dome demise?

[Dick Fischbeck]

I find this article sad and slightly depressing. Where is the promise? But really I shouldn't put you off. See what you think.

https://nyra.nyc/articles/dome-improvement

[Dx G]

It's an interesting review, but I think the statements, claims and opinions expressed say as much, or more, about the author as the subject matter.  As the saying goes, we don't see things as *they* are, we see things as *we* are.  

I have yet to hear the definitive explanation of why "domes haven't caught on", and notice, he provides none.  However, it has been said that the majority is not always smart, and the majority is not always right, so a lack of popularity does not necessarily imply that something, or someone, is no good. Attitude is also important, like the two shoe salesmen who went to a primitive country to look for new business. The one wired back, nobody wears shoes here, there is no market. The other wired back, no one wears shoes here, the market is unlimited. 

It really takes about zero brains to authoritatively declare the something won't work.  There are too many people who feel they are elevated some how by shooting down the ideas of others.  After all, they might even be right, but as we say in the R&D business, even a broken clock is right twice a day.   The real key is pushing past these people, who I will politely refer to as "mistaken", with a healthy dose of undeniable reality.   I will attach one story to share, which, according to self appointed "experts", violated all the laws of physics. They, were soundly defeated by the mere direction of two flags in the wind where no theoretics were required for convincing observers. This resulted  from amazing dedication, time and effort on the part of the explorers who made it happen.  They set a fine example for those of us who believe in the benefits of domes. (and yes, one of my other preoccupations is alternative transportation and human powered vehicles...)

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120727-the-wind-beneath-my-wheels

Don't let 'em get you down.  Keep the faith.  You must see the invisible to do the impossible.

Dx G

[David Zhang]

i think domes will always be popular.  Especially big ones, like the recently completed Jeddah Superdome.    As for why Fuller's utopian vision failed, i think Bucky had an overly optimistic view of humanity.  He thought automation would reduce the need for work and increase the amount of resources available to the average human, to the point that wars will be obsolete and we'd turn all the weaponry into "livingry".   Instead automation just made it easier for the wealthy to hoard even more wealth, reduce job opportunities, and even make it harder for artists and other creatives to make a living, and make it easier than ever to kill people remotely with AI-controlled drone swarms.  In other words, he had too much faith that technological innovation alone can save humanity, when it's just one piece of the puzzle.  We need sociological innovation, and on that front it's been a mixed bag with the advent of the internet and social media.

[Dx G]

David,

 Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter.  Maybe you could connect the dots.  Most of what you wrote relates to factors regarding Fuller's "overly optimistic" outlook.  However, you begin with "domes will always be popular".  The article in question actually discusses issues related to domes never really taking off (other than, perhaps, the "big" ones).  That is to say, they have not yet achieved a certain level of popularity.   So if one agreed with that assessment, do you have any thoughts about why domes have yet to become more universally adopted?

Dx G

[David Zhang]

ok, so my previous response was based on skimming through the article, and my understanding of Fuller's vision of the future from reading Synergetics and other writings. I just read the whole article.. and god, it is bitter and sad.  Like Buckminster Fuller killed the writer's dog and took a piss on the corpse.   Most of the article is him talking shit.   If I understand correctly, the writer argues that domes aren't more popular because Fuller was an extremely flawed character and his whole vision with domes and everything is too abstract and high concept for most people, and represents some kind of techno-utopian vision that failed to materialize, and if it did, would suck.    I think the real reasons are much simpler: 1) domes are harder to build than post-and-beam structures, as far as the math and engineering is concerned. 2) there are no standard components, like drywall and 2x4's. 3) the supply-chain / product ecosystem for building domes is much more limited than for other types of construction.   I see a lot of domes at festivals and such, I remember playing on them in playgrounds, really anywhere you're trying enclose a big space.  These are use cases where geodesic dome outperform other structures.   When it comes to building a dome home, domes do not fare as well due to the reasons I listed.

[Dx G]

I'd say those are three definite items to work with.  Let me share a few thoughts. I would be interested in what you and others think.

1) Domes "harder to build".
Let's think back a bit.  For a long time, a lot of people have had plane geometry/trig in school. That education may have included some spherical geometry and polar coordinates, but rather little of that would support construction of polyhedra other than some important fundamentals.  
  However, people in engineering do learn to work with the 3D world. Even carpenters have to learn about compound angles to build a hip roof. They even learn to use a speed square for layout and cutting angles. Its inexpensive, available everywhere, durable, has no moving parts, no electronics and no software.
  So, I'm wondering, how much of "harder" relates to how people are educated and what they are used to...and not.   Then considering, what would it take to improve this situation, if doing so would help move things in a better direction.
  One thing that does make things "easier" is the software, spreadsheets, and even dome calculators and youtubes that are available and free on the web. In Fuller's day, it took an outfit like NASA to tackle such things, although now much of what anyone would need is widely available. This would make something that was more than hard, almost impossible, many years ago, much easier now.
 So what makes it "harder", in addition to, perhaps, simple mindset.  That is, taking on something one does not already know how to do.  

2+3) Standard components and supply chain.
 A lot of domes are made out of the same lumber and flat materials, plywood, tubing etc. as rectilinear structures. Even the roofing uses the same materials, although there is a learning curve on installation.  So what is different?
 For one thing, the hub, with its compound angles.  I suppose that is one reason I'm rather preoccupied with a universal connector to reduce or eliminate the hub as a constraint.  Even at that, there are plans and building aids for things like gazebo roofs, which do have similarities.
 So other than the hub, what do you see missing from the standard components ("limited") and supply chain that are additional constraints, making it "harder"?

Perhaps one day, we will be saying that domes took 80 years to be an overnight success...

Dx G

[Chris Belcher]

This article buries the lede:

> Last summer, the _New York Times_ reported that people were increasingly turning to geodesic domes to cope with the extreme weather that comes with climate change. One of them, a retired oil worker, hunkered down in his Louisiana dome home during a hurricane. “People came to my house and apologized to me and said, ‘We made fun of you because of the way your house looks. We should never have done that. This place is still here, when our homes are gone.’”

The rest of the article appears to be the author complaining, much in line with a style of reporting where conservatives bash the 60s and the counterculture in general.

The author is only interested in reporting failures, which is a disservice to the reader interested in the greater context. Others on the list are taking on the issue of why domes aren't more popular. Never having built anything larger than a scale model, I'd like to go into some of those contextual issues.

Kriss complains that in Fuller's view "the entire world needs to be organized like a crew, with architects and engineers—people like him—giving the orders." This sounds terrible. For some time I've thought about creating a list of Fuller's prophecies of the gifts of technological development and automation, alongside a list of what was actually realized.
- Connecting a universal electrical grid? Forget it. The cold war pales in comparison to Texas's barriers to rational planning.
- Universal electronic dissemination of information? Instead we have billionaires crafting algorithms to keep people addicted and misinformed. Wikipedia and YouTube come somewhat close to fulfilling the promise Fuller envisioned.
- Amazon monopolizes the benefits of technological automation to build wealth for one man.

 
The author apparently feels we are much better with Bezos and Musk running things for us. Which brings up a central pillar of Fuller's thinking not even mentioned: the robber pirates, who monopolize technological knowledge for their personal gain. To write such a long article without even mentioning this is deceptive.

My Armenian grandfather was a physics professor who escaped the Turkish massacres at the start of the 20th century. I found a newspaper clipping he had saved which described a plan issued by the US Bureau of Standards for building your own crystal radio set. I think of him marveling at having arrived to a place where there is a Bureau of Standards providing free instructions on how to receive wireless communications through the air while at home the government was consumed with how to massacre its own citizens. Compare also Wright's Organic City with the suburban sprawl that we wound up with and listening to architects and engineers starts to sound more appealing than living in a home with rent jacked up by venture capitalists and working for Jeff Bezos.

The author also complains that Fuller is a mystic. Anyone who has read EJ Applewhite's Cosmic Fishing would likely agree. But so what? The author cites the failures of Kepler to discover any
Neoplatonic order in the cosmos - which seems particularly inappropriate given Kepler's unrivaled list of discoveries which include the harmonics of planetary motion: https://keplersdiscovery.com/harmonicesMundi.html

Kriss complains about Synergetics: _
>Synergetics_ also explains that “numerologically, 59865279171 = 6” and “four produces a plus fourness,” while “five produces a minus fourness.” The whole book is like this. None of this is mathematics. None of it makes sense.

Well, the first statement quoted is perfectly true and easily calculated. While it can be hard to understand Fuller's qualitative use of numbers, Kriss completely fails to even mention the central idea of Synergetics, the one which underpins Fuller's critique of the use of pi: tetrahedral mensuration, which when used yields whole numbers to measures that are irrational in Cartesian geometry. How useful this is remains an open question, but it is a fact and Fuller's geometric hierarchy going down through the Platonic solids to A and B quanta modules is demonstrable.  Kriss's statement that "The real world is not a vector equilibrium" suggests that he has not bothered to try to understand anything that Fuller was trying to say.

I live in Vermont, a land of citizen legislators. Wikipedia and open source programming have been built by citizen engineers and coders, and are providing technological alternatives to vertically integrated predatory commercial software. Domes, many self-built, are proving reliable in the era of climate change (though in the case of Florida, it would also help to have building codes requiring builders to actually attach the roof). I look forward to where all of this takes us.

Thank you to Dick Fischbeck for sharing this.

-Chris

On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 8:47 PM Dick Fischbeck <dick.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I find this article sad and slightly depressing. Where is the promise? But really I shouldn't put you off. See what you think.

https://nyra.nyc/articles/dome-improvement

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Geodesic Help" Google Group
--
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GeodesicHelp...@googlegroups.com
--
To post to this group, send email to geodes...@googlegroups.com
--
For more options, visit http://groups.google.com/group/geodesichelp?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Geodesic Help Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geodesichelp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geodesichelp/CAG0f9gTQkjpeJPxeotkZOvQDjip%2B3Ej4AgiUfRTkHaARLZ%3DCSA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dx G]

I see we can already add to the list David started.  All subject to discussion, of course.

So why haven't domes "caught on".

1) domes are harder to build than post-and-beam structures, as far as the math and engineering is concerned. 

2) there are no standard components, like drywall and 2x4's. 

3) the supply-chain / product ecosystem for building domes is much more limited than for other types of construction.

To add:

4) Building codes - not even necessarily *requiring* shell structures, but at least having code that allows them so that inspectors and municipalities won't reject without any consideration.  That way even an uniformed, stubborn or uncooperative building inspector cannot unilaterally deny the building permits without oversight or appeal, and will see they have no basis to do so in the code.

5) Tax and other incentives, or lack thereof

6) Insurance companies - even if they won't provide incentives, discounts or bonuses for building a more resilient structure, at least cover them.  Consider how many insurance companies are "pulling out" of areas becoming more prone to disasters, and might just be willing to cover those who build structures that can withstand the hazards.  As an example, consider, if you will, the one building that was still standing after the disastrous fire in Hawaii. 

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/24/1195331310/red-roof-house-fires-lahaina-hawaii

There are similar photos of domes sitting amongst all the surrounding destruction.   After all, insurance companies are in it to make money, and might bet on a thoroughbred where they wouldn't bet on a donkey.

Dx G

[Eric Marceau]

I will contribute by inviting you to view my "opinion piece" at the following URL:

• Geodesic Domes: Time to "level-up" this construction industry sector ?

Eric

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geodesichelp/0aef5862-9c9a-4890-8fae-c0c35a4ac268n%40googlegroups.com.

[Dx G]

Eric,

 Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  Insofar as an organization, I think it would be useful to have a good background on organizations that have already come and gone. In addition, a knowledge of current organizations, as to whether domes are on their radar screen, if not, why not, or in fact if they have already declined or refused domes, why.  

Past - seem to have disappeared

National Association of Dome Manufacturers 2506 Gross Point Road Evanston, IL 60201

National Dome Council 15th & "M" Streets, NW Washington, DC 20005 202-822-0576

National Dome Council  Updated: May 1999  1201 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005             800-368-5242, ext. 576

http://www.buildingsystems.org/btgdp.html

National Association of Dome Home Manufacturers  2506 Gross Point Road  Evanston, Illinois 60201

Current - Here are a few, likely there are more

https://www.nahb.org/search#q=dome&t=coveo79b6ec88&sort=relevancy

 National Assoc Home Builders; Panelized building systems

https://www.modularhome.org/  Modular Home Builders Assoc

http://www.nmhoa.org/   Nat. Manufactured Home Owners Assoc.

   Perhaps representing people who live in or own mobile homes?

https://tinyhomeindustryassociation.org/

   ICC/THIA Standard 1215 to cover Tiny Houses for Permanent Occupancy, whether on a foundation or on wheels

After all, as they say, those who fail to learn from history will likely repeat the mistakes of the past.  I for one would be quite interested in learning about the Dome organizations of the 1990's, or others.

Dx G

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Geodesic Help Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geodesichelp/qNLpYFQ9lsg/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to geodesichelp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geodesichelp/6127ece2-6864-41d2-8d0f-ff8c5a00ae16%40gmail.com.

[Dick Fischbeck]

I asked Alec about the article. Here is what he said:

Thanks, Dick—I saw that one!

My first thought was:

"Wow, this guy really hates me!"

But it's honestly rather flattering.  

In other news, my new book is coming out on June 10, 2025. I hope you'll find this one interesting, too: 

https://www.amazon.com/Collisions-Physicists-Journey-Hiroshima-Dinosaurs/dp/1324075104

On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 8:47 PM Dick Fischbeck <dick.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Chris Cioffi]

It's a multifaceted problem, but if we wanted to point our finger at one reason it's very easy to say "Banks".

The majority of new single-family homes in the U.S. are built through partnerships between builders and banks. The banks have most of the control here and are focused on maximizing profit and minimizing risk. So, they prioritize standardized designs that are cost-effective and widely appealing for resale.

Dome homes are not yet widely appealing which means they will likely sell for less money. That might hurt to hear, but why would banks and builders risk investment in a "new" type of home if it's likely going to sell for less money? Builders also have an initial learning curve cost.

Buyers requesting financing for a "dome home" from banks will likely be rejected due to lack of comps (comparable sales); reducing demand even further. Instead, buyers should request financing for a "custom home," but most will not know to take this approach without guidance. Many interested in building their own dome home may be turned away due to the banks and insurance companies lack of dome comps.

So, there's a bit of a chicken and egg problem with the banks for us to break through.

Successfully built dome homes are typically created by individuals who are passionate about the concept and either build the home themselves or hire a builder, often with support from a dome company. These homeowners are deeply committed to the idea of living in a dome and are driven to navigate challenges like financing or insurance. Because they’ve invested considerable time, effort, and resources into their dream dome home they are unlikely to sell it during their lifetime, further reducing available comps.

We could easily point our finger in the other direction and say it's due to lack of demand from the average home buyer. I think it's easier to blame banks because builders would be more likely to try them if buyers could easily get financing.

[Dx G]

Chris,

 Good point, certainly needs to be on the list, so I'll add it here:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see we can already add to the list David started.  All subject to discussion, of course.

So why haven't domes "caught on".

1) domes are harder to build than post-and-beam structures, as far as the math and engineering is concerned. 

2) there are no standard components, like drywall and 2x4's. 

3) the supply-chain / product ecosystem for building domes is much more limited than for other types of construction.

  (See discussion on these)

To add:

4) Building codes - not even necessarily *requiring* shell structures, but at least having code that allows them so that inspectors and municipalities won't reject without any consideration.  That way even an uniformed, stubborn or uncooperative building inspector cannot unilaterally deny the building permits without oversight or appeal, and will see they have no basis to do so in the code, i.e. inspectors are handcuffed to codes that allow domes.

5) Tax and other incentives, or lack thereof

6) Insurance companies - even if they won't provide incentives, discounts or bonuses for building a more resilient structure, at least cover them.  Consider how many insurance companies are "pulling out" of areas becoming more prone to disasters, and might just be willing to cover those who build structures that can withstand the hazards.  As an example, consider, if you will, the one building that was still standing after the disastrous fire in Hawaii. 

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/24/1195331310/red-roof-house-fires-lahaina-hawaii

There are similar photos of domes sitting amongst all the surrounding destruction.   After all, insurance companies are in it to make money, and might bet on a thoroughbred where they wouldn't bet on a donkey.

7) Financing - if banks won't loan, people can't build or buy domes.  Banks won't loan if they can't count on resale value, or their mistaken perception due to a lack of comps.

8) Lack (?) of dome industry association or industry representation/promotion?   Several in the past no longer in existence?

As we build a list, pays to think about strategies that could address the items listed.

Dx G

[Eric Marceau]

I  apologize.  Somehow, in posting my blog, I accidentally deleted the line that is most critical in all of that:

defined components (usable and complementary set of interchangeable components suited to various normed sizes)

I have now added that to my blog.  :-)

Eric