6 ms·

If there is one industry that is the most resistant to change, it's the construction industry. There are still people who have been roofing for 50 years and ref

If there is one industry that is the most resistant to change, it's the construction industry. There are still people who have been roofing for 50 years and refuse to change a single thing they do and learned 50 years ago. Saying a bunch of glulam will solve the issue is just incorrect. Wood is fantastic material. But using half a forest to build a 2000sqft house is certainly not the direction we should be going, we should be finding ways to build with 1/2 the amount of wood we currently use. Or perhaps melt down all of that trash and form it into a house somehow...

jcgrillo 3y ago
"The house gotta breathe" is something you still hear people uncritically parroting, to the point where it's become a trope in net zero construction.
foofie 3y ago
> If there is one industry that is the most resistant to change, it's the construction industry. There are still people who have been roofing for 50 years and refuse to change a single thing they do and learned 50 years ago. I think your comment is misguided and lacks reflection. Change for the sake of change is never good because by definition there is no upside. Construction technology is also expected to be reliable and have long service life, and traditional techniques ensure that by the fact that the are tried and true.
- dubcanada 3y ago
  Just the comments on my comment alone justify my comment. I never said it was negative, it just is a fact. There are plenty of good new and old methods for everything. But it is resistant to change because it has to have a long service life.
tnel77 3y ago
I’m not sure if this is entirely fair. I know people in the trades that have updated their technique and tools every few years the same way a software engineer would. They may be more resistant to change, but local building codes and such inherently force tradesmen to adapt at a certain point.
ejb999 3y ago
Honestly, if I had to choose between buying a house built 50 years ago, or one today - I personally would take the older one. Nothing scares me more (relative to owning a house) than buying a brand new one. If it has been around for fifty years, it has been tested - may have some things wrong with them, but you usually know what you are dealing with and usually the skill was better and materials better. Heck, my parents house is now 250 years old, and still as solid as can be. A brand new one where the builder was trying to save money by using the latest and greatest techie products, and may or may not how to install it properly? No thanks. To each their own though - I know plenty of folks that wouldn't even consider buying a 'used' house.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  50 years I think puts here them highly in danger zone... That means 1970s... Which have whole host of very well known issues. Now 100 or even 70 year old houses... If not ruined in 70s-90s by renovation...
  - ejb999 3y ago
    Fair enough - but point still stands, newer is not always better (to me). Give me a house that is still standing decades after mother nature threw everything it could at it, over a shiny new one any day.
- aclatuts 3y ago
  The tried and true asbestos insulation
- whartung 3y ago
  Well we recently upgraded to a new build, selling off our 50 year old house. We had to relocated to a different area, because the only houses in our area were...50 year old houses. And swapping from one 50 year old house to another one didn't make a lot of sense to us. Mind, we had done remodeling, new kitchen, new baths, new roof, new windows, new HVAC, insulation, "more sound proof" dry wall, structural engineering changes (original owners underspec'd a new addition, and we had to get that fixed), relined the sewer. The two last things on our list were redoing the electrical panel, and landscaping. So, it had some modern elements, but at its core it was a 50 year old house. When we had the work done, the contractor mentioned how the house was well built. "Good bones" as he said. Our new house is VASTLY more efficient. The foundation is 50-100% thicker than our old house (which had other issues). We have that lined plywood in the attic (one side has some material for efficiency), lots more insulation. The only "exotic" thing in there, IMHO, is the plumbing, as its the clear plastic tubing style plumbing (there's a trade name for it that escapes me), vs copper. No idea how long that will last, our old house was already re-piped with copper when we bought it (can you say "slab leak"?). But I'm assuming that the new plumbing is not simply cheaper (copper, oh my) but actually "better" for more values of "better" than not. I saw the house go up, I got to learn house geek stuff, and this is a solid house. We already have stucco cracks, which is not surprising -- I've had 4 felt quakes so far this year, and it's only March. 3+, one was at least 4. Been rocking and rolling for some reason this year, this activity is unusual, and, hopefully, not foretelling. But the house is solid. California has codes for a reason. We use stick framing for a reason, particularly in Southern California. I wish we didn't have to leave the area we were in, but this house is so far so good and appears very well built, more so than our older house was.
pixl97 3y ago
Melting down trash that will offgas for the next few decades and putting it in close proximity to people sounds like a great way to boost cancer rates.
happyopossum 3y ago
> There are still people who have been roofing for 50 years and refuse to change a single thing they do and learned 50 years ago. This is at best a huge exaggeration. For one thing, roofing is not a 50-year career. If you know any 70 year old roofers, they've either been retired or moved on to other things decades ago - the toll that roofing takes on a body makes it a 10-15 year career at best. Secondly, I've been working with roofers a lot lately - I have a very old style of roof that was common 50 years ago, and it's very hard to find people who can work on it, because everyone wants to do things the modern way.
- monknomo 3y ago
  haha, I used to have a torchdown roof and I sympathize. Finding folks to do a similar style (with integral gutters and tarred gravel, etc.) was a bit challenging. Plenty of folks that'd put down some foam and shingles though
- rascul 3y ago
  > This is at best a huge exaggeration. For one thing, roofing is not a 50-year career. If you know any 70 year old roofers, they've either been retired or moved on to other things decades ago - the toll that roofing takes on a body makes it a 10-15 year career at best. The person who taught me how to lay asphalt shingles 20 years ago has now been doing it around 50 years. I know a number of roofers who have been doing it 20 to 25 years. The toll on the body probably isn't as bad as you think.
efsavage 3y ago
Counterpoint: I spent several years in construction, and the assistant superintendent on the project, who was at the end of a ~50 year career, often complained that so much had changed he had no idea what was going on. The tools, machines, materials, techniques, schedules, laws, etc. all changed so dramatically he was really only able to remain expert at the human elements.
- bombcar 3y ago
  And things that used to be quite rare are now quite common, which can make it look "slower" depending on how you frame it. 30 years ago full wrap insulation was possible, and some did it, but it was quite rare. Now it's standard enough that I can recognize it in new developments. The difference between a 90s house and 50s one is way less than between a 2000s and now, even.
taion 3y ago
A big part of the point of that Construction Physics Substack is to explore these factors around innovation, productivity, and process change in the construction sector. I don't think it's really quite as simple as you imply: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-its-hard-to-innovate-in-construction https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-its-hard-to-innov..., https://www.construction-physics.com/p/sketch-of-a-theory-of-construction https://www.construction-physics.com/p/sketch-of-a-theory-of... Sometimes practices do reflect real constraints, rather than just path-dependence.
simonklitj 3y ago
Or look into building with earth, as used to be the practice: https://www.calearth.org/ https://www.calearth.org/ and https://www.rael-sanfratello.com/made/mud-frontiers https://www.rael-sanfratello.com/made/mud-frontiers
- GorsyGentle 3y ago
  Rammed earth is the one that I find fascinating. But I've not seen or heard much about it's use in the Midwest where winters tend to wet.
  - simonklitj 3y ago
    Understandable, I’m in the desert southwest, so not a concern here. I did recently attend a workshop by Dr. Ronald Rael (Professor of Architecture @ Berkeley), and he mentioned that as concerns building with adobe bricks, with proper roofing, rain is a minimal to non-existent issue. I am not entirely convinced, however, and have also heard of solutions such as using “plasticure” on the outside of the walls.
benced 3y ago
> Wood is fantastic material. But using half a forest to build a 2000sqft house is certainly not the direction we should be going, we should be finding ways to build with 1/2 the amount of wood we currently use Wood is inherently a carbon sink. I suspect stimulating forest production via added lumber demand (similar to how Christmas tree demand stimulates tree farms) would be a net pollution win, albeit potentially at the cost of a nice looking forest somewhere.
- ducttapecrown 3y ago
  We need to stimulate demand for growing forests!
akira2501 3y ago
> it's the construction industry. Any industry that warranties it's work. They're far less likely to take on new and disruptive technologies if there's no guarantee they're going to be supported for the necessary amount of time. > we should be finding ways to build with 1/2 the amount of wood we currently use. Different houses have different requirements. Some roofs see snow, others don't. Some roofs see hurricane winds, others don't.
- lazide 3y ago
  Also - warranties their work, it’s expensive to build/replace, has high damages if it fails, and is exposed to the elements and unpredictable animals/weather. Frankly it’s shocking they try anything new at all.
HumblyTossed 3y ago
Indeed! Because none of this exists! https://www.equipter.com/equipter-articles/roofing-tools-that-boost-productivity https://www.equipter.com/equipter-articles/roofing-tools-tha...
philwelch 3y ago
Timber is a crop. Wanting to build houses with less wood is like wanting to make clothes with less cotton or wool; there’s no fundamental reason to economize on a renewable resource.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  That argument works for an infinite resource, not for a renewable one.
fsckboy 3y ago
>refuse to change a single thing they do and learned 50 years ago they weren't using nail guns 50 years ago, and they surely are now.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jcgrillo 3y ago

"The house gotta breathe" is something you still hear people uncritically parroting, to the point where it's become a trope in net zero construction.

foofie 3y ago

> If there is one industry that is the most resistant to change, it's the construction industry. There are still people who have been roofing for 50 years and refuse to change a single thing they do and learned 50 years ago. I think your comment is misguided and lacks reflection. Change for the sake of change is never good because by definition there is no upside. Construction technology is also expected to be reliable and have long service life, and traditional techniques ensure that by the fact that the are tried and true.

dubcanada 3y ago
Just the comments on my comment alone justify my comment. I never said it was negative, it just is a fact. There are plenty of good new and old methods for everything. But it is resistant to change because it has to have a long service life.

tnel77 3y ago

I’m not sure if this is entirely fair. I know people in the trades that have updated their technique and tools every few years the same way a software engineer would. They may be more resistant to change, but local building codes and such inherently force tradesmen to adapt at a certain point.

ejb999 3y ago

Honestly, if I had to choose between buying a house built 50 years ago, or one today - I personally would take the older one. Nothing scares me more (relative to owning a house) than buying a brand new one. If it has been around for fifty years, it has been tested - may have some things wrong with them, but you usually know what you are dealing with and usually the skill was better and materials better. Heck, my parents house is now 250 years old, and still as solid as can be. A brand new one where the builder was trying to save money by using the latest and greatest techie products, and may or may not how to install it properly? No thanks. To each their own though - I know plenty of folks that wouldn't even consider buying a 'used' house.

Ekaros 3y ago
50 years I think puts here them highly in danger zone... That means 1970s... Which have whole host of very well known issues. Now 100 or even 70 year old houses... If not ruined in 70s-90s by renovation...
- ejb999 3y ago
  Fair enough - but point still stands, newer is not always better (to me). Give me a house that is still standing decades after mother nature threw everything it could at it, over a shiny new one any day.
aclatuts 3y ago
The tried and true asbestos insulation
whartung 3y ago
Well we recently upgraded to a new build, selling off our 50 year old house. We had to relocated to a different area, because the only houses in our area were...50 year old houses. And swapping from one 50 year old house to another one didn't make a lot of sense to us. Mind, we had done remodeling, new kitchen, new baths, new roof, new windows, new HVAC, insulation, "more sound proof" dry wall, structural engineering changes (original owners underspec'd a new addition, and we had to get that fixed), relined the sewer. The two last things on our list were redoing the electrical panel, and landscaping. So, it had some modern elements, but at its core it was a 50 year old house. When we had the work done, the contractor mentioned how the house was well built. "Good bones" as he said. Our new house is VASTLY more efficient. The foundation is 50-100% thicker than our old house (which had other issues). We have that lined plywood in the attic (one side has some material for efficiency), lots more insulation. The only "exotic" thing in there, IMHO, is the plumbing, as its the clear plastic tubing style plumbing (there's a trade name for it that escapes me), vs copper. No idea how long that will last, our old house was already re-piped with copper when we bought it (can you say "slab leak"?). But I'm assuming that the new plumbing is not simply cheaper (copper, oh my) but actually "better" for more values of "better" than not. I saw the house go up, I got to learn house geek stuff, and this is a solid house. We already have stucco cracks, which is not surprising -- I've had 4 felt quakes so far this year, and it's only March. 3+, one was at least 4. Been rocking and rolling for some reason this year, this activity is unusual, and, hopefully, not foretelling. But the house is solid. California has codes for a reason. We use stick framing for a reason, particularly in Southern California. I wish we didn't have to leave the area we were in, but this house is so far so good and appears very well built, more so than our older house was.

pixl97 3y ago

Melting down trash that will offgas for the next few decades and putting it in close proximity to people sounds like a great way to boost cancer rates.

happyopossum 3y ago

> There are still people who have been roofing for 50 years and refuse to change a single thing they do and learned 50 years ago. This is at best a huge exaggeration. For one thing, roofing is not a 50-year career. If you know any 70 year old roofers, they've either been retired or moved on to other things decades ago - the toll that roofing takes on a body makes it a 10-15 year career at best. Secondly, I've been working with roofers a lot lately - I have a very old style of roof that was common 50 years ago, and it's very hard to find people who can work on it, because everyone wants to do things the modern way.

monknomo 3y ago
haha, I used to have a torchdown roof and I sympathize. Finding folks to do a similar style (with integral gutters and tarred gravel, etc.) was a bit challenging. Plenty of folks that'd put down some foam and shingles though
rascul 3y ago
> This is at best a huge exaggeration. For one thing, roofing is not a 50-year career. If you know any 70 year old roofers, they've either been retired or moved on to other things decades ago - the toll that roofing takes on a body makes it a 10-15 year career at best. The person who taught me how to lay asphalt shingles 20 years ago has now been doing it around 50 years. I know a number of roofers who have been doing it 20 to 25 years. The toll on the body probably isn't as bad as you think.

efsavage 3y ago

Counterpoint: I spent several years in construction, and the assistant superintendent on the project, who was at the end of a ~50 year career, often complained that so much had changed he had no idea what was going on. The tools, machines, materials, techniques, schedules, laws, etc. all changed so dramatically he was really only able to remain expert at the human elements.

bombcar 3y ago
And things that used to be quite rare are now quite common, which can make it look "slower" depending on how you frame it. 30 years ago full wrap insulation was possible, and some did it, but it was quite rare. Now it's standard enough that I can recognize it in new developments. The difference between a 90s house and 50s one is way less than between a 2000s and now, even.

taion 3y ago

A big part of the point of that Construction Physics Substack is to explore these factors around innovation, productivity, and process change in the construction sector. I don't think it's really quite as simple as you imply: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-its-hard-to-innovate-in-construction https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-its-hard-to-innov..., https://www.construction-physics.com/p/sketch-of-a-theory-of-construction https://www.construction-physics.com/p/sketch-of-a-theory-of... Sometimes practices do reflect real constraints, rather than just path-dependence.

simonklitj 3y ago

Or look into building with earth, as used to be the practice: https://www.calearth.org/ https://www.calearth.org/ and https://www.rael-sanfratello.com/made/mud-frontiers https://www.rael-sanfratello.com/made/mud-frontiers

GorsyGentle 3y ago
Rammed earth is the one that I find fascinating. But I've not seen or heard much about it's use in the Midwest where winters tend to wet.
- simonklitj 3y ago
  Understandable, I’m in the desert southwest, so not a concern here. I did recently attend a workshop by Dr. Ronald Rael (Professor of Architecture @ Berkeley), and he mentioned that as concerns building with adobe bricks, with proper roofing, rain is a minimal to non-existent issue. I am not entirely convinced, however, and have also heard of solutions such as using “plasticure” on the outside of the walls.

benced 3y ago

> Wood is fantastic material. But using half a forest to build a 2000sqft house is certainly not the direction we should be going, we should be finding ways to build with 1/2 the amount of wood we currently use Wood is inherently a carbon sink. I suspect stimulating forest production via added lumber demand (similar to how Christmas tree demand stimulates tree farms) would be a net pollution win, albeit potentially at the cost of a nice looking forest somewhere.

ducttapecrown 3y ago
We need to stimulate demand for growing forests!

akira2501 3y ago

> it's the construction industry. Any industry that warranties it's work. They're far less likely to take on new and disruptive technologies if there's no guarantee they're going to be supported for the necessary amount of time. > we should be finding ways to build with 1/2 the amount of wood we currently use. Different houses have different requirements. Some roofs see snow, others don't. Some roofs see hurricane winds, others don't.

lazide 3y ago
Also - warranties their work, it’s expensive to build/replace, has high damages if it fails, and is exposed to the elements and unpredictable animals/weather. Frankly it’s shocking they try anything new at all.

HumblyTossed 3y ago

Indeed! Because none of this exists! https://www.equipter.com/equipter-articles/roofing-tools-that-boost-productivity https://www.equipter.com/equipter-articles/roofing-tools-tha...

philwelch 3y ago

Timber is a crop. Wanting to build houses with less wood is like wanting to make clothes with less cotton or wool; there’s no fundamental reason to economize on a renewable resource.

BurningFrog 3y ago
That argument works for an infinite resource, not for a renewable one.

fsckboy 3y ago

>refuse to change a single thing they do and learned 50 years ago they weren't using nail guns 50 years ago, and they surely are now.

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]