6 ms·

> “I applaud your greenness,” Chris Landis, an architect and board member, told Preister at a meeting in October 2019, “but I just have this vision of a row of

> “I applaud your greenness,” Chris Landis, an architect and board member, told Preister at a meeting in October 2019, “but I just have this vision of a row of houses with solar panels on the front of them and it just—it upsets me.” My blood boils, of all the things to be a busybody about what someone builds on the roof of their own property, you want to have them throw away free energy and keep burning fossil fuels because you are used to the current aesthetics of the roof, no doubt made that way out of practical choices made with the technology of the time but now frozen for the dubious benefits of nostalgia..

iasay 4y ago
Yep. The decline of humanity will be at the hands of greater spotted fucking moron, of which Chris Landis is clearly a prime example of the species. You can have both. But really the entire planet works on making negative side effects of solving a problem someone else's problem and this spans from globalisation of supply chains to energy supply. This attitude just enables it. People needs to start looking at local self-sufficiency of energy and materials to some degree.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  > People needs to start looking at local self-sufficiency of energy and materials to some degree. This is a complete, unrealistic pipe dream. Yes, we've obviously seen a "deglobalization" occurring, and many countries are feeling the pain of being completely dependent on critical fuel and materials from one or a few other countries with shaky political systems. But the idea that "local self sufficiency" is possible on a wide scale, without sending us all back to the stone age, is quite frankly nonsense. I remember reading an article a while back about how something as ubiquitous as a cheeseburger is only possible with wide, nation-crossing supply chains. Saying "we should look at local self sufficiency" makes people think of planting a garden in their back yard, when in reality it would mean virtually all of the advances in human comfort, health and convenience over the past couple hundred years or so would have to be given up.
  - iasay 4y ago
    I'm not suggesting that we send ourselves back to the stone age. I'm suggesting that we stop shipping resources half way around the planet and then send the trash back because it's cheaper. The last 50-80 years at least has been a race to the lowest cost with no consideration for any consequences such as the environment, security and stability. UK is a fine example. We had a great steel industry here. But it's cheaper to buy it from China and India and it helps us hit our pollution targets not processing it here. But we just pushed the problem to where the side effects aren't immediately visible. The real issue is our consumption and use of materials. This is the reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy63PEgmm8w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy63PEgmm8w
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - b112 4y ago
      Or how about in BC, where sawdust is shipped by the gigatonne to China, gets made into particle board, and comes back as cheap furniture?
      - lamontcg 4y ago
        If you had non polluting shipping and the costs were still cheap enough there would be nothing intrinsically wrong with this. The problem is the market externalities of the pollution of our current shipping methods, and likely the imbalances in the labor markets and regulation. If you fixed those, then it would probably no longer make sense to do that, but you can't fix those systemic problems by banning the symptoms of them.
  - mmmpop 4y ago
    > I remember reading an article a while back about how something as ubiquitous as a cheeseburger is only possible with wide, nation-crossing supply chains. I'm the article was informative but I know where a few cows are and I know how to at least field dress a carcass, so I bet I can wrangle me some hamburger.
- vasco 4y ago
  That dude's quote is definitely moronic but you making the leap that globalization is somehow the root of all of society's problems is pretty close.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    After using the term spotted fucking moron, I don't mind anything else as I now have a new phrase I can borrow/steal/use to describe people of a certain type that couldn't be more appropriately named.
- pigtailgirl 4y ago
  -- looking at their website I can see why this is his mindset - they appear to be extremely traditional - and his bio - well - the dude is ooolllddd -- https://www.landisconstruction.com/our-portfolio/ https://www.landisconstruction.com/our-portfolio/
- mistrial9 4y ago
  I am here to tell you that these food miles and industrial material miles, were of deep concern and in the public discourse fifty years ago; and that my grandmother's brother told me that suburban housing patterns were of deep concern and in the public discourse seventy five years ago. The "markets" decided this course of action? many, many business people competitively won over others doing it differently. It was the winning by competition that was elevated. The results of the competition were "oh thats how it worked out". A deep philosophical skepticism of central planning, a lust for industrial-scale profits, and the lessons of warfare where certain kinds of weapons won and the loser was dead forever; all contributed to this kind of decision-making contest. We live amidst the results now.
js2 4y ago
We should have Federal solar access laws. It's especially pathetic this is in D.C. It sounds like they bowed to pressure though: https://positivechangepc.com/uncategorized/dc-will-now-allow-solar-panels-in-historic-districts-mostly/ https://positivechangepc.com/uncategorized/dc-will-now-allow...
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  >>We should have Federal solar access laws Why Federal? Under which Constitutional Authority would such a Federal law be placed? Frankly a HUGE part of the problem we have today, including the ever increasing division is the federal government expansion in areas (like property use) never envisioned or authorized by the US Constitution So no we do not need a federal solar access law.
  - james4k 4y ago
    stepping in to protect on issues of liberty and property is of course under constitutional authority
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      Which Amendment, or Power in Article 1 Section 8 is "protect on issues of liberty and property" I am missing that from my copy? 10th Amendment would clearly put that in the power of the States. Remember the people and States created the LIMITED federal government for specific purposes not to be all powerful and all encompassing
      - james4k 4y ago
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
        phpisthebest 4y ago
        Sorry try again, 14th simply puts the same limits on state governments as the federal government, granting the people (all people) the more rights under their states then previously allowed since the federal constitution only applied to the federal government The 14th amendment DID NOT expand the power of the federal government, it simply grated the federal courts authority to strike state laws using the federal constitution No where in the 14th amendment does it claim what you imply
catgary 4y ago
I honestly wonder whether or not they should have named Landis in this article, because he could easily end up the target of a lot of abuse due to this article (and how it demonstrates that he is a complete knuckle dragging moron).
pishpash 4y ago
This is the incorrect response to this. A better response is how can you make architecture with solar panels more aesthetically pleasing. The half covered roof is objectively ugly. Leaf-like, self-standing panels look much better. I bet early stoves were ugly too but kitchen appliances do have styles and they've gotten better with updates.
- RealityVoid 4y ago
  I don't buy this. Tasteses are informed by what is common and what is common is so because of technical reasons, most of the time. Getting stuck in what is the current taste is myopic, we should focus on function.
  - xoa 4y ago
    Bias up front, I've signed a contract to have a Tesla solar tile roof go in later this summer at a significant premium and I do care about my house design while not denying the critical importance of getting the move to renewables happening as fast as possible. That said: >Tasteses are informed by what is common and what is common is so because of technical reasons, most of the time. I think you're making a mistake here in going to generalities over the specific area we are talking about: roofs on homes. And we have literally thousands and thousands of years of examples of lots of humans caring quite a bit about the look of bulk surfaces on their homes. All modern roofing materials properly installed will do the core job of keeping out the elements. But there are wide varieties of colors, styles, and types, not for technical reasons but because lots of humans care. They care about the siding material, about stain/paint and trim color details. Having nice patterns even just with concrete. Not everyone of course, but many. We've been decorating surfaces since we lived in caves! I think you're the one being myopic with your view of "function" that entire ignores form and a significant artistic impulse across our entire species. So no, I think plain solar panels on roofs go against pretty fundamental instincts. They all look the same for starters, and they cannot be decorated or made individual in any significant way (obviously painting over them would largely defeat the purpose!). People certainly can tolerate stuff they don't like, or even outright hate, in the name of functionality. Lots of people live in architecture they dislike or even conditions they dislike because that's what they can afford (or that's what their job demands or whatever else). But I don't think you can honestly look at the vast array of buildings that are built and continuing development of design and then just claim all of that going away in favor of big uniform silicon panels on everything is simply "taste". Also, there isn't in fact a technical reason for it. Highly customizable solar shingles are clearly technically possible and could be produced in bulk. It's not as if they require platinum group metals or something inherently expensive. If you really care about this as I do, then if aesthetics would accelerate tolerance of mass installation of solar power then that is absolutely something plans should take into account. On the scale of the kinds of subsidies we give to fossil fuels and the costs we're looking at for global warming impact effects, tens or even hundreds of billions down to speed things up and help with the human factor can be quite justifiable.
nerdponx 4y ago
Meanwhile, a row of houses without solar panels (or at least solar heaters) upsets me. Imagine being so selfish that you are opposed to something that is objectively good for the world, just because you think it's ugly. Not to mention, you can barely even see solar panels against black roof shingles, which is typical in most of the US.
- wyager 4y ago
  > Imagine being so selfish that you are opposed to something that is objectively good for the world A randomly selected house being covered in solar panels is not "objectively good for the world". Please do some research into energy production and distribution economics before having such a strongly-held opinion.
  - halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
    Are we talking about randomly selected houses? I believe the conversation is around large groups of houses utilizing solar and at that scale, it is objectively good.
    - wyager 4y ago
      No, it's not. Why would you make such a strong statement when you clearly haven't researched it? There are only a small number of climates where solar installations on homes already on the grid have an expected net positive social externality.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Preventing any house from utiliising solar has a direct and specific negative impact. Even individual-choice solar deployments at small scale have benefits from a testing-and-development standpoint, increasing technical understanding of installation, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning.
    - wyager 4y ago
      > Preventing any house from utiliising solar has a direct and specific negative impact. Domestic solar has an extremely tenuous value proposition. If you don't have batteries in your house, you're using the grid as an extremely inefficient subsidy for solar production/load mismatch (externalizing many costs). If you do have batteries in your house, it's more expensive (and less efficient) than using grid power. Domestic solar is usually not a good thing compared to grid power, and any small marginal benefit may easily be outweighed by aesthetic costs.
Kye 4y ago
I remember how weird and out of place the first metal roof in the neighborhood looked. By the third, I didn't think anything of it. I assume solar panels become normal after a while in the same way.
- dghughes 4y ago
  The cheap metal roof types look bad the long sheets with high fastening ridges. But you can get metal rooves that look indistinguishable from slate or other materials. It's a great idea to get a metal roof first then solar. Even the cheap ugly metal roof since the large ridges are great for attaching solar panels. Then in 20 or 30 years you don't have to remove the solar panels if you need to upgrade the shingles if you have metal roof.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

iasay 4y ago

Yep. The decline of humanity will be at the hands of greater spotted fucking moron, of which Chris Landis is clearly a prime example of the species. You can have both. But really the entire planet works on making negative side effects of solving a problem someone else's problem and this spans from globalisation of supply chains to energy supply. This attitude just enables it. People needs to start looking at local self-sufficiency of energy and materials to some degree.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> People needs to start looking at local self-sufficiency of energy and materials to some degree. This is a complete, unrealistic pipe dream. Yes, we've obviously seen a "deglobalization" occurring, and many countries are feeling the pain of being completely dependent on critical fuel and materials from one or a few other countries with shaky political systems. But the idea that "local self sufficiency" is possible on a wide scale, without sending us all back to the stone age, is quite frankly nonsense. I remember reading an article a while back about how something as ubiquitous as a cheeseburger is only possible with wide, nation-crossing supply chains. Saying "we should look at local self sufficiency" makes people think of planting a garden in their back yard, when in reality it would mean virtually all of the advances in human comfort, health and convenience over the past couple hundred years or so would have to be given up.
- iasay 4y ago
  I'm not suggesting that we send ourselves back to the stone age. I'm suggesting that we stop shipping resources half way around the planet and then send the trash back because it's cheaper. The last 50-80 years at least has been a race to the lowest cost with no consideration for any consequences such as the environment, security and stability. UK is a fine example. We had a great steel industry here. But it's cheaper to buy it from China and India and it helps us hit our pollution targets not processing it here. But we just pushed the problem to where the side effects aren't immediately visible. The real issue is our consumption and use of materials. This is the reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy63PEgmm8w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy63PEgmm8w
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - b112 4y ago
    Or how about in BC, where sawdust is shipped by the gigatonne to China, gets made into particle board, and comes back as cheap furniture?
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      If you had non polluting shipping and the costs were still cheap enough there would be nothing intrinsically wrong with this. The problem is the market externalities of the pollution of our current shipping methods, and likely the imbalances in the labor markets and regulation. If you fixed those, then it would probably no longer make sense to do that, but you can't fix those systemic problems by banning the symptoms of them.
- mmmpop 4y ago
  > I remember reading an article a while back about how something as ubiquitous as a cheeseburger is only possible with wide, nation-crossing supply chains. I'm the article was informative but I know where a few cows are and I know how to at least field dress a carcass, so I bet I can wrangle me some hamburger.
vasco 4y ago
That dude's quote is definitely moronic but you making the leap that globalization is somehow the root of all of society's problems is pretty close.
- dylan604 4y ago
  After using the term spotted fucking moron, I don't mind anything else as I now have a new phrase I can borrow/steal/use to describe people of a certain type that couldn't be more appropriately named.
pigtailgirl 4y ago
-- looking at their website I can see why this is his mindset - they appear to be extremely traditional - and his bio - well - the dude is ooolllddd -- https://www.landisconstruction.com/our-portfolio/ https://www.landisconstruction.com/our-portfolio/
mistrial9 4y ago
I am here to tell you that these food miles and industrial material miles, were of deep concern and in the public discourse fifty years ago; and that my grandmother's brother told me that suburban housing patterns were of deep concern and in the public discourse seventy five years ago. The "markets" decided this course of action? many, many business people competitively won over others doing it differently. It was the winning by competition that was elevated. The results of the competition were "oh thats how it worked out". A deep philosophical skepticism of central planning, a lust for industrial-scale profits, and the lessons of warfare where certain kinds of weapons won and the loser was dead forever; all contributed to this kind of decision-making contest. We live amidst the results now.

js2 4y ago

We should have Federal solar access laws. It's especially pathetic this is in D.C. It sounds like they bowed to pressure though: https://positivechangepc.com/uncategorized/dc-will-now-allow-solar-panels-in-historic-districts-mostly/ https://positivechangepc.com/uncategorized/dc-will-now-allow...

phpisthebest 4y ago
>>We should have Federal solar access laws Why Federal? Under which Constitutional Authority would such a Federal law be placed? Frankly a HUGE part of the problem we have today, including the ever increasing division is the federal government expansion in areas (like property use) never envisioned or authorized by the US Constitution So no we do not need a federal solar access law.
- james4k 4y ago
  stepping in to protect on issues of liberty and property is of course under constitutional authority
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Which Amendment, or Power in Article 1 Section 8 is "protect on issues of liberty and property" I am missing that from my copy? 10th Amendment would clearly put that in the power of the States. Remember the people and States created the LIMITED federal government for specific purposes not to be all powerful and all encompassing
    - james4k 4y ago
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        Sorry try again, 14th simply puts the same limits on state governments as the federal government, granting the people (all people) the more rights under their states then previously allowed since the federal constitution only applied to the federal government The 14th amendment DID NOT expand the power of the federal government, it simply grated the federal courts authority to strike state laws using the federal constitution No where in the 14th amendment does it claim what you imply

catgary 4y ago

I honestly wonder whether or not they should have named Landis in this article, because he could easily end up the target of a lot of abuse due to this article (and how it demonstrates that he is a complete knuckle dragging moron).

pishpash 4y ago

This is the incorrect response to this. A better response is how can you make architecture with solar panels more aesthetically pleasing. The half covered roof is objectively ugly. Leaf-like, self-standing panels look much better. I bet early stoves were ugly too but kitchen appliances do have styles and they've gotten better with updates.

RealityVoid 4y ago
I don't buy this. Tasteses are informed by what is common and what is common is so because of technical reasons, most of the time. Getting stuck in what is the current taste is myopic, we should focus on function.
- xoa 4y ago
  Bias up front, I've signed a contract to have a Tesla solar tile roof go in later this summer at a significant premium and I do care about my house design while not denying the critical importance of getting the move to renewables happening as fast as possible. That said: >Tasteses are informed by what is common and what is common is so because of technical reasons, most of the time. I think you're making a mistake here in going to generalities over the specific area we are talking about: roofs on homes. And we have literally thousands and thousands of years of examples of lots of humans caring quite a bit about the look of bulk surfaces on their homes. All modern roofing materials properly installed will do the core job of keeping out the elements. But there are wide varieties of colors, styles, and types, not for technical reasons but because lots of humans care. They care about the siding material, about stain/paint and trim color details. Having nice patterns even just with concrete. Not everyone of course, but many. We've been decorating surfaces since we lived in caves! I think you're the one being myopic with your view of "function" that entire ignores form and a significant artistic impulse across our entire species. So no, I think plain solar panels on roofs go against pretty fundamental instincts. They all look the same for starters, and they cannot be decorated or made individual in any significant way (obviously painting over them would largely defeat the purpose!). People certainly can tolerate stuff they don't like, or even outright hate, in the name of functionality. Lots of people live in architecture they dislike or even conditions they dislike because that's what they can afford (or that's what their job demands or whatever else). But I don't think you can honestly look at the vast array of buildings that are built and continuing development of design and then just claim all of that going away in favor of big uniform silicon panels on everything is simply "taste". Also, there isn't in fact a technical reason for it. Highly customizable solar shingles are clearly technically possible and could be produced in bulk. It's not as if they require platinum group metals or something inherently expensive. If you really care about this as I do, then if aesthetics would accelerate tolerance of mass installation of solar power then that is absolutely something plans should take into account. On the scale of the kinds of subsidies we give to fossil fuels and the costs we're looking at for global warming impact effects, tens or even hundreds of billions down to speed things up and help with the human factor can be quite justifiable.

nerdponx 4y ago

Meanwhile, a row of houses without solar panels (or at least solar heaters) upsets me. Imagine being so selfish that you are opposed to something that is objectively good for the world, just because you think it's ugly. Not to mention, you can barely even see solar panels against black roof shingles, which is typical in most of the US.

wyager 4y ago
> Imagine being so selfish that you are opposed to something that is objectively good for the world A randomly selected house being covered in solar panels is not "objectively good for the world". Please do some research into energy production and distribution economics before having such a strongly-held opinion.
- halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
  Are we talking about randomly selected houses? I believe the conversation is around large groups of houses utilizing solar and at that scale, it is objectively good.
  - wyager 4y ago
    No, it's not. Why would you make such a strong statement when you clearly haven't researched it? There are only a small number of climates where solar installations on homes already on the grid have an expected net positive social externality.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Preventing any house from utiliising solar has a direct and specific negative impact. Even individual-choice solar deployments at small scale have benefits from a testing-and-development standpoint, increasing technical understanding of installation, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning.
  - wyager 4y ago
    > Preventing any house from utiliising solar has a direct and specific negative impact. Domestic solar has an extremely tenuous value proposition. If you don't have batteries in your house, you're using the grid as an extremely inefficient subsidy for solar production/load mismatch (externalizing many costs). If you do have batteries in your house, it's more expensive (and less efficient) than using grid power. Domestic solar is usually not a good thing compared to grid power, and any small marginal benefit may easily be outweighed by aesthetic costs.

Kye 4y ago

I remember how weird and out of place the first metal roof in the neighborhood looked. By the third, I didn't think anything of it. I assume solar panels become normal after a while in the same way.

dghughes 4y ago
The cheap metal roof types look bad the long sheets with high fastening ridges. But you can get metal rooves that look indistinguishable from slate or other materials. It's a great idea to get a metal roof first then solar. Even the cheap ugly metal roof since the large ridges are great for attaching solar panels. Then in 20 or 30 years you don't have to remove the solar panels if you need to upgrade the shingles if you have metal roof.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]