Why so many new buildings are covered in rectangles
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 окт 2021
- These panels are everywhere - and they’re part of a hidden system.
Subscribe and turn on notifications (🔔) so you don't miss any videos: goo.gl/0bsAjO
If you’ve seen new construction around your city, you’ve probably seen these distinctive rectangular panels. Sometimes plain, sometimes multi-colored, they’re absolutely everywhere. The video above explains how they conceal an entire system that helps protect buildings.
Over the 20th century, building technology has changed to allow the exterior of a building to be separate from the structure holding it up. That’s present in rainscreen cladding - the enclosure system that ends up being used in so many of those distinctive panels. By creating a small air gap between the exterior wall and the structure, it gives water an opportunity to dry - saving our modern buildings from any rot and decay.
Watch the video above to learn more about how architects and building scientists use rainscreen cladding to explore aesthetic possibilities while protecting their buildings.
Further Reading
Building enclosures is an entire field with lots of intense debates, associations, and academic research. But if you want an easy way into the world of rainscreens, check out this podcast with John Straube (www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/...) or check out his technical papers, found at RDH. www.rdh.com/technical-library/
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com.
Watch our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Facebook: goo.gl/U2g06o
Or Twitter: goo.gl/XFrZ5H
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
You can't hide Richmond form me!
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
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.
The new rectangular architecture is such an eye sore
Probably should have made a small mention of the highly flamable PE Cladding they use smh
Phil's psychiatrist: And these rectangles, are they in the room with us right now?
😂😂😂
Hilarious 🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Eth FTW
😂
Phil at the start of this video is giving off “I don’t need sleep, I need answers” vibes.
I really thought of him of this deranged investigator who has been trying to find some answer for decades..
Pepe Silva, Pepe silva!
Like Destin from @SmarterEveryDay
His office is full of string connecting pictures of buildings with rectangles.
@@zuperxtreme There. Is. No. Pepe Silvia!
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).
Fiber cement is just as popular, if not even more popular on community scale buildings. Probably why they didn't mention MCM
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"
Here's the answer!
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?
Very well said
@@russelljohnson7004 FACTS
That's Vox I guess
Phil: What hard hitting journalism do you need?
Vox: go look for rectangles.
Or pentagon's LOL
Or HEXAGONS
@@zyansheep lol I see them ALL over buildings 👍👍
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.
Wecktangulls?
Oh come on. They're not doing it because it's “environmentally friendly,” they're doing it because it's cheap.
Really? Seriously?
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).
@@Bob.martens yep easy to install and comes right off the shelf
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
Probably.
Also interesting user name
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!
Very well said. There's a reason why much of Napoleonic Paris still stands today whilst 50s+ architecture is getting knocked down constantly.
i agree. not only is it cheap, it lacks elegance and beauty!!!! a true atrocity
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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
“Why so many new buildings are covered in rectangles”
Wait till I tell you about Bricks
That would be a good crossover event haha
Back in the old days, people would clad buildings with triangles.
@HalfasInteresting entered the chat
That channel is such a tease. Never really delivers on the brick content I want.
@@Bacopa68 They actually did a full video about bricks
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!
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
I’m looking forward to part 2- why are all wheels a circle.
@@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...
Better to stay curious even if at the most mundane things haha
@@techytech1907 Yeah, It is so weird Why they don’t make wheels out of Triangles.
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.
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.
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!
There are states in the US where it's literally illegal to build a house with bricks, go figure
@@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.
Last time I checked favelas didn’t have homes made of concrete.
Can't wait for every building to look exactly the same!
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.
@@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.
@@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
They already do, clearly you haven't been to a Pulte Toll Brothers Ryan M/I Homes suburb lately.
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
Id still watch that
I prefer my fans wobbly with 1 blade.
When they do that video precisely,and they will,I will link it here.
Some random Indian guy on RUclips: Yes
YES WHY IS THAT VOX HELP
that new red building literally does not compliment the historic one
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...
Yea I dont get it… the way they mass produce these style of building prevents it from ever complementing existing regional styles.
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
We should stop regulating what people want to build on their own land anyway outside of safety and environmental concerns.
Nope. Lol
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.
grenfell tower?
@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...
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
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.
5:54
The weight of the materials in old houses are not friendly to the environment apparently. It's also about cost.
They don't cost as much money, that's all that matters.
@@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.
@@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.
@@TKOfromJohn Stone does cost a lot. It is more difficult to build with, insolation is still worse than new materials.
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.
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.
Exactly what came to my mind too.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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
The developers want to maximize profit, not the architects.
No , u dont speak for everyone. I happen to like a lot of modern building designs.
@@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.
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.
It would’ve been cool for them to go over the drama in the architectural world.
Are you a WTYP fan as well?
@@kristin7121 what is WTYP
@@flameify8285 I believe they're referring to a podcast called Well there's your problem, which focuses on engineering disasters
@@flameify8285 It's an engineering disaster podcast, with slides, which in of itself is a disaster
Q: Why so many new buildings are covered in rectangles?
A: To keep the rain out of our cheaply-built papier-mâché buildings...
I was thinking the same thing… in Germany you wouldn’t even be allowed to build like that
@@timm.7988 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.
But..but... it's called "rainscreen cladding" how can it be cheap?
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 😅
@@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.
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.
interesting comment, but tbh it looks quite cheap and often not necessarily pretty, even though it seems to be high quality material
"If you're living in an apartment anywhere from Minneapolis to Massachusetts". That's a very small anywhere
yeah, not the western half of the country?
And literally no one except for the architects finds this visually appealing.
as an architect I find this very unappealing
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.
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
Speak for yourself, I love modern design.
@@gladitsnotme speak for yourself
“We wanted it to fit in with the character of the neighborhood, so we built the ugliest, most generic looking building from every other city and built that”
it is red and bricks are red. I guess to them that is good enough. He literally says they have a line, I have line. talk about phoning it in and building a cheap plastic box in the middle of a pretty downtown area.
I don't think it's that bad
@@user-vi4xy1jw7e here comes the modernistic, authoritative, megalomaniac judgement. Haha that’s just my characterization of the ideology of the modern, which forfeits and closes the door on the noses of the common public, who has urgent, permanent demands about seeing finesse and delicateness, and whom the elite of power and culture prefer to ignore to save some money instead of sharing the beauty they enjoy. Yes, rich peoples’ houses are generally objectively more beautiful than what they build. So, I want to say, I’m not name-calling you, just denouncing the thinking. I was blind to the needs of the public also before. Modernism is said to be democratic and responsible, but in reality is egotistical because beautiful art is common need and sense. So someone powerful that does not share the beautiful, is being egotistical. And there’s beautiful austerity; but these examples are just brash. The topic of fractality in arch is just core to our sanity (look for it).
@@AlbertoSegovia. bro they just said they don't think it's that bad, i don't think it looks bad either
@@AlbertoSegovia. why just why. All he said he doesn't think its bad.
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
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.
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
Ahh yes, Fast Casual architecture.
I will use that!!
It'll be chic in 30 years like any other style
@@reiverdaemon Nah it'll be cliche, just like it is now.
@@reiverdaemon no one thinks 90's McMansions (aka the prevailing architectural style of 30 years ago) is that chic.
YES, YES, this is that, fast architecture just like fast fashion
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!
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
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.
@@glossygloss472 consumerism without forethought for the future is not just a topic though, it's a lifestyle that some are allowed to disagree with
@@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.
@@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.
1:57
How lovely it must be to mostly work on designing libraries for a living!
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.
"the building compliments the existing historical district"
no, no it doesn't sir. But good bluff attempt
"My clients are old fashioned *buy and hold onto types*
...they want to know if the *build* can withstand 20 years "🤭
[Speech 35/50]
In what world?
@@osl5686 to be fair that's the mortgage lifetime. Not necessarily the investment lifetime.
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.
Hence why older buildings in great shape became more valuable and turned into desirable places to park your wealth.
I saw an interesting comment saying this is fast fashion architecture. It's very true, the styles have become cheap and more obsolete
@@LebaneseBaron 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.
old buildings are in great shape just because someone spends money to maintain them.
Only true if the neighborhood continues to prosper
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.😁🍷
The lack of creative that goes into buildings today makes it seems like anyone can be an architect with just a ruler.
i dont think you understand what an architect does....
@@SanathSamuel Architecture is just about making pretty buildings, right? /s
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.
“Lack of Creativity”
If you want that, take up Art not Architecture.
"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.
Look at the pyramids, they used rectangles to make triangles. that's how reliable and convenient they are!
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.
Just what I thought, the red one os not alike the other one at all lol
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
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
Used to work for a construction crew that installed these panels. Contracted out by Nichiha, a Japanese fiber cement panel manufacturing company.
“Just using less material is more eco-conscious” is such an engineer way of looking at that
*adds rectangle to building*
“Oh yeah, its all coming together”
_if the rectangle fits_ ........
@@BroAnarchy tetris but in buildings
Rectangle building is BEAUTY formed in symmetry! Rectangle is the bestagon.
@@thesauce1682 um hexagon is pretty great too
@@thesauce1682 i think rectangles are just too old school.I would mostly prefer hexagons
All gets a bit depressing when you learn about the Grenfell Tower cladding fire in London...
Everyone knows about Grenfell. Except Vox, I guess.
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.
What about mold though? Seems like the super small space between the cladding and the wall is the perfect recipe for mold to grow
Phil: Wait every building always have the shape rectangles?
Architect: *Always has been*
which is a false statement if one considers the most basic types of buildings like tents shacks huts
no
Tell that to Frank Gehry.
*laughs in Oscar Niemeyer
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.
Thanks for the pointers!
You just have to fix the mortar before the damage gets too severe. It's not difficult.
@@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.
So it's environmentally friendly to build a wooden house so fragile that it's gonna collapse in the next hurricane or earthquake? Vox really used to be better.
There are brick houses that can last hundreds of years with a little maintenance.
In the NE US we have more and more wind storms. These buildings won't stand up
Wood are actually one of the most earthquake resistant material, it can withstand a lot more force compared to stone and brick in a earthquake
Are the brick houses you mentioned are from places w lots of earth quakes? There are lots old style buildings that crushed ppl in earthquakes .... just look up "killed by bricks in earthquakes"
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.
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.
The government watching us our every move
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.
@@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.
@@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
Look up Grenfell Tower, in London, UK.
Some of this cladding is literally fatal.
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
"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.
bruh dont be like that its a pain to make a building 😭
@@mmarmars how hard could it be?
just kidding xD
@@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 😆
Check if it's the same developer. Might be their "design identity" lol
5:48 is the best part of the entire video. Prove me wrong.
Without a doubt
The quick added graphic just makes this *[chef’s kiss]*
@@Tustin2121 exactly the reason why I made the comment, lol
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Depends on the environment you are building in too. Not every structure would work in all climates and areas.
@@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.
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
was not expecting a video about "rectangles on buildings" to be this interesting
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.
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?
Fast fashion architecture is a great definition
No mention what the production of these panels does to the environment...
Yeah, how dare people replace run down old buildings with nice new buildings. That's bad!
In comparison to firing brick or carving stone from a quarry this type of construction has much less of an environmental impact.
@@AC-im4hi lol, right, weirdos with google degrees have the most to say 😂not understanding energy, cost, construction, etc
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.
I don't see anyone covering their commercial building with hexagons or truncated square tiling.
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...
“Every project has a limited time and project” did you mean to write “…time and budget”?
@@treelife365 guarantee that’s budgetary, the library was in fairfield county ct which is one of the richest counties in the us
So capitalism doesn't breed innovation?
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🧱😎
we call these gentrification blocks and they are absolutely less energy effiecient. an old brick or brownstone home pays pennies for heating in comparison
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.
No the cladding wasn't the issue
the uninterrupted petroleum based exterior insulation was
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.
Umm, building departments do look for and regulate this now.
This is an 8 minute commercial for the Rain Screen Cladding building technique . Next week , sliding doors !
When I see that cladding on buildings I think it's cheap, not well constructed, and death trap. Also think of Grenfell fire which killed over 70 people.
You are absolutely correct. The interior is nothing but hollow doors, cheap fixtures, and loose floor boards (after 6 years).
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?
Someone at Vox has been watching City Beautiful and Not Just Bikes, and im here for it.
Obsessed with both of those channels 🙏🏿
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!
In Vancouver, so many condos feature orange rectangles, and it just breaks my heart that they can't use real wood to make something beautiful, and instead everything looks plastic and disposable.
"Why do buildings have siding?" Great video guys. Really plumbing new depths of truth.
Seems like masonry is still more durable but more expensive.
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.
Most houses here in the UK are still made from masonry brick on brick
@@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.
It worked for the Inca Empire in one of the most Earthquake prone regions of the World though. And they were hardly the exception
@@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?
Now i know why these buildings and houses start flying and can't stand even mild hurricane winds.
That absolutely answers all the questions to Minneapolis and the quick build of many apartments. They all have this facade, but now I wonder why, with 40 or 50 choices, why *most* don't echo the surroundings better. Maybe even with in all choices, cost is still the barrier.
This is actually something I've been wondering. I tried to find the type of siding to switch my vinyl out but didn't know the material's name. I wanted a stucco look but something more durable and landed on "fiber cement". The panels look somewhat familiar to the video but vary in styles and textures. Are these sidings not mainly fiber cement? The video didn't talk much about what the materials actually were.
As a Richmonder, love seeing my city get so much exposure on a popular video!
Same here
Where's Richmond?
To be honest, I am just surprised how humanity is still alive.
This hard-hitting journalism keeps the species going! I simply can't wait for the expose on vinyl siding myself
Did you also comment this on Johnny’s video 👀
Seems like money is usually the reason behind most decisions 😂
I love how they plan buildings to last 20-30 years while in Europe it’s at least 100 years
Exactly! This new cheap building style may be environmentally friendly in the short term but in the long term I highly doubt it
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.
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.
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.
@@doujinflip I think cases where rebuilding is cheaper than retrofitting are very rare. At least when the structure itself is in good shape.
@@ymi_yugy3133 wood framing tends to offer more flexibility in remodeling though
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
Bet it is quick and cheap compared to traditional material and labor practices
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
@@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.
@@jgaffney567 Hardie plank is several times as expensive as vinyl siding, the only real competition on large commercial buildings is stucco
I'll keep that in mind next time I happen to be cutting rainscreen cladding
cladding, serves mostly aesthetical than functional... of course you may say it also acts as a protection to the insulation layer sandwiched between the cladding and the functional wall.
Thanks a lot; was wondering exactly about this topic after I saw some houses in Tokyo covered in these rectangular tiles.
How does this type of cladding relate to the fire in London where the surfacing cladding is what made the fire worse
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.
the relation is that we have fire departments now
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.
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.
@@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
I am just amazed how they make a video out of nothing. Amazing
Technically it's architecture/design, but not really done well.
But it's Interesting!👍
Very interesting
Really?? _your_ .... *Amazed??*
@@CityPlannerPlaysChair ok☺️
Walter Parks working at Walter Parks architects was a massive plot twist.
As someine in construction but not commercial, ive always wondered the whole deal with these panels, definitely something im going to start offering in my construction company though. Made some key points that would make a great sale
“I wonder what Vox’s new video is about” *shows my apartment building*
ayo u got a rectangle infestation
Bro, you got rectangles through the roof!!!
@@Brindlebrother 😂😂😂😂😂
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.
The fact that rectangles = spice now is sad ☠️☠️☠️
This is the correct answer.
This is some neat engineering feats
Now if we can just make it so buildings actually look unique again and not cookie cutter buildings
I hate to break it to you but all buildings would look "cookie cutter" if you compare them to ones built within the same style/trend of architecture. Like if you compare old european houses or old style buildings to each other they'd look rlly similar.
00:58 why did I think there were going to be rectangles in the sky when they panned up? I’m losing it.
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
Yeah, you'll notice they mention the frame, and the air-gap, but not the building wrap...
Ye I thought that. Funny how they didn’t mention it in this video
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.
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!
Lol he sounds like a humble guy. A true leader who I'm sure his employees respect a lot
Pretty cool video. I was watching an old commercial building get renovated next to me this past year and this is what they put up on the side, thought it looked odd but efficient. Good to know the full purpose and history of it! I wonder how well the siding would hold up for places in tornado alley since it claims airflow gets behind the panels.
Just started architecture school and it’s cool to see the improvements over just a few careers
Look up Grenfell tower if you want an example of how cladding can be disastrous.
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.
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".
The grenfell thing was so bad because of cheap materials that didn't properly pass fire safety testing
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.
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.
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
Thanks for helping me to understand why the world is looking uglier and cheaper all the time. I am living in a city being destroyed be new architectural techniques. The architects of this world have a lot to answer for. And meanwhile organized crime positively loves these developments, it helps them scam off the cheap materials.
I’m from Minnesota and I can attest to this. All of our new “luxury” apartment complexes have these and many new fast food establishments too. Good eye!