Note:

This posting was written in 1999 and edited, from time-to-time as noted at the bottom - it remains, however, essentially as first written. In April, 2010, I added a few lines and edits to bring several time-focused references into harmony as well as posted some comments and drawings of an updated version of the Domicile concept which is now in Design Development.

As always with this web site follow the many links provided to get the full intention of this project. Let your mouse do the walking.

mt

Domicile One is 75 feet in diameter and can house four to five families. It is designed to sit on two typical urban house lots so the density increase is better than two times. With the combination of outside Permaculture [link: permaculture.org] and inside Greenhouse, the food needed by the Domicile inhabitants can be grown on site.

The Dome and the gravel bed below frost line and the “double shell construction of the superstructure provides an“environment valve” that keeps the interior temperature between 57 and 75 degrees prior to active treatment. “Interior” construction is therefore concerned with utility, arrangement, beauty, sight-lines, sound abatement and minor air cooling and heating - not with raw weather. This allows a flexible interior environment without the worry of water proofing and major temperature swings - an economy in construction, maintenance and energy costs. In addition, the way the dome shape meets the ground is made “restful” [link: dome dwellings] by the earth berms and landscaping - both of which are energy-food providers, as well as providing security and privacy.

In this environment, recreation facilities, libraries, expensive office equipment, large living spaces, greenhouses, expensive media systems and content, cooking, tooling, cars and so forth, are provided in the “commons.” Individuals and families will have their own space and facilities providing whatever mix of personal tooling and commons redundancy desired by each. Individual lifestyle choices can replicate virtually all or practically none of these “common” facilities - this is a personal use and economic decision.

Rules of engagement [link: swarm incorporated] will determine the use of commonwealth items, as well as, other interactions among those living and working within the environment. Domiciles can be created around many different philosophies-in-practice and affinity groupings.

Most of the common areas will be in the lower part of the Dome. In the illustration above, the cross section is cut through the swimming pool and the greenhouse structure which is shown on the right (south) side of the structure - both of these will take up only a small portion of the lower area which will also have Living Room, recreational, dining and other similar facilities. On the various platforms inside the Dome, different “houses“ are constructed according to the requirements of their owners. Almost any combination of group or personal space - and tooling - can be provided. These dwelling units can be large or small, simple or elaborate as fits each occupant. They can be modified over time employing common materials and prefabricated components.

The 1967 concept sketches (reproduced in May 1973 - click on drawing above) show another version of the interior and one example of how Domicile can sit on a typical urban site. These sketches also indicate and Entry building and Office where “reception” and the Domicile’s business can take place without unnecessary invasion of privacy. Access to the Dome proper from the Entry building is through a partially underground tube. This leaves the sight free for other uses and proves both added security and protection from the weather. A 2010 version is illustrated at the bottom of this piece.

A great deal of the site is left free for recreation, food growing and privacy. Domiciles can be clustered (with connecting tubes) allowing even more land freed for a variety of uses. The land use aspect of this schema is efficient and ecologically sensitive. Domiciles can be adapted to serve a variety of co-housing programs. See: Ken Norwood (Rebuilding Community in America) of the Shared Living Resource Center in Berkeley, California (800 475 7572).

This design concept is driven by three values often missing in today’s approach to housing: community, economy [link: upside down economics - aspects] and stability of “family.” Families do not have to be biological based (only). They will, in the future, often be based on many other affinity aspects: religion, work, philosophies, beliefs, life situations.

Domiciles were conceived from the beginning to be both living and work environments. They were designed on the premise of the KnowledgeWorker and knowledge economy, or in today’s terms, Free Agent economy. This means the environment will not be “abandoned” half the day and will be managed and employed as a 24/7/365 enterprise. Preliminary calculations indicate a several times increase in the quality of living at about a 50% decrease in monthly overhead for a family. This radically alters the cost of living to an individual and family and significantly increases their life options and how they think about and use their time.

The actual social systems employed to govern the environments can be highly varied from a “hotel” model to, condominium to business to commune with many variants in between.

It is is the realm of economic freedom that the Domicile concept shows it’s strongest face. Do this thought experiment. Fly over the city and “look” into the offices and houses. How much redundancy of effort, tools and resources do you see? How much of this wealth is latent, rarely used? It all took, recourses, time and energy to produce. It takes energy to keep. This translates into hours for each of the owners. Frozen hours of their life - not effectively employed. The amount of this largely unnecessary redundancy is staggering - the cost, a significant portion of a household’s revenue. This leads to a society of wage-slaves. In economic downturns, people realize the traps that they have put themselves into by uncritical acceptance of a consumer society and it’s present attendant design strategies. Yet, few realize that their situation is systemic - the in-the-moment economy is blamed rather than the design strategies of their architecture and their attendant living habits.

Why this over building and under utilization? The answer is simple. So that each resource will be available “on demand” to an individual owner/user. USE is the principle that must be addressed - not unnecessary control or ownership. More than adequate use can be provided by proper analysis and rules-of-engagement supported by “smart” scheduling systems. The most constrained resource for the majority of humans is time. Time for learning, play, recreation and funding new ventures - be they personal, business or nonprofit. There are three aspects to procuring a basic lifestyle: income and costs are two of them. Social costs and opportunity loss is the other. Domicile addresses the cost side of this equation. It challenges prevailing ideas concerning what it costs to live in a stable community and accomplish a healthy, beautiful well-tooled way of living and working.

Many, in our society, buy lower quality products than they require and desire because they cannot “afford” quality - every unnecessary purchase makes this condition worse. The low quality purchase generates a downward positive feedback loop: low quality is, in the end, bad economics. Under utilization while a tools sits on the shelf bleeding value and relevance is bad economics.

Because of schedule constraints and the need to work more hours to afford more poorly made under used “goods,” most in our society spend money for goods and services that used to be self-provided. This can translate in to more day-to-day time freedom but too often it means a reduction of options and an increase in job dependency. The costs associated with most “packaged” goods is mostly the packaging itself and the advertising necessary to sell it. Many of these home products can be safely and easily provided in a simple home lab for a fraction of the cost and a few hours effort a month. On the scale of a Domicile this makes common sense. These can be “jobs” for those working at home or are taking a work sabbatical. The entire consumer/work cycle can be positively effected and turned back into a self-aware craft process.

Families, farms and communities used to provide many of the basic staples of life - now, almost everything is a commodity supplied by ever larger and complex corporations delivering through an ever more complex and economically and ecologically expensive and often fragile supply chain. For some products, such as computers and cars, this makes sense. For fresh vegetables it does not. Nor does it for toothpaste that have but a few cents of materials purchased at bulk. Even technology and service costs can be reduced because the Domicile community can buy as a unit increasing it’s purchasing power.

Domicile is an urban homestead for families - it can radically expand their economic options and freedom. It can facilitate a far greater set of choices than the existing default housing models. In the 60s and 70s, when I first conceived and designed Domicile, alternative energy and water options were in their early R&D and experimental stages. Today, April 2010, an urban Domicile can affordably supply a great deal - if not all - of the basic food, energy and water needs of it’s inhabitants. Doing so allows everyone to reduce their ecological footprint, improve their economy and better protect their heath than is possible in almost any suburban or urban setting available today. Think about this.

The argument for Domicile also goes beyond these fundamental economic and health considerations. As a building strategy, the Domicile offers significant architectural opportunities that few single family building schemes can muster. Domiciles are potentially high variety environments. Their architectural quality can be at the highest level while being economically and ecologically affordable to a vast number of people who can not afford quality habitation - let along the junk now on the market - today.

The Affordable Housing Project [link: boulder affordable housing project] for the City of Boulder, designed in 1980, further developed many of the 1960s, 70s Domicile concepts. The dome configuration was not used because the site was close to the Flatirons and the view of these mountains could not be blocked. Instead, a low profile earth-sheltered “greenhouse” was proposed. In this case, the entire interior dwelling components: walls, floors, roofs and mechanical systems were made adjustable and moveable by those living in the environment. A significant extension of the idea of adaptability, very possible today and a concept not being approached by any project being built or proposed at this time.

SolutionBox voice of this document:
VISION • STRATEGY
EVALUATION