Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's all good, those pseudo kamaaina bring a big wad of cash, burn through it and then can't replace it and wander away again. Usually leaving a large amount of stuff behind as well. They are almost a resource base.
So how's your thoughts on building going? To build or not to build? And then "how to build" are always interesting things.
Those are interesting alternative living situations, Nullgeo, although some of them don't meet sanitation requirements.
Yeah, you might think ... but they can ... very easily. I can write at very great length on that subject ... but won't bother everyone anymore for now
Hmm, how about building a small permitted bath house with toilet and then having all these other interesting living quarters scattered about the property? Maybe make the bath/toilet/kitchen all one structure or perhaps two, to keep the plumbing near to each other and then start an "alternate" camp ground for visitors? There'd probably be all sorts of different rules if you tried to do something like that, though.
Sure many people appreciate conformity.
Sure, I have lots and lots and lots of examples of how contemporary housing is not sensible.
These are subjects on which large books can be written. Trying to keep it short-ish and relatively simple:
How is your desire for conformity more important than my desire for a uniquely simplistic lifestyle -- assuming I do not endanger you? Is your desire for conformation in a free society based solely on traditions without understanding the basis for those traditions? How is our society free if you force me to live under the toil and expense and limitations of traditions you don't even understand the origins of?
People all around the world have lived historically and currently in a very great variety of abodes, including tents, caves, grass / leaf huts, vardos (gypsy wagons), RV's and trailers, boats, automobiles and trucks, lean-to's, igloos, mud huts, sod cabins, stone houses, earth-bermed and underground dwellings, and more. There is nothing particularly unsightly nor threatening to the public well being about any of those. In fact, a number of them are vastly more kindly to the environment they sit in, visually and interactively with nature, than a frame house. If someone lives in a vardo or a tent within a garden without trashing the place around them, the only beef is perhaps one's visual preference for European-based architectural tradition ... which traditions are based in some historically irrelevant issues. Those designs of nostalgic proportions are based on limited cultural lifestyles and materials long eclipsed.
People don't need to sit on couches, or on chairs at diner tables ... they do so most often because -- well, that's how they were raised by people who were in turn raised that way. Meanwhile, millions of people elsewhere sit on mats, rugs, the ground and experience life at least as fully as do people on chairs.
The kitchens and bathrooms and individual rooms for each purpose -- the separation of our children into private spaces -- and so forth do not create any particular improvement in quality of life. Quality of life is found in behavior toward one's self, others, and nature around.
Prescriptive building demands that each of us spend exorbitant amounts of money and time creating lifestyle structures which do not necessarily enhance life. Furthermore, we then have to maintain them with effort and expense that detracts from other activities, including involvement with family, friends, and service to community. Our traditional approaches to plumbing and "waste" management are especially absurd and counter-intuitive and counter productive.
There's a mini-sampling of the issues for starters.
Time is irrelevant to issues of quality ...
besides which: one does not need to live in the slightest bit primitively in simplistic structures or habits ...
all that is required is an interest in life's essentials --
as opposed to its shallow superficialities and destructive temptations.
Time is irrelevant to issues of quality ...
besides which: one does not need to live in the slightest bit primitively in simplistic structures or habits ...
all that is required is an interest in life's essentials --
as opposed to its shallow superficialities and destructive temptations.
Well, I'd dare say that many, if not most, Hawaiians wish it were the mid-1800's again ... longer past than that.
But, no matter. No, I don't advocate any return to the past ... I advocate learning from the past and applying wisdom wisely for the future. As I wrote previously: one needn't live at all in primitive ignorance to live simply and very conveniently. And regardless of your interest or disinterest in how modernly a person / family can thrive in simplified trappings, you have no moral basis for restricting others' freedoms in free society.
I dont understand why people feel they SHOULD be allowed to build unpermitted when they come to Hawaii? The rules are to have a permit and coming into someone elses place of living and deciding you don;t want top play by the rules is down right unneighborly.
Agreed and on top of that, talk about it and ask how to do it in a public forum (though anonymously). And then get all huffity when called out on it--pretty typical though.
I am sympathetic to nullgeo's point that the codes are very single-minded, not to mention the vagaries of the permitting system that enforces them irregularly (and let's not start with the politics involved in the planning departments). The fact that codes essentially require double-wall construction usually means gypsum board for cost reasons, and that prevents any locally sourcing of materials.
However, the way to change that is not through unpermitted structures (most of which are unpermitted for convenience and cost reasons, not for sustainability or alternative construction purposes) but as whtviper1 suggests, by political and legal means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame Angel
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I think the vast majority of people appreciate the sanity, orderliness etc., that such laws bring to a community. Most people neither want to live in, or have their neighborhood deteriorated by non-standard structures such as geodesic domes. They are a novelty, but not a solution.
Do you have any examples of how our contemporary housing is "not very sensible" or "ridiculous"?
And you are entitled to your opinion, but not empowered to speak for the vast majority. Nothing wrong with a geodesic dome in my neighborhood (or yours). Agreed that they aren't a universal solution, but if they can be built to meet reasonable safety codes (which I believe they can due to their strength), they should be allowed anywhere. And I totally agree with nullgeo's opinions about non-(Western-)traditional structures.
As for examples, how about single-wall construction that is so well adapted to Hawaii? I bet single-wall techniques could be slightly updated to add strength and rigidity, and thus still be safe in a hurricane zone (even if there are tons of old single-wall houses that have survived hurricanes).
Hey, Flame Angel, most of your comments are trollish, so how about you provide some rational arguments for the conformity and codes you advocate. You know, some real substance for a change.
Well, I'd dare say that many, if not most, Hawaiians wish it were the mid-1800's again ... longer past than that.
But, no matter. No, I don't advocate any return to the past ... I advocate learning from the past and applying wisdom wisely for the future. As I wrote previously: one needn't live at all in primitive ignorance to live simply and very conveniently. And regardless of your interest or disinterest in how modernly a person / family can thrive in simplified trappings, you have no moral basis for restricting others' freedoms in free society.
I think not 1 out 100 Hawaiians would give up running hot and cold water, refrigeration, beer, Air Conditioning, metals, motors, radio, TV, the Internet. Nope, I suspect you are 100% wrong in your assertion.
You see, there is a funny thing about time, it always goes forwards, and neither it, nor you, can go back. No sane person wants to live in a Tee Pee or a sheepherder trailer or a cave or any of your proposed "sensible" solutions - none, zip, zero, nada, and truth be told, I suspect neither do you.
In closing, don't you every again infer that I attempted or are attempting to restrict your freedoms in a free society. But we live in an organized society with mutually-agreed-to rules, some of us call "laws" - building codes and zoning laws being part thereof.
Agreed and on top of that, talk about it and ask how to do it in a public forum (though anonymously). And then get all huffity when called out on it--pretty typical though.
I am sympathetic to nullgeo's point that the codes are very single-minded, not to mention the vagaries of the permitting system that enforces them irregularly (and let's not start with the politics involved in the planning departments). The fact that codes essentially require double-wall construction usually means gypsum board for cost reasons, and that prevents any locally sourcing of materials.
However, the way to change that is not through unpermitted structures (most of which are unpermitted for convenience and cost reasons, not for sustainability or alternative construction purposes) but as whtviper1 suggests, by political and legal means.
And you are entitled to your opinion, but not empowered to speak for the vast majority. Nothing wrong with a geodesic dome in my neighborhood (or yours). Agreed that they aren't a universal solution, but if they can be built to meet reasonable safety codes (which I believe they can due to their strength), they should be allowed anywhere. And I totally agree with nullgeo's opinions about non-(Western-)traditional structures.
As for examples, how about single-wall construction that is so well adapted to Hawaii? I bet single-wall techniques could be slightly updated to add strength and rigidity, and thus still be safe in a hurricane zone (even if there are tons of old single-wall houses that have survived hurricanes).
Hey, Flame Angel, most of your comments are trollish, so how about you provide some rational arguments for the conformity and codes you advocate. You know, some real substance for a change.
You should learn the difference between someone offering their own opinion about what most people think, and speaking FOR them, or have you highhandedly done away with my rights of speech or of opinion.
Geodesic domes are eye-sores. Don't foul up someone else s neighborhood with your silly structures. People put their lives into their homes, and don't need some ******* destroying their property values with trailers, tee-pees, domes, igloos, tents etc. Go out in the boondocks if you wish.
Personally, I don't care what the inside of your house looks like or how many walls you have, but if the code stipulates two-sided walls, then I support that, for there must be a good reason.
I think not 1 out 100 Hawaiians would give up running hot and cold water, refrigeration, beer, Air Conditioning, metals, motors, radio, TV, the Internet. Nope, I suspect you are 100% wrong in your assertion.
How many Hawaiians would prefer days gone by? Would make a great poll question. I think it would be fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame Angel
You see, there is a funny thing about time, it always goes forwards, and neither it, nor you, can go back.
Funny again. You don't seem to know much about astro-physics and the dimension of convenience referred to by physicists as "time". It is quite flexible and arbitrary. I'd suggest that you look up Minkowski's theorum of the nullgeodesic ... one of his theorums on the packaging of space which is used in astro-physics for certain calculations and applications of space travel ... but I have a feeling you couldn't understand any of it. Here, I'll summarize: neither time nor space exist on the nullgeodesic plane. Is it real? Call up your friendly neighborhood theoretical mathematician and ask. Minkowski was Einstein's most influential teacher. Your mathematician will know who he was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame Angel
No sane person wants to live in a Tee Pee or a sheepherder trailer or a cave or any of your proposed "sensible" solutions - none, zip, zero, nada, and truth be told, I suspect neither do you.
Well, wrong again. I moved out of my earth-covered home (which I built myself) to move into my version of a sheep-herder's wagon. No, I'm not kidding. I really, actually, live in a van ... when I am not living on my little boats. And I know a LOT of people who live the way I do intentionally. As I responded to you previously in this thread (http://www.city-data.com/forum/22584340-post30.html): I live a minimalist's lifestyle by choice. I can cite many persons like me. Very many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame Angel
In closing, don't you every again infer that I attempted or are attempting to restrict your freedoms in a free society. But we live in an organized society with mutually-agreed-to rules, some of us call "laws" - building codes and zoning laws being part thereof.
I will absolutely state that by your intentions to limit the type of home I or others wish to build you are in fact proposing to limit my and others' freedoms. How else could you interpret it?
Living in an "organized society" doesn't preclude living simply, sensibly, and creatively. Living in a totalitarian ruled society where everything is prescriptively controlled is apparently what you wish ... and there are many for you to choose from if you don't care for a free America.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
