Pre-fab houses don’t work
When we heard the news that famed architect Daniel Libeskind is now in the prefab home game, we knew that something has gone terribly wrong with the idea of cost-effective prefabricated, mass-produced, delivered-to-the-site housing. This isn’t a criticism of Libeskind mind you; we have made numerous pilgrimages to admire his projects, including the Jewish Museum in Berlin and his recently completed Royal Ontario Museum Extension in Toronto. His entry into pre-fab home design, however, represents the last nail in the coffin as far as we’re concerned. Like it or not, BUILD is officially declaring the pre-fab home movement dead, at least this round anyway. Here’s 10 reasons why:
1. There are several requirements of pre-fab homes that have never been less expensive than custom construction. Despite the fact that a prefabricated house shows up at the site, it’s not ready to be lived in. The site factors still need to be dealt with like any other home and the costs aren’t any cheaper. The site still requires excavation and a foundation still needs to be poured. Unfortunately a prefab home is not ready to go like a Ford Taurus; pre-fab homes are connected to the site though concrete, electrical strikes, sewer lines and plumbing lines; each of which requires trades and materials unique to the place.
2. Here in the Pacific Northwest the remaining vacant sites are rarely flat and bare. Typically there are topographic issues (steep slopes) and geotechnical considerations (variable soil) that only increase the costs through additional consultants, materials and labor.
3. In difficult economic times (like our current one) it is precisely this type of housing that should prosper. The current movement of pre-fab homes (yes, we know there have been others) has been ramping up for about a decade now. The model should have been primed and ready to go for the current recession. Much to everyone’s disappointment (including our own), the front-runner of the pre-fab movement, Michelle Kaufmann Designs, recently announced that they are closing shop.
4. There is a unique psychology between housing and customization. While most people seem happy to purchase an automobile with a limited set of options, that discipline seems to disappear when it comes their home. From what we’ve seen in the residential market, most people want much more customization than the pre-fabs offer (even though it costs much more).
5. Like any other mass-produced product, prefabs need to sell at a certain volume to pencil out financially. While we don’t know what that tipping point is, we’re guessing that there just aren’t enough consumers with a modern design philosophy to support the formula. Buckminster Fuller and Jean Prouve designed and built successful models decades ago that provided cost-effective, mass-produced, pre-fab housing. One of the main reasons that these models didn’t work is because they didn’t look like little bungalows with white picket fences. As a society, we may not be evolved enough yet for well designed pre-fabs.
6. Architects tend to overdesign pre-fab homes. They become trendy, architectural statements rather than simple methods of solving the issue of cost-effective housing for the masses. We’re not suggesting that the correct solution to pre-fab housing is the ubiquitous double-wide model that has spread like cancer, but there has to be a more sensible balance between architectural design and conventional utility. Pre-fab homes need to be designed in a timeless manner.
7. The pre-fab concept is misrepresented by institutions that we trust. The recent MOMA prefab exhibit hindered the pre-fab movement by decades. The five pre-fab models, constructed in the empty lot adjacent MOMA, couldn’t perform the very basic functions of home; like keeping the heat in and the rain out. They were art projects that you could walk through. It would have been a different scenario had it been presented as “Artistic Impressions of Prefab Homes” but it wasn’t, the exhibit was titled “Home Delivery: Fabricating the Modern Dwelling”. Tens of thousands of museum visitors have a completely skewed and unrealistic understanding of pre-fab homes because of an exhibit which does not address the fundamental principles.
8. There is very little true innovation in current pre-fab home construction methods. The homes are built in a factory much the same as they are built on site. Ideally the pre-fab method would employ mechanical assembly lines similar to industrial design or automobile production. But the reality is that a crew of framers is still slapping studs together – they’re just doing it in a warehouse.
9. Despite our research, we’ve been unable to find much information about how many pre-fab homes have actually been produced and sold on the market. To us, this indicates numbers so low that they are insignificant in comparison to other types of housing.
10. There is a perceived altruism around pre-fabs. The current pre-fab movement aims to make people feel good about buying a pre-fab home. But if pre-fabs aren’t more cost-effective, more timeless or a better overall solution, then it’s just clever marketing.
This is just our take, and we’d love to be proven wrong on any or all of it. As an operation of architects and builders, we think a great deal about effective forms of housing models; these are just the issues we see as barriers with the recent pre-fab movement. As conventional as it is, a better solution for cost-effective housing for the masses is condominiums and townhomes. The cost of earthwork, concrete and utilities are shared between several units thereby making the work much less expensive per home. The size of typical single family lot (~5,000 sf here in Seattle) can easily support 6 homes. One could argue that a primary benefits of pre-fab construction is that you can put it anywhere and that it allows the homeowner to have as much land around their home as they like… but is that really cost-effective, sustainable and sensible?
49 Comments
Other Links to this Post
-
Tuesday PM Linkage — June 24, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
-
Green Building : Jetson Green — June 27, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
-
Unworkable Prefab, Green Demolition, Compost Mandate + Dead Eco-towns | Green Blog Media — June 28, 2009 @ 12:41 am
-
Twitted by ecoLivingSystem — June 29, 2009 @ 9:12 am
-
Alternative Building Services » Blog Archive » Prefab Houses Bomb — July 1, 2009 @ 7:18 am
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By mike, June 23, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
what about pre-fabbed wood panels pushed by the likes of swiss/austrian firms bearth + deplazes, dietrich untertrifaller, baumschlager + eberle and hermann kuafmann?
they’re like SIPS, only durable, cost effective, thermall superior and hella elegant.
By mike, June 23, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
hermann kaufmann
http://www.kaufmann.archbuero.com/
By Jake, June 23, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Problem 11:
-Houses make terrible cars
-Cars make terrible houses
By Adam E. Anderson, June 23, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
Good article but I disagree with #3. This building recession has drastically hurt the prefab world by creating a giant pool of skilled home builders and suppliers desperate for business. This pretty much eradicates any cost advantages to going prefab.
I love prefabs, and I’m personally frustrated with their inability to become cost effective. I think to work they need to be off-the-grid ready to reduce the site preparation costs.
By Lou M., June 23, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Great post guys. We seriously pursued but inevitably chose against prefab for many of the reasons you pointed out. At the end of the day in many cases and with a few vendors including Dwell Homes (Empyrean), Living Homes, etc. the cost of a pre-fab home exceeded the cost of a custom-designed (by an architect) home. Our feeling at the end of the day is we are going to spend the money one way or the other lets go custom. I’ve seen good examples of pre-fab with (http://www.marmol-radziner.com/) but again, the process and cost does not pan out. The only reason I could consider prefab is the speed, I’ve heard prefab can expedite the usual year-long + custom construction timeline.
By Build LLC, June 23, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
@ Mike – Prefab components are a different beast and could very well be cost effective within a larger framework. The firms you call attention to have set a good example.
@ Adam – That’s a good point, the amount of competition out there right now could very easily be undermining the pre-fab formula.
@ Lou – Agreed, construction time-line is an important factor that we entirely missed on this one – thanks for shedding light on it. There would also be much less time spent in design (presumably).
By Richter, June 23, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
#12 Pre-fab homes are typically marketed towards architects and designers; the least likely professions to actually be able to afford them.
By nicholas burns, June 23, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Site constraints- as well as the topography the house unlike the car is a static form. Major issues such as solar orientation can be achieved broadly, though the subtle intricacies of place get lost, when the same set of materials could achieve this when built for the site.
Transport- often large distances are traversed with boxes on trucks. Doesn’t make sense….
Value- as mentioned by Lou M, the cost is not low and often more then something bespoke.
Fear- maybe the prefab plays to the fear of the unknown; by buying off the shelf one is assured of knowing what they will get (sort of).
By lavardera, June 23, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
you need to study the housing industry in Sweden. Something like 95% prefab, mostly panelized, mostly automated assembly. Panels are finished inside and out, a house is set in one day, then buttoned up.
Its not the process – its the people.
By Nick, June 23, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
1. prefab is the future….if interest rates on construction loans were higher right now there would be a higher amount of people in the prefab game due to the shorter development time of prefab buildings. Less money is wasted on interest carry.
2. You can do the site work at the same time as the modules are being built in a factory. It is less progressive and the critical path is non-existent.
3. Less waste (construction materials)
4. Higher quality, as everything is built on a jig, is plumb, and straight (you hope)
5. contractors know where they are working every day, rather than wasting gas chasing their next bid or driving 50+ miles (as many live in Tacoma/Olympia) to their jobsite.
6. You don’t lose time to weather…if you were building this last winter you would know what I mean (what a nightmare)
7. the problem today is that the banks do not understand prefab, cannot come to the site to inspect the progress and release the draw funds (ie: bank has no control over the disbursement of the construction funds, and they must provide the majority of the construction loan upfront to the factory since everything needs to be there at once). I haven’t met a single banker that would give $1M up front on a project they have only seen on paper.
I am a little biased as I work for a firm that is headed in that direction, but we are still very open to site-built construction depending on the situation (like our last project @ Remington Court)
By Build LLC, June 23, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
@ Nicholas – Predictability is a good one and speaks to the expectations of a home buyer.
@ Laverdera – Once again, the Scandinavians are experts at something we’re still fumbling. We’ll definitely look into it – sounds like a blog post in the making.
@ Nick – coming from a group who has an abundance of experience in this realm, your opinion is well received. You raise some very good points regarding compressed construction timelines, efficient use of materials, banking logistics, etc. Growing up in the construction industry I would still argue that working on a “site” beats working in a “warehouse”. It was always important to know the site and the context, to talk with the owners and neighbors. To understand the place… whether you were a carpenter, a painter or a ditch-digger place was important.
By Knudsen, June 23, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
The pre-fab homes I see in all the glossy design magazines should really be a sub-category of fashion rather than architecture.
By Gus, June 24, 2009 @ 7:20 am
There are some reasonable points made above but the proof is in the pudding as they say. If homeowners aren’t buying prefabs, for whatever reason, then they’re not working. Good post.
By Jean-Paul, June 24, 2009 @ 10:19 am
Very compelling argument. While I am a huge proponent of modern pre-fab, I simply can’t ignore the barriers to critical mass that they keep running into.
On an unrelated note, I really enjoy this blog! It’s great to see a building/design blog based here in Seattle that actually addresses many Seattle issues and buildings- keep up the great work!
By pwb, June 24, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Lots of very good points in the post and in the comments.
I became very frustrated following the prefab industry. Every week there was a promising new entrant who ultimately disappointed. Every offering seemed to be way over-designed and way-over-priced. None of the offerings were even trying to meet the promises of prefab (not even Michelle’s).
I would have liked to have seen more producers go the Rocio Romero route and really try to fulfill the promise of prefab: cost savings, predictability, pleasant design, functional, etc.
I also don’t think marketing prefab as “green” was helpful. Just give me the prefab goods!
By Chris, June 25, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
I think the foundation issue is huge. I think the topography in Seattle makes this market un-feasible for pre-fab. Ultimately, if pre-fab preaches economy but is not substantially cheaper then what is the point. I think a re-brand in necessary.
By Paul Kaplan, June 28, 2009 @ 7:30 am
I was excited to the Clayton Homes iHouse. http://claytonihouse.com/ This seems to be practical modular home built by an established manufacturer, offering “pre fab” for the masses- not over the top glitzy, and not an art project. And although the custom home site issues still arrise, I would love to see a “mobile home” park filled with these type of models, creating a new lower cost opportunity that seems practical.
By Jahn Leo Mak Ender, June 28, 2009 @ 9:35 am
When will architects arround the globe learn how to build correct constructed house?
Jahn Leo Mak Ender, Architect with oustanding house and constructions.
lemak@telia.com
By Jahn Leo Mak Ender, June 28, 2009 @ 9:37 am
When will architects arround the world learn how to construct and build REAL houses.
Why do people build house who could mold and burn?
By Kristine Kirschke, June 28, 2009 @ 11:56 am
I would prefer to think that prefab is on a ‘break’ rather than dead! My hope is that it will re-emerge after this economic downturn better than before, addressing some of the issues you describe above. You can’t deny that the recent prefab movement has incorporated and brought to the forefront many important building practices that stick built, custom homes often don’t take into consideration like….the use of eco/sustainable materials, energy efficiency, indoor air quality, less construction site disturbance, less time, less waste, innovative design, and the list goes on. Standard stick built construction is just now beginning to incorporate these techniques through certification programs like USGBC’s LEED progams but the adoption of these building practices still has a long way to go, unfortunately. So, let’s praise the recent prefab movement for what they have brought to the table rather than tear them down.
By Kristine Kirschke, June 28, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
By the way…..isn’t new construction in general dead due to the lack of construction loans? If you know where I can get a construction loan for a stick built or pre-fab home, I’d love to hear where!!
By Joe, June 29, 2009 @ 5:32 am
I am very pro pre-fab, but I agree with several points you made in this article. My biggest sticking point is often the price point. If a company expects a homeowner to shell out $250-$350+ per square foot, the argument of “where’s the benefit?” is cried out. While there are several great green benefits as pointed out by Nick, your average buyer won’t see that. Price point really needs to be at the forefront and I get SO tired of seeing another great pre-fab design touted as “affordable” when the end cost is a far cry from that term.
By Jay, June 29, 2009 @ 5:59 am
I agree with the need to be timeless, though this also applies to regular construction as well.
What about the time-to-build aspect?
By David E. Ward, June 29, 2009 @ 6:23 am
In the first post, Mike mentions prefabricated wood panels. Can anyone offer examples or links to manufacturers that produce the panels for structural applications?
By mike, June 29, 2009 @ 7:24 am
these are the binders we had in germany…
lenotec (german)
http://www.finnforest.de/default.asp?path=10232;10436;15310;15311;15374
lignotrend (german)
http://www.lignotrend.com/
lignatur (swiss)
http://www.lignatur.ch/
By Jason, June 29, 2009 @ 8:06 am
modernistmodularhomes.com is affordable. They don’t really give any pictures of the interior though.
By Sea Wolf, June 29, 2009 @ 8:12 am
Agree 100%. Points 6 and 7 are the crux, if you ask me. Architects just can’t get out of their own way when designing houses, almost ever, and prefabs just make this painfully obvious. If you want a couture house, a tailored design, an art piece, then hire an architect. Don’t get me wrong: these can be wonderful things. We need a few of them. But if you want a decent, honest, timeless home that is of the larger culture (and thus stands a chance of being loved and sustained for generations) and not just the design culture or the cult of the individual designer, then buy a home built by someone with good design sense; this someone might be a builder (not likely, but possible), a home designer, or, yes, an architect. But your first job is to find a house that makes sense; in the end, it doesn’t really matter who designed it or built it. Heck, it might have been built 100 years ago from a pattern book. Cripes, they’re just houses. Either as is or with a handful of smart updates, there’s hardly a bungalow from the 1920s that doesn’t still make sense. And if that bungalow(or mid-century modern; or new modern house) doesn’t make absolutely positively pitch-perfect sense for you, get over it. Enjoy life; you’ll be dead before the house is.
By MARC, June 29, 2009 @ 11:14 am
I think the saddest fact regarding prefab homes is that the companies who build and sell them are actually pocketing the savings the consumer is supposed to enjoy by going prefab. Regardless of the supposedly high quality materials used in many of these designs, the companies still simply place too high a profit margin on their product, overprice it and because of lack of affordability consequently go out of business. This can be confirmed by simply calling a contractor and giving him the specs of any number of prefab homes and getting a bid. Over 5 times out of 10 the final bid on building a comprabable home to say an i house, the Lotus Home, will come in cheaper than going prefab. Yes, it be a longer process, however the savings only support not going prefab. There are some companies who are competitive – BluHomes, IdeaHomes, come to mind. Piece Homes in Venice California has a higher per sq. ft. overall cost but they total price includes permits and foundation costs (assuming one builds on a flat lot). Greedy prefab builders need to reconsider how they share the cost of building prefab to gain the trust and support of the consumer.
By william, June 29, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Good piece and good discussion. The thing I don’t understand is why aren’t the spec house developers, doing subdivisions at a time, using the prefab approach? If anyone can benefit from the logistical advantages of a pre-fab, it would be these guys right? They don’t really customize homes to the context or to the customers, they have fairly uniform plans, and they build to scale. Would seem like a good marriage on paper.
By Matt, June 29, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
My sticking points with all these pre-fab projects is with the pricing structure. For a predesigned project, you have to add on top of the $250-300/s.f. cost an additional $55,000 (about 15% of the construction cost) in architectural fees. (These numbers are taken from MKD’s website – and other prefab designs by other architects are comparable). As a consumer, I would be put off having to pay a 15% architectural fee for a project that is already designed. I understand that there may be some additional costs associated with the architect, but 15% is way too high. That’s what you would expect to pay a high quality architect to do a one-off custom residence. If you’re delivering predesigned homes, that architectural fee should be kept to a minimum just as home plans are available at a minimum cost – the the cost is brought down to a low price point and you make your money on volume.
My other problem is with, at these prices, the designs seem to focus too much on the exterior and provide a very bland interior. A home is more than an exterior envelope, the design should encompass the whole.
By Build LLC, June 29, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
…if a homeowner is smart about their selection they can actually find a high quality architect to do a one-off custom residence for about 10%.
By Matt, June 30, 2009 @ 7:51 am
Absolutely you can.
By mike, June 30, 2009 @ 8:28 am
10%?!? i’m unlicensed, but will design it for 4% and even build it if so desired… i am that desperate to work on a good project.
By Nick, June 30, 2009 @ 9:20 am
^^^^^
that’s exactly why architects get screwed on their fees on every contract
stick to your guns, you didn’t go to school for a half decade to undersell yourself
what if doctors were like that?
but the morality and the fraternity of architects is another post altogether (hint)
By mike, June 30, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
a. unfortunately, it’s not legal for me to call myself an architect (I’m not done w/ AREs)
b. I can mark up significantly more than 4% if I’m contractor.
c. I didn’t spend 5 years in school to detail ACT, either. You’ve got to start somewhere and if firms aren’t going to make it happen, you’ll find a way to make it happen.
at this point in my life, I’d rather be happy doing meaningful or decent work than overly depressed while doing pathetic banal work.
By Dave McAdam, June 30, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
I heartily agree – THIS round of the prefab movement is probably dead. So now let’s talk about the NEXT round of the pre-fab movement.
We just finished our first prototype house using what we think represents the logical next evolution in home prefabrication. We don’t have a snappy name for it like prefab so take a deep breath before proceeding…..factory fabricated elements that are shipped flat and then quickly assembled at the site.
The core of our system uses cold-formed, light-gauge galvanized steel that is bolted together (no welding) to create a bi-directional moment-resisting frame. Nothing is stronger – or faster. Take a look at the time-lapsed video on our web site at http://www.blueskyhomesllc.com/content.html?page=2. The video compresses the first five days of construction into a couple of minutes.
In looking at the 10 reasons you offer in support of your premise I have to say that our approach passes each with flying colors. Could Prefab 2.0 be at hand? Our first house may have been in the desert of Southern California but we stand ready to serve the low-impact, high-design, need-it-now requirements of the Northwest!
Dave McAdam
Blue Sky Homes
By Sea Wolf, July 2, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
I happen to think the Blue Sky Home is one of the most promising approaches to prefab. But note that it relies on “factory fabricated elements” assembled quickly at the site. Except — perhaps — for the quick part, this would apply also to 2x4s, sheet metal roofing, SIPs panels, sheets of plywood, pre-hung doors, pre-framed window units, etc. It’s quite likely that more complex and sophisticated and closer-to-finished elements should be prefabricated off site, but let’s be honest and allow that the conventional building system already provides a widely available, highly adaptable, surprisingly uniform kit of parts. The production builders take advantage of this by keeping their designs simple and repetative. (Which is why, for them, switching to prefab offers only marginal advantages in efficiencies.) Architects and custom builders too often work against our current integrated system of building materials by reinventing the wheel, forcing products to do what they’re not meant to do, or sized to do, insisting on non-standard sizes, etc., etc. And they even do it with prefab designs; look at the LV home and all the hoops it has to jump through to have a flat roof with a concealed parapet drainage system. It’s very cool and all, and it can be done with prefab elements, but I doubt it’s easier or cheaper than a simple shed roof with broad overhangs, made of SIPs panels. For me the debate isn’t site-built vs. prefab, it’s smart vs. dumb. I haven’t seen an actual Blue Sky Home, but the video clip is pretty darn smart (excepting the stunt of building in the desert, which only makes it harder to realize how sensible this house really is).
By Karl, July 3, 2009 @ 10:34 am
The prefab concept is certainly not new. Consider the Lustron houses during the post-war housing boom…they are still sound and very valid as a product. When in school in the 70′s there was a big push to produce mass housing systems for third world countries…what happened? Now we’re talking of designer prefabs. Is it economics or market acceptance? The quality control can be superior but shipping, marketing …etc is there. I’ve built them & was impressed with initial erection time but still needed subs., site work etc. Conclusion: easier said than done
By Olda Zinke, July 7, 2009 @ 8:35 am
The beating of a dead horse/working the system.
The Ford Taurus and most any other automobile (in reference to reason 1 and on through reason 10 of “Pre-fab houses don’t work”) is an assembly of parts, many of which are there because they have always been there so they better be there now only more of them especially those of the gadget nature.
Same for a house whether site built or a “prefab”.
Automobiles and houses among other things are the way they are because they are AUTOMOBILES, rather then devices enabling rapid, safe, comfortable individual transportation and HOUSES, rather then environments providing comfortable, carefree, attractive living.
Putting the dead horse to rest/creating a system that works.
By Brian, July 11, 2009 @ 6:05 am
This is an interesting and thought provoking blog entry. As a principal of Method Homes, a Seattle based prefab home company I am biased but the issues raised are things we think about and work on every day and I will respond point by point below. The reality is that modern prefab is still in its infancy despite all of the coverage of it and that it still needs to grow, bloom and address some of the issues laid forth in this blog post to truly take hold.
That said I have witnessed first hand homes being built more efficiently with less waste, fixed costs, a 3 month build time start to finish, and believe offsite production is the way of the future. In response to the points above:
1.All homes need site prep, foundation and utilities. The fact is that with prefab the rest of the costs are fixed and the schedule is reduced by at least 50% so there are not time delays or cost overruns. Also homes are not subjected to rain and do not need to be dried out eliminating potential for nail pops and mold.
2. There is a need these consultants and items for site built homes as well. Topography presents an opportunity for daylighting lower levels which can bring the cost of the prefab home down. Also these sensitive sites are not impacted as heavily since there is less work occurring, vehicles and crews at the site.
3.The problems that MKD ran into were due to the facts they gave up their own production, were reliant on other plants and that they had tremendous overhead.
4.Prefab can offer customization for interior floor plans, exterior aesthetics and all finishes. This is obviously less than with a custom home. We have found that people respond well to having reduced, thoughtful choices and our clients have been able to select all specifications and finishes within the time of a 1-2 hour meeting.
5. We are seeing a lot of interest and demand for our homes. I readily conceed it is currently a niche but we are seeing a paradigm shift in what people want in homes, away from oversized energy hogs and to smart, efficient, well designed spaces. Prefab is poised to capitalize on this.
6. Agreed.
7. Agreed.
8. Method Homes resembles this remark all we have innovation as a core mission. Building offsite is being innovative in my mind and we try to eliminate some of the redundancies and limitations found with traditional modular.
We believe that machines are not good substitutes for master craftsmen who are a paid a living wage and whose work we are proud to feature. We do utilize digital manufacturing resources and are working on a project that all material will arrive precut and the factory will be an assembly plant.
What is beneficial about offsite production are the efficiencies that are achieved in a controlled environment whether there are 10 CNC machines or hand assembly. It is the process that has changed from traditional site construction and with the removal of many of the inefficiencies related to site construction, homes can be built with a more manufacturing mindset.
9. It is taking time but this is changing. Modern prefab is here to stay, it needs more installations and scale to become a percentage of the housing market though. Over 50% of all homes built rely on some form of prefabrication, primarily prefabbed wall panels but modular has a significant market share in the northeast and south.
10. Once again it is the process that is inherently efficient. By fixing costs, fixing the schedule, providing modifiable options and offering architect designed spaces at a fraction of the cost of the design of a custom home prefab offers a number of benefits to the client. This is a point that is often overlooked, when architects quotes prices per square foot they omit the cost of design. The cost of siting a predesigned model, making modifications and a foundation are significantly lower than the cost of design of a custom home.
-Townhomes and condos can be built offsite greatly reducing interest costs and variables present in site construction and this is something we are working on. I am in agreement that density and being near urban areas and transit is the way of the future. The fact remains that there will always be single-family homes and that the current model is broke and ripe for innovation.
By Andrew Wilson, July 27, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
This is a great post. I plan on using it for a counterpoint post on my blog in the near future.
Keep up the good work.
Andy
Andrew Wilson, AIA, LEED AP
[1016] Architecture Inc.
Inside the Brackets
By Build LLC, July 27, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
@ Andrew – sounds great, we look forward to the counterpoint.
By Andrew Wilson, July 31, 2009 @ 8:16 am
The article is done and posted. Check it out here.
It is not necessarily a strict counterpoint since your conclusion alludes to the “next round” of pre-fab, but we hope it furthers discussion.
Andy
[1016] Architecture Inc.
Inside the Brackets
By greenbuildingindenver, January 23, 2010 @ 1:27 am
“prefabs need to sell at a certain volume to pencil out financially”
I think that’s what’s proven to be the sticking point. Example: LV homes has sold 64 kit homes in 6 years as the highest volume “manufacturer” in the field.
What car company would bother with 10 units/year ? Well, maybe a super high-end company like Bugatti. The cost of those cars
is at least 10 times that of a true mass-produced car, but they don’t have any more parts, and they probably have fewer features.
In comparison, custom prefab companies are producing for just 2-3 times the “normal” cost. Viewed in this light, the movement has been a huge success. The trouble is, no one will pay for it. Exclusivity is what sells a Bugatti (it’s not performance, Corvettes are equivalent). Homebuyers can get exclusivity for $150/ft2 site built, so they won’t pay more for prefab, and you can’t blame them.
I come from a manufacturing environment, but now I build homes. To get real economies of scale for small parts, you need an order quantity of roughly 5,000. For the large parts in a house, the number might be 500, but nobody is going to commit to building 500 unsold homes at one time.
Although Kieran + Timberlake espoused “mass customization” as the main advantage of prefab early on, that’s proven to be a myth. Mass production is still the holy grail.
And mass production requires quantities that the market has yet to (and may never) provide.