Shipping container homes, good resources?

That's right, it's all in implementation. Below grade construction has a lot of pitfalls particularly if someone cuts costs in the wrong place. Basements that are poorly constructed are a good example: walls bow and shift, they 'sweat' moisture, drainage becomes a real problem sometimes, etc. Sure, quality leak free below grade construction is possible, see Cheyenne Mountain, the various underground bunkers for ICBMs etc but look at what it costs. Kinda gets out of the average Joe's price range.

The Quonset's arch probably would be strong enough if the bottom 'legs' were tied together to keep them from sliding outwards as weight was added. That means the slab or whatever would need to be very carefully designed, probably a prestress concrete slab with the rebar placed so that the ends of the arch could be firmly attached directly to that rebar. Plus, the fill dirt weight would need to be added evenly.

Wouldn't the fact that the bottom of the legs would be covered in dirt as well work to keep the arch from spreading? You might need a deeper depth on the sides than the top to make that a possibility.

It's possible to make mistakes in anything. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that proper implementation is a given regardless of design.

With proper implementation, cover away. Always remember: de debbil's in de details.

I'm starting to get like billy3esq as I get older, gotta have a disclaimer for everything.

Jensenman wrote: I'm starting to get like billy3esq as I get older, gotta have a disclaimer for everything.

[Heavy, mechanical breathing]

Give in to your feelings. Join me on the dark side.

[Heavy, mechanical breathing]

NEVARRR!!!! And you are NOT my father!!!!! (swings light saber)

I see a Hobbit hole in my future, I've wanted one forever, and all the work is sweat and blood and tears . I've seen this and love it.

http://www.simondale.net/house/

im looking at these, and trying to find a way to make it happen...

http://www.topsider.com/houseplans.asp

seems the perfect solution, especially in the hurricane/flood zone, so ive been looking for a cheap piece of raw land, or bulldozer required old house on a deepwater canal or tributary in the area. pipe dreams at the moment, but you never know... im trying to arrange a trip this summer and stop in at the factory and take a tour, and get a better idea of pricing.

I didn't see anyone post this company : http://www.rocioromero.com/ They have very cool modern prefab homes. I think they start at 40k.

wherethefmi wrote: I see a Hobbit hole in my future, I've wanted one forever, and all the work is sweat and blood and tears . I've seen this and love it. http://www.simondale.net/house/

great, now the g/f wants a hobbit home... thanks, .. do you have any idea what living in that could mean for a short guy??? ugh...

What that you'd live in possibly the coolest house in the world.

wherethefmi wrote: What that you'd live in possibly the coolest house in the world.

yeah very cool...except for the "compost toilet"...now Im not sure I know what that is, but Im pretty sure I know I dont want one.

Very cool though, and I bet it would cheap as E36 M3!!!

4cylndrfury wrote:

wherethefmi wrote: What that you'd live in possibly the coolest house in the world.

yeah very cool...except for the "compost toilet"...now Im not sure I know what that is, but Im pretty sure I know I dont want one. Very cool though, and I bet it would cheap as E36 M3!!!

Heck, if im building a house in a hill my toilet may be a pipe out the back. Hikers beware!

4cylndrfury wrote:

wherethefmi wrote: What that you'd live in possibly the coolest house in the world.

yeah very cool...except for the "compost toilet"...now Im not sure I know what that is, but Im pretty sure I know I dont want one. Very cool though, and I bet it would cheap as E36 M3!!!

Composting toilets aren't bad. Just different. I've had one for an extended period.

I like the Hobbit house!

Looks like the Hobbit guy is facing a few issues like I described:

We have been working for three years to try and get permission for a precident-setting settlement of nine low-impact smallholdings where families can live and work their land for a simple livelihood.

OK, so I've pretty much read the Hobbit guy's entire website- because I really love the architecture and would love to live in something like that.

Couple of observations:

1- Engineering. "... Lift logs, prop up, nail together and continue until no longer wobbly..." This appears to be the sum total of his engineering and technical advice. I could imagine this concerning some people. Is "no longer wobbly" a sufficient standard to protect against the snow load this house will be subjected to? Sod roofs are REALLY heavy. Just a thought.

2- Technique/ experience. ""... I am not a builder or carpenter, my experience is only having a go at one similar house 2yrs before....". Makes me kinda wonder what happened to the previous effort.

3- Termites. Britain is approximately 50* N latitude. That's comparable to a lot of Canada- perhaps British Columbia. I'm not familiar with the issue in Britain, but termites don't like cold. The amount of ground contact he's got with wood is a recipe for failure in a lot of the US, disaster in the South (like total infestation within 1 year).

4- Plastic sheeting for roofing. Unless I missed something, under the sod he's got plastic sheeting keeping the water out. That won't last too long.

5- Banking/ codes. You're simply not going to get approval for a structure like this in the majority of communities in the US.

Asthetically and environmentally, I'm a big fan. Please don't build like this- needs MUCH better details.

I know there's a house similar to that in the states, it's fully underground let me look. I can't find it it was featured on Planet Green, and was pretty cool.

SVreX wrote: OK, so I've pretty much read the Hobbit guy's entire website- because I really love the architecture and would love to live in something like that. Couple of observations: 1- Engineering. "... Lift logs, prop up, nail together and continue until no longer wobbly..." This appears to be the sum total of his engineering and technical advice. I could imagine this concerning some people. Is "no longer wobbly" a sufficient standard to protect against the snow load this house will be subjected to? Sod roofs are REALLY heavy. Just a thought. 2- Technique/ experience. ""... I am not a builder or carpenter, my experience is only having a go at one similar house 2yrs before....". Makes me kinda wonder what happened to the previous effort. 3- Termites. Britain is approximately 50* N latitude. That's comparable to a lot of Canada- perhaps British Columbia. I'm not familiar with the issue in Britain, but termites don't like cold. The amount of ground contact he's got with wood is a recipe for failure in a lot of the US, disaster in the South (like total infestation within 1 year). 4- Plastic sheeting for roofing. Unless I missed something, under the sod he's got plastic sheeting keeping the water out. That won't last too long. 5- Banking/ codes. You're simply not going to get approval for a structure like this in the majority of communities in the US. Asthetically and environmentally, I'm a big fan. Please don't build like this- needs MUCH better details.

Careful. Can't get TOO far into the implementation- or so I've been told.

There was some guy in Alabama? who built a house inside of a natural cave, it was basically a sizeable cave with a house stuck in it (not a buried home), that always struck me as pretty neat.

924guy wrote: im looking at these, and trying to find a way to make it happen... http://www.topsider.com/houseplans.asp seems the perfect solution, especially in the hurricane/flood zone, so ive been looking for a cheap piece of raw land, or bulldozer required old house on a deepwater canal or tributary in the area. pipe dreams at the moment, but you never know... im trying to arrange a trip this summer and stop in at the factory and take a tour, and get a better idea of pricing.

I like those pedestal houses! I stayed in a small one in Hilton Head, SC several years ago, thought it was pretty cool.

You can't discount the concept because of a poor implementation, that was my point :)

Snow load in the UK would be pretty much nil, by the way. The writeup could be a bit tongue in cheek.

There's a house here that's built into a cliff. Absolutely gorgeous from the outside, and apparently pretty nice on the inside as well. Of course, there's a precedent in the area...

Concept- do you mean the concept of using a lot of found materials, or the concept of building something that looks like a Hobbit house? One is an asthetic concept, one is a functional and practical one.

The implementation could have been improved, but even if I ignore it, my point was that the concept of building a house with found materials and without professional structural consideration (or at least good practices) naturally lends itself to poor implementation.

Frank Lloyd Wright said:

Form follows function

Is there really minimal snow in the UK? Seems pretty far north. Doesn't matter- sod roof is one of the heaviest options, with or without snow.

I was responding to Jensenman. I mentioned a concept, he pointed out all the ways it could be implemented badly without an actual example as a basis, merely a list of potential pitfalls. But that doesn't take away from the concept.

In this case, we're looking at a particular implementation. So it's reasonable to critique the implementation, as long as we separate that from potential problems that are inherent in the concept.

Yeah, the UK is fairly far north. Or at least, parts of it are. But weather patterns are different and it's a temperate climate. I think North America is colder because there's no (unfrozen) ocean between us and the pole. Whatever the reason, the UK just doesn't get snow.

Hmmm...Interesting.

Yeah god leave my hobbit hole alone

This is going to sound like a crazy conspiracy but...

There will be opposition to using found materials, building it yourself and ideas like the "hobbit hole" above because the government isn't collecting tax on any of that.

Sure, non-compliance is one issue but cheat the government out of their share and the get downright pissy.

I know a guy that uses those "electronic cigarettes" Same addiction to nicotine but no tar and cyanide and all that crap.

Canadian gov't is choked because they haven't figured out how to tax it yet. Nevermind that it's healthier than a real smoke (although probably still unhealthy) but the tax people are freaking out because they don't get their cut.

Don't believe me, try not filing your tax return.

Shawn

Non-compliance and tax collection are THE SAME THING.

That is to say that building codes do not exist for the purpose of public safety and maintaining property values. They exist for the purpose of collecting permit fees, impact fees, and putting the property on the radar of the tax assessor for tax collection purposes.

Perfect example: An inspector will come to the job before the final certificate of occupancy is issued. In most communities, this inspector will bring a tape measure and measure the house. He is making sure of the square footage of the house for tax collection purposes, and he will report them to the assessor. The problem is, they all measure wrong, and it's ALWAYS in their favor.

The standard architectural method for measuring the square footage of a structure is to the outside of the structure, not including the exterior finish. So a 2000 SF house is still a 2000 SF house regardless of whether you put siding or brick on it. But, according to the way inspectors measure, a 40x50 house is not 2000 SF. If it has siding it is 2015 SF. If it has brick it has 2076 SF.

An extra 76 SF might not sound like much, but if your assessor is assessing at $100 per foot, it adds $7600 to your appraised value. If there are 100 brick houses in your neighborhood, measuring like this adds $760,000 appraised value to one small neighborhood.

So, TM, you're right. Taxation has a lot to do with it. No conspiracy theory necessary.