prefabrication: "the oldest new idea"
Post on 10-Mar-2016
218 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Frederick Hill 20th January 2014
PREFABRICATION “THE OLDEST NEW IDEA”
2
NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY
ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPE & PLANNING
ARCHITECTURE BA (HONS)
The prefabrication of dwellings is crucial to solving some of the UK’s construction
industry’s problems. Yet, despite its success after WWII it has struggled to challenge the
dominant traditional forms of construction. Why and how should the UK move forward
with this non-traditional method of construction?
FREDERICK HILL
110123774
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE DEGREE OF BA IN
ARCHITECTURE, 2014
3
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank my supervisor Dr Steven Dudek for his helpful advice, conversations and support
throughout both the period of researching and writing for this paper.
Words: 8,603
4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 3
Table of Contents 4
Table of Figures 5
Abstract 6
1.0 Introduction 7
2.0 The Benefits and Barriers to Prefabrication 10
2.1 Macro-Economic Argument 10
2.2 Micro-Economic Argument 13
2.3 Construction Argument 14
2.4 Social Argument 18
3.0 The Next Steps towards the Development of Prefabrication 22
3.1 Cross-Industry Learning 22
3.2 Marketing 25
3.3 Intervention 27
4.0 Conclusion 30
Bibliography 32
5
Table of Figures
Figure 1.0: Housing Supply 10
Figure 1.1: Typical project programme for design and construction 15
Figure 1.2: Floor Plan of Aluminium Bungalow 16
Figure 1.3: Aluminium Bungalow 17
Figure 1.4: Traditional ModCell Prefabricated Unit 17
Figure 1.5: ModCell units being assembled on-site 17
Figure 1.6: Patten Gardens 20
Figure 1.7: Pattern Gardens being assembled 20
Figure 1.8: Maison Dom-Ino 23
Figure 1.9: Copper-Plate House 23
Figure 2.0: Ford’s production line 24
Figure 2.1: A Prefabricated Sekisui House, by Sekisui Homes 26
Figure 2.2: A Modular Sekisui House, by Sekisui Heim 26
Figure 2.3: A Prefabricated Daiwa House, Daiwa Homes 28
6
Abstract
The UK has fallen into a period of rising housing shortages. Prefabrication has the potential to
solve this significant problem, along with other issues surrounding the construction industry. Despite
this, the UK’s uptake of this new technology is somewhat unresponsive to these worsening economic
conditions. Yet, it is strange that other countries both with comparable and dissimilar economies are
and have been committed to industrialising their construction industry.
Primarily, I have made comparisons with the Japanese housing market whose interest in
prefabrication has been useful to establish that it is possible to break dominating traditional trends in
construction. Also, I have made more domestic comparisons with the manufacturing industry, in order
to speculate what the construction industry could be like in the future, but more importantly to
understand how a crafts-like method can transform into an efficient mass-produced industrialised
method.
After an introduction to the key themes and of defining the parameters of the argument, this
essay will outline the advantages of prefabrication, as well as the barriers that are preventing it from
successfully entering the housing market. The essay will finally outline the possible areas that could be
of benefit to the development of prefabrication.
7
1.0 Introduction
Prefabrication is a type of off-site fabrication, which is the manufacture and assembly of parts away
from the project’s location. However, unlike the ‘brick or block’ technique which does involves pre-
cutting off-site, prefabrication is at the other end of the spectrum: specifically the manufacture of
standardised sections of a building in an off-site facility so that they can be easily assembled on-site. In
contrast to the ‘brick-and-mortar’ method where nearly everything is constructed on-site, prefabrication
minimises the amount of time that is needed on-site. However despite this, the traditional ‘brick-and-
mortar’ method, today, accounts for 95.1% of all houses and very much remains the dominant choice of
production, mainly as it is the cheaper option, over any modern methods of construction (Department
for Communities and Local Government, 2010).
Prefabrication can involve a variety of materials including concrete, timber, metal and plastic,
and a variety of degrees including non-volumetric, volumetric and modular. Non-volumetric construction
is where the units that form the building do not enclose usable space; they are individually completed
comprising of the primary structure, insulation and both internal and external finishes and are generally
identical units. Although volumetric and modular are similar, volumetric construction involves units that
enclose usable space whereas modular construction involves units that form a complete or part of a
building. However, in the case of all three types the majority of the work is completed in advance with
only a small amount of work needed on-site.
Prefabrication has often been seen as being the ‘oldest new idea’ in architecture; it has had a
long history yet the idea has never really moved past the initial stages of development (Wilhelm, 2007,
p.22). Long before the concept of prefabrication was developed parts of buildings were produced in off-
site workshops. This occurred during the nineteenth century as a practical approach to providing shelter
for soldiers who were to be deployed in foreign countries. Up to the beginnings of the industrial
revolution building elements, such as brick and lumber, were often cut and stored off-site independent
of any specific architectural design. By the turn of the twentieth century the manufacturing of houses in
factories was a well-known technique.
However, it was seen as a solution to crisis conditions rather than as part of the development of
the construction industry. The ‘Temporary Housing Programme’ was one of these solutions which
aimed to help the housing shortages of WW1 and WW2. Despite this, after a period of industrialisation
8
during the twentieth century and the immense strain on housing had been eased the programme
remained, as named, merely a ‘temporary’ strategy and the traditional construction industry began to
‘achieve a predominance in the field of mass production which was never challenged’ (Herbert, 1984,
p.18). Yet off-site technologies, namely prefabrication, still have the ‘potential to address some of the
industry’s most pressing challenges’ (Curling, 2013, p.1) which, after 1968 (a record year in terms of
house production), went into a precipitous decline and because it has never been a ‘political
controversy or a symbol of national failure it has never really recovered’ (Moran, 2006, p.35). The first
half of this essay is going to outline why the UK should adopt and focus on new construction
techniques, such as prefabrication.
Still, there continues to be a cynical view towards prefabrication. As argued by Vale (1995) and
Johnson (2007), many people see it as being more expensive, having a frozen-design, monotone
aesthetics, and question the durability and amount of risk involved in this new technology. However,
such resistance often stems from past experiences, including the collapse of Ronan Point: a large
panel high rise building, as well as a lack of information (Taylor, 2009).1 Indeed, the benefits, argued by
Gibb (1999), include shortened construction time, better quality and performance, improved working
environment, reliability, and the ability to achieve economies of scale, higher efficiency and productivity.
Such efficiency and higher levels of productivity are necessary to boost the construction industry’s
desirability for investment giving it the capacity to grow like the manufacturing industry has done in the
last 50 years.
The growth in the manufacturing industry has set itself apart from the construction industry in
terms of size, technology and investment. Manufacturing accounts for 12.3% of the UK’s GDP; it grew
in productivity by 50% since 1997 and accounts for 9% of all employment (Cassley, 2010). This is
compared with the construction industry, which accounts for only 6% of the UK’s GDP and 6.6% of
employment (Rhodes, 2013). The reason for this substantial difference is down to the consistent
amount of research and development, as well as innovation that has gone into the industry. According
to Cassley (2010) 74% of all businesses in the UK that spend on research and development are from
the manufacturing industry. This differs from the construction industry whose research and
development has reduced by 80% since 1981 (Egan, 1998) and has been continuingly reluctant to
innovate (Pan, 2010).
1 Ronan Point: A 22-storey prefabricated tower block in Newham, East London, which partly collapsed in 1968 when a gas explosion demolished a load-bearing wall. It used a concrete Large Panel System technique.
9
Furthermore, such investment can also be seen in the motor industry, where innovation was
first introduced into premium products and once the technology was proven and better understood it
was then steadily integrated into the more affordable models (Hutchinson, 2013). Yet, prefabrication in
the UK often went straight from prototype to mass production, as evidenced by the ‘Temporary Housing
Programme’, before the necessary testing that is crucial to the development of a product. Over the last
decade the manufacturing industry has increased its efficiency and transformed companies; the
construction industry must follow suit by allowing prefabrication to become more mainstream thereby
challenging the dominance of traditional methods.
The second half of this essay is going to outline how the UK needs to go about this
industrialised transformation of the construction industry, focusing on cross-industry learning, marketing
and intervention. Throughout, comparisons will not only be made to the motor industry but also to the
Japanese housing market. Japan is particularly relevant as it has already successfully developed
prefabrication and laid foundations for future growth. Arguably, this success was primarily the result of
the country’s ‘cultural affinity with freshness and modernity’ but also because confidence in and
awareness of new methods were propagated from the beginning (Johnson, 2007, p.14). The UK can
certainly look to learn from this in order to try to cut through the negativity and a lack of awareness
currently surrounding prefabrication.
Confidence and the better supply of information about this underutilised method of construction
is crucial to its progression. Furthermore, for prefabrication to be successful a substantial amount of
investment is needed; it requires large start-up costs for factories and machinery as well as a significant
amount of research and development since the technology is new and in some cases untested. As a
result of this, large companies and/or the Government are the most likely candidates able to propel this
development. A combination of these strategies would significantly help the growth of prefabrication
and start to break the stronghold traditional methods of construction have over the industry.
10
2.0 The Benefits and Barriers to Prefabrication
2.1 Macro-Economic Argument
One of the most pressing economic issues in the UK today is the housing crisis. The shortage
of housing and the problems of affordability are worsened by a slow income growth, falling construction
and rising prices. The 2008 recession also worsened these problems, but even when the economy was
booming the construction of housing was still in short supply. Vaitilingam (2012) recorded that the
annual average of new homes built between 1998 and 2007 was 150,000, as shown partly by figure
1.0. Furthermore, between 2001 and 2011 approximately 1.4 million homes were built whilst the
population rose by nearly 4 million. This has been heightened by changing demographics: namely, a
shift towards single occupancy. More people seem to be choosing to live alone and from 1997 to 2006
single-person households rose from 11% to 13%, and it is predicted that by 2031 this figure will have
risen to 18% (Government Office for Science, 2011).
A similar crisis in terms of housing shortages, if not more severe, was seen after the two world
wars when thousands of people were made homeless by the German bombs and many more soldiers
were returning home. The UK Government had to produce a short-term solution that would be able to
take immediate effect: the 1944 ‘Temporary Housing Programme’, or the mass-production of
prefabricated housing, was their answer to this crisis.
Figure 1.0: Housing Supply (Wilson, 2010)
Housing Completions, England, 000’s
Year
11
The Programme was initially an investment into a series of bungalows with different methods of
framing and cladding and a basic set of accommodation that stemmed from the prototype, known as
the ‘Portal Bungalow’: an all steel product with a joined kitchen and bathroom unit. The Arcon
Bungalow, Uni-Seco, Aluminium Bungalow and Tarran Bungalow were the four main products that went
into mass-production. Overall, the government produced 156,623 bungalows for rent, each with a
design life of 10 to 15 years (Vale, 1995).
Despite the Government achieving what it set out to do questions were still raised as to why the
Government spent upwards of 200 million pounds on a housing programme with a restricted life,
especially after an expensive and devastating war. Yet despite such criticisms, the majority of the
bungalows outlived their design life: 88,367 were still occupied in 1995 (Vale, 1995) and even residents
today, such as those living in the Excalibur Estate, are still reluctant to leave their prefabricated
houses.2 Therefore, although the programme was designed to be a temporary solution the money spent
produced quality products that could have been seen as being permanent. Furthermore, the initial idea
to use standardised products was very effective because even though it demanded more in terms of
overheads and organisation than the traditional masonry house, it was still possible if not easier as all
that was needed was in place. The experience of the war had demanded the development of such
factory organisation for the production of the machinery of war, which is why these bungalows moved
from prototype to inhabited production in less than a year (Vale, 1995).
Although today there are inherent problems with the product in that they are poorly insulated
and generally deteriorated, the design of these prefabs contributed greatly to the success of the
Programme. The generosity of their internal spaces and their amenities created desirable living
conditions. If the UK could devise and execute this programme after one of the most historically
devastating times then we should be able to do something similar to alleviate today’s housing crisis.
However, there are many barriers that prevent new forms of construction, like prefabrication, from
entering the construction industry in the UK.
One significant barrier is the dominance of speculative production, with about 79% of the UK’s
housing being provided by developers whose aims are maximising profits and reducing risk
(Department of Trade and Industry, 2004). This is often compared with Germany’s and Japan’s supply
routes, which are dominated by self-procurement, accounting for 55% (Department of Trade and
Industry, 2004) and 75% respectively (Johnson, 2007). Houses that are built by their occupants often
2 Excalibur Estate: a post-war prefabricated housing estate situated in Catford, South London. It was constructed under the
‘Temporary Housing Programme’ and consists of 187 bungalows.
12
result in a better quality product because they choose the materials and the internal amenities based on
their preference as opposed to a developer selecting the most widely appealing option whilst keeping
the overall costs down. Although prefabricated houses are more expensive, they do boast a quality that
puts them significantly above traditional methods of construction.
Japan has a dominant self-procured housing market with only a very small second-hand
market accounting for 20% of the total annual domestic property transactions (Johnson, 2007). This is
the main reason why Japan’s housing market is always developing because there is a constant
demand for new, more ‘up-to date’ housing. The driving force behind this is their cultural affinity to
freshness and modernity, which the UK does not seem to share (Johnson, 2007). Johnson (2007)
states that 90% of total annual domestic property transactions in the UK are second hand which is why
the number of houses built is relatively small. Thus, new technologies like prefabrication have not been
able to develop as much as other nations.
However, arguably the reason behind the large second hand market is the lack of availability in
land, which is partly due to the restrictions of local authorities in planning permissions and the amount
of Greenfield sites that surround major cities, like London. Furthermore, house builders are intentionally
keeping the supply down so that the price can stay high. Mass-producing prefabricated houses could
change this negative system because it would make it into more of a free market, where supply reacts
to demand rather than using supply to fix prices. However, in reality this would be hard to implement
because of negative equity. There would need to be a strict long term plan to prevent customers from
losing out.
Additionally, the construction industry has a relatively low and unreliable rate of profitability, it
invests little in research and development, which has fallen by 80% since 1981 (Egan, 1998).
Therefore, capital investment is a third of what it was 20 years ago (Egan, 1998). Also, as a result of a
large second hand market 50% of the UK construction output consists of repairs and maintenance
(Sharp, Jones and Clarke, 2005). Moreover, as Taylor (2009) argues, the workforce is ageing, along
with its techniques, and there is a lack of training in the new, more modern ones. Employment is also
falling as the desirability for working in this industry is dropping; the image of a construction site is poor
and the prospects for career development are non-existent. Egan’s ‘Rethinking Construction’ stated
that there were 163,000 firms that were employing 8 people or less and that firms are extensively
dependant on subcontracting, which is putting pressure on relationships and continuity which are
13
important for success.3 Recent economic cycles have forced such firms to focus on improving business
efficiency in order to survive rather than on house building and investment (Pan, 2010). This is all
worrying considering that the construction industry accounts for 6% of the UK’s total GDP (Rhodes,
2013).
A more industrialised method could solve many of these problems. The construction industry
today has significant gaps at the top managerial levels, which factory based businesses could fill. There
would be a more multi-skilled workforce, amongst designers, technicians, engineers, supervisors,
managers, etc. A better career structure, with a more desirable working environment could push people
towards working in this industry. Also, a more reliable and predictable industry could increase the
invest-ability which is key to the long run success of developing new technologies.
2.2 Micro-Economic Argument
Off-site fabrication and standardisation have the potential to benefit from economies of scale,
where a saving in cost gains by an increased level of production. However, this would only be the case
if there was a large demand for prefabricated houses, which at the moment there is not. As long as
traditional construction continues to dominate the market prefabricated houses will remain more
expensive and therefore the less appealing option, especially as many prioritise price and location over
quality.
Certainly, the price of building prefabs does often exceed that of masonry construction. Lovell
(2009) argues that prefabricated houses cost on average 10% higher than masonry houses.
Furthermore, not only is the overall cost greater but the payments for prefabricated construction have to
be made upfront because the materials that are needed must be ordered in advance and all the
different processes overlap. This is in comparison to traditional construction where the different
processes are sequential so a client’s payments to the different sub-contractors are staggered and
materials are purchased as and when needed; this undoubtedly results in a more desirable type of
construction as expenses are paid out over a longer period of time.
Moreover, in terms of house builders, prefabricated construction requires higher ‘sunk costs’.
To be able to start manufacturing this type of construction, factories, machinery and a trained labour
3 Rethinking Construction: a report on the UK construction industry written by the industry task force. It was written to the
Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, aiming to improve the industry’s quality and efficiency.
14
force would be needed. This initial cost is arguably one of the highest hindrances ‘to applying
prefabrication’ (Tam et al., 2007, p.3645). In contrast, masonry house builders need limited equipment,
and therefore fewer assets and ‘sunk costs’; they also tend to have a much larger labour force, that
requires less training and can be easily laid off. Consequently, house builders are more inclined
towards masonry construction because they believe its methods react more effectively to fluctuations in
demand for new housing.
However, although, for the moment prefabricated houses are arguably more expensive, their
quality and performance far outweigh that of traditional houses. From a developer’s perspective any
increases in cost could be absorbed by rises in revenues (Chiang, Chan and Leung, 2006).
Furthermore, cost could also be considered to improve as productivity, waste reduction and efficient
logistics advance (Jonsson and Rudberg, 2013). The manufacturing of prefabricated houses can be
more controlled, and components, such as insulation, can be more precisely installed, resulting in a
more thermally efficient house. Therefore, if society were to adopt these new forms of construction and
have a more technologically advanced housing market then through economies of scale these new
products will not only increase in quality but would also bring down the cost, so that they are more price
competitive than the traditional houses we live in today (Chiang, Chan, Leung, 2006).
2.3 Construction Argument
One of the most significant advantages of off-site fabrication is the reduction in construction
time. This is achieved through the overlapping of ‘off’ and ‘on’ site activities which otherwise would be
done in sequence if traditional methods were used. This minimises the overall time on-site and
therefore the amount of working labour hours needed.
However, the success of this depends upon the completion of the plans drawn by the architect;
and, in contrast to conventional construction methods, there is often no room for error, since there is
little chance of changing the design later on without suffering significant consequences in terms of time
and cost. This ‘frozen-design’ element to prefabrication is, as argued by Tam et al. (2007), one of the
biggest perceived disadvantages of this construction method.
Frozen design is the inability to change the design once all the information has been sent to the
manufacturers, and as prefabrication is a ‘design and build’ process this puts pressure on the clients to
get it right first time. In general people prefer the ‘build and design’ process which traditional
15
construction offers because it allows them to start building as soon as planning permission is granted
before having a finalised design. Furthermore, it enables them to alter details throughout the
construction process once they have been able to see it in its real form rather than in two-dimensional
and three-dimensional drawings. Although time delays do occur as a result, adding to the cost, they still
remain significantly less than if you were to change the design of a prefabricated house once the order
had been made. On the other hand, having a frozen design results in less waste because materials can
be ordered and cut to size, rather than there be speculation over the quantity of a certain material that
is needed.
However, these frozen designs result in longer lead-in times, meaning the period of time before
the next stage can take place is drawn-out; clients must wait for a finalised design before site
preparations and the ordering process can begin. This is coupled with an additional delay between
placing an order and commencing construction.
Despite this, the reduction in construction time for prefabrication offers can be, in some cases,
up to 50% (Hutchinson, 2013). Gibb (1999) illustrates the effectiveness of overlapping ‘on’ and ‘off’ site
activities, which is shown in figure 1.1. His example is of a 520m² two-storey office building and he
compares conventional construction with modular construction. The overall project time saved in this
case is 26 weeks with the only part of the construction process not overlapping being design.
Figure 1.1: Typical project programme for design and
construction (Gibb, 1999)
16
In the example above, in respect of the modular system, the amount of time spent on-site is 4
weeks. This includes the site preparation, ground works, delivery to site and the unit installation. After
this is complete it is only the service connections, internal finishes, floor coverings that need to follow.
By comparison, a conventional build would involve 18 weeks on-site, including tender and start up,
substructure, superstructure and internals, with services and finishes yet to be completed. The activities
not included in the site duration are activities done when the building is water tight and are not labour
intensive jobs.
The substantial difference in construction time is because prefabrication enables a reduction in
the amount of components. Furthermore, there are more standardised units ensuring a far quicker
assembly time. The more volumetric a building is the fewer parts there are to fit together and therefore
the easier it is to assemble on-site. There is also a significant improvement in productivity combined
with fewer subcontractors resulting in a decrease in strained relationships.
The Aluminium Bungalow (figure 1.3), part of the Temporary Housing Programme, was a type
of volumetric construction. It was manufactured into four segments, each with dimensions of 7ft 6in by
22ft 6.5in, expressed in figure 1.2 by the dashed line (Vale, 1995). This meant that they could each be
transported to the site by a lorry and when on-site only one joint was required for each of the site
services. Furthermore, depending on the experience of the workforce it needed just 30 to 40 man hours
to erect (Vale, 1995). Finally, these segments were fully fitted with the internal amenities, structure,
aluminium cladding, timber joists to support the floor and all the services.
Figure 1.2: Floor Plan of Aluminium Bungalow (Vale, 1995)
17
A far more modern example of prefabrication is Modcell: a sustainable prefabricated straw bale
cladding panel. Its panels are made at the centralised manufacturing facility or the flying factories which
are located within 20 miles of the construction site (modcell straw technology, 2014). The panels range
from 400mm to 480mm deep and are normally 3m by 3.2m. The individual components that form one of
the standardised units are shown in figure 1.4. Once on-site it takes 3.5 days to assemble, as shown in
figure 1.5, and they have the same calculated design life of a traditional brick house (ModCell, 2014).
Although this is more of a luxury product rather than a mass-produced product like the Aluminium
Bungalow, it nevertheless clearly demonstrates the considerable reduction in construction time
prefabrication offers.
Figure 1.4: Traditional ModCell Prefabricated
Unit (modcell straw technology, 2014)
Figure 1.5: ModCell Units being assembled
on-site (ModCell, 2014)
Figure 1.3: Aluminium Bungalow
(National Museum of Wales, 2010)
18
As shown in the two cases above, reducing the amount of components in a building is a useful
way of dealing efficiently with the complexities of construction. It provides more predictability and
reliability which, in turn, will reduce the cost and waste of a project. However, on-site construction relies
on the collaboration of subcontractors and weather, especially in the winter. Projects can get delayed
when materials are late onto site, where there are miscommunications between different subcontractors
and if the ground is too wet to lay foundations.
Industrialising the construction can eliminate these problems and provide a more reliable
process, therefore making prefabrication a more desirable option to clients. Furthermore, this
manufacturing environment can improve productivity to a level that is extremely hard to achieve on-site.
Effective communication and supervision are difficult to maintain on a construction site; workers have to
collect tools and move materials to the work face. By contrast, in a factory, activities can be re-
scheduled and work-stations adjusted. Having a fixed location to manufacture the different components
creates a stable workforce that is easier to train and develop their skills. Consequently, strong inter-
working relationships will result in far more effective and efficient work.
However, despite prefabrication being more efficient and a quicker method of construction, as a
result of the constant dominance of traditional construction, prefabrication and all other modern
methods of construction have remained a minority. Lack of information, guidance and marketing have
left clients to follow tradition rather than try new technologies. As prefabrication has been seen as new
and unusual people have focused on these perceived flaws in its construction rather than see the great
benefits it has to offer.
2.4 Social Argument
One of the most influential benefits of prefabrication is the improved quality it contributes to the
housing market. Many customers are finding themselves dissatisfied with any construction work that
they pay for, even if the house builders deliver what they see as good quality (Auchterlounie, 2009).
This is the result of growing expectations, especially as everything is becoming more technologically
advanced: namely the manufacturing industry; and yet the construction industry is falling behind in
terms of quality.
Industrialising the construction process brings a greater accuracy to the manufacturing of
standardised units. It also improves the quality of working conditions and provides a more desirable job
19
for people in the construction industry. However, prefabrication does come with a risk in this early stage
of development because the technology is not as well-known as the traditional methods. Therefore,
starting prefabricated construction in the social sector might be of more benefit to the development,
instead of trying to inject it into the private sector.
Manufacturing facilities typically have a stable workforce who can be trained and therefore can
be expected to produce higher quality work. This quality is improved by having controlled internal
conditions and keeping defects to a minimum (Ross, 2002). Controlled conditions also result in a higher
degree of accuracy, creating more sealed components with less leakage points and areas water can
penetrate through. Increasing the amount of work done inside will reduce on-site construction which will
have various benefits both on the local environment and on the workers themselves. It will reduce the
exposure to hazards, such as, eliminating the need to work at height.
Many of these social benefits are argued by Ross (2002) including less noise and dust pollution
and better controls on atmospheric pollution. Fewer tradesmen will visit the site which will also reduce
local disruption and energy that would have been used on transportation leading to greater awareness
of recycling and therefore less material wastage. Furthermore, in terms of waste prefabricated houses
can be designed to be recycled or reused. Being able to dismantle and re-build in a different location, or
more simply moving the whole structure, could be a response to changing demands in the market.
Instead of building a house from scratch and using more materials, unwanted houses could be used as
a replacement which will reduce the cost and waste.
However, regardless of these social and environmental benefits prefabrication can present a
risk for consumers. When someone invests in a house they have to consider resale, especially as the
second-hand market is so dominant in the UK, and therefore they find it riskier choosing a more
unconventional style. It is also very difficult for consumers because of mortgage availabilities. Masonry
homes have a proven design life of hundreds of years, whereas, some prefabricated homes have
design lives of 60 years and therefore will not hold their value in the medium to long-term. Hence,
mortgage lenders will not as easily lend money for these unconventional buildings because they deem
it as a risky investment (Lovell, 2009).
Furthermore, the housing sector is not prepared enough to respond to different building
materials and technologies. The building science of non-traditional materials that are used in
prefabricated houses is not mainstream, unlike the traditional ‘brick and mortar’, they are individual to
20
the business that created it. Therefore, it poses uncertainty when it comes to maintenance and
surveying in the long-run.
In the macro-economic section of this essay the housing shortage was outlined as a problem
prefabrication could solve. More specifically, however, prefabrication could be more of a benefit if used
for social housing rather than private. Social housing accounts for 14% of the UK’s housing stock and
its function is to provide accommodation that is affordable to those on low incomes (The Guardian,
2013). They are owned by non-commercial organisations, local authorities or housing associations, and
are distributed based on their allocation scheme, which is unlike that of the private sector where the
landlord or letting agent choses the tenants. Not only is there an issue about the quantity of social
housing being produced but also about the affordability of those being produced. There are 1.8 million
households waiting for a social home, which is a rise of 81% since 1997, two-thirds of which have been
waiting for longer than a year (Shelter, 2014). Furthermore, changes in welfare reforms, such as the
‘bedroom tax’, are resulting in these types of housing becoming less affordable.4
Accord Group is a housing association which became the first in the country to provide low
carbon, timber frame housing in 2011.5 Accord Group has said to have reduced its carbon footprint by
50% than when it was producing brick homes. Furthermore, the cost to run these homes was also cut
by 50%, which could alleviate the problem of affordability (Accord Group, 2014). Figures 1.6 and 1.7
show the ‘Pattern Gardens’ design: a timber framed prefabricated house developed by Accord. Figure
1.6 shows the finished product of ‘Pattern Gardens’, whereas, figure 1.7 shows the assembly of a
development that is ongoing in Walsall. It is a scheme comprising of 106 units, where 61 are available
for affordable rent.
4 Bedroom Tax: People who are claiming benefits will not be able to get a housing benefit that covers the rent if there are spare rooms. 5 Accord Group: The Accord Group is one of the largest housing and social care organisations in the Midlands, providing affordable housing and health and social care.
Figure 1.6: Pattern Gardens (24housing,
2013) Figure 1.7: Pattern Gardens being assembled
(Accord Group, 2014)
21
Therefore, although prefabrication is an expensive investment, it has the potential to respond to
fluctuations in demand and limit the volatility in the long-run. Once research and development have
been effectively instigated and the new forms of construction have been tried and tested then we might
have the ability to produce high quality and relatively cheap products quickly, which also are more
affordable to run for those with little income. Social housing might be the way forward for prefabrication
because unlike in the private market, where clients have a choice and are choosing against new
technologies, consumers in the social market are desperate and do not have the ability to choose,
especially with the amount of competition for social housing we are seeing today. Once those in the
private market see the significant improvements in the standard of living prefabricated housing
provides, this may influence them to reconsider using traditional methods.
22
3.0 The Next Steps towards the Development of Prefabrication
3.1 Cross-Industry Learning
Industrialising housing products and manufacturing prefabricated dwellings are key to the
development of the UK’s construction industry. Cross-industry learning could be crucial in overcoming
some of the barriers that are preventing prefabrication from succeeding. The construction industry
could learn much from the manufacturing industry and as Gann (1996) argues Toyota is evidence for
this. Toyota is one of the world’s leading car manufacturers and it produces factory-made houses as
well. Many famous architects invested a huge amount of time in pursuing the ‘ideal package’ of the
prefabricated house because the idea of bringing stability and order to crisis conditions was desirable to
them (Ebong, 2005). Many tried to replicate the processes used in the car industry which, because of
Henry Ford, was booming after the development of the standard production line in America.6
Henry Ford developed the car from a craft-based product to a mass-produced innovation.
However, he was not interested in the achievement of mass-production but in the ‘growth in the
American economy that would be made possible once people owned cars and could move around with
comparative freedom’ (Vale, 1995, p.78). Model T was a car that was mass produced by Ford at a price
affordable because of the increase in productivity. Mass production is not necessarily defined by
quantity production or machine production, it is the focusing of manufacturing with principles of power,
accuracy, economy, system, continuity and speed (Herbert, 1984).
Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius were amongst a group of architects determined to ‘temper the
means of production with the search for architectural form and underlying order’ (Bergdoll and
Christensen, 2008, p.17). Le Corbusier saw the car as an aesthetic that resulted from the process and
Gropius saw mass-production as the vehicle for wealth creation and improving living standards. ‘Maison
Dom-Ino’ (figure 1.8) was one of Le Corbusier’s developments: it was a generic ‘frame’ that allowed for
flexibility with the floor plans and enabled unique prefabricated units to slot into the space provided.7 In
comparison, the ‘Copper-Plate House’ (figure 1.9) designed by Gropius was a more complete product.8
Despite this understanding of Ford’s idea architects still failed in producing a factory made house that
could be mass-produced. The main reason was that they were never in the right place at the right time
6 Henry Ford: He was an American industrialist and the founder of the Ford Motor Company. Through the development of
assembly lines and mass-production he manufactured the first automobile that the majority of the middle class could afford. 7 Maison Dom-Ino: It consisted of concrete slabs, supported by columns, which eliminated the need for load bearing walls. 8 Copper-Plate House: A single story, copper clad, prefabricated house, with factory glazed windows and doors.
23
and the harmony of design, technology, investment, production capacity, changing demographics,
consumer demand and marketing never happened (Ebong, 2005).
Learning from the manufacturing process of the car could be beneficial to the production of
houses. However, there are significant differences that need to be carefully considered: housing is on a
much bigger scale and is usually very immobile, it is also more complicated with a wide range of
component parts. It is considerably more expensive and must be more durable. The permanence and
durability of the house is the most important factor because it involves testing new materials which
requires substantial time and money.
The majority of the work in the car industry is produced by machines. Adopting some of the
automation technologies in the housing market could increase the quality of construction, reduce labour
costs and increase productivity. The equipment can be broken down into different categories: cutting
machinery, assembly tools and handling equipment (Branson, et al., 1990). There are machines that
could assist with every activity of the construction process, yet with traditional methods today builders
are still using trowels and are hand laying bricks. This may be significantly cheaper, however, it takes
time and the quality of construction that comes with it is very poor relative to new more current
technologies like prefabrication.
Furthermore, robotics are being used more in the manufacturing industries, especially the car
industry, and could send the construction industry into a new era of production. Robotics are
Figure 1.8: Maison Dom-Ino
(Foundation Le Corbusier, 2014)
Figure 1.9: Copper-Plate House (Vale, 1995)
24
multifunctional automatic devices that have the ability to produce products at a better quality and at a
quicker rate than any labour force. Ford invested $100 million globally to install robotic plant laser
inspection technology with the aim to improve quality, especially for the new 2012 Ford Focus, and
figure 2.0 shows the new technology integrated into the production line (Cleveland.com, 2011).
These modern pieces of technology may be expensive but the outcome, if the effort is made to
invest, is significant and it could change the face of construction. Admittedly this technology and having
a structure like the manufacturing industry is a long way off, however, little steps can be made and the
first one should be the move towards factory production, even if it entails the production of
prefabricated units using minimal machinery.
Another area that could be developed relatively easily, for example, is the labour force and
although it is a relatively small proportion of the car industry’s process the construction industry
depends entirely on the work force. Therefore, learning about the qualities of what work force the
manufacturing industry has could make a significant boost to the construction of housing. Collaborating
each individual that will be part of a particular construction process and creating a strong team which
works together effectively could increase the productivity of any project.
Indeed, ‘extensive use of subcontracting’ in the UK has frayed contractual relations and thus
prevented continuity within the teams which is essential (Egan, 1998, p.8). There needs to be
committed leadership that integrates the process and the team around the product and has a focus on
the consumer. With Sekisui Homes, the company controls the whole process from design to final
Figure 2.0: Ford’s production line (Cleveland.com, 2011)
25
assembly on-site.9 The continuity of working with the same team and collaborating on every project will
increase efficiency and productivity. This will result in lower cost, quicker construction times and a more
satisfied customer who will not have had the stress of dealing with lots of subcontractors, organising
costs and timings of when to be on-site.
Furthermore, allowing subdivision of labour also increases the efficiency of the production as
well as increasing the quality of the product. Employing unskilled or semi-skilled workers and training
them to work one particular machine instead of allowing them to work on a whole project, which is what
they do for traditional construction, is a strategy that the manufacturing industry uses. The experience
of completing a job needs to be fed into the next and it will therefore create a consistency that will
improve the whole process considerably.
3.2 Marketing
The prefabricated market in the UK has a poor image, the public see it as expensive and in a
2001 MORI poll, 69% of people felt that brick-built homes would fetch a better price (Lovell, 2009).
Public scepticism is one of the greatest barriers for this new type of construction, especially as buying a
house is such a big decision and as for the majority it may only happen once. However, this attitude is
unnecessarily holding prefabrication back. The majority are unaware of the benefits that prefabs can
other and therefore marketing and raising awareness are crucial to the success of prefabs because if
this negative image is not corrected then the housing market will continue down the unhealthy path
traditional forms of construction are perpetuating.
Japan was similar to the UK in that it was dominated by one particular construction type. Japan
had conventional post-and-beam timber framed construction techniques. However, an emphasis on
new methods of construction was needed because of timber shortages and rising labour costs as a
result of the Second World War (Gann, 1996). From an early stage there was an urgency to inject a
new way of living in society. In 1963 the Ministry of Construction and the Ministry of International Trade
and Industry established the Japanese Prefabricated Construction Suppliers and Manufacturers
Association (JPA) in order to encourage consumer confidence in prefabricated homes whilst there was
a strong housing demand (Johnson, 2007). Creating a general awareness at an early stage of
prefabrication formed the foundations to be able to develop the technology further.
9 Sekisui Homes: Japan’s largest house builders, founded in 1960, that provides modular housing.
26
In the UK we are in an era where price is at the heart of many decisions and as prefabricated
products are on average 10% higher than a more traditional type of construction, it is a struggle to
achieve what Japan managed to (Lovell, 2009). In order to overcome this a marketing strategy needs to
be aimed at quality and performance and this will in turn reduce people’s concern over the price. This
was a dominant part of JPA’s strategies in Japan in order to keep the market competitive. Misawa
Homes, one of the five businesses that dominated Japan’s industrialised housing market in the 1990s,
advertised their homes as a product that is more cost effective than conventional homes, with 67% less
air-leakage and heating and cooling cost reductions of up to 32% (Johnson, 2007).
Having variety and wider consumer choices is another marketing strategy that could change
the perceptions of the public. The Sekisui House, another popular Japanese manufactured prefab
shown by figure 2.1 and 2.2, initially proved unsuccessful because of its radical design and inflexible
floor plan. In contrast, the conventional Japanese houses offered a wide range of styles which proved
more popular. Therefore, manufacturers shifted their strategies from maximising production to
improving the range of houses produced. This resulted in the manufacturers offering mass-custom
design leaving the client to choose from different configurations creating their very own bespoke
prefabricated house. Sekisui House in the end had flexible units comprised of around 30,000
component types (Gann, 1996). Having customised housing that depends upon customer preference
enables the customer to have more flexibility with the design, which traditional methods in the UK are
offering and is why today they are the more popular choice of construction.
Greater client involvement could be used to reduce some of the resistance that exists in the
prefabricated housing market. Companies within the Japanese market try to maximise this, for
Figure 2.1: A Prefabricated Sekisui House,
by Sekisui Homes (Johnson, 2007)
Figure 2.2: A Modular Sekisui House, by
Sekisui Heim (Bergdoll and Christensen,
2008)
27
example, Sekisui Homes make sure that customers work with experienced sales and design staff in
order to produce a house that best suits the client. Each design is developed through a series of
stages, which include the viewing of a catalogue where the client customises the house and then staff
run through the costing, implications, time scale, materials and finishes. This usually takes up to 3
months and once finished, detailed plans are drawn up. This involvement is crucial and is not
something that should be rushed especially with new technologies like prefabrication and the use of
non-conventional materials (Gann, 1996).
Furthermore, to integrate the client further into the process, the strategy of releasing land with
conditions is one that could benefit the UK’s non-traditional housing market. In the UK the majority of
land is bought by developers who speculate over the amount of housing needed in a particular area
and build houses that are fit for all. Selling land with conditions is adopted by Japan’s market and it
helps achieve a more customer-focused design (Johnson, 2007). This strategy is the selling of a piece
of land to a customer with an obligation that they will use an agreed house builder to construct the
house. This allows the buyer to get involved with the decision making and create their own bespoke
house.
However, prefabrication is a new technology and therefore there is not enough information for
customers to go on, as there is for traditional houses. This means that there has to be a lot of initial
work before any manufacturing can be started. Marketing is, thus, a significant part of the overall cost
which in turn will increase the final price. Show homes are the largest part of the marketing costs but
are crucial because they are the only indication to the potential consumer as to the quality of the new
home that they may expect (Auchterlounie, 2009). On the other hand, once the production of
prefabrication starts to take off, along with demand, these prices will drop and become more
competitive within the housing market.
3.3 Intervention
The UK housing market is dominated by traditional forms of construction resulting in small
companies that specialise in modern methods of construction finding it hard to break into the market.
The new market of prefabrication needs some form of intervention, either from the private or public
sector, in order to be heard. In terms of public assistance, the government needs to back these forms of
construction and inject confidence into society; in terms of private, large companies with high profiles
and reputation, whether in the housing sector or not, need to take on this new direction.
28
The reason why Japan succeeded with the industrialisation of its construction techniques was
because there were four major companies at the time that inserted themselves into this new industry:
Sekisui Chemical Company, Misawa Homes, Daiwa and Matsishita Group. Except for Misawa none of
these companies were initially part of the traditional housing market. They were large companies with
the ability to invest heavily that were seeking new markets. In 1929 Sekisui Chemical Company
established Sekisui Homes and Sekisui Heim, a modular housing company that was established later in
1972. In 1958 Daiwa, a tubular steel fabricator, established Daiwa Homes (figure 2.3). Matsishita
Group, in 1950, established National House and Misawa Homes was established I967 as a company
specialising in prefabricated homes. These companies were all wanting to create a new market for their
products and they had large research and development facilities that could be used at their disposal.
The cost of entry for new companies in the industrialised market is very high therefore large
amounts of funds are needed. Since 1980 Sekisui Homes invested 17 billion yen into its factory which
shows that prefabrication is not going to be successful in the UK with small start-up companies driving
the market (Johnson, 2007). Furthermore, when a new product enters a particular market the brand
name associated with large companies offers reassurance that it is going to be a reliable and quality
product. This is important for the industrialised housing market because it is new technology and
therefore a completely new product, people need to have this reassurance or they will not pay large
sums of money for it. Therefore, in the UK having large companies that will invest in these new
technologies will significantly help the development of prefabrication.
Figure 2.3: A Prefabricated Daiwa House, by Daiwa Homes (Noguchi, 2003)
29
Government intervention will also help the development of prefabrication because they have
the funds to assist smaller companies as well as, more importantly, have the ability to give confidence
to those who are unsure. The government’s backing in Japan of JPA has helped the industry overcome
the negative perceptions of prefabrication. The UK government could promote and accredit modern
methods of construction which would bring awareness to the whole of the society. Furthermore, stricter
regulations regarding performance and durability would insert greater confidence in consumers
because it would bring about higher levels of investment and a greater focus on quality.
30
4.0 Conclusion
Prefabrication has had the longest history of all in architecture and has been described as the
‘oldest new idea’ (Wilhelm, 2007, p.22). The idea has always been present, as early at the 17th century,
and even though it had success in the form of the Temporary Housing Programme in 1944, it has never
managed to rival the dominating traditional methods of construction. Prefabrication has the potential to
solve some of the UK’s most pressing social and economic housing issues but it is a piece of
technology that has been supressed by weak demand, as UKCES (2013) argues. Over the last 50
years it has been on the back foot of the UK’s construction industry yet during this very same period it
has been at the forefront of plans to improve the quality of living in other nations, such as Japan.
Indeed, this success elsewhere in the world is evidenced by the fact that prefabricated single family
homes have accounted for 14% of all housing completions in Japan, in contrast to the UK in 2006
where only 1% of all residential units were fabricated offsite (Johnson, 2007).
There are many reasons for the strong barrier that has prevented prefabrication from
significantly developing in the UK housing market, but the key contributing factors are the cost and the
lack of information. Consumers, when looking for a new house, tend to focus on location and price.
However, not only are prefabricated houses on average 10% higher than traditional houses they are
also far less well-known (Lovell, 2009). Therefore, those looking to build a new house either do not
consider prefabrication at all or if they are aware of it, do not know enough to take an informed risk and
invest in anything other than what is deemed as traditional. After all, it is a relatively unknown piece of
technology to the wider consumer market in the UK and elsewhere and questions have been raised
over the building science and the durability of the new materials used.
Consequently, society has focused on the downsides of prefabrication over the last 50 years
despite the potential key benefits it has to offer. Indeed, perhaps the most important benefit of all is its
ability to alleviate housing shortages. Prefabrication is a much more efficient and productive method
which can reduce the construction time by up to 50% (Hutchinson, 2013). Furthermore, because of the
manufacturing process it can benefit greatly from economies of scale and therefore, compared to
traditional methods quality housing can be mass-produced in relatively short periods of time. These
qualities are needed in order to relieve periods where there are high demands for housing.
31
Despite all the benefits, public perception remains the biggest barrier to the development of
prefabrication. There needs to be a comprehensive approach to overturn this scepticism and boost the
demand for these new methods. The backing of the Government and a vigorous marketing campaign is
crucial to injecting confidence into consumers and reassure them that the price may be high but the
quality and performance are significantly greater than traditional houses. Trying to influence the private
sector can be more difficult than the social, therefore, starting with a change in social housing might be
a more beneficial strategy. The publicity from this might make the industrialised transformation of
private housing easier.
Once there is a greater awareness and understanding of prefabrication, then the market can
start to adopt machinery and techniques used in the manufacturing processes through cross-industry
learning, which will create a more efficient and productive process. However, this transition from craft-
production to mass-production has taken companies in the manufacturing industry a long time and
therefore, smaller steps at this time are more important. This includes the improvement of the labour
force, increasing the amount of training, reducing the amount of subcontractors and having consistency
within the leadership and their employees.
To conclude, the majority of consumer products have now moved away from craft-
manufacturing and entered into an era of mass-production where the improvement of productivity is the
focus not to mention quality, customer satisfaction and reducing costs as well. Yet, the housing market
has fallen behind some of the other more rapidly advancing industries, such as the motor industry. It
has clung on to traditional methods resulting in the obstruction and hindrance of new technologies that
are trying to develop. Whilst other countries like Japan embraced advancement early on, resulting in a
more buoyant and innovative market, the UK has so far ignored the need for change. However, it must
follow suit if it is going to relieve a growing housing crisis and elevate not only the construction
industry’s image but also the quality of living in this country.
32
Bibliography
Books
Bergdoll, B., Christensen, P. (2008) Home Delivery: Fabricating the modern dwelling. New York: The
Museum of Modern Art.
Ebong, I. (2005) Kit homes modern. New York: Collins Design.
Gibb, A.G.F. (1999) Off-site Fabrication: Prefabrication, Pre-assembly and Modularisation. Caithness:
Whittles Publishing.
Herbert, G. (1984) The Dream of the Factory-Made House. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Vale, B. (1995) Prefabs – A History of the UK Temporary Housing Programme. London: E & FN Spon.
Journal Articles
Auchterlounie, T. (2009) Recurring quality issues. Recurring quality issues in the UK private house
building industry, 27(3), p.241-251.
Branson, T.R., Eishennawy, A.K., Swart, W.W., Chandra, S. (1990) Computers & Industrial
Engineering. Automation technologies for the industrialized housing manufacturing industry, 19(1-4),
p.587-592.
Chiang, Y.H., Chan, E.H.W., Leung, K.K. (2006) Habitat International. Prefabrication and barriers to
entry – A case study of public housing and institutional buildings in Hong Kong, 30(3), p.482-499.
Gann, D. (1996) Construction Management and Economics. Construction as a manufacturing process?
Similarities and differences between industrialized housing and car production in Japan, 14(1996),
p.437-450.
Lovell, H., Smith, J.S. (2009) Geoforum. Agencement in housing market: The case of the UK
construction industry, 41(2010), p.457-468.
Noguchi, M. (2003) Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. The effect of the quality-oriented
production approach on the delivery of prefabricated homes in Japan, 18(2003), p.353-264.
Pan, W. (2010) Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. Strategies for managing
innovation in UK house building, 17(1), p.78-88.
Sharp, M., Jones, K., Clarke, R. (2005) Association of Researchers in Construction Management. An
investigation into inefficiency in the condition based maintenance process, 1(2005), p.385-392.
Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, C.M., Zeng, S.X., Hg, W.C.Y. (2006) Building and Environment. Towards adoption
of prefabrication in construction, 42(2007), p.3642-3654.
33
Newspaper Articles
Booth, R. (2013) ‘Government’s handling of the UK housing shortage to be reviewed,’ The Guardian,
20 November 2013, p.1. UK Newspaper Collection [Online]. Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/20/government-handling-housing-shortage-reviewed
(Accessed: 3rd December 2013).
Curling, A. (2013) ‘Offsite construction growth hampered by lack of skills, research finds’, UKCES, 23
September 2013, p.1. UK Newspaper Collection [Online]. Available at:
http://www.ukces.org.uk/news/Press-releases/2013/Sep/Construction-skills-report (Accessed: 3rd
November 2013).
Hutchinson, T. (2013) ‘Prefab housing can have benefits if done well’, The Guardian, 4 April, p.1. UK
Newspaper Collection [Online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/housing-
network/2013/apr/04/prefab-housing-benefits-costs (Accessed: 12th November 2013).
Moran, J. (2006) ‘Building low-cost homes, particularly on Greenfield sites, has always provoked
snobbish opposition. As a result, our construction technologies remain outdated and governments
continue to fail the poorest buyers’, New Statesman, 9 October, p.35.
Vaitilingam, R. (2012) ‘The UK’s housing crises’, CentrePiece Winter, Volume 17, Issue 3, p.3. UK
Newspaper Collection [Online]. Available at: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/CentrePiece_17_3.pdf
(Accessed: 5th November 2013).
Reports
Cassley, C. (2010) CBI Manufacturing. Manufacturing in the UK. London: CBI
Department for Communities and Local Government. (2010) English Housing Survey. Housing stock
report 2008. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
Department of Trade and Industry. (2004) DTI Global Watch Commission Report. Modern methods of
construction in Germany – Playing the off-site rule. Leicestershire: Pera Innovation Limited.
Egan, J. (1998) The Report of the Construction Task Force. Rethinking Construction. Norwich:
Department of Trade and Industry.
Jonsson, H., Rudberg, M. (2013) Construction Management and Economics. Classification of
production systems for industrialized building: a production strategy perspective. London: Routledge.
ModCell. (2014) modcell straw technology. technical guide. Bristol: ModCell.
Rhodes, C. (2013) Economic Policy and Statistics. Construction Industry. London: House of Commons
Library.
Ross, K. (2002) Building Research Establishment. Non-traditional housing in the UK - A brief review.
London: The Council of Mortgage Lenders.
34
Taylor, S. (2009) Offsite Production in the UK Construction Industry – prepared by HSE. A Brief
Overview. London: HSE.
Wilson, W. (2010) Key Issues for the New Parliament 2010. Housing Supply and Demand, p.77.
London: House of Commons Library Research.
Thesis
Johnson, W. (2007) Lessons from Japan: A comparative study of the market drivers for prefabrication in
Japanese and UK private housing development. Master’s thesis, UCL (University College London).
Wilhelm, G. (2007) Open Source Housing - How to let people build their own houses without wasting
time, money, energy, or effort. Master’s thesis, The Savannah College of Art and Design.
Web Pages
24housing. (2013) Prefab sprout: Are ‘instant’ homes the future of social housing? Available at:
http://www.24housing.co.uk/prefab-sprout-are-%E2%80%98instant%E2%80%99-homes-future-social-
housing (Accessed: 12th November 2013).
Accord Group. (2014) LoCaL. Available at: http://accordgroup.org.uk/local_homes (Accessed: 12th
November 2013).
Accord Group. (2014) News. Available at: http://accordgroup.org.uk/articles/106-First-factory-homes-
set-for-Walsall-housing-development-- (Accessed: 12th November 2013).
Accord Group. (2014) Pattern Gardens. Available at:
http://accordgroup.org.uk/filemanager/resources//Accord_Group_Scheme_Factsheet_Whitworth_Close.
pdf (Accessed: 12th November 2013).
Cleveland.com. (2011) Ford 'focuses' on robotic laser inspection to improve fit and finish. Available at:
http://www.cleveland.com/automotive/plaindealer/index.ssf/2011/06/ford_focuses_on_robotic_laser_ins
pection_to_improve_fit_and_finish.html (Accessed: 6th January 2014).
Foundation Le Corbusier. (2014) Maison Dom-Ino, Not Located, 1914. Available at:
http://www.fondationlecorbusier.fr/corbuweb/morpheus.aspx?sysId=13&IrisObjectId=5972&sysLanguag
e=en-en&itemPos=103&itemSort=en-
en_sort_string1%20&itemCount=215&sysParentName=&sysParentId=65 (Accessed: January 6th
2014).
Modcell straw technology. (2014) FAQs. Available at:
http://www.modcell.com/faqs/#What%20sizes%20do%20they%20come%20in (Accessed: 12th
November 2013).
Modcell straw technology. (2014) technical. Available at: http://www.modcell.com/technical/ (Accessed:
12th November 2013).
35
National Museum of Wales. (2010) Prefabricated bungalow. Available at:
http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/stfagans/buildings/prefab/ (Accessed: 6th December 2013).
Government Office for Science. (2011) Singleton Settlements: The Increase in Single Households.
Available at: http://www.sigmascan.org/Live/Issue/ViewIssue/78/4/singleton-settlements-the-increase-
in-single-households/ (Accessed: 23rd November 2013).
Shelter. (2014) Why we need more social housing. Available at:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/Improving_social_housing/Why_we_need_
more_social_housing (Accessed: 12th November 2013).
The Guardian. (2013) Housing: bring back the prefab to meet the desperate need for homes. Available
at: http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2013/aug/04/the-big-issue-housing-prefab (Accessed: 12th
November 2013).
top related