Everingham Rotating House: Thinking Outside the Square
by Warren McLaren, Sydney 
on 04.10.06
This Australian house rotates around a central pivot point. “It also encapsulates many aspects of ecologically sound building principles, such as optimising on natural light and heat, while rotating 180o to take advantage of sunshine and shade at different times of the day and year.”
It might look radical and ‘out there’, but Buckminster Fuller had this idea sewn up, a good 60 years ago. Plus his home was self powered, and much more besides. Talk about Prefab - his Dymaxion house was packed into huge tubes and transported to the site by air blimp. The guy was a genius, half a century ahead of his time. But back to today. The Everingham model is a 24 m (79’) diameter octagon with a 3-metre (10’), 360-degree verandah. It weighs 50 tonnes, but can rotate a full 360-degrees, around a central core of plumbing and electricals. Within this core is also a geothermal piping system (120 metres long and 2.5 metres deep), supplying a constant 22oC to the house. ::Everingham Rotating House
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Got Guts? Stand Up to Summer Heat Without Air Conditioning
- Green Glossary: Ecosexy
- Fire Up Your Metabolism and Burn More Calories with Herbs
- 5 Easy Steps to A Well-Insulated House
- Find Your Dinner at the Farmers' Market: Peas and Prosciutto
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
The rotaating home concept is really awesome. I too have covered one such fabulous rotating home - Rotating Home earlier. The rotating homes are luxurious and distinct in design.
hello
Very cool -- as a geek, I love the idea.
However, how much energy does it take to rotate the house? That can't be cheap!
It seems a shame to go to all the trouble to put the house on a turntable, but then to waste it by not fitting it out with a solar array (and by making the house itself circular, which strikes me more as a vanity item than a sensible design.)
who says square or rectangle is more sensible?
has there been any third party evaluations on this statment? are there articals or documents I may read?
Hi. We are the owner builders of this rotating house. The house is powered by 2 electric motors that are about the size of a washing machine motor. We are looking into solar power at the moment. The house itself is octagonal within the circular deck which enables it to spin. Any other shape is not practicle and would look ridiculous on a circular turntable. To get the full info check out www.everinghamrotatinghouse.com.au
Rotating houses and green houses are very promsing
technologies.
i think thatin the case of rotating greenhouse would maximize growth..
you have either windows or insulation facing the sun..
Solar panels would make this house top notch. However, it does utilize the potential of sun and shade. If the sun shines on half the house for half a day = rising temperature, as it turns to the cooler side for the rest of the day = lowering the temperature, therefore keeping it quite constant. Ever notice how hot one room gets in the summer which makes it unbearable? This can potentially level it off.
With regards to the hexagon/octagon shape it is being overlooked here by another potential it seems.
First off, to some people it may be a vanity, but it is more practical. It's called isoperimetric theorem. I'll give you an example because the problem with math is they write it in zodiac and it's ridiculous how they just don't give a practical example. Here's an example.
Using a perimeter of 24
Rectangle: 10x2. P= 24. A = 20
Triangle: 8x8x8. P=24. A = 27.713
Square: 6x6. P = 24. A = 36
Hexagon: 4x4x4x4x4x4. P=24. A=41.56
Octagon: 3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3. P=24. A=43.45
Circle: C=24. R=3.82. A = 45.84
Using an area of 16
Rectangle: 8x2 A=16 P=20
Square: 4x4 A= 16 P= 16
Triangle: 6.018. A=16. P= 18.234
Circle: A = 16 R = 2.256. P = 14.17
I didn't bother to try and figure out the perimeter of a hexagon or an octagon given an area because it seems the internet's only way of doing it is dividing it into squares, rectangles and triangles - which is ridiculous. The proof is still there. I'm not sure where an unequilateral triangle would be, but it's probably not as good as an equilateral. In the end, the closer you build to a circle can = more area, and less perimeter. This would be an ideal way of building houses.
"Among all planar shapes with the same perimeter the circle has the largest area"
"Among all planar shapes with the same area the circle has the shortest perimeter."
Now, I don't know if you'll save money if you built a house closest to a circle since that would require more labor. However, if you were in need of a pen to raise cattle or keep animals, a circle is the best, because as you can see, you get more area, and a shorter perimeter = less material.
"However, how much energy does it take to rotate the house? That can't be cheap!"
With good engineering - little. And with the amount of money they save with the geothermal, I'm sure it breaks even if they're not saving money.
Here's an interesting thing I found on discovery channel's site. This guy, whether he is right or not (its just a theory), can move a 20 000 tonne boulder of concrete by himself using basic physics. I'm sure the house uses the same principles.
http://www.exn.ca/news/video/exn2003/10/21/exn20031021-stonehenge.asx
OMG that is soooooooooooo cool you should have pics of what it looks like in side