Hacker News Reader

Comment by flatline | Hacker News Reader

Good luck trying to get permits to build anything the slightest bit unconventional in any populated area. I looked at building a geodesic dome, and was going to end up in the boonies and likely still paying off the inspector to pull permits. You could get it done in town and it would have to be over-built, completely ruining the whole efficiency angle of the dome to begin with, and taking months or years to work through the process.

View on HN

Yeah basically this. Trying to build an eco-structure or even a mostly earthen home in the US you are basically relegated to a sparsely populated counties or taking your chances squatting on Federal land.

This was quite eye-opening to me once I had to actually attempt to find some land to build on.

For good reason - most of these things don't have good engineering behind them. Standard stick frame construction has good insulation values (dirt/clay/mud/cement does not), holds up to weather, earthquakes, and has reasonable fire protection (it burns but in known amounts). This is all backed up by a lot of engineering data that doesn't exist for most alternatives, they might be better, but nobody has actually run all the angles to be sure.

I don't disagree with you actually. I believe that building codes generally keep us safer and create a better standard of house. Most people don't want to become test subjects for an experimental technology.

My point is just that the current building codes necessitate experimenting away from more developed areas in order to innovate and that this should not be held against examples of construction innovation.

After having had to search for land I would say that I feel that building codes are perhaps not overly restrictive, but too ubiquitous. Most experimentation and innovation can only happen on small patches of remote scrubland with poor soil, deep ground water, and limited access to the internet.

It would be nice if some of these projects could take place 15 minutes out of a mid-sized town rather than 40 minutes to an hour. I can see the value in enforcement within a city's limits, but we could get faster building innovation if counties and states were laxer with building codes on their unincorporated land.

> Trying to build an eco-structure

This doesn't even qualify as "eco-structure". R-value is pretty terrible.

Have you tried? I'm pretty sure if you get it engineered w/structural calcuations and it passes residential building code, I see no reason why they'd reject it.

Dammit. I just started looking into building a dome house.

Did you call it off completely?

Yes. I talked to a builder, he thought he was going to have to do R22 insulation across the entire thing because it’s not clear whether it is a wall or ceiling. Ridiculous because the engineering for domes has been around for 70 years. Most lenders won’t help you. Appraisal for resale is problematic.

I concluded it is best done as a DIY project in a location where you know the inspector, or know he won’t care, with cash. Here are some of the stories I was going from:

http://www.domehome.com/scrapbook.html

I think the lender thing makes sense. Lenders are all about risk mitigation, and unfortunately at this time there are just too many risks around a geodesic dome as a house. Lots of folks think that building a house is a potential approach to finding a place to live, but the reality is that doing so is playing house finding on extra hard mode.

It's hard enough to get a loan to build a house, let alone an unconventional one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com