To be honest, this corn cob building is a lot nicer looking than the glorified shipping containers I see promoted as 'green prefab' on Treehugger. I'd much rather live in a corn cob house, even if the square beds barely fit in the round rooms.

Frankly, a lot of the stuff that Treehugger says is "beautiful design" is far too modern for my tastes.

I find it strange to see how many people seem to insist that treehugger be one way or the other. You 'step out of line' and they complain that you're being too gloomy, not gloomy enough, too fashionable, too consumerist, too alarmist, too complacent, too idealistic...

TreeHugger is all those things. It's a mixed bag. It reports on a wide variety of stuff, and occasisionally puts in 2 cents' worth. I hope treehugger keeps its beadth of scope.

Why can't people just accept it for what it is? It's much wiser to see different ideas as an opportunity to think, not complain.

The green buildings that are lauded by treehuggers are mostly adjoined square boxes. This squareness is ofcourse practical for the building industry, and therefore a way to get accepted by the mainstream. But I wouldn't it beautiful.

While I am far from a traditionalist, there are good reasons why most buildings are boxes; most furniture is made to sit up against flat walls. Gehry's museums are interesting, but try to hang a 10' square canvas on a curved wall and tell me that design doesn't matter.

I also fail to see why a cob house shouldn't be expected to have square walls; the plan above has several. It's also interesting that those that jumped down the throat of the "most cob buildings have been ugly" comment seem to be objecting not to the truth of the comment, but to the VERY IDEA that a cob building could be ugly, which is an absurd position; imagine a McMansion built cob-style, voila: ugly cob building.

Why does design matter? Because people bulldoze ugly buildings every day. A building's usefulness and beauty is an important component of its sustainability, because they are what convince people to keep it around, to remodel instead of raze, to put time and money into its upkeep. An ugly building which is hard to furnish is not sustainable, because eventually someone will decide that they don't want it around.

It's somewhere between "yes and no," and "no, and you are snobs." I know it's what TH readers seem to want, and it's what keeps me skimming over so many posts. There is a lot of "well, it's almost but not-quite green, but wow, isn't it cool!" on TH. So much of the stuff is just stuff, and even if it's half made of recycled carrot tops, the other half is plastic and metal and new, and it's stuff that folks will love for six months then stick in a closet, chairs that will look edgy but be uncomfortable in a corner somewhere, it's just so much extra stuff.

It's not that we don't need or like some stuff, but enough on TH is a mixture of stuff and eventual garbage -- like the old floppy disks I keep in a box because I don't want to throw them away because they're not recyclable plastic -- for which the stuff-making process only delays the trash-making for a short period of time, and adds, in the form of the parts that aren't recycled or sustainably harvested, more trash.

Those beds fit into the curvy cob rooms as well as my bed fits into the small bedroom in my 1950 ranch-style house, by the way, and with more grace. Whether or not you like that design, it looks as roomy as most modern tract homes..

I have always liked this quote from Buckminster Fuller:
"When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty. I only think about how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."

I tend to find that the designs I find most beautiful are the ones that function best. I look at the above floor plan and see that it has failed in many of the same ways my current home has failed (ergonomically) while attempting to do something different aesthetically and environmentally.

As a test-bed for alternative aesthetics and materials, it has merit. Unfortunately, its uneven attention to the various needs of a residence do not suggest it has surpassed the current "state of the art" in a way that will give it the sort of "heirloom" status which would really make environmental sense.

Of course you, as a writer are entitled to your own opinion, but there are lots of good design elements in this. It's not bad design when something isn't all brushed steel and empty. It seems like a very livable house. good design means form and function together, to me. We may disagree that the form here is good. And you have the right not to write about it for that reason.

I agree wholeheartedly with the post above. This house is surely more noteworthy and environmentally important than some stupid purse made out of old floppy disks that will wear out in weeks. Now, a functional, durable, useable purse made of floppy disks -- that's noteworthy.

Design cannot be timeless because it's contradictory to historical trends and society-needs. Design (for the most part) captures time and what the occupants feel is important to them. Who are we to judge what is ugly and what is not. Diversity in design is key to appreciation of what we like and who we are - different. Diversity IS timeless!. Let's embrace curved walls the same way we embrace glass-walls and traditional columns. Let's not turn the world into a giant tract-housing project.

Of course design matters. But understand, modernist architects don't have a monopoly on what's good taste and what isn't.

If you want to use cob for a strictly square, modernist building, go ahead. But don't make fun of the material's roots. Have some respect.

Those weird, round, tiny cob buildings have a calming feeling about them that you can't get from sheet rock or carpet or plate-glass windows. People have compared it to being in a cave -- or the womb.

The design above isn't perfect. But it's not some sort of disaster, like the roof would collapse. To say it's "ugly" and has to go is just a cop out -- that's your taste. It's not your house. Good architecture could improve it, without changing what it is.

Okay, to Z: I know this is Treehugger, but you sound ridiculous. Who are we to judge? We're WE - the people living right now who can look at something and say that its shit. Sure, its just our opinion - but its an educated one based on our current living trends.

Those curved walls aren't a problem because we can't, like, think outside the box man...they're a problem because they create bad spaces, plain and simple. They'd have been bad 1000 years ago, and they'll be bad for some time to come.

All that aside, the problem with the Cob houses is that they're called 'good design' BECAUSE they're green, which is simply foolish. I'm tired of reading green blogs that show crappy designs that have photovoltaics and composting toilets and give people props [not you Lloyd - you're holdin it down for good design]. ALL ARCHITECTURE SHOULD BE GREEN. Just as all homes have running water and electricity, they should be energy + water efficient and carbon neutral, etc etc. Green design isn't new anymore, it isn't a niche [the government is even on it - a sure sign that its not cool to be green for green's sake anymore] market - its just the way things should be.

I know that that isn't where we're at yet, and all design isn't green - but that's no reason to lower our standards on what should be applauded and what should be trashed. Unless your project is completely DIY, it shouldn't be rewarded with praise unless its actually ill.

I like the rounded rooms. I have been wondering why beds are rectangular. I think beds would be just as good or better if they were more oval shaped. Do many people actually sleep on the corners of their beds?

I'd like orangemenace (or anyone) to explain why curved walls "create bad spaces, plain and simple." I don't think it's so plain or so simple, and sounds suspiciously like another way of imposing arbitrary aesthetic judgments on this discussion. I find rounded spaces to be very pleasing and peaceful. Am I wrong about that? What is "bad" about the spaces they create? I'm genuinely interested in hearing what people think about that. I personally have no interest in the boxy metallic stuff that usually shows up here. Am I missing something? Do tell.

Why does green design have to look so funky and weird?

I remember my buddy's cabin.It is simple.One side is for sleeping.The other is for cooking.The sleeping side has wood heat.But very little.The other is dining and cooking area.

What is wrong with keeping it simple?

Everyone needs to look up what design is. Just "design" encompasses many meanings.
I think people who do not like the word design actually dislike "style".
I'm a designer and, although style obviously plays a role in any culture at any moment in time, and is also another complex word, generally speaking, designers (architects, graphic designers, environmental graphic designers [environmental meaning outside and in public places like museum exhibits], industrial designers, landscape architects, etc. generally are pretty liberal and almost completely pro green, renewable, etc. Architects were the first to really take on green building. Way before certification. Graphic designers, in the late 1980s, pushed paper companies to make more recycled paper and printers to print on recycled paper with soy based inks. Graphic design is now looking at ways to reduce packaging and design containers to fit more efficiently, etc.
Design, good design, is not the issue. Good design is not only functional but also pleasing to the eye, efficient (where applicable) durable, and renewable/recyclable, etc.

"Good design is timeless" - timeless like the oldest buildings in my country at just over 100 years old? Timeless like stone henge, timeless like the pyramids? Timeless like the tiny blip in history that is the human race?

Good "design" will be useless if there is no-one alive to appreciate it. I think designers need to get their priorities right.