R Scott wrote:Every time I’ve run the numbers for lowest life time cost (20-30 years minimum) the winner has been a basic agricultural pole barn. Greenhouses or shade structures are cheaper up front but replacing the plastic adds up over time.
It really depends on what else you need that you can “share the cost” with. If you plan to grow a lot of stuff that needs shade, the shade structure probably makes the most sense. If you need a shop or barn or secure storage, the barn probably wins.
I do know someone that built a HUGE pole barn roof with no sides and then parked an rv in it while they built a straw bale house under another corner. It didn’t stop the wind but provided the only shade on the property plus a place to store stuff and work during the rainy season.
This proves very useful! Thank you and again, everyone else that's posted!
But yeah, that is/was our delimma... what 'useful permanent surface' could be built for the least amount of $$ that would do the job as a catchment surface.
We do want / need structures such as a detached garage, and yes probably a greenhouse too. But we don't necessarily want/need/can afford any of the structures - even combined - to be nearly as big as they'd need to be to satisfy the whole of our collection requirements. I was looking at steel buildings yesterday that were WAY TOO BIG for anything we'd ever need to place inside them, just because I needed the roof space. That just didn't seem like the smartest way to go about things lol.
I really dig the example you cite. That might just be a very workable solution for us, though I think we might want 2 identical structures rather than 1 huge one.
Did the straw bale home ultimately comprise only one corner, or did they 'frame out' the entire space?
