LINK Project – Final Report
Introduction
1.1 The Research Project
The central idea behind this project is that, if we want to improve our new housing,
we need to overcome people’s resistance to the old ideas of prefabrication and
standardisation. The main focus of the project is on the purchaser and end user of
housing, that is the owner-occupier. The aims of the research will be achieved in a
two stage process. The first stage involves the development and testing of new
predominantly financial models though which the resistance to pre-fabrication in
housing can be eased.
The second stage involves the practical, on-site
demonstration of both product and process developments which can ease market
penetration of, and confidence in, pre-fabrication and standardisation. The second
stage is a ‘near-market’, developmental phase which, it is hoped, will be carried out
with industrial sponsorship.
As an introduction, section one of this report will first document the various issues
surrounding the potential increase in the use of prefabrication and standardisation in
housing. Section two will consider various case studies from the housing industry,
each of which is illustrative of moves towards the greater use of prefabrication or
standardisation. Section three reports on a study that examined the views of
developers and other professionals, including those from the financial sector.
Section four then goes on to report on several strands of the project which sought to
understand the nature of any potential resistance to prefabrication, and also to
explore ways of overcoming it. The main studies carried out in this respect are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
A study of attitudes towards various house types;
A study of attitudes towards alternative cladding materials;
A study looking at social attitudes to innovative housing design;
A study of attitudes of home purchasers towards various financial packages.
The report will conclude with an overall discussion of the findings, and conclude with
a series of recommendations arising from the various studies carried out as part of
this research project.
1.2 Prefabrication and Standardisation in Housing
At the core of this project are the types of prefabrication and standardisation which
may or may not be resisted by clients and the market. There exists a vast array of
these building types, which differ both in the technologies used and in the likely
impact on the public.
At one end of the scale there are standardised building systems which use quality
controlled, manufactured components to create houses which can look identical to
conventionally constructed buildings. These systems may employ, for example,
timber, concrete or steel frames, with a wide variety of cladding materials. In this
context we should not forget that a brick is a standardised, prefabricated component.
At the other end of the scale we have fully prefabricated buildings, which can present
an appearance to the world ranging from a fair simulation of a traditional, masonry
construction to a futuristic glass and steel ‘pod’.
1
LINK Project – Final Report
Another ‘traditional’ form of standardisation in housing is the ‘pattern book’ approach,
which aims to standardise form rather than materials or manufacture. An extension
of this approach is the rigid and detailed design brief in the public sector, which
produces what in practical term’s amounts to a standardised house.
1.3 Historical Context
Historically, there have been many proponents of the concepts of standardisation and
pre-fabrication in housing. Lethaby in 1911 once said that we should aim to produce
houses as efficient as a bicycle, which, as Vale (1996) points out, is very much a
standardised object. Since then, others such as Le Corbusier and Gropius, have
made similar comparisons (although more often with ships, automobiles or
aeroplanes than the bicycle).
It is important that the key criteria in prefabrication and standardisation are
recognised as relating to the processes as opposed the products. The prefabrication
of components, elements, or even entire structures off-site as an alternative to
working in-situ has been extensively applied in the past, although recently developed
approaches have both refined and expanded the practical application. Any building
requires that the construction be broken into stages, regardless of the degree of
prefabrication employed. The quality of the finished product depends as much on
selection of materials and attention to detail as it does on the construction method.
It is the case however that a number of buildings constructed in the past making use
of prefabrication in their construction were judged to be of poor quality. In the UK
following World War II, there was an organised and state-led drive for the mass
provision of (mainly social) housing. Sustained by decades of steady economic
growth, vast and open-ended programmes of housing construction were undertaken.
Particularly in Scotland, the extent of state intervention in this process was
unmatched elsewhere in Europe (Glendinning and Watters 1999). The concept of
the “prefab” home grew in prominence, and referred in the main to two types of
construction - a completely prefabricated aluminium bungalow, and various house
types incorporating degrees of off-site factory construction. Each variation on the
theme of prefabrication has impacted on society’s view of the appropriateness of
using such technologies to house people. Although the prominence of “prefab”
homes in terms of construction output dwindled by the 1960s, the connection
between a conceptual process and a realised product had been established.
For almost two decades between 1960 and the mid 1970s, a programme of
standardised and mass produced social housing followed that of the “prefab” home
throughout the UK. With particular regard to high rise system built housing of the
1960s, the application of a standardised approach to usually state-owned housing
firmly established a connection between very specific building types and the concept
of standardised building. Although many examples exist of standardised construction,
or at least standardised design, being applied in the UK prior to this time (for example
Edinburgh New Town, Glasgow town plan), a new and powerful connection has been
forged. The social acceptability of the mass produced housing built in the UK in the
past 50 years has varied considerably, with current reactions to current technologies
heavily influenced by past errors in design and construction. Whatever the reason for
the undoubted physical and social failure of a lot of post-war prefabricated housing,
2
LINK Project – Final Report
the results of this project show that the considerable stigma is attached to the idea of
the 'prefab', rather than to prefabrication or standardisation per se. It is not however
the role of this report to chronicle either the failures or the successes of the history of
the post-war 'prefab'
With both prefabricated and standardised construction, it is vital to remember that the
likely lifespan of such housing constructed between 1946 and 1975 is generally
considered to be less than that of “traditional” built housing. Most modern
construction, which uses non-masonry materials, also tends to have predicted a
lifespans less than those of masonry built housing. Any perceptual links between the
ideas of prefabrication, standardisation and non-permanence may therefore prove
vital in the acceptance of new approaches to construction.
1.4 Prefabricated Construction Methods – Present day Challenges
Bearing in mind the problems associated with certain prefabricated and standardised
buildings in the past, it is also useful to identify strengths which emerged from that
work, and which can be readily applied now. Standardisation and pre-assembly within
construction has been successful in many, sometimes prominent, projects including
Hong Kong airport, much modern hotel construction and the second Severn bridge
crossing. The importance of modular construction using a range of materials is also
gaining in importance, and will continue to do so.
From the occupant’s perspective, standardising the construction process can satisfy
any number of definitions of “value”. For example, a balance of lower time, optimum
cost and high quality can be achieved, with due attention also given to whole life
assessment. The resultant early completion, user satisfaction and ease of
maintenance and replacement all indicate that standardisation and prefabrication
have great potential for the future. The current large demand for new housing surely
points toward the need for such an approach to be applied. Standardisation can be
generic, client-specific, supplier led or project-specific. Similarly, prefabrication can
take a number of forms and the term can refer to components, sub-assemblies,
volumetric pre-assembly and modular building (Sparksman et al. 1999). The
selection of the appropriate level of prefabrication and standardisation will depend on
the case to hand, and should be clearly driven by the stated “value needs” of a given
project. Systems and components already available incorporating timber, steel,
concrete and a combination of these materials, are providing potential solutions in the
design and manufacture of housing. Standardisation of the process need not
however, in a post-Fordist world in which the economic production of one is widely
predicted, lead to standardisation of the product. It should be possible through
standardising the process, to arrive at socially desirable, sustainable and technically
sound solutions.
An important distinction to be made is that between process and product. Both
standardisation and prefabrication suggest not necessarily functionally or
aesthetically distinct products from more conventional construction, but more routes
toward the attainment of stated goals. With regard to housing, rather than viewing
such processes as barriers to innovative and satisfactory design, providing the aims
of any project are clearly stated it should be possible to work towards maximising
value for all concerned.
3
LINK Project – Final Report
Demands set in the UK by the Government sponsored Egan (1998) have moved
current thinking towards improving efficiency in construction, and driving towards
greater value and quality. Similarly, given the need for sustainability and the generally
important consideration of environmental and social values in the longer term, it is
essential that a long term view be taken and that the consequent needs for flexibility,
maintenance and eventual disposal (or re-use) be addressed at the design stage. It is
clear that a wide range of short term goals can be addressed through different levels
of standardisation, and that the prefabrication of components, or the use of modular
building types, can provide the user with a flexible and personalised living space.
Important past mistakes concerning a lack of quality, attention to detail, and
consideration of the life cycle clearly must be recognised. The design team must also
recognise where housing is constructed in large volumes, that a duty is owed to
ensure that the resulting buildings adequately address the needs of the householder,
with regard to emotional satisfaction, function and economic performance.
Prefabricated and standardised construction methods provide reliable, tested and
flexible tools with which the design team must work to satisfy such demands.
Advances in technology and new organisational structures allow concepts like
standardisation and prefabrication potentially to address many of the problems facing
the house-building industry, such as a shortage of labour skills and the need for
greater client involvement. However, there are various hindrances to change in this
respect (Sparksman et al., 1999), including a general pessimism about past
mistakes. It seems that rather than culminating in the standardised housing types of
past experiences, the trend in thinking is towards ‘mass-customisation’ and ‘agile
production’ (Barlow, 1999), which greatly increases the number of choices offered to
customers, while retaining the efficiencies of the production philosophy.
In the context of this trend towards a customer focussed house-building strategy (Roy
& Cochrane, 1999), it is considered useful to have an understanding of market
preferences, as well as perceptions of the nature and meaning of house and home by
potential occupants. The issue of market preferences has been documented
elsewhere (see Roy & Cochrane, 1999), and will not be discussed here, other than to
say that preference tends to be directed at the second hand housing market, as
current new-housing is perceived by house-buyers as offering less choice and
flexibility. This is important in a time of increasing diversity of housing demand.
1.5 Skills Shortages
One of the main concerns of UK Government about the state of the construction
industry is the low and diminishing level of skilled labour. Both the reduction in craft
skills of the various building tradespeople and the declining numbers of people in
most of the trades has been a major concern for Egan and other industry reports and
is a significant motivation in funding prefabrication and standardisation research for
EPSRC and DTI. A particular concern giving rise to interest in more manufactured
buildings is the lack of skilled bricklayers and plasterers and this difficulty coincides
with interest in reducing wet trades in housing in a bit to speed up and streamline the
construction process.
4
LINK Project – Final Report
Roy and Gaze (1999) point out that…
‘The traditional craft-based build process prevalent in the UK is labour intensive with
a long lead-time, and is difficult to control for product quality. It is also not suitable for
configurable designs that would help to customise the home to individual needs, and
the industry has been criticised for excessive standardisation of its products.
Attempts at industrialised housing, found in many other countries, have usually failed
in the past due to lack of clear objectives and inadequate R&D’
They point out that Ball (1996) has argued that such industrialisation has not
developed in the UK due to the absence of specialist sub-contractors and adequately
trained labour. They argue however that…
‘the skills needed, although new to house-builders, are not high in relation to the
country’s manufacturing skill-base and, to an extent, exist in the commercial-building
sector’.
DTI and EPSRC have funded a ‘sister project’ to this one in the MCNS Programme,
which has been carried out by a consortium led by Westminster University. Their
aims were:
x To assess how far the extension of manufacturing-based methods in the
British construction industry is deterred through existing skill and
education/training structures.
x To describe the skills, education and training of personnel at all levels involved
in more traditional housebuilding construction and in construction using
standardised, prefabricated components - with examples from Britain,
Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands.
x To assess the degree of multi-skilling entailed in traditional and innovative
construction.
x To draw up a skill classification matrix referring to type of process, firm and
client, and recommendations on training and education requirements. (Clark,
2002)
This project concentrated heavily on on-site productivity of labour as the main
indicator of construction efficiency. It’s ethos related directly to the consideration of
construction as manufacturing process and as such it is a parallel study to the current
project but does not cover the same ground. For example, the Westminster project
takes no account of the design, materiality or value of the home to individual
occupants and purchasers, which is central to this project.
Members of the project team have been in consultation with the Westminster team
and have contributed to discussions and seminars.
5
LINK Project – Final Report
1.6
Technological Approaches to Prefabrication and Standardisation
1.6.1 Geographical Comparison
The research team carried out a literature review and desk study of the available
information on different approaches to prefabrication and standardisation in housing.
The primary purpose of this study was to identify the most likely future scenarios for
housing in the UK in the medium to long-term future. This clearly needed to involve
international comparison of approaches and technologies, since it is quite likely that
new approaches to housing may be introduced from countries where prefabrication is
more advanced and arguably, the construction industry is somewhat less
conservative.
A print out of the full database can be seen in Appendix A. The team identified
almost 100 different companies currently offering prefabricated buildings, or partially
prefabricated, buildings within the UK and numerous companies operating elsewhere
in for example, USA, Germany, Scandinavia and Japan. Many of the companies
represented in the database are either not producing housing or are not dedicated
solely to housing. Rather, they are producing buildings using technologies, which
could readily be applied to the housing sector. Of the UK companies, 20-25% are
constructing what might be considered to be ‘conventional’ timber frame solutions
(the proportion rises in Scotland).
It should be noted that the desk study, which aimed to achieve 100% coverage of
generic approaches to prefabrication and standardisation, as opposed to 100%
coverage of all the companies involved, is not amenable to statistical reduction.
However certain general conclusions can be drawn from it and these are summarised
below.
1.6.1.1 USA
American culture, with its ideas of impermanence and the ‘pioneer’, takes a very
different view of the home to that of Europeans. In certain circumstances, for
example, mobile homes are much more acceptable than they are to European
sensibilities. Therefore many types of prefabricated (in US terms ‘manufactured’)
homes are generally accepted, despite a difference in aesthetics from a traditional
home, (a home finished in brick or block). In addition, in many parts of the US the
‘traditional’ home is considered to be a ‘stick-built’ timber house.
In the US, market conditions before the Second World War were also quite different
from those in the UK. In the US, construction followed the principles of a free market
economy with factory production and commercial distribution, which was mainly in
the hands of entrepreneurs and engineers. Manufactured homes in the US usually
consist of a steel frame, with panel infills constructed of either steel or timber, or
some derivative. Timber is expensive in the US, but when timber is used it usually
used for more prestigious developments, where quality, rather than cost, is the
driving factor.
Developed from the ‘Terran House’ of the post war period, most manufactured
homes currently on the market do not look dissimilar, and provide all mod-cons,
spacious accommodation, energy efficiency and deliver a 'whole house package'.
6
LINK Project – Final Report
Elemental prefabrication is the most common type of housing prefabrication in the
US. However, a recent survey of American architects showed that most felt that
European architects were ahead of their American counterparts regarding
construction technology and innovation due to architects having more 'esteem' in
Europe (Architectural Record, The 1999 survey). They also stated that clients in
Europe are more likely to pay more for innovative approaches. In the US, although
steel is the most common prefabricated material, timber and concrete are also used
fairly commonly. That is, the US market has not devoted itself to one material.
1.6.1.2 Finland
In Finland the predominant type of housing up to the 1930's was ‘log cabins’ for low
density housing and concrete and brick for higher density housing developments. A
boom in Finnish agriculture led to an increased need for standardisation, which was
usually in the form of a timber frame. Aalto, returning to Finland in 1937, designed
the first standardised timber house to meet the needs of the working population. The
AA system developed by Aalto and Ahlström is probably the best known and most
innovative of the many prefabricated wood house systems created in the 40's. Aalto
at this time succeeded in introducing modern concepts of architecture to
prefabrication (Detail, 1, 1997).
This type of timber system was common up to the fifties. The prefabrication took the
form of standard panels made from timber, some of which were manufactured in
Sweden. After the fifties, timber was used in larger developments, and also other
materials were being more frequently used combined with timber. By the seventies
timber had been mostly replaced by concrete and steel, with more standardised
components being used due to a boom in housing. Today, there is the beginning of a
swing back towards timber because of psychological and health aspects as well as
ecological gains.
1.6.1.3 Sweden
Sweden followed much the same route as Finland, but is seen as more as the
manufacturing capital for prefabrication. The war accelerated the shift from
traditional construction to framed structures with wall panels. The Swedish 'gift'
houses as they are known played a major role at this period. These were designed
in Finland but manufactured in Sweden, providing single family housing with
complete fabrication of wall units, and were given to Finland after the Winter War.
These were 'sold' to clients, most commonly to self-builder single families. In
Sweden prefabricated technology is much the same today as was common after the
Second World War, however other criteria are used in the design methodologies. In
Sweden, not only the economic and construction benefits are the sole reason for
using prefabrication, other criteria such as energy efficiency, low maintenance,
sustainable materials are also considered. Sweden also heads the research and
development of material manufacturing in timber and concrete. The use of steel in
Scandinavia is not common. An example of modern innovation in standardisation is
the IKEA 'flat-pack' house (timber/concrete composite).
1.6.1.4 Japan
Japan has a rich tradition of timber construction, for centuries all buildings were
constructed using the durable timber available on the islands. After the second world
war, western architecture (the modern movement) turned to materials such as steel,
concrete and glass, wood being excluded in all types of construction except in some
7
LINK Project – Final Report
types of housing. Since the 80's there has been a change in this perception with the
influence again coming from the west. Still outside the realm of housing, timber has
little influence.
One of the main differences between the Japanese and UK markets lies in customer
attitudes. In Japan prefabrication is seen as the quality alternative rather than the
cheap norm.
Companies such as Misawa homes have factories for the mass production of
prefabricated houses constructed predominately of steel and concrete. In addition,
due to Japan's unique Land ownership system, companies in Japan can be ensured
of a regularly recurring housing demand (the average life span is only 25 years,
compared to 60+ in the UK). In Japan, ownership of the plot of land is the permanent
feature, possibly driven by the geographical nature of the island.
A recent DTI trade mission to Japan (Building Homes, June 1998) discovered that
Misawa homes, only the fifth largest housebuilders in Japan, has 33 factories and
207 sales centres, supported by a Research & Development arm. This company
produces 47,000 units annually, equivalent to the combined output of the UK's ten
largest housing companies. In Japan there will be 1.3 million homes built per year,
compared with the UK's 200,000 (in 1998). The fact that Misawa Homes has
developed a new material perhaps demonstrates how far ahead of the UK the
industry is. ‘New Ceramics’, giving better U-values than concrete but as light as wood
and fire proof, can be easily prefabricated for use in a home. These New Ceramic
homes, the development cost of which was £80m, have already been exported to
Germany and Taiwan.
1.6.1.5 Netherlands/Belgium
The aesthetics of Dutch and Belgian housing lends itself to standardisation, with
much of the housing already designed to a replicated aesthetic. Many panel systems
used in Holland are now making their way into the UK including ‘Tunnel-form’
construction and the ‘Esspanel’. Like the Americans, the Dutch use many different
materials in their prefabrication, and are particularly innovative in their use of panel
systems for housing. Much of the prefabricated housing industry was necessitated
by damage sustained during the Second World War. Unlike in the UK, there has not
been such an anti-prefabrication backlash in subsequent years.
Similarly to Japan, there is another reason that in Holland prefabrication is more
acceptable. In Holland, many houses are demolished and re-built, as opposed to
being refurbished, as would be more likely in the UK. In addition Dutch building
standards are higher than in the UK, ensuring that prefabrication and other fast track
methods of construction (such as tunnel form) are popular so as to reduce costs
(Building Homes, May 1998).
1.6.1.6 Germany
As in England, the Germans have been wary of timber construction, especially in
large developments. Prefabrication is vastly more widely accepted in Germany than
in the UK. In West Germany prefabrication holds 11% of the overall market share of
housing while in the East the market share is more than 24%. The use of steel,
timber panel, concrete framing and masonry panel systems is growing rapidly, with a
8
LINK Project – Final Report
many greener, ecological designs also being marketed. German clients favour ‘onestop-shop’ packages that include financial services, assistance with finding sites and
a range of standard, customisable house types. This has led, since re-unification, to
packages offered by contractors, architects and building societies that combine
expertise. In many cases, building societies have been concerned with the increase
in house prices, which prevented young families looking for their first home. These
building societies recognise that a reduction in housing cost by 22% could generate
millions of extra homes and hence, of course, millions of extra customers. It is
arguably part of the function of this research project to generate the same kind of
concern amongst funders in the UK (Building Homes, June, 1998).
1.6.1.7 Britain
In the aftermath of the Egan report, the idea that a completely furnished, ready-tooccupy dwelling can be craned onto a prepared site in a matter of weeks is
appealing, if a little novel, for our house-building industry.
After the Second World War, the shortage of housing required a quick fix solution that
was both affordable and quick to construct. These buildings, mostly steel frame,
sometimes timber, were equipped with mod cons and proved popular, generally
outliving their expected lives. In the sixties further innovative use of prefabricated
structure and panels resulted in a number of disasters, some of which, notably Ronan
Point, were very visible and high profile. These disasters have given prefabrication
the 'bad-name' it still ostensibly has today. They were reinforced by bad publicity
surrounding the apparent failure of some timber frame housing in England in the
early 1980s.
Despite being commonplace in Japan and Scandinavia, where purchasers can order
a customised new home from a catalogue of components, modular construction has
not achieved universal acceptance.
However, it is fairly common for certain specialist applications, such as the
Travelodge variety of ‘family hotel' and the drive-in fast-food outlet. Greenwich's
Dome may be the largest enclosed space in Europe, but not to be outdone,
McDonald's has built the largest fast-food restaurant in Europe just next door
(2200m2) in a period of just 15 weeks, using modular construction. This is to add to
their 'fastest in the world title' in Runcorn Cheshire. This project epitomises some of
the benefits that are achievable using a modular design. The installation of the light
steel prefabricated modules took just two hours, most of the fitting out being done in
the factory also. A key factor in the title, was the fact that a prefabricated steel piling
system was used for the foundations.
The arguments for modularisation are persuasive - speed of construction, quality
control through off-site production and economy, providing there is sufficient volume.
But so far, design awards for modular buildings have been rather thin on the ground.
The database, which was compiled in the initial stages of the research project,
suggests that timber is not currently the most popular prefabrication material for
frames in the UK. In addition, a number of prefab companies have moved from
timber-frame towards steel-frame (for example Volumetric Ltd). The database also
suggests that timber-frame is making a comeback, due to the drive for sustainable
9
LINK Project – Final Report
materials, an example of such is the ‘Timber Dwelling Project’. The fact that the
database consists primarily of new, innovative solutions, which have been reported in
the popular, professional or academic press may skew this data somewhat, however.
That is, many companies who just continue to build ‘conventional’ timber frame
houses in small numbers are missing from the database. It is also important to note
that many of the 'millennium villages' planned in the UK, use some form of
prefabricated elements.
In Britain, steel and concrete are more commonly used in prefabrication, and usually
for large projects (i.e. flats, commercial premises, etc). Regarding steel, there are
four main manufacturers that could offer prefabricated homes, and these are Yorkon,
Volumetric, Britspace Modular Building Systems and Terrapin (all these companies
are supplied by British Steel, however all of these commonly construct motels,
restaurants, etc rather than housing. Indeed, in the database, most of the articles
that describe off-site factory prefabrication use steel-frame.
An exception is the proposed Arup factory that will use concrete as it's main frame
and panel. In the database, concrete is the second favourite prefabricated material,
although some articles indicate its unsuitability in the housing market, though the
ground floor and foundations are an exception. Concrete prefabrication dominates
the ground floor, basement and foundation areas, for obvious reasons.
Many of the articles in the database describe steel-frame construction as having
more versatility than timber, being able to be used with a wide range of prefabricated
panels. Generally timber-frame and concrete-frame prefabricated structures are
specified with timber infill panels and concrete infill panels respectively, whereas
steel-frame utilises a wide range of alternatives which may include plastic, stone,
ceramic, concrete or timber as well as glass. It implies that steel-frame offers the
architect more control over the aesthetics of a building.
In Britain, factory prefabrication or a combination of some on-site fabrication and
factory fabrication is preferred to on-site prefabrication (as in tunnel form, or tilt-up
construction). Indeed almost 75% of the articles found detail that a combination of
factory prefabrication and on-site 'wet' work is most commonly used, but mostly the
prefabrication is for elements of the construction only rather than whole modules and
pods.
In the UK there are no factories for manufactured construction elements that are
totally dedicated to housing though there are a number proposed for the near future
which hope to conform with the Egan report. As such, there is little evidence that
prefabrication is being used other than to make housing more affordable.
Figure 1 shows the amount of housing built in Scotland during the period since the
Second World War. The graph shows three distinct stages, the first period has the
highest public sector peak, was mostly during the post war years (1945-60)
constructed mostly with prefabrication technology. At the beginning of the 60's
package-deal homes were more the norm for this period of building boom. Since
1975 the public sector has declined rapidly being replaced by private sector housing.
This has resulted in a move away from prefabricated technology (Home Builders,
Glendinning & Watters,1999).
10
LINK Project – Final Report
1.6.2 The Way Forward
Housing types that we feel are appropriate areas for further study include single
family homes in the suburban and rural environments, where the aesthetics and
popularity of prefabrication is expected to be less than city centre or urban
environments. There are parallels with the earlier ‘prefab’ boom of the post war
period of 1945-60 during, which much of the prefabricated housing was sited in
suburban environments, with varying degrees of success.
It is also important to access other benefits, which could apply to prefabrication other
than the construction and economic benefits. Much of the overseas literature that
has been gathered on construction systems which use prefabrication, not only focus
on the construction and economic gains but also on the quality of the prefabrication.
It is noted that the term 'quality' is always difficult to define, but for the purposes of
this study it might include any of the following;
(a) Housing as a product. Easy maintenance, replaceability and extendibility.
(b) Sustainable prefabrication using sustainable materials from local sources, many
small factories compared to one large centralised one, etc.
(c) Energy efficiency with ecological design
(d) Low running costs and renewable energy sources
(e) Healthy environments within the home
(f) Smart homes and working from home
(g) Integrated, local heating and power systems
(h) Recycling and re-use
Figure 1
Number of Houses Built in Scotland by Sector, 1945-97
40000
35000
Number of houses
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
7
19
9
3
5
19
9
1
19
9
19
9
7
9
19
8
5
19
8
19
8
1
3
19
8
9
19
8
19
7
5
7
19
7
3
19
7
19
7
9
1
19
7
7
19
6
19
6
3
5
19
6
1
19
6
19
6
7
9
19
5
5
19
5
19
5
1
3
19
5
9
19
5
19
4
5
19
4
19
4
7
0
Date
Public Sector
Private Sector
Figure 1 - Number of Houses Built in Scotland, 1945-971
1
It should be noted that the figures for 'private sector' house construction include those built by housing associations or
housing cooperatives
11
LINK Project – Final Report
It should be noted that were the suggestion by the German financial sector, that
capital costs of housing could be reduced by up to 22% through the use of
prefabrication, to be correct (Building Homes, June, 1998), the savings could be
considerable. If the 4.4 million homes required by 2016 in the UK were to reap these
benefits using, total savings could be up to £450 million. This money could target
such issues as energy efficiency, ecological design, sustainable building materials,
and renewable energy.
12
LINK Project – Final Report
1.7 Stakeholders
There are many potential stakeholders that changes in the housing product would
have an effect on. Clearly, the developer gains financially from a process which
enables the construction of similar houses at a lower cost. However, if the
construction process were to be made explicit in some way, either through
description or design, there is a potential for resistance to become evident. This
resistance might be from the owner-occupier, or it might be from the various other
stakeholders, such as:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Planners,
Developers,
Lenders,
Architects,
Manufacturers,
Insurers,
Builders.
The views of these various stakeholders will be explored in section two, with a view
to understanding the key groups on which to target specific measures to overcome
any potential resistance if this is deemed appropriate.
1.8 Overcoming Resistance
As stated earlier, this project is primarily concerned with the nature of any potential
resistance to the product of the prefabrication process. The various studies
presented here aim to understand resistance from the point of view of the various
stakeholders outlined in section 1.7. Moreover, after exploring the nature of this
resistance (or lack of), the study looking at financial packages will show that there are
various means by which resistance from the perspective of the potential occupant
might be overcome. The feasibility of any such measures will be discussed in the
concluding section of this report.
13