Well rounded in a disaster - Page 3 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Disaster Preparedness General Discussion Anything Disaster Preparedness or Survival Related

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-05-2020, 01:21 AM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is offline
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 65
Posts: 4,718
Thanks: 395
Thanked 9,399 Times in 3,191 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamZeke View Post
As others have pointed out, the ring village concept is ancient.
Fortified walled towns are ancient.
Building onto the city wall is ancient.
Building that IS a tall circular wall is not as ancient (based on the Chinese Hakka Tulou concept)
Building TWO ring buildings is NOT ancient. . . I looked.
In fact, I had been designing DRVs, for years before I stumbled across the Chinese Tulou. (*and am quick to give them credit for beating me by 900 years - for the single ring village)
Quote:
Sure, there are a million modern ways to tweak it, but concept always came after a society was created first. [I disagree]

It was only after the small community had come together in relative harmony and then become a target of predatory attacks from outside.

Making one before there is a settled small society that is relatively self sufficient is putting the cart before the horse.
In this enlightened age, perhaps. Perhaps not.
If you believe we're going to have a pleasant decade before us, having a robust redoubt to shelter in is foolish.
If you believe we're about to suffer from decades of chaos and strife, a frugal, efficient, disaster resistant, and autonomous walled village sounds really nice.
And it doesn't hurt that if the S does not HTF, the DRV is still a frugal, efficient, and "green" machine, and can function in a variety of roles... sure beats living in a slum, a mobile home park, a motel, etc.
Quote:
Playing with the concept of the fort is fine. [But that's not what I was designing - you're criticizing the wrong thing] Many people have this mental hobby. I became fascinated by Crusader castles in my youth. Looks like Aeriendel did too. The legions of books on the topic of ancient fortification give testament to the endurance of this interest hobby. Maybe it starts with pillow and furniture forts of our youth. Some folks get the military engineering hobby in youth and it just sticks. It is clearly not a new hobby either. If you told me that Medieval kids liked to make wine barrel forts and play Romans and Mongols on Saturday I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. I'd be more surprised if they didn't.

But the thought exercise must be decoupled from trying to actually make a new one until you have settled the small society question first. My interest in Crusader castles was always predicated that it would be after the Templars showed up, a tight knit group of alike believing paramilitary. Crusader castles needed Crusaders first. Creating that strongly bonded group was likely the hardest first part.

Working up a design and then trying to stuff in a group of random folks is a recipe for failure. Trying to do both at once is a pure crapshoot.
We're all living in a pure crapshoot, but based on marketing, ephemeral designs, codes, and impositions designed to make "someone" rich at our expense. I don't like that.

I want something BETTER than lowest common denominator. And it didn't start out as a fortress.

Actually, the genesis for the design was contemplating Buckminster Fuller's giant dome over Manhattan. I also was interested in Monolithic Domes, having visited quite a few. (Spheres and curved walls have many engineering benefits)

I was surprised that it was a common theme that the owners were often dissatisfied and wanted to sell them ASAP. I won't go into the long list of grievances, other than to establish that I was trying to make a more pleasant replacement for a hemisphere (efficient as it may be) and more useful for housing. *(curved roof and walls are notoriously hard to deal with, and waste space)*

My thought experiment chopped the hemisphere into a cylinder. Straight walls were an improvement. But that didn't look appealing for those deep inside. Then I made it into a toroid. Hmmmm. Put in dividing walls. Ah. Now we're getting plenty of flat spaces - walls and ceiling - that are compatible with our furnishings, etc. Reminded me of bamboo. The ring building width was easily adjusted to maximize natural illumination.

I added a second ring and "bam!" I saw the juxtaposition of urban features: a main street (enterprises, shopping, socializing) with suburban parkland (in the center), coupled with a "green" roof deck (gardening, etc), and realized I found something. Add continuous balconies, like the French Quarter of New Orleans, and it's really really nice. (Balconies allow for movement around the ring, so one does not have to go down to the street level, reducing congestion for pedestrians)

Family friendly it was, with a place for the kids to play without dodging cars, adults can work and shop, elders can sit back and watch. Here was a solution for a rural farm village, a suburban enclave, or an urban neighborhood among many other ring villages. And that nice barrier wall enhances its ability to withstand pesky natural disasters. Instead of gambling with insurance companies, invest in a more permanent homestead for the long haul.

Can you suggest another form of functional architecture that provides more surface area* for habitat than it takes out of circulation, is more efficient, consumes less resources, has more greenspace per capita, more pleasant environment, and is disaster resistant to the following:
__ Power outage;
__ Mutant Zombie Biker gangs;
__ Hurricanes, with storm surge, flying debris;
__ Tornadoes, high wind and flying debris;
__ Flooding, ice dams, rainfall, tsunamis;
__ Mudslides; avalanches
__ Blizzards, snowstorms, with high drifts;
__ Ash fall (from volcanic eruptions);
__ Forest fires, grass fires;
__ Earthquake, meteor shockwave; gamma bursts (sky shine)
__ Vermin, insects, mold, mildew, pests, pestilence;
__ Weather extremes (extreme heat; bitter cold).

*(In the previous post, with the parameters of a DRV, it was placed on a 16 acre parcel. But summing up the floorspace of the two five story ring buildings, it comes to 16.25 acres, which is a positive increase in habitat volume per surface area... not counting the 4 acre park, roof decks, ring street or outside the DRV.)

There is one other obstacle... it must be built all together. You can't build it piecemeal and add / expand over time. Or at least you have to build one ring for security.

Perhaps it would be best to not focus on its "fortification" aspect, but its ability to deflect natural disasters while providing a better quality of life.

If you can point to a better solution, I'm interested.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2020, 02:19 AM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is offline
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 65
Posts: 4,718
Thanks: 395
Thanked 9,399 Times in 3,191 Posts
Default

Gripe #1. I grit my teeth when I see "futuristic" landscapes of tall needle like buildings stabbing the sky.
Why are they so popular?
They're expensive to build and to operate.
They waste a lot of interior space on stairways, ductwork, elevators, engineering, etc.
They can't operate without power.
They're sterile glass and concrete - nothing else can live on them.
In a fire, they're death traps.
Yet, we accept them as "the way to make land pay."

Gripe #2. The most efficient and safest form of land transport (trains) is superseded by the least efficient and more dangerous form of land transport (automobiles).
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2...e-rail-safety/
In Europe, 603 mainline deaths over 20 years. This does not include 155 deaths from a fire on a funicular. This is one death per 12.8 billion passenger-km.

In 2019, an estimated 38,800 people lost their lives to car crashes (USA).
(And that's an improvement over the previous year's total!) And we're not counting the injuries, whiplash, lost wages, etc, etc.

Of course, we all know that in most of America, you can't function without an automobile - to get to work, shop, etc, etc.

That's one of the reasons I think that the DRV is a fantastic solution - especially if it eliminates the need for one to have an automobile.
-----------------------------------------

POPULATION DENSITY REFERENCES:




DRV = 37.5 / acre (600 cap/16 acres)
The DRV can have a higher population density with a better quality of life than most megalopolises. Or should we say that most megalopolises waste surface area due to their dependence on skyscrapers?
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2020, 03:20 AM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is offline
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 65
Posts: 4,718
Thanks: 395
Thanked 9,399 Times in 3,191 Posts
Default

Quality of life

NYC parkland : 298 people / acre of parkland
DRV parkland : 143 people / acre of parkland (600 cap/4.19 acres)
(Does not include the land outside of the DRV but within the 16 acre square parcel)

This preliminary value can change, depending on the DRV design.

One 'upgrade' is to excavate down 2 stories, thus providing a total of seven stories for the ring buildings, 5 levels for apartments, 2 levels for businesses and storage.

Build a subterranean network of halls and grottoes below the central park. (Or a series of arches to support the park above)

Why?
One reason : climate.
In a hot / humid climate, the shaded area would be microclimate modifier.
The open grottoes would allow for trees to be planted below grade, that prefer a different climate zone. In time, their canopy would fill and partially rise above the central park.
In a cold climate, the underground tunnels would be out of the weather.

Net result - one more apartment story (25% increase in capacity), the parkland faces only residential stories, while the subterranean park faces the enterprise zone of shopping, businesses, etc.

(See: Forestiere's Underground Garden for inspiration)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest...ground_Gardens




Another item that would benefit from being out of the direct sun, would be a swimming pool. No sunlight - no algae bloom.

Lastly, a circular track subway (or "toy" gauge railroad) would be a nice convenience.

Speaking of circular tracks, it may be useful to install a modest crane on the roof deck to facilitate lifting loads to various floors or the roof top. It could scoot around the ring building on the track, raising large loads to one's door practically.
Who knows? Perhaps it would be desirable to have a means to deliver packages automagically, via a slideway at each apartment. (Haven't figured out an elegant way to avoid the balcony, though)
Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-05-2020, 05:16 AM
IamZeke's Avatar
IamZeke IamZeke is offline
Beer Truck Door Gunner
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 30,215
Thanks: 37,764
Thanked 65,173 Times in 22,143 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Fortified walled towns are ancient.
Building onto the city wall is ancient.
Building that IS a tall circular wall is not as ancient (based on the Chinese Hakka Tulou concept)
Building TWO ring buildings is NOT ancient. . . I looked.
In fact, I had been designing DRVs, for years before I stumbled across the Chinese Tulou. (*and am quick to give them credit for beating me by 900 years - for the single ring village)
In this enlightened age, perhaps. Perhaps not.
If you believe we're going to have a pleasant decade before us, having a robust redoubt to shelter in is foolish.
If you believe we're about to suffer from decades of chaos and strife, a frugal, efficient, disaster resistant, and autonomous walled village sounds really nice.
You do realize you are trying to slice the pie thinner where you take credit for a refined concept based on an ancient concept, right?

Hill forts were around the druids. Amerindians let their hill forts evolve into pyramids as they felt more evolved.

And a hill fort left to rot over the ages turns back into a hill. Ring forts are just the outer breastworks of a hill fort.

The ancient earth structures of the past are only known proximity to more modern structures, rescued texts, or because they are in ancient deserts. Anywhere with rain reclaims the structures into the ground. A hill fort in northern Europe or Asia where there isn't long term desert is now either long gone or built over. Lots of the ancient stone castles were simply new fortresses built over old ones that were made mostly of rammed earth.


As for disagreeing with me that a close knit society comes first, please point examples of forts being made the way you think. The hill and ring forts were either for a town nearby, which would have needed that society to start first, or for a military order, which again is an established society.

Towns that made a hill/ring fort had to build up enough of a society that it ultimately became a target. No ancient lone farmer built a moat and bailey outpost and then invited people in. Not when earth ram construction was such a labor intensive job. When would he have had time to farm?

They didn't have a Kobota dealer nearby to make short work of it.


If you disagree that a society isn't needed first then try to prove that with historical examples.

Everything else is just a mental SimCity. I guess have fun with it, but inviting a bunch of people to come die on your hill might not get enough takers or entice the wrong kind of folks. The "survival town" thought exercise is an old one at SB. But no one has made one work yet. Some developers have bought old caves and silos for rich folks, but I've yet to see one actually thrive as a society yet. If rich developers and rich tenants can't make it happen then clearly the place failed because of the lack of a working society.
__________________
Need more info? Try this:

Search using Google, type "site:survivalistboards.com" in Google's search box, followed by the search parameters. You can use all normal conventions, limit searches by date, etc. Works quite well and beats the native search function.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2020, 02:02 PM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is offline
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 65
Posts: 4,718
Thanks: 395
Thanked 9,399 Times in 3,191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamZeke View Post
You do realize you are trying to slice the pie thinner where you take credit for a refined concept based on an ancient concept, right?

Hill forts were around the druids. Amerindians let their hill forts evolve into pyramids as they felt more evolved.

And a hill fort left to rot over the ages turns back into a hill. Ring forts are just the outer breastworks of a hill fort.

The ancient earth structures of the past are only known proximity to more modern structures, rescued texts, or because they are in ancient deserts. Anywhere with rain reclaims the structures into the ground. A hill fort in northern Europe or Asia where there isn't long term desert is now either long gone or built over. Lots of the ancient stone castles were simply new fortresses built over old ones that were made mostly of rammed earth.

As for disagreeing with me that a close knit society comes first, please point examples of forts being made the way you think. The hill and ring forts were either for a town nearby, which would have needed that society to start first, or for a military order, which again is an established society.

Towns that made a hill/ring fort had to build up enough of a society that it ultimately became a target. No ancient lone farmer built a moat and bailey outpost and then invited people in. Not when earth ram construction was such a labor intensive job. When would he have had time to farm?

They didn't have a Kobota dealer nearby to make short work of it.

If you disagree that a society isn't needed first then try to prove that with historical examples.

Everything else is just a mental SimCity. I guess have fun with it, but inviting a bunch of people to come die on your hill might not get enough takers or entice the wrong kind of folks. The "survival town" thought exercise is an old one at SB. But no one has made one work yet. Some developers have bought old caves and silos for rich folks, but I've yet to see one actually thrive as a society yet. If rich developers and rich tenants can't make it happen then clearly the place failed because of the lack of a working society.
Again, you keep returning to the burning barn of "wrong argument."

I already stipulated that a walled city cannot defend against modern weaponry.
Quote:
Though walled fortifications cannot withstand a modern military aggressor, they are sufficient to deter opportunistic two legged predators, as well as provide security from natural disasters. It’s an added plus when seeking to segregate from a pandemic.
IT IS NOT A MILITARY FORTIFICATION.

The purpose of the barrier wall is for DISASTER RESISTANCE.

No where in your rebuttal, have you addressed that issue.
Is this circular structure, with 2 meter / 6 foot thick walls going to endure / resist / survive side forces from storm surge, flash flooding, mudslide, etc? Or windborn objects from a tornado or hurricane or derecho? Or shockwaves from earthquakes?

I think it will.

As to the compatible society issue, it's a non-issue.

People are constrained by the market in what they can rent / buy to live in.
A neighborhood has no requirement for a "close knit society" before it is built or exists.
It's the result of collusion between builders, financiers, government regulators, and market forces.

If I had the funds, I'd build a DRV and rent / lease out the remainder. But I don't so I suggested the CHARTER MEMBER mode to raise the funds to buy the parcel of land and have a group of people interested in building their future permanent domicile.
That group may need to be a compatible society, in order to cooperate.
Or not.

Time-share vacations certainly thrived without the customer base having anything in common except a tinge of gullibility.

Apparently you do not like this idea. GREAT.
DO NOT BOTHER YOURSELF WITH IT ANY FURTHER.
But why make the effort to dissuade everyone else from the notion?
How would you be harmed by folks building a better future for themselves?

Look at the coast after every hurricane. Look at tornado valley. Look at flood prone areas. Look at just about every disaster in the past 50 years, and consider if they'd be better off if they had lived in robust DRVs, where they and their possessions were secure from damage.

Can you think of a disaster that wouldn't be mitigated by a DRV?
I can think of a few, like DROUGHT. But that affects all other types of construction, too. The remedy is not found in a robust ring.
So what's your real agenda?
Do you wish people to remain at risk or is it case of "not invented here" syndrome?
You certainly have no "better solution" to offer us.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2020, 02:26 PM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is offline
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 65
Posts: 4,718
Thanks: 395
Thanked 9,399 Times in 3,191 Posts
Default

FWIW, I also muddled around with non-barrier wall versions, where the outer wall was just like the inner walls, faced with apartments, continuous balconies, and businesses at the ground level.
It had merit.
(It also looked like the Skypad apartments from "The Jetsons")

But in most disasters, that outer layer would bore the brunt of destruction. I decided it was better to go with disaster resistance.





Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2020, 02:37 PM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is offline
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 65
Posts: 4,718
Thanks: 395
Thanked 9,399 Times in 3,191 Posts
Default

Imagine this, with two more stories, wrapped in a ring, in a DRV.
(For noisy businesses, owners' apartments would be above, to mitigate the nuisance.)


Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2020, 02:42 PM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is offline
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 65
Posts: 4,718
Thanks: 395
Thanked 9,399 Times in 3,191 Posts
Default

A more sterile design, minus the balconies, from Regent St, London. This is also a wee bit above 5 stories, but you can get the idea.









Now, let's put a few spritzes of greenery into the mix.


Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2020, 02:47 PM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is offline
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 65
Posts: 4,718
Thanks: 395
Thanked 9,399 Times in 3,191 Posts
Default

Imagine those stacked balconies, festooned with greenery. Outside every apartment, one could have a minigarden. (Rooftop garden space, too!)


Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2020, 03:20 PM
steve marshall steve marshall is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Age: 70
Posts: 3,598
Thanks: 1,222
Thanked 4,242 Times in 1,967 Posts
Default

Out****ingstanding. 32 of 49 posts by OP. 50 foot walls. Waterproof gate. Mental Masturbation in an open forum. And no, I didn't get past halfway? in the 1st post.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2020, 09:50 PM
IceFire's Avatar
IceFire IceFire is offline
I have control issues
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Southeast AZ
Posts: 5,893
Thanks: 8,934
Thanked 9,599 Times in 3,624 Posts
Awards Showcase
Outstanding Gardening Post or Thread 
Total Awards: 1
Default

All of those places have the same problem. Too freaking many PEOPLE!
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2020, 10:46 PM
IamZeke's Avatar
IamZeke IamZeke is offline
Beer Truck Door Gunner
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 30,215
Thanks: 37,764
Thanked 65,173 Times in 22,143 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
IT IS NOT A MILITARY FORTIFICATION.

The purpose of the barrier wall is for DISASTER RESISTANCE.
People aren't looking for a community village that is resistant to disaster. If they were they can solve the matter either with changes to their house or changing locations. Why build a huge structure to resist flood or storm surge when just moving to higher ground is easier and cheaper? As for an earthquake, no earth construction arrangement is trustworthy.

Quote:
As to the compatible society issue, it's a non-issue.
It's literally everything if you expect more than one family unit to be there.
__________________
Need more info? Try this:

Search using Google, type "site:survivalistboards.com" in Google's search box, followed by the search parameters. You can use all normal conventions, limit searches by date, etc. Works quite well and beats the native search function.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to IamZeke For This Useful Post:
Old 09-05-2020, 10:51 PM
Aerindel Aerindel is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Somewhere else
Posts: 9,239
Thanks: 12,540
Thanked 26,132 Times in 7,431 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamZeke View Post


It's literally everything if you expect more than one family unit to be there.

Yep. It's literally the only issue. Everything else is just construction. No real technological hurdles. Just a matter of getting people to WANT to do it.

Just.....

If you had some ham you could make a ham sandwich.....if you had some bread..
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aerindel For This Useful Post:
Old 09-06-2020, 12:37 AM
IamZeke's Avatar
IamZeke IamZeke is offline
Beer Truck Door Gunner
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 30,215
Thanks: 37,764
Thanked 65,173 Times in 22,143 Posts
Default

The natural disaster problem is solved by moving to alluvial plain desert. The only natural disasters in them are the rare flash floods that can be avoided by not building near arroyos or on the foot of mountain ridges. The chance of disaster is now exchanged for the constant threat condition of desert areas. Now it becomes a technology problem that can be addressed in a planned manner.

You really don't face unexpected natural disasters in Phoenix.

Once you realize that location solves most disaster problems you are dealing with society.

Look at Naples, Italy. It's skyline has Mount Vesuvius in the back. Literally the volcano that trashed Pompeii. But there are the 4.5 million people stacking up at the foot of that volcano now in one of the highest population densities per kilometer in the 1st World.

All of those people could be 50 miles away out of danger, but they keep packing them in like sardines anyway.

Why are they not all living in Salerno? It's 35 miles away via mountain roads to the south over a long ridge line that is a complete barrier to whatever Vesuvius could throw or spill. Same port opportunities, same fishing fleet location, same climate and terrain. It's the same ground except that it has a natural barrier between it and a killer volcano. It's not even a particularly long foot walk for refugees. Send in enough building supplies and Naples could be 20 minutes south and away from a lava flood.

And yet neither the people or the Italian government care to act on it.

It's all about the society. If it was about natural disaster threat then Naples should never even arose after the disaster lesson of Pompeii.

Millions still living in New Orleans too.
__________________
Need more info? Try this:

Search using Google, type "site:survivalistboards.com" in Google's search box, followed by the search parameters. You can use all normal conventions, limit searches by date, etc. Works quite well and beats the native search function.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to IamZeke For This Useful Post:
Old 09-06-2020, 01:32 AM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is offline
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 65
Posts: 4,718
Thanks: 395
Thanked 9,399 Times in 3,191 Posts
Default

[] Criticisms:
__ Too many people.
Yes. This design is for a HIGH POPULATION DENSITY. Because when you put people in a village, it helps that they’re close to each other. Around the world, farmers tend to live in villages, and commute to their fields. In America, most family farms are isolated -and failing. If one can no longer farm or does not wish to farm, there’s no other option but to leave.
If populations keep doubling every 50 years, having a pleasant environment to live in sounds like a win-win.
I don’t think people want to live in miserable conditions, low or high density.

Check out Michelfeld or Bibersfeld, Germany, 49.096931° 9.677831°
on Google Earth to see an example of a countryside dotted with ag-villages. And as to "sustainability," I think you would agree that Europe has been sustaining itself for thousands of years.

Then compare that with a typical American agricultural area, dotted with isolated family farms.
For example, near the town of Hartsburg, IL. 40.249337° -89.440157°
You can see square after square of fields, with the isolated family farmhouse, each like a tiny island.
. . .
__ People aren’t looking for disaster resistance.
So why are all these readers discussing SURVIVALIST ISSUES?
If prevention resolves 99% of the disasters, isn’t that EXACTLY what the readership is seeking?
Every disaster that destroys property and people that could have been abated by a DRV compels me to write and nudge and suggest and urge others to dream.
I think the idea has merit. If you do not, stop reading. Ignore the posts. No one is twisting your arm to repeatedly read it over - unless it really does appeal to you and you’re using reverse psychology.
. . .
__ Compatible society.
In all my years of living in rentals, or houses, I cannot think of one time that I first insured that my neighbors and I were compatible. More important was the rent / mortgage payments and if I could afford them. Maybe I did it all wrong. Next time, I will investigate my neighbors BEFORE thinking about moving in.
Compatibility?
Based on the response, here, I won't have much luck finding compatible folks among survivalists. LOL.
. . .
__ Personal attacks.
Insults are high praise. I blush. It also means capitulation, in that you have no facts to rebut what was posted. Thank you.
But if this idea annoys you, why bother reading?
Save yourself the pain and suffering.
. . .
__ Earthquake.
RESPONSES OF HAKKA RAMMED EARTH BUILDINGS UNDER EARTHQUAKE LOADS
http://www.civil.ist.utl.pt/~cristin...r_workshop.pdf
It was reported that there was a 3m long crack of 20 cm in width due to a strong earthquake in 1918 that was self-healed after quake. As a matter of fact, the large crack is still on the wall. The reported earthquake-induced crack is about 10 meter above the ground.
. . . . . . .
Rammed earth structures have existed on the planet Earth for thousands of years in regions that experience hurricane force winds and earthquakes. In these regions, civilization has seen modern construction appear to be the victim of nature’s power whereas older rammed earth structures have been able to withstand those conditions through the test of time.
. . . . . . .
Of course, these civil engineers could be lying, but I think I will trust their report.
And photos.

A more modern wall structure is rammed earth / cement stabilized soil BETWEEN two concrete skins (reinforced with Helix wire). (Gabions might also be used. Depends upon cost for the rocks and wire baskets versus local soil)

https://www.helixsteel.com/
Helix® Micro Rebar™ reinforcement’s combination of high tensile steel and superior anchorage provided by its patented twisted geometry increases concretes tensile strength, modulus of rupture and splitting tensile strength. Unlike rebar, mesh and fibers, Helix® Micro Rebar™ reinforcement works before the concrete fails and is the only reinforcement approved to replace structural reinforcement in concrete with a simple design method.
__ Japanese Pirates.

https://arpgweb.com/pdf-files/jssr2(11)189-194.pdf
“Japanese pirates who intruded the coastal areas, always left the Hakka’s tulou areas alone.”
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/n...orld-heritage/
"From the beginning their main function was to defend the people's safety," says Huang Hanmin, an architect who has written extensively about tulou. "The historic record shows constant threats from wild animals, bandits, and warlords."
Many of the walls were at least five feet thick, capable of withstanding cannon shots, flaming arrows, battering rams, and the occasional earthquake.
. . . .
The nay sayers are always right, because nothing gets done when no one does anything about it.

On the other hand, what if...
Survivalists (and extended families) pooled resources and bought large parcels of land, constructed high population density DRVs, and reduced their need for outside resupply of fuel, etc.

Prosperity is based on prodigious production of usable surplus goods and services, equitably traded and enjoyed. Doing more with less so more can enjoy is superior to doing less with more so few can enjoy.

Making expensive residential housing out of ephemeral, fragile, and cheap materials makes "the system" rich, but not the home owner. I'd like to see that turned around in favor of the owner / occupant.

HOUSING VICTIMS

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...ity-investment
America's trailer parks: the residents may be poor but the owners are getting rich
"Newton, who collects disability payments of $700 a month and pays $550 a month in rent, fears he would be forced on to the street."
“Today there’s a huge number of poor people, and there’s more poor people like every day,” he says.
FYI: $550/month computes to $6,600/annum, or $66,000/ten years.

Maybe I am a wild-eyed dreamer, but I hope someday that thousands and thousands of DRVs dot the landscape, rural, suburban, and even urban locations, where non-rich folks can live a better life, with jobs nearby, and where they and their possessions are safe from Mother Nature.
The alternative is too sad to dwell upon.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-06-2020, 01:39 AM
Aerindel Aerindel is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Somewhere else
Posts: 9,239
Thanks: 12,540
Thanked 26,132 Times in 7,431 Posts
Default

Quote:
On the other hand, what if...
Survivalists (and extended families) pooled resources and bought large parcels of land, constructed high population density DRVs, and reduced their need for outside resupply of fuel, etc.
You would never find enough of us to agree on it.

Come on, haven't you been paying attention to this forum? Half of the people here have the other half on their ignore lists, and that is among people who all took the time to sign up and use this forum. We should have a lot in common....yet we can't even come close to getting along. Most of the people here don't even seem interested in survivalism itself.

The general population? Not a chance.

There is nothing wrong with your idea....except the fact you need humans to make it work.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aerindel For This Useful Post:
Old 09-06-2020, 01:42 AM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is offline
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 65
Posts: 4,718
Thanks: 395
Thanked 9,399 Times in 3,191 Posts
Default

Speaking of New Orleans.
Did you know that Habitat for Humanity helped rebuild with termite friendly, flammable, flood sensitive wood framing?
Why is that an issue?
At one time Habitat for Humanity built concrete sandwich wall houses, like this one, that Jimmy Carter helped build:
https://tridipanel.com/project/hurri...-panel-system/
(Note the smiling woman and the surviving house in a neighborhood of wreckage)

But they stopped. Only wood frame construction is now subsidized by HfH.
[expletives deleted!]

Is there a covert policy to discourage building GOOD, STURDY, RESILIENT housing for poor folks?
GAWD HEP US if dem po' folk live in BETTER, SAFER, STURDIER houses than the rich and powerful.
. . . .
I like concrete sandwich construction (SCIP) like the TriDpanels (and others), for the non-rammed earth parts of the DRV.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-06-2020, 01:51 AM
Aerindel Aerindel is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Somewhere else
Posts: 9,239
Thanks: 12,540
Thanked 26,132 Times in 7,431 Posts
Default

[quote=jetgraphics;20572100]

Quote:
Is there a covert policy to discourage building GOOD, STURDY, RESILIENT housing for poor folks?
GAWD HEP US if dem po' folk live in BETTER, SAFER, STURDIER houses than the rich and powerful.
Yes. It's not even covert. Building codes most places make it hard to build anything but an OSB box with great big windows all over it. If you want to build anything better, sorry, now you need an on site engineer, environmental impact analysis etc...

I think most people would be better off with a yurt for lightweight construction, at least that you could move.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Aerindel For This Useful Post:
Old 09-06-2020, 01:52 AM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is offline
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 65
Posts: 4,718
Thanks: 395
Thanked 9,399 Times in 3,191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerindel View Post
You would never find enough of us to agree on it.

There is nothing wrong with your idea....except the fact you need humans to make it work.
OK, no one can agree to form a cooperative and buy land, and build a DRV.

What if one already existed, and the rent was $100/month... no, correct that. $100 a month for five years ($6000) and then it's your domicile for life.

Would you jump at the chance or not?
: : : : : : :
Let's sweeten the deal. . . Add $50 a month, and you can acquire a lifetime lease on a storefront for your vocation.
: : : : : : :
Or have access to a plot of "private" land outside of the DRV?
Plant what you want.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-06-2020, 01:55 AM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is offline
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 65
Posts: 4,718
Thanks: 395
Thanked 9,399 Times in 3,191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerindel View Post
Yes. It's not even covert. Building codes, etc.
INDEED.

Ever see a luxury mobile home or double wide?
You can find luxury models of practically everything else - boats, cars, appliances, clothing, but not for modular / mobile homes.
. . .
The CODES impose ridiculous limits on quality used in Mobile homes. . . Like roof eaves no higher than 7'6" that require shorter doors, giving the "MARK" of shame upon any mobile home, double wide, etc.


I once commented to a Salesman about the cheesy plastic sink in the bathroom. He said they had to use it to prevent breakage in transit. I pointed out that the water closet was porcelain and was more fragile. He mumbled something and walked away.
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net