The Minimum Standard: Why Modern Construction Industry Needs to Change

The following outlines my thoughts on the construction industry, specifically, the problematic "minimum standard." Before I became a writer, I spent nearly two decades as a building professional in residential renovation and construction—and I am still known to put on a toolbelt for personal projects.  

I wrote this article a while ago and uploaded it to my LinkedIn because I had no other place to post it. When I started my Substack, I decided to post it there too, though admittedly, it was out of place.

Nevertheless, the piece has done well by me, landing me bylines in Green Building Canada, which subsequently led to commissioned articles in Mechanical Perspective Magazine and Piling Canada. It now seems fitting to become my first Custom Content post.

Enjoy,

—Simon

__________________________________________________________________________________

Image by Michal Jarmoluk from Pixabay

A Dirty Job

When I started as a labourer in the residential renovation and construction industry, I was happy to be working a job that kept me fit and developing real-life skills. As my skills and ambition grew and I began to run my own company, I developed an acute awareness of the shortcomings of the industry practices and their ‘standards.’ Put plainly, the construction industry is dirty. And no, I'm not speaking of the literal dirt on job sites, I'm referring to the trash, chemicals, embodied carbon, and lousy building practices considered normal in the industry. Construction is literally and figuratively a ‘dirty job.’ According to the UNEP, the building industry accounts for a whopping 37% of annual greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. 

Embodied Guilt

If it isn't apparent, I still harbour my fair share of guilt about contributing to this pervasive problem. Whether they were mine or on behalf of a client, I wittingly sent innumerable bins of construction waste to the landfill. I never felt good about it and was always left with a sense that there must be a better way. But I felt trapped. What was I supposed to do about it? I did what I could to recycle, salvage, and reuse, but that was just a drop in the bucket, especially considering the amount of waste my company alone produced. 

A Wasteful Industry

Yet, the wastefulness of the construction industry doesn't just apply to the physical garbage it produces, which is a lot, by the way; about 4lbs per square foot in residential construction. Yes, that's right. During construction, a 2000 sq.ft. home produces 8000 lbs of trash.

On the front end, wastefulness refers to the misuse and abuse of precious natural resources in manufacturing harmful building products. On the back end, wastefulness reveals itself in poor construction practices and the unsustainable nature of the finished product.

Flaws in the Foundation: The Construction Industry's Minimum Standard Fails Us All

The way we currently construct is inherently flawed. Today's standard methods have less to do with what is best and more with supporting and propping up existing industries. Yet, the consensus is that we build the way we do because it is the best way to do it. Conditioned by government, industry, and corporations to follow along and not question the status quo, we blindly build into oblivion. 

There is clearly an elephant-sized question in the poorly built room: Is there a better way? The answer is yes, but we will need an equally large knife to cut through the governmental red tape and industry rules, regulations, code books, and ‘standards’ blocking the way to genuinely sustainable construction practices.

Stuck in Old Ways

Like much of our current society, modern construction methods are based on 200-plus-year-old practices. These standards have become deeply ingrained and, up until recently, haven't been questioned. They have become so heavily cemented in our approach to building that new, sustainable, and environmentally conscious building methods are met with hesitation, over-analysis, and restrictions.

Ironically, the level of scrutiny these new, environmentally aware building methods are subjected to is not applied to the existing methods. For example, wood frame construction has deep historical and cultural roots. Parts of this building method have relevant applications, but it leaves much to be desired and improved as a standard building practice. Wood frame construction relies heavily on burning fossil fuels and other environmentally detrimental methods of power generation, not only in creating lumber products but also in heating and cooling homes.

Conventional wood frame construction also relies heavily on toxic chemicals and products to increase the energy efficiency of homes constructed in this way. At its core, wood frame construction is not a building practice that produces energy-efficient homes. Wood is a poor insulator and a great thermal conductor. As a result, wood-frame homes contain many thermal bridges.

The solution? Heavy reliance on unnatural products like vapour barriers, fiberglass insulation, and spray foam to mitigate the excessive heat gains and losses inherent in this type of construction. However, if you were to compare the energy efficiency of a straw bale home, for example, to that of a conventional wood frame home, the straw bale would win, hands down. Straw bale is not just an excellent insulator; homes constructed this way also sequester more carbon than they produce during the building process. Seems like a no-brainer. Yet, straw bales aren't commonly used, and we must ask ourselves why. 

Inefficiency in Logic

Instead of analyzing the efficiency of wood frame construction, the industry has piled on numerous products and processes to increase its energy efficiency. Enter the Passive House.

Now, I'm not going to bash this construction method, as it is an effective means for producing energy-efficient homes that go above and beyond the industry standard. But it isn't an environmentally friendly or sustainable way of building. Many toxic building products are used to construct passive homes, increasing the embodied carbon within the construction process.

Undermined Principles

Unfortunately, like the Passive House, innumerable resources and products are used in conventional buildings, only to meet the minimum standards set by governments and industry regulators.

To top it all off, modern buildings are incredibly wasteful. Apart from the garbage produced during construction, the average home wastes thousands of liters of water per month through single-use systems. Conventionally built residential homes waste as much as 30% of natural gas and other fossil fuels due to careless energy consumption and poor insulation practices. This is quite the double-whammy, coupled with rising utility costs passed onto the homeowner.

As with much of modern society, the adage “if it ain't broke, don't fix it” rings true in the building industry. Even though something works, that doesn't mean there aren't far better options available.

Structural Reset

The building industry needs a major reset and revamping. All building methods, whether conventional or ‘alternative,’ should be placed on level ground and analyzed, not just for their construction efficiency, but for their sustainability and overall environmental impact. This is being done somewhat, as evident in improvements in concrete production with low-carbon options and carbon sequestering additives, but not on a large enough scale. Subdivisions and condo buildings are still built with conventional methods and standards. Yes, qualifications like LEED are mandatory in some jurisdictions in North America, like California. Still, even then, it only addresses one of the many issues that ail the construction industry, our homes, and our living environment. 

A Rare Occurrence

Alternative building methods are regularly deployed in the custom home building industry and select architectural projects. While this is great, relying on the adventurous and environmentally conscious upper and upper-middle classes isn't a game-changer for the industry. 

The building industry is broken, and only a radical approach can fix it. We need a new way of looking at our lives, not just how we live them but where. The average person spends 90% of their time indoors—a whole other issue—yet the places where we spend that time are built to a minimum environmental and occupancy standard. It seems ironic that a natural way to avoid the adverse effects of a toxically built home is to spend more time outside. Yet, how we build houses toxifies the outdoors, driving us back inside to a more poisoned environment. This negative feedback loop signals a death spiral for humanity.

A Solution for a Sustainable Future

The solution is a radical change. It means abandoning convention and challenging the status quo. It means approaching the building of homes in a way we've never done before. A new way of constructing homes and living creates a stable foundation for our children to build the future. If that means a well-established industry disappears into the history books for the sake of humanity and the environment, then so be it. New industries, with new products and businesses, will inevitably replace the old, and a sustainable move forward will be made, keeping humanity and Mother Earth in mind.

With love for all,

Simon Dauphinee

Want something like this? I write trade features, ghostwrite thought leadership, and produce white papers, eBooks, newsletters, RFPs, website copy, plus LinkedIn and email campaigns for the building industry. Let’s talk: custom-content.co