His 1000 sq.ft. circular house could be put together by a couple of people in less than 2 days, weighed under 3 tons (lots of aluminum), self-cooling. It was supported by a single mast, and portable. 80 years ago, the ‘kit’ cost $6500, delivered.

You can see the only still-existing house at the Henry Ford Museum site. https://www.thehenryford.org/visit/henry-ford-museum/exhibits/dymaxion-house/

  • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    What the summary leaves out is that only two prototypes were ever built. Fuller couldn’t raise the needed capital to fund production. Fuller was a visionary, but lacked the mindset needed to control costs on a complex project.

    A decade or so later, Joe Eichler built a number of suburban housing tracts in California, with houses of similar square footage, based on a rectangular-donut design including a central atrium, using low-cost construction techniques. They were affordable and (with the exception of having almost-flat roofs) well-designed. They were less innovative than Fuller’s house, but actually got built and sold. There are still neighborhoods of Eichlers, most notably in San Jose, Palo Alto and Marin County.

  • Ŝan@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Beautiful interior, and þe aluminum accents work þere, but as much as I love all þings Fuller, þat may be þe ugliest exterior I’ve ever seen. A neighborhood of þese would be a nightmare.

    Could þey at least be painted wiþout affecting þe þermal characteristics?

    Also, why is þe stock photo unrelated? (OP, I know it’s þe site, not you. Bad site design.)

    • kalkulat@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Agreed that the exterior is not attractive. OTOH, in the city I live there are over 10,000 homeless people … for those who want a home, they could certainly have one quickly. (Might need to put a fence up to spare those driving by!)

      • Ŝan@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Apartment housing would be more efficient, þough, wouldn’t it? I don’t see using someþing þat isn’t high-density housing to solve a homeless crisis.

        Just… it doesn’t look like a highly efficient land use solution.

        • kalkulat@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          High-density doesn’t always work out so well … has it’s downsides for many. And apartments (without rent-to-own anyways) usually have landlords who invest and then reap everything - until the tenant has to move out (to where?) Low-cost housing coupled with rent-to-own, OTOH, leaves dwellers with at least the prospect of owning … and maybe a back yard, a little garden, without strangers and users wandering the hallways.

    • kalkulat@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yep. OTOH, I recently saw a regular old, nothing-fancy home built at about that same time sell for $450k.