Construction Employment Is At Its Lowest Level Since 1946(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Construction Employment Is At Its Lowest Level Since 1946
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/construction-jobs-are-at-their-lowest-level-since-1946/257980/
17 comments
Buckminster Fuller did a lot of work in this area, way back when. He's probably best known for the geodesic dome, but did a lot of other stuff as well. One of his other projects was a preformed, all-metal (copper, I think) bathroom in which all the surfaces were smoothly curved (no corners to catch crud) and which had the plumbing hookups in standard locations (a bolt-on, as it were). Then there was the Dymaxion House, designed to be mass-produce in the same factories that were producing aluminum-bodied aircraft.
There are numerous problems with innovation in construction -- building codes and trade union resistance being two of them. Building codes are often written in such a way as to exclude nonstandard materials altogether. "Component X must be made of 2x6 lumber" (a "prescriptive" building code) rather than "component X must be capable of withstanding a load of Y pounds with a safety factor of Z" (a "performance" building code). An advantage of that is that building inspectors don't have to be engineers. The disadvantage is that it's hard/expensive/impossible to do something that isn't in the book.
Another problem is that there's still something of a "trailer park" stigma associated with prefab construction.
There are numerous problems with innovation in construction -- building codes and trade union resistance being two of them. Building codes are often written in such a way as to exclude nonstandard materials altogether. "Component X must be made of 2x6 lumber" (a "prescriptive" building code) rather than "component X must be capable of withstanding a load of Y pounds with a safety factor of Z" (a "performance" building code). An advantage of that is that building inspectors don't have to be engineers. The disadvantage is that it's hard/expensive/impossible to do something that isn't in the book.
Another problem is that there's still something of a "trailer park" stigma associated with prefab construction.
Unions probably have a lot to do with this in the United States.
I seem to recall footage of a building-erecting robot in Japan. Basically it was a frame that went up and down on four pillars, with an armature that could move in two dimensions on the frame, almost like a "UFO catcher" or crane game machine.
I seem to recall footage of a building-erecting robot in Japan. Basically it was a frame that went up and down on four pillars, with an armature that could move in two dimensions on the frame, almost like a "UFO catcher" or crane game machine.
Unions haven't really impacted the residential home building market. I don't think onsite automation will help much. Most of the easily automated steps (foundation laying, framing, roofing, sheetrocking) are actually outsourced by the general contractor to specialized subcontractors. They can frame out a house in a week easily and are very efficient. It's simply not worth all the effort of programming computer manufacturing instructions and setting up a machine to automate the construction of a house becuase it doesn't take long. The painful/expensive/time consuming part of building a house is the 'finishing'. Hanging windows, installing the kitchen, doing plumbing, etc. Making a machine do all of that just isn't worth it.
(Some offsite automation like bringing in pre built roof supports or foundation forms makes sense, but that is already happening.)
On the commercial side, unions are heavily entrenched. You absolutely can not build a sky scraper without heavy involvement from the metal workers trade union, the electricians union, etc. There is a lot of waste there.
I could see automation on the commercial side, but not really on the residential side.
Also working against you - construction workers are cheap right now. The unemployement is due to lack of demand, not the cost of building. We can't even fill already built buildings.
(Some offsite automation like bringing in pre built roof supports or foundation forms makes sense, but that is already happening.)
On the commercial side, unions are heavily entrenched. You absolutely can not build a sky scraper without heavy involvement from the metal workers trade union, the electricians union, etc. There is a lot of waste there.
I could see automation on the commercial side, but not really on the residential side.
Also working against you - construction workers are cheap right now. The unemployement is due to lack of demand, not the cost of building. We can't even fill already built buildings.
I am Bender. Please insert girder.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=manufactured+homes&l=1
less snarky answer: mobile/prefab homes are more common where the land is cheap, and places where a lot of people live, the land isn't cheap. I've never seen one where you can't tell (or have I?!? but seriously, probably not,) but I've been living in the city for years.
less snarky answer: mobile/prefab homes are more common where the land is cheap, and places where a lot of people live, the land isn't cheap. I've never seen one where you can't tell (or have I?!? but seriously, probably not,) but I've been living in the city for years.
I know that prefab homes have a reputation for poor quality.
But I see no fundamental reason why this must be true. Automation in every other industry increases quality, and certainly predictability. In current home construction, quality varies erratically all over the place, even in the same home, even in expensive homes.
But I see no fundamental reason why this must be true. Automation in every other industry increases quality, and certainly predictability. In current home construction, quality varies erratically all over the place, even in the same home, even in expensive homes.
This is exactly it. The cost of new construction in urban environments is dominated by capital, not labor. So there's no reason not to design a custom house or building vs. buying a prefabricated one. And that drives down the volume of manufactured housing, which drives up its cost and hurts competitiveness further.
"Manufactured homes" are widely available, but have a reputation for low quality and are viewed as one step up from a trailer. I'm sure the industry could benefit from more more automation, but the focus has to be on design and longevity to change a deeply held bias.
I don't think this is "depressing". I see a post-WWII boom that was followed by a long downward trend that was temporarily broken by the housing bubble and is now continuing. In other words, for the last 50 years we have been figuring out how to build things with fewer people, freeing them up to do other things, and I see no reason why that will not continue or why we should wish that it should not.
Exactly; even though the article mentions the meaning of the graph, it seems to misinterpret it anyway.
From my perspective as a residential carpenter I see a continuing decline in the cost of labor combined with increases in efficiency due to new materials and equipment. Combine that with the high price of land in most urban areas, and I don't see much incentive for the big home builders to push manufactured homes and on-site automated fabrication.
From my perspective as a residential carpenter I see a continuing decline in the cost of labor combined with increases in efficiency due to new materials and equipment. Combine that with the high price of land in most urban areas, and I don't see much incentive for the big home builders to push manufactured homes and on-site automated fabrication.
Also, the reference to 1946 is a bit sensationalistic, considering that the current percentage is actually very close to where it was after the previous decline in the 1990s. The boom-bust cycle of housing construction seems to be a pattern that repeats itself on a regular basis, and the current cycle is shaped pretty much like the others.
Curiously, in Canada the construction industry is experiencing the exact opposite effect and is at an all-time high:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-31/canadian-building-j...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-31/canadian-building-j...
Construction employment in Canada is high for the same reason it was high in the US in 2006. Can you guess what that is? Hint: it eventually goes "pop".
While I can't say for sure with regards to residential construction, but the amount of NEW never leased business/retail space around here is staggering. I've seen several small to medium strip centers go up in the last five years just along routes I drive daily (or at least a few times a week) and much if it is sitting vacant having never had a tenant. Several have a single tenant with 3-7 empty bays.
I'm thankful that the construction companies have enough sense to not build more new houses when the is a 6-12 backlog in existing houses. This kind of common sense isn't common in the USA.
[deleted]
A truck will drive up to the site with a stack of lumber on it. Workers will individual measure, cut, and fit the pieces together. Wiring is all eyeballed by the electrian, and custom fit. The same for plumbing. Finish carpentry is all done piece by piece, by skilled craftsmen, and all hand fitted (and are a huge component of the expense of a house).
It all seems ripe for a revolution.
I'm not suggesting that houses be all cookie-cutter identical. But a custom design could largely be built in a factory, trucked in, and then you'd just have final assembly done on site. The result would be higher quality and lower cost (and less labor).
You can see some of this with roof trusses today, which are custom built in a factory and then trucked to the site.