Behold, the Dymaxion house!
Anyone who has studied science or been to Disney world has probably heard of Buckminster Fuller — inventor of the bucky ball, the geodesic dome, carbon fullerenes, and the phrase “spaceship earth.” In 1929, he saw that industrial devices were becoming steadily cheaper — cars, radios, and such labor-saving devices as washing machines and vacuum cleaners were becoming things that everyone could own. At the same time, houses were getting more expensive — and with the start of the Great Depression, were something not many people could afford. He was sure that he could invent a house that you could build in a factory and assemble on site, that everyone could afford, and that would be better and more comfortable then standard homes.
Of course, we know it didn’t work out, since we aren’t living in those homes today — but it didn’t fail for the reasons you might think.
To Fuller, the house of the future had to be, “Proof against fire and flood, tornado and earthquake, electrical storms and marauders. It must be proof against drudgery — that is, in it must be accessories such that the housewife can accomplish all her cleaning within fifteen minutes.” It had to be comfortable, affordable, of a reasonable size, resistant to damage and cheap to upkeep. And these were not idle statements — Fuller planned to sell these homes in the mid-west, and so they had to be strong enough to resist a tornado coming within a few hundred feet. He planned to sell them in California, so they had to withstand earthquakes. He planned to try to sell home-convenience in the middle of the depression, so they had to be the easiest home yet made.
His investors were a bit dubious about the need for “marauder” resistance however.
Fuller decided to accomplish this with a bit of clever engineering. The outside of the house would be a stainless steel shell, anchored to the ground, completely water tight, and strong enough to resist an earthquake or tornado. It would come to a point in the center, so that on hot days, the warm air would rise into the point and be pumped out of the house, and on cold days, the vents to the point could be closed, so there was less house to heat. All the utilities — electrical box, heater, and air conditioner — could be in a single utility room under the point, so that you could build them in a factory and drop them into the house on-site. It would be easy to upkeep because there would be no materials to rot or rust, and easy to clean because it was compact.
This was the result.
Not bad. Not bad at all. Looking the other way, we can see that the building wraps around, heading towards the kitchen:
Lots of room, a fireplace, plenty of windows — low upkeep and safe. It’s a little “cute” in its look, but far from ugly. So why did it bomb?
Because it didn’t feel like a home.
That was the start and the end of why the Dymaxion house belly-flopped when it should have swan-dived. No matter how the interior was arranged or what dividing walls were added, people felt like they were living in a one-room house. Even if the interior space was the same as that of a much larger, traditional house, people looked at it and said that it looked small. The all-steel construction left people making comparisons to “living in a grain silo.” And perhaps most importantly, it was the cheapest house ever made.
Which meant that if you bought it, you were admitting that you were poor.
Kids don’t want “age appropriate” knockoffs of their older siblings toys, teenagers don’t want near-beer, food lovers don’t want instant meals, and young couples don’t want “special” houses. They want the houses their parents had, that they grew up in. Things they can look at and feel proud of. For most, getting a knockoff doesn’t just mean you’re getting something worse — it makes you feel like you couldn’t afford the real thing.
When Fuller made the Dymaxion house, he bragged, “My entire house can be fit in the back of a truck!” To which homeowners responded, “It comes in a truck? Like a trailer home?”
The Dymaxion house wasn’t the first “home of the future” to crash and burn — but there’s a reason it was the first one we chose for the blog. It didn’t fail because the designer was foolish, or arrogant, or over-optimistic, or obsessed with gadgets. It didn’t fail because it got too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter, or because of leaks, or noise, or looks. It failed because the designer saw a house as a machine, that does a job — and he focused on that job. Not on how the people living in the house saw it, and interacted with it.
We picked the Dymaxion house, because it serves as a warning — about why the content of this blog is important, and why the house of the future will not look like the house of the future.
Recent Comments