#1
Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:45 PM
Industrial buildings used to let in lots of light-- the roofs had these clerestory things-- the rows of z shaped ridges that let in the light, usually on the north side. How infinitely more pleasant it would be to work in such a building, than in today's concrete/steel boxes.
Speaking as a stalinist-liberal, regulation happy, bleeding heart, I say change building code to require a specified percentage of window wall for any building in which humans have to work. Boat building sheds don't have to look like the new wooden boat center in Port Townsend (disney's version of a boat shed), but do have to be so completely soul crushing?
#2
Posted 08 November 2012 - 05:45 PM
I was in the main shed at LeClerq Marine yesterday (a Seattle yard that does a variety of mid sized commercial and pleasure work). It is such a horrible place to work-- dim, stinking of styrene, no windows, no air. I was thinking that workers in a 19th century boat yard would have a much better time of it. I was remembering of the pictures of Herreshoff's buildings-- all white inside, lots and lots of windows.
Industrial buildings used to let in lots of light-- the roofs had these clerestory things-- the rows of z shaped ridges that let in the light, usually on the north side. How infinitely more pleasant it would be to work in such a building, than in today's concrete/steel boxes.
Speaking as a stalinist-liberal, regulation happy, bleeding heart, I say change building code to require a specified percentage of window wall for any building in which humans have to work. Boat building sheds don't have to look like the new wooden boat center in Port Townsend (disney's version of a boat shed), but do have to be so completely soul crushing?
Sure.. and next you're going to shorten the workday from 14 hours to 12 hours and work week from 6 days to 5 days.... and then tell us that 12 year olds shouldn't be used for the dangerous jobs! What then? Unionization? Workplace safety?!?
#3
Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:45 PM
What is really surprising ( I work in the lighting industry ) is that for effective daylighting with QUALITY skylights (like the ones we sell to Wal-Mart, Krogers, PetCo, etc...) you only need about 6% of the ceiling area to be skylights - much less than you might think.
#4
Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:26 PM
Sometimes it is hard to take pictures because the sunlight is too bright.
Attached Files
#6
Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:20 PM
#7
Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:21 PM
I was in the main shed at LeClerq Marine yesterday (a Seattle yard that does a variety of mid sized commercial and pleasure work). It is such a horrible place to work-- dim, stinking of styrene, no windows, no air. I was thinking that workers in a 19th century boat yard would have a much better time of it. I was remembering of the pictures of Herreshoff's buildings-- all white inside, lots and lots of windows.
Industrial buildings used to let in lots of light-- the roofs had these clerestory things-- the rows of z shaped ridges that let in the light, usually on the north side. How infinitely more pleasant it would be to work in such a building, than in today's concrete/steel boxes.
Speaking as a stalinist-liberal, regulation happy, bleeding heart, I say change building code to require a specified percentage of window wall for any building in which humans have to work. Boat building sheds don't have to look like the new wooden boat center in Port Townsend (disney's version of a boat shed), but do have to be so completely soul crushing?
#8
Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:15 PM
#9
Posted 08 November 2012 - 10:15 PM
Yeah-- so much of the boat building world is economically marginal-- or at least the amount of capital required to do it "right" is way out of scale to the potential profits-- hence the charmingly provisional and improvisatory aspect of many building sheds.
The most striking example of that I have seen ard the German sub pens in Lorient, now filled with French race boats. No windows there. And not charming.
#10
Posted 08 November 2012 - 10:31 PM
A windowless building has some advantages for boat building. With the right lighting it is easier to see unfair areas on a hull.
The Hammond building is the sweetest boat shop I have been in. Very nice.
#11
Posted 09 November 2012 - 05:01 PM

If there is any sun, we don't need the troffers for light or the wood stove for heat. Must take steps to prevent sun-shadow on woods like cherry or poplar, tho. In summer we get our sun thru skylights. In retrospect, I might have skipped those and put in a bunch of tube lights.
Good daylighting begins with facing the damned building the correct way.
#12
Posted 10 November 2012 - 11:32 AM
"but the payback is a problem."
Yeah-- so much of the boat building world is economically marginal-- or at least the amount of capital required to do it "right" is way out of scale to the potential profits-- hence the charmingly provisional and improvisatory aspect of many building sheds.
...
The marine industry exists mostly so that boaters can boat at wholesale cost. The industry is up against a few problems.
1. People really can and do build their own boats. Who builds his own car? Where would you go to find a shop to help you build a car, or a place that teaches car building? It's really the ultimate threat to an industry: I can build my own.
2. These plastic boats last forever, and there are more of them every year. I've been considering a 1970s Sea Craft. The 1969 Morgan 30 Whimsy won the Moonlight Regatta the other night, causing controversy.
3. Fuel has gotten pricey and most of the industry is the powerboat industry. Sailors will say, "Great! More sailors!" True, but some powerboaters will leave boating instead of taking up sailing.
On that subject, an interesting experiment is ongoing to see just how inefficient these powerboats are. The owner of the Cowmaran is helping his son move his Viking 50 down the coast at the moment. It's hard to imagine two more different powerboats: one made to be efficient above all, the other to plane through big waves. His son claims "the beast" is not too different from the Cowmaran, measured in thousands of pounds per nautical mile. Excerpt from recent email:
Just for the record I shall keep track of the obscene fuel burn. ... Assuming these were four stroke outboards they would burn at WOT about 170 gallons per hour. Diesel fuel has more btu per gallon,not sure of conversion but let's guess at eighty per cent for fuel btu times say half throttle. My SWAG would be 0.8 x 0.5 x 170 = 68 gallons per hour at cruise 24 knots.
Or about 2.83 gallons per nautical mile for the beast. 0.04 gal per nm per thousand lbs.
ELB about .065 gal per nm. Assuming 1500 pounds. 0.041 gal per thousand lbs.
We will see how close my guess on fuel burn is for the beast
I'm off to the Fort Myers Boat Show today. No, not as a customer like a normal person. I'm helping out the local Hobie dealer, hoping to do a bit of boating at cost or something.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users













