I got an email the other day from someone asking if the dome house was still a good option to consider for building a space and energy efficient home (as they were advertised to be in some older books).
Here is my response (feel free to add your own to this thread):
Domes are a very efficient structure (at least intellectually) coming close to the initial inspiration of Bucky Fuller (http://www.amazon.com/Guinea-Pig-56-Year-Experiment/dp/097406050X/ref=pd_sim_dbs_b_4/102-7381022-4304950?ie=UTF8)'s idea of a structure with the least surface area to enclose a given volume - which would be the sphere or soap bubble.
Bringing that concept of material efficiency into reality has been a sobering journey for many inspired and hard-working architects and builders. Some of these folks devoted many of their years between 1968 & 1985 in this pursuit. A lot of businesses were started and a lot of money was lost. For all this effort, Bucky really spawned little more than an architectural dead end. He was a great thinker, philosopher and an early environmentalist, but the geodesic dome and the Dymaxion house were failed experiments in terms of practical housing solutions.
No one I know is on this track anymore. Lloyd Kahn was up visiting me this summer and we had a few yuks about those days. Lloyd is a publisher (Shelter publications (http://www.shelterpub.com/)) and did the first Dome (and Zome) books (click for dome photos (http://archilibre.org/ENG/revolution_en.html)) - his old book "Shelter (http://www.amazon.com/Shelter-Bob-Easton/dp/0936070110/sr=1-1/qid=1158032064/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7381022-4304950?ie=UTF8&s=books)" has lots of information about those experiments. His latest book "Home Work (http://www.amazon.com/Home-Work-Handbuilt-Lloyd-Kahn/dp/0936070331)" is a far better read for practical yet elegant handbuilt shelter. He has learned and mellowed over the years.
Domes have the following problems (attempts to correct these flaws can be seen in many owner built and dome manufactured houses still standing).
• The roofs leak when joints open up - and there are LOTS of joints and it's virtually ALL roof.
• The triangular shapes are difficult to build and waste modern materials that are in rectangular panels and sticks.
• To meet modern energy codes you would have to spray the inside with foam and then what would you put up for an interior finish? (Energy codes, surprisingly, did domes in as much as anything.)
• Although there is lots of volume in a dome, actual usable headroom type living space is far less. Much of the interior space is wasted when you put humans inside and they try to live there. Dome manufacturers would populate the shell with dormers to get room for doors and real windows - this, of course, was a structural complexity and added more weatherproofing problems.
[highlight]
Bottom line?[/highlight] - Compared to much simpler alternatives domes are difficult to build, energy-inefficient, space-inefficient, high maintenance structures.
Perhaps I'm being too harsh? :o Many folks really enjoy the ambience, of course, and when properly designed and built they can be light filled, powerful spaces. A dome breaks out of the rectilinear limits of conventional construction.
(http://archilibre.org/revolution/z12/zome12.jpg)
It would be interesting to explore more practical ways to approach such a feeling. I think Glenn (http://www.countryplans.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1107141843) has captured some of that in his light filled underground house.
There was a motel with one dome near our other home that had most of the above mentioned problems as I recall hearing.
I looked at domes at one time as an inexpensive alternative form of building. Using short framing members to create triangles seemed like it could be done from material destined for the landfill. However sheeting, drywall, etc. seems like it could waste a lot of material. And if you are building in a remote area a lot of prefabbing could be done and assembly could be a quicker project that on site construction. I never got excited enough about it to do anything with these ideas. My taste runs more to rustic than contemporary and a dome is anything but rustic in appearance. I would be happier in Daniel Boone's cabin.
Anyone who likes "natural" shapes is attracted by domes and other more freeform architecture. I looked at some back in their day, and was really struck with the space problems inside. The only way to get enough useable space is to build something way too big and tall.
I do remember something interesting from the first Whole Earth Catalog. If I can dig it up, I'll post a photo. It was windows shaped like crystals! With aquarium cement, you wonder how long this would hold up. They were magical.
I think the best evidence for not building a dome is Bucky's own home in Carbondale, IL. I went to college there and lived a few blocks from it. It was in bad shape then but it looks like a foundation is trying to save it now. You can see the pictures of the water damage at:
http://www.buckysdome.org/photos/index.html
There are all kinds of domes in and around Carbondale. The best "dome" I've seen is a outdoor picnic shelter on the lake in the middle of the campus. It is framed in steel and the top 1/2 is capped in fiberglass. No leaks there.
btw, If you ever get a chance to see one of his tensegrity spheres jump at it. They have one at the museum on campus. You aren't supposed to touch it but when nobody was looking I pushed it in and it bounced right back. You can see an example here:
http://www.well.com/www/jleft/graphix/tensegrity_sphere.html
The problem with geodesic domes is that they're just so darned neat-looking that people (well, me, certainly) really want them to work. Kind of like those neat old flying machines that preceded airplanes.
If I win the lottery, I am going to have a jolly time trying all the various forms of alternative building to see what they're like. One of my fantasies is a monolithic dome with a timber-framed interior. No idea if it would work well, but it would be much fun to try.
Lloyd Kahn--he wrote the dome book--has a rant on the subject that is fun to read.
But that onion shaped dome whose picture John posted is absolutely gorgeous. With all four-sided (but not square) sections.
Monolithic Domes and the foam dome people probably avoid the worst of the problems. There are a couple of blogs emanating from those in Alaska. I've come close to ordering the foam dome storage building kit a couple of times.
(I haven't because I have the starplates if really really want a dome storage building, bought a set years before I left Nashville.)
foam dome--at first glance the little one isn't immediately apparent--all foam built on a platform:
http://www.aidomes.com/
Starplates:
http://www.strombergschickens.com/starplate_building_system/starplate_index.htm
Check out this dome; lots of construction pics
http://tranquilitydome.com
Looks like, and is, a Monolithic Dometm.
If you have to have a dome, either theirs or American Ingenuity domes--the foam domes--are probably the way to go. At least avoid using Lloyd Kahn's ideas from Domebook I. He says they all leak.
Interesting procedure. Doesn't look like a good one for one person where you can't get a crane there and inside the house.
Not to mention back outside the house.