Pretty interesting article will look forward for the whole book , indeed the Building industry has not changed in decades , unlike all other profession , yes the building industry is a profession very much like lawyers and doctors without them those jack {you know what i mean ,without them they would be practicing in a T P } it is interesting actually to knoe that most most is actually factory prepared and fimnished in the restaurant many time without much success , there is absolutly no differrence a house can be pre built in a factory and erected on site , only trouble the architect will have to change their thinking and that will be very hard . Response ok .
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
From building boxes and fitting face frames to installing doors and drawers, these techniques could be used for lots of cabinet projects.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Fine Homebuilding Magazine
Fine Home Building
Follow
-
Fine Homebuilding
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial Now -
GBA Prime
Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
- Home Group
- Antique Trader
- Arts & Crafts Homes
- Bank Note Reporter
- Cabin Life
- Cuisine at Home
- Fine Gardening
- Fine Woodworking
- Green Building Advisor
- Garden Gate
- Horticulture
- Keep Craft Alive
- Log Home Living
- Military Trader/Vehicles
- Numismatic News
- Numismaster
- Old Cars Weekly
- Old House Journal
- Period Homes
- Popular Woodworking
- Script
- ShopNotes
- Sports Collectors Digest
- Threads
- Timber Home Living
- Traditional Building
- Woodsmith
- World Coin News
- Writer's Digest
Replies
I think the hurricanes illustrate the need for mass produced housing parts that assemble on site.
For wider adoption, we would need both the reality and perception that mass-produced homes are equal to or better than site-built homes. The Scandanavians have already done a better job at this.
As with most goods produced in factories, the ambient conditions and tolerances can be tightly controlled.
Computers should now have the capabilities to enable a wide variety of customizations to be made as well. Manufactured homes do not all have to be cookie-cutter to make sense.
For a great example of the possibilities, just take a look at the machines that make SIPs. You just enter in the parameters, and the computers make the panels with all the appropriate cutouts precisely made. Start shipping SIPs with finished walls, and you are on the way.
Ironically I think the old Sears mailorder houses had us closer to efficient building practices than we are at now.
Ironically I think the old Sears mailorder houses had us closer to efficient building practices than we are at now.
I haven't read the referenced article, so I'm still a little bit in the dark.
However, I was going to make the exact same comment regarding the mail order houses of the 1910s and 1920s!
The really ironic thing to me regarding the mail order houses was that despite their assembly-line production, they somehow managed to still have character.
What article is referenced? I must be missing something on my viewport
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I'm a little confused- is this thread about the ted benson article in the latest FHB?
It's funny, I just mentioned the sears kit houses in another discussion about that article. In a way, it kind of proves the articles point- if they could make such great, character filled kit homes then, why is there nothing comparable today?
It sure seems like there is a large section of the housing market that would be better off having nice, well built kit homes, rather than thrown together mcmansion type things.zak
"so it goes"
It sure seems like there is a large section of the housing market that would be better off having nice, well built kit homes, rather than thrown together mcmansion type things.
Don't bet your farm on that statement!
Statements like your ingore the financial realities the the average homebuyer has to deal with. It's easy to want things, but hard to pay for them. The national builders are driving the market, they are serving it!
Just in case you don't know, I'll tell you what the majority want: space, more space and some extra space. Once they get inside their homes, they don't want to live like Japanese college kids. WE WANT ELBOW ROOM!
Heres' a picture of a house that we did for a fellow this year. It would qualify as a "creative" type house. It will be easy to note that it has some Frank L Wright type features. The sad and interesting thing about it is that when the homeowner and I were discussing him selling it, he admitted that no one would probably want it. He loves it, but everyone in his homeowner's association fought him about putting it up. No one wanted it in their neighborhood!
I've heard a lot of people talk about "wasted space in the attics" on McMansions. This one has no wasted space. Too bad you can't even see a roof from the road though in front of the guys house. When you are standing there, it looks like the carpenters left without putting the roof on!
Can't we just leave the McMansionites alone and go about building the fancy smacny houses that y'all desire? They aren't going anywhere soon. If I had to choose, I'd take that McMansion next to the Wright knockoff anyday, especially because I'd be saving a couple hundred thousand!
blue
Not my favorite style, but done well, and oh so much better than the house next door.
Statements like your ingore the financial realities the the average homebuyer has to deal with. It's easy to want things, but hard to pay for them. The national builders are driving the market, they are serving it!
That's just bull. I'm making a hell of a lot less money than the average homeowner. You've got two completely different statements there. It's the average homebuyer that is ignoring their own financial realities- who here thinks that interest only mortgages are a good idea?
I agree that the national builders are just serving a market that wants more home than it can afford. The builders just build what the consumer wants, the consumer just wants the american dream- what's wrong, right? I don't have the silver bullet, but I know there is something wrong.
It's wrong that people don't think of their house as a long term (very long term, as in generations) investment, that they will pass on to their children. It's wrong that so many houses are built penny wise and pound foolish, over their lifespan.
That FLW type house looks nice, Blue. But it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what the middle class needs in housing, not just what they want.
A lot of the population wants to eat fast food and sugar for every meal, too, and now 1/3 of america is overweight (or something like that). I'm not saying we need to pass laws against fatty foods and big houses, in fact I don't think there is a simple, sound bite solution. But I'm not closing my eyes and denying the problem.
Edit: I'm not saying that kids should go hungry because their carpenter parents won't work on big houses. Just because we can discuss how to make it better doesn't mean we have to be above taking work that we need.
zak
"so it goes"
Edited 6/15/2006 6:52 pm by zak
Statements like your ingore the financial realities the the average homebuyer has to deal with. It's easy to want things, but hard to pay for them. The national builders are driving the market, they are serving it!
That's just bull. I'm making a hell of a lot less money than the average homeowner. You've got two completely different statements there. It's the average homebuyer that is ignoring their own financial realities- who here thinks that interest only mortgages are a good idea?
Maybe I've confused my statement with the term "average homowner". I'll take that back. Now, insert "average homebuyer".
The average homebuyer in Michigan is looking at houses on 70-90k lots. That automatically puts them out of the "starter" home market. These average homebuyers are typically moving up. They've already endured their modest homes built in the 70's and 80'. They know all about small bedrooms with cozy closets. They're moving away from them and moving into something with lots and lots of finished square footage. But, they also have a limited budget. If they pay for all the upgrades that I think you are suggesting, they'll have to scale down their square footage. Essentially, they have to make a choice and if you are a smart builder, you'll build simpler, easier to market McMansions, because that is what sellls.
Around here, we have plenty of builders that specialize in classier homes but there really isn't any major driving market for them. Our markets aren't dominated by the big nationals to the degree most other states are and if these classy homes were selling, there'd be a lot more builders jumping on the bandwagon and producing them. The builders are looking for new markets and this just isn't one that the average american new home buyer is interested in.
blue
They're moving away from them and moving into something with lots and lots of finished square footage
And that may be a crucial regional difference.
Down in my part of Texas the big builders never build just the one house for jsut the one client (plenty of goo, local, builders for that). Instead, they'll put 500 cookie-cutter plans on 70-80 acres, ad nbe done in one year at 10 starts the week with 5-6 crews working, often in competition.
The "buyers" see only the new construction, they assume that new means some sort of quality. If they buy a 'spec' i nthe subdivision, they don't even get to see "their" house built, to know if it's any different than the rest on their street. Their choices tend to be by price, as price defines size--so they tend to get the biggest floor plan they can afford.
Everyone else in their neighborhood has too, so, that has to be the way everyone does it, right? Everyone else's house nearby has the same cheesilly-mitred painted casing, or the odd bits of random moulding that don't "go" anywhere.
In the "starter" (only 1/4 million) subdivs, every house has only a dinky table in their Formal Dining Room, too. That's what happens when you've been scripming to save up a downpayment for a decade while paying outrageous rents, you have no money when you finally "own" a home. You're accepting a compromise from the get go.
I just wish I could sit down with some of these people and show them the numbers, that they could get so much more by just involving a few qualified people to get a better product. It does work, it's just not "off the lot" convenient.
TXLandlord's project, for instance is already atypical for down where he lives--for a benchmark.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
CapnMac, you're missing one crucial detail: sometimes the buyers just don't care as much as you might.
I myself would move into one of those Pulte abominations and never give it second thought. Nothing in that house would be perfect, but nothing would be so bad that I'd have to move. I spend my days wandering around a rough site, in the mud and EVERYTHING looks better once I leave!
Those 500 unit subdivisions also provide ammenities that the smaller builders can't provide: pools, rec centers and clubhouses. Amenities like that are significant because they help the sub maintain their property values. It might not have value to someone like you who prefers tighter casings, but if I have to choose, I'm going with the open casings and tennis courts.
I'm not convinced at all that the majority of Americans are as unhappy with their McMansions as most of the craftsmen in here are. It's understandable because the craftsmen see it as a denigration to their trade, but to America, it's an acceptable tradeoff. I myself used to lament the lower quality too, but somewhere along the way I decided that I'd just as soon stop worrying about what I can't change and just go about my business and forget about what the others are doing. I just try to build the best McMansion that I can, with the little resources (hours) that I have left. Sometimes, that means I add glue, whereas in my earlier days, I would have replaced a trim board. I'd still replace a trim board today, if anyone actually looked at what I've done and asked for service on it, but the vast majority of homeowners, builders and superintendents never lay eyes on our work.
Hey, if they don't care, I don't care.
Now please don't take that to mean I'm going around hacking and stacking. It's always in my best interestst to get things to fit perfect on my first cut. It takes time to pick up the glue gun...right?
blue
Those 500 unit subdivisions also provide ammenities that the smaller builders can't provide: pools, rec centers and clubhouses
Not so many of those, around here. In the more "targeted" subs, perhaps--but that's going to be more like 150-200 houses on our putative 70-80 acres (easier to do, going from 5-6/acre to 2-3/acre), room left over for "community amenities." Those areas are not starter/midrange homes, either.
And, down here where the roofs aren't tested by snow, there are some scary corners. Plan was drawn for a flat site; site ain't--shoot, Pablo, get some plywood for the forms then, just do it quick, la troka concreta via! Ever seen a slab 12" deep on one side and 62" on the other, and one house long? I have, entire subdivions of them.
There are some "just plain hack" corners, too--like spacing headers with one (1) "stick" of 3/4" ply ripped to be 1/2" wide (drywallers use a mallet on the w/b when the header winds up racked in three dimensions--mud'll fix it). Or rushing the rough-in electrical, and just installing the finsih fixtures, "as the pre-close punch will catch it" (yeah right, after they open the finished ware to pull more cable). Or plubing vents not carried through roofs.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
nothing would be so bad that I'd have to move....No, but you'd spend the rest of your days wishing you had...and fixing things that should never have been built in the first place....all the while griping because the association just realized that now (ten years later) they have to drop some big $$$ to maintain those amenties that you are now on the hook for....all-in-all, give me a 40's house built with real materials, with public tennis courts, a YMCA or municipal pool; all those folks in the used to be a cow pasture mansion are proof of PT Barnums famous saying, IMHO
Give me a 40's house on a nice lot and I'll bulldoze it too.
You really weren't talking about moving into it and living in it were you? The ones I've seen ususally don't even have closet that fit a hanger. The bedrooms wont take a full size bed and the kitched doesn't have enough space to put a blender and a toaster in it.
Public tennis courts are fine. I'd never walk into a Ymca (I avoid religous institutions) but a municipal pool is great.
I have association dues that I pay now and I'm not griping. They don't do things perfectly but I'm a pretty easy person to please. I'll not be griping to anyone soon. If the dues escalates past my tolerance level, I'll move.
blue
Well, it's not quite that bad.....and the first law of clutter is, the more room, the more clutter....KISS is also a lifestyle; might not be everyones choice, but it works for me...And, realistically, most folks aren't going to move, they'll just suck up & pay more dues when the facilities reach the replacement/renovation age...
Nice job Blue!
Speaking of space, in the frame we just finished http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL293/2163851/10043887/155791809.jpg We were able to get about 500-600 sq extra and figured why not?
On the next one we are going to use I-joists for rafters (14") and get about 1200-1300sq more. We'll probably just sheathe the floor and leave it up to whoever buys it. But you are right, space space space.
Nice job yourself Tim!
Man...you guys love your dormers. I hate them...there ain't no way to get paid enough to build them nowadays. I'm not liking how close you get your windows to the roof though...we sometimes have to do that but I only do it with trepidation.
blue
When talk turns to prefabrication, you can imagine I have some pretty strong opinions. (-:For starters - Sears houses. What was so wonderful about them? All they did was ship a pre-cut lumber package. Like all homes, they were either built by talented carpenters or hacks. I lived in one that had terribly bouncy floors. When I went down to the basement to figure out why, I found that the floor joists had been laid in a haphazard fashion with no attention paid to spacing. The workmanship on the house was terrible.Regarding the supposed large segment of the population that wants better quality houses rather than McMansions - I'd say that's total B.S. People want everything as cheap as they can get it. Quality means very little. I'd venture a guess that less than 1% of people want better-than-average quality homes. Regarding changes - I think there have been TREMENDOUS changes over the past few decades. Things like wood webbed trusses, I-joists, SIPs, different kinds of insulation, treated lumber, much better windows, and plywood come to mind.I think the long term trend will be towards more factory built stuff and less site built. Heck, it's already happening. We've gone from building windows 60 years ago to buying pre-hung units. Doors used to be sold exclusively as slabs. Now most (?) of them are pre-hung. I-joists and trusses have replaced the majority of stick framing.Changing preceptions and habits comes slowly. any changes in the way things are built will come about over many decades.
You'll get what's coming to you - unless they mailed it.
I could not have said it better.
For starters - Sears houses. What was so wonderful about them? All they did was ship a pre-cut lumber package. Like all homes, they were either built by talented carpenters or hacks.
Boss,
You're right in stating that the quality of workmanship is dependent on the carpenter.
However, the quality of the design is dependent on designer (sometimes, the carpenter is also the designer, of course).
What's so great about the mail-order houses? They were based on good design principles like proper proportion. That's why they still look good, even after 75 or 100 years. On the other hand, lack of good design is why houses from the 70s look like crap less than one generation later. The 70s houses were simply based on fads -- not solid, timeless, design principles.
Just my two cents, of course.
I live in Carlinville, Illinois - The largest collection of sears homes in thew world. The houses aren't well designed, IMHO. They were made to be cheap and easy to put up. For the most part they don't look good now because almost every one has been added onto in order to make them liveable. A house from the 70s is still liveable today. The sears homes aren't.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening all at once.
> On the other hand, lack of good design is why houses from the 70s look like crap less than one generation later.
The remodel they just did next door to me looked like crap the day they took the staging down. Bad design, or in this case, non-design, looks like crap from day one to demo.
-- J.S.
Regarding the supposed large segment of the population that wants better quality houses rather than McMansions - I'd say that's total B.S. People want everything as cheap as they can get it. Quality means very little. I'd venture a guess that less than 1% of people want better-than-average quality homes.
This is just my opinion versus yours, but I disagree on the 1% thing.
The vast majority of the people I know, and the vast majority of the people I've worked for are willing to pay more for quality. That doesn't mean they can afford gold-plated fixtures, of course. But it does mean that they base their decision on more than just price.
Most importantly, people are ONLY willing to pay more for quality if they can understand the difference. In my opinion, it's really about informing the purchaser.
"...the vast majority of the people I've worked for are willing to pay more for quality."
The vast majority of people I deal with are willing to pay more for quality - As long as it doesn't cost them any more.
If the professor on Gilligan's Island can make a radio out of coconut, why can't he fix a hole in a boat?
Blue,
I know what you mean about those windows. I was sick when that porch roof was framed and if it was me I'd have had about 12" instead of 4-5". That is the way it was drawn though. I think it looks like eyes peaking over that porch :-)
I don't like framing dormers either, but that is what the plan showed and was approved by the community the house is in. Course that is another story. I'll post some pics of those rough sawn beams. They are good lookin'
I was at a house today where a new home is going up just next door. They're building their windows close to the roof too and your thoughts, about not liking windows close to the roof below, were my same thoughts when I saw it.
I see potential problems galore if they're not properly flashed and even then, potential problems seem to be designed into the placement. Lots of rain splash back under the window and guaranteed to leak, seems to me.
Woodway, we have snow issues and because of that I prefer a minimu of 6". I've been forced to do less, many times, but I don't like it.
blue
I forgot to post the pic of the beams and cardecking.
The beams were rough sawn 4x10 KD dougfir and the cardecking is spruce. It's supposed to get a "colorwash" so that is why I didn't use doug fir cardecking. Beams were nice and light :-)
http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL293/2163851/10043887/158124278.jpg
> I think the hurricanes illustrate the need for mass produced housing parts that assemble on site.
I think the hurricanes illustrate the need to put our cities where they won't get destroyed on a regular, predictable cycle, and need to be mass produced in a hot hurry. Not building below sea level might be a smart first move. A first story designed to be rebuilt after flooding would be a good idea in storm surge areas. Nothing but parking down there, for instance.
-- J.S.
I think the hurricanes illustrate the need to put our cities where they won't get destroyed on a regular, predictable cycle,
Amen brother John!
blue
As the late great Sam Kinison said about the starving people in Africa: "MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"Same applies to NO. Move to where the water isn't higher than your head.
Does this hat make my butt look big?
http://grantlogan.net/
I'm not in a below sea level area (yet) but on the coast of Florida. We build to a 130 mph wind code mostly. What I find amusing is that in Cocoa Beach, a barrier island, there are two sides. One is west of the only main road, A1A, and the other is ocean front side (east). On the East side of this four lane road we have to build to 140 mph winds. Commercial windows are dictated among enhanced hold downs and straps.What I'd like to know is how does the hurricane(s) know to slow down after crossing the road?
"I think the hurricanes illustrate the need to put our cities where they won't get destroyed on a regular, predictable cycle. Not building below sea level might be a smart first move."
While I agree with much of your sentiment, not all of what was destroyed was below sea level, and not all of what was destroyed could be considered part of a "regular" or "predictable" cycle. Most places that get hit by hurricanes are rebuilt, often better and smarter than before. Any city on the coast could get whacked by a hurricane, and one could say that this is (eventually) an event that should be expected for every one of them.
I think the hurricanes illustrate the need to put our cities where they won't get destroyed on a regular, predictable cycle...
Yes indeed!
While I agree that floodable 1st floors are a good idea, removing cities in disaster areas is NOT a good idea.
Hey - why do people live in the Gulf area? could it be...Shipping?Shrimping?Fishing?Oil?Natural Gas?
Sure, not everyone there is directly involved in those trades... they just support them, or support the people who support them.
I live in SoCal, nothing but natural disasters here... nothing but jobs too. People don't ever just give up and leave just because of the weather, anywhere. There is much more to it than that.Rebuilding my home in Cypress, CA
Also a CRX fanatic!
Just random thoughts on this loose thread:
Let's not just consider hurricanes in our choice of location. Let's consider wildfires over much of the west, hail and tornadoes throughout much of the midsection, heavy snowfall in the mountains, earthquakes within the major faultlines, blizzards in the northeast, and so on.
Whether we like it or not, we as builders also contribute to changing weather patterns--the New Orleans levee system that has re-routed the natural flow of the Mississippi River Delta that in turn resulted in the city sinking to it's present elevation--tallgrass prairies that are now housing developments that plant trees where no trees should belong--natural wetlands that are converted to landfills for municipalities--poor farmland management that resulted in the Dustbowl of the depression era.
My point is that we are not impervious to destruction either from the hand of man or the hand of nature, regardless of where we live.
"Kinky for Gov. of Texas"
> .... we are not impervious to destruction either from the hand of man or the hand of nature, ....
Yup, we're not impervious. That's why we also need to not be oblivious. It's sort of like wearing seat belts in a car: A little extra effort to mitigate the effects of the major bad things that happen randomly but infrequently.
As for New Orleans, I don't think we should abandon the whole city. But it might make sense to put new residential areas somewhere north of the lake, to replace the ones that are below sea level. The historic French quarter and garden district are on high ground, they can and should be restored and preserved. This would require good mass transit.
-- J.S.
can be pre built in a factory and erected on site , only trouble the architect will have to change their thinking
Actually, it's the big national builders that will have to stop turning out their built-with-cheapest-material-and-labor, time-is-more-important-than-quality, pop-up like mushrooms subdivisions of McHouses before any real change will be seen.
Why? Because those people are building the "market." The buying public doesn't know (or appreciate) the difference. Kind of the same way "everybody" uses Windows--it's not the best, it's just everywhere.
You find a way to get the buying public to start insisting on designed houses, then you'll have more architects involved, which, then, that group might be influenced into newer/better building practices. Or not.
>> Actually, it's the big national builders that will have to stop turning out their built-with-cheapest-material-and-labor, time-is-more-important-than-quality, pop-up like mushrooms subdivisions of McHouses before any real change will be seen.
Why? Because those people are building the "market." The buying public doesn't know (or appreciate) the difference. Kind of the same way "everybody" uses Windows--it's not the best, it's just everywhere. <<
Just my opinion... I think you have it backwards - these national builders put large amounts of money into market research. And... you don't think there is some bean counter that has the stats on exactly how many of each model of home sold in each region/state/market, and what do you think they base their offerings on? I say it's 95% based on their pervious sales...
>> You find a way to get the buying public to start insisting on designed houses, then you'll have more architects involved, which, then, that group might be influenced into newer/better building practices. <<
You don't think a design professional designed a house that say Centex, builds 7000 of? I'm betting they are.
You are close to the mark when you said >> You find a way to get the buying public to start insisting on << insert "quality homes at a reasonable price"
These mass housing markets are driven by market demand - more cheap square footage with individuality being defined as beige, light gray or dark gray vinyl siding and "custom" is 3 1/4" crown in the living room... It's the consumer who needs to be educated.
you don't think there is some bean counter that has the stats on exactly how many of each model of home sold in each region/state/market,
You don't think a design professional designed a house that say Centex, builds 7000 of? I'm betting they are.
that same bean counter, i would bet, would be the 'design professional'
It's an interesting discussion that's made the rounds before. Unfortunately, there's a lot of factors at stake. Poor planning, lack of homebuyer education/patience, a culture based on hype and extravagance, big-time builders/developers who only see everything in terms of dollars, political interests who are more than willing to cater to the developers . . . it's a cocktail with a lot of noxious ingredients.
Just my opinion... I think you have it backwards - these national builders put large amounts of money into market research. And... you don't think there is some bean counter that has the stats on exactly how many of each model of home sold in each region/state/market, and what do you think they base their offerings on? I say it's 95% based on their pervious sales...
Well, yes they do--but most of those dollars are spent on getting people into the "design centers" to pick out a floor plan and lot in [insert new subdiv here].
I've had to sit in with their auditors and the design crew while both parties tried to shave 10-15% casework for an enitre (upscale) subdivision, while "keeping" the "upmarket look" of the casework.
What happens with the bigger builders is that they tend to have regional centers, and that's where the financial analysis happens--as that's what they then present to National HQ. So, many of these builders really only "make" 150 or 250 of a given plan in a given region. The "design" guys will dust off one from another region and "reimage" it for a new subdiv in a new region. Sometimes.
You don't think a design professional designed a house that say Centex, builds 7000 of? I'm betting they are.
Nope. A "professional" is only brought in as needed for local permit compliance. Centex buys a boatload of plans off of "plan service" outfits. Some of the other builders will keep some "drafters" in the "design department." These people are fired for their cheapness, not their expertise. All training they get (CAD & Design) is strictly OTJ, and in a high-volume, you-can-be-easily-be-replaced, high-pressure work environment.
While I was a CAD Manager at the cabinet company, one of our client builders was averaging 4 to 5 employee "turns" in their design department per year. Even scarier, the only "professional" involved in that builder's desing process was a civil engineer who signed off on the subdiv plans (which were not under City juridiction, so, they only had to meet County guidelines, which did not include permits, plan review, or any of those pesky things).
Now, in stricter jurisdictions, there might be some professional involvement--but, I've not seen any here in Texas.
Of course, once i nthe field, the houses are built with crews in competition for speed & bonuses, not for quality. Fast-as-possible just redoubles on minimal design input.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I have to say you cannot point fingers. Everyone involved in the cycle contributes to this mayhem. You can blame the national builder for specing in cheap products, you can blame the local framing sub for bidding cheap and not giving a damn, you can blame the local inspector who is getting "kickbacks", you can blame the buyer for buying. Everyone involved is to blame.
I wish I knew what you just said. All I can do is comment on one line.
I disagree that the building profession has not chjanged. I have seen tremendous changes sweep through it since I started driving nails.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
I disagree that the building profession has not chjanged. I have seen tremendous changes sweep through it since I started driving nails.
Yea, but you are one of those who started threads that can be searched by checking the "from the beginning of time" option in the search tools.
As somebody who designs and factory-builds modular chemical plants for a living, our company has built our whole business on the greater time- and labour-efficiency of building stuff in a factory versus building it off the back of somebody's pick-up truck. With our well-lit climate-controlled facility with overhead cranes, ready access to equipment required to do the job right, trained tradesmen who have done many similar projects, and direct supervision by the people who did the design and bought all the parts, we build a better product faster and for less money than a site-built plant could hope to match. Of course, beyond a certain scale our approach is just plain infeasible because you can't reliably ship modules beyond a certain size without major cost and headaches (unless the user and owner site are both on the seacoast, in which case Bob's yer uncle!). Fortunately, beyond foundations set to the correct depth and shimmed level, and access to the utilities we have to connect to, there's not much we need done beforehand on the site, so managing the site/plant interface is pretty easy for us.
As far as homes go, the trouble with factory-built modular is there's less room for screw-up control across the house/site interface without causing major re-work. Just look at the McMansion which is still by-and-large site-built: there are still lots of in-built screw-ups, even though site building is inherently more adaptable to sensibly fixing screw-ups as they occur. Any method where mis-entry of a couple values into somebody's computer can cause a 10% impact to the overall cost of the house is going to have to save LOTS of labour and materials to have a hope of paying back.
The place I can imagine factory-built would be the easiest sell is in this subdivision mass-market sprawl which still happens on the outskirts of most cities. If you could build fifty or a hundred versions of five or six plans, you might be able to get enough control over the foundation fab to make modular factory fab of the rest sensible. But unless you're going to pre-fab the foundation and drop it in place too, you'll always have that particular site-built versus factory-built interface to control- with the wrong piece being site-built! If you try to drop the house onto the foundation and the foundation's the wrong size, the cost of fixing the screw-up on even a couple of these might eat a significant portion of the savings from modular prefabrication. That goes double for homes around here, all of which have basements. That said, it's not that tough an interface to control in theoretical terms- perhaps the trouble is with finding good foundation subs willing to work cheaply enough?!
As to the need for modular fab to re-build what gets knocked down by hurricanes etc., I guess it's another vote in favour of the basic axiom that "junk sells". If I lived in a region where there was serious risk of hurricane damage, I wouldn't buy wood frame construction-period. No insult intended to folks who build fine wood-frame homes, but they're just plain a fish out of water in such a climate. Personally I'd want reinforced concrete, probably ICFs, with a roof made from what- pre-tensioned prefab slabs I guess. I suppose the building code officials in those regions want to give people the same type of choices we face in buying cars- light and cheap (and riskier to drive) versus heavy and "safer" (and gas-guzzling...). If insurance prices are reasonable and you get enough warning to get out in time, perhaps there are people who will always choose the "cheap and light" option for a roof over their head, even in Hurricane Alley.
> As far as homes go, the trouble with factory-built modular is there's less room for screw-up control across the house/site interface without causing major re-work.
House movers would be the people to talk to about the house/site interface. I've seen it done by putting the house up on cribbing maybe 3 ft. above its final position, and forming/pouring the foundation directly under it. That would go a long way toward taking numerical screwups out of the picture, and reproduce whatever small errors there were originally.
-- J.S.
ut unless you're going to pre-fab the foundation and drop it in place too, you'll always have that particular site-built versus factory-built interface to control- with the wrong piece being site-built!
Interestingly, Pulte has been prebuilding and dropping foundations into place around here for a few years. They were also dropping on the deck. A framing crew comes and builds the walls and a crane would come and drop on the second deck. The framers would finish it up from there.
Pulte has pulled the plug on this experiement in the Detroit area. I think they are moving their precast plants down south. I don't know if they weren't happy with the the process or are just tired of the Detroit market. I think they are tired of not hitting their sales goals and are pulling out of our state.
I find it ironic that they didn't send out the walls preframed.
blue
"...the trouble with factory-built modular is there's less room for screw-up control across the house/site interface without causing major re-work. "
I've rarely had trouble with that with panelized walls or trusses.
As ong as the foundation isn't something really wierd, and the foundation sub knows everything has to be pretty close, things always seems to work out.
Asking “who ought to be the boss” is like asking “who ought to be the tenor in the quartet?” Obviously, the man who can sing tenor [Henry Ford]