I bet not a single soul in that town built, or is building, a tornado proof home, an example of which can be found at monolithic.com.

Wow and behold if they ever re-build their homes out of bricks, blocks & mortar. Doesn't the south of America ever learn, or do they just like re-building there homes every 10 years?

Well of course they consider it more important to make it green than tornado proof.

Dustin H

Well here's the deal. It's not that they like rebuilding their houses every 10 years, nor is it that they are that "challenged" to understand the whole house vs wind concept.
The reason why people build houses as they are currently, made of wood pannels & drywall, is because thats the way to save more money (both for companies and residents).
For companies, they save money on materials and on work, because they get most of the building pre-made and just assemble the pieces.
For the consumer, its an energy issue. In a brick/cement house, it is very hard to conserve any energy inside the house (either heat or cold) because cement / bricks are not good insulators. That means that during days where its 40C outside, when the walls heat up from the sun, inside will feel like an oven, which in terms requires a lot of cooling down.

- DiGGY

2/3's 1,500 inhabitants homeless... im guessing there is a money issue, and this is why they are building cheap and fast housing with green construction and materials.

"You cant solve a problem using the same thinking that caused the problem" A. Einstein.

Secondly, podboq, your architectural designs found on monolithic.com site features a patented design from someone, who lives in florida and he is 93 years old, just so you dont run into infringement. Finally I would like to add your sphere design is not tornado/hurricane proof. They are stronger than a regular house but not 100% proof. I have the design for that if you are interested then write me a mail and we can discuss further.

Bottom line, great that the US is finally making an effort in building green and solid constructions, its something we in europe have been doing for a century but energy consumption per capita is way too high in the US many countries are WAY ahead so Im hoping for broader learning from other countries. No point in reinventing the wheel if it already exists...

BTW Denmark for example, has 20% coming from windpower and wholly off the grid independent communities living on renewable energy (iin my opinion it should actually be called alternative energy, as oil is renewable , if you wait long enough) Denmark also doubled their GDP since the 1980 without increasing their energy consumption 1% ! so it is proven and I hope others will follow their mentality.

I would be very happy to see the US embracing more communal transporting, stop outsourcing to China, manufacture cars that are safe and running on efficient high pressure engines (like european made cars), waste to energy, windpower on a grand scale, stop ethanol (as it consumes way too much water, which will be the new Black gold-Blue gold) and finally implement biogas for farmers on a grand scale.

I still think that they shoud concentrate more on basement-oriente houses. Make th basement out of cement, then put a one-floor house on top. Because the taller the house, the bigger the chance to get blown away.
- DiGGY

I hope they pave a yellow brick road right through the center of town.

Here's an idea for tornado proof, why don't they all live in hobbit holes? That would be very safe.
Dustin H

Well they cpuld live in holes, but that would have a huge impact on the health of the people. The human body is used to having sun light around it. Artificial light doesn't always cut it.
It has been proven that the more time one spends under artificial light (compared to a person that spends the same time under a natural light), the more this person is proned to get sick.
- DiGGY

Inflatable concrete dome homes, half buried with fiber optic natural light solar collection and subsidized solar roof panels with individual small wind turbines at each home. Tie the intermittent power to the grid and then use a small amount of power during peak times to compress air into tanks that can be depressurized, turning generators when access to the grid has been eliminated due to natural disaster. Did I miss anything? Let the roasting begin.

Geodesic Domes can be very strong and I can't think of any other shape that is more close to tornado/hurricane proof.

Geodesic Dome houses... okay, maybe kind of tornado proof but b*tt ugly... Don't forget it still has to be nice to come back home. I'm sure there are plenty good (and good looking) alternatives to make housing tornado proof without having to live in a bunker...

The ignorance in this thread is appalling. Not only is monolithic construction green, it's some of the MOST green. Not only are they near-absolute protection against fire, tornados, hurricanes and floods, they're also structurally immune to termites and rodent damage.

I see by the 'votes for helpful/not-helpful' that very few even actually LOOKED at Monolithic's website. It strikes me as odd, in the era of lawsuits over personal stupidity, that anyone would pass up a blatant patent-infringement lawsuit. Here is a url for the site of a dome that's withstood numerous hurricanes: www.domeofahome.com Here's a link to a blurb about their tornado immunity:

static.monolithic.com/gallery/homes/morgan/index.html

Here's one that withstood a california wildfire:

static.monolithic.com/gallery/homes/braswell_fire/index.html

Here's a link that exemplifies their energy efficiency:

static.monolithic.com/thedome/climate/index.html

So many people think domes are fugly, is that right? Uglier than a house that burns your family alive, or one that doesn't protect them when the wind blows? Uglier than the cost of a termite infestation?

What you do with the outside is totally up to you. Many who have built monolithic domes have decided not to spruce up the outsides, but that doesn't mean it HAS to look like a dome. I personally like the difference, mankind has built square houses for thousands of years.... why be a sheep?

The cost of building one is comparable to stick-built destruction-prone housing, with maintenance and energy costs up to 90% lower than conventional construction. What's not green about that? Insurance is also lower.

Consider that the thermal battery, i.e. the concrete, is only exposed to the HVAC system inside the dome, and so maintains that temperature, your initial cost for that system is MUCH lower, since it's smaller than those used in conventional homes, as is the ongoing cost of daily energy use.

Still, people say they're ugly. I just don't get it.

Andrew
Nobody is looking at the two main factors of this.
One: THE PRICE
Two: THE WORTH IT SPECTRUM

Some of the houses that actually are worth it cost about 1.5 mill. this is unreasonable and the ones that are reasonably price are cramped. The whole point of buying one of these is the tornado thing but can you imagine your friends coming to your home and laughing at you. You have the queerest looking house in the neighborhood and you have to live with it for the next ten years till you find out if it was worth it or not. And believe it or not that only 1 out of every hundred are not the sheep. I personally suggest cement basements and then the normal.
For the people that do like the look's it may be worth it. I can't tell you that it's the worst thing ever, because I have not tried it. If I was going to live in a house temporarily for like 10yrs I would definitely take the dome (if I were to move somewhere where it was tornado prone). If I stayed somewhere else I would still check those out. If I was though, going to buy a permanent house. I would pick the square house hands down.

Andrew
Nobody is looking at the two main factors of this.
One: THE PRICE
Two: THE WORTH IT SPECTRUM

Some of the houses that actually are worth it cost about 1.5 mill. this is unreasonable and the ones that are reasonably price are cramped. The whole point of buying one of these is the tornado thing but can you imagine your friends coming to your home and laughing at you. You have the queerest looking house in the neighborhood and you have to live with it for the next ten years till you find out if it was worth it or not. And believe it or not that only 1 out of every hundred are not the sheep. I personally suggest cement basements and then the normal.
For the people that do like the look's it may be worth it. I can't tell you that it's the worst thing ever, because I have not tried it. If I was going to live in a house temporarily for like 10yrs I would definitely take the dome (if I were to move somewhere where it was tornado prone). If I stayed somewhere else I would still check those out. If I was though, going to buy a permanent house. I like the square house hands down.

I guess no one considers the initial more expensive cost of building traditional houses, the yearly upkeep, the maintenance, the expense of cleanup and new materials every time it's all blown to hell. The pollution all that replacement-industry costs the environment.

There are SO many people who think humankind isn't adversely affecting the earth's natural cycles. It's frankly unbelievable, the only way you could miss it is with your heads stuck in the sand.

I'm all for the government forcing people to include energy production systems, that create zero emissions once installed, onto home builders, forcing people to build houses that compliment their environment, and can stand against most anything in that environment.

The cost of insurance alone should demand these things.

People as a mass behave as if the rules don't apply to them, its time to wake up.

One last thing, any 'growth' in the economy that depends on raw natural resources will send us farther down the road we're on now.

yeah, build underground homes, and use plants on top to cool it..... seen this somewhere on this site before....