Appealing to nature
We've all heard it. We've probably all bought into it at least several times as well. Natural is good. Buy the all natural product. Naturally grown food is better. Don't clean with that, there are chemicals in it! Of course, some of those ideas may be right sometimes, but using that reason in itself is fallacious. The mentality is so pervasive there is a logical fallacy specifically termed appeal to nature. This fallacy also occasionally bleeds into building construction, primarily choosing planning commissions and design review boards as its preferred medium.
I have, myself, fallen prey to this mentality when I was younger, just out of architecture school. I was really into architecture conveying the truth. I still believe in this as far as ideas like spatial transparency where using hierarchical methodologies, one can, from the exterior, tell what spaces within a building are served for which purposes. But where nature is concerned, I was aghast to learn that, at least in modern housing construction practices, a lot of materials may resemble natural materials, but really are not.
This varies by region, but if you look at a house built in the last decade or so, there are many materials that convey a material, but really are something else. One may think window trims on stucco houses may be some kind of concrete, stone, or other hard material, but it's actually likely high density foam covered either in stucco or some other harder material. Have wooden window shutters? Probably not wood. It's likely high density foam, fly ash, polyurethane, or some other composite material with a wood grain finish. Hardwood siding? Nope. Probably fiber cement, some kind of printed metal if you're in a high end house, or vinyl if you're in a really cheaply built house. Surely the stone on the house is real. Sorry. It's likely an aggregate with a thin coating to make it seem like stone. Brick! If the three pigs and the big bad wolf have ever taught me anything, brick is a great building material! Well, kind of. Nobody uses brick for structural purposes anymore. Where you see brick on buildings now, it's probably "real" brick as far as material goes, but cut thin like tile and adhered to the face of buildings.
Outrage! The lies! The deception! Those were my exact thoughts when learning of this. I realized somewhere in my third year of school that I was not very good at materials. And although I worked to better my understanding of materials, the real world is a whole new beast. There are new technologies developed daily that change the possibilities of cladding systems. Architects innovate new ways to use materials all the time. But most importantly for a graduate moving into practice, is the economy of everything. Whereas in school, there is pretty much no budget to consider, in the real world, particularly in housing for the masses, budget is king.
It took me a while, but I eventually realized that natural is not always better. In cases like stone, natural actually is better than artificial. It doesn't fade like artificial and when cut or chipped, natural stone retains its appearance whereas artificial stone shows its aggregate base. But although its price point has been lowering thanks to advances in technologies, natural also costs a lot more and people aren't as willing to shell out the cash for it. In cases like wood, it is almost always better to go with the artificial material when you're talking about finishes. Anywhere where there is a lot of sunlight or moisture (meaning, everywhere on the exterior), exposed wood as finish will crack, split, rot, and fade. If you take very good care of it, wood can last a while, but most people don't. When you compare a house with wood siding compared to a house with fiber cement siding finished to look like wood, the fiber cement house will look much better ten years down the line than the one in natural wood. Aesthetically, for the most part, you would have to look pretty closely to tell the difference between fiber cement siding and wood siding. Sometimes the reflection of sunlight can give it away, but or it can look "too perfect", but if you're looking from a dozen feet out or so, it's very difficult. Of course, using a low quality product can make it obvious, like certain artificial decking materials or vinyl siding are very bad, but in the San Francisco region, builders have largely abandoned the poorly made artificial materials. The lower cost of some of these composite materials mean you get an aesthetically competitive material that lasts longer for a lower price.
Despite this, some jurisdictions still have people that will force wood onto houses where it doesn't make sense. In the south bay, several design review board members forced us to specify natural wood materials for several elements on some houses for no real reason other than the appeal to nature fallacy, which likely doubled the cost for those items. At the same time, those elements will likely degrade quickly and need replacing and repainting in relatively short order, costing even more money. One would think that these city planners, several of whom were double the age I was when I learned about material properties and economies, in my first year of practice, would know this.
On the other hand, some board members in the desert in Southern California knew this all too well. In areas where wood is cheaper due to install methods and in a very price sensitive area, they still forced us to use composite materials, making us figure out new details to make it all work.
Given the choice of the two, I'd take the Southern California board members compared to the South Bay planners since they at least showed a basic competency of materials. But it would be a whole lot more efficient to have the choice be left to the people that have to live with, pay for, and upkeep the materials.
I have, myself, fallen prey to this mentality when I was younger, just out of architecture school. I was really into architecture conveying the truth. I still believe in this as far as ideas like spatial transparency where using hierarchical methodologies, one can, from the exterior, tell what spaces within a building are served for which purposes. But where nature is concerned, I was aghast to learn that, at least in modern housing construction practices, a lot of materials may resemble natural materials, but really are not.
 |
| Real wood trim below what looks like fiber cement siding on a new house. Over the years, the real wood will start to crack and degrade while the fake wood will more or less look the same. |
Outrage! The lies! The deception! Those were my exact thoughts when learning of this. I realized somewhere in my third year of school that I was not very good at materials. And although I worked to better my understanding of materials, the real world is a whole new beast. There are new technologies developed daily that change the possibilities of cladding systems. Architects innovate new ways to use materials all the time. But most importantly for a graduate moving into practice, is the economy of everything. Whereas in school, there is pretty much no budget to consider, in the real world, particularly in housing for the masses, budget is king.
It took me a while, but I eventually realized that natural is not always better. In cases like stone, natural actually is better than artificial. It doesn't fade like artificial and when cut or chipped, natural stone retains its appearance whereas artificial stone shows its aggregate base. But although its price point has been lowering thanks to advances in technologies, natural also costs a lot more and people aren't as willing to shell out the cash for it. In cases like wood, it is almost always better to go with the artificial material when you're talking about finishes. Anywhere where there is a lot of sunlight or moisture (meaning, everywhere on the exterior), exposed wood as finish will crack, split, rot, and fade. If you take very good care of it, wood can last a while, but most people don't. When you compare a house with wood siding compared to a house with fiber cement siding finished to look like wood, the fiber cement house will look much better ten years down the line than the one in natural wood. Aesthetically, for the most part, you would have to look pretty closely to tell the difference between fiber cement siding and wood siding. Sometimes the reflection of sunlight can give it away, but or it can look "too perfect", but if you're looking from a dozen feet out or so, it's very difficult. Of course, using a low quality product can make it obvious, like certain artificial decking materials or vinyl siding are very bad, but in the San Francisco region, builders have largely abandoned the poorly made artificial materials. The lower cost of some of these composite materials mean you get an aesthetically competitive material that lasts longer for a lower price.
Despite this, some jurisdictions still have people that will force wood onto houses where it doesn't make sense. In the south bay, several design review board members forced us to specify natural wood materials for several elements on some houses for no real reason other than the appeal to nature fallacy, which likely doubled the cost for those items. At the same time, those elements will likely degrade quickly and need replacing and repainting in relatively short order, costing even more money. One would think that these city planners, several of whom were double the age I was when I learned about material properties and economies, in my first year of practice, would know this.
On the other hand, some board members in the desert in Southern California knew this all too well. In areas where wood is cheaper due to install methods and in a very price sensitive area, they still forced us to use composite materials, making us figure out new details to make it all work.
Given the choice of the two, I'd take the Southern California board members compared to the South Bay planners since they at least showed a basic competency of materials. But it would be a whole lot more efficient to have the choice be left to the people that have to live with, pay for, and upkeep the materials.
Comments