I mean houses in Europe and America have 4 corners (or more) whereas in Africa Natives build round houses (also in Asia afaik).
Do they have any advantages or disadvantages? Or is one solution cheaper, …?
In: 50
Square shapes are easier to manufacture, construct, and way more space efficient.
Now not all natives built round houses, your view is just biased on this whole “mudhut” thinking in western media.
Here is a picture of Göbekli Tepe from about 10.000 years ago. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_archaeological_site_of_G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe_-_main_excavation_area.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_archaeological_site_of_G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe_-_main_excavation_area.png)
Here is an aerial shot of an uncontacted tribe in Brazil. [https://cdn.sci.news/images/enlarge/image_1878e-Amazonian-tribe.jpg](https://cdn.sci.news/images/enlarge/image_1878e-Amazonian-tribe.jpg)
Ditto: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%8Dndios_isolados_no_Acre_12.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%8Dndios_isolados_no_Acre_12.jpg)
Here is an article about Korowai tribe that live in treehouses (Common in Papua New Guinea) [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4799012/The-secretive-Korowai-tribe-live-tree-houses.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4799012/The-secretive-Korowai-tribe-live-tree-houses.html)
Here is Bhirrana [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bhirrana_excavation.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bhirrana_excavation.jpg) from about 9000 years ago.
Humans around the world have built all sorts of dwellings. And this idea of round mudhuts being works of primitive man, is just outright western imperialist white supermacy. Fact is that humans are very practical and use the construction methods most efficient for them.
The reason *the stereotypical mud hut* is round because it is really easy and good structure to build from that material. However it isn’t the only shape. There are squares and rounded shapes! Africa is a very big place and has lots of peoples, each having own unique culture and architecture.
Straight edges of building material are MUCH cheaper and easier to manufacture than continuously rounded or curved edges of wood or other material
You can’t build a row of round houses. (Efficiently)
Neither can you put rectangular pieces of furniture flat against a round wall.
There are infinite number of radii. Therefore everything must either be flexible, or custom.
You want a large window? Nope.
Drywall? Nuh uh
Studs for a base and crown? Hell no…
Pvc pipe? Maybe if it’s a big enough circle.
Meanwhile there are no good ways to join circles together.
And for what? What advantage do circles possess? Aetheticly pleasing in some cases, and therefore in high-end construction, you will find some curved walls.
Just for fun, read about the Dymaxion House:
https://www.thehenryford.org/explore/inside/dymaxion-house/
I’ve seen this exhibit. Fascinating.
When building with less stable/strong materials like mud or straw, round is stronger —no weak pints at corners. But when building with modern methods where strength isn’t an issue, straight lines are easier to have standard materials, fit in gridded lot lines better, make it easier to place furniture and built-in cabinetry/shelving, etc.
Straight math is easier than round math. Especially if you are making stuff that uses the this is half the size of that method that predominates older (non metric) systems of measure.
Square stuff is way easier to build that round curved stuff. If you are stacking sticks, sure round works.
If you are sawing lumber and nailing it together it’s way easier to build a flat wall and tilt it up. Repeat 3x and you have a house.
Round homes are more complicated to build, and have inconveniently shaped interior spaces. E.g. your kitchen might be shaped like a pie slice and your stove would have a gap where it meets the wall, kitchen cabinets would need to be round (and very expensive) or awkwardly shaped.
For one they’re easier to fit with each other to form a town or city. If you put a bunch of circles together there will be small star shaped hollow areas between them even if their sides are touching whereas rectangles can fit snugly with each other and leave no empty space, maximising the available space better. Secondly it’s easier to utilise the internal space better with a rectangle building. Not that you can’t just partition the inside of a circle in rectangles but that still leaves a curved outer wall, and most furniture is made to be placed against flat walls. If for example you design a double bed with one curved side to follow the curvature of the wall you’re making one side slightly smaller than the other, so then it’s not really a double bed. Or you can make it bigger than it has to be so that it maintains the area of a regular double bed but also hugs the wall, or you can use a regular bed but then that will leave empty space between it and the wall. This can be applied to any piece of furniture really.
When building smaller structures, often with more basic materials, with few or no rooms inside, building in a round shape helps with stability because it spreads the load equally across the entire outer wall without creating stress points like corners do. They also help with air and heat circulation so they’re ideal for that application.
Overall at this point it’s more about convention more than anything else. People can just work with squares and rectangles better. It’s easier to visualise space as rectangles and easier to make use of it.
Latest Answers