The idea of making walls by stacking bags of sand or earth has been around for at least a century. Originally sand bags were used for flood control and military bunkers because they are easy to transport to where they need to be used, fast to assemble, inexpensive, and effective at their task of warding off both water and bullets.

At first natural materials such as burlap were used to manufacture the bags; more recently woven polypropylene has become the preferred material because of its superior strength. The burlap will actually last a bit longer if subjected to sunlight, but it will eventually rot if left damp, whereas polypropylene is unaffected by moisture.

Because of this history of military and flood control, the use of sandbags has generally been associated with the construction of temporary structures or barriers. Using sandbags to actually build houses or permanent structures has been a relatively recent innovation.

It was an Iranian-born architect named Nader Khalili who has popularized the notion of building permanent structures with bags filled with earthen materials. Actually his first concept was to fill the bags with moon dust! Attending a 1984 NASA symposium for brainstorming ways to build shelters on the moon, Khalili coupled the old sandbag idea with the ancient adobe dome and arch construction methods from his homeland in the Middle East. He realized that bags filled with lunar “dirt” could be stacked into domes or vaults to provide shelter.

Khalili came up with a further refinement on this building concept on Earth: for a more permanent, shock-resistant structure, why not place strands of barbed wire between the courses of bags, thus unifying the shell into a more monolithic structure?

At first Khalili was filling his experimental bags with desert sand, but then he evolved his idea of “superadobe,” where bags or long tubes of polypropylene bag material would be filled with a moistened adobe soil that would dry into large adobe blocks. In this case the original bag material was merely the initial form and would not necessarily be an integral part of the eventual structure.

Soon after these first experiments, Khalili began publicizing his work through newspaper and magazine articles and conducting workshops and seminars on the techniques that he was perfecting. Many people who read about his work, visited his compound in Hesperia, California, or studied with him there, decided to go ahead with their own experiments with his ideas.

Among these “early adopters” were Joe Kennedy, Paulina Wojciechowska, Kaki Hunter and Doni Kiffmeyer, Akio Inoue, and Kelly Hart. I believe that it was Joe Kennedy who coined the more general term “earthbag” to suggest that the bag could contain a variety of earthen materials.

Paulina Wojciechowska was the first to write an entire book on the topic of earthbag building: Building with Earth: A Guide to Flexible-Form Earthbag Construction was published in 2001. This featured some of her early experiments done at Khalili’s CalEarth, along with several other case histories.

Akio Inoue, from Tenri University in Japan, has done extensive experimentation with earthbag construction, both on the campus of the University and in India and Africa where many other domes have been built for assistance programs.

Kaki Hunter and Doni Kiffmeyer (a couple) became enamored with earthbag construction after studying with Khalili, and worked on a variety of projects, both for themselves and for clients. In 2004 they wrote and got published another book, Earthbag Building: the Tools, Tricks and Techniques, based on their particular experience.

Kelly Hart (the author of this article) first began experimenting with earthbag building in 1997, after being exposed to the concept while producing his video program, A Sampler of Alternative Homes: Approaching Sustainable Architecture. He later documented his experience in actually building his own home in another program titled Building with Bags: How We Made Our Experimental Earthbag/Papercrete Home. Both of these programs are now available as DVD’s.

In the meantime, Nader Khalili was continuing the promotion of his “Superadobe” technique and eventually decided to patent the idea, which he obtained in the U. S. in 1999, using very general terms that cover using bags made of any material being filled with virtually any material, and combining these with barbed wired between the courses. While having made many public statements that this concept was his gift to humanity, he obviously wanted to capitalize on the potential economic reward.

Many of us who had been engaged in promoting earthbag building on our own were contacted by Khalili and asked to enter into contracts with him in order to continue our work. It didn’t take much research to discover that his patent could easily be disqualified because he had been publicizing his techniques through various media for at least four years before he even applied for his patent. Patent law clearly states that such publicity occurring prior to one year before the patent application would disqualify it for consideration.

So now the door is wide open for anyone to take this concept and run with it, and more people are doing so all the time, all over the world. While Khalili (and most of his students) have focused primarily on using the bags to form large adobe blocks, others have tried filling the bags with a variety of other materials, such as crushed volcanic rock, crushed coral, non-adobe soils, gravel, and rice hulls.

Earthbag building is unique among all other building technologies in that it can be either insulation or thermal mass, depending on what the bags are filled with. This is a very important distinction, because these characteristics of a wall greatly influence how comfortable, economical, and ecological any given system will be.

Safety is of prime concern with all building technologies, and much experimentation and testing has been done to establish guidelines for many ways of building. Khalili has established a relationship with the building department in Hesperia, California where CalEarth is located, an area where earthquakes are naturally a great danger. In 1993 live-load tests to simulate seismic, snow and wind loads were performed on a number of domed earthbag structures at CalEarth and these exceeded code requirements by 200%.

In 1995 dynamic and static load tests were performed on several prototypes for a planned Hesperia Museum and Nature Center to be constructed using Khalili’s Superadobe concepts with both dome and vault shapes. All of these tests exceeded ICBO and City of Hesperia requirements.

In 2006, at the request of Dr. Owen Geiger of the Geiger Research Institute of Sustainable Building, the Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point conducted several controlled and computer-monitored tests to determine the ability of polypropylene earthbags filled with sand, local soil, and rubble to withstand vertical loads. Their written report concluded that “overall, the earthbags show promise as a low cost building alternative. Very cheap, and easy to construct, they have proven durable under loads that will be seen in a single story residential home. More testing should prove the reliability and usefulness of earthbags.”

Despite the success of these tests, earthbag building concepts have yet to be incorporated into the International Residential Building Code. Obviously more enlightened acceptance of the demonstrated viability of earthbag building needs to occur!

It is difficult to know how many residences and other earthbag structures have been made at this point, probably hundreds if not thousands. Many of us have been promoting the technique for use as emergency shelters, and certainly some have been built for this reason. It is easy for folks to accept this way of building temporary shelters because it fits the historical model of sandbag use.

But many of us have also built substantial homes using earthbags, and in the process realized how truly versatile and sustainable the technique is. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of these earthbag homes are still standing long after their conventional counterparts built contemporaneously have disintegrated.

I got really fired up this morning after I read a great post in architect Greg La Vardera's blog. In "Our Remodern Movement - the tipping point?" Greg suggests that now might finally be the time for modernist homes to find a place in the mainstream. I really hope so. I see the momentum. And I believe in "tipping points." I know exactly what the tipping point was for me personally, the one thing that got me really excited about modern homes. I picked up a copy of Dwell at the newsstand for the first time, the April/May 2005 issue with Charlie Lazor's Flatpak house on the cover.

I had always been interested in homes. I always dreamed of something better and more exciting than the standard fare of suburban cul-de-sacs, though I wasn't totally hooked on modern yet. But when I saw this cover, with a real family in a cool-ass house, it was like a lightning bolt. I can't tell you how badly I'd like to live in a Flatpak. It's one of the top three contenders for me. It just fits me and my family so perfectly. When the time finally comes to really build a new home I will be giving them a call to talk.

It's funny though, how "weird" most people think modernist homes are. My mother said "you want to live in a white box?" with a look on her face that was pure disbelief. Talking houses with some neighbors I could detect their nervous smiles when I mentioned concrete and steel, as in "uh, okay, sure, as long as it's not next door to my house." And look at the real estate markets. That's all you need to know. You don't see a lot of developers building modernist spec homes. Just pick up a real estate magazine and thumb through it for a minute. How many cool modernist homes will you find in the listings. Maybe one or two in a hundred page book. And they're mostly really big, expensive houses, probably built in the eighties after watching too many episodes of Miami Vice. Good, simple, modern homes for real families are hard to come by. Your best bet is a fifties ranch. Even those are a minority in the market compared to the grand total of everything else.

But I think Greg is right. This is the right time. Dwell has been so successful that some other similar publications have started to appear. Blogs like mine are popping up like daisies. Sarah Susanka's "Not So Big House" movement has a lot of followers (because it makes a lot of sense). Or consider John Brown's Slow Home Movement. And green is suddenly king. People finally realize that their choices have a real impact. Now is definitely the time of Less is More, and modernism fits that bill perfectly.

Probably the biggest helper in all of this, in my opinion, is going to be the bursting of the real estate bubble. I say that for one simple reason: it will make people change their view as to what their home really is - a home to live in and not an investment to make a fortune off of. I really believe that people won't/can't build what they really want because they are too hung up on resale value and growing massive equity. I don't know if this attitude caused the housing bubble or vice versa, but either way they combine to create an effect where the resultant high cost of housing distorts our views, closes our minds to new ideas, prices lots of people out of the market for a good home, and places too much power in the hands of developers, not in the hands of consumers where it should be. And so, here we are. With the bubble busting and home prices correcting I think we may also see home buyers making very different decisions about what they want to live in. I know this is the case for my wife and I, and I hope, at least, that this is the case for others.

It's definitely time for America to focus its attention on things like better homes, greener communities, reliable energy, even better communications technology, education and health care. These are the things that make up the infrastructure of this country. We won't have to worry about foreign threats for long if we allow ourselves to fall apart from the inside.

This whole country is at a tipping point, or near one. Modern homes are just a tiny, tiny part of that. We can choose a better way to live without giving up all the really great things we already enjoy.

Better living through design. Work smarter, not harder. Find the holistic solutions.

We can do it.

I have an announcement to make. I'm in love with Doris. Actually, I should point out that Doris is not a woman, Doris is a house. And she's beautiful.

Doris is the work of Bark Design, a firm with a modern bent that FHN reader Mike was kind enough to point out (thanks again, Mike!). Doris is swell gal, with lots of attractive features. In particular, I adore her flat roof, her expansive banks of windows - and she's got a carport! Oh, I really like carports.




Doris also has a wonderful floor plan with possibly the greatest kitchen in the world - made so by the overhead door out to the patio. It incorporates a screen that can be rolled down when the door is up to keep bugs out while letting breezes flow. Perfecto! My wife would love that.





Doris has a brother, Boris, and a good friend in Leroy G. Cooper.




Here are a few pics Bark shared with me of the Burbank, another model that isn't shown on their site yet. I really like the window placement on this house - it looks like it has pretty good solar orientation.





I must say, I find a whole lot to like aesthetically about Bark's homes. There's definitely a signature style with the flat roofs, carports, window arrangements and the way outdoor living spaces are approached. But what I like most is their attitude and approach to bringing modern homes to the market. I e-mailed Bark, and was very impressed with what they had to say about their direction.

"We are a team consisting of a developer, architect, and
contractor who were getting frustrated by the dismissive response to
modern design by clients and real estate professionals in our area,
so we decided to do our own thing with incredibly positive results.

We couldn't understand why people would seek out the latest design
and technology in cars, electronics, etc., but new builder/spec. home
construction seemed to be stuck in the year 1900. How many people
would go to a store for a new computer and happily walk out with a
univac the size of a refrigerator that only did addition and
subtraction? Yet people were making a similar decision every day with
a new home. We just didn't get it.

So, we design and build homes that respond and complement modern
life, are extremely efficient in terms of energy, space, livability,
constructability, and are affordable."

I've had exactly those same thoughts for a long time. I like what Bark is doing, and they must be hitting the mark - they have seven projects "on the board" for 2008!

Very exciting!

Image credits - Bark Design

Today is Blog Action Day, a single day for all bloggers to post about one important issue, the environment. Most people think that Future House Now is a green site. It isn't. My primary focus is interesting modern homes, particularly those that are in the realm of realistic affordability for real families. But having said that, I frequently post about "green homes," and today is a good day to clarify my views on the subject.

First of all, why do I often post about green homes, even when my site is not purely focused on green issues? Well, for starters, green makes a lot of practical sense. It's laughable how much emphasis we put on greening our cars when we spend way more energy in our houses. It should be obvious every week when we take out the trash that our homes are the epicenter of our consumption habits. And I care about my family's health. I want them to live in a safe household environment, not one that is riddled with toxins and allergens.

Second, green isn't that hard to do anymore. You don't have to live in an Earthship made of tires pounded full of dirt, and old aluminum cans to be green (though that's pretty cool if you ask me). You also don't have to be an eco-warrior living off the grid in Northern California, growing all your own food and living off $10,000 worth of yearly organic produce sales. I guess what I mean is that being "green" isn't really an extreme lifestyle choice, it's part of everyday life for everyday people all over the USA. We have to stop treating green as extreme. Frankly, I think that alienates more people than it attracts. That's why I try not to overplay my green views, just as I don't downplay them either. To me, the important thing is that we're all constantly raising our awareness and incorporating green practices in our lives one little step at a time.

There are so many good ways to green any home, any style, old or new, anywhere. How about more efficient appliances, compact fluorescent light bulbs, better insulation, and low-VOC paints? These are pretty easy things that can make a big difference. How about not using those toxic cleaners in your kitchen and bathroom? Use good ol' white vinegar - it works great and is non-toxic. Inexpensive too. And great technology is here, with real strides in renewable energy being made every day. The reasons for not taking advantage of better technology for greener homes are becoming fewer and fewer. We're pretty much at the point where going green isn't about making tough choices, it's about making smart choices. The difference now isn't as much about toughness as it is about awareness.

I like to show interesting modern homes, and some of them are not particularly green. But lots of them are, in lots of different ways. Some are green just because they are compact. Some are green because they have a broad sheltering roof and good insulation. Some are green becaues they make good use of recycled materials, or new materials like steel framing that will last a long, long time without a lot of costly maintenance, and that can be recycled someday if need be. Maybe they aren't all perfect, but we can learn something from them. My site is about ideas. Some of the good ideas I like to show are about environmentally friendly homes, and some of the ideas are about other things. They're not mutually exclusive. And we have to stop thinking in those terms. Green fits with modern because they are both about good design. Good design has logic, economy and beauty all rolled into one. I see green as a part of that, not a whole unto itself.

Don't get me wrong, I don't take green for granted. I accept green as a matter of fact. That's how it should be - a natural part of life, not a radical philosophy. I view the recent mainstreaming of green as a sign that we've finally turned the corner. It won't be long now before we build the momentum to make lasting positive change. The challenges are real, but humanity, in spite of itself, is a problem solving species. We can do it.