Shelter: Dual ring villages

Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:20 pm by duck

Circles are grand for all the reasons you state. I like the ring structure as it is inline with the permaculture methods of swales and berms. I am more interested in retaining water and topsoil. Round will do that!

Don't really follow you on the Socialist America. I would say it's Fascist America. Unless you are just talking about a top-down implementation of law. If I had to label myself for discussion sake, of course being from Texas I do have my Libertarian tendencies, but I half-ass follow a kinda sorta Geo-Libertarian/Socialist/Anarch-ish/Tree-Hugger-Totalitarianism fuzzy-edged conviction where private property ownership should be very, very limited and inline with the maintenance of bio and cultural diversity.

I also believe in proportional representation with minority rights if that makes you feel any better. ha.

Is the law-making of your village going to be flat and in circles too? The physical shape of your village sounds like a brilliant idea. The people factor - not so simple.

Maybe the more scaredy people could live in the inner rings where they will be (or think they are) safer but with more restrictions and the more free-spirited yet wise-to-the-need-of-community folks could live in the outer rings where they'd be more exposed to more of the good and bad of the world?

Anywhoo, I don't really get caught up in how people arrive at their beliefs and how they implement their beliefs as long as it's between consenting adults and you can still drink the water afterwards.

So all the best to you and yours!

-duck

Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:27 am by jetgraphics

duck wrote:Circles are grand for all the reasons you state. I like the ring structure as it is inline with the permaculture methods of swales and berms. I am more interested in retaining water and topsoil. Round will do that!

The basic advantages of a dual ring village - minimized exposed surface areas - can also apply to irregular topography. A contour following terrace plan can use these ideas, too.

duck wrote:Don't really follow you on the Socialist America. I would say it's Fascist America. Unless you are just talking about a top-down implementation of law. If I had to label myself for discussion sake, of course being from Texas I do have my Libertarian tendencies, but I half-ass follow a kinda sorta Geo-Libertarian/Socialist/Anarch-ish/Tree-Hugger-Totalitarianism fuzzy-edged conviction where private property ownership should be very, very limited and inline with the maintenance of bio and cultural diversity.

Technically speaking, collectivism (socialism / communism / marxism) abolishes private property rights (absolute ownership) and replaces it with qualified ownership (aka "estate"). That has been accomplished, via FICA, since 1935.
Since no law compels participation, it's "voluntary". But most people presume that the law compels them to participate before they can work in their own country.
My personal advocacy is for the republican form of government which is as far as you can get from democratic socialism we've lived under for 77 years.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/951
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/1675

duck wrote:I also believe in proportional representation with minority rights if that makes you feel any better. ha.

That's democracy - not interested, personally.
I like the republican form, promised in Art. 4, Sec. 4, USCON, wherein the people are the sovereigns, served - not ruled - by the government. The 'minority rights' of the individual sovereign trump the collective privileges of the government.
(In "legalspeak", that's natural liberty and personal liberty.)

duck wrote:Is the law-making of your village going to be flat and in circles too? The physical shape of your village sounds like a brilliant idea. The people factor - not so simple.

"All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent."
Or as the Declaration of Independence puts it:
Job #1 = secure rights (endowed by our Creator);
Job #2 = govern those who consent.
(Consent waives job #1!)

duck wrote:Maybe the more scaredy people could live in the inner rings where they will be (or think they are) safer but with more restrictions and the more free-spirited yet wise-to-the-need-of-community folks could live in the outer rings where they'd be more exposed to more of the good and bad of the world?

I am not into rules and regulations. If a deliberate act damages the person or property of another - that's a crime. If it's accidental, it's a tort - injured parties seek compensation and/or restitution or grant forgiveness. The rest is up to the consent of those who want to be regulated, for whatever privilege.

duck wrote:Anywhoo, I don't really get caught up in how people arrive at their beliefs and how they implement their beliefs as long as it's between consenting adults and you can still drink the water afterwards.

I rather prefer the law of love over the law of the jungle.

Wed Sep 07, 2011 5:15 pm by duck

jetgraphics wrote:
duck wrote:Anywhoo, I don't really get caught up in how people arrive at their beliefs and how they implement their beliefs as long as it's between consenting adults and you can still drink the water afterwards.

I rather prefer the law of love over the law of the jungle.

What if you love the jungle?

No but really, can't you love something and not possess it? An isn't private ownership territorial? Like in the jungle?

Even the concept of love is open to interpretation.

Seems counterintuitive to have private property rights as the center and some vague concept of noncompliance endowed by a creator-type (that will also needs to be collectively interpreted), as the glue that holds it all together.

Unless it's some kind of cult!!

Ruh roh...

Physical ownership requires boundaries, boundaries require proof of ownership, proof of ownership requires enforcement. If your take is regulation is only for crimes committed then maybe private ownership is the crime?

I do not mean to knock your staunch libertarian Creator centric belief. It's tricky to rectify the needs and desires of the individual and the needs and desires of a community all at the same time.

I think hippies do it the best. Here's a link to a bunch (which you probably already know about), that keep it going as long as their numbers don't get over a couple of hundred. Any larger and too many differences occur which breaks down the community. Hmmm, that sounds familiar.

http://www.thefarmcommunity.com/

Alrighty then,
ducking out and goin' home.

Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:09 pm by Revi

I think it will be something people will think about as it gets nastier. We need to figure out ways of defending our homes and businesses. I have ceased spending on anything else. We'll need to figure out places that are safe. We may need to abandon some places as indefensible.

I wonder if a double ring building is possible? It could be done with existing buildings. Just build a ring of some sort around it. After people shot up our sugarhouse I researched ways of bulletproofing buildings. Six inches of pea gravel will stop a bullet. A ring of bulletproof material surrounding a building, with gates that let people only into the inside ring would be the way to go. We built a bulletproof planter box that protects the evaporator at our maple sugarhouse. Perhaps landscaping like that is a good idea.

This thread has got me thinking of ways we can protect existing places as well using the ring village as a model.

Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:50 pm by roccman

Revi wrote:I think it will be something people will think about as it gets nastier. We need to figure out ways of defending our homes and businesses. I have ceased spending on anything else. We'll need to figure out places that are safe. We may need to abandon some places as indefensible.

I wonder if a double ring building is possible? It could be done with existing buildings. Just build a ring of some sort around it. After people shot up our sugarhouse I researched ways of bulletproofing buildings. Six inches of pea gravel will stop a bullet. A ring of bulletproof material surrounding a building, with gates that let people only into the inside ring would be the way to go. We built a bulletproof planter box that protects the evaporator at our maple sugarhouse. Perhaps landscaping like that is a good idea.

This thread has got me thinking of ways we can protect existing places as well using the ring village as a model.

a sand bag will stop all hand gun, rifle, and machine gun calibers

it is the preferred military method of "bunkerizing" road stops and buildings

Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:18 pm by allissun

roccman wrote:
Revi wrote:I think it will be something people will think about as it gets nastier. We need to figure out ways of defending our homes and businesses. I have ceased spending on anything else. We'll need to figure out places that are safe. We may need to abandon some places as indefensible.

I wonder if a double ring building is possible? It could be done with existing buildings. Just build a ring of some sort around it. After people shot up our sugarhouse I researched ways of bulletproofing buildings. Six inches of pea gravel will stop a bullet. A ring of bulletproof material surrounding a building, with gates that let people only into the inside ring would be the way to go. We built a bulletproof planter box that protects the evaporator at our maple sugarhouse. Perhaps landscaping like that is a good idea.

This thread has got me thinking of ways we can protect existing places as well using the ring village as a model.

a sand bag will stop all hand gun, rifle, and machine gun calibers

it is the preferred military method of "bunkerizing" road stops and buildings

What about Rammed Earth, or Cob? Does anyone know about the bullet-proof-ness of these earth building methods? I don't know much about Rammed Earth, in terms of time to build, except to say it is very, very labor-intensive. Cob, too, but less so. 18" to 2' - 0" walls, depending on geographical location and site, and other factors.

Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:38 pm by jetgraphics

roccman wrote:
Revi wrote:I wonder if a double ring building is possible?

a sand bag will stop all hand gun, rifle, and machine gun calibers
it is the preferred military method of "bunkerizing" road stops and buildings

The origin of the dual ring came from reinterpreting a hemispherical building. I was thinking about making it more useful, so I flattened the top, and made it a cylinder. But the curved walls gave me pause. When I expanded it into a ring, the subdivided segments had two straight walls, and two mildly curved walls, and that satisfied the requirement to be easy to furnish with standard items. I added another ring, to give it a "Main street", and added continuous balconies to give it a "French Quarter" ambiance - as well as provide multiple pathways. The net result was a juxtaposition of parkland, high density urban efficiency, social space, and convenience.

A Chinese version of a ring fortress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujian_Tulou
Chinese Hakka Tulou were often built from rammed earth, and up to six feet thick at the base (exterior wall). There are several reports of these earthen fortresses enduring earthquakes with little or no damage. One report stated that a crack appeared, but self healed over time.

I suspect that a modernized version, with ferrocement stress skin surfaces would do quite well, especially if reinforced with http://www.helixfiber.com/.

Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:52 am by jetgraphics

RING VILLAGE - RURAL ENCLAVE

For a productive ring village in a rural setting, with a charter population of 300, it would need approximately 75 acres of highly productive agriculture, with fish ponds, aquaculture, permaculture, orchards, verticulture and so on (climate dependent).

Assuming a dual ring village with 350 ft. radius (outer wall), four stories (40 ft height), and 40' thick ring buildings, configured for a maximum of 654 people (expansion room to double population), would fit within a circular 384,845 sf (8.8 acres). Which inscribes into a square of 350' x 350' or 11.2 acres.

So a cooperative rural ring village could be built upon a bare minimum of 87 acres, but would probably benefit from 150 acres, plus or minus.
2556.17 ft. on a side (0.48 mile)
(½ mile is roughly a ten minute walk, at 3 mph speed)

If land is $20k / acre, 150 acres computes to $3 million dollar bills ($10k per charter member).
To build the walls of the ring village with stress skin fiber reinforced cement, it would require approximately :
40 ft ht. x pi x diameter x 2/12 ft
Outer wall 1: 700 ft = 543 cy
Outer wall 2: 620 ft = 481 cy
Inner wall 1: 540 ft = 419 cy
Inner wall 2: 460 ft = 357 cy
Total = 1800 cy (@ $100 cy = $180000; or $600 per charter member)
Assuming a 4” concrete slab floor; 145769.9 sf per level
5 slabs (4 floors + 1 ceiling)
8998 cy, or roughly $899800; $3000 per charter member

These are rough estimates, and are not complete.
But it demonstrates the potential for cooperation and pooling of resources to build a disaster resistant, frugal, energy efficient, fortified rural village for a $14k to $28k charter subscription.

The result is :
[] 486 sf of enterprise floorspace / member
[] 1458 sf of apartment space / member
[] 486 sf of rooftop garden space / member
[] 3.8 Acre Central Park
[] 138 Acres for farming, etc.
These estimates do not include additions from excavation; additional stories; or other engineering variations.

Shelter: Dual ring villages

Re: Shelter: Dual ring villages

Re: Shelter: Dual ring villages

Re: Shelter: Dual ring villages

Re: Shelter: Dual ring villages

Re: Shelter: Dual ring villages

Re: Shelter: Dual ring villages

Re: Shelter: Dual ring villages

Re: Shelter: Dual ring villages

Who is online