I was watching the political debate about the need for low cost houses , etc, etc. and it struck me that we haven't made much progress in the way we build houses. I am not advocating 'prefabs' but there must be a way of 'productionising' the building of houses. When my development was being built it just seemed that the methods were unchanged and relied upon good skills and lowish labour costs to get the job done. Wastage was tremendous.
Surely we could use some of the methods that are used in commercial buildings - sheet materials, steel frames, etc and get away from the concept of building a house out of items that a man can hold in his hand (bricks, tiles, etc). At the same time insulation could be improved. Wiring could be pre- assembled - as could parts of the plumbing system.
Of course there is. Look at this for a rather upmarket version;
formatting link
'd cheerfully live in a Huf house.
The problem is that the Brits have been put off such things (and rightly so in these cases) by the memories of pre-fabs and the vile "system-built" housing put up by local authorities in the 60's.
First house was by Barrats (shudder) in 1998 but although they seemed a bit flimsy they were nothing like Taywood on the opposing site. They seemed to build a skeleton of scaffolding which was then clad in various layers of sheet material before having a brick wall built up the outside. Didn't inspire confidence at all.
Apparently there are 300,000 empty houses in Eire as a result of a property boom/crash that dwarfed what has happened in the UK. Whole estates, some admittedly unfinished, with only a few occupied houses.
I think the mortage and insurance companies are part of the problem. They look unfavorably on anything non-standard. Also, system-built houses in this country do not have a good reputation. And most houses/ plots are too small to allow thick ultra-insulated walls. Interior size is always at a premium.
And its well known that planning departments often get in the way of new types of build which look different.
As an aside, the method of waterproofing houses always seems strange to me. Make the outer skin out of something porous and then think how to deal with the damp that comes through ! Why not clad the whole outside in huge plastic panels - they could be made with a nice finish.
a) Log cabins - those can be produced in a factory, then assembled on site. Slotting on 1 log has to be quicker than laying a row of bricks???
b) "A robot shat my house" system (will find links if asked) - basically a
3D "robot" that extrudes a clay like mix in strips to lay down walls. Site prep is foundations and concrete slab floors, then put up robot frame and feed with "clay". Cavity walls are possible of course, as is more interesting shaped houses - curves are no more difficult than straight walls. That leaves the roof, internal upper floors and fitting out.
What, and throw thousands of brickies out of an honest job?
Actually, houses can and are prefabbed, but there is a problem. A prefab looks like the next pre fab. People don't like that.
Another problem is weight. A house weighs a hell of a lot. Even a room weighs a hell of a lot. you can't transport more than 30 tons on most roads, and that's going some.
If you use lightweight insulated style construction, it can be done, but again., thermal mass is nice, inside a house, to moderate temperature extremes. And mass itself gives a house a solidity that a braced frame does not.
So, while there is room for larger lumps thatn a single brick, there isn't MUCH room for more than a certain amount.
you are limited to about 25-35kg for manual lifting, and 20-30 tonnes for a deliverable load. That's not even enough to pour the strip foundations of an average house.
Likewise, the sort of strength needed to - say - make a chimney that you could lift in position is WAY more than it needs to just stay up when built in place.
Indeed. Isn't it old Kevin McCloud that said house construction should be like car construction - and you wouldn't try and build a modern car in the middle of a field.
Actually one of the main reasons why house-building is slow to change, is the make- up of the industry.
50% of building companies are 5 people or less, 90% are 12 people or less.
Larger projects often involve several layers of subcontractors.
Every subcontractor is out to maximise their takings, whilst minimising their costs - i.e. the contractor takes the lowest quote, and the subcontractor delivers the minimum specification.
It's not a recipe for quality, or innovation.
And as they all do it, there's little reason to change.
Add to that, that many builders are self-taught and/or learned on the job, with only the younger ones with some college training - there isn't likely to be a culture of innovation. Most builders will find what works and stick to it.
But I think the considerably larger factor is that *almost all house- building is completely hamstrung by the cost of building land* - and if there's one thing we can do to stimulate a more competitive and innovative industry - it's make land available at more reasonable prices and with a small set of reasonable restrictions on what can be done with it - no further permissions required.
*That* way it would become economic to produce quality prefabs, knowing that buyers would have a reasonable choice of suitable sites, at reasonable prices - and not have to go through the lottery of planning permission.
I found it very noticeable that not one of the party leaders mentioned the lack of availability of building land - instead choosing to blame builders for the collapse of their own industry.
If the government chose to create reasonable market conditions, then there would be much greater competition from builders/manufacturers - and we might see something like the modern car industry where businesses *have* to keep with improvements their competitors make.
Funny how there is always an obsession in Britain with making houses cheaper to build, when the major part (often the majority) of the purchase price of a house is actually what is being paid for the land.
Our land is ridiculously expensive. It is also the main source of profit for most large housebuilders. They buy large amounts of land and hold it for many years as an investment. When the price has risen sufficiently to make them a good profit, they build on it.
So making houses cheaper to build will make very little difference to the final cost. Our houses are already cheaply (and poorly) built compared with those in many European countries. Any savings are more likely to go to increase the housebuilders' profit margins.
Well said. It's the wholly artificial restriction of supply of building land that is the root of the problem.
There's plenty of suitable land, of limited value for other uses - but rigid artificial controls result in a 10-20X difference in value.
In fact there's a huge government funding opportunity there - buy up suitable land not currently designated for building, redesignate it (you're the government, you can do what you like) - sell it, and pay off masses of the national debt.
I realize this is not your point, but some housebuilders are using fibreglass chimneys. They are far enough away from most viewpoints to look like brick. Simon.
The main problem is over-population. That causes shortages of everything. I know you could concrete over most of the countryside, but you'll end up with catastrophic congestion, pollution, and a very fragile infrastructure.
Driving through France you get an idea of what it's like to be somewhere where the population density is about half of ours. Really, the UK population should be no more than 30 million.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.