Small, independant living units, on water ? - Possible ?

Something like: "Andrew (Jackson), could you please loan me your whippun'pistol? I have some politicians to 'educate'." would be my guess.

 

I like boat shaped living units.

I rather liked Phil Bolger Illinois:
http://www.hallman.org/bolger/Illinois/

and Mark V's Heart of Gold design:
http://markvdesigns.tripod.com/boatbuilding/

Namely a floating barge cottage, would catch flack where I am simply because boats at anchor have to be registered, and registering boats means looking a bit like a boat. I think either of those designs would do well as a Lobster boat in side profile too as a thirty footer or so. Cabin up, Cabin down and a cockpit. I'd set them up where the beam remains about the same, but you can add on to the stern in even plywood sheet increments.

The other thing, is a bit of rocker warped into the bottom of the boat makes her stronger when taking the ground. A lot of flat bottom barges end up resting on a rock and not able to support their own weight one a localized spot where something warped into a curve made of the same thickness can.

I think so long as the water isn't super cold, the "Cabin sole is the hull bottom" and the hard wood floor of the cabin sole is semi-structural... makes a lot of sense for an outboard boat. Red rubber hose and a pump is cheaper than bronze through hull fittings and seacocks. Even if downright agricultural way to deal with grey water handling things in that manner would reduce the need for a bilge.

Keeping her low, would be a lot less windage, and the boat can have some lines and style to her while not exceeding the 4 foot tall height of a standard sheet of plywood for her topsides, and perhaps even her cabin sides, as stood on edge you cover a lot more ground than standing vertical sheets and losing a foot or two to waste. With little to no deadrise, you have a full width cabin sole. With little to no side decks, there is a lot of volume to be had.

The other, would be an 8 or 10 foot width on the bottom, either 4 foot stood to each side of a keel, in a straight shot or full width athwartship and torture the rocker into her without any deadrise. Two layers of Doug Fir, laminated together with overlapping butts, and chine logs is good and strong. Stronger stilll with a 1x tongue and groove planking laid inside like Heart of Gold has.

Zach

 

I think a small gavey could make a good pusher for a barge type, and fill the need for everyday transportation. I like the idea of making it look like a boat, as apposed to a house barge. 30x 10 could yield a 9x 20 interior with a 4x10 rear deck. Not bad for a single dude. Now where do you put it? If in Long Island Sound, you had better know the law, and have copies of statutes to hand the the Man. Just look and act like you belong there. You would still have to worry about being robbed or vandalized by the punk kids of the shore crowd.

 

Maybe living units that can double as land or water based ?

I know a guy who has been living on his 'nearly finished' steel 60 footer for the last 25 years. No planning approval, council rates etc etc


edit:
http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/260487/dd64071ad6/ARCHIVE

"Under the Dymaxion concept (for "dynamic maximum tension"), he aimed to achieve the greatest possible efficiency and economy in a number of inventions. His aluminum Dymaxion House features a single pole as structural support, natural heating and cooling, self-generating power, stormproof design and maintenance-free materials—all weighing in at 3,000 pounds and priced like a Cadillac. "

 

No, you performed exactly as I expected.

PDW

 

Off your leash again , I see.

 

<removed>, this was clearly designed to put me on the defensive, and is in my opinion a cheap shot. and an easy one to deliver on an internet forum, when you live on the other side of the world. If i wished to converse with a wise guy, there or plenty of crummy bars I could go to. Please go bark at someone else.

F

 

I am coming to this thread very late -or maybe I came too early since it was my post Eric was replying to in the quote in post #1.

reprint:
Originally Posted by Skyak View Post
Eric,
I am glad to see you have progressed even if the market has not. Your modular pontoon system makes perfect sense. With utility gear (tanks, batteries, heat pump, generator) mounted in the hulls the living space could be built to any style by many sources.

The tiny house movement is huge in mind-share but it has many of the same type of regulation concerns as houseboats. Many of the most attractive ones even make great use of yacht parts. The allure is a simple life with zero ecological impact in a desirable location. The trouble is most of these desirable locations want to make sure 'undesirables' don't move in and that everyone pays their 'fair share'. Building codes, zoning, and taxes keep the riff-raff out of upscale real estate, but what control do communities have over floating homes and how do they collect taxes?

My idea is that we need to create a class of houseboat that is certified ecologically (zero impact) and then communities could lease resources to them (docks, anchorage, wifi, water and waste). The community gets revenue without adding much infrastructure and buyers get great locations for their eco-homes. The Erie canal and ICW strike me as fertile ground for such communities. I am sure there will be opposition and debate but when you consider the high cost and foolishness of current coastal development this is very attractive.
End quote

This thread has thrashed the problems of houseboat housing pretty well so I would like to spend a moment on a concept that I think will help organize it all -"S parameters".
Working as an engineer designing connectors that pass signals based on frequency I had a huge problem trying to explain the product to management (which was required to get funding and production release). I could give them them the one number answer they desired (insertion loss), but then I might have to turn around and explain why the customers device did not improve by the specified amount -because performance depends on the circuit. Phase angle of impedance was just not something they would ever understand. Then while I was working with the test engineers I found that there was a more direct set of numbers -the "S" parameters -that describe energy flow both real and imaginary that are reflected, lost, or passed. If you don't want a certain frequency, you would prefer it be lost, you might accept it being reflected, but you don't want it passed. And there are real and imaginary components. The imaginary component reflected might actually be a greater problem than the original real noise due to resonance.

Electrical engineers understand what I am talking about and the rest of you don't have to because the point is that floating homes are best looked at in terms of S parameters.
What does the community put in? What comes back? What passes through? And consider each as a vector with real and imaginary components. The real component is physical and can be demonstrated. If the real is a loss there is no getting the energy back. But there is also the imaginary component - perception, prejudice, fear that can be the largest determinant, despite the fact they are not real. You may not pay attention "if they don't like it, that's their problem" but you can not proceed without addressing perception. This statement applies to both the fixed communities and the potential houseboaters. With this in mind consider what is being said -what is the perspective, and is it real or imaginary. Engineers and NA's can deal with the real, but the imaginary must still be addressed with education and regulation for success.

 

Yes get the government involved, but you will have to have include low income, handicapped, and elderly units, A floating cop station, and surveillance 24/7. But that is just a start, I think we can design a floating community that helps people, by creating a environment that will elicit proper moral conduct. It will be perfect, as it was designed to be.

 

"Fifty years ago, the term “social engineering” referred to government policies that forced people to live as government dictated. In the United States, it was a hated term. Americans died to defeat the social engineering that Hitler imposed on the Germans, and tried to impose on the rest of the world. Communism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, was social engineering – the absolute opposite of the freedom Americans enjoyed and employed to limit the power of their government.

How things have changed in 50 years.

In Collier County Fla., – and many other counties – the government has determined that property owners cannot build more than one dwelling on five acres of land. In the Columbia River Gorge – and many other regional areas – a landowner must first get permission from an appointed commission to build even one home – then build it, paint it and landscape it as dictated by the appointed commission.

Actually, in the last two decades, social engineering in America has become the norm, not the exception. What once was hated in American is now welcomed, indeed, demanded. Social engineering was renamed; it is now called “sustainable development.” Social engineering is no longer implemented by jack-booted brown-shirted SS types; it is implemented by “comprehensive plans” developed by “visioning councils” adopted by local governments to comply with state law, enacted by state legislatures to be eligible for promised federal funds.


Government has succeeded in transforming the American system of government from one that is limited by the consent of the governed, to a system in which the governed must obtain the consent of government even to exist. And it is getting worse.

A substantial number of Americans, perhaps a majority, believe that government should dictate where people live, what their housing structures should look like and how they should be constructed. They believe it is right for government to dictate what curriculum children should study in school. They believe it is right for government to dictate which land should be cultivated and which land should not be touched by humans. They believe it is right for government to dictate the kind of automobiles that are available for people to purchase.

Simply put, a substantial number of Americans believe it is right for government to dictate how people should live. They believe that government should “engineer” society.

How different is this modern attitude from the belief system that led Americans into war to defeat the Nazis’ efforts to engineer society. How different is this modern attitude from the belief system that led our founders to declare that the Creator, not government, endowed people with equal rights to “… life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” How different is this modern attitude from the notion that legitimate government is empowered only by the consent of the governed.

Society has been successfully engineered to believe that the goal is no longer freedom, but the control of government, which means the control of society, to fit the agenda of the controlling party. The idea of entering public service as an elected official to limit the power of government and maximize the freedom of individual citizens is an obsolete concept. Those who cling to this idea are ridiculed and marginalized by the mainstream of public opinion.

Listen to the politicians and candidates; each has a plan to inflict more government and less freedom. Who among them advances the idea of individual freedom over forced compliance? Who among them disavows increasing taxes to give individuals more economic freedom? Who among them champions national sovereignty, rather than international appeasement? Who among them holds private property rights of the individual in higher regard than the right of a wolf or a red-cockaded woodpecker?

There are few left who despise the idea of “social engineering.” Of these, very few offer themselves for public service. If, or when, one is discovered, whether a candidate for county commission or for president, this person should be supported. Were it not for the few freedom-loving officials who do hold public office, the agenda of the social engineers would be even more severely imposed.

The next 16 months will provide another opportunity for Americans to decide whether to move closer to the “engineered society” the social engineers envision, or to move toward more freedom and less government restrictions. Elections at every level of government provide opportunities. If there is not a freedom candidate among the candidates in your town, consider getting on the ballot, or encouraging another freedom-lover to become a candidate.

Freedom in America is being lost, not to a superior force or a better idea; it is being lost by good freedom-loving people who are too busy or too lazy to defend it."
Harry Lamb

 

Frank Smith for president!!!!!!

If we can do away with or change both broken parties, while steering this place toward freedom again, I'd be proud to call this country home.

 

Wow, I never knew Ayn Rand was a liveaboard.......

 

What a load of uninformed rubbish.

For a start, Social Engineering and Town Planning are not the same thing, as this was inferred.


As far as sensible planning schemes -

New York City adopted Building Zones as early as the 1870's
"As early as the 1870’s and 1880’s, New Yorkers began to protest the loss of light and air as taller residential buildings began to appear in Manhattan. "
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zonehis.shtml

This was sound practice, copying England, hi population areas of Europe during the Renaissance, and the Ancient Romans, Greeks, Egyptians.

Trying to advocate utter laissez faire in the use of land, urban planning, industrial locations is Neanderthal thinking.

The term 'freedom' is often confused with 'anarchy'. The only societies that attempted total unfettered social behaviour ended their days in violence, bloodshed and disease - from Attilla the Hun, berserking Vikings to the American Wild West etc.

Freedom is the absence of restrictions - restrictions like fear of violence, fear of being robbed, fear of epidemics, fear of loss of food supply.

Without planning, laws and conforming to sound social principals, we build a living hell.

Besides, how hard is it to co-operate with your neighbors to create living environments that enhance life.

 

frank is being a little bitter and twisted, but I do see a trend toward over-regulation of the individual, and de-regulation of the corporate sector, which is not an enhancement for the majority. It is likely not a co-incidence that this trend has accelerated as the masses have abandoned interest in political party membership. It is no use whinging from the sidelines.