Knowledge Base Wiki

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A article is needed about self-sufficient homes, a link to earthships can be imbedded in this article. Other self-sufficient homes can be viewed at this website

Please create the article. Thanks. KVDP (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An anon editor copied this article to Appropedia:Earthships. My question is: is this content really suitable for Wikipedia (in which case we'll remove most of it, and link the Wikipedia article) or is it likely to get pruned back a lot (in which case the content can be conserved at Appropedia)? --Chriswaterguy talk 00:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to predict what will survive at WP. It is silly and wasteful not to just copy this kind of article from WP to Appropedia etc. Just put a note at the bottom saying that it was copied from WP on whatever date. Both sites use compatible copylefts. WP gets much more contributions, but everything there is always subject to partial or total deletion. Duplication is better than loss!-69.87.204.190 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

toxins? In most Western countries, there are regulations that water that has percolated through such material is to be collected and treated before being released in the environment, and it is not recommended to use even the treated water to irrigate foodplants. The water that has run through an accumulation of plastics waste is generally considered by environmentalists to rank one notch above toxic waste. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked - the Scottish Ecological Design Association does not advocate Earthships as there is a risk of unhealthy levels of benzene and other toxic chemicals from the used tires. Source is possibly: Halliday S.P (2004): Appraisal Tools and Techniques. Gaia Research Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly? You haven't read it? Earthship tires are encased before use, and are packed with dirt. In any structure there are often toxic materials, some not even related to construction (ever hear of radon)? A very important part of housing consturction is ventilation. A house "breathes" and if this ability isn't designed into any house, toxic fumes will build up. Earthships are built with ventilation in mind to ameliorate build-up of toxic fumes from any source. By the way, many construction design ideas from Earth ships, such as the earth roof and use of recycled materials as building materials were used in construction of the San Francisco California Academy of Sciences.Perspectoff (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from Earthships - building a zero carbon future for homes(see references in main article)

About obtaining building permits to use tyres in section SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT CONCERNS WITH TYRES:

"In terms of durability there are very few concerns about tyres as they are relatively inert and do not degrade except by exposure to sunlight and erosion by water" "Anecdotal evidence points to the fact that tyres are actually highly stable and durable as building blocks, with the oldest earthships in New Mexico having been around for 25 years to date. Moreover, the tyres themselves are protected from the elements in the structure of the building by plastering within the structure and the damp proofing on the outside." :::"Rammed tyres are an essentially inert building block that in earthships are protected from the elements by a thermal wrap (50 to 100 mm barrier of rigid insulation) and a damp proof membrane around the outside. Stability and wrapping means that they do not emit chemicals in the form of leachates or gases. These environmental risk assessments have been accepted by both the Environment Agency and SEPA and demonstrate that the environmental and structural risks of building with tyres are extremely low."

Although the evidence is ancedotal and could do with backing up with some info about tyres, rubber/decomposition, the fact the risk assesments were approved speaks for itself.

Please can someone include this into the main article.

Also there's a lot in that book i refd if someone wants to go through it. (it's part primary, part secondary sources, but ideal for this wiki)

Gazzat5 (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this tag is warranted. This article mentions several potential drawbacks and problems related to Earthships and also mentions the controversy surrounding concept developer Michael Reynold's architectural license. These are hardly favorable points and would clearly not be metioned in advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skepticsteve (talk • contribs) 02:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do make a good point. It does have information that would make an earthship undesirable, but something about the tone does feel advertisement like. For example, the second sentence mentions a specific company that designs and manufactures them - where as that information belongs, perhaps, in History. It has a lot of hype words thrown in, though maybe accurate, like "special natural" (ventilation system). I think the article almost makes an attempt at exaggerating and personifying the homes (not to mention poor grammer), when it says things like:

"Earthships are a type of off-grid home, which minimizes their reliance on public utilities and fossil fuels."

could be rephrased:

"These homes are intended to be off-the-grid, reducing use of public utilities and fossil fuels." 74.71.183.221 (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the advertisement tag. Nothing in this article is written like an advertisement. I see nothing offered for sale, and it is not an offer for services rendered. It is not enough to define the advantages and disadvantages of something to be considered an advertisement -- something must be for sale.Perspectoff (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The product being sold is obvious: earthships from Earthship Biotecture of Taos, New Mexico. The fact that there's no "buy now for only...!" statement doesn't mean it's not advertising and the article indeed reads like an advertisement (regardless of it mentioning a few negative aspects). Even if the advertisement flag is not justified, the article needs to be overhauled in terms of the language being used which does not seem to follow in line with Wikipedia's style guides. Just one example of many:

"The original Earthships' designs were at first very experimental, but with practice and evolution the houses began looking attractive." 92.201.234.120 (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is full of peacock terms. The self-puffery is so prevalent that it comes across as promotional material. Sentences like "Their popularity and use of inexpensive materials has inspired many to build their own homes as well" are included without citations to corroborate popularity or how inspiring it all is.

Huge swaths of this article is full of assertions without verifiable sources. The list of potential advantages uses opinionated phrases like "a good idea" and "a prudent way", while also incorporating irresolute phrases like "may be safe" and "usually free and it may be possible" without linking any substantive references.

I replaced "elegantly captured in the UK Grand Designs series" with "documented in the UK Grand Designs series" just to mitigate the marketing-speak of that sentence. However, as stated by HalFonts (talk) below, "the tone here is more 'favorably biased' and less 'neutral' than most Wiki articles". I agree with 92.201.234.120 (talk) that "the article needs to be overhauled in terms of the language being used which does not seem to follow in line with Wikipedia's style guides." — 173.60.134.88 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase: "Aesthetics are not universally appreciated" is what signals to me that this was written as a marketing attempt. Considering that it is the only thing listed as a disadvantage is also fairly concerning.Puppier (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having visited the Earthship Taos development and sympathetic to many of the design concepts, this Wikipedia article repeats much of the sales hype touting all the purported advantages without critically mentioning more than relatively few "Possible Disadvantages." (EG: (1) At Taos water is a critical long-term issue weakly addressed by site-design or marketing. (2)When questioned, the Owner-Architect-Developer agreed that these "earthships" are NOT inexpensive basic housing; they are very labor-intensive, requiring very cheap or volunteer labor, or premium pricing. Whether "advertising" specific contract-built homes, or simply touting some architectural innovative concepts leading to contract-built homes, the tone here is more "favorably biased" and less "neutral" than most Wiki articles. Wikipedia's many "citations needed" wishfully implies that somehow a print-reference will strengthen a weak claim or strengthen an obvious direct professional observation. This article needs work or sections rewritten from a more neutral perspective. HalFonts (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what about using tires for landscaping?it could allow for new and cool designs for gardens and things like that and at the same time reuse trash that would just otherwise pollute the environment Timedoesnotexist (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)timedoesnotexist august 29 2008[reply]

Tin can walls are already used by Biotecture herefore

Anyone knows why composting toilets have gone out of grace with biotecture? I think its because of smell (slight), aldough with current models, ... this should I believe be quite minor and mostly code requirements (regulation on plumbing, ...) see biotecture article on sewage/water

Also, if someone knows how that "incubator" works add that aswell in article Thanks, KVDP 81.246.141.86 (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Earthship Seminar DVD from 2009 Michael says that people don´t want to handle with composting toilets although compost is a great thing. If they done right there is no smell.

Following image was removed, please leave on page or upgrade page trough the use of graphics program:

Spend lots of time on it, so ... 81.245.170.21 (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a source for the number of scrapped tires/year:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/st1.htm cites:

Scrap Tire Management Council. Scrap Tire Use/Disposal Study 199 Update, Washington, DC, February, 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.38.18 (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if tires are "free" collecting them from remote urban sources requires fuel and labor. Fine if you have volunteer or very cheap labor; otherwise they rapidly increase in value. HalFonts (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to have a look, try http://www.flickr.com/photos/marvins_dad/2613605572/ and nearby. Lots of CC -licensed earthship photos available. Cheers --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These sections were removed since 07:34, 1 September 2008, please reinclude:

==Types== Since its start-up, Earthship Biotecture has been building and inventing new types of earthships, so that at present, 3 types can be distingueshed (all of which can be still bought today). ===Packaged Earthship=== The most versatile and economical Earthship in terms of construction and building is the packaged earthship. This earthship comes in (partially) prefabricated construction packages and with pre-designed drawings. This "Off-the-rack" aspect makes it a fairly easy to construct building. Sizes begin at a 607 square foot ("Nest" studio) and go up to a 3 bed, 2 bath Earthship and larger. ===Modular Earthship=== Modular Earthships provide as the name implies, the ability for the buyer to compose his earthship entirely to his liking. A greater variety of spaces than packaged Earthships and more sculptural rooms are available herefore. Because all the rooms are equipped with thermal mass insulation, the earthship will still provide in its thermal stability it is famous for. ===Hybrid/Nautilus Earthship=== The Nautilus Earthship is a unique spiral design earthship based on a sea shell. The idea around this is that Earthships need to interact with this planet's natural phenomena; thus the sun, the wind, the thermal mass of the earth, the rain, and even the spiral pattern in all life. <ref>[http://greenmodernism.blogspot.com/2007/04/earthships.html Earthship types]</ref> ==Earthships around the world== Most of the eartships are still located in New Mexico (especially around Taos). However, the first official Earthship home in Europe has now been built in a small French village called Ger. The home, which is owned by Kevan and Gillian Trott, was built in April 2007 by Kevan, Mike Reynolds and an Earthship Crew from Taos. The design was modified for a European climate and is seen as the first of many for the European arena. www.earthship-france.com or www.earthship.net Earthship biotecture has now also finalized plans for a planning application to build on a valuable development site overlooking the [[Brighton Marina]] in the U.K. The application follows the successful six-month feasibility study funded by the U.K. Environment Agency and the Energy Savings Trust. The application calls for sixteen one, two, and three-bedroom earthship homes on this site. The homes are all designed according to basic earthship principles developed in the United States. 15,000 tires will be recycled to construct these homes, which is definitely a small but progressive step for the earth's environmental health considering the fact that the U.K. burns approximately 40 million tires each year. The plans include the enhancement of habitats on the site for [[lizard]]s that already live there, which is the reasoning behind entitling the project, The Lizard. This will be the first development of its kind in Europe, and successful development in [[Brighton]] may help to pave the way for similar projects around the U.K. and other places. [http://www.earthship.co.uk/earthship-homes.htm] In 2004, the very first Earthship in the UK was opened at [[Kinghorn]] Loch in Fife, Scotland. It was built by volunteers of the SCI charity. In 2005, the first earthship in England was established in Stanmer Park, Brighton. ==The worldwide earthship community== At present, Michael Reynolds is building a worldwide network of communities, focused on spreading the technique of building earthships and doubling as a presentation. The communities consist of [[housing development]]s in [[Taos, New Mexico]], uniquely constructed of earthships. Communities include [[REACH]] and [[STAR]]. <ref>[http://greenmodernism.blogspot.com/2007/04/earthships.html Earthships communities]</ref> Also, another organisation has been set up, called The Greater World and is also focused on helping people on building earthships. This organisation however is more focused on helping out with building codes (which are often problematic for earthships, given that they require other plumbing, ...). <ref>[http://greaterworld.org/ The Greater World organisation]</ref> The Greater World became a legal [[Country subdivision|subdivision]] in 1998, and is now phasing its development so that building can continue in certain sections of the development. The project was designed to create an ideal condition from which a sustainable community can grow and flourish. This whole [[community]] produces their own energy, harvests their own [[water]], contains and treats their own [[sewage]], manufactures [[bio-diesel]], and grows a great deal of their own food. The buildings also heat and cool themselves all the while utilizing the discarded materials of our society. This community attempts to lead a non-destructive existence that removes stress from the lives of people and the planet. [http://www.earthship.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=129]

Tyres are actually not cradle-to-cradle compliant; see Talk:Tire#Picture_of_destroyed_tire mention in article as this implies that the use of tyres to make a organic building is impossible 91.182.2.34 (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know very well who 'Reynolds' is, but the whole entry reads poorly. There is the introduction and then it jumps to the 'History' section which begins "Eventually, Reynolds' vision took the form of the common ... ," with no mention of who 'Reynolds' is up to that point! The whole entry needs someone to embrace it so it reads better. I'm not experienced enough in the seemingly never-ending fancy changes to Wiki form and format to take on that responsibility. Still, I suggest before many of these other semantic details get attention, there should be a reconditioning of what's up so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Satori (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Cody Lundin's home not an earthship ? It isn't said in the article by so much words, but I think so nevertheless. See http://www.codylundin.com/codys_house.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.11.24 (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made a vectorised version of a hand-drawn graphic. I hope it`s good enough. If not, tell me and I try to improve it. --Pilettes (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is a picture of an electric windmill relevant to earthships? Please link the wind turbine article instead. There are several factual errors in the schematic as well, such as the use of a motor instead of a generator, and rectification generally taking place at the charge controller. 94.237.90.104 (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easy tiger, it's only a drawing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.20.196 (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't really explain the difference between thermal mass and insulation, the job that each performs, and how much of each is appropriate in what circumstance. There is one quick mention to the effect that "an earth-coupled house still needs insulation", but it seems to me that the two things mostly work against each other -- if the insulation is highly efficient, the thermal mass is irrelevant, and if the thermal mass is there to stabilize the temperature, insulation would prevent that from happening. It seems likely to me that the two can be made to balance each other, and work together, but that isn't explained in the article. Middlenamefrank (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is entirly focused on UK. I only see UK earthships mentioned or earthships build on mainland by UK owners. For the record the very first earthship in Europe was build in Belgium in 2000 by team Reynolds way before earthship Fife.

In Spain the first residential earthship already started building in 2003, Earthship Valencia. In 2005 building of earthship Vaxhüset (Sweden) started. All well before earthship Ger, although Ger was finished before Valencia.

Overview of European earthships can be found [[1]]. You will find dates of when building started.

I added the Belgium part on Strombeek but it was removed? Can someone tell me why? You do not want Wikipedia to tell history the correct way?

Willy Raets,
Chairman Earthship Belgium npo,
Initiator behind earthshipeurope.org, EEBU, EECO and EECN (all earthship related)
Author on several technical and research articles on earthships techniques and improvements to European climate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.117.15.86 (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no listing of disadvantages of earthship construction to balance the list of advantages, which makes the whole article appear biased.OnHawkspur (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses a lot of complimentary phrasing and a biased tone, it makes assertions without corroboration, and it comes across as the kind of promotional writing you'd find on the subject's website. Just deleting the problematic phrases results in huge gaps in the flow of the article, so it seems this needs a more extensive rewrite than I can provide (I am unfamiliar with the subject matter). Inserting problem tags every few sentences and problem banners every section makes the article unreadable. Below are a few examples of the problems in this article.

• "The roof of an Earthship is heavily insulated – often with two layers of four inch poly-iso insulation …"^{[citation needed]}
• "The Earthship as it exists today, began to take shape in the 1970s."^{[chronology citation needed]}
• "Mike Reynolds … wanted to create a home that would do three things …"^{[need quotation to verify]}
• "… dry solar toilets are now advocated …"^{[by whom?]}

• "Unlike many other materials, rammed-earth tires are easily accessible to the average person."^{[editorializing]}
• "In addition to being readily available, the method … is simple and affordable."^{[editorializing]}
• "… [improves] the viability of Earthships in every climate without compromising their durability."^{[peacock prose]}
• "Their popularity and use of inexpensive materials has inspired many to build their own homes as well."^{[editorializing]}

• "Because of the nature of plants, oxygen is added to the water …"^{[further explanation needed]}
• "… plants are placed at outlets of fixtures to regain the water and the nutrients lost …"^[vague]
• "CLEVEL invited Reynolds from Belgium to Brighton in the UK …" — (no explanation as to who or what CLEVEL is supposed to be)

The entire Systems section (water, electricity, climate, heating) is full of descriptions and processes but very little references. This section seems to be a rehashing of the content found in the Systems section of Earthship's website. Two citations in this section are directly related to Mike Reynolds himself (his book and Helio House)^{[non-primary source needed]} and three are broken links. Another two references are unclear (one seems to be an incomplete citation markup with only the title of a book, whereas the other seems to be a photo gallery buried below a bunch of Amazon.com links).^{[better source needed]}

Both the Potential advantages and Potential disadvantages sections have no citations attached to their marketing-speak assertions. The disadvantages list contains one throw-away line meant as a half-hearted attempt to provide counterpoint. Everything that could go wrong with pro and con lists is happening here, including peacock terms, editorializing, and weasel words (for example, "Rubber tires are usually free and it may be possible to be paid to take them."^{[weasel words]}).

— 173.60.134.88 (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right on one level, but this is rather a niche subject and I doubt anyone is going to make the effort to turn this into a good or even halfway decent article in those terms. The article appears to have been tag bombed, I think that's the phrase, to an unnecessary extent, and I'm going to remove the inline ones as the header says quite enough. ProfDEH (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps useful to mention: Flagship movement See

• http://earthshipsweden.se/
• https://www.facebook.com/flagshipbio/info

109.130.177.184 (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There are other issues not mentioned here which tells me this is a very biased article. Earthships have significant problems with health and safety such as the out gassing of toxins from the tires, deadly fire hazard and serious instability issues where earth shifting, settling, undermining or earthquakes may occur." How ever wrote this at the beginning of the article may let it be or provide a valid source or put it into the talk area. I´ve deleted it form the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:1F15:1167:219:7EFF:FE66:8ACD (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earthship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131010184736/http://www.earthships.co.za/category/swaziland-project/ to http://www.earthships.co.za/category/swaziland-project/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]