I'm more curious about the state of that yurt in 5, 10, 15 years. Heating, humidity, insulation, energy bill, insects, hygiene, maintaining the toilet and the hygiene issues that come with it.
Building codes don't exist without good reasons. Health and comfort don't happen by snapping finger at good ideas. I would really be interesting if construction engineers seriously studied yurts.
I have to say this looks pretty nice and it's pretty cheap, but humans did not start building with hard materials without good reasons. Even without fossil energy, humans still started to use stone, cement, etc.
I guess brick has a very long lifespan, it's worth the time spent, but I don't know if it's cheap.
Absolutely, I have done no research on this but on his website [1] he claims:
> Strength: The fundamental principles of a yurt’s design creates a structure that is surprisingly strong. The compression and tension of the walls and roof can hold thousands of pounds of weight from the snow. The round shape allows high winds to be diverted gracefully around the structure. Unlike a normal house, a yurt doesn’t rely on rigidity to be stable. Because of its flexible nature, a yurt can better withstand natural disasters like earthquakes.
So maybe it's true and they are actually sturdier than it seems?
I think from a structural engineering perspective, yurts are strong for their weight/materials but most construction failures don’t involve a structure falling, it’s matrierials/joint failure from water/UV exposure and penetrations. Yurts were developed to be semi-permanent structures for nomadic peoples. I would not expect them to last more than 15-20 years because of the toll the water and sun will take on their “cheap” materials and simple construction methods.
You’re not wrong per se, but the polyvinyl fabric roof or wall on a yurt can be replaced in a matter of hours for a relatively reasonable price. If you have to do that every 15 years, I think you’re doing pretty well.
Cheaper to replace a yurt than a roof on a traditional home, which you are supposed to do in a range of time similar to your predicted lifespan of a yurt. And that includes the entire yurt, when in reality you'd probably only have to replace the plastic and frabric which is considerably less expensive than the entire yurt.
I'm not sure if I'm under-thinking this or if you guys are.
Possibly a construction engineer designed this kit.
These kits have been around a long time, I’ve been in one that has been standing for some time, I didn’t notice mildew issues (I’m guessing there is some type of ridge vent at the peak) temperatures were ok. It was in the Bay Area and plenty of apartments there aren’t insulated, so the yurt wasn’t much different.
This is an expensive build, Idk if wiring the yurt for electricity is worth it. If you keep it as all one room, a single lamp and spot to charge a laptop or phone pretty much covers it. Propane to heat water for a short hot outdoor shower, and cooking outside.
One thing to consider is if you are the type of person to make it really remote, maybe you’ll find that as cool as a mile hike in is to your yurt, you will occasionally want to hang out there without the hike.
"I'm more curious about the state of that yurt in 5, 10, 15 years."
It's a good question and I've always wanted to see postmortems on alternative building methods generally. I suppose that we could always take on the Japanese philosophy of building homes anew every few decades.
'Round these parts, I'm afraid that a yurt would be crushed by the first real snowfall, but the build isn't in these parts so no harm, no foul.
Personally, I'd think twice about building over an old blackberry patch. There's a reason that the plants like that place and the word 'swamp' comes to mind. It's already hard enough to deal with moisture in a dwelling as it is.
In any case, it sure looks cool and I like the builder's spirit.
Humans used whatever material was plenty available for a long time. The Siam and Burmese empires used wood. When the wood started to rot they razed it and built new houses.
Most homes in the US are simple wood frames, with wood cladding. No one worries about the lifespan of those houses.
And given good construction, a wooden house can last hundreds of years as seen in the surviving houses in Europe. Doesn't of course mean they all will.
I bought a wood framed house that is probably 150 years old. Nobody really knows when it was built. The framing and the fieldstone foundation are in perfect order.
It was built on the highest point in the farm field. Water flows away from the house at all times. It uses full size framing (actual 2x4) with solid boards as sheathing.
The roof was maintained and the shading trees do their job to keep UV exposure low.
A building is a system. You can neglect major parts and it breaks down. Modern construction unfortunately optimises for less time on the job site and ready-made cheap materials. Easy to make mistakes that reduce the lifetime of the structure.
vinyl tarp: i have some car tents from costco (aprox $300) that appear to use a similar vinyl exterior and they hold up great (5+ years so far). I made one into a perm shed, but with that I added another layer of thick tarp on top (that also seems to hold up well, just make sure you use UV stabalized)
insulation: looks pretty awful to me. this thing is going to be cold in winter unless you keep the fire going 24/7
plants: good luck keeping these with enough light+water. watering these seems like a total nightmare given how any drips are going to ruin your structure/drywall.
foundation: anyone doing this, rent a (or buy a cheap) concrete mixer! I bought one used for $100 on craigslist. can sell it right back when you are done with the project.
flooring: "luxury vinyl planks" are awesome. I use the "lifeproof" brand (bought at home-depot) and they are great. completely waterproof, durable, and look like wood.
I would certainly like to add some more detail that goes into a lot of what you mentioned. Just havent had the time yet. I agree with most of what you say. But I think there’s a spectrum of acceptable living conditions that maybe extends past what most current building codes allow. Some people are okay roughing it more than others. Of course, if that were to be accepted it could also be taken advantage of by unscrupulous landlords, developers, etc.
There are counties in the US that do permit yurts even for full-time use. These gurts are signed off by a structural engineer and are typically in more temperate climates. Yurts can last quite a long time. Most of the exterior material has a 15 year warranty. Beyond that, it will depend on the climate and how well the structure is maintained. There are yurts that were constructed by the OG yurt companies back in the late 70s that are still in use today. And the materials and engineering has only gotten better over the decades. Yurts are not perfect for every environment, but they are an interesting option in specific use cases.
But in the state of 5, 10, 15 years, the beauty of this is that most of it is easily replaceable, assuming the foundation and flooring is solid. I mean, there is just not a lot to "go bad", so to speak.
Sure but moving means you do a total inspection and replace anything that is wrong 2-4 times per year. You can also clean off any mildew, water damage, plug any holes, deal with any ground issues underneath, leave behind any biological waste, etc.
Building codes don't exist without good reasons. Health and comfort don't happen by snapping finger at good ideas. I would really be interesting if construction engineers seriously studied yurts.
I have to say this looks pretty nice and it's pretty cheap, but humans did not start building with hard materials without good reasons. Even without fossil energy, humans still started to use stone, cement, etc.
I guess brick has a very long lifespan, it's worth the time spent, but I don't know if it's cheap.