It hasn't "taken us this long to figure out..." the issues around prescribed burning are fairly modern and related to overreacting/incorrectly responding to some major wildfires that killed lots of people in the late 19th and early 20th century. (See the formation of the USFS and the policies promoted by them, Smoky the Bear, etc.)
Fire was a regular tool in everyone in North America's toolkit, indigenous or otherwise, and not something white people were too stupid to figure out.
Yes, this is a very common activity in electronics manufacturing. Big names, amongst many others are White Horse, Smith & Associates, Rand Technologies, etc.
Depending on the sensitivity and risk to a particular product, it's not uncommon to have a suite of testing done on a sample from every received shipment of a particular good, or set of goods. Testing typically goes beyond counterfeit detection to being within manufacturability and usability specs (e.g. solderability, lot code validation, date code validation, etc.)
Usually priced out of the hobbyist range, think 2-3k to do basic suite verification on a sample of 5 components. That would not include de-capping and die examination.
Glyphosate is not soil active, so there are no "trees that can grow in glyphosate-doused soil."
The primary reason for broad herbicide treatment as part of site prep is to avoid low-value, or ecologically opportunist species that thrive in disturbed soil/land, and prevent either the target species from growing, or create an environment which lacks the diversity necessary for the region. For example, sweetgum, huisache, black locust, chinese tallow (as examples from specific regions in the US), will all take over and completely dominate a deforested section and prevent oaks, pines, etc. and appropriate forb for wildlife without consistent, ongoing burns.
FWIW, there are no "trees which are GMOd to live with glyphosate application" - you're thinking non-tree crops. Nearly every softwood and hardwood tree is susceptible to damage from Glyphosate.
Only one of the trees I listed was invasive, the others are opportunistic natives to their regions that will outgrow everything else.
The nice "diverse" forest you're thinking of in your mind took a long time to become that way, the normal state of nature is to not create a perfect balance out of the gate, but for constant competition and regularly have to cycle through multiple iterations of configuration which are, by all means, not as productive or valuable for wildlife/nature as their final states. None of that means that using a herbicide is sufficient, but without, you're looking at potentially hundreds of years to get back a usable environment for wildlife that is well-balanced vs 10's of years.
Outside of a few soil-active herbicides, most of what they use is one-and-done and can be applied selectively to only problem plants with minimal unintended consequences.
Where I live in germany, there used to be extensive spruce monocultures forests everywhere.
They are mostly chopped down now and replaced with a mixed young forest, all without herbicides. (But with some planted trees, cleansing and fences to protect the young forest from deers) So after 15 years they surely are not comparible to old grown forests, but they are very diverse and alive. So I strongly question the assumption that herbicides are necessary or beneficial to create a diverse forest.
Most of the dominating species in the first years will be (were) replaced by something else eventually.
To be clear: herbicides are not essential in every area, but in some areas it is completely cost-ineffective to promote appropriate diversity and wildlife habitat without some use of it.
FWIW, in the region I'm currently managing a 100-acre habitat that was previously a pine plantation, it would be sacrosanct to "fence out deer." Early stage re-growth is wonderful deer habitat, lots of sunlight generates lots of forbs. However, in the same region I am in, any area left to its own devices becomes quickly overgrown to the point of making poor habitat for wildlife (no viable food, no viable cover, even though it's "thick" it is not useful to species such as deer, rabbits, quail, turkeys, etc. lacking the right kinds of food and cover).
Mechanical and fire (prescribed burns) are our primary tool we use, along with appropriate canopy thinning. However, when dealing with opportunistic species (the most aggressive here being sweetgum and chinese tallow), these methods are not effective. As each of these species re-sprout and spread via roots as well as seed, mechanical and fire only top-kill, resulting in them coming back thicker again within months. Repeated mechanical control presents significant issues both for valuable forb and impacts on land (a skid-steer is very heavy and results in significant compaction of soil, for example) and is incredibly expensive at about $1,000/acre when following proper selective practices.
We were also very much against the use of herbicides, but after numerous conversations with local biologists and forestry management professionals (our state provides them as a service), we finally realized that we were in a losing battle and selective application was the way to go. With basal spraying for larger stems of unwanted species and selective foliar for seedlings, we've reduced our costs to a fraction, reduced the damage to land and erosion, and we're seeing higher value (ecologically, not monetary) habitat with a faster turn time. Our approach is to eliminate all non-native, invasive species, develop the mix of pine savannah and hardwood bottoms our region has historically represented, and we're seeing the returns we expected much quicker than mechanical methods were providing us.
None of the "chemicals" we use are soil-active, and all of them have a half-life measured in days. We don't use them where girdling or sawing are sufficient to open canopy or create snags, and we don't broadly apply them.
I'm glad you live in a region where there are no opportunistic trees and shrubs which will crowd out other species, and where mechanical control is sufficient to restore traditional diversity, but alas, it still doesn't have the same reward everywhere. Anything left to its own devices in this region will rapidly, I mean within 5 years, become what we call the "pine curtain," useless to both wildlife and man. For centuries even the indigenous tribes had to practice regular controlled burning to fight this.
Well, we do have invasive species as well (and other problems, like too much acid from the spruce in the soil), but fortunately not your kind, which seem indeed tricky to deal with.
This I found interesting (on wikipedia):
"Herbivores and insects have a conditioned behavioral avoidance to eating the leaves of Chinese tallow tree, and this, rather than plant toxins, may be a reason for the success of the plant as an invasive"
So the main problem is, for whatever reasons, animals could eat the chinese tallow tree, but don't? That is a problem indeed, but I think one that evolution would sort out eventually. Might take more time, though.
"restore traditional diversity"
And this is a common debate here as well, but I don't think it makes sense to try to restore the "pristine condition". Things have changed too much and they will continue to change. So yes also here we have invasive species that achieved local domination. But it won't last. If there is a monoculture, then other species will evolve (or find their way towards it) to make use of that food and space, as there is so much of it. But if you want fast results, well, you have to do more than waiting, I agree on that.
To elaborate on this great answer, the technical term is "ecological succession", defined on Wikipedia as "the process of change in the species that make up an ecological community over time."
Plants do not just fill their niche, they alter the environment over time, which in aggregate alters the ecosystem as a whole. Animals and microbes also play a role in this process. E.g. the way rodents and birds disperse seeds, or how pests can destroy a species, or even how elephants can uproot whole trees.
> the normal state of nature is to not create a perfect balance out of the gate
That is true. Additionally, a balance will never be achieved no matter how long you wait, either. That's the state of nature; some things are always replacing other things.
Ecological stability refers to a concept that is never realized. You can pretend it exists by ignoring the variation that you feel is unimportant. Over time, that variation will make its way into the areas that you thought were stable.
The reason I wrote my remark is the relatively recent uptick in "in nature everything always changed regardless of whether we exist, therefore we're absolved from everything that's happening with the biosphere"-style arguments.
Obviously on the face of it the premise is true, but time scales, operationalisation and causes/responsibilities matter critically there.
Islands of stability exist (like our homeostatic bodies, species that have survived for millions of years, old growth forests, etc) in nature. But whether one cares about (not unnecessarily, prematurely ending) any of this is a very different matter.
Even in Houston, which is an exceptionally hot and humid city in the summer, and cold and humid in the winter, outdoor dining is ubiquitous across the city in all seasons. A popular restaurant down the street from me is outdoor-only and stays packed in the evenings year round. There is no dearth of outdoor dining in the US.
On monsoon days, or during periods of peak heat/cold? Yes, the outdoor table attendance is down, but rarely zero.
As others have stated though, outdoor dining in other cities is typically nothing at all like what the Atlantic is discussing in NYC. NYC wasn't built for outdoor dining, but it has nothing to do with being car-centric, or too hot/humid.
The official terms at play here are "modular" and "mobile" home. These are the terms that define the kind of house you're thinking of. "Mobile" homes are constructed to a separate set of parameters, and are not "permanently" mounted on the property. (Regardless of how "permanent" you make the attachment for a "mobile" home, it is still titled separately from the land.)
Modular is the term of art for a factory-built home that is installed on the land and becomes titled as "real property" with the land its self, search for "modular home builders." Nearly every modular builder also builds mobile homes, so when you go to their site, look for "available as modular" or "modular" as a category or search term.
FWIW, "modular" and "mobile" are actually built to two different manufacturing requirements and specification, and why "mobile" homes are often disallowed in towns and cities, amongst other reasons, is that HUD controls the specs for "mobile" while "modular" must meet local building codes.
As someone who recently went through the pre-fab house market for a weekend/cabin build for a property we own, this product suffers from the same problem nearly every other pre-fab "designer" product we saw out there: the cost is substantially more than custom-built and the time to deliver is as long, or longer.
I mention "designer" since there is a pre-fab market for non-designer homes, which do come pretty close to the mission of being a better value without being a "mobile home" - think Pratt, etc.
Ultimately, we went stick-built on-site and paid roughly 35-50% per sq ft of what a comparable pre-fab designer home would have cost, while allowing us to focus costs on the aspects of the house that mattered most to us, while going budget where it didn't matter as much, and still having full control over the process. FWIW, for less than the price of this unit alone, we had a full custom 1,200 sqft house 3BR/2Bth, metal garage, 800' driveway, well, septic, and 1-acre pond built.
I can see if you're willing to pay the premium on the design aesthetics, but designer modular houses have a long way to go to being a more affordable option for most buyers.
When I was looking at modulars 5 or so years ago, the costs were pretty much the same.
But I generally agree - $390k base price for a 5XXsqft house is ridiculous. But it seems this is marketed towards CA residents (who might be used to much higher costs).
Edit: whoops, I see your's was targeted at "designer" prefab.
If I wanted a 550 sq ft prefab house, I'd be looking at whatever was the higher-end/better quality market segment of the "singlewide" manufactured home industry, which are built in a factory and come all in one piece and are delivered on their own wheels by semi truck.
But then of course you have the problem that many cities ban manufactured houses and they are only considered socially acceptable in lower income rural areas.
If you look at the floor plans of some modern "singlewide" manufactured homes they are totally a fine amount of floor space for one or two people to live, though obviously constrained by the maximum legal road lane width allowable and their long/linear design.
My 2nd thought would be something like a Tumbleweed if I wanted an extra room for the back yard with some mobility (have an office that you can take on vacation).
That 14' wide 644 SQ ft unit looks pretty good as a floor plan, it's about the same size as a small 1bd apartment in any major city. I do think they're counting the porch in the square footage however. It does appear that the 14 ft width is the practical maximum for transportation by road as a "wide load" without a lot of special planning and permits in advance.
If you look at the floor plans you can see where they're modular.
https://youtu.be/a984YzmJB4M has a video of them setting up the home and 1:41 in, you can see the two sides - one being put on the foundation, one awaiting the crane. At 4:00, you can see one with a very high peak with the roof being propped up while being assembled (I assume that it was shipped in a folded position).
When you've got that degree of modularity, then two, three or even four modules becomes feasible. The key is that the modules are assembled ahead of time.
---
As to the 644 sqft - 46 x 14 = 644. The porch doesn't appear to be part of that and would add another 84 square feet if it was.
Yeah, it seems this house is similar dimensions to a single wide trailer. Just different construction and fancier interior.
It seems like most urban/suburban CA zoning would prohibit either model - a trailer, or placing this in a backyard. It seems trailers are common in rural areas and small towns because the zoning allows for that option.
Yes, I'm just saying the wording and such in their site alludes to CA as their target market. There's also no way this would sell in most of the country, where you can buy a normal house with land for less.
At the price they are charging, anyone for whom $398k isn't a lot of money compared to the hassle of a custom high-end build is their target market.
Yes, there are some Californians who fit that profile, just as there are some people in Texas for whom that is also chump change, but they are a tiny fraction in either place. This is targeted at very few people - probably the top 0.5% of the wealth or income distribution.
Except you can get modulars this size or larger from other places for cheaper, with more design options. So if they're targeting the top .5% and they have a lot of competition, then it seems they have a poor business model.
> Except you can get modulars this size or larger from other places for cheaper, with more design options.
They are selling premium design, status, and convenience, not "cheaper, with more design options". There are lots of products sold that way, most famously Gucci bags, which I've heard are a very profitable business for that company.
If the price seems high to you (as it does to me), then you, like me, are not part of the target market.
I've been looking at the HUD-1 "kit" homes from Home Depot. One example is $33k for an unfinished 450 sq ft multi-room home, but you can put it together yourself in 2-3 weekends. Would have to compare to that a "custom" home from a contractor. Did you consider these type options when you were looking?
AFAICT, these range from $84-$170/sq ft for exterior materials only, no labor, no insulation, no foundation. If you're looking to DIY something and want an easy start, these and many other options may be a good choice for you, but this is very expensive for some markets, given you just have materials for the shell.
Generally speaking, it's best to think in "heated + cooled sq feet" for comparison, and also consider the foundation type. These are post-frame, so in the market where I had built, $120/sqft for post-frame is "cheap/budget", and $300/sqft is "high-end". We paid $180/sq ft, and that included electrical work, plumbing, appliances, A/C, full custom cabinets, custom windows, etc. As you can see, these aren't a great deal in that regard, but your local market conditions may vary.
Often the most expensive part of the house building is the labor, and if you can do some of that yourself or work with a builder who can tell you how to save labor costs you can do quite well.
For example, a simple "shed roof" without any gables or whatever those little decorative accents you see at the corners can be much cheaper (each accent could cost $500-2000 in labor alone). If you have a builder and architect who work together, you can really reduce the cost without making the house look like a garage with windows.
You need to work with a builder, since we were working in a somewhat "rural" area, we couldn't work with any of our local builders (in the city where we live), without going way out of budget due to travel expenses, etc.
As to how we found the builder? Google was of little help, and nearly everyone with a website was saying things like "we start at $250/ft for a barndo" -- basically, insane pricing.
What we ultimately did: I went to local stores, talked to neighbors, and started asking them for references for different parts of the process - e.g.: well building, dirt work, etc. I aligned on the most common people they referred, then asked each of them the same two questions: who do you like working with as a GC, and who built your house? Everyone aligned on a single person, so I called him and the rest is history.
I’m a bit mystified at the reaction to this comment.
Describe what you want to a drafts person, get the regulatory stuff done (via the draft person or architect), hit the Google machine and talk to contractors. It’s painful when you have no idea what you are doing, which is why the all inclusive price is attractive (and high).
At MacroFab, we're building the world's first distributed manufacturing marketplace for electronics. We work with customers both large and small to automate pricing, streamline supply chain, and move workloads from Asia to North America.
We're growing rapidly, and hiring across the board in all positions. Both remote, and local in Texas and Mexico.
For software development, we're primarily a Python and React/JS shop, that heavily leverages numerous AWS technologies.
MacroFab | Frontend, Backend, Product, and more | Full-Time | Remote or Onsite (Houston, TX; Guadalajara, MX) | https://macrofab.com
MacroFab is the first digital marketplace for electronics manufacturing. We manufacture electronics products in North America (US, Mexico, and Canada) by utilizing excess capacity at existing contract manufacturers. Automated pricing, job management, logistics, purchasing, and more are managed through our advanced manufacturing platform.
With offices in Houston and Guadalajara, both onsite and remote work are available.
Our software stack is primarily Python on the backend and React on the frontend, running in a mixed server and server-less environment in AWS, utilizing a variety of data stores and other technologies.
We are growing rapidly and have numerous positions available in Product Management, Backend, Frontend, Full-stack, Technical Program Management, Marketing, Sales, and Operations.
MacroFab is the first marketplace for electronics manufacturing. With a self-service digital manufacturing platform, and hundreds of manufacturing lines available, we help organizations bring new products to market in North America and manage their entire product catalogs from low to mid-volume production. Our mission is to enable manufacturing to operate as a true cloud resource.
Fire was a regular tool in everyone in North America's toolkit, indigenous or otherwise, and not something white people were too stupid to figure out.