Comments on: Echomansion: Repurposed McMansion Shells

By: andy

andy — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:30:00 +0000

do some research on the components you propose in your design. while the urge is a good one, your work clearly suffers from an incomplete understanding of the included technologies.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:57:47 +0000

In addition to the structural, mold, sunlight and wind issues raised above, are they kidding about using the basement as a cistern and connecting it into the public water system to back-feed potable water? – YUCK!

I’d pay money to see the authors chug a big warm cupful of the water that drained off the roof and stood in the basement for a few weeks.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:48:19 +0000

Instead of taking out doors and windows and donating them to Local Chapters of Habitat for Humanity, why not give HfH the whole house and save a lot of trouble and expense?

By: Frank

Frank — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:14:45 +0000

This project is a joke, ya’ll sure you picked the right 20? Or perhaps you should read your own guidelines again. Way to lead the charge.

By: Irwin

Irwin — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:08:47 +0000

In addition to the mold and weather, there is a structural problem- the proposed uses require a far stronger structure than would be provided to one of epoxy-and-woodchip houses that have been built in such numbers in the past decade. Some of the most recent ones don’t even use 2×4 construction, and I have personally seen chipboard subflooring being layed down. The fact is, no matter how these houses are re-purposed, none of them are going to last the next 30 years. Re-cycling what little can be re-cycled is the best way top go.

By: mrdennmann

mrdennmann — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:51:09 +0000

Perhaps if McMansions were fabricated entirely out of concrete. Any typically fabricated large home would promptly water-log, mold, and decay, should the windows and roof be removed.

I hate to contribute to the “bursting of bubbles” or “be a wet blanket”, but this concept is not even remotely feasible with the current design of these homes

By: TVP

TVP — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:01:50 +0000

I agree with O2 about the mold comment. Maybe a house ground into a mulch or the ruble buried in its own basement to make room would suit the needs of agriculture more than a structure that would only last a decade or two when opened up.

By: striatic

striatic — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:02:28 +0000

agree with the mold comment above.

this would quickly deteriorate into a rotting husk. better to recycle as much of the wood in the superstructure as possible for use elsewhere, and replace with a traditional garden.

this is neither a serious proposal, nor a particularly funny one.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:13:41 +0000

This idea seems flawed on a basic level. Why put plants inside when in most suburbs there is plenty of existing empty space to plant on. I imagine it would be considerably more expensive to remodel a house than put up a prefab greenhouse.

Also I agree the wind turbines should be way above the roof, not down inside the building where no wind will get to.

By: James Oeinck

James Oeinck — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:24:49 +0000

I like the idea of using an idea of today juxtaposed against the solution of tomorrow. Stuck into an existing street like this would serve as a great “idea” place that people would talk about. A much needed dialog for all of us to have.

While having a few practical problems, I think this concept is really important and should be a part of any solution.

Nice…