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).