for example, been criticized as too unorthodox-looking and too esoteric to be readily accepted by local building departments. Their open design can present problems of privacy and interior noise, and their curved U-walls (designed for strength) can reduce usable space. Their many plants can cause humidity problems, and kitchens in the environmental interface corridor can sometimes be overly bright and hot in the daytime sun. Many of these possible drawbacks are, however, being addressed in the evolving designs of both earthships and other kinds of tire- and hybrid-houses. Some newer earthship designs more readily fit in with conventional houses, with more familiar roofs and facades. Some architects, like Canadas Martin Liefhebber and David Sheen, are reworking aspects of earthship design to improve both aesthetics and functionality (Sheen, 2004). One oft-cited disadvantage of earthshipsthe labour-intensity of the wallbuilding processis, in my view, actually a strength. It is a building form that encourages owner and community participation. In our current economy that discourages, and even penalizes, informal economic activity, this can present some challenges. But in developing a built-environment that is more people-intensive and less resource- and capital-intensive, this is a plus. The earthship is clearly a building form that makes great strides toward transforming buildings from passive consumption units, burdens on the environment, to active producers, harmonizing with natures systems. Besides reducing material and energy throughputs, earthships make good use of local materials and contribute in many ways to household, community and regional self-reliance. They set an important