I am attempting to complete an alternative/natural materials home build in South Carolina. I therefore have no
experience with building codes and enforcement in Florida. But I would expect it to be rigorous and difficult.
Do you already have land? You seemed to imply not, but didn't specify. If not, then you are in a better position, because your options are more open. Once you have decided on a basic design - and I don't mean just a concept; I mean once you have sketches of your intended build and can discuss how the construction will unfold - then you can shop your design around.
That's my advice; that's what I did. Once I could sketch a 90%-accurate layout for my final build, then I searched the internet real-estate sites for properties in my target area. I found dozens of potential building lots in four different jurisdictions: three adjacent counties and one municipality. Then I visited the building official in each jurisdiction to discuss my plans, drawings in hand. Not actual blueprints, mind you, but detailed hand-drawn elevations and floorplans. That was enough to get the gist across. And I could discuss them knowledgeably, because by then I'd read half a dozen
books on construction in general and/or construction using my chosen natural materials, and I'd read the International Building Code cover to cover.
Two of the building officials seemed cautiously amenable, one downright excited, and the fourth made it clear (without actually saying so) that he intended to obstruct me as much as possible if I brought my project to him. So, right away I crossed his county off of my list of potential properties. I ended up buying an ideal lot in the municipality with a cautiously amenable but cooperative building official.
As for potential designs and materials, I do know northern and central Florida. My parents live about an hour northwest of Orlando, and I've spent a few years living in that area with them. I can still only give general advice. It's hot there, and during the rainy season it's very wet. As appealing as any type of underground or earth-integrated home might be, I would approach it very, very cautiously. Especially as a first-time owner/builder. Moisture control is going to be a huge concern.
Remember, you are limited by two different factors. Not only "what can I actually build effectively," but even more importantly "what can I effectively sell to a building official." In my own case, I quickly eliminated underground structures from my initial brainstorming sessions, since I planned to build in a humid environment. Could I have made one work here in SC? Probably yes, with enough knowledge and careful design and careful construction. But why challenge myself as a first timer?! And why challenge my building official?!
As "alternative" building designs go, I ended up with a fairly conventional one. Were I building out on an unregulated mountaintop, I might have chosen to bite off something a bit more ambitious. For instance, I'd have loved to have tried a tamped earth floor as opposed to a concrete one. But again, I knew I had a code official to sell on my design. You can't throw too much at them at once. You have to pick and choose your battles.
Concrete domes sound pretty cool. I don't know much about them - no more than watching a few YouTube videos - so I'll refrain from further comment.
Also, I have no idea of your budget. Not just money, but time. How many years can you commit to this build, and how much of your own time/week during that period? These are huge factors and should have equally huge roles in your decision making process. The less time you can devote to personally running the build - i.e. the more you will by necessity rely on professional assistance - the more conventional your design should probably be. Helpful hint: however long you think the project will take, don't start unless and until you are prepared for it to take twice that long.
Whichever way you go, I can offer three pieces of universal advice. First, pound the internet until you locate individuals who've built using your intended methods/materials. Then, if you have to drive halfway across the country to visit their sites in person, do so. If you can possibly find more than one, take the time to plumb them for info. Everything they did right, and everything they did wrong. And don't necessarily cut costs by avoiding professional consultation. I hired one, even as an owner/builder. It was a curious inversion of the usual process, in which you go to an architect with a budget and he gives you a design. Rather, I went to him with my design and he gave me his critique.
Second, consider very carefully from where you labor is going to come. Recognize that this will likely be your single largest expense. No matter what alternative design you choose, it will be more labor-intensive than a conventional build. That is a given, since conventional construction techniques have evolved universally with one goal in mind: minimized labor. Which is why the conventional building industry has avoided [insert your chosen alternative technique here]. I found that attracting and managing good laborers has been my #1 hassle and constraint. I am building near to a university, so I figured right there are thousands of potential, part-time, unskilled laborers. Turns out that college kids actually make poor hired help. It also turns out that one owner/builder cannot effectively supervise more than a few laborers at at time, so plan on a slower pace of construction (or else a lot of money wasted on unsupervised, unproductive workers!).
Until you have a realistic plan for recruiting, paying, and supervising good laborers, you are NOT ready to begin construction. If, on the other hand, you plan to do 100% of the labor yourself - sure, you'll still hire an electrician, etc. - that's okay, but then consider how much longer your build will take. Do your chosen materials stand up well against the elements long term in a half-completed structure? Has your design taken this into account?
Third, your design process should NOT start off with "what type of alternative materials do I want to use? -
straw? aircrete? hempcrete? earth-bag domes? etc." I know that this was the very question that started this
thread, so maybe you have already completed the step I am about to describe. If so, good. But if not, then take notice. In my opinion and experience, your design process should instead start off with "what type of lifestyle do I want to live in North-Central Florida?"
I have met more than a few 1st-time alternative builders who are totally psyched about the earthship they are going to build, or about designing a roundhouse, or whatever. But when I asked them WHY they wanted to build a roundhouse, specifically, they had no answer much beyond the fact that it looked really cool in the YouTube video they'd watched. That is NO GOOD REASON to build a roundhouse, and NO GOOD WAY to begin a design process.
You need to consider your finances, your dreams and values, your long-term goals in terms of career and family and lifestyle. Once you can see a vision of the life you want to lead, then you can start to analyze what type of home and property fits that vision. That will start a process of elimination: some design concepts will quickly drop from the list of possibilities, and you can evaluate the practicality and desirability of those that remain.
Using myself as an example... I value preparedness and self-reliance, and wanted a place where I could live quietly and pass these values on to my (theoretical future) children. So, I would need some land for
gardening and privacy away from the
city. But I'm not rich enough for a grand estate. And I'm unwilling to accept total isolation, so no shack in the woods for me. So, now we're zooming in on a suburban or semi-rural setting, closer to civilization than to the boondocks. But civilization means building code officials, so right there forget about any "far out there" designs. And I chose to relocate to my old college town, where I still know some people, in South Carolina. South Carolina = humidity and lots of rain = no underground houses (which probably also count as a "far out there" technique when it comes to building officials).
I am also paralyzed; I live in a wheelchair, and I live alone. So, no mountain properties for me; I like things as flat as possible. I also knew that fixing up an existing house made little sense. The first rule of all small houses is that they have tiny kitchens and tinier bathrooms, which are also the most critical spaces in terms of adaptation for wheelchair living. Meaning that I'd have to start off by ripping out walls of the two most expensive parts of the house I'd just bought and rebuild them from scratch. No bueno. So the logical choice would be designing a house around me, rather than adapting an existing design. And doing it myself, because no architect understands my needs like I do. Which would assume there even are architects who specialize in wheelchair compliant houses, which I doubt.
My values dictated that I should strive for minimal environmental impact, minimal energy use, etc. In a phrase: small footprint. Maybe a tiny house? No way! Wheelchairs require lots of floor space. So, now we're thinking instead about a larger house using low-impact materials and smart design to make up for its size. Which suggested passive
solar design. Now we're zooming in on a DIY, natural-materials, passive solar home at the north end of a not-too-steeply-sloped semi-rural southern exposure.
Additionally, my early research had revealed that, even while all the books fixate on the embedded energy of building materials, 90% of a building's energy footprint is actually the energy used during the years of its occupancy, primarily for heating and cooling. Link back to passive solar design. Plus, that means if a high-embedded-energy concrete slab-on-grade foundation is the cheapest possible solution, and it works for a passive solar design, and it will make my building official happy, then so be it.
Also, consider that I'm as yet unmarried. While I have sunk my life's wealth into this property and intend on planting
deep roots here, I could still end up moving somewhere to follow a future wife, who'd also likely be the family bread-winner. So, my house can't be so radically unconventional as to be without resale value. Thus, no whimsical, hand-sculpted,
cob cottage artwork in my design process, either. Stick with rectilinear floorplans. Okay, a little boring, but consistent with a focus on practicality over aesthetics that I'd already adopted for budgetary reasons.
I could go on, but hopefully my point is clear how consideration of practicalities and personal values dominated my design process, which in turn pointed to a certain property and to a certain choice of design and materials. This is fundamentally different from starting your process with a chosen design or material.
In my case, I ended up with a gently-sloping, southern-facing, one-acre
permaculture homestead on a surprisingly private and secluded wooded lot at the edge of a college town in a rural county of a rural state. Cost of living is low. I'm 25 minutes away from one small-sized city and 45 minutes away from another mid-sized city. The centerpiece of the homestead is a "conventional alternative" one-story passive solar home with straw bale walls, a concrete slab, a metal roof,
wood heat, no need for air conditioning, and so far no headache's from building officials. It's big enough to suit a potential future family, but in the meantime has plenty of room to rent out.
Not that I wouldn't change a few things with the benefit of hindsight, but I think it will all suit me well, because I designed it with the right priorities in mind.
In your case, you'll end up somewhere very different. But I think if you follow a similar design process, you should like wherever you end up. And hopefully, if you have your labor situation sorted out, you should get there faster than I have. Good luck!