Hacker News Reader

Cylinders and cones (and thus yurts) do have advantages. Spheres don’t. They are much more difficult to construct, and are unstable on a flat surface.

If we a giving credit for whimsy, full marks for the sphere houses. But scoring as a place to live? Failure.

View on HN

Yurts typically do not have furniture of the kind one would have in a fixed home.

And even very primitive fixed huts are typically rectangular.

Spheres minimize surface area per unit of volume. As heat loss in a building is proportional to its exposed surface area, this means they're potentially very thermally efficient. (Less good for collecting sunlight if you're going to cover them in PV panels, though.)

This is a great argument, except that the extra space that makes the building so efficient compared to a cube, is space that mostly can't be used.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com