Info for Gruhn

SOme months back, I'd told Gruhn that I'd post the link to an institute in California that teaches earth/ancient building techniques.

*Finally*, here it is:
formatting link
It's the California Institute of Earth Art and Architecture.

Meanwhile, things here got "interesting" (i.e. nuts); now we're in the process of selling the house, moving to Houston, and getting a place to live there. As well as the usual things plus a couple new activities (I hate being bored). So I have some massive catch-up reading to do here...!

Reply to
Kris Krieger
Loading thread data ...

"Don" wrote in news:u%9ee.3907$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

Howdy right back atcha!

We're making an offer on an inexpensive place - no pool but the place is so inexpensive that we'll be able to put one in with little trouble. As soon as the closing occurs (assuming all goes according to plan !), the "poolification" can start. There's no way I'd use a community pool, but swimming is great exercise (esp. when one has arthritis), plus it's unlikely to get heatstroke while swimming , so a pool is important now.

The lot is only about 9300 sq ft, but the house and garage are situated such that there is room for a pool plus plenty of landscaping. It's a 1968 vintage house, sort of "contemporary" in style, about 2250 sq ft (plenty large enough for us), has been superbly maintained, and is (rarity of rarities) also spotlessly clean, which means, fewer allergy problems. (It never ceases to amaze me when I see the filth that some people live in - and then think they can sell for top dollar).

One thing is that, although prices are lower there, the role of the income tax is taken over by property taxes, so one can end up paying a beastly amount each month depending on both the appraisal value and the local area's schools, parks, amentities such as community centers, and so on. There are also "maintenance fees" in a lot (?most?) of the neighborhoods that pay for those amenities. The main advantage of paying for them is that it hopefully helps keep the neighbors' brats out of your yard.

The other thing I like is that the house is wide as opposed to deep - so that translates into the front door being widely separated from the neighbors, which is more private. I really hate the types of places where the house is skinny in the front so the entry doors are so close that you can smell your neighbors' cologne (or whatever... =8-p ). I cannot comprehend how anyone would want to buy a place like that. ((I guess I'm just anti-social!)) That, and those "snout houses" where all you see along the street is garages and, for all the yard space those 2 types have, one might as well live in a condo with a blacony. Actually, if it's decently well-built, the condo would probably be quieter.

There are, of course, new developments, but I didn't like how close together the places are. I grew up having to listen to my neighbor belch and I refuse to pay top-dollar for the same experience. Plus I don't like the style/gestalt, interior or exterior, that's currently popular, esp. the extent to which geegaws and superficial non-functional flourishes have crowded out useful space.

I was surprised at how very little there is in the way of "Southwestern Style". Some of the things I could at least call "SouthEast", but there is that large group that fall into the category of "homogeneous", meaning, look like anywhere/everywhere else.

It's unsettling to me that you can move a thousand miles anywhere and feel like you're in basically the same place, between the similarity of houses and having the same stores etc. around. Although it's admittedly convenient to have, say, a Home Depot, it's also disconcerting to me. I think that's what I like about the desert - in addition to the dramatic landscape, you have to be a bit wacky to move out there anyway, so an unusual house isn't out of place.

Speaking of odd homes, the first photo here

formatting link
interesting to me.

In general, I like the juxtaposition of ancient and modern - ancient techniques, designs, materials (meaning also things natural) with modern technologies and so on. The main thing I have mixed feeling about is symmetry. The building in the above photo is interesting because it has that "bird in flight" feel, but generally, I do prefer a "rhythmic asymmetry" similar to that found so often in music - 'theme and variations' so to speak, or 'fractal complexity'. The spiral (or spiralling rectagles) based upon the Fibonnaci sequence.

I wish I could do complex Math because I sense in Math the same sort of progressions and the same sort of balance between symmetry and asymmetry. Mathnis just one of the languages used to express observations (and perceptions) of the universe, and it's be interesting to be able to apply certain math principles to Architecture. Math is also, of course, music, and music is architecture and visa versa. It would be a wonderful thing, I imagine, if one could express that nexus in the physical world for tohers to share.

But, of course and as usual, I digress!

So we are going to Houston. At least my joints will be warm ;) so I'm looking foreward to that, at least. I'm just really hoping that I won't have problems with the area's social practicalities and sensibilities.

- KMK

Reply to
Kris Krieger

Their institute is right up the freeway from me. I went there once to check it out, pretty interesting stuff. They use sand bags built up in arches and domes, along with a few other building techniques. I asked if they needed a volunteer, and they gave me the whole run around and wanted me to pay to work there or something (like a seminar of some sort), so I said forget it.

-- Night_Seer

Reply to
Edgar

Edgar wrote in news:427a9d4f$0$79455$ snipped-for-privacy@news.sunsite.dk:

I'm jealous

I guess they figured you were wanting to learn without taking classes. I think it'd be interesting.

The tough thing is that I like very much the rounded/organic feel of such structures, but I also like a lot of modern things.

Ideally, I'd like to blend earth structures and materials with the modern ones, the metal and glass/lexan. I have a vague, not really an image, more like a spatial montage, of things I would like in a place, but I've no training in art or design so I haven't been good with trying to bring it all together and give it a form (i.e. create a 3D model).

But it's all so cool IMO, structures I mean. How things go together, how the materials behave and look and interact with other materials, how structures remain structures rather than heaps of rubble. It irritates me so much that I stink at math, because it'd be really interesting to be able to actually figure these things out as part of a design and structure. Intuition and simple logic only go so far :( . ((I've tried time and time again to actually elarn Calculus - I just barely passed bothsemesters in University! - but I can't grasp it any better now than I could back then =>:-[ ))

OTOH, never thought about it before but maybe part of the appeal to me of old techniques is that they *were* done via intuition and logic, meaning, without Calculus.

Reply to
Kris Krieger

A question, I can understand *vector analysis* being important structurally, but where would one need calculus in architecture - aside from some sophisicated applications.

The structure Kris describes sounds like a load bearing

+direction of load force issue, don't see much need for a derivative. Ken
Reply to
Ken S. Tucker

I felt somewhat the same way, thinking how cool it would be to combine these arches with other types of construction, but they seemed to be against the idea. I don't know I didn't get into deep discussion with them, one of the guys was a Sci-arch Post-Grad, and got into a rant with me about how all architecture is crap these days. I just felt like they were "haters", you know what I mean.

They did have classes, but they were much too much for my budget.

I did like some of their buildings though, and this stuff could look really good wth hay bales or some sort of recycled wood products (or regular wood for that matter).

-- Night_Seer

Reply to
Night_Seer

You need it to get your effin degree :)

Seriously though, for statics all I ever needed was trig it seems.

Reply to
Night_Seer

Night_Seer wrote in news:4296635d$0$79455$ snipped-for-privacy@news.sunsite.dk:

[ ... ]

It might just be that they're purists - and certainly not meaning that as a perjoritive! What I mean is, they're there specifically to study, preserve, and work with ancient/old methods. That's their thing.

I'm more of a "fusion" person myself; disparte elements can be very beautiful together. Just as with music. I bring music in a lot, because inside my head, music and architecture "feel" (for lack ofa better word) very similar; they are structural, like the universe. So I'm not necessarily a stylistic purist, because IMO, part of teh joy of learning different things is to see what happens when they're put together with unexpected things.

The main issue is that it's really easy to create a monstrosity that way. TThe essential, ah, concept I guess is the word, that I take from traditional methods is the idea of a structure growing from the site" so to speak. That's of course in no way a new or original thought! It's just that a lot (not all...) of traditional/ancient structures do seem to be at ease with their sites.

And my personal ideal would be to go to the environment I'm happiest in, and dwell in a structure that sits easy on the site. Looks harmonious, is as "gree" as possible, is also a "good fit" in terms of size and proportions.

Yeah, I think I do :( .

I hear ya...

To be sure. That's the thing, IMO - take the idea, the elements/essence, and add it to your vocabulary. The larger your vocabulary, the easier it is, metaphorically soeaking, to write poetry =:-)

Reply to
Kris Krieger

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

[ ... ]

I dunno, that's just what I've always been told, that you have to have a lot of math to do architecture because, to do anything of any size, you have to be able to calculate all the stresses and strains etc. on all the components.

I wasn't really describing a structure, just a brief ramble about "earth- buildings" ;)

Reply to
Kris Krieger

Yeah, that is the common story.

To do anything of any size you have to hire a structural engineer.

Reply to
gruhn

"gruhn" wrote in news:FaLle.285$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net:

I wonder why, if it's itn't so? Maybe just people who don't know jack pontificationg as tho', so to speak, they know jack AND jill AND spot...

AH-HA!! So that's the secret! Well, thinking about it (I mean, as a lay person who doesn't know much), it makes sense, because of the degree of specialization required. There are new materials, and new designs, and the one skill (design) is more "right-brain" whereas the math is more left- brain; very few people are equally both and even at that, I guess one does have to develop and area of expertise lest one become a "jack of all trades and master of none".

Reply to
Kris Krieger

I met untold scores (at least half a dozen, total) of frosh who were in architecture because some h.s. "guidance professional" said "gee, you like to draw and you're good at math... you should go to architecture school." Don blames the kids. I blame the grown-ups.

I think there's also a non-zero number of "You wanna be a what?! An Artist! No kid of mine's gonna be a good for nothing pansy artist. Look, you're going to architecture. At they build stuff."

Reply to
gruhn

That's the one thing I was taught that has really stuck with me. I want all things to be at ease with their site. Thing is working in schools right now, the budget is king, and putting boxes up for their use is not below us. That's another discussion though. To me site is king as nature is our mother. I always wondered what it would be like to live in the new world before it became "America". Brutal I'm sure, but not much worse than some places now I think. That's a history book I would read.

I wholeheartedly agree with your description of your own home. On the part of being as green as possible, which you probably mean but I'd like to point out, is being as self sufficient as possible.

I love the whole toolbox idea, your "vocabulary". I've been adding a lot to the "computer" side of it lately, I need to take my tests and just become an architect already.

-- Night_Seer

Reply to
Night_Seer

The classes we took in statics were basic, though technical. The professors would say we want you to know enough to know when something will or will not work, or if it might not work, try to work it out yourself, or give the engineers an idea of your special situation.

-- Night_Seer

Reply to
Night_Seer

Night_Seer wrote in news:429c98fd$0$18643$ snipped-for-privacy@news.sunsite.dk:

What myustifies me is, how did they figure these things out when things like the cathedrals, and older buildings, were put up.

I'm sure a lot of it was pure experience, but still, IMO it's a marvel.

Reply to
Kris Krieger

Night_Seer wrote in news:429c988e$0$18643$ snipped-for-privacy@news.sunsite.dk:

I think a large part of the problem (talking about houses at least) isn't even budget so much as square footage. Too many people see quantity rather than quality - they'll ooh and aaahhh over a place that's humongous, whereas I'm the type who would say, That bit of siding up there next to the third window from the left is crooked and it looks like there is a gap, that can let water in, what idiot built this piece of crap

So I try to think of things that save space because, if/when I can have my own place built, I want quality. Not necessarily "the most expensive", either, because price and quality don't always go together. But most home buyers don't seem to think that way. it's sort of like someone buying a scarf that has the name "Guggi" silk-screened onto it, rather than the exact same scarf, made in the exact same factory, that has no name on it. Same item but one costs a couple bucks and the other might coast a couple hundred bucks.

But I also think that another part of the problem is lazyness. Sometimes "efficiency" is just a euphamism for lack of imagination and even just plain mental laziness. I don't even think it's budget, ebcause thre are a lot of things I've seen, and see as I travel around, that are *expensive* and yet shallow and derivative - lazy. A few bits and shards of this style and that, reduced to the level of Lego blocks, stuck willy-nilly here and there. The results can be huge and quite expensive, yet still cheap, as in, shoddy, cheesy, and essentially meaningless.

A box can be elabortely shaped, but still be nothing more than a box.

Brutal, as I see it, is a function of human interactions. Things like war and torture are brutal.

Nature is merely indifferent. Nature gives no leeway, and cares no more for a human then for a stink bug or a mushroom. All are equal. In that sense, nature is the ultimate democracy. One moment, one can be trying to hide from a grizzley bear or trying to claw one's way out of freezing water fallen into inadvertantly - and the next moment, one can witness things that are so bagnificently beautiful that one could just fall to one's knees and weep.

Somehting I keep wondering about is, if I was out in the woods or a desert, and had no cultural biases, what sort fo a shelter would I build? What 'style" would spring out of that, so to speak, innocence, naivete', when approaching the need for shelter within a given landscape - what would evolve if one could knw methods but without stylistic bias?

And, in such a state of non-bias, would any two people come up with the same "natural" solution?

I don't know that it's an answerable question, since one learns technique from others in a social context, and that by definition means culture, and therefore stylistic bias. But it';s still IMO interesting to think about ;) .

Yup. A while back I was yakking about fooling with a design for a place in a semi-arid or desert climate that'd (1) collect rain water and direct it into a cistern for strage, and (2) utilize a system of underground ducting and sunlight and controllable house-vents so as to use, in the Summertime, convection to pull warm air out of the place and cool air (earth-cooled) in. That was based upon my expereince ni southern CA, because the air would eb so dry that a lot fo cooling could be achieved simply via shade, and air movement - mechanical air conditioning seems less efficinet, because it works largely by pulling moisture out of the air.

Then I saw a new type of solar cell on, what show was it, maybe Science Frontiers. It's a thin flexible sheet - it is a bit less efficient than typical cells when the sun is directly overhead on a clear day, but it is

*extremely* efficient when the sun is low, or when the weather is overcast. I worte it down but I haven't yet organized my notes for the past 2 months (too busy with moving-related etc. tasks). But since it's all of a piece, and flexible, it isn't damage-prone, also, it's barely visible on a roof or wherever.

So, that sort of thing, in addition to good insulation. I'm a huge fan of insualtion! - when we lived in Vancouver, BC, our Winter heting bill was about a third higher than it was durint the *Toronto* winter!! The differnce? Insulation, thermopane, and blocking drafts. Not to mention that the lack of insulation, and the drafts, were pretty miserable in terms of comfort :p .

All of that is, as I see it, part of being "green" which, as you mention, also means "self-sufficient", because every technique that's used to save energy (or avoid using it) means that one is that much less vulnerable to breakdowns in the power grid or waer main bursts and so on.

Thanks! esp since I'm making it up as I go along No seriously, as I see it, a "tool" is anything you use to creatively interpret and express/manifest your interaction with the environemnt, with life.

A building is IMO an interaction between the designer/architect, the land, the environment, the client's proposed uses, and the possible uses that people in general will make of the building.

And, in terms of combining all of those, your tools are not just physical - they also include ideas, ideals, knowledge, experience, culture, and basically everything that your brain has picked up. That includes styles, the historical and cultural (and environmental) context of those styles, and the philosophy behind/affecting styles. Also abilities.

Just about anything can be a tool - a tool is anything that one can take in one's hand, and consciously use to effect change upon something else in accordance with a plan, idea, thought, desired result.

A stick is not a tool - until a mind (human or non-human) forms a concept and a plan, takes up that stick, and uses to effect change to another thing or to the environment. A computer is not a tool until that same motive force - the mind - conceives of using it to do something, lead to some effecgt - be it a letter to Aunt Bess, a 3D model, a cost-benefit spreadsheet analysis, a piece of music, or so on.

THat realization can help one become mroe comfortable with things that might at first seem daunting - I used to do some computer instruction, and this helped demystify computers for a number of people :) .

Hey, go for it!

Reply to
Kris Krieger

By looking at the ones that fell down.

Yup.

Do wonder about timber models etc.

Reply to
gruhn

You should look up a book called Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet. It is a work of fiction, but some of the descriptions of the building/designing of cathedrals are pretty interesting. Including the trials and tribulations of making the building stand up.

Reply to
Cato

My guess is, totally my guess, is that they overbuilt, after, like everyone else here already said, they had a bunch of failures.

Reply to
Night_Seer

"gruhn" wrote in news:9%Jne.3154$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net:

Makes sense, but it doesn't seem that ther were *a lot* of interim steps between modest structures, and those soaring intricacies of stone and glass and light. Some of these things will never cease to astound me (and also delight ;) ) The main reason I'd like to get to Europe some time is that I'd like to see Chartres and Westminster and so on - and on, and on... ;) Not that I'm all that educated about the details and so on, but simply because they are so amazing, all the more so because they rose up from conditions that nowadays, would cause only despair and crime, NOT hope and beauty.

They're so amazing that I'm waiting for some numbnut to claim they were built by extraterrestrials =8-O

You mean, whether they tried out someof the structures using timber first, and then dismantled the models and used the timber elsewhere?

I never thought of that...it's intriguing and it *would* make sense. One would think there would be some sort of historical record - well, maybe not...

Reply to
Kris Krieger

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.