Old School building industry

It is considered a good thing when people design and build things like they did in the olden days before computers and electricity and plumbing.  However, it is like the Amish people.  Where do you draw the line?  Someone drew a hard line which seems relatively arbitrary to me, but at least they have drawn a hard line which they believe is true.  It seems as most of the people in the building industry have also drawn hard and imaginary lines which they will not cross.  I think it is much easier to understand why many of these so called professionals draw a hard line in the sand.  They don’t want to learn anything new.  It is the old adage, if it ain’t broke, I don’t need to fix it.  I have encountered so many old wives tales and myths that it is just frustrating to proceed.  Instead of trying to learn new things to improve their skill set and differentiate themselves, they feel comfortable sitting in their shit pile, telling everyone that it is gold.  The problem is that many of their customers are even more ignorant, and they only care about superficial things, so they also believe that their builder, contractor, architect is sitting on a pile of gold.  The reality is that it isn’t even fool’s gold.

Not only are many contractors, architects, etc stuck in their old ways, they also are totally unclear about what is possible and what is costly and what is inexpensive.  The main determination of costly is “I don’t understand it, then it must be costly”.  I guess it goes hand in hand with the way contractors pull the wool over their client’s eyes with such ease.  I love the phrase, “why do you want to do that, nobody does it”.  However, if you say, I want to give you lots of money to put 24K gold on everything, they will quickly tell you that you are fashionable and knowledgeable about new building trends.

Sometimes, you don’t want to believe what you read, but I read this article that said housing professionals, namely architects, will sandbag a project just so that they don’t have to use new building techniques.  The problem with new techniques is that it only causes more headaches for the architect.  It doesn’t actually provide additional revenue.  They will be forced to input new cad requirements, they will be forced to have another manual which to follow, they will potentially have to change many things about the way they do things, and probably without being able to charge extra for it.

I just explained to an architect that my friend’s house’s crawl space was so congested with posts, footings, and duct work, that I am not sure how an inspector or any other tradesman can get into that space and do any work.  Most likely, they will have to compress the ducts just to get around, which I am sure they don’t tell you.  My suggestion was why don’t they use a beam which can tolerate a longer span, so that all of the posts can be removed.  Not only would the crawl space be much less cluttered, the floors would also be straighter and more level.   People have been using manufactured I-beams for at least 20 years, and probably much longer.  The response was, my house is like that, and people manage to get around.  Amazing.  I guess people learn as little as they can about most things, and then try to differentiate themselves within a very small range, but it works for most people.

I don’t have a problem with old world craftsmanship, but the bottom line is that when most people see it, they instantly recognize the higher quality.  When people see most of the current building methods and design, they immediately think lazy or standard or nothing special.  However, as we all in the bay area have quickly realized is that logos and badging are the important thing.  The car you drive and the clothes that you wear must clearly have bright and loud logos.

High Tech Building

The Bay Area, San Francisco bay area, or silicon valley is the location of supposedly tons of innovation, but it doesn’t permeate to the building world.

I have seen so many home listings that describe their home as being high tech, but if you look carefully, it is high tech finishes.  Smart phone control is the biggest thing.  So, it has more wires and/or wireless connections, but is it truly high tech?  I think if you build a house with wood studs and use fiberglass insulation, then it can never be a high tech home.  It is an average home with high tech features.  The high tech is not an adjective describing the home.

So, what do I consider to be a high tech home. A high tech should use new and improved technological advances in the structure of the home.  What is the purpose of the building envelope?  For most people, it is to separate the conditioned living space from the outside elements.  The outside has an uncomfortable temperature, an uncomfortable level of moisture, an uncomfortable level of air movement, an uncomfortable level of particulates, and of course unwanted pests.  So, what can be done to minimize these things.  I think having a monolithic barrier with as few penetrations as possible, and then really sealing those penetrations.

I am planning to use ICF, insulated concrete forms, for the walls and floors, and then of course, I will add the monolithic concrete.  With the water, drain, dryer vent, electricity, gas, plus others, I will make sure we do a good job of sealing the penetrations.  I will most likely use spray in foam for the ceilings or between the rafters and try and have an unvented attic, and possibly spray foam the crawl space, and put up vapor barrier on the ground.  In this way, I will have a totally sealed condition living space, and I will not have anything that can hold water or that will provide food for mold or termites, and it will keep the moisture out of the conditioned space.

Using wood studs and fiberglass insulation along with a vented attic and a vented crawl space will continually circulate moist warm air, and partially trap it, which will cause mold and rot, and it will allow termites and other pests easy access into a house.  I am still unsure why people still continue to use it.  I guess it is the cheapest method in the short term, but the long term price is quite high.  Every home we considered buying and everyone one where we actually made an offer all had extensive termite damage, rotten wood, wood rot, etc.  Some of these homes weren’t even that old.

The pictures of the inspection were quite scary.  The amount of dirt, mold, termites, hanging insulation, rotting wood was very scary.  Many times, the “estimate” was over $20,000.   Just making a better more resistant structure will pay off in the long term.  If you are a developer who is flipping homes, then who cares.  Also, everyone assumes there will be these long term issues, so even the high end builder is given a pass when it happens to their homes in the future.

I have bad reactions to mold, and I am sensitive to bad odors, so even if the monetary cost is not justified, my body and my family’s health will be the recipient of a cleaner, less toxic home.

Tesla fiasco

I always wonder how people like James Jones could make his followers drink the Kool-Aid, but I always assumed that the followers had limited intelligence and they were easily manipulated.  I assumed that “smart” people couldn’t fall into that trap.  Then I realized that “smart”, meaning educated people could easily succumb to marketing and idolization.  I guess the original prominent person in the bay area was Steve Jobs.  I am not saying that Apple products have advantages over some Android or Microsoft products, but it isn’t something that should attain cult status.  It is just a tool to be used.

Now we have the great Elon Musk and his Tesla cars.  It was amazing enough that you could take a fully working car at $40,000 and take out the drive train, and make it a $100,000 car, but somehow they managed to do it, and get many buyers in the process.  Is the Tesla Roadster a good car, I think so, but again it isn’t something that should move the needle in the big picture.  However, it was the beginning of the cult.

Now, we have the Model S.  Is it a good car?  I think it does many things well.  Is it a niche vehicle?  I think so.  Does it deserve cult like acclaim?  I don’t think so.  Can it go very fast, sure it can, but so what?  I am not sure why every review talks about 0-60.  That data must be the least important number when reviewing a car, but it goes to show how people are easily swayed and manipulated.

I don’t want to get into the whole Elon Musk NYT conflict, but based on the data, I would venture that is was close enough.  Each and every point that Musk complained about was splitting hairs.  It is obvious that Broder used cruise control and it was set pretty low, maybe not 54 mph, but it was way lower than a normal person drives in a high performance vehicle, and it looks to be about 60 mph based on the data.  If that little bit of speed differential kills  the battery, I am worried.  Did Broder turn off the heat?  The data shows that it was cold in the car.  How many people are willing to drive at 64 degrees in a $101,000 car?  I know that wouldn’t include myself.  If he was really trying to sabotage the drive, just leave it at 72.  Elon Musk is grasping at straws.  Did he drive 0.6 miles slowly?  It seems more reasonable that he was looking for something, then he was just trying to run out the battery.  If he was trying to run out the battery, why stop after 0.6 miles.  I think even the laziest person in the world would’ve tried longer than 5 minutes if they were trying to drain the battery.  Did he limp along at 45 mph?  It sure looks like he is limping along at 50 mph.  I am glad that the Model S can go 0-60 in under 4 seconds, but it must be driven at under 50 to get where he needs to go.  It looks like the mileage range was below 0 in 2 instances, so that doesn’t line up with the battery capacity, where is the explanation for that?  Where is the explanation of the range dropping from 90 to 25 with 0 miles covered?

While looking at the many different comments, it appears that people will believe Elon no matter what.  I think the data actually confirms what the reporter wrote.

Anyway, we will see what happens in the next year or so.  Let’s see what happens at the end of 2013.  Do they actually sell 20,000 cars?  Do they maintain their enormous lag time from ordering a car to receiving a car?  The final opinion will be based on people’s wallets and not on blogs and comments.

I personally believe Tesla will not survive as an independent entity.  Their burn rate is too high, and their cars are too expensive.  However, I have been wrong before, and now we can see if I am wrong again, because I am saving my opinion into the cloud.