> Reminds me of something I ran across years ago. I used to be a big fan
> of Buckminster Fuller-- still am, more or less-- and his geodesic domes
> were admired for their efficiency and economy. They were easy to erect,
> could be transported easily, were widely used in Third World countries
> (as well as along the Defense Early Warning line), and generally fit the
> Whole Earth Catalog ethic of intelligent use of materials.
Stewart Brand, the main force behind the Whole Earth Catalog, actually wrote a thorough-going mea culpa for his support for geodesic domes in his 1994 book _How Buildings Learn_:
<quote>
As for domes, fancied by achitects through the ages, the findings are now in, based on an entire generation's experience with Buckminster Fuller geodesic domes in the 1970s. They were much touted in the architecture magazines of the period. As major propagandist for Fuller domes in my _Whole Earth Catalogs_, I can report with mixed chagrin and glee that they were a massive, total failure. Count the ways.
Domes leaked, always. The angles between the facets could never be sealed successfully. If you gave up and tried to shingle the whole damn thing -- dangerous process, ugly result -- the nearly horizontal shingles on top still took in water. The inside was basically one big room, impossible to subdivide, with too much space wasted up high. The shape made it a whispering gallery that broadcast private sounds to everyone in the dome. Construction was a nightmare because *everything* was non-standard -- "Contractors who have worked on domes all swear that they'll never do another." [FN] Even the vaunted advantage of saving on materals with a dome didn't work out, because cutting triangles and pentagons from rectangular sheets of plywood left enormous waste. Insulating was a huge hassle. Doors and windows weakened the structure, and *they* leaked because of shape and angle problems.
Worst of all, domes couldn't grow or adapt. Redefining space inside was difficult, adding anything to the outside nearly impossible -- a cut-and-try process of matching compound angles and curves. When my generation outgrew the domes, we simply left them empty, like hatchlings leaving their eggshells.
[FN: George Oakes in Lloyd Kahn's _Refried Domes_, p. 1, (1989: $7 postpaid from Shelter Publications, PO Box 279, Bolinas, CA 94924). Lloyd Kahn's enthusiastic earlier book, _Domebook II_ (1972) sold 175,000 copies. By the late 1970s, his grim experience with domes converted him from a proponent and builder to a critic. He tore down his own dome home and replaced it with a conventional structure.]
<unquote>
BTW, I personally think this book by Brand, _How Buildings Learn_, is work of genius. And I say that as man who has profoundly mixed feelings about the Whole Earth Catalog, the Co-Evolutionary Quarterly and about Brand himself. But here the writing is clear and concise, the ideas are simple and profound, and its all leavened with humor -- all rare qualities in writing about architecture. It's also a brilliant study in presenting and analyzing visual information, which might make it a great browse if you're ever killing time in a Barnes and Noble.
Michael