Most small manufacturers — a big chunk of the nation’s supply chain — are running older, pre-Internet equipment. “One of the issues we have to address,” said Harris, “is this legacy equipment.”
The digital thread can be hard to trace in an entrepreneur like Ellegiers’ plan to ship an app for making a desk, instead of a finished product.
“Most shops are definitely not ready for this,” Ellegiers said.
— marketplace.org
While many American manufacturing workshops may still be stuck with legacy equipment, you can learn more about fabricators at the very forefront of the industry—employing cutting-edge technology in creative ways—in Archinect's new Matters of Scale feature series.
49 Comments
This is one great article.
Great idea. Unemploy more people while you drown the world in even more shit.
JHC, Miles. The Luddite fallacy strikes again... Long time lurker here -- has anyone gotten to the root of why you're so angry?
It's a logical fallacy to believe that you can technology your way out of a crisis in which nature has been destroyed by technology, or that society will be improved by eliminating people's livelihoods.
'The internet of things' is about the elimination of privacy and manipulation (social, political an corporate).
The replacement of skilled trades by automated processes is only progress from the viewpoint of capital - it's a complete failure from a humanitarian outlook.
The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who don't have it.
Proud to be a cynic AND humble about it! Great! Once technology "takes away your livelihood," I suppose you can finally get back to writing bumper stickers.
So many assumptions made on your part I barely know where to begin.
First, where in that article did anyone say they were going to "technology their way out a crisis"? Or did you just feel like this was a great opportunity to soapbox?
Has it occurred to you that we may live in a world that ISN'T black and white? That possibly SOME technology destroys, and SOME repairs? FFS, the only thing in common with this article and your petulant rant is the fact that this guy wants to make things digital, REMOVING THE NEED TO USE UP YOUR PRECIOUS PAPER. Oh but wait, let's get off on a tangent about silicon and environmental degradation... Are you using a computer to write your responses here on Archinect, you DESTROYER OF NATURAL RESOURCES?
Some technology is nefarious. Some of it, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, is actually created by people that would like to do some good in this world. If you're so afraid of human progress, shut down your computer, disconnect from the grid, and go find a cave.
“A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.” -- Oscar Wilde
Sorry this one isn't bumper sticker sized:
“Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don’t learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us. Cynics always say no. But saying “yes” begins things. Saying “yes” is how things grow. Saying “yes” leads to knowledge. “Yes” is for young people. So for as long as you have the strength to, say “yes'.”
― Stephen Colbert
Miles needs to jump off a buildng already to plug his globby flow of internet diarreah.
Imagine what his digital stamp looks like? A parade of lame interests and devotion to misery.
Lead on bro, lol
From what I've seen, his digital trail is pretty disheartening. And to be honest, I have no idea why I finally signed up for an account to address him specifically -- it's not something I'm wont to do. The exercise seems so incredibly futile.
But before he jumps off that building, I'd genuinely love to have a serious conversation with him about why he's so bitter, such a proud cynic. Miles -- if I'm ever in LI, mind if I swing by for a drink? I'd love some insight.
I maintain this is a great article.
mrsd, love your vivisection.
didn’t bring any drawings. Instead, “We sent them the file through email,” he said.
WOW! I wasn't prepared for such a revelation on a snowy friday morning.....
mrsd, don't know why your fixation with Miles, must be an east coast shit; but in all seriousness, in the past 3 weeks I've seen 2 articles about the present being at a peak of stuff, one from ikea, the other from apple; if two of the biggest manufacturers of "stuff" are saying we are up to our eyeballs with crap, there must be some truth to it, and if we can't solve the issues of today with the tools of today and keep inventing stuff in the hopes it will solve the issues we are ignoring today, you see the problem....anyway, I feel sorry for future crap producers, there won't be room for it, neither physically or at the base of your brain, we will not want it.
Don't like the message, attack the messenger. Guaranteed to prove you right every time.
Lame, but typical of anonymous internet trolls unable to form an original thought.
What's your point have to do with the article? I'm asking seriously.
I think it is critical for us to look at what BIG is doing in this space to feel the future trajectories of where the technology wants us to go. We are looking at a paradigm shift and only the brightest like BIG are really poised to leverage the new technology in a way like WeWork is doing to disrupt the future of the workplace.
^ lol. You must be joking
-- "Where technology wants us to go"
Putting the carriage before the horse aren't we?
I guess this thread immediately got pretty emblematic of why I don't come on here almost ever, anymore. The snark and cynicism just overtakes any discussion eventually. In this particular thread that's all there is from the get go. It goes further to show how architects seem to be a group of people with a broad range of interests, full of ambition and knowledge but whose frustrations and undigested tidbits of information - think high school philosophy class - again and again produces nothing but unproductive ranting. With that said I am still here if anyone wanted to constructively discuss the actual contents of the article and the topics it touches on.
quondrum, your very first post to me on Archinect was an anonymous attack. Given the opportunity to opine intelligently, you choose instead to repeat that very same behavior again and again. You're still anonymous, still lame, and still a troll.
FYI the topic is digital manufacturing.
To the topic at hand: What are the start-up costs, and how does this new technology actually benefit the manufacturer? Reading this article it's not addressed, which leads me to believe that the problem is not the fact that small American manufacturing is behind the times, it's just that there isn't enough money to be made subsidizing small-run manufacturing for third parties for these mom&pop shops to upgrade their equipment AND keep their doors open. Now, if one of those Silicon Valley types wants to step up and fund a system of small fab shops close to where their widgets are sold...
Miles, why the fuck dont you go onto live in Amish-land, and not use the Internet at all? Indeed, lots of public libraries have closed down ever since the "internets" became a thing, no?
We understand that you are all about craftsmanship, building etc, but is that where mankind should stop?
@JLC-1: No fixation. And I am far from an east coaster -- only stayed out there long enough to go to school. I'm confused by your statement, "if we can't solve the issues of today with the tools of today and keep inventing stuff in the hopes it will solve the issues we are ignoring today, you see the problem...." Isn't the point of invention and innovation often to solve a current issue? For example, in the NPR/IKEA interview, he talks about designing their mattresses in a way that makes them as recycle-able as possible. And I would also argue that that awareness goes against your suggestion that "we are ignoring [our issues] today." I am aware that not everyone is participating, which is why I emphasized above that none of this is black and white.
@Miles: I attacked both your message as well as you, "the messenger." Is it reasonable for me to point out that your comment only shows a willingness to address the half that was about you personally? Hilarious that you tacked on the ad hominem, immediately after condemning me for the very same thing. The definition of hypocritical.
@empea: I'd like to apologize. You are absolutely right, and I could not agree more. These discussions do tend to consistenly de-volve, it is sad, and I'll do my best to only address the topics at hand, and to do so with as little snark or cynicism as possible. I was drinking last night and for some reason Miles's attitude finally got down to the nerve. It won't happen again.
@empea + Mr_Wiggin: Regarding the content of the article and subsequent discussion: "Why not both?" 3D printers can do things that crafts-people cannot, and vice-versa. An old boss of mine liked to meet with local crafts-people before starting a project and ask them, "What are your limitations? What are you capable of? How can my design bring out the best in your abilities?" He also has no interest in 3D printing. A young person may look at a 3D printer and ask the same questions -- "What are its limitations? What can it do? How can my design bring out the most interesting qualities of the tool?" And there's an entire spectrum of people that work somewhere inbetween.
To say that "most small manufacturers are running legacy equipment, and that's an issue we have to address" doesn't resonate with me. It's only an issue for him and his ilk. There are still plenty of designers with years and decades left in their careers that I'm certain would be happy to work with moms and pops and legacy equipment. "Their shop isn't ready for this"? Find a shop that is.
Also, I don't know what the start-up costs are, but there are definitely people willing to pony up -- 8 TechShops have opened up across the US, with I'm guessing many more to come. The technology benefits this manufacturer, exemplified by the fact that TechShop alone opens up a new place essentially every year, and they're not the only one. And yes, I understand that TechShop is not technically a manufacturer, but they enable manufacturing. There's also more than a handful of companies that'll take your model and 3D print it for you, which I suppose is up this alley.
I agree that we should stay on topic about BIG's contribution to digital design and how manufacturing is trying to catch up. ARP is right that he is at the forefront and so most of the article is off base because it fails to mention the top players in the field.
^ LOL
sameolddoctor, no need to be an ass. We can get to the source of that if you wish, but I'd prefer not to. To the point, my local library has become a free video rental and they are desperate to find a reason to continue to exist. There was a time - not very long ago! - when libraries were repositories of knowledge and the very essence of community. I don't consider the loss of that progress.
mrsd, human progress has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with humanity. I would be interested in counterpoints to my second post, but all I see is a angry ranting. Is that the best you've got? FYI that's an invitation to demonstrate intelligence and thoughtfulness rather than spite and hatred.
^LOL
good to know fire had nothing to do with human progress.
Miles - would you not agree that since humans need to eat every day, from the POV of said humans a production line made up of them needs to keep going at all times whether the product is needed or not, whereas one where machines do the work can start and stop depending on demand for the output? I'm obviously aware that in the first phase this does displace human workers, but in the long run I feel it's a good direction. That's not even mentioning the increased accuracy and minimization of waste that closed production systems built on digital technologies of design and fabrication bring with them.
Mrsd - thanks. We all have those days. I do wish that this forum could be a little more self regulating in this regard. To the legacy point - I'm not even sure what they mean by this actually. Beyond having or not having industrial robots at your disposal, it seems pretty simplistic to claim that anything that isn't a robot is outdated. This I disagree with.
Re: BIG. Disagree that they in particular should be credited with progress in this field. A designer will only be as good as their downstream production line wrt to the finished product. In the case in point of W57th which is about to finish, Enclos have their own fabrication shop specially fitted to the complex systems devised for the project. This is driven by the architect's design yes, but I don't agree they should be credited principally with the technological innovation that's come out of it.
^you do realize that if/when people are replaced by machines (will mostly be working and middle class jobs) they will not have money to purchase the products that the machines make. Seems like a catch 22...or do you suggest that we implement a communist system where machines feed an enslaved 99% while the top 1% live on Elysium? Progress! Woohoo!
Technology has its good side. No doubt about that. The problem is that technology has and will continue to be used to recklessly destroy the earth for greed and silly creature comforts...and of course...our favorite use of technology is to figure out ways to kill people more easily...preferably from great distances...the tech worshippers blindly trade in those spears for scuds in the name of "progress." LOL
Technological advancement in the absence of moral advancement is the opposite of progress.
from the POV of said humans a production line made up of them needs to keep going at all times whether the product is needed or not, whereas one where machines do the work can start and stop depending on demand for the output
Nonsense. Humans can start and stop depending on demand, too. What they can't do is work 24 hours a day at zero wages with no benefits. Automated machinery has higher upfront cost but much lower production cost in volume, especially massive volume. Volume drives down price, so markets get flooded with shit. To maintain margins with smaller profits, volume is increased, creating even more shit. Thus the world is awash in everything.
Right back at you, sir. Of course humans can start and stop but they tend to not want to do that so easily just depending on simple demand when there's money to be made. Don't want to turn this into a union thread (and I'm also for unions in their healthy, well regulated state) but they are a pretty clear case in point.
Now I'm not at all disagreeing with your quite healthy dose of skepticism against endless technological progress for the sake of itself. I do take issue though with the categoric dismissal of said progress, based on the somewhat simplistic and very incomplete premise that "robots will only produce more shit we don't need".
There is also a whole subset of this that doesn't regard work that humans even can do (like drones used for various purposes), or for that matter manual labor that I think most would agree is something humans really ought not to have to do (like mining). Most of the time innovation in technology is interlinked and we can't at all times predict what will come to be used in which field. So again, to dismiss it wholesale is in my view simplistic and downright destructive. It may well be technology that's to blame for much of what's wrong with the world but it's not the craftsman or reading books again or whatever that's going to deal with global warming, feeding 8 bn people by 2020 or, for that matter, housing them.
It's an illusion to think that tech is going to fix global warming or feed 10 billion people.
Tech is always a double-edged sword. Being able to 3D print a medical implant that arguably couldn't be made any other way, or that would be so expensive to produce that it would be prohibitive in cost, is a fabulous application of technology. Putting 3D printers in every household with the promise of distributed manufacturing on demand is completely useless and redundant when we already have overnight delivery of every product you could possibly imagine, except of course for the distributors of such equipment and the plastic media it shits out. The former represents a tiny market, the latter a vast global one.
Despite having food surpluses we can't feed a vast portion of the planet's population. The problem is not production, it's distribution. Think of it as a different kind inequality: some have waaay too much while many have far too little. Or better yet put it in economic terms: there is no profit in feeding the poor.
So free us from our illusions then! If tech isn't the answer (obviously together with sane regulation and policymaking) then what is in your view? Of course tech is always a double edged sword. Some of the most cutting edge research in the US is funded by DARPA. That is a philosophical conundrum yes, but doesn't mean the results can't be applied to other than military pursuits. In fact they are, all the time.
Re: food distribution. Totally agree. If all the surplus food that gets produced through unsustainable subsidy systems in the US and the EU could be sent at feasible coat to where it's really needed, that would solve a lot. Having said that, there are reasons both economic, climatic, technological and political for why not enough food is grown where it is needed and conversely why we produce way too much of it. GMO technology is already a big part of the solution to grow food in harsher environments, get better yields and so on. Similarly it is obvious how you will get better output with modern agricultural technology than with 18th century gear. I do realize you have somewhat of a dystopian world view but all the same I'm curious - what do you suggest?
The very first thing is to dispense with economics as we know it. It's not a science, it's the application of system of control that benefits a few. Tech as we know it is largely used for the sake of profit - not necessity, health, happiness, etc.
If we had great public transit - reliable, clean, energy efficient, quick - we wouldn't need or even want cars. Think about the costs of having a car, not just operating costs such as gas, maintenance and insurance, but the larger costs such as dependence on foreign oil and all that entails (resource wars), traffic, pollution, etc. In fact we have the tech to do that but economics prevent it from happening. Henry Ford bought up street car companies and then shut them down to eliminate competition. There are great drug treatments for once incurable diseases like Hep C, which costs $100k due to corporate profiteering.
It's a bad values system - really bad - that needs to be changed. We don't need to manufacture mountains of shit for people who already have far too much - we need to create sustainable decentralized communities such that a blip in the grid doesn't knock out the entire East Coast, with more goods produced and consumed locally. This is the enemy of capitalism because it can't be centrally controlled and profited from.
Tech has it's place, but we need to utilize it in ways that benefit people rather than extend economic domination over everything and everyone with attendant cost to health, the environment, etc.
I've been simultaneously intrigued and infuriated by the article and (to a lesser extent) the conversation that's come out of it, as they both seem to be informed by a misunderstanding of the technology central to the article. I've debated chiming in since this is my area of expertise, but the conversation has shifted in a particular direction that I doubt many people would really care about, say, the history of CNC or self-organized distributed manufacturing.
It has, however, given me an idea for a future Matters of Scale feature, so instead I'll start working on that. Expect it (hopefully) sometime in April.
No one lays brick anymore, the trade is dying. Well, not anymore, and this is why technology is a good thing.
Meanwhile, Global factories parched for demand, need stimulus
January surveys of global factory activity released on Monday showed the new year began much as the old one ended - with too much capacity chasing too little demand.
^^ Funny how humans are still necessary to load the bricks, mix the mortar, rake the joints, set the corners etc. Fuck 'em, skilled labor is too expensive.
I wonder if the robot can select the best face or reject damaged bricks?
^sadly they probably will be able to soon. The Automation of most work will lead to a social and economic collapse. People need to work. Corporations will seek to maximize short term profit. Robots don't require 401k, sick days, workmans comp, etc. We are no competition.
Equipment isn't holding smaller manufacturers back, money is.
Actually machines can reject damaged bricks and select the best face/product. Machines are bad they're just a tool to help. My neighbour works in one of the largest timber plants in Europe and he loves his new fancy machines that load logs and do other stuff all day for him, his factory still employs a large number of people cause it isn't possible yet to have another machine easily fix others. We will always need engineers, they aren't going away anytime soon.
Source: worked with manufacturers and ties with large manufacturers.
Equipment isn't holding smaller manufacturers back, money is.
We can fix that with some shiny new equipment!
Aaron - we do care! Or at least I do. So if you wanted to drop any of those reflections in here...
Also I'm curious: "intrigued and infuriated"...by your own article? And the misunderstanding part I'm sort of interested to hear more about, too. I did make a comment about threads going awry here above somewhere but all in all I think the conversation sparked has been pretty interesting and touching on (maybe too exclusively so but still) larger important issues with technology.
Thoughts?
^ I was thinking that was a cheap shot too, along the lines of you're all wrong but I'm too busy to tell you how now.
Miles:
Sorry to hear you took it as a cheap shot. When I started reading this you and others were involved in a conversation about larger issues (global economics, value systems, etc.) and wanted to let things continue in that direction as I didn't feel as I had much to offer in that realm. However, since the conversation here did get me thinking about a future topic for Matters of Scale, I felt it was worth coming in with my own "thanks for getting me thinking about things" - clearly I didn't articulate that properly.
empea:
"Intrigued and infuriated" by the Marketplace piece Alexander was quoting in the news post, not my interview with Jim Durham. And the misunderstandings get to me not because of the statements being made, but because they're regarding something I deal with daily (and due to my proximity likely take for granted).
Aaron, my mistake. Looking forward to your piece.
^LOL
still an asshat not worth talking to.
^ Somebody forgot to flush again.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.