• 
  • Carpentry
  • Plumbing & Wiring
  • Energy Efficiency
  • Kitchen & Bath
  • Building Codes
  • Interior Finish
  • Foundations & Masonry
  • Building Plans
  • DVDs
  • Magazine Archives
• 
  • Digital Issues
  • Member Home
• 
  • Subscribe
  • Renew
  • Gift Subscription
  • Current Issue
  • Magazine Extras
  • Magazine Index
  • Advertiser Marketplace

Better than Plumb

Why politicize the magazine?

Kevin Ireton, editor-at-large

11 users recommend

Add Comment
Print

We’ve gotten a lot of feedback about Alex Wilson’s letter to President Obama in the latest issue, much of it negative. For example: “Not sure why you decided to politicize your magazine. I will not be renewing once my current subscription expires. Here's a green idea: don't send me any renewal notices.”

Another reader accused Alex of being a Marxist and promoting “Gestapo tactics.” Somebody else said that Alex had failed even to consider the “value of human freedom.” And in perhaps the gravest protest imaginable, one longtime reader announced that not only was he canceling his subscription to Fine Homebuilding, but he also was canceling Fine Woodworking as well. Given how hard all magazines are fighting to keep readers these days, I haven’t found the courage yet to tell my colleagues across the hall that I lost one for them.

I have assiduously avoided politicizing Fine Homebuilding over the years. I know why people read the magazine. They want useful information, practical ideas, and a bit of inspiration. Except for “Taking Issue” essays, which until now have been limited to our two annual issues (Houses and Kitchens & Baths), the only controversial topics have been such things as whether a self-respecting carpenter would ever hang a door without using shims or whether vinyl siding belongs on a fine home. So why did we invite Alex to stir things up? What changed?

Well, fuel costs rose, terrorists threatened, the globe warmed, the housing market crashed, and the economy plummeted. And as Alex argues, we builders and remodelers need to understand our connection to these issues. What we build, where we build, and how we build have far-reaching consequences that too many of us have failed to consider. If Michael Pollan can argue successfully, as I believe he does, that eating is a political act, then I would argue that so too is building. The choices we make—from the size of the house to the amount of insulation to the provenance of the materials—say as much about what we believe and what kind of future we want as our vote in the last election.

What I found most disturbing about the reactions to Alex’s essay was how few people were willing to engage a serious discussion. Most readers wanted to vilify Alex or the magazine or both rather than argue that the problems Alex refers to are not really problems or that the solutions Alex proposes will not solve them.

In my humble opinion, the readers of Fine Homebuilding are the best, most conscientious builders in the world, and for us to debate the placement of a shim but not the global consequences of the very homes we build strikes me now as unconscionable. It would be like the Detroit automakers ignoring fuel economy to focus on cup holders and sound systems.

Add Comment Print

Can you put a runner on winders?

Back to List

Trade shows versus the real world

Comments (16)

florida writes: Perhaps I can explain the anger to you. As hard as it may be to do let's leave the content of Alex's article out of this because I think the answer is pretty simple. I buy FH to increase my knowledge of building. I buy Time for news and opinion. No matter what anyone tells you men buy Playboy for the pictures. People buy motorcycle magazines because they want to read about motorcycles.
I don't buy FH for political articles or for opinions about political issues. I have other sources for that. For my money you wasted a page that could have been devoted to, as your masthead says, Fine Homebuilding.
Posted: 12:25 pm on August 23rd

je3nnn writes: A recent University-of-Illinois study indicates that the vast majority of climatologists do agree that global warming is real, and that human involvement is a major factor. A summary by CNN can be read here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html.

I think statistics would imply that piccman is fibbing a little about his education. Either that or his studies are in theology at conservative universities.

While Fine Homebuilding might be losing some long-time subscribers, our loyalty is certainly secured for decades to come. If they were that long-time, then they didn't have all that much time left anyway, did they?

Posted: 11:10 pm on August 1st

portsMouth writes: The idea that a builder should be free to build anything he or she wants, without regard to its effect on the environment (aka Other People) is absurd. Medical personnel have guidelines they must follow, and the building industry has gotten away with relatively few restrictions, resulting in hundreds of thousands of houses that are substandard, based on what has been known about energy efficiency for the last four decades. I have always driven efficient cars and trucks and built and lived in super insulated houses the last twenty-five years, and have to be honest: it does annoy me that my cost of fuel is much higher than it would have been in large part because most other builders didn't bother to learn how to build more efficient houses, and people who didn't need eight-cylinder SUVs chose to drive them anyway.

As for the person who claims there's no global warming: if you're right, well, it's still a good idea to improve our environment; but if you're wrong, there will be dire consequences to not changing things.

Home buyers, like medical patients, are essentially a "captive audience". They need homes. So it only makes sense to me to require that the professionals whom they have to hire should be required to build responsibly. The politicization of home building issues is the result of the failure of home builders to improve on their own.

If Fine Homebuilding were to stop presenting articles on better construction, THAT is when I'd drop my subscription (I have every issue since Issue One, which, incidentally, featured articles on solar hot water, energy efficient construction, etc.). There are other magazines that serve the profit-only aims of some builders, and THOSE are the publications that I find offensive.

Tucker W.'s idea of an energy sticker is brilliant. While Energy Star ratings aren't perfect, they are at least an attempt to provide apples-to-apples comparisons. Working out heating and cooling calculations on a house only takes a couple of hours on a computer--a small portion of the total time spent on constructing a house. Even if a government agency did the calculating, the energy savings over an entire industry would more than pay for implementing a rating system.
Posted: 7:52 am on April 6th

piccman writes: I read fhb as a source of ideas and for the enjoyment of it. I do not need to be preached at about all of this global warming bs. Yeah- that's right- bs... I have actually taken courses for college credit and hold 2 bachelor degrees as well as an mba. I actually study this stuff and will tell you flat out that there is NO Concensus on global warming except amongst media/politco/media types who at best may have read a magazine article or two on the topic (probably written by someone they knew).
I personaly choose to use the most energy efficient/economical materials that I can when feasible. I do this because I choose to, not because I have been forced to. This is still the United States and I believe we still have freedom to live/build as we choose. I believe that most sensible people will choose to do likewise because it's in their own interest (economics 101, I believe).
In building, as in every other aspect of life, compromise and common sense must prevail against the hot air winds of a false religion. I notice that the high priest AlGore himself often uses way more than the bare minimum when it comes to travel, his home , etc. Why not, after all, he's made quite a bundle off of all the hype...
Posted: 2:01 pm on March 31st

vinewood writes: We do not need anyone giving the government more regulation ideas even under the guise of "building green". We need MORE FREEDOM to build as we see fit, more information, more options, but not more FEDERAL REGULATIONS! I do not support the seeming "green only" slant to "Fine Homebuilding" and the affront to personal liberty called the "sustainable development" movement either. I have the right to build my home/business on acreage, away from the "city core" and public transportation access. I don't have to be within walking or biking distance of anything except the creek that flows through my own land. I don't need a city park or city services or anything provided by a city government at all. Put me out in the county with the least regulations possible, and leave me alone.

By the way: I own EVERY issue of Fine Homebuilding ever printed, I used FHB to help me design my current energy efficient "hurricane/tornado bunker" home. I am in the electrical stage of my project. I used ICF (concrete/rebar) construction, brick outside, 24 ga. metal roof over radiant barrier over peel/stick over 3/4" plywood glued/screwed to the trusses, sealed attic construction with icynene to be installed under the roof deck, geothermal HVAC with desuperheater to heat water, the highest rated impact windows/doors/garage doors I could feasibly use, energy efficient appliances, all light fixtures designed or compatible with CFL bulbs, and all built to a wind load of 200mph. I even sawed the trees that I cut down into boards for forms and trim. I just don't think that any government agency should MANDATE that I HAVE to build it this way, or be able to tell me how big is should be, or how close to the city, or ration the amount of land it's on, etc. It should be my choice as a currently FREE United States citizen. The current Democrat/RepubliCRAT administration in Washington D.C. is trying their best to "cure" us all of that "free" part as fast as possible.

Posted: 10:40 pm on March 16th

Hickoree writes: I'm a conservative guy, but I'm not disturbed by, or even bothered by, the article in question. It's a positive thing to step back and evaluate the broader picture (and especially one's place in it) from time to time. I'd be more likely to cancel over all this PEX plumbing rot (tubing should be soldered!)

As for the problems the author addressed, of course we should strive to make buildings using ecologically-friendly materials and methods. We got so greedy and self-centered in this country over the past 20 years, that few of us even recognize the things that help make a quality life possible. Greedy shareholders got ripped off by financial sharks only slightly more greedy than themselves.
Posted: 11:12 pm on March 2nd

earnesto writes: Alex has many fine ideas about improving the American home. But maybe a teepee, a tent, or a yurt make better and greener homes than the extremely expensive and complex technologies, regulatory processes and constructions Alex imagines in his article. Indeed, as with the discussion about what can be done at this late date that might slow or arrest global warming, there is much legitimate debate about what constitutes real “green” building. As to the backlash from Alex’s piece; It is perfectly plausible that if Alex saw his several wonderful ideas realized, an aspiring home owner/builder might spend 8 years in line and $580k just getting the permits and approvals required. People with experience in building understand that it is already so expensive to build ones own home that only the very wealthy can even think of it. And further- The prospect of another dozen bureaucratic gauntlets to run, and the attendant time and cost likely required, is what has frightened so many of the fine rugged individualist readers of FHB, and caused them to whack FHB in response. What FHB perhaps might have done (and might still do) was to have provided a space in a subsequent issue/s for an intelligent thoughtful and responsible essay in response, equal time, as it were. But then attempts at objectivity in Journalism these days are pretty much dead, far too boring for those who already know it all. And maybe George Carlin was right when he said;" The trouble with the American dream is that you have to be asleep to beleive it".
Posted: 1:01 am on February 27th

topekabill writes: I'm another former subscriber who just renewed to support the magazine to counter the "outraged" non-renewing subscribers. Like or not, we all live on this planet, and our housing is one of the biggest users of energy and producers of greenhouse gasses. Plus, energy costs are a drain on the paycheck of every homeowner -- why not try to keep them down by building well in the first place?

I stopped reading "Builder" and few other similar publications because of the "don't stop me from building anything I want even if there is no insulation in the attic" mindset. I applaud Fine Homebuilding for bringing the issue out in the open and providing a forum for it. And it is a relief to see that there are others who agree and post some very cogent arguments.
Posted: 2:10 pm on February 16th

enduringcharm writes: I don't know about the other readers, but I buy FH for coverage of high quality design and construction techniques and practices. I'm looking for construction details, innovative design ideas, new products, and something more profound than the DIY garbage in other media.

If I want to delve into politics or public policy issues related or not related to construction, I'll look somewhere else. With all due respect, FH doesn't have the wherewithal to produce anything meaningful in this arena anyway. FH should stick with its core mission, or else change its name and find some editors with public policy expertise.

Posted: 9:15 am on February 15th

mdheritage writes: Listen, all this rhetoric has been chaffing at me for quite some time. As a builder and remodeler outside D.C., I agree with those who are dissapointed in the "green movement" and the subsequent politicizing of our trade magazines. It's more than apparent with other now unnamed supposed trade magazines. Those magazines are owned by publishers and companies that will continue to jump into bed with our vastly oversized and corrupt government in order to save their own skins. No different than the banks and auto makers, etc. We are becoming a nationalized, or dare I say socialized culture; looking to the nanny state for our well-being. It's apparent that many of our precious trade publications tout the global warming myths and not only subtely support the doctrine, but push the ideology. In fact, it's becoming a religion unto itself. What happened to the acid rain proponents? We should build sustainable and energy efficient homes because it is the right thing to do for our clients and because it's being a good steward of our resources. It is a fiduciary responsibility we have to our clients. The science and research is the same. But the touted end result is different. We do it because it is the right thing to do, and as we learn more about how to build more efficient homes, we do so for the ultimate benefit of our clients. Not because the world will end if we don't!!! It's a money grab and like other false religions, will be exposed for what it is in the end!
Posted: 5:13 pm on February 14th

Lawrence writes: There is real pressure from the global warming campaign to muzzle anyone not subscribing to their science. It comes down to freedom of thought in my meager mind.

Global Warming activists don't want their science challenged and they really get upset if anyone dares to suggest they may not have the whole picture yet.

I am all for not being limited in a magazine to just the "Safe" issues--that said I won't touch global warming on my blog. It's hard enough keeping things positive with all the trade ussues like unregistered labour and Composites Vs. Wood.

Not worth the risk personally to alienate anyone.

What to publish is a very tough call- I don't envy you.

I have to agree with Ted--It was political long before you burned your hand on it--just the fact that it is a two sided coin makes it so.

L
Posted: 8:36 am on February 12th

ILgirl writes: I recently got online subscriptions to both Fine Homebuilding and Fine Woodworking, and will continue them because of Wilson's letter to Obama.
Posted: 2:49 pm on February 11th

Georgio_Caparella writes: Magazines such as Fine Homebuilding are the best place to bring forth the issues Alex had in his open letter. This is where the proverbial rubber meets the road. Most of the folks that read this magazine are the same people that implement the policies and practices that our politicians talk about. Without getting them in the loop, it's just more hot air.

Even though I'm not a builder or even work in the trade, I for one will be renewing my subscription because of the initiative to take up issues such as this. Keep up the good work!
Posted: 1:30 pm on February 10th

Hella writes: Ted and Tucker are right, as was Alex.

None of us is without bias, and I know I have had knee-jerk reactions to others' opinions that I later regretted. But I do try to keep an open mind, something that requires more and more vigilance as I age.

What I find so curious, especially here in Texas, is the libertarian bent evident in the reactions to Alex's letter. It's an ethos that implies that an individual's freedom to build and consume as he sees fit takes precedence over the needs of society. To rationalize this position, many refute the science pointing to the global consequences of maintaining the status quo. Others may acknowledge the science, but contend that government has no place influencing what should be a personal decision.

The curious part is that often these same people suddenly see clear bright lines of cause and effect when it comes to social issues. The personal decisions of others that they don't particularly like, it seems, suddenly have much larger implications that call for the government to either rein in or prohibit outright.

(Those who deny that tax credits and other benefits available only to those who are legally married are a form of government-sponsored social engineering are only kidding themselves. Those who aren't married aren't "punished" any more or less than those who choose not to qualify for a green energy tax credit. The "value of human freedom" remains intact.)

Our industry is at the root of so many of the issues we face today. To ignore scientific fact and/or trust that where profit and conscience intersect that the latter will prevail is not only foolish, it's dangerous. We have to set aside some differences and stop seeing everything as political. Relying on science to guide us when it comes to some of the thornier issues ahead is, in my opinion, the best way.

(Oh, and tell the Woodworking office they gained a subscriber, too.)
Posted: 12:03 pm on February 10th

Tucker W. writes: If I had Obama’s ear--
I would point out that if we walk onto any new car lot in the county every vehicle has a sticker in bold font that shows fuel consumption. The same thing is true for household appliances. Why should the same not be true for at least new houses? I can’t imagine how someone who is about to make this huge purchase has no idea what it might cost to heat or cool the place and run the appliances. Is the electric and heating bill going to be $3000 per year or $7000 per year? Consumers might want to know. And they might just pay a bit more for the efficient house. As someone who is planning on building a spec house I feel disappointed that there is little incentive to include a high performance insulation system or triple glazed windows. Most the builders I know say you’ll never get your money back. If new houses for sale had to come with a sticker on the front door that succinctly described energy consumption (based on averages such as average per person hot water use, heating degree days etc.) then builders might become more competitive about producing an efficient house.

Posted: 9:20 pm on February 9th

ted writes: "In my humble opinion, the readers of Fine Homebuilding are the best, most conscientious builders in the world, and for us to debate the placement of a shim but not the global consequences of the very homes we build strikes me now as unconscionable."

You're spot on there. It wasn't Taunton press that politicized Global Climate change. That would be a particular political party (psst, the one that lost the last election) that has tended to lassaiz faire policies that have pretty much crippled this country. If you lose a few readers because they can't seem to draw the connection between how the act of building affects us all (not just the people who inhabit the structures we build) you probably gain just as many back that feel these issues need to be addressed.
Posted: 7:21 pm on February 9th

You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.