Building Together: Another Perspective of Private Public Partnerships

Humans are a funny species, especially as interpreted by the American Culture. While we are clearly hard-wired to organize ourselves into social structures, we can’t seem to let go of the myth of the solitary cowboy, the self-made made, the independent pioneer. We see this in the struggle between the very creation of a central government, and the stubborn posturing of the business community that it doesn’t need “them.” ? Who is the “them,” if not “us?” In the end, we’re talking about people – and organizing ourselves in a way that supports people.

A similar disaggregation of the construction process in the last decade has led to a great deal of dysfunctional behavior. Each trade has retreated into a “silo” of work, first by their own independent nature, and then trapped there through the walls built by their own labor unions as well as liability, insurance and financial barriers. The negative impact can be measured in costs and time overruns, but mostly in buildings which are just piles of bricks and sticks with little relationship to humanity.

Salvage Lumber Nail Removal

Ah – but this species of ours was given a heart along with a brain, and a fighting spirit to break through these heavy self-imposed barriers. In a previous post, I wondered if there was a way that owners, e.g. the public, could again contribute to the construction process directly, not just through the payment of the invoices. For example, could a homeowner help look for salvaged materials? Could they provide menial labor such as pulling out nails from used lumber, thus eliminating the extra labor costs which would make the use of salvaged lumber not economically feasible? (Answer: YES) Can the traditional “risk” structure be adjusted to allow for a collaborative effort, to work towards resolving issues of sustainability?

Not surprisingly, affordable housing has been the testing ground for this concept, where there is still very much an accepted culture of building, or remodeling one’s own home. While Habitat for Humanity is perhaps modeled more on traditional barn-building exercise, there are some sweat-equity programs which integrate professional contractor services with home-owner labor. Increasingly, community development organizations, such as the Community Resource Group, tackle greater issues such as water and wastewater problems.

Target School Library Project

The Target School Library Makeover has also taken this approach, where volunteers provide the demolition work and some of the interior finish work, and contractors provide the skilled labor in providing the wiring and carpentry. This form of “public-private” partnership , aka  “them-us,” not only helps reduce the cost, but also brings the community together. It also helps break through the isolation of the construction trade, helps the owners to learn how to articulate their voice in designing spaces, and may also help to introduce more young people to the field of construction. As the economy rebounds, some studies estimate that the construction industry will face a 1.5 million skilled worker shortage due to an ageing workforce and a lack of young people entering the field.

The children of the “me” generation seem to have a better understanding of the harms this attitude has caused, not only to the environment, but to our entire social fabric.   Robert Putnam decried the collapse of America's social institutions in his book Bowling Alone.  The response,  sponsored by Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government no less, is called BetterTogether.  Their website lists 150 simple ways in which we can build social capital, bridging the divide between "them" and "us." What might such a list look like in creating social capital in construction? How might we teach this to our A/E/C students? How might we build trust, connect with others in the trade, and allow the public to get involved in creating their own built environment?

Fracking Disaster

A friend called for input on a disaster preparedness plan, in case of an earthquake in Pittsburgh. What? A quick look at seismic maps indicated that the epicenters in Pennsylvania are more on the eastern edge of the state, and in the northwest corner. But then, since a 5.8 quake took Virginia by surprise last August, I was a bit less inclined to dismiss any likelihood of a quake. And I was also reminded of the 4.0 quake New Year’s Eve quake which hit Youngstown, Ohio - which is just up the road. This was the tenth quake in this area in the last nine months. Suddenly, disaster planning for an earthquake was on the table.

While the Virginia quake remains a bit of a mystery, the Ohio quake has been determined to be linked to fracking – not the disruption from drilling and cracking the shale with pressured water and chemicals, but the subsequent injection of wastewater pumped back down into the underlying sandstone. The water acts as a lubricant between two rock faces, and the slipping causes a quake. And of course, all these rock beds are connected – so quake begats quake. More are expected. This raises several red flags. In addition to the concern about this method of natural gas production contaminating drinking water supplies, there is now the additional consideration of seismic protection for new and existing buildings. These are all costs which should be factored in when making decisions on energy production.

It also brings in the question of building codes. The natural disaster provisions of the IBC and IRC are clearly not able to keep up with the changes, both man-made and triggered by global climate changes. We are mucking with Mother Nature faster than we can legislate change. The best course of action is to hit rewind, next best is pause, and third best is slow. The other course of action is to accept the reality that things will be much worse and build accordingly.

Fortified for Safer Living - ICF House

The Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (http://www.disastersafety.org) has great resources for specific building improvements related to specific natural disasters. You can plug in your zipcode and see what risks you face. And then of course, add to that the heap of new risks which we are inflicting on ourselves. The good news is that many of the improvements for the “Fortified for Safer Living” homes can protect against a wide range of natural disasters. The other good news is that if these measures are designed into the home right from the start, the additional material costs are not significant. The cost comes in when retrofitting a house, or, when rebuilding a house after the disaster. In the meantime? I suggest you follow my friend’s lead and develop a disaster preparedness plan for your place of work - for all potential disasters.

Open Source Ecology

Tractor - made from Scratch  -

It took a PhD in fusion energy to trigger a rethinking of civilization. Marcin Jakubowski, a newly minted academic, was overwhelmed with the disconnectedness of his specialized skill and heeded instead to the call of his agrarian roots. But this is not a classic story about a back-to-the earth organic farmer, but it shaped by the same primal need of mankind to determine his own destiny. In this case, is was a need to break through the boundaries created by our industrialization of goods, which are so refined as to not be accessible for repair or modification. A tractor breaks down results in a costly repair and specialized parts. The independent man is a myth, for we are just puppets tied to the strings of our manufactured goods.

So Marcin set about to build machinery from scratch. They were to be robust, modular, highly efficient and optimized, made from locally sourced materials from the industrial waste-stream, and last for a lifetime. His cause attracted collaborators, who have now identified 50 different industrial machines that it takes to build a small civilization with modern comforts, and have set out to design and prototype these machines. What’s more - all the information is being shared as part of the Global Village Construction Set (GVCS) - an open technological platform which supports open contribution and information sharing.

“Open-source” was coined in the computer world, as a result of the rise of the internet. Every day, we pop on the internet to look up information, to get a recipe for Ratatouille, to learn how to raise goats, or to learn the workings of a grist mill (a few of my recent searches). This knowledge was posted freely by individuals for the benefit of any interested reader. The capturing and sharing of information has always been a differentiating trait of humankind. Of course, as we see so well played out in children, humans also have a tendency to declare” that is MINE!” Eventually, children mature into adults whose circle of “MINE” grows to encompass family, then friends, neighborhoods, and countries and perhaps even the whole of humanity (Empathetic Civilization - Jeremy Rifkin) . And we learn to share.

While companies retain the unwillingness to share “secret recipes” of thinks, we are more willing to share ideas over technology. The results? Google, Wikipedia, MySQL and Linux. Following software comes hardware:  Arduino (electronics prototyping), Lasersaur (laser cutter), MakerBot Industries (“makers” of things), WillowGarage (robotic operations). There is even a site for opencola, a growing network of cola brewers, who freely share their recipes.

But back to our friendly farmer, Marcin. Why re-invent the industrial revolution? The importance of his work is not in the outcome, in the form of machinery, but in the accessibility of the making. It unleashes the creativity and “Can-Do” Attitude , which was expressed in earlier versions of civilizations, before everything became pre-packaged, sealed against modification or repairs. This urge to innovate is one of the driving force behind all open forums.

So I can’t help but wonder if this power of human innovation can be unleashed to the benefit of mankind in the AEC world. For example, as work continues on open-standard building information models (BIM) to develop a common data exchange, will ARCAD become an open forum? Can we develop sites which collectively design and detail building solutions for emerging populations? … and yet… I have nagging fears of “a kit of parts” which is the very antithesis of the holistic approach to building. I don’t know, but I have a fondness for folks who experiment, who learn and who share. And if we can leverage technology to help the AEC world break down barriers and share – then let’s see how we can build that tractor.

Design Thinking



Sir Ken Robinson - TED Talk

Picasso once said that all kids are born artists. But we do our very best to ‘educate’ this talent out of them. Last week, I had the pleasure of reinvigorating the creative gene among educators and engineering students, perhaps a small step in what Sir Ken Robinson calls the Learning Revolution. In our design thinking workshops, we challenged our audiences to take up the inquisitiveness the two year old and ask ‘why?,’ as well as the wisdom of Toyota to keep asking until getting down to the root problem.

The current trend in design thinking can be traced to the works of Tom and David Kelley, and Tim Brown of IDEO, and the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford, also known as the d-school. There are variations on the theme, but common to them all is the strong emphasis on exploration of the parameters of a problem before rushing to finding solutions. In Making Progress in Construction, we looked at the common role that both designers and engineers can have in identifying the right question.

For example, when looking at concept plans for an emergency health care center, the question was posed as to the size of the large waiting room. This caused a re-evaluation of the patient processing at the center, triaging those with actual emergencies and those with no health care. This, is turn, affected the programming of the floor space of the facility, and resulted in a much more functional care center.

In digging deeper, this question might even challenge the assumptions given by the building and its scope. For example, by asking the greater questions of who, what, when, where and why in the case of health care leads to ideas such as the Alaska Tribal “telehealth” workstations nested in a community center. It increases access to care, job training for local nurses and provides a data link for consultation with doctors and specialists. This is a solution which does more with less, and has been an inspiration for Croatia and other countries with remote populations.

The ‘ideation’ phase as well as the ‘prototyping’ phase of design thinking are equally open ended, prompted by brainstorming exercises and exploration of possibilities (see my prototype for a slim, trim, portable to go container.) But the amazing part comes in the results, when teams of students were able articulate their very ingenious solutions. Breaking through the barriers of conventionality, they recognized the opportunity for multi-function use of ATM machines, enhancing simple watches to become health monitoring devices, and identifying the future of education through a “no Parent left behind” strategy.

Sir Robinson describes Human Resources like Natural Resources, they are often buried deep. But this exercise in design thinking created the circumstances in which these talents surfaced, where the students were able to tap into their authentic selves and work collaboratively towards elegant solutions. If this is a taste of the learning revolution, count me in.

Design for Disassembly

In his seminal book “Cradle to Cradle,” designer William McDonough advocated that objects should be designed with the end in mind. This has been codified by the EU End-of-Life Directive , which has improved upon the traditional recycling of cars as junk, or co-mingled material. Not only does this help prevent pollution and make vehicle dismantling and recycling more environmentally-friendly, but it also provides an incentive to automotive manufacturers to reduce the use of hazardous substances, and clearly label and identify vehicle components for recovery and reuse. Producers cover the costs of collection – i.e. – the last owner does NOT pay for the disposal of the car.

Imagine if this were the case in construction, even “just” in the residential industry. As with any new ideas, there would be immediate push-back. Can’t do – houses are not cars. No indeed, cars have to provide weather protection, lighting, heating, and cooling … within a moving object. Only mobile homes have that stringent a requirement, but the majority of housing is not so constrained.

The very parameter of end-of-life would bring into question the anticipated service years of a building. This is not currently a design parameter for residential builders. At one point when I was working on a life cycle analysis problem, I contacted a bunch of production residential builders for their design service life. They hadn’t ever even posed that question. We don’t have any idea how long we anticipate the house to serve in its current configuration, nor do we prepare for eventual adaptive use.

Exterior surfaces are now considered dated after 20 years or so, and services like HVAC wear out or obsolesce in around 10 years. But the end-of life of the building structure can be anywhere from the mortgage life of 30 years (one would hope) to over 300 years. One study with the NAHB identified the expected life of framing and structural systems to “last a lifetime”? Whose? In Designing for the Long Now, we discussed the need for this shorter term service elements to be accessible for easy repair. The same could be said for cars. For example, spark plugs – often a $5 part with a $100 service charge for labor, because they are buried under the windshield wiper fluid tank. But I digress… or do I?

Could the wiper fluid tank have been designed in a different place? Or in buildings, could our electricity be designed to NOT be buried inside all the walls? Or the insulation co-mingled with the structure? Could the components be separated? Is there a benefit? An environmental hazard avoided – or a value gained? These are very different design criteria, and could trigger some very innovative solutions.

The benefit is easily defined. For while we are enamored with the image of a permanent domicile, American’s will move 11.7 times during his/ her lifetime. We are a nomadic population, only we don’t bring our tipis with us. Instead, we leave old behind and expect our “new” homes is to have updated technology and style. If buildings were built with isolated components, they could be more easily refurbished. There is also a strong market demand for temporary housings - for mining or natural gas extraction sites, for Granny Pods, emergency housing for natural disasters. What if these could be sent out as a kit, assembled in a week and used for up to 5 years before they are reconditioned and re-used?

Bensonwood - Wiring Raceway

Questions of “if” can generally be resolved. “If” there is a will, there is a way. Already in 1908, Sears showed us how houses can be designed, shipped and built from a “kit,” the IKEA version of house building. One has only to look at the pre-assembly of roof trusses, advances in panelized construction, and the pre-fab home industry to see that many of the components are already in place. But rather than prefabricating the entire home, and then shipping the assembled shell – a very expensive and unwieldy proposition - a “kit” can be sent out for site assembly. This would include one layer which is the “lifetime” structure, perhaps designed to look like timber framing, only built out of engineered wood. Then an envelope layer, similar to a SIPS, with cam-lock gaskets to pull it all together. These can be prefinished both on the interior and exterior, and stacked on a truck. Cabinetry can be hung on wall-mounted hardware with a posi-lock attachment; demising walls can be locked into position and pressure locked into place. Floors might be pre-finished hollow-core pre-cast. In fact, there are pioneering firms who are already exploring this concept, such as Bensonwood in New Hampshire.

Off-site manufacturing has the advantages of building in controlled environments, to tight tolerances, and gaining efficiencies of process planning. When combined with computerization and modular design, it also makes it easier to customize and allow for owners to make their own changes throughout the life of the building. But it can also address the bigger question of embodied energy, of effective use of materials, and of addressing market demand for change.

For automobiles, it took an EU directive to push the change. This is likely to be needed in the construction industry, since the end-of-life costs are not tied to the same entity doing the new construction. But the market forces of opportunities may continue to lead the way in developing technology, innovative builders who are pushing the envelope. Cradle to Cradle, (still) a new way of thinking.