DOME MAGAZINE: Summer 1991, Vol. 3 | No. 4
The system has provoked my sensibilities to the max. I am angry. The dust has barely settled on the victims of the Los Angeles earthquake and the taxpayers of the United States are being asked to dig into our pockets, again, to rebuild their cracker-box houses.
What is happening? Let me explain. The chickens are again coming home to roost. The results of years of denying the existence of, and the extraordinary strengths of the geodesic dome to the resistance of hurricanes and earthquakes by the architects, engineers, bankers, technical schools, real estate industry and building contractors, are again being felt by the tax payers of the Unites States. If it were not such a bizarre thought, one might be inclined to believe that the denial of the geodesic dome is a deliberate action to insure that the above named organizations will have plenty of work to do the next time another horrible natural catastrophe occurs. And it surely will.
Buckminster Fuller’s Work
The work of Buckminster Fuller, throughout his life, in the study, development and promotion of the geodesic dome as an economical and safe home, has by and large, fallen on deaf ears. At least the ears of the people who control the money and those who stupidly build on top of an earthquake fault, or in the path of hurricanes and tornadoes.
What is it going to take to bring the geodesic dome into the general housing market as a structure of choice? You might say the reason is that these wonderful structures are not desired by the general home buying public. And you are probably correct.
Underlying Reasons
But let’s look at the underlying reasons for this deplorable, negative situation. Place the blame where you will. There is plenty enough of it to go around. Some of the blame must rest on the shoulders of the dome industry in general to this extent.
Do we, as dome designers, manufacturers, and marketers of dome products, really believe in the dome concept, or are we kidding ourselves? Do we really believe in our heart of hearts that the dome is functionally the finest type of architecture for general home construction? Or are we going with the flow and being satisfied with the offering of square houses to our customers, who are unwilling, or unable, to see the light and to build domes for only those who really want them?
You might say ‘what can I do?’ when the most brilliant of all proponents of “Domology” (my word), Buckminster Fuller, spent almost all of his entire life in the study and promotion of the dome concept, and was unable to make the dome the building of choice within the housing industry over those 84 years that spanned his life?
A study of Dr. Fuller’s philosophy and teachings reveals that the dome, as a primary residential unity, was only part of his total life dedication. It seems to me his entire lifetime effort was aimed at saving mankind from himself. His total teachings reveal the true humanitarian that he really was. His total life efforts seemed to be to make life better for the have-nots.
As students and believers of Fuller’s teachings, we are obliged to try to follow his precepts. Doing more with less, and doing it with no harm to the environment. Some proponents of dome culture are recommending the use of other materials besides wood for residential housing.
Some criticism has been leveled at dome builders who use wood as a primary material, as being wasteful of a depleting natural resource. The facts are these. Wood is one of the world’s most abundantly renewable resources.
A look at the lumber supply in the United States reveals that there is more lumber available today than there was 30 years ago. Information relative to the present lumber supply published by the Northwestern Lumber Association is very revealing.
More trees grow to maturity in the United States each year, by 37%, than are harvested and lost to forest fire and disease. Does this sound like a depletion of natural resources?
This means that growth exceeds harvesting by more than six billion cubic feet per year. In fact, growth exceeds harvest in all areas of the country. There are at least 30 percent more trees in our country than there were at the turn of the century. What does this mean to the builder of homes?
Renewable Resources
First, it means that when a tree, based upon the available trees for lumber cutting, is cut down to build your dome, before your dome home has outlived its usefulness, replacement trees have been planted and have grown to maturity by more than 137 percent. An incredible renewable resource that is replacing itself and providing all of the environmental benefits that trees give back to us during their lifetime.
Second, it means that wood, as a primary building material, used in the general construction of homes, will cost less, because of its massive use.
Third, wood is relatively easy to handle. As an architect friend of mine once quipped, “Wood is forgiving.” It is possible for one man to build his home today using wood as the primary product. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for this to happen using plastics or concrete.
This is not to detract from the domes that are manufactured with alternative products. They are many times better than the square houses cluttering up our landscape. My concern for the homeowner who wishes to build their own dome home is that he would be required to rely on others to do the basic construction. Plastic and concrete do not lend themselves to basic do-it-your selfers.
Financing Folly
So it seems that until the time arrives when the home buying industry is fully aware of the significant perils of building their cracker-box homes in dangerous areas (earthquake, hurricane and tornado), we will go on financing this folly, through government taxation, to rebuild the shacks that are rebuilt with government funds.
When will we say “enough is enough” of insuring that the flimsy housing market has had its day, and we will not put up with the kind of pork-barreling that has gone on for too long a time?
When, if ever, will the insurance industry refuse to insure housing that will surely collapse with the next catastrophe?
When, if ever, will the government refuse to supply taxpayers’ money to replace housing that was guaranteed to collapse in the first place? Until these questions are answered, we will continue to underwrite the rebuilding of the square house industry with our tax dollars every time the earth shakes and the wind howls.
These questions will be answered by the general public. We, as dome proponents, are saddled with the responsibility to do all in our power to make the dome the housing of choice.
Many people have the impression that America’s forests are being rapidly depleted by logging companies. That may have been true in 1920, when timber was being cut down at twice the rate forests were growing. But now more than two trees are planted for every one cut down, and timber growth exceeds annual harvests by 33 percent. In fact, the number of trees is greater today—an estimated 230 billion—than at any time since the turn of the century.