. I've had 2 houses that each survived a different one. Compare that with other parts of the world where a 6.5 leaves rubble for miles around.
I would guess that bales of straw plus fireproof facing are more fire retardant than the wooden houses most of us live in.
Part of the answer is in your post: it's been done for hundreds of years. The reason those stock plans have load calculations is because the engineer has to certify safety. In earlier times it was known safe by experience: in this area the roof joists must be "this" thick and there must be "this much" insulation to keep out the cold.
I live out in the country and have been thinking of building a "man cave" into the side of the hill we live on. This is MUCH more extreme than I had in mind, but it's added motivation :-)
It'll have to wait until I finish the clay pizza oven though...
I know this is barely related, but it reminds me of a quote about the Mac vs. PC argument. Paraphrased: Mac's are only more expensive than PCs if you consider the value of your time to be $0.
If done right, it's the same as a normal toilet, but substitute the "flush" for scooping some sawdust down the hole. I've used quite a few, and if you do it right, you can't smell a thing.
I have a lot of experience with the unconventional animals, many of which have much more potent odors than human waste and sawdust does great. Cedar has great absorbency for liquid and odors, it also helps significantly that cedar generally has a really nice smell to it.
I've even composted the waste before and it doesn't change the odor given off by the heap. If you still frequently cut your grass, you're going to be smelling composting plant matter far more than the human element.
Personally, if I had the land available, I wouldn't have a problem with a composting toilet on my property. However, I'd probably stick with a low-water toilet for inside the house.
Indeed. Composting toilets are amazing, especially when compared to 'drop' toilets (which I'd imagine constitute most people's negative 'alternative toilet' experiences).
The main trick they use to avoid the smell is a fan that pulls air down past the seat and then vents it out the top. If it's set up right, you smell nothing but the roses outside (or whatever is nearby). Plus, you get badass compost for free.
The compost started out as food; I don't see why it ought not become food again. By the time it comes out the end of the system, it's seriously just like dirt.
Well, why spend 250.000 on a home built out of wood framing and drywall? You can build it yourself with lumber from Home Depot and some specs. Plumbing and electrical aren't that hard to figure out. And making walls with drywall and insulation isn't that hard either.
If you take a summer off work, you could probably build a decent house on your own for around 20.000 bucks. And that includes one foot apart floor joists (not the 16 inches common today) for stability. You first of course need the lot and somebody to come by to pour the foundation right.
My two cents. However, I can't currently take a summer off.
Thanks for the link. Very interesting. We need more ideas on how to break through this vicious cycle of paying that much for real estate.
Look at the Amish - when an Amish couple marries, or needs an extension on a barn, the whole community gets together and builds a structure within days: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barn_raising
I played music at a wedding for a family that's doing this in rural Louisiana, where land is cheap. (It's the 3rd world.)
They have a barn out back and a pool of 3 1980's Mercedes 240 Diesels, and they do all the work themselves. The house started as a 120 year old wood-sided cabin, and they built additions to it to make it much larger. (The additions look like they're part of the original, though!)
The wedding was a dance. No wedding cake, just 500 of the most delicious cupcakes, baked by the bride, her mom, and the rest of the family. Party favors were home made jam. Lots of food that was grown by them.
It was "Consume the Minimum, Produce the Maximum" all around. Replace money with knowledge, attention, and time.
I came across a place in Taos NM by accident several years ago called the Earthship. It does get you thinking about what could be possible if some of these ideas made it into mainstream housing.
I live near the equator so the walls and the flooring would have to do away if this was built from where I am at. It would be to hot to live in if this was built in Philippines -- it would have to be built above ground and made of bamboo.
I often feel it when I see handmade things. There's something missing in manufactured stuff. It's information poor.