So that's great, a few comments, and I just want to front load this with I'm Autistic and therefore can come off as blunt and with my autism, but I do generally want to discuss these issues, as I think there are several serious lacks in this, and I don't understand your enthusiasm for this, given other things that I've been reading from you, so I would like to understand. I'm a trained engineer and architect, so I have some insight to the field. But I still hope you'll elaborate on the below points. I'm also dyslexic (and english is not my first language), and so I'm using spelling assistance, but if it and I fail at time, and there are grammar and spelling mistakes, I hope you'll not take it as a sign of my intelligence.
First of, this seems to only support detached single family homes, the type we currently have too much of, and the type that drives up car dependency. Which also seems to go against the notion that: " while reducing CO2 emissions from transportation by 90%.". That's great, but not when all the CO2 reduced savings is used by the houses owner's vehicle(s) within the first year, rather than constructing near public transportation or even better within biking distance. (I acknowledge that some suburbs can reach work areas with public transport and bikes, only if you acknowledge that most doesn't, and even those that do, most still drive).
“The print system is really about quality control - us humans seem to generally be inept at reading drawings and setting items out in the correct location - the makes it foolproof - plus give options for more info- the right specific product info at the location where it is to be installed.”
This seems to wanting to get away from other humans having to have knowledge (so monopolizing it) and to stop communicating, the best way to problem solve is removed, along with agency, and life worth. The worker should be the metaphorical cog in the wheel, not an independent person, that you can't threat however you like, and discard as soon as you don't need them. Seems to make the jump very easy to; You basically need no education or self-worth to assemble this house, and when you're done, FåRK off, I paid you (minimum wage).
The job sites I've been on, when the computer (or computer model) made mistake, and oh boy it did, it was the brilliant workers on hand that fixed it, with dialog and hand sketches now concealed by the finishing paint on the drywall. There's such an wealth of knowledge on a construction site, if you have the right forman that allows for it to come out, and have people that are paid and treated well, so they can do this work. That saves the project from all the things that the computer generating architect couldn't foresee; often without being acknowledged. This sounds like trying to shift the money from paying workers fair wages, to enriching company owners and stockholders.
“In terms of timing - we have been waiting for market conditions to change, which they now have- specifically the rise of cost of labour pushed the tipping point for our manufacturing to be commercially competitive about 18 months ago, the desire to build homes that save energy is really just since the recent hike in bills, and the change in consumer tastes towards a more modern aesthetic at large is also really the last three years.”
Two things, first; cost of labour, it seems again that we don't want to pay our fellow human for a days of work. Why is labor expensive? Does it have to do with rising rents? With over production (billionaire's row is basically empty)? With capital concentration (see the point above of concentration knowledge, and relocation of money from workers to shareholders). The housing market crisis is not a crises of building, it's a political crises of not wanting to make it affordable to people. After WWII, it was proven that the US could provide affordable homes to all it's (white) citizens (if you question the white part then read: The Color of the Law, and tell me who that statement is wrong). We don't need new technologies to do this again, but we do need the political willpower to make sure that we set it up for all the people that are struggling. The technological advancements, the 3D plotting/printing houses, seem all to be enriching the all ready well off silicon valley segment and their hang arounds, not actually help the people that need it, for this plywood "printed" house, still needs to live in the political climate, so I would stop looking for the next technological fix (see above on who gets rich off of it) and pursue political change, if the housing situation is to change.
As for the later part of the quote, we have been well able to insulate house efficiently long before 3D printing came along, its a decision. I grew up in a house my parents semi-build in '92, and it I remember stuffing rockwool under all window sills till my little eight year old fingers bleed (it was kinda child labor, I might also have exaggerated the story, but the house was very well insulated).
"One of the problems I go on about with mass timber is how much fibre it chews up, suggesting that good old stick framing makes more sense for low-rise buildings. But in many ways, the Facit system makes more sense; plywood is very efficient in its use of wood, and plywood boxes are very strong, making very efficient use of plywood."
Two things again. First, how durable is a plywood house? Will it last 100 years? Or will it start to delaminate in a matter of 10-20? And if build in this manner, how easy is it to make repairs or repalcements? Will you need to deconstruct large parts of it to change one of these smaller modules if it's failing? Do you need this Plotter-container to come back to make any adjustments? Or to ship spacial plywood boxes, making you depended on the company that built the house?
And second, if you have written about this in a previous post, please just link to it I'm no familiar with all your writing; but why continue to talk about "how much fibre", when plywood or stick, as a structural system can't produce the density we need to build in a sustainable way for the number of people we are? It would be fine if we were a lot less people on the planet, but we're not. And it's not really mass timber or not, again, it's the layout of our inhabitation that I'm focusing on; which neither the ply or the stick will solve. So it's either looking in the wrong direction or putting our heads in the sand when we discuss it.
Unrelated, but in my Autistic view not; it's a little like when we claim Norman Foster's 425 Park Ave. skyscraper to be sustainable (I've even heard it called the most sustainable in the world but can't remember where). There was a building already! No matter what they did (unless it is pull carbon out of the air as a way to produce energy (now there's a plan silicon valley)), it will never be sustainable, you had to remove an entire building to build it; so if your calculations says it was, I think the calculations are set up to prove the wrong thing. Which is similar here, way argue which of two solutions is less bad, instead of looking at solution that will help us solve the enormous problem in front of us?
I have questions about how well this system accommodates repairs, alterations and renovations, but on a lighter level, my primary thought on this is that what it really needs to complete the process is Bruce Sterling’s talking building materials from his book Distraction that tell the assembler where they go:
Oscar peeled a strip of tape from a yellow spool and wrapped the tape around a cinder block. He swept a hand-scanner over the block, activating the tape...
"I'm a cornerstone," the cinder block announced.
"Good for you," Oscar grunted.
"I'm a cornerstone. Carry me five steps to your left." The construction system was smart enough to manage a limited and specific vocabulary. Unfortunately, the system simply didn't hear very well. The tiny microphones embedded in the talking tape were much less effective than the tape's thumbnail-sized speakers. Still, it was hard not to reply to a concrete block when it spoke up with such grace and authority. The concrete blocks all sounded like Franklin Roosevelt.
" ... a printer puts all the instructions and details that you would see in architectural or engineering drawings right on the plywood, so it becomes much harder to screw up. " Umm - wouldn't that make it easier? Especially with a battery-powered driver and Robertson screws?
I don't understand. The Substack team have written that they don't allow us to discuss services or trading. It seems you've started a conversation about a building service. We can consider Substack when we're sure that anybody may use it to discuss the services of Sol Global Management and of anybody else.
So that's great, a few comments, and I just want to front load this with I'm Autistic and therefore can come off as blunt and with my autism, but I do generally want to discuss these issues, as I think there are several serious lacks in this, and I don't understand your enthusiasm for this, given other things that I've been reading from you, so I would like to understand. I'm a trained engineer and architect, so I have some insight to the field. But I still hope you'll elaborate on the below points. I'm also dyslexic (and english is not my first language), and so I'm using spelling assistance, but if it and I fail at time, and there are grammar and spelling mistakes, I hope you'll not take it as a sign of my intelligence.
First of, this seems to only support detached single family homes, the type we currently have too much of, and the type that drives up car dependency. Which also seems to go against the notion that: " while reducing CO2 emissions from transportation by 90%.". That's great, but not when all the CO2 reduced savings is used by the houses owner's vehicle(s) within the first year, rather than constructing near public transportation or even better within biking distance. (I acknowledge that some suburbs can reach work areas with public transport and bikes, only if you acknowledge that most doesn't, and even those that do, most still drive).
“The print system is really about quality control - us humans seem to generally be inept at reading drawings and setting items out in the correct location - the makes it foolproof - plus give options for more info- the right specific product info at the location where it is to be installed.”
This seems to wanting to get away from other humans having to have knowledge (so monopolizing it) and to stop communicating, the best way to problem solve is removed, along with agency, and life worth. The worker should be the metaphorical cog in the wheel, not an independent person, that you can't threat however you like, and discard as soon as you don't need them. Seems to make the jump very easy to; You basically need no education or self-worth to assemble this house, and when you're done, FåRK off, I paid you (minimum wage).
The job sites I've been on, when the computer (or computer model) made mistake, and oh boy it did, it was the brilliant workers on hand that fixed it, with dialog and hand sketches now concealed by the finishing paint on the drywall. There's such an wealth of knowledge on a construction site, if you have the right forman that allows for it to come out, and have people that are paid and treated well, so they can do this work. That saves the project from all the things that the computer generating architect couldn't foresee; often without being acknowledged. This sounds like trying to shift the money from paying workers fair wages, to enriching company owners and stockholders.
“In terms of timing - we have been waiting for market conditions to change, which they now have- specifically the rise of cost of labour pushed the tipping point for our manufacturing to be commercially competitive about 18 months ago, the desire to build homes that save energy is really just since the recent hike in bills, and the change in consumer tastes towards a more modern aesthetic at large is also really the last three years.”
Two things, first; cost of labour, it seems again that we don't want to pay our fellow human for a days of work. Why is labor expensive? Does it have to do with rising rents? With over production (billionaire's row is basically empty)? With capital concentration (see the point above of concentration knowledge, and relocation of money from workers to shareholders). The housing market crisis is not a crises of building, it's a political crises of not wanting to make it affordable to people. After WWII, it was proven that the US could provide affordable homes to all it's (white) citizens (if you question the white part then read: The Color of the Law, and tell me who that statement is wrong). We don't need new technologies to do this again, but we do need the political willpower to make sure that we set it up for all the people that are struggling. The technological advancements, the 3D plotting/printing houses, seem all to be enriching the all ready well off silicon valley segment and their hang arounds, not actually help the people that need it, for this plywood "printed" house, still needs to live in the political climate, so I would stop looking for the next technological fix (see above on who gets rich off of it) and pursue political change, if the housing situation is to change.
As for the later part of the quote, we have been well able to insulate house efficiently long before 3D printing came along, its a decision. I grew up in a house my parents semi-build in '92, and it I remember stuffing rockwool under all window sills till my little eight year old fingers bleed (it was kinda child labor, I might also have exaggerated the story, but the house was very well insulated).
"One of the problems I go on about with mass timber is how much fibre it chews up, suggesting that good old stick framing makes more sense for low-rise buildings. But in many ways, the Facit system makes more sense; plywood is very efficient in its use of wood, and plywood boxes are very strong, making very efficient use of plywood."
Two things again. First, how durable is a plywood house? Will it last 100 years? Or will it start to delaminate in a matter of 10-20? And if build in this manner, how easy is it to make repairs or repalcements? Will you need to deconstruct large parts of it to change one of these smaller modules if it's failing? Do you need this Plotter-container to come back to make any adjustments? Or to ship spacial plywood boxes, making you depended on the company that built the house?
And second, if you have written about this in a previous post, please just link to it I'm no familiar with all your writing; but why continue to talk about "how much fibre", when plywood or stick, as a structural system can't produce the density we need to build in a sustainable way for the number of people we are? It would be fine if we were a lot less people on the planet, but we're not. And it's not really mass timber or not, again, it's the layout of our inhabitation that I'm focusing on; which neither the ply or the stick will solve. So it's either looking in the wrong direction or putting our heads in the sand when we discuss it.
Unrelated, but in my Autistic view not; it's a little like when we claim Norman Foster's 425 Park Ave. skyscraper to be sustainable (I've even heard it called the most sustainable in the world but can't remember where). There was a building already! No matter what they did (unless it is pull carbon out of the air as a way to produce energy (now there's a plan silicon valley)), it will never be sustainable, you had to remove an entire building to build it; so if your calculations says it was, I think the calculations are set up to prove the wrong thing. Which is similar here, way argue which of two solutions is less bad, instead of looking at solution that will help us solve the enormous problem in front of us?
Great comments!
I have questions about how well this system accommodates repairs, alterations and renovations, but on a lighter level, my primary thought on this is that what it really needs to complete the process is Bruce Sterling’s talking building materials from his book Distraction that tell the assembler where they go:
Oscar peeled a strip of tape from a yellow spool and wrapped the tape around a cinder block. He swept a hand-scanner over the block, activating the tape...
"I'm a cornerstone," the cinder block announced.
"Good for you," Oscar grunted.
"I'm a cornerstone. Carry me five steps to your left." The construction system was smart enough to manage a limited and specific vocabulary. Unfortunately, the system simply didn't hear very well. The tiny microphones embedded in the talking tape were much less effective than the tape's thumbnail-sized speakers. Still, it was hard not to reply to a concrete block when it spoke up with such grace and authority. The concrete blocks all sounded like Franklin Roosevelt.
" ... a printer puts all the instructions and details that you would see in architectural or engineering drawings right on the plywood, so it becomes much harder to screw up. " Umm - wouldn't that make it easier? Especially with a battery-powered driver and Robertson screws?
I don't understand. The Substack team have written that they don't allow us to discuss services or trading. It seems you've started a conversation about a building service. We can consider Substack when we're sure that anybody may use it to discuss the services of Sol Global Management and of anybody else.