I have a lot of respect for Buckminster Fuller in this article. He blatantly addresses not only problems with design, but problems with society in general in relation to his conjectures on “new dwelling machines” and utilization of industrial processes in housing. Before I begin, however, it is important to note that I did have the priveledge (though blissfully unaware of the signifigance of the experience at something like 10 years old) of touring a Dymaxian House in the Henry Ford Museum in Detroit. With that said, let’s move on. Fuller calls out the mortgage industry, material industry and design industry. He outlines every way industrial production has been fought against from every industry in interest of profit. He relentlesly throws architects into the crosshairs claiming we are “secure in (our) stronghold of aesthetic nonsense.” And he’s right, or at least was at the time (though I would really argue he’s mostly right).

The incredibly interesting thing Fuller does, is take ownership out of the equation for the new dwelling machine. Why? Fuller claims “The fact that the new dwelling machines may look utterly different from anything man has ever thought of living in before will be inconsequential SO LONG AS MAN IS NOT ASKED TO BUY THEM.” Fuller claims that the laity will be receptive, if they do not need to own something that they are unhappy with; but if they are allowed to utilize and exploit this, that they will not care and will finally break free of what a house ‘should’ look like. That’s infatuating! In my younger years wandering through the Dymaxian House I had no idea Fuller envisioned not only restructuring the living machine, but the way we use our homes (ownership vs ‘renting’). His conjecture, that people are willing to accept something that they are just using rather than owning may have been sucessful, but wasn’t ever implemented. From my understanding, the few Dymaxian Homes that were built, were built for those who were interested in the future way of living, and what’s more these people owned them. (and look what happened when they did http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QnZkl3Rmg1Y/UMOz-hwhoqI/AAAAAAAAAIo/1Nlpcmo7Lmw/s1600/Graham%27s+Wichita+House+1974.png)

Had it been realized in this manner, I wonder if there may have been a different outcome. Or certainly with things like careshares in our time, people may be more open to an idea such as this?