I agree with moving the laundry out of the center of the house. I would put the study between the bedrooms-- that would fix the issue of it's being an entirely interior room and give the bedrooms a little more privacy from each other.

If moving the study doesn't work, I'd put the laundry or the bath/closet of one of the bedrooms between them. Having the beds arranged with the headboards against the same wall could be awkward.

I assume at least one bath will be accessible to guests without going through a bedroom?

"Having the beds arranged with the headboards against the same wall could be awkward." It's OK because there will be one of those two-way mirror windows -- like as are in stores -- in that wall.

Haha.

Actually, if I was to place the headboards against the same wall, I would make it a double soundproofed wall. But I agree that placing baths/closets between them might be a better alternative and is certainly worth exploring, which I will do. (It will take a few days.)

edit.... the bath for the second bedroom would be accessible to the rest of the house. I'm thinking that it would be possible, though, to close a door to the hallway so that, when desired,
the bath could be private for the bedroom ... like a second master bedroom. When it could be done would depend on factors such as who was present. I'm resisting including space for a half bath, but may cave on this.

This post was edited by Yardvaark on Wed, Nov 20, 13 at 8:31

After going through many hurricanes along the Gulf Coast a round house is not necessary if the house is built to strict code. Our "square" house has done fine with hurricanes....including a direct hit by Hurricane Ivan. We never board windows and have never had one blow out. Wind is not the problem in a hurricane.....its the storm surge that does the damage.....assuming you have a well built house with all the hurricane "specs" incorporated into it wind will do very little damage from my experience.

Lounge...if like a family room, is more expected to be part of the kitchen dining area like a great room, so of the living area where physical walls aren't needed, it would be those three rooms. Then put the study and bedrooms as the "away" spaces. In such a small space, I would question whether 2 baths are needed or if one full and one half could better serve the space. And typically one would want a single entrance to the bedroom area and not have to cut through rooms to get from one bedroom to the other.

Square pegs don't fit in round holes without a lot of wasted space and extra expense. Furniture isn't round. Try placing a square end table, or bed headboard, or dresser, or sofa, against a round wall. Awkward! And you need a lot more space to do round than square for adequate furniture placement and traffic patterns.

Cabinets aren't round. If you've seen all of those kitchens with the angled islands that are so popular, you'd realize how much wasted space they contain. Curved will be even worse. Custom---at a HUGE expense is possible, of course, but not advised. Think of a piece of pie, with the section that you need to access being the narrow end. You're going to have small doors where you can't get your skillet in and out, and a large cavern inside. Kinda like a kitchen full of blind corner cabinets that everyone hates.

Standard windows and doors aren't curved. Neither is siding material, although shakes can cover a rounded surface. Curved mill work IS made, but they are atrociously expensive. Add in impact resistance, and you can spend more on a single window than you would on a whole house of standard impact resistant windows. You can start squaring off the penetrations to accept plain impact resistant windows, but once you start doing that, you might as well be building an octagon, or a decagon.

Resisting wind loads is a simple matter that doesn't need a round house to accomplish. There's plenty of information out there on how to accomplish construction that will do what you want without getting into the multiple expensive issues of a round home. Seismic and high wind requirements will be in effect anyway if you anticipate hurricane force winds for the location. If you want to take it to the next level, look at cable bracing and other reinforcements that have been developed in recent years.

"...a round house is not necessary..." It is more than necessity. It is an appeal on multiple levels. If a square house is sufficient in wind resistance, a round house is superior. (There is always a worse storm out there than the ones that have occurred. And I might have a belief that housing is too much controlled by the man.) If there is foundation involved (not known at this point) it, too, is superior in its resistance to earth pressures. It's going to be round. It's a personal obsession and I'm not trying to "fit it," comply or looking for conventional solutions. It will not be in a subdivision, but on a tract of land. (At least it's not a boot or a chicken! ... )

I agree with the "single entrance to the bedroom area." Without being able to identify it myself (though I probably would have in a few weeks!) that issue issue was bothering me. I must have one full bath for each bedroom. I am trying to make one of those do double duty as the "house" bath.

I thank you for your help, people. (Even if I don't jump in with agreement, I appreciate that you bring up points that you think are applicable. Since this is the brainstorming stage, anything is fair game.) Some of the comments about space locations, uses and relationships are especially helpful. As soon as I have time, I will re-sketch, trying to incorporate those ideas and refine this a bit. (It will take a few days before I can get to it.)

Have you looked at Deltec plans? Here's one that might meet your needs.

Here is a link that might be useful: Round house plan

The issues with cabinet and furniture placements being not compatible with round do not concern me too much (just enough to take care of them.) There is much about this house that would be unconventional so we shouldn't be concerned too much about how all the conventional things that we take for granted in a house would fit in. It will be different ... except for the bed and a few other things. There is no concern about resale; It's not that kind of a project. But I want it to be livable and more or less, efficient. Let's assume I can take care of all those cabinet, furniture and window and door problems.

Zone 4, thanks for the link on the floor plan. I will study as soon as I have time.

The hurricane that just hit the Philippines had winds of 195 gusts to 235mph, Katrina 175 with gust to 215mph

While I would certainly agree that flooding causes much more damage than wind it would take a very strong structure to withstand those wind speeds. Flying debris is also a major factor and probably causes more damage than just the high wind speeds.

Houses along the gulf coast are typically designed for 120mph winds I believe some areas are 150mph.

I am not an engineer but I think the round vs. square would be fairly minimal drag improvement. I do not see how you could beat a concrete dome for strength efficiency.

The question is: Does the round shape offer advantages over the square shape that offset the disadvantages of harder to use space and more expensive to build?

My guess would probably be no. Otherwise we would see many more round houses. But that is only a guess based on anecdotal evidence. Houses historically have not been designed for Cat5 storms and it could be that as we see more designed for that condition we will see more round homes.

A dodecagon would be easier to do with almost no drag difference.

Here is a link that might be useful: polygon shaped houses

Does the land have a view that you'll want to take advantage of? Or block? I think you'll want to set up the rooms inside to accommodate views, if you have them.

There are other considerations the expert folks on this board could probably tell you about (I'm not one of them), such as siting for direction of the sun (for heating/cooling considerations), working around terrain, will there be a garage and driveway, do you want to see those from any of the rooms, etc.

If you're not constrained by lot size and building restrictions - and it seems like you're not - then you'll want to start with the attributes of the land itself and design the home and its rooms to work best with your property.

Well, it's interesting to see a project that basically doesn't have cost concerns over how their choices impact the cost of the build. Most of those building don't have that luxury. Banks have a funny way of not lending 500K for a home that will only appraise at 100K.

I'd suggest looking into ICF and it's ability to withstand wind and impact, but you will also need to account for the storm surge issue. That typically requires a pier and beam foundation with the living quarter well above grade, and I haven't seen the two combined in any residential structure yet because of the cost of the steel needed. I'm sure someone somewhere has done it though, but it will be more like commercial construction than residential and will present it's own type of challenges and costs. Round will be easier to accomplish with steel and concrete than wood though.

As far as general home design goes, a home is a space that transitions from the public world at large (porch, yard) to a semi-private space (entry way) to a friend's space (family room, kitchen) to a private space (bedrooms and private baths). If you think of that journey through the home, and each category that a room is in, that will help guide you as a far as room placement.

Also, exterior wall locations are choice locations, especially in a round house. The most used rooms should receive priority in placing them on an external wall. Designs that have closets or bathrooms on the exterior at the expense of the more used space fail basic design theory. Those rooms are seldom used, and should be used as buffers between the more public spaces like the family room and kitchen and the private space of a bedroom.

Utility runs are most efficient if located in close proximity, like having the bathrooms back up to the kitchen and a powder room back up to a laundry area, with none of them that far apart. That's especially important for a pier and beam type construction where it's all coming down in a central waste pipe with the supply pipes also central.

What about an oval or egg shape? You could point it into the prevailing winds and let the gusts gently whoosh past.

You may also want to put non-living spaces, like closets, laundry, baths, on the northwest side, to buffer the cold air (if you are in such a clime).

When it's time to furnish it, check out some midcentury lines. I have a 1955 sofa that has a slight, graceful curve to it, would work in a curved room.

Chicagoans, I appreciate your good advice about relating to and capitalizing on the site. I am a landscape architect so will do exactly that.

My ill-conceived stab at a floor plan should illustrate that it is early in the design process. There is plenty of time for me to refine my thoughts in advance of actual construction. It's not that there aren't and won't be cost concerns but, I can grasp from many of the comments, some are thinking in conventional wood-frame construction terms. The framing will be bamboo. I wasn't trying to conceal that fact, but my goal here is to focus on and work out the floor plan, not really anything else. A primary purpose of the house is experimental ... to answer questions -- long held beliefs about the concept -- that cannot be answered any other way. (It can only be round. Not any other shape.)

I can't write a hit song, but I can identify one after someone else writes and performs it. I presently labor under the belief that working out a floor plan is not entirely dissimilar from organizing a landscape and that, with perseverance, I stand a decent chance of coming up with one that's good. I think I will be able to identify it when it achieves that state. And I'm willing to listen to those who are more knowledgeable about it than I.

In this case, the climate is Florida, so there are only typical concerns about moderate cold. It will be inland so no concern about storm surge. We can get high winds anywhere.

It's true that a concrete dome is about as durable as it gets, but for me personally, they lack style and visual appeal. They "fit" in some locations and uses --scientific station at the poles ... lunar landing station ... the beach ... for some commercial uses -- but not to me for a home. I do not think of them as charming so such a structure is not under consideration. That said, I like the idea of those things and features of them. I prefer "looks" that comes from old Europe or the ancient world.

Hollysprings, I don't grasp WHY "exterior wall locations are choice locations..." Is it because of windows/light? (I haven't had basic interior design theory; I'm all about the outside.) :-)

Yardvaark, the largest issue for me is furniture placement. I'm not sure where the bedroom dressers will go. Or is all storage in the closets?

What size and shape dining table will you have? Do you have room for chairs and passage around it?

How long is your sofa? Where will it go? What else will be in that room?

I would suggest you make some furniture templates to scale and play around with them on your final layout to make sure you can fit what you need in the space.

Exterior wall locations are prime because of windows for light and air. Typically, efficient home design places closets and brief use rooms like laundry and powder room on interior, as well as closets. Closets can be placed between rooms to buffer rooms and add privacy.

Windowless rooms are uncomfortable (like being in a closet), and rooms with light from two directions tend to be most pleasant.

You might enjoy reading "Patterns of Home"-- it talks about what makes a house comfortable, and since you're a landscape architect, I think it's probably a perspective that would appeal to you.

I only mentioned concrete domes because your reply seemed to indicate that you where choosing a round house for strength i.e. "At minimum, it must withstand 150 mph (or possibly even greater) winds."

I think that this is just idle daydreams. I also enjoy designing things just for fun. I would say learn to use SketchUp and do not limit yourself to conventional thinking.

A bamboo house that can withstand hurricane force winds? Yah, and a bridge in Brooklyn is for sale. I'm with Chris. Idle daydreams ungrounded in any construction knowledge. Outta this one.

You might like the blog post linked below,

"Good people will say, “A round house isn’t ‘livable.’ How are you supposed to arrange furniture when you have round walls?” These good people forget that round houses are divided up by walls and partitions that form flat surfaces; that in general the rooms will be in a nice fan shape, with windows in an arc toward the view; that where necessary a cupboard can conveniently and usefully correct an irregularity, and that one can even, exceptionally, build furniture with cylindrical backs."

I would add to that that in most good interior design, furniture's not pushed right up against the walls anyway.

The same blog (http://roundhouses.wordpress.com/) has a few different examples of floor plans. Many round houses incorporate mezzanines and/or rooftop decks. Here's a 2 story..well, kind of a 1.5 story. Note the cabinets are on the radial planes, not the exterior walls, allowing for less custom cabinetry.

In my Atomic Ranch book by Michelle Gringeri-Brown & Jim Brown, they feature a round house which the owner had to make MORE livable by adding closets and partitions. So attention to practicality at the outset will help you greatly.

Modernism 2012 had a round house cover feature.

It seems to me that windows would likely be narrower and each pane would actually be flat, but inset into slightly thicker walls. On this house the windows look flat...

Also, a lot of "round" houses look to me like they are actually multi-sided houses, like 20-sided. This probably helps a lot with framing and finishing but certainly loses the organic charm of a rounded wall. I would imagine that a committment to using less-conventional building techniques (straw bale?) and with finishing materials would help. For example, I am not a builder, but in my head I imagine that a polished concrete slab with walls anchored on top would probably be a lot easier finished flooring material to work with in a round house than tile or wood.

Here is a link that might be useful: Une petite maison ronde

This post was edited by robotropolis on Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 11:09

As for wind resistance and bamboo, I don't know anything about bamboo construction, but have you ever seen the crazy amazing bamboo scaffolding used, most notably, in Hong Kong? We were in HK earlier this year and it is truly stunning. Builders there claim it's the only scaffolding that will withstand their typhoon climate.

Here's a photo I took ... the whole phenomenon is SUPER interesting!! And it is EVERYWHERE. I didn't see a single example of metal scaffolding. In this case, however, as the bamboo ages it becomes less flexible and more prone to crack. So they have to renew it every so often (not sure how often).

{{gwi:1510327}}

There is absolutely no way that bamboo scaffolding will be more wind resistant than steel scaffolding of the same construction. Bamboo is simply not as strong.

This does not mean that bamboo scaffolding does not work as well, maybe it is more cost efficient or just traditional.

Also steel scaffolding is not necessarily designed for 150mph winds and it could certainly be a case where you could find that steel scaffolding failed where bamboo scaffolding survived. But this does not prove that bamboo is stronger than steel.

Apparently bamboo generally has greater tensile strength than steel -- more ability to withstand bending without shattering or deforming -- which I would translate in my head to wind resistance.

Bamboo is very inferior to steel for shear strength and fairly inferior for compressive strength.

Tensile strength represents how hard you can pull on something without it breaking. Shear strength represents how hard you can try to cut it without it breaking.

Here is a link that might be useful: Mechanical properties of bamboo

The properties of bamboo are amazing and the possibilities it represents for construction are mind boggling. People have built incredible structures of it. To my thinking, it represents a much stronger way to construct a building than nailed together 2 x 4s. One of its best features is that any average person can grow it. How many people can grow rebar in their back yard?? In that regard it represents a very low cost building material. Here in Florida, we also have the problem of sinkholes, and as we were reminded earlier this year there's nothing as exciting as going to bed only to find yourself sucked down permanently into the cold dark earth. Bamboo could be a partial solution to that as well.

Robo, I have heard of and seen photos of the scaffolding in HK. Thanks for posting the picture here. I appreciate all the interesting info that has been supplied. It will take some time to absorb it. Some of the floor plans in the photos have a decided commercial/institutional feel.

I scratched out a revised version of my floor plan, included below. Don't scrutinize it too tightly as it's still not drawn to an actual scale. (I'm thinking it's about 40' diameter.) nor is it in a refined state. (I'm roughing things out.) That will come later. Truly, I appreciate the time and effort that has been put forth to comment on my prior "plan." I've tried to incorporate those good suggestions in this one. I became stumped --running out of space -- at trying to incorporate the "study" and and it seems to have morphed into storage space ... but that is always sorely needed and I can see how it could be useful ... closets/pantry/shelves, etc. I could see a computer area in the back side of it, facing the bedroom hall. I guess someone will let me know if such a utilitarian thing is bad for some reason in the center of the house. I'm thinking it's useful and convenient. I've doodled in some appliances and furniture in order to help give a feel for how such things might fit in. And also, a partial doodle of future stairs that would lead to a 2nd floor loft, which I envision as a master bedroom suite complex with its own lounge area. Possibly, one other special purpose room might fit up there. This is not meant to be a grand house, but just an average house, in terms of amenities and size. There is an elevation change for the lounge/entry area. It sits 5" higher than the kitchen. I might back off on that and limit the higher level to the foyer only. My floor of choice would be terrazzo. The bedrooms would be carpeted or terrazzo.

I think the furniture and cabinetry will really not be the problem that some speculate in regards to them fitting into a round structure. The front of the kitchen cabinets will be faceted (but "read" curved) to the average viewer. Only the countertop would require curve cuts, but that's not really anything out of the ordinary for solid surfacing. Likely, any other cabinets would be installed at straight walls (which there are many.) Any custom cabinetry or furniture (like built in seating) would be at a minimum, so would not break the bank.

If anyone sees mistakes I should fix, things that should be added, or tweaks, feel free to bring them to my attention. I'm not looking for small detail yet, but those larger mistakes or shortcomings. Thanks for taking the time to look and thanks for the good comments, recommendations and interesting points that have already been made.

Who would be living in this house? Is it intended to be a vacation home?

Good point robotropolis, I was surprised to see some species had a higher tensile strength.

And I found this site:
http://www.bambooliving.com/

And here is a (seemingly) good article on bamboo:
http://www.guaduabamboo.com/the-reality-about-building-with-bamboo.html

Here is a link that might be useful: Brochure

The house is for residence, not vacation.

That's a no-go on the stairs.
Your hemisphere will be tapering in as the stairs go up.

I think if you are going to do a round house you might as well reflect what's going on in the interior like the samples pictured. I would try a central pod that was circular that had the bathrooms and some of the utility spaces enclosed in it, perhaps with the stairs and circulation wrapping around that, and a segmental arrangement of rooms around the perimeter.

I think one of the things that bugs me about the various plans you are trying out is that you are still trying to fit a square house into a round hole and creating rectilinear interior rooms with corners missing.

If you are starting on the round, I think it has to be a unified concept throughout to be successful and comfortable to live in. The most successful vernacular round buildings, and functional round buildings (such as round barns) use the round shape as a functional organizational element and don't try to override it.

The stairs would be fine in a cylinder....not a dome.

Agreed I personally prefer fan shaped rooms to ... Trapezoidal. I like a radial layout in a round home.

One aspect of round houses that consistently appeal to me is the outer curved wall. It feels "friendly" (not sure how else to describe it) to the inside of the home. An aspect that consistently doesn't appeal are circular hallways, if they have much length. I also find that having the outside wall being curved seems like plenty. Where the inside wall is also curved -- as when around a central pod -- seems like too much ... as if it's taking on, or beginning to take on, the "lunar landing" flavor, which I'm not after. A little goes a long way so I'm not disturbed by straight walls in the interior ... since they only make the house feel more conventional/normal/like what-we-are-all-used-to. As far as having, thus far, achieved an architectural masterpiece ... I'm sure I've not done that. I'm still focused on the floor plan. Maybe I'm approaching the interior design process backwards. I'm thinking that I should work out room locations, functions & interaction first, then study how they can all be made more architecturally special. I'm sure there would be some give and take in that process, but that's generally how I'm looking at it. Even if no one comments that my 2nd "stab" is an improvement over the first, I think that it is. But it's just a stepping stone

The first floor is a cylinder. The second is like a dome. The roof will primarily be a separate canopy structure.

You have two identical bedrooms. That is unusual. Usually one bedroom is for the owner and the other is for guests (and doesn't need as large a closet) or a child (and could be smaller). Even in homes where two equal bedrooms make sense, generally different people have different wants or needs. Having two precisely the same gives the plan a barracks feel, IMO.

I really think it is problematic to disconnect the interior so much from the actual form of the house which is a cylinder--trying to make it "conventional/normal/like what we are all used to"

because it's not. It's a cylindrical house and that's all it ever will be, and that isn't conventional. I am on board with the cylinder if that's what you want but it's a mistake to try and ignore that once it comes to the interior. It's like the Geodesic Domes I've seen with Victorian style millwork and ceiling fans inside, or Eichler-esque houses where people tack on crown moulding and chair rail inside. It just doesn't make for a consistent house--and personally, I guess I find inconsistency very uncomfortable.

Palim, if I comprendo what I think you and some others are telling me about the interior "disconnect" to round, I'm thinking you all wish there to by an interior core of some kind, that is also circular ..(?) While it might seem architecturally more cohesive, as if in preparation for a "House Beautiful" photo shoot, it creates what in my mind is a drawback. And that is that the major rooms (all fronting an exterior wall) tend to end up without depth variation from front to back, or differences in room shape. Instead of being complex spaces with variety of depth, wall planes and organization, the rooms lean toward becoming similarly shaped chopped pie slices, giving the overall structure that commercial/institutional feel I can't say I like. Or, is there something else you are talking about? I don't think I'm trying to make the house be just "like what we are used to." On the inside, the outside wall makes it decidedly different. However, there are many interior walls and they are conventional. I accept both of these things and like them in combination. As far as bringing greater architectural cohesiveness to the layout, I think more of that will happen after I get the rooms more organized to each other. Maybe you're saying it can't happen with tweaks ... that it must be created initially and then uses & rooms fit to that plan. To me, that seems a little backwards. I believe that form follows function, not the other way around. It's a possibility that once I know what rooms there are and where they are relative to other rooms, I could entertain the idea of how they might be placed with the idea of incorporating more circular-ness into the scheme. I am open minded to looking at that. I'm not very open minded, though, to incorporating much hallway or to creating uniform, truncated pie slices. (As I write this, I thought of a possible scheme I could explore in the next version, that might be an improvement along the lines of what you are talking about, but not be upsetting to me. (Don't expect it to be a rigidly circular core or perfectly in the center of the house!)

Zone4, I take your point about the two bedrooms usually serving different needs. Here, they will need to serve equal needs. As far as them seeming "barracks-like," that could only be to someone reviewing the plan, not someone actually using the bedroom. They would never both be seen by one set of eyes at the same time. If they were decorated and furnished with their own individual personalities, I don't think that they have a mirror-image layout would be bothersome to anyone. Likely, it would go undiscovered by many. I think people would accept them for what they are surrounded by at the moment, without comparing one to the next.

This post was edited by Yardvaark on Sat, Nov 23, 13 at 12:20

Palim nailed it.

I have a suggestion. It is important to decide early in the process, where the stairway will be. I'd place it at/or near the center.

Here's the famous Somerville, Massachusetts round house and floor plans.

This post was edited by worthy on Sat, Nov 23, 13 at 13:29

Duplicate

{{gwi:1510317}}

This post was edited by worthy on Sat, Nov 23, 13 at 13:14

I don't think the core has to be exactly centered, that the hall has to encircle that fully, or that the rooms need to be obvious segmental wedges--But--there needs to be some sort of reiteration of forms for the house to really make any sense.

Think of the opposite scenario. It would be very difficult to build a rectangular house with all round or oval rooms and have them relate to Each Other in some kind of reasonable fashion. Sure, classical houses do have round or oval rooms, but it's usually at the expense of something (usually some wasted space fitting it into the rest).

What your plan lacks is some sort of organizational element--I fear it is going to feel very cobbled and labyrinthine inside because you aren't going to be able to assign much visual meaning to the shapes of the rooms--there are too many odd angles juxtaposed to each other for comfort, (my comfort anyway). And, very organically formed houses with irregularly shaped rooms tend to do it thru smooth irregular forms, not sharp angles that are random and hard to even measure.

There is a reason that things like the Golden rectangle and pure circles and ovals have been developed and used over and over, and the reason is that it makes visual sense and gives comfort to the human occupant/viewer. There is a lot of highway between House Beautiful and House Uncomfortable.

"But--there needs to be some sort of reiteration of forms for the house to really make any sense." I agree. I will explore this subject. I agree that going in this direction will help the plan, but I don't want to go too much. Just a little. Just enough to make those who think I should, barely happy. :-) And even before it was said, I agree that there are too many odd angles, so I'll be working on that. (I'm thinking these things are jumping the gun a little for where the process is at. Maybe you all know better so I won't hold it against anyone.) :-)

I can not imagine any good reason to make anyone here happy (we will not be building it or living there)

I can see very good reasons to try different ideas just for the fun of it.

If you truly believe that form follows function than you have gone about it backwards. You have picked your form (round house) and now you are trying to cram your functions into it.

Actually, Chris, couldn't one say the same thing if they pick a square house? Round vs. square is just the cards that one plays with. I know I'm choosing it, but it's not a "given" that it's in opposition to functions that occur within. It could be that it's every bit as compatible, or more, with human living and the way people move. The design process is figuring out how to make those functions fit. not "cram" them in. Since it's at the early stages, with bugs, it might look like cramming, but that's the design process.

Make happy ... with a wink.

This is a nice plan that doesn't have a circular part in the middle but still seems, to me, to 'work with' the round factor. It's only a 28 foot diameter but could easily be scaled up. I'd like to see it scaled up with more closet space and a second bank of cabinetry between kitchen/dining.

Note the utility room accessed from outside, which from my research into cottage plans, seems to be a very common feature of tiny house plans.

The front of the house is designed to take advantage of views/front facing. And the house is designed such that you could build another round pod to either side.

Here is a link that might be useful: Round house on balewatch

Yes, you could say the same thing about picking any particular form in advance of identifying function.

The principle of form follows function, is that you identify all the applicable functions and allow them to define the form.

"Form follows function" has been taken to a unintended endpoint, I think, in modern house design which seems to be rooms strung together, each having a specific perimeter, with it's own exterior corners and separate rooflines creating houses with 2 dozen corners and eight gables when four corners and a gable at each end are all that are necessary.

I am finding the idea of a round house kind of a relief from all of that, if the interior can be sorted out.

"The principle of form follows function, is that you identify all the applicable functions and allow them to define the form." ... that's what's happening. Round on the outside IS a determination of function ... it satisfies my criteria for combating the forces of nature, above and below grade. On the inside, form is following function, too. It might not be there yet, but that's why it takes work and effort instead of the waving of a wand (especially, when its outside of my normal area of expertise.) . An additional reason which I have hesitated to mention is that there is the possibility a round structure is, at least in part, machine buildable, an issue I am exploring. (I am always looking toward the future.) While there are many round houses I find visually unappealing (the lunar landing style,) to the contrary, there are many I find captivatingly charming. I am not alone in this. Where charming round houses exist, they are almost universally loved and adored by all who come into contact with them. If the functional/organizational problems can be worked out ... and I think they can -- at the end of it all I would have something remarkable (at least in my own eyes.)

This post was edited by Yardvaark on Sun, Nov 24, 13 at 13:55

"it satisfies my criteria for combating the forces of nature"

I think many shapes could in fact satisfy that requirement. Round was an arbitrary decision based on your preference. Not that anything is wrong with that -it is just not "form following function"

"Form follows function" has been taken to a unintended endpoint"

Usually "form follows function" is a meaningless mantra used to justify anyone's particular preferences.

I agree with pal about the unintended endpoint - and add sometimes form has its own utility or function, which could be beauty, simplicity or in OP's case, preference for something unusual.

If I could build a strange architectural marvel I definitely would...instead am stuck planning a teeny tiny budget cottage with the world's most conservative co-planners. But some day....

Have you considered building something earth bermed and partly underground as another response to the environmental conditions?

You might want to book a couple of weekends in this place to see how it feels to live in a round house. It will let you get ideas as to what will and won't work.

There's probably a lot more round homes available to stay in than you think. Better to experience it first hand during the research phase than to build it and regret it after the fact.

"I think many shapes could in fact satisfy that requirement." Round is aerodynamic to redirect the force of wind, and stronger to resist it. A flat wall cannot withstand the same forces any more than a beam of equal dimensions has the same capacity as an arch.

@ pal ... There will be earth berming, too.

@ live_wire ... would love to explore round house of others. We'll see.

I am exploring better integrating circular-ness. I'm having trouble fitting everything into the 40' diameter, which I resist enlarging. Also don't want rooms too small. I'm finding other things I wish to fit in as well. Small battles happening. I'm sure this is a common occurrence for others, regardless of house shape. Hopefully, my next version will be improved.