DOME MAGAZINE: Summer 1999, Vol. 11| No. 4
I have talked about this before, but it seems that some dome manufacturers still think we are in the Seventies, when talking about domes meant attacking the persons who are building the domes, and attacking the dome design. I recently received a letter from a customer, along with an order for a dome kit. Included with this letter was a copy of a letter they had received from a competitive dome manufacturer.
The letter was filled with untruthful statements, as well as personal references to my own ability as a dome person. I realize that something new comes along every day, and that my opinions might be influenced by my twenty-four years in the design manufacture and marketing of dome systems, but this letter was filled with untruths.
Dome Developments
In that time, we have made developments that have made the dome a better structure than it was when we first entered the business. I also know that other dome companies have been busy making changes that have made the residential geodesic dome a much better structure than it was when I first went to work for the Big Outdoors People in 1975. The product at that time was a catastrophe waiting to happen. However, it was inevitable, as reliable information that was available then, relative to dome mechanics, was almost impossible to find. So what was done? The designers of the day went ahead, made their mistakes and profited by them. And many of the really good dome manufacturers failed and faded out of the picture because they did not make the necessary changes that had to be done to make the dome the housing of choice.
Today, the geodesic dome, as a primary residence, is becoming a popular exception to the square cornered box house. Though not the housing of choice as yet, there is evidence that the basic geodesic design is generating much more interest than was around twenty-five years ago.
What is happening to the marketing systems that we held dear in the late seventies? Advertising in newspapers, magazines, radio, plus the relatively new television, made the general speaking of the dome features relatively limited because of the cost at that time.
The Internet has made possible the dissemination of information a totally different ball game. It may become the one thing that will bring the dome concept to its respectful place in the housing market.
More people get to look at domes in one day than were able to see, in the not so distant past, in a whole year. Consider this: we are a small company, but our Internet page has been accessed over 21,000 times since last September. With this kind of visibility, dome marketers must be careful when designing their advertising to stay well within the limits of truth.
Dome Safety Records
The reason is clear. Even those truths that are so basic with dome systems are difficult to make stick, because they flat out overshadow the features of the box house. In every way, from safety, environmental impact, economics and maintenance, the dome stands far ahead of the square house medium that is so popular today.
For example, consider this. I live in a dome home with 1450 square feet of floor space on three floors. Here in Minnesota the gas bill has averaged $20.85 per month since 1984. Telling this to a square house builder can cast doubt on anything else you might say. But we have the bills to prove it.
When you relate stories of dome homes standing tall in the face of hurricanes and tornados and earthquakes in or near the San Andreas Fault, you have a lot of raised eyebrows and dubious looks. These stories, though true, raise questions on the credibility of the dome structure. I do not know of one dome being blown down by a hurricane or a tornado– with one exception.
An Exception?
This particular dome was built on the coastal plain facing the Atlantic Ocean. It had withstood coastal hurricanes for at least ten years. But then, along came a killer wind and the dome went crashing. Well, not exactly crashing. The reason the system failed was that the dome was built on stilts (poles) several feet off the ground, as was necessary as the dome was built in a flood plain and this is standard procedure. This dome was built by a reputable dome manufacturer with lots of experience. I do not know for certain, but the photos that I saw show that it was the piers that gave away under the dome, and not the dome itself. So my observation is still intact.
If you as a reader, have any information about domes failing in situations of extreme environmental distress, I would most certainly like to hear about it. Conversely, if you know of any domes that have survived hurricanes, tornados or earthquakes, I would also be pleased to hear about that. The admonition to dome manufacturers to be careful with their advertising may be presumptive on my part but I leave you all with a thought that each manufacturer has features that if talked about in a truthful manner, can help the dome along its tortuous path to becoming the housing of choice.
I appreciate how you pointed out that, as a result of your changes, the dome is now a better building than it was when you first entered the industry. My husband will find this useful as he wants to design a residential geodesic dome. I’ll see to it that he carefully plans this out while considering your company!