Interesting theory. What I can't wrap my head around, though, is how they came to the conclusion that they would only need a house for 10 years before it's "useful life" was over? I guess if you have the luxury of simply moving on and building another home, but who does?

I think the idea is to continually rebuild elements of the house. I will only break down, if it is abandoned.

Ok, but he makes his living off designing buildings and/or homes to last and then takes money for that? I find that very hypocritical.

I think the ultimate in green building would be a home that lasts forever, not one that needs constant maintenance or it disappears.

Also, the design reminds me of one of the "owner-built" summer cottages my family used to rent. They all had wonky floors, oddly stuck-on rooms and splinters coming out of the floors.

I agree with @DEARMISHA. I think having to continually maintain it would be less green then one that lasts for a few hundred years. There are beautiful buildings and cottages in Ireland made of stone that have been around several hundred years. Now that's Green.

Here in Downtown Los Angeles, we have lots of biodegradable homes. It's called cardboard boxes.

Hey this is was on dwell way back 2 or more years ago whats going on here AP?, I have the magazine somewhere in the basement.

Biodegradable housing has its place, I'm sure, but where, and in what circumstance? Hunter gatherers? I don't mean to criticize; I do appreciate the idea that we could leave few traces and little damage. Maybe I need to digest this.

ALL homes will need some maintenance. Look around any city at foreclosed homes. With no one living there, the homes begin to disintegrate (with or without the help of vandals) if nobody is cleaning out eavestroughs, inspecting roofs and foundations for water damage; caulking windows so they don't leak; cleaning birds' nests out of chimneys; trimming back shrubbery; removing fallen tree limbs, etc. I belive the architect's idea is to build so a structure can "go back to the land" without causing the area to become a chemical landfill.

He's not going to let it collapse into the earth on the tenth anniversary of its construction, nor does he intent to move on in ten years. The idea is just that it can biodegrade eventually as opposed to being torn down chucked into landfill like most conventional homes. That said, I struggle to believe this to be honest. What about the glass, cabling, appliances etc. They'd have to be left a lot longer than ten years to 'return to the earth'.

"The ultimate in green architecture"? Really? I'll be back. My stomach hurts.

There are some squat houses in my hood that I wish would just biodegrade already. Hopefully not with the squatters in them.

Green marketing at its best (or worst) here. It doesn't look very weatherproof. I'm not sure why you would have a green roof in the country when a bioswale would do the same thing without the weight and moisture trapped on a flat roof. It's tough to be practical when looking over "green" designs.

i do think it is an interesting idea to build an experimental house with the idea that it will at the very least be able to disintegrate should the experiment/design fail, or be able to maintain/adjust the home if its concept was successful. that is what i would take away as more widely applicable from this example

What a vanity project. I think the goal is sustainability and longevity.