One other kind of building with obvious cladding we didn't mention in the video: the "gentrification building." Vox policy reporter Jerusalem Demsas explored its rise -- you know it when you see it -- and what it means for neighborhood displacement. Check out that article here: bit.ly/3aERGRc
@chromefinch3 жыл бұрын
You can't hide Richmond form me!
@penguin9023 жыл бұрын
Ok I was JUST about to say that I only see this in super mundane white areas. Or newly white areas. So I'm glad you mentioned it in the comment lol
@uo9zzzyxwvutsrqp0nmkjihgfe433 жыл бұрын
When you walk in a neighborhood with buildings like this, you know its gonna be no diversity, just whites. And the food is gonna be overpriced for no reason.
@Manuling401k3 жыл бұрын
The new rectangular architecture is such an eye sore
@PMVault3 жыл бұрын
Probably should have made a small mention of the highly flamable PE Cladding they use smh
@alexsmith-rs6zq3 жыл бұрын
Phil at the start of this video is giving off “I don’t need sleep, I need answers” vibes.
@juliusbrom3 жыл бұрын
I really thought of him of this deranged investigator who has been trying to find some answer for decades..
@zuperxtreme3 жыл бұрын
Pepe Silva, Pepe silva!
@RiverNaiad3 жыл бұрын
Like Destin from @SmarterEveryDay
@carkchan3 жыл бұрын
His office is full of string connecting pictures of buildings with rectangles.
@JeyPeyy3 жыл бұрын
@@zuperxtreme There. Is. No. Pepe Silvia!
@ВиталийДмитриевичБутерин3 жыл бұрын
Phil's psychiatrist: And these rectangles, are they in the room with us right now?
@-Bloomingtales3 жыл бұрын
😂😂😂
@acey8503 жыл бұрын
Hilarious 🤣🤣🤣
@juliocesarsalazargarcia68723 жыл бұрын
🤣🤣🤣🤣
@randomrock34393 жыл бұрын
Eth FTW
@buyrentsaleabudhabirealest21733 жыл бұрын
😂
@FinancialShinanigan3 жыл бұрын
Phil: What hard hitting journalism do you need? Vox: go look for rectangles.
@dcallan8123 жыл бұрын
Or pentagon's LOL
@zyansheep3 жыл бұрын
Or HEXAGONS
@dcallan8123 жыл бұрын
@@zyansheep lol I see them ALL over buildings 👍👍
@ryannewman9783 жыл бұрын
Speaking as an architect - this is at the bare minimum of a "deep dive" into innovations of the construction industry. The amount of times I have heard "rainscreen" - I laughed out loud when the dramatic music introduced that NEW term.
@Revel4tions3 жыл бұрын
Wecktangulls?
@jonas10151193 жыл бұрын
Im astounded Vox managed to make a video about this cladding without mentioning that its probably the single most hated thing in modern construction. Like theres zero critical thinking in this, why every generic five over one apartment complex is getting build as cheaply as humanly possible while having a somewhat modern aesthetic to charge horrendous rents. Its the most emblematic thing of whats wrong in construction and this video is just like "rectangles huh, thats neat"
@bobbylindsey3 жыл бұрын
Here's the answer!
@russelljohnson70043 жыл бұрын
It's Vox; why would they ask a construction worker when they can interview the construction company owner and his design guy, then give a bunch of free plugs to a half dozen public relations people?
@yusofplayed3 жыл бұрын
Very well said
@yusofplayed3 жыл бұрын
@@russelljohnson7004 FACTS
@SirCommoner3 жыл бұрын
That's Vox I guess
@yournameshere3 жыл бұрын
This new style of construction looks cheap. It's great that it's environmentally friendly in the short term but the real question is if you have to rebuild it in 50 years because it's falling apart then how environmentally friendly will it be in the long run? The architect mentioned investors being concerned about its reliability and durability in the next 20-30 years but that's relatively a very short period of time given how long older buildings constructed in the old styles have lasted. Look at Roman and Greek ruins that have stood the test of time for thousands of years. We'll be lucky if this new style lasts a generation. I'm skeptical, to say the least!
@mysteriousstranger68573 жыл бұрын
Very well said. There's a reason why much of Napoleonic Paris still stands today whilst 50s+ architecture is getting knocked down constantly.
@unceremoniouslylotus3 жыл бұрын
i agree. not only is it cheap, it lacks elegance and beauty!!!! a true atrocity
@BainesMkII3 жыл бұрын
@@mysteriousstranger6857 To be fair, there isn't the same pushback against knocking down newer buildings, while there are active efforts to prevent "historic" buildings from being knocked down. I'm sure the world would have lost plenty more of its older buildings to "new" construction over the last century otherwise.
@mysteriousstranger68573 жыл бұрын
@@BainesMkII Well yes, but the main reasons for this are that classical architectural styles hold considerably more aesthetic value than newer builds as well as the fact that they're made from sturdier materials that last considerably longer. I'd give the building shown in the video 60 years at most.
@Jzhongzhi3 жыл бұрын
Then again there is a reasonable argument to be made that the world is changing so rapidly we may need to tear those houses down by then and build new ones. Not that I like it, but there may be better buildings that will be built and these structures will be gone by that time.
@jonnyrawket81583 жыл бұрын
I find it both comedic and intriguing that Vox was like: guys aren’t those buildings kinda weird with rectangles on them? Find out why!
@ikGREENY3 жыл бұрын
Something that glances past our mind they’ll make a video about, it’s amazing. Information I didn’t think I needed that much but is actually very insightful to learn about
@techytech19073 жыл бұрын
I’m looking forward to part 2- why are all wheels a circle.
@therealchayd3 жыл бұрын
@@techytech1907 Great idea! Right, we need arts funding, a full orchestra for plinky plonky music, a presenter, "experts" in transportation, history and geometry, some scientists for their input on the future of circular wheels, a few members of the public for vox pops and "human interest" segments, a ton of library footage, a full two camera film crew, editors, directors, producers, scriptwriters...
@托比亚斯先生3 жыл бұрын
Better to stay curious even if at the most mundane things haha
@thekraken11733 жыл бұрын
@@techytech1907 Yeah, It is so weird Why they don’t make wheels out of Triangles.
@jamis15663 жыл бұрын
I love how random this is. Next vox video is probably going to be like why some electric fans have 3 blades while some have 4
@manusjiedowen-ck12a183 жыл бұрын
Id still watch that
@cob5713 жыл бұрын
I prefer my fans wobbly with 1 blade.
@JozeManuLOL3 жыл бұрын
When they do that video precisely,and they will,I will link it here.
@michaelowen83 жыл бұрын
Some random Indian guy on KZbin: Yes
@2nd3rd1st3 жыл бұрын
YES WHY IS THAT VOX HELP
@DeeSchnutz-u4z3 жыл бұрын
“Why so many new buildings are covered in rectangles” Wait till I tell you about Bricks
@erickramos44163 жыл бұрын
That would be a good crossover event haha
@danp38083 жыл бұрын
Back in the old days, people would clad buildings with triangles.
@bienemaja40073 жыл бұрын
@HalfasInteresting entered the chat
@Bacopa683 жыл бұрын
That channel is such a tease. Never really delivers on the brick content I want.
@Game_Hero3 жыл бұрын
@@Bacopa68 They actually did a full video about bricks
@spaz10023 жыл бұрын
In case anyone is wondering, these panels are almost always made of MCM (or Metal Composite Material). I’m not sure why Vox chose not to speak on the material at all as it’s extremely common. It is composed of a layer of insulation sandwiches between two thin sheets of metal (often aluminum, but can be pretty much any metal).
@LuigiRandazzo213 жыл бұрын
Fiber cement is just as popular, if not even more popular on community scale buildings. Probably why they didn't mention MCM
@bethperforms61913 жыл бұрын
Ok but my understanding is that “rainscreen” cladding can indeed lead to too many leaks and thus a lot of structural damage from water. This video strikes me as far too positive about cladding, paying too little attention to the problems that people have discovered with the move away from brick to “best practice” petroleum-product structural design.
@ultrapokesim3 жыл бұрын
The video is anything but an introduction about this type of cladding system. In an 9 minute video you’re not going to be given a thorough explanation about how it performs, its development, pros, and cons. This is merely a part of the evolution to create more sustainable buildings. We don’t want building to contribute 40% to GHG Emissions.
@justinmcdaniel47992 жыл бұрын
Just like any other building product, the safety is entirely dependent on the quality and competence of the installer. Rainscreen cladding is a very energy and cost efficient product if installed properly
@MrWhangdoodles3 жыл бұрын
I didn't hear a lot on WHY these houses are so much more efficient. I lived in a house that's 500 years old, made out of very thick (75cm) granite blocks that could stop a trebuchet shot. It'll probably last into the next millennium. It stays cool all summer long and once it's warm in winter it will stay warm for a long time. My family still lives in that home and they hardly need to maintain it.
@thomk32823 жыл бұрын
5:54 The weight of the materials in old houses are not friendly to the environment apparently. It's also about cost.
@TKOfromJohn3 жыл бұрын
They don't cost as much money, that's all that matters.
@jamesavery37273 жыл бұрын
@@TKOfromJohn I thought this was pretty clear. Carbon emissions are directly correlated with the weight of materials that need to be transported. As weight goes up, so does the energy required to move it from point A to point B to point C etc. It's cheaper to produce and to transport as well, so in this case, energy efficiency and lowering the cost are aligned.
@TKOfromJohn3 жыл бұрын
@@jamesavery3727 that's true as well, but we wouldnt have to worry about carbon emissions if we can switch to renewables already! The world needs to wakeup, we're reaching a climate tipping point. The upkeep and repairs on these cardboard Elmer's glue and popsicle stick houses just costs more money for the homeowner.
@ligametis3 жыл бұрын
@@TKOfromJohn Stone does cost a lot. It is more difficult to build with, insolation is still worse than new materials.
@lkbergen3 жыл бұрын
I'm surprised that Vox didn't reference cladding and it's drawbacks - the best example is where building manufacturers look for extreme cost savings, and choose the cladding that costs the least but doesn't meet a decent level of safety; this is what inevitably happened with the Grenfell Tower Fire on 14 June 2017; 72 people perished after their tower block's cladding spread an ongoing unit fire. Cladding in general isn't unsafe, of course, but some panels are, and their use is negligence of safety.
@14loosecannon3 жыл бұрын
I think the majority of people watching this from the UK would have thought of Grenfell as soon as they mentioned cladding. Cladding has become something of a crisis here as leaseholders find their flats unsellable and being hit with massive costs to remove cladding that developers put in to save money.
@RJ-ge1kz3 жыл бұрын
Exactly what came to my mind too.
@GetOfflineGetGood3 жыл бұрын
Right, it's not as environmentally sound either if you have to replace the building within a couple decades rather than buildings standing for a century like the old brick ones.
@keyboarddancers77513 жыл бұрын
The cladding creates a gap between the cladding material and the inside surface of the building. If a fire breaks out, you can end up with a forced chimney effect or external hypocaust phenomenon which can quickly spread hot gases around the building. Only one similar major incident is needed in america to cause the market in those properties to crash as it did here in Britain.
@marsvoltian3 жыл бұрын
Melbourne, Australia. Any building with these types of external cladding here is often immediately deemed worthless due to the expenses to remove and replace it well exceeding the cost of the property itself. The Government is gradually assessing new structures for it as a reform. Millions and millions of dollars of repairs to apartment complexes, businesses etc and the bill falls onto to the owner, not the builder or architect that decided on using these products. Vehicle manufacturers have to pay for recall if there's a faulty component, but construction is a protected class here as it's the only thing our country does. Anyway, a friend put a downpayment on an apartment recently and realised the agent skirted around the cladding question of whether it had by saying 'not that we know of'. I drove him out there to tap on the walls to identify what was structural material and what was cladding. He pulled the offer. I work in two hospitals and both in the last year have had extensive works on the exterior to remove cladding. It's an abhorrent idea that Vox is negligent not to mention in this video
@kmturley13 жыл бұрын
Q: Why so many new buildings are covered in rectangles? A: To keep the rain out of our cheaply-built papier-mâché buildings...
@timtammmo3 жыл бұрын
I was thinking the same thing… in Germany you wouldn’t even be allowed to build like that
@RejectedInch3 жыл бұрын
@@timtammmo yep. Especially because 80% of the time those panels let the rain in, keeping the moisture and causing the rest of the strucure to rot, develop mould and so on. And the folks using slate as material don't even know that such material is meant to heat up the structure ( that's why is used in some northern countries) by atracting sunlight, but in a warm country/latitute, slate turns the structure into an oven. Way to save energy if one has to run air conditioning 24/7, right.
@rulisa11313 жыл бұрын
But..but... it's called "rainscreen cladding" how can it be cheap?
@moseses34143 жыл бұрын
Tbh papier-mâché mache buildings would be better tough check out the architect Shigeru Ban he literally made buildings out of paper and it literally last longer than you think 😅
@theamalgamut88713 жыл бұрын
@@RejectedInch What is the problem with moisture going through? That's part of the system. The idea is to fully isolate the inner outside wall with the best and probably ugliest material you could find, and then make the building look prettier.
@ladymorwendaebrethil-feani40313 жыл бұрын
3:54 That's why homes in the United States, even with many hurricanes and tornadoes, can't withstand them. In Latin America we make brick houses with reinforced concrete structures. They are extremely resistant against 200 km/h winds and generally only lose their roofs, but the concrete slabs remain intact.I really couldn't live in a house where the walls are made of coating.
@viper-wy5wp3 жыл бұрын
Yep, now that I'm going with my dad's work I can see that even a human with a hammer can get through a house wall. How I Know? When we do repair we take down the brick wall with a hammer....on the other side it's just cardboard and wood Wich they aren't hard to take down. Fun fact: if the brick wall doesn't have brick tie, the whole wall will collapse. So really the wall made of bricks or stones are being held on by Wood planks.
@nunyabiznes333 жыл бұрын
Same here in the Philippines. Every typhoon that would hit mainland SEA goes through us so anyone that can afford to would build their house with concrete hollow blocks and more concrete. It can get hot in the summer since not everyone can afford an AC (and even then we have the most expensive electric cost in Asia) but better sweat a bit than rebuild the house every other month!
@GeneralKenobi694203 жыл бұрын
There are states in the US where it's literally illegal to build a house with bricks, go figure
@qtheplatypus3 жыл бұрын
@@GeneralKenobi69420 that is because bricks do not withstand earthquakes well. You have to have buildings that can flex and absorb the shaking of tremor. Brick doesn’t bend it breaks. You have to build according to your environment. Building to resist hurricanes and tornados doesn’t make sense in a place that doesn’t get them. Building to resist earthquakes doesn’t make sense in a place that doesn’t get earthquakes.
@glossygloss4723 жыл бұрын
Last time I checked favelas didn’t have homes made of concrete.
@tonyolshansky92883 жыл бұрын
The end of the video is so hollow, he's talking about how designers now have so many more options for the cladding on their buildings, but it's so obvious that they all look largely the same
@frederikekaltheuner48573 жыл бұрын
Great video but missed opportunity to talk about the role that cladding played in the Grenfell tower fire in London. Here cladding was used to “upgrade” how the building looks, while creating a massive fire hazard. The same material is used all over the UK and house values have completely crashed for owners of these fire hazard houses.
@crayonburry3 жыл бұрын
It would’ve been cool for them to go over the drama in the architectural world.
@kristin71213 жыл бұрын
Are you a WTYP fan as well?
@flameify82853 жыл бұрын
@@kristin7121 what is WTYP
@josinelafontaine49393 жыл бұрын
@@flameify8285 I believe they're referring to a podcast called Well there's your problem, which focuses on engineering disasters
@bitsinakaleidoscope78093 жыл бұрын
@@flameify8285 It's an engineering disaster podcast, with slides, which in of itself is a disaster
@Juan-fv4sg3 жыл бұрын
that new red building literally does not compliment the historic one
@pierre-claudemeriot65623 жыл бұрын
Exactly what I was thinking. I was waiting for the architects explanation why they used the metal boxes. It doesn't fit in, it doesn't look natural in the least bit. The real reason is, it's cheaper than brick...
@leftwinglimbaugh92243 жыл бұрын
Yea I dont get it… the way they mass produce these style of building prevents it from ever complementing existing regional styles.
@krogerbrandtrailmix32813 жыл бұрын
when they said that they chose red to "mimic the bricks" i got irrationally upset, because they shouldve just used bricks!! i just hate the way buildings look nowadays
@Deathmastertx3 жыл бұрын
We should stop regulating what people want to build on their own land anyway outside of safety and environmental concerns.
@repairdrive3 жыл бұрын
Nope. Lol
@user-sf4fy8bq1h3 жыл бұрын
Oh come on. They're not doing it because it's “environmentally friendly,” they're doing it because it's cheap.
@Bob.martens3 жыл бұрын
Really? Seriously?
@HolyCanoley3 жыл бұрын
This will always be the case...which is why we need to make the process of being environmental friendly, cheap (which this appears to do).
@artski093 жыл бұрын
@@Bob.martens yep easy to install and comes right off the shelf
@ohno-wi1vb3 жыл бұрын
Yeah the materials it uses don’t seem too environmentally friendly and I have doubts that they will last for hundreds of years like some brick buildings have
@loganhall37693 жыл бұрын
Probably. Also interesting user name
@dylanbystedt3 жыл бұрын
Can't wait for every building to look exactly the same!
@blitzgirl65223 жыл бұрын
Buildings of every "generation" look the same, tbh. Go into a neighborhood with older style buildings and they are all clones of each other, too. This isn't anything new, really.
@jebidiahnewkedkracker10253 жыл бұрын
@@blitzgirl6522 You're right actually, but the nostalgiac in me does NOT care for the aesthetics of the "future",(a.k.a. The PRESENT) which is ironic considering that when I was really young wandering through "Tomorrow Land" at Disney's theme park, I couldn't wait for the 21st Century. But such is another hazard of getting older I suppose: The past looking better than the present.😔 (Of course it wasn't too long ago I swore I would never get addicted to a cell phone and definitely NOT use emojis either--yet here I am😂) There ARE benefits to the "future" that even a curmudgeon like me can see. I suppose I just don't like how the future "dresses" if you can dig what I'm saying.
@seankilburn72003 жыл бұрын
@@blitzgirl6522 the key difference is that older architecture generally has more character. Of course there are exceptions to this with 70s council houses in the uk being a prime example
@gladitsnotme3 жыл бұрын
They already do, clearly you haven't been to a Pulte Toll Brothers Ryan M/I Homes suburb lately.
@mysteriousstranger68573 жыл бұрын
It is so infuriating to hear architects claiming they are "complimenting" classical designs by making modern abominations that look nothing like the styles they're supposed to be emulating. "It's natural, it fits into the community." No it doesn't. Modern architects are so out of touch with what people actually want. I laughed when he said "There's a band above the windows" what a pathetically poor connection to make, they don't look remotely similar. No one would even notice it without having it being pointed out.
@paradise_valley3 жыл бұрын
the modern ones look more lazy and hastily pulled together in comparison to the cultured but old fashioned and distinct, unadaptable nature of the older buildings. The new one looks like next year you can add a fresh coat of paint and add whatever tile is popular that year.
@cia19983 жыл бұрын
Exactly!! It's so frustrating watching these architects try to justify their lazy attempts to maximize profits. I absolutely hate this fast fashion-like architectural trend. It makes every region homogenous as if there is no culture or history behind it while transforming areas into this weird dystopian look
@dandom133 жыл бұрын
The developers want to maximize profit, not the architects.
@mint-o54973 жыл бұрын
No , u dont speak for everyone. I happen to like a lot of modern building designs.
@harry4263 жыл бұрын
@@mint-o5497 I like them too, but I can't say that I've ever seen a modern building that didn't clashed hard with its older surroundings.
@jeancolley89083 жыл бұрын
"the building compliments the existing historical district" no, no it doesn't sir. But good bluff attempt
@osl56863 жыл бұрын
"My clients are old fashioned *buy and hold onto types* ...they want to know if the *build* can withstand 20 years "🤭
@leocastrillo7593 жыл бұрын
[Speech 35/50]
@juliannehannes113 жыл бұрын
In what world?
@jonarific85043 жыл бұрын
@@osl5686 to be fair that's the mortgage lifetime. Not necessarily the investment lifetime.
@meredith55573 жыл бұрын
In their defense, this mindset is mostly driven by developers who want it built cheaply, fast, and durable. Any investment back into the neighborhood to make a new building that truly complements the historical district and something the residents would look upon with pride and awe would be laughed off as an outrageous and unnecessary cost. Architects are a service industry and unfortunately theyre not always able to convince those who are funding the projects to consider the human impact of their development.
@OllieWard883 жыл бұрын
Love the video but the attitude of building for a 20-year lifespan is very US-centric. In Europe we still build with heavy bricks and stone but the buildings last for hundreds of years. My cottage is over 300-years old made for an artesian out of stone which helps to keep the heat in during the winter and the heat out in the summer. I suspect it will still stand in the year 2321!
@yournameshere3 жыл бұрын
I also live in Europe and I wholeheartedly agree with you. America cuts corners to feed its insatiable disease of consumerism. America is about quantity, not quality. The future will not be kind to the US
@glossygloss4723 жыл бұрын
I mean.. it’s an American channel mainly for an American audience. It would be like me complaining about a European channel focusing on European topics. It doesn’t make sense.
@alisonlaett96253 жыл бұрын
@@glossygloss472 consumerism without forethought for the future is not just a topic though, it's a lifestyle that some are allowed to disagree with
@glossygloss4723 жыл бұрын
@@alisonlaett9625 I never said no one was allowed to disagree with it. Also it’s not a US-centric practice. Germany had an issue where whole intact homes would come off their foundations and float away during a flood. That’s not long lasting infrastructure.
@WurstPeterl3 жыл бұрын
@@glossygloss472 It was the house with the foundation that floated away as a whole. And that’s not a widespread problem. It happened to that one house.
@siahsargus20133 жыл бұрын
Yeah the Libbie Mill library is a beautiful building, but it really is in an empty area of Richmond. And the “neighborhood” they developed looks cheap to me. Modern construction fails at looking substantial because it’s a fiberglass panel illusion and people pick up on that. I lived in Richmond, so I saw these buildings, and in the case of the library visited them frequently. And that other building, the red one absolutely gotta not blend in with the neighborhood at all. It’s like a parody of other, older, buildings.
@WilliamHalen3 жыл бұрын
Just what I thought, the red one os not alike the other one at all lol
@jazliek99413 жыл бұрын
Totally agree, the neighborhood around libbie mill looks both plasticy cheep and like they're trying to make it high class/expensive. And the red building might hit some basic design points like the band over the windows but its such a different type of architecture and design that it in no way fits in with the historic buildings
@maric243 жыл бұрын
Sad how many people in the comments seem to think this stuff looks good. It looks so cheap, synthetic, and dull, like every new identical gentrified neighborhood. I can understand if there are environmental/energy efficiency reasons, but I have a feeling it has at least something to do with big developers wanting to put up a bunch of "luxury" buildings at low cost. Really wish the video explored that a bit.
@krombopulos_michael3 жыл бұрын
@@maric24 it has been nothing to do with "luxury". If you're building something and there is a material that is inexpensive to use, and is energy efficient to create, transport, and install, and does a great job protecting the structure, then you're going to use it no matter what you're building, which is the point the video is making.
@maric243 жыл бұрын
@@krombopulos_michael except it kind of does because a lot of people seem to have been convinced that the style is definitively more "modern" or "classy" than older styles of building, and it is the predominant style that you see in luxury highrises in gentrified neighborhoods. You're not really saying anything different from my initial comment, which was just pointing out that it is probably a cost-saving measure for developers, so they can build cheap, charge exorbitant rents, while simultaneously giving the appearance of luxury.
@stevenvanhemmen3 жыл бұрын
Now go look at the fire in the Grenfell tower and you can see that the airflow between the panels is the perfect accelerant for fire to cover a whole building in a short amount of time... It's all about costs, not about safety or building integrity...
@RMS12.23 жыл бұрын
It's funny, I'm a union sheet metal worker that installs these panels for a living amongst other things. They are not cheap to make or install. I've done projects worth millions, but the materials they're made of are meant to last a lifetime with little to no maintenance.
@lang8633 жыл бұрын
interesting comment, but tbh it looks quite cheap and often not necessarily pretty, even though it seems to be high quality material
@AntonioCostaRealEstate3 жыл бұрын
Hence why older buildings in great shape became more valuable and turned into desirable places to park your wealth.
@pyrotechnic963 жыл бұрын
@@SheikhBouAoun or maybe this will just be yet another in a long line of architectural styles that will become glorified with time just like all other styles.
@ligametis3 жыл бұрын
old buildings are in great shape just because someone spends money to maintain them.
@cjezinne3 жыл бұрын
Only true if the neighborhood continues to prosper
@queenroyaltyrules553 жыл бұрын
I live in Florida, Ft. Lauderdale & my home was built in the 60s. The walls are concrete, the floor underneath my tile is solid concrete. This home has stood thru the worst of the worst of hurricanes however these newly built homes get severe damages or destroyed with 50-60 mph winds. And to be honest 50 mph winds for us is considered a bad drive at 5pm afternoon thunderstorm. I call them drive at 5pm thunderstorms because they seem to happen only when it's time to come home! It never fails. 🤣🤣 ✌🏾 Since it's almost that time.... HAPPY HOLIDAYS EVERYONE & PRAYING WE ALL MAKE IT & HAVE BLESSED FILLED 2022.😁🍷
@sor39993 жыл бұрын
Lol no. A 200 year old apartment building in NY has a bath tub in the middle of the kitchen because they didn't build them with bathtubs. Old buildings are garbage. No thanks. You're just another old dinosaur romanticizing the past.
@mabremuzikazadusu23 жыл бұрын
And literally no one except for the architects finds this visually appealing.
@lnt87563 жыл бұрын
as an architect I find this very unappealing
@KlokStudios3 жыл бұрын
Im an Jr. Architect, We dont find these appealing either, however we have no choice but to specify these aluminum panel cladding. Developers want these for the ease and quickness and if you were the developer you would want them too once you see the cost of brick veneer. I always tell people who take offense to these to go to their city/town planning board and write for them to recommend require design standards. Many cities where I live have started to require that a % portion of these 4 over 1 or 5 over 1 style buildings are brick veneer or up to a certain story before changing material.
@Xhin2293 жыл бұрын
Majority of architects wouldn't find this appealing. If the architecture field is like the hiphop scene, there would've been diss tracks for this "car shop aesthetics " everywhere lol
@gladitsnotme3 жыл бұрын
Speak for yourself, I love modern design.
@xavierdomenico3 жыл бұрын
@@gladitsnotme speak for yourself
@JohnAzzi4303 жыл бұрын
Ahh yes, Fast Casual architecture.
@doneachus67803 жыл бұрын
I will use that!!
@reiverdaemon3 жыл бұрын
It'll be chic in 30 years like any other style
@doneachus67803 жыл бұрын
@@reiverdaemon Nah it'll be cliche, just like it is now.
@yvettet98553 жыл бұрын
@@reiverdaemon no one thinks 90's McMansions (aka the prevailing architectural style of 30 years ago) is that chic.
@ernstschmidt47253 жыл бұрын
YES, YES, this is that, fast architecture just like fast fashion
@myboy_2 жыл бұрын
So cool seeing these richmond libraries!
@martinsdontjump3 жыл бұрын
One thing I've learnt from working in construction is that buildings are always being torn down amd rebuilt. Regardless of if they need to be or not. Constructions is never done no matter how big a city or town. Construction companies only make money when they are building regardless of its quality
@cmtippens92093 жыл бұрын
But as we saw a couple of years ago with Grenfell in London, builders need to make certain that the cladding that is used is not fuel for fast moving fires.
@keyboarddancers77513 жыл бұрын
The other problem is that if a fire breaks out in the building, the cladding provides an external enclosed air supply. It creates a forced chimney effect which spreads the hot gases up and around the building regardless of the combustibility of the panels themselves.
@apseudonym3 жыл бұрын
Yeah I'm really surprised nobody has mentioned the obvious fire danger that certain types of cladding pose. After the events of Grenfell many cities did checks on apartment buildings. In my city they estimated that almost all new apartment buildings have cladding, potentially the flammable kind. It's pretty scary.
@BigBang28A3 жыл бұрын
*adds rectangle to building* “Oh yeah, its all coming together”
@BroAnarchy3 жыл бұрын
_if the rectangle fits_ ........
@thesauce16823 жыл бұрын
Rectangle building is BEAUTY formed in symmetry! Rectangle is the bestagon.
@chairwood3 жыл бұрын
@@thesauce1682 um hexagon is pretty great too
@Founderschannel1233 жыл бұрын
@@thesauce1682 i think rectangles are just too old school.I would mostly prefer hexagons
@mattisbadateverything3 жыл бұрын
@@SheikhBouAoun wait until you learn about tapered insulation packages.
@cibojules3 жыл бұрын
All gets a bit depressing when you learn about the Grenfell Tower cladding fire in London...
@apseudonym3 жыл бұрын
Everyone knows about Grenfell. Except Vox, I guess.
@confettied2 жыл бұрын
This is so incredibly wild, BUT. I actually lived in one of the buildings shown in this video and was actually _in the process of moving out of it _*_when this video was posted._* Why? Because mold was growing in the walls. Next to my bed. The building was not rainproof. In fact, the building had contractors come in and cut the offending drywall out while I was still had to sleep in that room, and when it rained, you could SEE water seep into the plywood that presumably had Tyvek wrap covering on the other side. So, so much for these rainscreens, eh? Hope you didn't give the developer too much money for that brief glimpse, lol.
@craigroaring3 жыл бұрын
Ironically, the older masonry buildings will long outlast the new modern buildings. I can't stand modern architecture, and hate when homes look more like offices.
@azj_3 жыл бұрын
Phil: Wait every building always have the shape rectangles? Architect: *Always has been*
@gitgut49773 жыл бұрын
which is a false statement if one considers the most basic types of buildings like tents shacks huts
@cob5713 жыл бұрын
no
@TheWarrrenator3 жыл бұрын
Tell that to Frank Gehry.
@gabrielmachadobsb3 жыл бұрын
*laughs in Oscar Niemeyer
@steviewonderbread57003 жыл бұрын
I’ve always wondered why there’s squares everywhere but wow makes so much sense! Plastic shingles and those weird ones that are used with tar , aren’t efficient ! They get destroyed so easily and cause damage underneath compared to most of these panels.
@lordweneedu82173 жыл бұрын
The government watching us our every move
@dw6203 жыл бұрын
Someone convince me that my 1938 house built from solid granite blocks is an environmental disaster when it has a 500-1,000 year lifespan vs. new-style construction which will need repair work within 50 years and rebuilding within 100... It may cost a *little* bit more to heat, but there's no need to factor in constant repairs and rebuilds.
@Tygrave3 жыл бұрын
@@dw620 Im from the UK so theres alot of old house's, especially in Cornwall. The main thing I think for everyday people is, theres always something a little wrong with the old homes that can kind of be ignored, the problem is when the little problem gets big and very expensive to fix. A substantial amount of the market is now how the homes or buildings in this video are built. Less people know the older ways of fixing a home, so the more expensive it is to hire someone to do it, and to pay for the materials.
@dstblj52223 жыл бұрын
@@dw620 that cost to heat is energy, its a huge factor, and your building uses a huge amount of carbon hauling those pieces around, and that math just doesnt pencil
@zzk27193 жыл бұрын
Here in the UK, it's virtually impossible to get a mortgage on any property with cladding because of the fire risk it poses. Wonder if/how long it'll take the US to follow suit
@keyboarddancers77513 жыл бұрын
It will take just one significant incident in america and the entire market in these properties will implode as it has in Britain where they are literally worthless.
@Shadowmask83 жыл бұрын
I have to say this video did a really poor job of answering the question asked in the title. The answer seems pretty straightforward and you filled an 8 minute video with 5 different interviews discussing topics orbiting the actual answer and slotted a partial explanation real quick into 30 seconds halfway through. It would have worked better structured something like this: 1. I keep seeing these panels everywhere 2. What the panels actually are 3. What the panels replaced 4: interviews explaining why the panels are better than what they replaced. Jumping around the entire time just makes it hard to engage.
@Buglin_Burger78782 жыл бұрын
When something comes around and this is done it is often done to hide the fact there are issues with the item in question. Since we never focus on a point it makes it hard to ask the right questions or notice they were not asked.
@luuketaylor3 жыл бұрын
5:48 is the best part of the entire video. Prove me wrong.
@DJ-ys9pv3 жыл бұрын
Without a doubt
@Tustin21213 жыл бұрын
The quick added graphic just makes this *[chef’s kiss]*
@luuketaylor3 жыл бұрын
@@Tustin2121 exactly the reason why I made the comment, lol
@robhatesyoutube3 жыл бұрын
"We want the buildings to complement the ones that are already there" ok I've seen that same apartment complex everywhere I go, though. One size fits all, I guess.
@mmarmars3 жыл бұрын
bruh dont be like that its a pain to make a building 😭
@robhatesyoutube3 жыл бұрын
@@mmarmars how hard could it be? just kidding xD
@mmarmars3 жыл бұрын
@@robhatesyoutube in Germany theres even a book (BKI) that indexed almost all buildings and were told to follow that as cost reference. what u said "1 size fits all" could not be anymore true 😆
@Xhin2293 жыл бұрын
Check if it's the same developer. Might be their "design identity" lol
@Basil19763 жыл бұрын
This is an 8 minute commercial for the Rain Screen Cladding building technique . Next week , sliding doors !
@bunnylover4601862 жыл бұрын
As someone from Minneapolis this is every single building that has been built in the last 6+ years and I hate it
@dot.carmelo3 жыл бұрын
Used to work for a construction crew that installed these panels. Contracted out by Nichiha, a Japanese fiber cement panel manufacturing company.
@aphoticaurora13533 жыл бұрын
Most houses in the US are build to last up to 30 years. Unlike in Europe, were they make houses out of durable stone. So yeah its better to use less material on your buildings, but if they only last for a few years, it may be even worse for the enviroment than using more material, that last for at least 100 years or more.
@ot0m0t03 жыл бұрын
My grandpa, god bless hes soul, left me a nice house that I live in now. Its from 59 and I had to change.....almost everything except the walls BUT it is still 50% cheaper then a new building because of taxes, zoning, permits and labour. Tnx grandpa.
@bingoberra183 жыл бұрын
In scandinavia we make houses mostly out of wood, larger buildings from concrete. But we have plenty of wooden houses from 17th century still in great condition that people still live in.
@mokana7133 жыл бұрын
Depends on the environment you are building in too. Not every structure would work in all climates and areas.
@ligametis3 жыл бұрын
@@bingoberra18 There are still many wooden buildings over 200 years old, but that isn't an usual house. Most are way newer and most old ones were lost.
@denniss55053 жыл бұрын
That’s a bit of an exaggeration. Though they may not be built for the next millennium, a wood frame, stick built house can last indefinitely of the wooden structure is kept dry with access to air flow
@Xhin2293 жыл бұрын
And now, it's just what's available in the market. Rectangles and squares. To make designs more economical, we have to use what is easily accessible and readily buildable. Even with buildings that has an organic form, they still use rectangular shaped materials. It's really not because of the Architects/Designers getting lazy with the designs. They would also love to have variety of shapes, colors and textures to materials. It's just that, every project has a limited time and budget. Custom made materials are extremely expensive and time consuming to make. Plus, not all clients are willing to experiment on things.
@theicedragon1003 жыл бұрын
I don't see anyone covering their commercial building with hexagons or truncated square tiling.
@treelife3653 жыл бұрын
I think it is lazy architects, though! The first architect, Walter Parks, designs those eyesore, boring, bland buildings; while the second architect, Andrea Quilici, uses the same cladding to design stunning libraries...
@amiyeipi3 жыл бұрын
“Every project has a limited time and project” did you mean to write “…time and budget”?
@kay53693 жыл бұрын
@@treelife365 guarantee that’s budgetary, the library was in fairfield county ct which is one of the richest counties in the us
@KitC9163 жыл бұрын
So capitalism doesn't breed innovation?
@migueldelag3 жыл бұрын
Foe those wondering, because it isn't mentioned in the video, the most common panel is called Aluminum Composite Panel and its a sandwich of a polymer between two thin aluminum panels.
@E69apeTheMatrix4203 жыл бұрын
In England every house is still built with 2 skins of bricks and a cavity in the middle with inside plastered over. Of you build a house any other way then it's considered "non standard construction " and you will struggle to sell it, get a mortgage on it, or insure it. We don't do things fast and cheap here.
@karkaitz67142 жыл бұрын
grenfell tower?
@E69apeTheMatrix4202 жыл бұрын
@karkaitz that's not a house and yes also 2 walla with cavity if not bricks then blocks. Steel reinforced probably. It's the fascia cladding / insulation make by Kingspan that caught fire...
@PedroGeaquinto3 жыл бұрын
Let me tell you an environmentally friendly tip: build rowhouses and high buildings instead of a neverending sprawl of houses. This alone has more energy efficiency than choosing some questionable material.
@BrokeredHeart3 жыл бұрын
What I learned in my architectural tech courses was that the best layer of insulation in any wall assembly is the air layer, that buffer between the framing and the exterior material, and the better you can protect that continuous air barrier, the more well-insulated your house becomes. That layer can become obstructed or have heat transfers running through it, such as masonry ties, or furring strips, something where the temperature and humidity from the outside can be absorbed through the material directly into your house by having a physical connection running through the wall assembly. So the ultimate goal is to limit those transfer points, and thus maintain as much of that air barrier as possible to keep a regulated temperature differential between outdoors and indoors. As brick and mortar facades age, those ties can begin to break down, mortar can fall away, and bricks can crumble, which degrades the framing behind. I worked on one property where the damage was so extreme, the one side of the building was being supported by the sagging brick exterior, because years of water damage passing through old bricks and cracked mortar had caused the wood frame to rot. I could stick my pencil through the mortar it was so weak at that stage. I love the look of old brick homes, but be aware, repointing the masonry is an expensive, but ultimately essential repair to have done, because without it, you may be replacing an entire exterior wall right down to the studs.
@loading13453 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the pointers!
@SheepWaveMeByeBye3 жыл бұрын
You just have to fix the mortar before the damage gets too severe. It's not difficult.
@ultrapokesim3 жыл бұрын
@@SheepWaveMeByeBye You’d be surprised. For clients who don’t know much about maintaining their building or even landlords, they tend to only look at a building from the edges and not the structure itself. If a wall looks faded, they’ll repaint it. However on the inside if you notice water damage to your drywall you have trouble coming. Many people are too nervous to have someone look into the damage because they fear the costs. It’s the battle between first costs vs performance. Human tendency is to act when it’s too late.
@declan7653 жыл бұрын
What I think needs to be really happen is government regulation of this cladding. Look at the Grenfell tower in London. The cladding was a major factor for being flammable. Now the people are having to pay to fix this and not the company's that made it.
@mennomateo3 жыл бұрын
No the cladding wasn't the issue the uninterrupted petroleum based exterior insulation was
@keyboarddancers77513 жыл бұрын
Since the Grenfell disaster, tens of thousands of property owners in Britain are stuck in financial limbo with totally unmarketable apartments covered in cladding. They have to spend tens of thousands of pounds for remedial fire protection and/or a certificate of fire safety to satisfy their insurers. Mortgage companies won't even look at you if you ask about finance to buy one of these apartments and the freeholders are demanding astronomical charges for 24/7 fire surveillance.
@LuigiRandazzo213 жыл бұрын
Umm, building departments do look for and regulate this now.
@meberg5003 жыл бұрын
I was expecting a video about the architectural shift to everything looking like it was built straight off a model made of Legos. I guess the answer is quick and cheap. But retail and restaurants used to have distinct design. Anyone from the 1980s probably remembers the red Pizza Hut roof and the Taco Bell parapet. Increasingly we have to look for the name on the signage because the buildings have become so formulaic. I'd like to see a video about that!
@OwlCityMerlinZelda3 жыл бұрын
“Just using less material is more eco-conscious” is such an engineer way of looking at that
@KEVINBROWN-el9vg3 жыл бұрын
As an architectural enthusiast and Richmond native I was pleased to see all of those building (new & old) highlighted that I've wondered about awesome!🏛 was expecting more of a plot twist though🧱😎
@widenalgene3 жыл бұрын
As a Richmonder, love seeing my city get so much exposure on a popular video!
@SaxonBloom3 жыл бұрын
Same here
@LuigiRandazzo213 жыл бұрын
Where's Richmond?
@thetrapboy3 жыл бұрын
Someone at Vox has been watching City Beautiful and Not Just Bikes, and im here for it.
@sammussynthesizer96503 жыл бұрын
Obsessed with both of those channels 🙏🏿
@ymi_yugy31333 жыл бұрын
Is this still the most environmentally friendly option, if long term sustainability doesn't mean 20 or 30 but 200, 300 years? I'm also a bit worried that architects will overindulge like they did with concrete.
@izikavazo3 жыл бұрын
It's not necessarily architects that are pushing for rain screens. A system where you fasten panels directly on the framing would cost considerably less and would get you the same look. In the Pacific Northwest building envelope consultants are heavily involved to protect structures from the wet environment. Their success is starting to spread. By adding tracks or strapping behind cladding you're creating a layer of protection that prevents deterioration long term. How long? We don't really know yet. We'll find out more as we continue to see how the first rain screens perform. Keep an eye on mid-century brick buildings. They inadvertently created a rain screen.
@doujinflip2 жыл бұрын
If it's too old, it might not provide service to the new technologies we want in our shelters anyway. The past 200 years saw the rise of indoor plumbing, electricity, air conditioning, telephones, cell signals, and WiFi, which aren't exactly easy to install in a thick wall building. If you need to put radio repeaters in every room, it's kind of a wash.
@ymi_yugy31332 жыл бұрын
@@doujinflip I think cases where rebuilding is cheaper than retrofitting are very rare. At least when the structure itself is in good shape.
@LanaG472 жыл бұрын
@@ymi_yugy3133 wood framing tends to offer more flexibility in remodeling though
@s1nb4d863 жыл бұрын
The lack of creative that goes into buildings today makes it seems like anyone can be an architect with just a ruler.
@SanathSamuel3 жыл бұрын
i dont think you understand what an architect does....
@LutraLovegood3 жыл бұрын
@@SanathSamuel Architecture is just about making pretty buildings, right? /s
@crazydragy42333 жыл бұрын
Bad architecture isn't a new phenomenon. I hate how ignorant people are, going around "It UseD tO bE BEtEr". Fast architecture is horrible, but just like fast fashion it prevails because muh consumerism. Has nothing to do with what y'all say it does.
@TheSolarWolf3 жыл бұрын
“Lack of Creativity” If you want that, take up Art not Architecture.
@ladelame1 Жыл бұрын
"Why do buildings have siding?" Great video guys. Really plumbing new depths of truth.
@mostazameansmustard3 жыл бұрын
To be honest, I am just surprised how humanity is still alive.
@canaanval3 жыл бұрын
This hard-hitting journalism keeps the species going! I simply can't wait for the expose on vinyl siding myself
@laurenanderson47123 жыл бұрын
Did you also comment this on Johnny’s video 👀
@Unsure_Auklet3 жыл бұрын
If it looks, smells, tastes and sounds like applying the quick fashion model to building gentrification while trying to market it as environmentally friendly, it probably is right?
@michaelcarlson29483 жыл бұрын
No mention what the production of these panels does to the environment...
@AC-im4hi3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, how dare people replace run down old buildings with nice new buildings. That's bad!
@ChrisdeCastro3 жыл бұрын
In comparison to firing brick or carving stone from a quarry this type of construction has much less of an environmental impact.
@hollister23203 жыл бұрын
@@AC-im4hi lol, right, weirdos with google degrees have the most to say 😂not understanding energy, cost, construction, etc
@jgaffney5673 жыл бұрын
@@hollister2320 I bet the underlying reason is ease and cost of construction. That is what drives these things
@hhydar8833 жыл бұрын
Now i know why these buildings and houses start flying and can't stand even mild hurricane winds.
@ll-kj3up3 жыл бұрын
"Why are so many new houses covered in rectangles" Because....all buildings have often been covered in rectangles. Like SIPS and rainscreen cladding and new systems are cool and all, but rainscreen cladding is just big ol' shingles, and rectangles are the historically tried and tested shape that's easily tileable, and easy to place and build with.
@marcosdheleno3 жыл бұрын
Look at the pyramids, they used rectangles to make triangles. that's how reliable and convenient they are!
@anju83763 жыл бұрын
Bring back beautiful architecture and public beauty.
@jaybrazen3 жыл бұрын
“I wonder what Vox’s new video is about” *shows my apartment building*
@Brindlebrother3 жыл бұрын
ayo u got a rectangle infestation
@LuigiRandazzo213 жыл бұрын
Bro, you got rectangles through the roof!!!
@loading13453 жыл бұрын
@@Brindlebrother 😂😂😂😂😂
@TheButterflySoulfire3 жыл бұрын
Seems like masonry is still more durable but more expensive.
@swoleavocado3 жыл бұрын
yep. Labor is also problem. Not many masons around. Plus in places like the pacific ring of fire, they fall apart in earthquakes--so there's that.
@5c0tty53 жыл бұрын
Most houses here in the UK are still made from masonry brick on brick
@nevreiha3 жыл бұрын
@@swoleavocado in places like northern europe you can pretty easily use bricks but in east asia or locations also around the Pacific there are so many earthquakes that it would not work.
@abyteuser62973 жыл бұрын
It worked for the Inca Empire in one of the most Earthquake prone regions of the World though. And they were hardly the exception
@garyermann3 жыл бұрын
@@abyteuser6297 Of course you CAN use masonry to build things in earthquake prone regions, it's just more likely to collapse when an earthquake occurs. It's not that you can't build a society, it's just going to have more problems when an earthquake does happen. If it's the only technique your society knows, then yeah that's what you're going to use. But if it is one of several choices, why choose masonry when you have options that are better at surviving earthquakes?
@thecalham3 жыл бұрын
Alot of those rectangles are hardey board sheets or planks it's compressed concrete fibers basically. It's horrible to cut and you need a fitted rubber mask otherwise you'll end up with silica lung damage, remember guys wear your ppe
@jgaffney5673 жыл бұрын
Bet it is quick and cheap compared to traditional material and labor practices
@cameronmacpherson51723 жыл бұрын
Hardie board is a super popular product here in Canada. I install it on a lot of commercial housing projects and you definitely need the proper mask for cutting and drilling. It is also a fairly expensive product
@jgaffney5673 жыл бұрын
@@cameronmacpherson5172 Compared to comparative traditional materials? It appears that traditional materials have a higher cost because the support heavier load structure while this is just basically the bow on top.
@austingardiner68803 жыл бұрын
@@jgaffney567 Hardie plank is several times as expensive as vinyl siding, the only real competition on large commercial buildings is stucco
@lizzies.15623 жыл бұрын
I'll keep that in mind next time I happen to be cutting rainscreen cladding
@pauliboyx Жыл бұрын
you forgot to mention how historical buildings actually lasted longer, these cladded buildings are not environmental if they are going to be replaced every 20 years…
@adamradford34803 жыл бұрын
1:57 How lovely it must be to mostly work on designing libraries for a living!
@mytake81913 жыл бұрын
I am just amazed how they make a video out of nothing. Amazing
@Wico90YT3 жыл бұрын
Technically it's architecture/design, but not really done well.
@joannelam57783 жыл бұрын
But it's Interesting!👍
@galileogaming.56063 жыл бұрын
Very interesting
@BroAnarchy3 жыл бұрын
Really?? _your_ .... *Amazed??*
@mytake81913 жыл бұрын
@@Wico90YT ok☺️
@deckarddwizardd19093 жыл бұрын
My guess is, with the rise of minimalism, architects now opt for simpler and flatter facades, but those are boring and bland so they put rectangles to spice things up.
@loading13453 жыл бұрын
The fact that rectangles = spice now is sad ☠️☠️☠️
@mshara12 жыл бұрын
This is the correct answer.
@jayrigger75083 жыл бұрын
How does this type of cladding relate to the fire in London where the surfacing cladding is what made the fire worse
@RN14413 жыл бұрын
Sadly most of these tiles are exactly that - fuel plastic sandwiched between aluminium sheets. Some of them are worse than others but I think this has the potential to be the next asbestos.
@aryaaswale73163 жыл бұрын
the relation is that we have fire departments now
@jasonhogan16143 жыл бұрын
Likely depends on the materials used. With grenfell it was an plastic material between two aluminum sheets. With the rainscreen technique you are naturally making it more open for fire to breathe. if the slate panel shown in the video is just slate, metal and maybe a silicon caulking, that's not going to accelerate a fire the way that Grenfell's plastic panels likely did.
@SwaggMessiah693 жыл бұрын
The cladding was plastic sandwiched by aluminium layers, the polyethylene essentially became liquid fuel. The companies responsible had long ignored building and fire regulations and codes. It is a banned cladding. The materials used was cost cutting, and a sign of mistreatment for the less wealthy residents of London.
@jgaffney5673 жыл бұрын
@@SwaggMessiah69 Cost is what drive this type of construction. Cheaper and faster to build . They worry about consequences later and in residential buildings of this type they get tax credit and the initial builder sells at a huge profit
@JackDespero Жыл бұрын
As European, I am amazed that so many houses in the Us are made out of wood. Even the cheap houses here are made out of brick.
@Toadaboticus2 жыл бұрын
So what I'm getting is they just rebranded normal siding from the 80'-90s to make it sound like they actually innovated something new.
@kay53693 жыл бұрын
would be interesting to do a video on ACM panels - the cause of the grenfell tower fire, also a result of this growth in rainscreen cladding/increased insulation
@mandisaw3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, you'll notice they mention the frame, and the air-gap, but not the building wrap...
@_horl_85433 жыл бұрын
Ye I thought that. Funny how they didn’t mention it in this video
@keyboarddancers77513 жыл бұрын
External hypocaust: the cladding creates an air gap which in turn funnels hot gases around the outside of the structure with a forced chimney effect not dissimilar to a giant hollow blow torch.
@garricksantos3 жыл бұрын
I love how Walter Parks says he works with Matt Hogan when he clearly has the same name as the owner of the company. What a coincidence!
@yournameshere3 жыл бұрын
Lol he sounds like a humble guy. A true leader who I'm sure his employees respect a lot
@TvTriangel3 жыл бұрын
It's hard to describe but you'll know it when you see it. Gentrification building !
@JaimeNyx15 Жыл бұрын
So much material variety, and yet buildings that use this cladding all look the same to me.
@MasterDecoy3 жыл бұрын
was not expecting a video about "rectangles on buildings" to be this interesting
@infrajo33 жыл бұрын
Look up Grenfell tower if you want an example of how cladding can be disastrous.
@LCB_Meyneth2 жыл бұрын
isn't that air gap what caused the Grenfell tower fire?
@jacobbernard13933 жыл бұрын
There's a lot of criticism regarding these buildings being "cheap", and while it is more economical to build in this fashion, it's important to note that 5-over-1s are everywhere and look the way they do because they're the only legal style, due to draconian zoning regulations. If they didn't have to provide multiple parking spaces per housing unit (each costing about $10,000), and if they could build more total units by building higher than 5 stories, they'd be a lot cheaper to the renter. If these buildings employed masons and other craftsmen, it'd be lovely, but those steep costs would be passed-on to the consumer. It's easy to think housing is as expensive as it can get, but that's far from true; housing unit construction per-capita in cities is far lower than it historically was, and has been so since at least the 2008 housing crash, constricting supply, particularly in metropolitan areas with ballooning populations, like the Bay Area and Seattle. If we're to make housing more affordable, we're going to need a LOT more of it, and that requires abolishing single-family exclusive zoning, parking minimums, setback requirements, lot sizes, etc. When the costs to developers are lower, then they can afford ornamentation to make buildings more interesting.
@rlnwvr3 жыл бұрын
What about mold though? Seems like the super small space between the cladding and the wall is the perfect recipe for mold to grow
@maxxman963 жыл бұрын
You can't justify turning our cities into post modern hellholes under the guise of "environmentalism". History will look poorly on this era of construction just as we look down on the brutalism of our parents and grandparents generation. We need to make our urban areas beautiful. I work in downtown Detroit and see what they used to have, when I drive home past the new "luxury urban condos" they seem like a parody of what we once had.
@lobsterbark3 жыл бұрын
Environmentalism is just an excuse for cost cutting in this instance. Like phones no longer coming with chargers.
@edgarvillarreal82613 жыл бұрын
I would say the bricks and plaster are the longer-lasting homes. They are more sustainable but not as economically inviting short term.
@ultrapokesim3 жыл бұрын
It depends on your definition of sustainable. We have transitioned away from thick masonry building because their construction costs are very high (master masons and weeks of facade construction), but the other reason is the production of brick. Creating a brick from scratch is an incredibly industrial and polluting process that also puts people at risk. Sustainability in the true definition considers not only the environmental and financial aspect, but the lifetime operation, production, disposal, and the human or biological effects including production safety, carcinogens, equilibrium disturbance, etc. In short it’s kind of like a political compass. You can be fiscally sustainable but not environmentally sustainable, vice versa, both, or neither.
@steftorralba31853 жыл бұрын
I'll be honest, for the first 10 seconds (at least), I was thinking to myself, "Phil, those are windows"
@AutismFamilyChannel3 жыл бұрын
Seems like money is usually the reason behind most decisions 😂
@robertfreeburg35662 жыл бұрын
As an architect, I think you missed one major point. Having been in Dubai in 2008, I was struck by how poor the structural concrete and masonry work was. The inexperienced foreign labor had no ability for any satisfactory finish work for the concrete and masonry. The solution was the aluminum panels to hide the poor workmanship of the structure to produce plumb and straight walls. The problem was that they often used the wrong panels with flammable insulation cores that resulted in allowing fire to travel up the face of the building. The panels also allow for the modernization of old facades to make them waterproof and more modern. The London apartments that had a total building fire suffered from the same wrong panels selection. The panels can make a clean and modern statement.
@h0lda3 жыл бұрын
Was this sponsored by rainscreen manufacturers? I wish there had been some question raised as to how sustainable these are? How safe?
@michaeljonathan97153 жыл бұрын
IDK, they are just answer 1 question that is in the title, "why are new building have rectangles" not "why rainscreen is the best system for making a wall"
@EstyVids3 жыл бұрын
There's a crisis in the UK right now where thousands of people are stuck in unsafe apartments that they are unable to sell because developers installed cladding which did not meet fire safety standards. This scandal was brought to light by the Grenfell tower disaster in which 72 people died when their newly cladded building caught fire.
@RandomGuy-nm6bm3 жыл бұрын
How safe? Its the building industry. Heavily regulated and controlled. How safe you think they are.
@Game_Hero3 жыл бұрын
This video was just about understanding why that is the way it is, not if
@KlokStudios3 жыл бұрын
@@EstyVids Dont just blame the developers, blame the city inspectors who failed to see this in the plan reviews as well as the site inspections.
@blomegoog3 жыл бұрын
The sad part of this is that these designers and builders are still doing it the old way. No LEED certified buildings. No Net Zero Energy considerations. Not future focused. Sad.
@gavinmccoy7812 жыл бұрын
I wish Vox looked at the negatives of the pannel system too because honestly I think they're some serious drawbacks. I work in Philly and you see so many with rust stain running down the panels or fading damage from the sun. I'm absolutely sure they're construction companies and architects that are utilizing this new system but I also think they're are some abusing it and it would've been nice to seen that touched upon a little bit
@philipphermann94542 жыл бұрын
Meanwhile in europe we still build houses with hollow bricks or aerated concrete - and of course some are built with frames, mainly prefab houses. Hollow bricks are best in my opinion, the indoor climate is almost always perfect without any air conditioning. And also, our houses don't fly away in a hurricane, maybe the roof gets destroyed, but that is built up again rather quickly. But oh well, we don't have that many hurricanes anyway.
@WhatIfLeoIsAPanda3 жыл бұрын
Vox: They use cladding for ethical and environmental reasons Grenfell Landlord: … hey yeah… sure … that sounds right 👍
@uss_043 жыл бұрын
This decades architecture is basically going to be all rectangular cladding
@PotatoeEatsFishTv3 жыл бұрын
And corner rectangle all glass corners
@Bvenged3 жыл бұрын
It's great for insulation and durability of the building, but can be a massive fire hazard. Just look at Grenfell.
@timlopresti32153 жыл бұрын
From my understanding that was a shortfall in product selection. ACM panels and combustible insulation. Look up NFPA 285 - this is the controlling factor now in the IBC
@appleteeth29153 жыл бұрын
I was waiting for you to mention the obvious drawbacks where companies use cheap and highly flammable cladding. Are you aware of Grenfell at all and the danger posed to hundreds of other residential flats in the UK still covered in the cladding that caused the disaster?
@davegoes3 жыл бұрын
This the same type of cladding used in the Grenfell Tower, and that air gap both fed the flames and prevented them from being able to extinguish it.
@elesjuanpi70413 жыл бұрын
In Mexico, concrete is mostly used in construction. And it’s due to several factors: Colonial methods, abundance of these material… but specially, because homes are made to last centuries. Homes are not designed to become a waste product, but as a long-lasting one. Families tend to live for generations, consumerism is not a concept we usually use in construction.
@KatharineOsborne3 жыл бұрын
I would have loved to have seen how this relates to the Grenfell disaster. Wasn’t it the case that the panelling there had a gap behind it that fueled the fire upwards? I would not live in a building with these panels.
@topmog3 жыл бұрын
Yes, but in that incident "both the aluminium-polyethylene cladding and the PIR insulation plates failed fire safety tests conducted after the fire, according to the police".
@kramenisfalling3 жыл бұрын
The grenfell thing was so bad because of cheap materials that didn't properly pass fire safety testing
@TheRealWinser3 жыл бұрын
Not at all. They insulation was not fire resistant. The panel itself had nothing to do with it. The building was going to be covered in insulation regardless of whether it had the panels or not.
@krombopulos_michael3 жыл бұрын
This is not like that at all. Those buildings were hastily built and not to code. This material meets all required building regulations, which is why it is so widely used in modern construction.
@timlopresti32153 жыл бұрын
From my understanding that was a shortfall in product selection. ACM panels and combustible insulation. Look up NFPA 285 - this is the controlling factor now in the IBC