Daily question: Leash your house?

» Via Futurismic:

walkinghome.jpg

WALKING HOUSE is a modular dwelling system that enables persons to live a peaceful nomadic life, moving slowly through the landscape or cityscape with minimal impact on the environment. It collects energy from its surroundings using solar cells and small windmills. There is a system for collecting rain water and a system for solar heated hot water. A small greenhouse unit can be added to the basic living module, to provide a substantial part of the food needed by the Inhabitants. A composting toilet system allows sewage produced by the inhabitants to be disposed of. A small wood burning stove could be added to provide CO2 neutral heating. WALKING HOUSE forms various sizes of communities or WALKING VILLAGES when more units are added together. WALKING HOUSE is not dependant on existing infrastructure like roads, but moves on all sorts of terrain.

You might be wandering, why have a house that moves? Or a village that’s not even stable on a map? Denmark based N55 gets to the heart of the matter:

Concentrations of power limit person’s access to land by the force of among other things the notion of ownership. The WALKING HOUSE requires no permanent use of land and thereby challenges ownership of land and suggests that all land should be accessible for all persons. Society could administrate rights to use land for various forms of production of food for example, but ownership of land should be abolished.

What happens to architecture as we know it if ownership of land is abolished?

5 thoughts on “Daily question: Leash your house?

  1. I don’t think they could be ‘elitists’ unless each is alone. It would appear, for example, that no one in the collective has attempted a veggie garden. Or looked up the dimensions of a ‘cord of wood’ in a reputable textbook.

    Cheers

  2. As much as I admire folks like N55 for having alternative views of the world, the fact of the matter is that the morality of land ownership (at least in Western society) has not been in dispute for decades. I hate that someone has wasted such obvious talent, not to mention resources, on a piece of technology which will never get a foothold anywhere, at least not for the purposes for which it was intended. The only place anyone would be allowed to set up one of these monstrosities would be on land they already “owned.” “A peaceful nomadic life” – are you kidding? The mere sight of one of these things on any road (let alone in your backyard, challenging your “ownership”) would cause an uproar, perhaps inciting violence.

  3. They seem forget about the people (maybe just the people outside of Europe) with the firepower to blow up any trespassing “walking houses”. Sure, N55 may think Texans don’t “own” “their” property, but they may wish “their” house moved faster when said Texans decide to force them to look elsewhere for sunlit lands. :-)

    More seriously, I would say the major advantage of this thing is the ability to get away from other people, like having an RV, but quite a bit more green. I’m surprised it only comes in black. :-)

Comments are closed.