I'm disappointed that this article doesn't mention sustainability or energy efficiency of modular construction. As part of our long-term housing search, we're looking into modular construction....
I'm disappointed that this article doesn't mention sustainability or energy efficiency of modular construction. As part of our long-term housing search, we're looking into modular construction.
The modular housing market includes vendors that tout use of recycled materials, full recyclability/reusability, net-zero energy, low-VOC components, and so on.
In my searches, the limits of architectural design in prefabricated housing are fairly evident, as are definitional issues with "modular" and "prefabricated". Designs are usually minimal variations on cubes and rectangular prisms, with some apparent constraints to sizes that can be carried on railcars and semi-trailers. Disassembled prefabricated kits have nearly the same assembly times and on-site skilled labor needs as standard stick-built housing.
One of the potentially concerning items in the article is a basic attitude of disposabilty towards housing. It's the biggest budget item for most families globally, and there's always going to be some trade-off between affordability and durability.
But the Japanese-style 20-year replacement cycle doesn't serve anyone well. It means that people are likely spending far more of their lives in crumbling homes approaching catastrophic failure. You'll likely know what I mean if you've lived in cheap rentals, mobile homes, or student housing - the constant water leaks, illnesses from mold problems, horrible heat bills from drafty windows, flaking drywall, insect invasions at the foundations, occasional electrical shocks and fires, and so forth.
And again, the populations that need secure, safe housing are the ones least served by the luxe modular trend. In the U.S., typical costs run $140 - $330 sq. ft. ($1,500 - $3,600 sq. m.). The particulars of construction, like land ownership, site selection, weather, local building codes, utility standards, and other variables mean that modular housing may not undergo the Tesla-style cycle of customized luxury production kick-starting mass production investment.
The article does mention projects to shelter homeless people (or shantytown residents) in repurposed shipping containers. However, this is a solution that doesn't easily or cheaply scale, doesn't rapidly provide efficient, safe, comfortable accommodation, and doesn't significantly affect a market where housing is too expensive for most workers.
Maybe it will when sustainability is about loving the earth and not checking a box in ComCheck to pass code. At best, in the current climate (no pun) in construction energy efficiency is about the...
I'm disappointed that this article doesn't mention sustainability
Maybe it will when sustainability is about loving the earth and not checking a box in ComCheck to pass code. At best, in the current climate (no pun) in construction energy efficiency is about the money is costs to get energy and sustainability is about putting a badge on your foyer so you can hike rent.
That said, even if it's not at the top of the docket, there are definitely numerous sustainability of benefits to shop fabrication - as opposed to ""pre-fabs"" (as in trailers) and modularity (i.e. again just trailers). Less waste is the biggest since construction & demo waste is like 40-50% of whats in landfills. Shop-fab buildings are typically tighter and more precisely built and so leak less air - which the #1 energy bill booster.
the Tesla-style cycle of customized luxury production kick-starting mass production investment.
I dont know if I entirely agree. Look up unity homes and bensonwood. They are (at least in America's residential market) mostly servicing high-end clients. Most of the shop-fab happening in high-rise construction is higher end as well - thinking of SHOP's project across from the Barclay's center in Brooklyn.
A pretty vivid illustration of a luxury funded impact on the consumer-grade market is the Skender Plant opening in Chicago. It's getting built for a massive luxury development in a wealthy part of the city. But at the same time they are just launched a competition into shop-fabricated housing that could be build there and be more financially accessible.
I think I'd want to understand Japanese housing better before assuming it's like student housing or mobile homes. I'm reminded of the discussion in How Buildings Learn about the differing...
I think I'd want to understand Japanese housing better before assuming it's like student housing or mobile homes.
I'm reminded of the discussion in How Buildings Learn about the differing lifetimes of different subsystems in a building. Maybe the parts other than the structural shell shouldn't last all that long?
The article discusses why the Japanese housing market is different and the rationale for the short lifecycle model - both hasty post-war construction and the recurring rebuilding costs of frequent...
The article discusses why the Japanese housing market is different and the rationale for the short lifecycle model - both hasty post-war construction and the recurring rebuilding costs of frequent wide-scale natural disasters. My concern is that the model will be exported to countries that don't face these constraints, and that housing will become an even more disposable, wasteful commodity than it is already. If you've ever looked at the original modular, prefabricated home style in the U.S., the "double-wide" mobile home, there was a long process of evolution from the original 10-year habitable life expectancy to the current heavily regulated standard expected to last 50+ years (comparable to regular site-built housing).
I'm not saying all construction built for a 20-year lifecycle is necessarily shoddy. [I do have concerns, though, about the accessibility and repairability of plumbing and electrical components inside preformed panels.]
However, the failure to repair, replace, or plan for infrastructure renewal, as is often the case in the U.S., means that things deteriorate for a long time past their expected use before they're condemned as unsafe. While it's useful that the shell of a building is sturdy and durable, the earlier failure of critical subsystems, like electrical wiring, just creates hidden safety problems. There are housing markets here so constrained that large numbers of impoverished working people live in buildings that should be condemned; they're often reduced to homelessness when their landlords are caught out for slumlording.
Yes, and I've also read some good articles elsewhere about how Japanese housing is different. However, I want to avoid "instant expert syndrome." Just because I've read a few articles doesn't mean...
Yes, and I've also read some good articles elsewhere about how Japanese housing is different. However, I want to avoid "instant expert syndrome." Just because I've read a few articles doesn't mean I really know what's going on in any detail. I still have questions.
One advantage of the Japanese system might be that it ensures buildings can be replaced by doing it regularly, versus in the US where it's very difficult and often a political fight? I don't think this can be entirely blamed on landlords when there are so many external constraints on construction.
But it doesn't sound like these modular construction techniques do anything to make the homes themselves modular in the sense that you can easily replace parts of them? Even with standards for long-lasting construction, using materials good for 50 years doesn't help if there's no plan for what happens then.
It seems like a systematic problem. Hardly anyone is good at planning that far ahead.
I'm disappointed that this article doesn't mention sustainability or energy efficiency of modular construction. As part of our long-term housing search, we're looking into modular construction.
The modular housing market includes vendors that tout use of recycled materials, full recyclability/reusability, net-zero energy, low-VOC components, and so on.
In my searches, the limits of architectural design in prefabricated housing are fairly evident, as are definitional issues with "modular" and "prefabricated". Designs are usually minimal variations on cubes and rectangular prisms, with some apparent constraints to sizes that can be carried on railcars and semi-trailers. Disassembled prefabricated kits have nearly the same assembly times and on-site skilled labor needs as standard stick-built housing.
One of the potentially concerning items in the article is a basic attitude of disposabilty towards housing. It's the biggest budget item for most families globally, and there's always going to be some trade-off between affordability and durability.
But the Japanese-style 20-year replacement cycle doesn't serve anyone well. It means that people are likely spending far more of their lives in crumbling homes approaching catastrophic failure. You'll likely know what I mean if you've lived in cheap rentals, mobile homes, or student housing - the constant water leaks, illnesses from mold problems, horrible heat bills from drafty windows, flaking drywall, insect invasions at the foundations, occasional electrical shocks and fires, and so forth.
And again, the populations that need secure, safe housing are the ones least served by the luxe modular trend. In the U.S., typical costs run $140 - $330 sq. ft. ($1,500 - $3,600 sq. m.). The particulars of construction, like land ownership, site selection, weather, local building codes, utility standards, and other variables mean that modular housing may not undergo the Tesla-style cycle of customized luxury production kick-starting mass production investment.
The article does mention projects to shelter homeless people (or shantytown residents) in repurposed shipping containers. However, this is a solution that doesn't easily or cheaply scale, doesn't rapidly provide efficient, safe, comfortable accommodation, and doesn't significantly affect a market where housing is too expensive for most workers.
Maybe it will when sustainability is about loving the earth and not checking a box in ComCheck to pass code. At best, in the current climate (no pun) in construction energy efficiency is about the money is costs to get energy and sustainability is about putting a badge on your foyer so you can hike rent.
That said, even if it's not at the top of the docket, there are definitely numerous sustainability of benefits to shop fabrication - as opposed to ""pre-fabs"" (as in trailers) and modularity (i.e. again just trailers). Less waste is the biggest since construction & demo waste is like 40-50% of whats in landfills. Shop-fab buildings are typically tighter and more precisely built and so leak less air - which the #1 energy bill booster.
I dont know if I entirely agree. Look up unity homes and bensonwood. They are (at least in America's residential market) mostly servicing high-end clients. Most of the shop-fab happening in high-rise construction is higher end as well - thinking of SHOP's project across from the Barclay's center in Brooklyn.
A pretty vivid illustration of a luxury funded impact on the consumer-grade market is the Skender Plant opening in Chicago. It's getting built for a massive luxury development in a wealthy part of the city. But at the same time they are just launched a competition into shop-fabricated housing that could be build there and be more financially accessible.
I think I'd want to understand Japanese housing better before assuming it's like student housing or mobile homes.
I'm reminded of the discussion in How Buildings Learn about the differing lifetimes of different subsystems in a building. Maybe the parts other than the structural shell shouldn't last all that long?
The article discusses why the Japanese housing market is different and the rationale for the short lifecycle model - both hasty post-war construction and the recurring rebuilding costs of frequent wide-scale natural disasters. My concern is that the model will be exported to countries that don't face these constraints, and that housing will become an even more disposable, wasteful commodity than it is already. If you've ever looked at the original modular, prefabricated home style in the U.S., the "double-wide" mobile home, there was a long process of evolution from the original 10-year habitable life expectancy to the current heavily regulated standard expected to last 50+ years (comparable to regular site-built housing).
I'm not saying all construction built for a 20-year lifecycle is necessarily shoddy. [I do have concerns, though, about the accessibility and repairability of plumbing and electrical components inside preformed panels.]
However, the failure to repair, replace, or plan for infrastructure renewal, as is often the case in the U.S., means that things deteriorate for a long time past their expected use before they're condemned as unsafe. While it's useful that the shell of a building is sturdy and durable, the earlier failure of critical subsystems, like electrical wiring, just creates hidden safety problems. There are housing markets here so constrained that large numbers of impoverished working people live in buildings that should be condemned; they're often reduced to homelessness when their landlords are caught out for slumlording.
Yes, and I've also read some good articles elsewhere about how Japanese housing is different. However, I want to avoid "instant expert syndrome." Just because I've read a few articles doesn't mean I really know what's going on in any detail. I still have questions.
One advantage of the Japanese system might be that it ensures buildings can be replaced by doing it regularly, versus in the US where it's very difficult and often a political fight? I don't think this can be entirely blamed on landlords when there are so many external constraints on construction.
But it doesn't sound like these modular construction techniques do anything to make the homes themselves modular in the sense that you can easily replace parts of them? Even with standards for long-lasting construction, using materials good for 50 years doesn't help if there's no plan for what happens then.
It seems like a systematic problem. Hardly anyone is good at planning that far ahead.