|
You are both right and wrong. Yes, experiments are good. Never will I disagree with that. However, it's the manner these experiments, proof of concepts and prototypes are presented. If you go onto the various engineering and construction subreddits, along with subscribe to various construction trade magazines, these "experiments" pop up all the time. "New" methods. "New" materials. They're "new" if you've never seen them before. However, there's a good chance a real scientific approach to this was done half to a full decade earlier and abandoned for a good reason, which is never mentioned. Unrealistic, fanciful designs are great ways to hide the flaws and look cool because of uniqueness. Too many of these projects detract from more practical methods all in the name of, "We're out to save the world, throw money at us and question nothing!" Basically, think Theranos. Detracting from real, practical, truly well-meaning but unsexy projects is where I get angry. There are 3D concrete printers out there. There's an Aussie one that escapes me that's just about commercially viable if it isn't already. There are plenty others, but the Aussie one was in the lead last I knew. Another company does an arm that can pick/place brick/blocks. While a bit slow, in like a 36 some odd hour non-stop cycle, it can build a regular, practical, normal, everyday, conventional 2 bed-room house. There are other solutions that are proven. Past experimentation. Past testing. Past prototyping. In production. Ready to go... except attention and investment is given to art projects. Which then hurts the image further for REAL projects because investors will immediately categorize them with these doomed to fail art projects. Remember, construction folks don't really care about form, it's all about function. Cost-effective, practical construction methodology for cost-effective, practical buildings that meet up to local building codes and requirements. Not art projects. As a separate example of the silliness I'm describing: There's a really fun "innovative material" made from mycelium (fungus) that pops up as "brand new" every quarter. The main substrate does change every now and then, but generally it's a sawdust brick with a fungus allowed to spread into it and form chitin. This new magical brick is biodegradable and uses waste material... except no one likes to mention that they can only maintain ~40 PSI of compression while a standard cement block is rated for a minimum of 3,000 PSI. That's why it's always used in very artsy-fartsy designs to hide the limitations. Oh, and the one thing a building shouldn't be is "biodegradable". Also known as engineered-failure in about a 2 year timespan. We haven't even gotten to viability in windy, swampy, monsoon, seismic, freezing, high freeze/thaw cycles or any other special building conditions. I so incredibly hate these art projects with a fiery passion because normies imagine, "This will help the poors". No, it won't. So yes, in the end, negativity is warranted. It's a nice line of logic and experimentation... but earthen homes are a niche and 200 hours isn't that impressive (8+ days). A handful of people can build an impact earth home of the same size in a week by hand with no machinery. Just hand tools. This is on the scope of a cannon against a mosquito level of practicality. |
The difference is that Alexander’s method was rooted in self-sufficiency. Do-it-yourself without an architect or contractor.