*
Anybody seen the Affordable American Dream article in the current issue (FHB 136)?
The article is about this guy Dan Phillips who is taking cast off and recycled materials and building homes for deserving folks. Admirable concept, plus he’s teaching his low-skilled help how to work.
The problem is, each time I look at the article, I cannot look away from the cobbled together scafold he’s got somebody on. This is on the first page of the article, and you’ve got to see it to believe it.
Admirable concept – I keep telling myself this – but admirable or not the methods he’s teaching his help to get up in the air are downright scary.
Perhaps a trade publication with a leaning toward the professional should consider these kind of things when selecting photographs and articles.
Thoughts? Comments?
Replies
*
I thought about not commenting on this, but then decided to do so anyway.
Why you did posted twiced ??? Just curious.
*When I first read this issue a few weeks ago, I was somehow instinctively put off by this guy's work. All his work looked cobbled together, and down-right hubristic in its attempt to skirt the use of accepted techniques and the use of skilled labor forces (of course, that's his right as an American).However, other posts here in FHB on that point have caused me to go back, look at the article in question more closely - and I've gotten a little better respect for his techniques than I had at first glance. What appeared to be a hodge-podge (and maybe it is, granted) is at the same time carefully engineered - as the article so states. He works w/ engineers and inspectors to produce something which is seen by the AHJ as sound and safe.Looking back at the article once again to assess this scaffolding ... the planks are certainly sturdy enough, it is diagonally braced, and, if one looks carefully underneath the top-most plank, one will see that the thing is tied back into the building (or so it looks to me) w/ a 2x4.I think the structure of the scaffolding itself is sound enough for its intended use. But - staging like this without safety rails is a clear violation of OSHA regs. Once or twice in my life I have had to catch my balance w/ a rail. Personally, I'd be more than a tad embarrassed to have an OSHA safety violation on one of my jobs published in an international magazine.Geo.
*I think it's great that someone uses resources that normally get chucked into a burn pile or trucked away to be made into OSB (nothing wrong with that, just good to have options) or contributing to landfill.I'm sort of a scrounger at times too, and have found uses for cutoffs, tear-outs and all kinds of used stuff. I've made furniture out of crates, packing wood, pallets and hardwood slabs cut off for timber framing. Doors from flooring ripped out of bathrooms. Cabin rooms sided with old flooring and planks, barn stalls made from old cabin rooms...These days though, a lot of pressure to make money, and less time for fooling around, so always buying new materials, but I do try to maximize what I can get out of a board and a pile of plywood, and lessen what gets burned or chucked into the dumpster.MD
*Well, I just found out that mercury can actually freeze. It's a good thing I kept last summer's renovation scraps for the fireplace rather than climb all over them like I really wanted too.
*The scaffolding that was used is a joke. That would not have passed anyone's test (let alone OSHA's). In all my years building wooden scaffolds in industrial sites, if I ever built one that resembled that one, I would have been fired on the spot. If I ever walked out on one resembling that one, I would have been fired on the spot.As for the house, the inside stairwell with the turret from 2x4s looked nice; but then I noticed on the next page the same turret painted white on the exterior side, and realized this not to be a doubled wall sort of thing, but rather a single wall with no insulative value. Some of the interior shots looked pretty good, while others looked "hokey." As for the exterior designs,(All in all), if this was the best I could afford, I think I'd go buy me a Winnebago instead.Davo.
*Agreed. I couldn't even imagine going out on something like that scaffold, ever. Maybe it is tied off, but it is mighty hard to say. Around here you can rent a buck of scaffold for less than $10.00 weekly.I guess my point is that folks teaching the newcomers to the trade should not be using methods that are so questionable, OSHA or not.
*Thanks for all the feedback. At the time the pictures were taken, the scaffolding was in the process of being taken down. It did actually have a handrail, and those are OSHA-approved scaffold boards. We were trying to get the scaffolds down so that more finished photos of the front of the house could be taken. The fact that the skimpy leftovers were still there of course is a bit embarassing. The abiding rule on the job site, however, is that if you go higher than an eight-foot stepladder, you tie yourself off with harnesses, ropes, and standard clips--no exceptions. I too have caught myself a time or two grabbing the handrail. On the question of insulation: If you figure that solid wood produces about 1.25 R's per inch of thickness, then a 2X4 wall yields an R-value of about 4, and a six-inch wall yields an R-value of about 8. (The turret is 2x4; the walls are 2x6, 4x6, and 6x6--solid walls.) So, yes, you take a hit on R-value. However, the thermal mass of solid-wood walls more than compensates in this case for a deficit in R-value, as has been attested to during the past two summers in the Texas heat. The highest monthly bill in the house featured was $90--which beats any house down here of comparable size. The outside of the turret (constructed of 2x4's) was painted with a product known as "Super Therm," which is a ceramic paint that touts an R-value--by itself--of 23. Even if the company is lying, and the R-value is only half, or a quarter of that, you still have something. I will not repeat the ceramic paint solution, however, now that I have learned just how efficient thermal mass is. On the remark about hokey: Yeah, the house isn't for everyone. One man's hokey is another man's haute cuisine. What can I say? I followed my own yardstick in design--sometimes hokey, sometimes not. In any case, I used what was available, and free, before it went to the landfill. Nothing is square in the house. Nothing. While it is structurally sound, and built to fight infiltration, the windows are cracked, doors are warped (a closet door has a 3-inch deflection), and there are splits, wanes, marks, warps, knots, boogers--even nails still in the wood. My take on this is that it is much better to own a house--rather than to rent or accept the public dole--and live with a few blemishes. Perhaps a mobile home looks more like the American standard in building, but it has the structural value of corn, and degrades rather quickly, with not much possibility of rescuing. So, yes, one must live with blemishes in these houses. Darn it. Is it better to cart all this to the landfill? Everyone must start his building skills somewhere. Only after a good bit of experience does a person get to build the trophy, big-ticket houses. I certainly would never presume these houses were the custom, Faberge, 5000 sq.ft. eggs. They are what they are--houses for low-income families, with a bit of design, and within reach for these little families. I'll bet there isn't a contractor anywhere on the planet, however, who hasn't run into an anal-retentive client, who insists every detail--even in closets--be perfect. Finely-achieved craftsmanship is always a joy, but the only people who can afford such perfection are the middle- and upper-middle classes, executed by seasoned, savvy carpenters and cabinet-makers. The poor have no business craving such appointments. Let's get them on their feet, and then maybe they can realize posh surroundings. Thanks to everyone for your remarks. I'm just Dan, making noise, taking on a few social problems, and make no pretense at achieving the eloquent houses that are regularly featured in Fine Homebuilding. It was a privilege to be in Fine Homebuilding--and I will never forget how kind and supportive the editorial staff has been. Please give me more opportunities to try to defend what I do.
*Hi Dan, Why would you have to defend what you do? You built a house and it was interesting. I haven't read anywhere where you killed anyone or robbed any stores or........Your house makes you happy which puts you at the top percentile of home builders.Fun to read Gabe
*Dan,Nothing to defend ... I think anyone who re-reads the article and pays attention to the different ways in which we sometimes have to do things will "get it".You provide housing for some folks who couldn't have done better, and you met all the local codes. You're a hero - now go get some 29" wide steel frame plasterer's scaffolding from some old guy who's retiring, will ya? Have fun; don't freeze out there.Geo.
*BTW only one question, if the scaffolding was being removed, how come I see somebodies butt on the top layer working on a window without all the safety precautions you say you use?Gabe
*Hey, Gabe,Good question. I presume he was doing some final tweaking. If you look real carefully, you'll see a red harness around his butt and waist, tied off on the inside of the house. And, truth be told, he probably didn't need to be on the scaffolding to do whatever he was doing, but was aware that photographers were around. Often enough, vanity gets us killed. Watching the kids all the time is a job of watching the kids all the time.Thanks always for the remarks.
*Dan,Thanks for the article. Something different, and a lot to think about.
*Dan, what's affordable? There wasn't much (or no) pricing information in the article.
*Hi, Joel,"Affordable," of course, is relative. Since everyone must live somewhere, I figure that these little families are paying something for where they are living right now. Typically, they're getting gouged, and barely scraping through. This is where I start. Without intruding, I find out what they are paying in rent right now, and any more details that would complete the fiscal picture. That becomes my target figure. After figuring up all the major players in cost--land, survey, permits, hookups, licensed vendors, soil tests and other professional services, it gives me an idea of the scale of house that I need to build. "Scale," and all its permutations, expands and contracts depending on the family's variables. For instance, if it's a large family, and the target cost is relatively low, then bedrooms are downsized, eating area increased. I do my best to plan in a bedroom for each child, no matter how small. I also commandeer every cubic inch of space beneath the roof. Steep roofs last longer, but more importantly they allow the space beneath it to be used as living space. (If you look at any conventional tract house, one could guess that at least 10% of the space available beneath the roof is wasted, or squandered.) HVAC is shoved outside (I always go new with HVAC package units that can go outside. That saves space. And since I always build on piers, with crawl space, running ducts is a no-brainer.) Space between joists, for instance, is used for storage whenever possible--accessible through the floor, or from the ceiling as a tilt-down. So, once every tidbit of space is used for something, it leaves a bit more room for bedrooms, bath/laundry, eating/living. It is surprising how spacious a 1200 sq. ft. house can seem when an effort is made to save nickels and dimes of space. Then, if everything goes well (it doesn't always), I have built a house that will accomodate the family I'm building for, at or below what they are now paying in rent. All of this of course must be relative to the appraisal ceiling that prevails in the neighborhood, because the house sells for whatever it appraises for, unless that's too high, and there is room to come down. If I miss the mark, or they don't like the house, they don't have to buy it--no contract (which saves money too). I go to the next comparable family on the list.I don't care what caused these families to be where they are. I don't even check their credit, because this isn't charity, it is only a second chance. I've always believed that when a family caves into the public dole, they've lost the self-esteem battle.The property is not transferred until they can qualify for some sort of financing. In the meantime it is a lease/option arrangement. My banker tells me that three years is what it takes to overcome bad credit. That's what these families have--three years.The family's protection is that they don't have to buy the house. My protection is that the property is in line with neighborhood appraisals, and I retain title to the property until I get paid for it. The system works--messy, but do-able.I hope all this answers your question. Sorry it's so long.Dan
*DanHow do your customers get away with the cracked glass when in the mortgage application process? I have done enough work in similar situations to know that many of the loan programs have inspectors who require things like cracked window glass to be repaired before they'll sign off.Otherwise, it is good to know that the scaffold is not standard practice. The fellow that suggests purchasing some good used scaffolding is right on the money.What you do is interesting. I suspected as much that a solid wood wall would have some R value, and for what it is worth, it looks pretty cool.Good luck.DC
*Hi, David,To answer your question about the cracked glass, I don't know how we get away with it, but there is plenty of it. I bleed cyanoacrylate into the small cracks, then razor-blade squeeze-out off the surface. For larger cracks I press silicone caulk into the crack from both sides, and once again clean up with a razor blade after cure. The crack is still evident as a visual blemish, but infiltration is stopped. So far, no one has even brought up the issue. Some years ago I was refused a certificate of occupancy because of a crack, but it was brand-new construction.I am guessing that the overall concept allows the blemish. That is, the houses are rife with texture--everywhere. I avoid minimalist materials whenever possible (e.g., sheetrock), because that makes the degradation and texture of other materials appear unsightly, rather than a functional part of the overall Gestalt. But when the entire house is nothing but texture, larger design patterns take over, and a cracked pane is simply one more texture that becomes part of the design. I am experimenting now with gluing shards of glass together like bricks to achieve designed window panes--so that there won't be a pane that doesn't have a crack. I use a UV glue (cures on exposure to UV rays) for the gluing. It's easy enough--blob some glue on the glass, press together, set it in the sun, and come back in a couple of days after cure. While I know it will stand up to the UV attack, the jury is still out on freezing. But tons of glass are available for free. I rely on salvage glass for 90% of the glass I use. Rarely do I buy a new pane.So I am guessing that I haven't been called on it because cracks are part of the overall design and concept. Or, then again, maybe the inspectors have simply overlooked them (which seems unlikely). But it is certain that when I do get called on it, I will access basic Suntzu and give the inspector an earful on the subject of anal-retentiveness, naivete of design, and the fact that we're truly headed for a trainwreck on this planet. I may lose, but I will have filled his head with more than he probably wants. Thanks for asking.Dan
*dan....Thank you man....I think what you are up to is "funtastic!" Check out a book be Capra some day...called, "The Web of Life."near the stream enjoying your dream,aj
*Hey, aj,Thanks for the tip. I will check it out. The title "Web of Life" sounds like it's right up my alley.Dan
*OK, so he isn't doing things the way you Henry F. Potter's would like. But, he's the 2000 George Bailey.Granted, his scaffold isn't OSHA quality. BUT, maybe he's immune to OSHA because of his small number of employees - the magic 50. On the other hand, he's using the scraps that the rest of us cast off, and they are sizeable. He would have loved to have the Christmas tree racks from my local Home Dee Po that got trashed because they were expensed. The last two yrs I got them for my labor to disassemble, and they went into my house. This yr, new mgr who couldn't see beyond the tip of his nose. Spent beau coup manhours disassembling, and now they get trashed. Just look in the dumpsters we have on construction sites. Watch what our carpenters toss because it's not economical to mess around with it. Also, read about the people he's housing, and the requirements for them. Martini, Nick, Bert and Ernie all probably love it. He is performing a very useful social service to that segment of the population that spawned Clarence Thomas. He can only do it because of the way the rest of us work, and live.I, too read the article w/ a jaundiced eye, but with an open mind. He is using a lot of fabricators' scrap that just happens to be uniform and plentiful - like cutoff ends. OK, so you don't like what it looks like. You don't have to live in it, or build it, or sell it. Your clientelle would recoil in horror. But it appears that the work is well done; and apparently meets code and good engineering practice. Have you ever seen, up close and for a long time, the hovels those folks live in otherwise? Been in one? You think lack of insulation is a problem? How about walls that are not complete? Roofs that leak? No heat? No plumbing? You guys are a bunch of petty, coniving, bellyachers!!! Mother Theresa would spit on you for the cheap, petty comments you have made about someone who saw something that needed help and went and did something about it with the resources he had available. And you are carping because he didn't folow "The Rules." You would condemn someone to endless poverty without hope. Typical 2000 liberal attitude. "I'm the only one that can help you - but you gotta do it my way, and you owe your soul to me forever. Oh, and by the way, if you come up with a solution that isn't my way, I'll make you tear it down and you can continue to live in misery." C'mon, guys - you probably pulled yourselves up by your bootstraps.Bah! HumbugDon Reinhard, curmudgeon, first class
*Don,Great design is about resourcefulness and appropriate solutions. Kudos to Dan for his achievements is in this respect.I don't think this thread is about ridiculing someone for solving an important problem in a well thought out way. However, most of the contributors here are experienced craftsmen and as such will always look for improvements. Hopefully, these comments are taken (and meant to be) helpful suggestions. This thread started as a comment on workplace safety. It is an appalling shame how many people are forced to live, lets not also let the standards of professional safety also drop to these poor standards.
*bullcrap.
*Once again, I thank everyone for the remarks. I love all feedback--pro or con. The pros I relish; the cons I note--but all feedback is useful. I appreciate the sniping on scaffolding, fully well knowing that the picture was snapped at an in-opportune moment in the life of the scaffold. I appreciate charges of "cobbled together," "hokey," and "If I couldn't do any better than that . . . ." Those kinds of responses deepen perspective, and send me flying back into my own sense of proprieties for re-evaluation. Long ago, when I first started, contractors would stop by my job site and say, "Now, that's just not going to work. Why don't you do this? Why don't you do that?" My first instinct was to say, "Why don't you kiss my ass?" But I don't say that, because first of all, they might be right. It might not work. And secondly, if I get my back up, I cut off all possibility of communication, and consequently, learning. So I have developed a pretty thick skin, and simply live with a 75-25 success-failure rate.Because materials are all but free, and my labor force is minimum wage, I have a good bit of room for failures. But 75% of the time I don't fail--there is some gradual gain there. So I can play with design, techniques, lunacy, and outrageous solutions, and still have space for profit in an otherwise messy process.Through it all, however, I'm still just Dan. I don't have privileged knowledge. I have no doubt that what I am doing others can easily do, and quite likely better. But I always listen.The flood of emails that I have gotten from this article has produced a notable common thread: "I could never do this in my community--inspectors would never let me." So I am taking on writing an addendum to the Standard Building Code that not only would guide builders in alternative techniques, but would give inspectors something to hold on to--rooted in ASTM, sound engineering, and above all safety. I am starting a thread that explores such a thing, and would welcome all input. The thread introduces the parameters. Please, all, jump in and add your cookies. We don't need legislative intervention--we need the professionals to organize and pull their own socks up. We're the ones in the trenches.Thanks for all your hip shots.Dan
*
Anybody seen the Affordable American Dream article in the current issue (FHB 136)?
The article is about this guy Dan Phillips who is taking cast off and recycled materials and building homes for deserving folks. Admirable concept, plus he's teaching his low-skilled help how to work.
The problem is, each time I look at the article, I cannot look away from the cobbled together scafold he's got somebody on. This is on the first page of the article, and you've got to see it to believe it.
Admirable concept - I keep telling myself this - but admirable or not the methods he's teaching his help to get up in the air are downright scary.
Perhaps a trade publication with a leaning toward the professional should consider these kind of things when selecting photographs and articles.
Thoughts? Comments?