And thanks for all the nice comments!

Michael Harvey
Architect

I also like the idea of mixing materials.

One fantasy I have is of a monolithic dome (mentioned above) covered with earth forming a hill of sorts with a wooden structure atop it and a structure below ground as well that utilizes steel and concrete and would be sheltered from the elements. Now _that_ would last for centuries! And everybody wants a house on a hill, right?!

the most essential human needs are: air, water, food, and shelter. food and water are the primary needs that we have to spend energy on to produce.
now, with 6 billion people to house we have to consider new urban structure that doesnt eat up open land so much, no more horizontal sprawl.
concrete is an amazing product that allows great structural potential and creativity in form, as well as being a benign surface for interiors.
so…even if we continue to produce it using “old school” methods, and considering how much concrete is used today…
only 7% of the overall carbon output is a very small price to pay for the huge benefits it allows us.
but im confident we can create more localized, decentralized concrete production facilities using thermal solar energy. remember…current large plants using “cheap” fossil fuels are a product of a capitalist economy with no cares for sustainability. we have to turn that mentality around.
i will be presenting a new invention for a socio-economic system that solves many of the current complications we are running into.

thanks again to the designer of this project to show on a small scale once again the greatness of the material
and thanks to this site for the forum and offering us a wide spectrum of new projects to comment on.

we cant think of doing single family homes anymore! especially on nice big lots with views and few neighbors!

but this project shows the greatness of concrete and this design can be applied very nicely to an urban scale.
we have to move to high-rise! dramatic new, creative, community oriented shells, lots of varying spaces. then we get to design each space individually. 3-d lots.
and concrete works great for that! so do the curves of this design.
and you dont have to do any surfacing! just add your own creative elements.
think of all the money, energy spent shopping for paint and all the other products in a framed house, no matter how green they are.

think outside the 2-d box! and think urban design

just as we’ve created new ways to motorize cars that dont pollute, we can find new ways to produce the heat needed to produce concrete. viewing concrete as a permenant polluter is being ….simpleminded?

i love this design. yes, it brings le corbusier to mind. the curves are great.
great work and very inspiring!

On the other hand I have seen concrete structures less than fifty years old failing irrecoverably through neglect – the most common cause being foundation damage resulting from unchecked vegetation. In this regard their rigid monolithic construction is both their strength and their Achilles heel. Too, concrete buildings are notoriously unlovable: the notorious Pruitt-Igoe apartments in St. Louis lasted less than twenty years before they were put out of their misery and spectacularly blown to bits.

If you want really durable and neglect-proof (but probably at the expense of comfort and cost), go for stone. Being non-monolithic it can adjust to moving foundations and endure a degree of neglect that would devastate other materials – the main walls of dwellings built 2,000 years ago are clearly visible at Chysauster in Cornwall, for example. And unlike concrete, the pieces can easily be repurposed (not just downcycled) to form new structures.

but then again, concrete is very durable and can withstand time, but do we really want a prefab home that will last hundred of years? I love concrete, the feel, colours, texture.. I just love it but I don’t really agree with the ‘point’ of this particular house. Though, yes, I did get inspired by some of the concepts though, I might try experimenting them on my next chance.

I will grant that many buildings in urban environments are continually re-tasked and re-purposed over and over again for decades (and centuries), but I guess my point is more whether that is truly the case for single-family dwellings as the Concrete House is showcased to be? Yes, many buildings are repurposed… but are residences, typically? I just don’t want to assume that because a building has a structural lifetime measured in centuries that it will remain standing that long, hence my call to use a much shorter-term ROI.

and to Mr Netherton, who i assume is american where u may consider a “age-old” building to be 50 years old, there are many. many, many examples throughout the world which have stood for more than a century.

i’ve not read into the facts and figure’s but at a guess i would sooner use quality building materials than inferior materials and construction techniques if it mean the building would last twice as long. obviously the nature of the site would be taken into consideration.

most of the brownstones in brooklyn are more than a century old.

Just because modern building practice revolves around a sense of short useful lives doesn’t make it an inescapable reality…

Should we perform ROI’s on DaVinci’s works, or any of the other structures that have lasted beyond centuries…

My only point is that we should acknowledge that the dominant paradigm today in many ways is disposability…and that it need not drive our decisions.