Subject: Re: Sod (Earth) Roof - Costs??

From: "Jason M. Roth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 17:56:19 -0400

Malcolm Wells, modern "Father of Underground Building", has suggested a
10% premium as a reasonable expectation for an earth shelter; the best
proven waterproofing system (butyl sheets on deck, topped w/ rigid
insulation, subsoil, and topsoil) is not out of line with traditional
high-quality roofing, and the need to waterproof any bermed walls is
nearly offset by the freedom from finishing that wall. In a smaller
structure, ie, a house, 10% is even a bit high, as there is no need for
outrageous structure to support vast spans; if none of your spans exceed
12' or 16', you can get away with only mildly beefed-up structure (eg,
2x10s 1' o.c. to span 12 -- that's a seat-of-the-pants guess, not a rule
of thumb, but I think you get the idea).
Of course, additional costs are more than offset by the return in long
life for the building -- a well-detailed earth-covered roof should/could
last literally centuries unmaintained. Or you could replace your asphalt
shingles every 30 yrs. 

JMR

93 SL2, blue-green

It's never too early to give up.

"What's the use of a good house if you don't have a decent planet to put
it on?."

---

From: [email-masked] (barr)
Date: 15 May 1996 22:06:32 GMT

Not to dampen your enthusiasm for earth covered roofs, but have you considered
the cost of re-roofing? You have to remove all that dirt, a hard laborious task.
The additional costs are not trivial. Membrane roofing (they type used on low
pitch roofs), if done right exceed shingles by a factor of 3. As you stated,
you also have to increase the load bearing capability of the roofing structure.
As a rough estimate, I would say the the cost would be a factor of 4 or 5, on
initial installation and possibly that for the life of the building. 
Not cost effective, but, of course, you will have an earth roof!

In article <[email-masked]>,