PREFAB : Future or Failure? - Dissertation by Sam Hayes by Sam Hayes

P R E FUTURE OR FAILURE? A B

Sam

Hayes

Visual Presentation (Hybrid)

Word Count: 9,000 (Approx)

Nottingham Trent University

This dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment towards the award BArch (Hons) Architecture: Part 1

DESN30150: Architecture in Context 3

February

2014

[Fig 1]

DOES PREFABRICATED ARCHITECTURE HAVE A FUTURE WITHIN THE UK BUILDING INDUSTRY? 2

C O N T E N T S

[Fig 2]

Acknowledgements Ownership Statement List of Figures Introduction Methodology

3 5 6 7 9

Chapter 1

Early History

Chapter 2

World War I

Chapter 3

World War II

Temporary Housing Act Prefab Concrete Evaluation

Chapter 4 Pioneering

31 33 35

Architects

Architects Vs Commerical Developers Pinoeering Architects Case Study Houses Evaluation

37 38 42 43

Chapter 5

Historic Research

Chapter 6

Current Opinion

Chapter 7

Current Opinion Evaluation

Modern Prefab

49 53

Baufritz

Conclusions Appendix Bibliography

61 62 85

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank everyone that helped me to research, develop and complete this dissertation. My tutor Gavin Richards has been encouraging and enthusiastic, giving me great support and guidance throughout. I am grateful to all those who responded to my on-line survey and particularly to Nigel Bishop who made the site visit to the Baufritz house construction possible, also putting me in touch with Robert Lumme, one of the architects on the project. Robert helped a great deal in collecting important primary information for ‘Modern Prefab’, as did the owner of the house that was being constructed, Laura Pring. Laura, along with other potential clients on site, provided valuable information from a client’s point of view. My thanks also goes to Peter Eden who looked out for me on this site visit. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Phoenix prefab home-owners in Moseley, who provided a valuable insight to the realities of post-war prefabs. I also really appreciate the help my parents gave by taking me to the site visits in Birmingham and Chichester. Finally I would like to dedicate my research project to my loving Grandparents. They have shown great interest in my project and have helped me practically by taking me to St. Fagan’s in Wales and giving me a place to stay on my trip down to Chichester.

OWNERSHIP STATEMENT

I confirm that the work in this research document is my own work, unless referenced otherwise. This dissertationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; copyright rests with Nottingham Trent University.

Signed: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Print: Sam Hayes

Date: 24/02/14

LIST OF FIGURES [Fig 1] p.1/2 - Baufritz. 2008. Baufritz - Qi. [image online] Available at: http:// www.smarthomes.de/uploads/pics/Baufritz_Qi_014_02_RGB.JPG [Accessed: 16 Feb 2014].

[Fig 28] p.33 - Anderson, B. 2009. Concrete Jungle - Kingston House, Hull. [image online] Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22321787 [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014].

[Fig 2] p.3 - Phoenix Prefab. 2006. [image online] Available at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Phoenix_prefab.jpg [Accessed: 16 Feb 2014].

[Fig 29] p.34 - Hurtadod. 2012. Corviale. [image online] Available at: http://architecture.woodbury.edu/rcac/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/11.jpg [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014].

[Fig 3] p.10 - Young, S. 2010. Crystal Palace. [image online] Available at: http:// sarahjyoung.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Kristallpalast_Sydenham.png [Accessed: 16 Feb 2014].

[Fig 30] p.35 - Verlaan, T. 2011. Ronan Point Disaster. [image online] Available at: http://failedarchitecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/original-830x1137.jpg [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014].

[Fig 4] p.11 - Tala, L. 2012. Yurt. [image online] Available at: http://lorrainetala. files.wordpress.com/2012/08/yurt.jpg [Accessed: 16 Feb 2014].

[Fig 31] p.36 - P, J. 2009. Le Corbusier. [image online] Available at: http://42ndblackwatch1881.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/c-5.jpeg [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014].

[Fig 5] p.12 - Snickers. 2006. Covered Wagon. [image online] Available at: http:// www.photochart.com/photo_3978_covered%20wagon.html [Accessed: 16 Feb 2014].

[Fig 32] p.37 - Sears, Roebuck & Co. Houses. 1995. [image online] Available at: http:// www.arts-crafts.com/archive/sears/ [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014].

[Fig 6] p.13 - Bartholomew, J. G. 1922. London: The Times. [image online] Available at: - http://www.davidrumsey.com/rumsey/Size4/D0044/00444014.jpg [Accessed: 16 Feb 2014].

[Fig 33] p.38 - The Usonian House - Frank Lloyd Wright. n.d. [image online] Available at: http://onewaystreet.typepad.com/one_way_street/2007/01/usonia.html [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014].

[Fig 7] p.14 - Boswell, K. 2010. Temporary Housing in Africa. [image online] Available at: http://kevinboswell.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/img_8311.jpg [Accessed: 16 Feb 2014].

[Fig 34] p.39 - The Maison Citrohan - Le Corbusier. 2005. [image online] Available at: http://sp8.fotolog.com/photo/24/10/10/pudimbacana/1113743470_f.jpg [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014].

[Fig 8] p.15 - Ghost Towns - Abandoned Gold Rush Town. 2012. [image online] Available at: http://peopleus.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-ghost-towns-comparison-of-britain.html [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014].

[Fig 35] p.40 - Breaux, A. 2009. Walter Gropious. [image online] Available at: http:// swanklighting.com/files/blog/9_2.jpg [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014].

[Fig 9] p.16 - Ford Motor Company. 1913. Highland Park Assembly Line. [image online] Available at: http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/tag/teens/ [Accessed: 16 Feb 2014]. [Fig 10] p.17 - Crystal Palace. 2013. [image online] Available at: http://rentomod. files.wordpress.com/2013/04/paxton-crystalpalace.jpg [Accessed: 16 Feb 2014]. [Fig 11] p.18 - Torgeir. 2009. World War I - There is Hope for us. [image online] Available at: http://there.is.hope-for.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/hu011387.jpg [Accessed: 19 Feb 2014].

[Fig 36] p.41 - Open Living - Charles & Ray Eames. 2010. [image online] Available at: http://frommoontomoon.blogspot.co.uk/2010_07_01_archive.html [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014]. [Fig 37] p.42 - Shulman, J. 2002. Case Study Houses. [image online] Available at: http://www.arcspace.com/CropUp/-/media/142604/1.Bookstudy.jpg ( [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014]. [Fig 38] p.42 - Open Living - Eames. 2014. [image online] Available at: http://www. matchboyscollective.com/the-eames-house-classics/ 2014 [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014]. [Fig 39] p.44 - Hayes, S. 2014. Prefab Case Study Pictures. [Photograph]. Not Published.

[Fig 12] p.19 - Smart & Co. 2011. Nissen Hut. [image online] Available at: http:// smartandco.co.uk/2011/listings/cultybraggan-comrie/ [Accessed: 19 Feb 2014].

[Fig 40] p.45 Google Maps. 2014. Maps. [image online] Available at: http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/images/46/69/L466954.jpg [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014].

[Fig 13] p.20 - Aladdin House Catalogue. 2008. [image online] Available at: http:// www.midcenturyhomestyle.com/plans/aladdin/ [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014].

[Fig 41] p.45 - Hayes, S. 2014. Prefab Case Study Pictures. [Photograph]. Not Published.

[Fig 14] p.20 - Sears, Roebuck & Co. Catalogue. 2008. [image online] Available at: http://antiquebooks.typepad.com/antique_books_and_old_col/2008/08/1909-sears-roeb. html [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014]. [Fig 15] p.21 - Shoemaker, R. 2013. Aladdin Sunshine Holiday Home. [image online] Available at: http://oklahomahousesbymail.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/aladdin-sunshine-1933-catalog-image.jpg [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014]. [Fig 16] p.21 - Aladdin House. n.d. [image online] Available at: http://architecture. about.com/u/sty/readershowcase/Bungalows/Aladdin-or-Liberty-Bungalow.htm [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014]. [Fig 17] p.22 - Sears' 1911 Catalogue. 2011. [image online] Available at: http:// instanthouse.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/sears-and-roebuck-modern-homes.html [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014]. [Fig 18] p.23 - The Great Depression - Hooverville. 2011. [image online] Available at: http://becomingdouble.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/hooverville_01.jpg [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014]. [Fig 19] p.24 - Pritchard, E. 2010. Mobile Homes. [image online] Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/47834174@N05/5033431408/sizes/l/ [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014]. [Fig 20] p.25 - Katherine Dock House - Concrete Slab Construction. n.d. [image online] Available at: http://www.uwe.port.ac.uk/concrete/M.3048%20St%20Katherine%20 Dock%20House.JPG [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014]. [Fig 21] p.26 - XD- 111. 2011. Abandoned Plattenbau Buildings. [image online] Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/xd-111/6590041807/sizes/l/ [Accessed: 19 Feb 2014]. [Fig 22] p.27 - Everett. 2011. World War II. [image online] Available at: http://engineofsouls.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ww2-feat3.jpg [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014]. [Fig 23] p.28 - Army Arch. n.d. Sunday School in Quonset Chapel, 1951. [image online] Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/army_arch/4300999929/ [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014]. [Fig 24] p.29 - Mathosian, M. 2011. Levittown, Long Island, NY - 1948. [image online] Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/markgregory/8087087647/in/photostream/ [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014]. [Fig 25] p.30 - Bdickman. 2011. Lustron House, Centerville, Ohio. [image online] Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdickman/5904755528/ [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014]. [Fig 26] p.31 - Totally History. 2012. Winston Churchill - Peace. [image online] Available at: http://totallyhistory.com/winston-churchill [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014]. [Fig 27] p.32 - Walmsley, D. 2013. Wake Green Road - Phoenix Prefabs. [image online] Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/damienwalmsley/9450565073/ [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014].

[Fig 42] p.45 Google Maps. 2014. Maps. [image online] Available at: http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/images/46/69/L466954.jpg [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014]. [Fig 43] p.45 - Hayes, S. 2014. Prefab Case Study Pictures. [Photograph]. Not Published. [Figs 44-47] p.46 - Hayes, S. 2014. Prefab Case Study Pictures. [Photograph]. Not Published. [Figs 48-51] p.47 - Hayes, S. 2014. Prefab Case Study Pictures. [Photograph]. Not Published. [Fig 52] p.48-53 - Stupic.com. 2013. Modern Prefab Home with Awesome Sun Room Featured Glass Wall in California. [image online] Available at: http://www.stupic.com/images/modern-luxury-prefab-homes-design-with-gret-lighting-and-plant-decor-ideas.jpg [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014]. [Fig 53] p.54 lished.

Hayes, S. 2014. Baufritz House Construction. [Photograph]. Not Pub-

[Fig 54] p.55 - Baufritz Home. 2014. [image online] Available at: http://www.top100.org. uk/assets/images/autogen/a_Completed_Baufritz_home.jpg [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014]. [Fig 55] p.55 - Weatherpixie. 2011. Factory. [image online] Available at: http://www. flickr.com/photos/weatherpixie/6332836293/# [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014]. [Fig 56] p.55 - Baufritz Home - Interior. 2014. [image online] Available at: http://www. top100.org.uk/assets/images/autogen/a_Interior_of_a_Baufritz_eco_home.jpg [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014]. [Fig 57] p.56 - Lanou, R. 2011. Wall Section. [image online] Available at: http://buildsense.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/different-outlook.html [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014]. [Fig 58] p.56 - Baufritz. 2014. Baufritz Home - Living Area. [image online] Available at: http://www.baufritz.com/pic/houses/view/1821/9-living-area-house-wood.jpg [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014]. [Fig 59] p.56 - Map. 2014. [image online] Available at: https://maps.google.co.uk/ maps?safe=off&client=safari&q=chichester&ie=UTF-8&ei=kt4HU7L8OYrwhQedyoDwBA&ved=0CAcQ_ AUoAQ [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014]. [Figs 60-63] p.57 - Hayes, S. 2014. Baufritz House Construction. [Photograph]. Not Published. [Figs 64-65] p.58 - Hayes, S. 2014. Baufritz House Construction. [Photograph]. Not Published. [Fig 66-67] p.59 - Hayes, S. 2014. Baufritz House Construction. [Photograph]. Not Published. [Figs 68-70] p.60 - Pring, L. 2014. Baufritz House Construction. [Photograph]. Not Published. [Fig 71] p.62 - Phoenix Prefab. 2006. [image online] Available at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Phoenix_prefab.jpg [Accessed: 16 Feb 2014]. [Fig 72] p.63 – Scanned Document – Phoenix Schedule [Fig 73] p.64 – Scanned Document – Phoenix Schedule

INTRODUCTION I chose to explore the field of prefabrication after working on a building site over the summer holidays. Due to the nature of conventional building methods I found the process slow and the site to be messy and quite dangerous. As well as these issues and from what the builder was saying, I learnt from him and others, that there is a lack of faith and trust in the industry because there is perceived to be a shortage of skill. I have also learnt that there is pressure on the building industry to produce more housing generally and that these houses should be more sustainable due to our impact on the environment (Prescott, 2003, cited Birkbeck and Scoones, 2005). These opinions lead me to wonder what the alternative or other options would be to help solve these issues. During my studies and due to my personal interests in architecture I have learnt about the concept of prefabrication. This can offer many benefits such as, cost effective building, quick construction with less skilled labour and production of economic and sustainable homes in a controlled and tidy factory environment (Knaack and Chung-Klatte et al.,2012). This makes me wonder why ‘prefab’ is not utilised more by the building industry? My question therefore is;

“

Does prefabricated architecture have a future within the UK building industry?

“

To investigate this I searched the literature on early and historic uses for prefabrication to look for indications why it is not employed more in the UK’s building industry.

From this work I found that prefabrication was often used as a last resort and associated with temporary and cheap living, (Ebong, 2005) however it was beneficial in certain situations when there was a lack of skilled labour, time and materials, for example during war time. (Herbers,2006) From the literature I discovered a development of bad associations, and as a result, a stigma attached to the word ‘prefab’. In order to further investigate the theme that reputation and associations may be affecting the use of prefabrication, I conducted an online public survey. I also believed it was important to see some of the prefab buildings that helped contribute to this negative image and see first hand their quality and aesthetics. I went to Wales to an open-air national housing museum in St Fagans, to experience a re-erected post war prefab and to gather further information and gain knowledge of their construction and appearance. In response to learning their qualities, I travelled to Wake Green Road in Birmingham, where a row of original post war prefabs is still occupied. Here, I conducted interviews with the homeowners, to hear their first hand experiences of living in them. From this research I learnt that there is a stigma attached to prefabrication however, I also learnt that actually, people are becoming more aware of ecological friendly living and that they are seeing the potential for prefabrication. To explore how sustainability and modern technology is being used in modular housing, more commonly found on the continent (McGhie, 2008), I visited a house erection in Chichester by a company that specialises in these elements within their building philosophy (Baufritz, 2014). Here I interviewed potential clients and an architect from the company to gauge whether the advances in technology and people’s awareness of their impact on the environment has now changed people’s perception of ‘prefab’ enabling it to have a future in the UK building industry.

METHODOLOGY Prefabrication has existed for hundreds of years. The initial work reflects my reading about its history. In order to further this research I conducted two site visits to see some original post-war prefabs. Firstly I visited St. Fagan’s housing museum in South Wales to see a reconstructed original AIROH B2 prefab. I also visited occupied, original Phoenix prefabs on Wake Green Road in Birmingham to hear first hand about sthe experience of those living in old prefab homes re sulting from the Temporary Housing Act (1944). On this visit I collected qualitative primary data by conducting structured interviews (see section 1 of the appendix). This form of research produces rich data and can produce further research ideas (Coolican, 2009). The process was limited by occupier’s willingness and availability to open the door and then answer questions. I gained 5 homeowners views from a possible 7 that answered the door, 10 houses on the road were occupied, giving a 50% response rate. Although the number interviewed was very small it represented a fair sample of people in the UK who have the relevant experience. From this initial research a theme was developing and in order to explore current attitudes to prefabrication I conducted an online public survey using a website called Survey Monkey. I gathered both quantitative data and additional qualitative information in the form of optional comments to the survey questions. The aim of this survey was to clarify and backup some of my research, but also to provoke comments and opinions regarding prefabs’ history, future and impact on various aspects such as context and labour. The target audience was the public, but many of the respondents are colleagues and tutors, so they will have an architectural interest. The fact that majority of the audience has an architectural awareness will only make the information more reliable. The quantitative data is presented in the form of bar charts and the qualitative information is recorded as comments underneath the chart. 68 responses were received. It is this primary data that forms the majority of the ‘Current Opinion’ chapter, supported by relevant literature (see section 2 of the appendix). The final stages of my research project involved gathering secondary information from more up to date sources, using the Internet. To further investigate this I conducted an additional site visit to observe the construction of a modern prefab by Baufritz. Whilst on site I interviewed clients and the company architect collecting further qualitative data on this particular company and their work in the area of prefabrication (see section 3 of the appendix). Together this research has informed my understanding of prefabrication today and it’s potential future within the UK building industry.

Presentation Structure - Chapters 1 - 4 consists of information found within the literature - Chapters 5 - 7 provides critical analysis of primary research findings and further secondary information from the literature enabling me to draw my conclusions.

C H A P T E R

[Fig 3]

EARLY HISTORY

This chapter covers from the very first examples of prefabrication (prefab), to the point of the First World War. It outlines the circumstances that instigated the use of prefabrication and the methods used at the time.

[Fig 4]

Prefab is a type of architecture that dates back thousands of years to the point of the Mongolian Yurt. 2,000 years ago Mongolian tribes would [Fig 4] use pliable wooden worm fences and wool blankets, fastened together using rope, made from horsehair, called yak. They would move from pasture to pasture in search of food, using these structures to live in. These temporary structures were lightweight, easily built and dismantled within 60 minutes and transportable by two or three camels. (Knaack and Chung-Klatte et al. et al, 2012)

[Fig 5]

Since these temporary dwellings, structures such as tents, caravans, horse-drawn covered wagons [Fig 5] and eventually prefab and mobile houses have been used as semi-permanent housing solutions. England shipped the first prefab housing to colonies in North America in 1624. The structure simply consisted of wooden panels that fasten together on-site. The settlement relied on quick and cheap housing to serve as dwellings for fishing fleets. (Herbers, 2006)

[Fig 6]

In the late 18th century, at the time of the industrial revolution and the urbanisation of Europe there was a large increase in demand for mass housing as the population rose from 290 million in 1870 to 750 million in 1950. London had the largest population in the world of over 2million in 1841. This ever-increasing pressure to construct houses quickly initiated the newly industrialised nations to experiment with small-prefabricated houses throughout the 19th century. (Pople, 2005)

[Fig 7]

The industrial revolution shifted the technical, socioeconomic and cultural conditions of living with machinery being used increasingly over manpower. Pre war, Great Britain and America were already thriving in industrialised buildings. They were manufacturing components for metal housing [Fig 7], packaging and shipping these parts for semi permanent structures such as, churches, storages houses and other necessary buildings for expanding settlements in Asia, Africa and Australia. (Knaack and Chung-Klatte et al. et al, 2012)

[Fig 8]

Construction companies in California could not keep up with the demand for quick dwellings during the gold rush of 1848 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1855. As a consequence prefabricated components for temporary housing were shipped over to accommodate the increasing number of people drawn to the area. They were shipped in mass in the form of portable cottages made of wood [Fig 8] or corrugated iron, as a light and durable material for construction. (Herbers, 2006)

[Fig 9]

“

The perfection of the assembly line and mass production in the auto mobile industry was an invention of a system of manufacturing that was inspirational to the building of the home. (Knaack and

“

Chung-Klatte et al. et al, 2012,p.15)

At the time of the second wave of the Industrial revolution, in the 1850’s, the potential of the mobile assembly line [Fig 9] used by automotive companies such as Volkswagen was beginning to be realised by the building industry. The mobile assembly line was essential to the development of materials and manufacturing procedures allowing new techniques to increase efficiency and lower the overall cost of production.(Knaack and ChungKlatte et al. et al, 2012)

[Fig 10]

The Crystal Palace [Fig 10] by Joseph Paxton in 1851 is an early example of a building constructed using an assembly line method. Using traditional materials and conventional techniques the structure would have taken years to construct, but it only took eight months for this building to be designed, manufactured and assembled. It was only made possible through the use of a factory production line and the original idea of using repeating, self supporting bays or modules that could be erected separately from each other.(Knaack and Chung-Klatte et al. et al, 2012)

C H A P T E R

[Fig 11]

WORLD WAR I

This chapter covers from the start of the First World War to the beginning of the Second World War. It highlights the urgent need for prefabs and the main companies involved in their production at the time.

[Fig 12]

During the First World War a prefabricated structure know as the Nissen Hut [Fig 12] was invented by Peter Nissen. This structure was used by the British army, not only to house travelling troops, but they could be adapted to make shelters for horses, a bathroom, a dressing room, a kitchen, a mess room, a garage, a lavatory and even a hospital. They were also capable of merging to increase the size within. These structures consisted of corrugated iron with a metal frame. They had a wooden door and oilcloth windows. These huts could be assembled in just four hours with the use of six men, which was very innovative at the time. (McCosh, 1997)

[Fig 13]

In the early 20th century companies such a Sears, Roebuck & Co. [Fig 14] and Aladdin Homes [Fig 13] created a milestone in the building systems industry. Due to the advances in materials, technologies and improved transport methods, the American middle class were able to become homeowners by mail order. Housing was scarce and labour costs were extortionate, prefab homes produced by Sears and Aladdin Homes offered a comparatively inexpensive option. Many Americans wanted to leave the overcrowded city and seek a quieter life in the suburbs and the portable aspect of prefab enabled them to do so. (Herbers, 2006)

[Fig 14]

[Fig 15]

Aladdin Homes were originally intended for affordable mail-order holiday houses [Fig 15], which could be erected in just a day. The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;kit housesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sold very well but were encouraged to expand their audience to help the desperate needs of the World War 1 generation. Rival companies such as Sears saw this opportunity and followed suit. Sears implanted techniques of production derived from the Ford automobile assemble line. Both companies focused on efficiency of production and constantly battled between speed and consistency. (Knaack and Chung-Klatte et al. et al, 2012)

[Fig 16]

[Fig 17]

By the 1920s there was a housing boom in America, ‘balloon framed, mail-order catalogue houses’ were sold by the thousands. Sears became the face of mail order housing. Instead of constructing houses using conventional methods, which were expensive and time consuming, these ‘kit homes’ could resemble the conventional light framed or brick alternatives. The ‘kit home’ could be constructed cheaply, quickly and produce an inherently better quality finished product. Sears promoted that a man “of average abilities” could build one of these houses and save 40% in labour costs. The timber components would arrive by rail, all ready-cut, along with paint, nails and instructions to install a toilet, sink and a furnace. These prefab homes could mimic styles such as; California Bungalow, The Spanish Eclectic, The Victorian and the Cape Cod Cottage. (Knaack and Chung-Klatte et al. et al, 2012)

[Fig 18]

Â However, the successes of Aladdin Company and Sears are not representative of the overall early 20th century housing innovation. During the Great Depression [Fig 18] hundreds of companies and architects were also trying to achieve this one solution to solve the housing crisis but the majority of the attempts failed for one reason or another, along with Aladdin Company. (Ebong, 2005)

[Fig 19]

From the 1920s when Sears’ prefab ‘kit homes’ were popular another form of living was becoming increasingly common. The trailer or caravan [Fig 19] was seen as an affordable alternative. Originally cost-conscious travellers, who wanted a ready-made place to stay, would use caravans. This ‘ready-made’ quality of a caravan was very appealing and began to be used for purposes other than travelling. The caravans became larger to accommodate more people, usually factory workers and the elderly with their families. Owners of these caravans became comfortable in them and made their dwellings more permanent by elevating the vehicle up onto foundations of cinder blocks and often removing their wheels. However, they developed a negative stigma, which impeded people’s ability to see the merits they possessed. Although they lacked design and energy efficiency, they contained everything people needed to live. (Ebong, 2005)

[Fig 20]

After World War I there was a lack of housing, skilled labour and traditional building materials, but there was an abundance of steel. This led European architects to seek out new building systems to produce houses quickly and efficiently, because labour intensive bricklaying and carpentry was not affordable. This lead to the dawn of prefab concrete slab and steel construction [Fig 20]. In 1930, Ernst May devised a slab construction, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Frankfurther Plattenbauâ&#x20AC;?. Using this technique he produced 1,000 houses, but there were many problems with this new method such as cracking, leaking and corrosion, which led this method being abandoned. (Herbers, 2006)

[Fig 21]

The produces of prefab slab construction were substandard and the problems went unresolved and its image was tarnished. Along with the physical problems with the buildings, the concrete created cold and sterile environments. This in turn caused a psychological detachment to the building type. The stigma attached to prefabrication was made worse by the dislike of this standardised method of building and the jobs that people at that time thought were being lost due to it, when in fact the reason for the new building system was due to the lack of skilled labour. (Knaack and ChungKlatte et al. et al, 2012)

C H A P T E R

[Fig 22]

WORLD WAR II Temporary Housing Act

Prefab Concrete

Evaluation

This chapter covers from the start of the Second World War until the late 1960s. The chapter explores housing schemes that were successful and those that failed. The chapter highlights the responses of architects, businessmen and politicians to the housing situation and what they tried to achieve to solve the problem.

[Fig 23]

In 1941, George A Fullerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s construction company was contacted to improve the British Nissen Hut. The Quonset Hut [Fig 23] was the product, made from corrugated steel sheet; it was a portable, lightweight and shaped like a semicircular tube. 170,000 huts were produced for the troops during the war. But these huts stayed around for a lot longer to house the returning soldiers from the war. Many of them were adapted into industrial buildings, churches, stores and some universities used them as student housing after the war. (Herbers, 2006)

[Fig 24]

After the war the government was compelled to continue the support and development the prefabrication business, due to the dramatic housing shortage. Weapons factories were modified into prefab factories as part of a government subsidised housing boom. William Levitt, an American real-estate developer, set the standard for post war, large-scale, prefabricated housing. 12 million soldiers were returning from the war so the requirement for housing was astronomical. Levitt developed the Levittown project [Fig 24] in 1947, Long Island, New York and was producing, at his peak one suburb house every 16 minutes (Herbers, 2006). Row after row of these houses were churned out, which became very monotonous, so he innovatively created parks, streets, pavements and communal areas. This may be one of the first examples of large scale urban planning. (Ebong, 2005)

[Fig 25]

Another US solution was Lustron [Fig 25]. In 1945 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1947 he designed prefabricated structures with built in washing machines, radiant heating systems, dishwashers and furniture, which was completely innovative for the time. These new hightech designs received a huge amount of publicity and consumer interest, but unfortunately the demand was far greater then supply. Supply and demand was a recurring problem in the 1940s. Along with heavy competition and production problems, Lustron shut down, as did many other companies at this time. (Ebong, 2005)

[Fig 26]

Temporary Housing Act

Due to the destruction of World War II and the existing poor housing conditions, The Ministry of Works in Great Britain commenced many projects to try to resolve this housing disaster. They decided to invest in prefabricated building systems and focused on a Temporary Housing Programme. (Knaack and Chung-Klatte et al., 2012)

Winston Churchill [Fig 26] commissioned the Temporary Housing Programme in 1944, in which he promised the production of 500,000 prefabricated bungalows. Despite what was promised only 156,623 bungalows were constructed to the 11 approved designs put forward to manufacturers (thousands of designs were submitted as part of a competition). They used a variety of materials including aluminium, concrete, steel and wood, but again, expense was a problem. The average cost of these bungalows was £1,324, which was not affordable and the programme closed in 1948. The bungalows produced by this ‘temporary’ housing act were only suppose to last 15 years, but due to their popularity approximately 10% still exist today. (English-heritage.org.uk, 2007)

[Fig 27]

The first prototype was displayed outside the Tate Modern in 1944 called the Portal House. This model proved too expensive so it was never commissioned for production. However it became the benchmark for designs and experiments of prototypes to follow. (Knaack and Chung-Klatte et al. et al, 2012) The most produced and recognisable prefabs are the; Airey, AIROH, Arcon, Cornish Unit, Phoenix [Fig 27], Uni-Seco and Wimpy â&#x20AC;&#x153;no finesâ&#x20AC;?. Two of these prefabs feature in my primary research in Chapter 5.

[Fig 28]

Prefab Concrete Post war Britian faced a shortage in buildings from the public sector, companies such as CLASP, who formed in 1957, took steps to resolve this problem. There was a shortage of skilled labour and building materials, so reminiscent of Ernest Mayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s method, the prefabricated concrete slab system was adopted in the UK. CLASP successfully produced 3500 buildings and expanded into Europe, North Africa and South America. These buildings are seen today as large concrete blocks with flat roofs [Fig 28]. Prefabricated concrete slab buildings had already developed a negative image and this was not helped by the unsightliness of these structures. (Clasp. gov.uk, 2014)

[Fig 29]

Constructed with the concrete panel system, social housing such as The Corviale [Fig 29] and Plattenbau [Fig 21] were associated with vandalism and ghetto conditions, which did not help the image of prefabricated buildings. Further more, there was the incidence of Ronan Point [Fig 30] in 1968. Larsen Nielsen designed a 22-story block of flats using this prefabricated concrete slab method that collapsed. The cause of this structure falling was due to an explosion that caused a progressive collapse down through the floors. Speculations were made that it was the building type that was the cause.(Knaack and Chung-Klatte et al. et al, 2012)

[Fig 30]

Evaluation My review of the literature showed that prefabrication has been used for a wide variety of purposes and existed in many different forms. The benefits of prefabrication are a cheaper, quicker and more efficient method of construction. However this does not seem to out weigh the bad associations and stigma attached to ‘prefab’. As illustrated in the pervious chapters, substandard, monotonous and often cheap temporary living were affiliated with the word ‘prefab’. It was widely seen as a last resort of the building industry in response to issues such as severe housing shortage and rapidly expanding populations. The housing produced had to be cheap and quick, so quality and designed suffered and the poor products of prefab were left behind for criticism. Also, 1940’s tin shacks, 1960’s concrete blocks, and trailer homes which are associated with gipsy living contributed towards this negative image. This led me on to wonder if it was possible to produce quality-prefabricated architecture. I continued my research by investigating the ‘Pioneering Architects’ who were determined to succeed in delivering the perfect prefabricated home during this time and to show that they need not be a last resort. As Le Corbusier states the system built housing could be, “available for everyone, incomparably healthier than the old kind (and morally so too) and beautiful.” (Le Corbusier, 1986, p219)

C H A P T E R

[Fig 31]

PIONEERING ARCHITECTS Architects Vs Commercial Developers

Pioneering Architects

Case Study Houses

Evaluation

This chapter reviews some of the innovative architects who had an influence on prefabricated architecture of the time. The impact of their designs and prototypes still inform modern designs today.

[Fig 32]

Architects Vs Commercial Developers

“

The dream of packaged kit houses purchased via mail-order catalogue or off-the-shelf has always been, in some respects, the holy grail of modern architecture.” (Ebong, 2005, p12)

“

Ima Ebong claims that after WWI, Sears’ prefabricated kit homes were deemed the wonder solution to the housing crisis [Fig 32] and modern architects were still finding it difficult to find their own solution to the problem. She says that many famous architects such as Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright and Walter Gropius devoted huge amount of time and effort in search of the perfect packaged kit house, using the latest machine-age technology. However, their attempts to mass-produce their ‘designer’ kit homes were unsuccessful, and in their trail were left many abandoned case studies and prototypes. (Ebong, 2005) Ebong continues to say that in the 1940s, strongly competitive businessman and property developers occupied the prefab industry, such as Sears, and architects often found themselves enveloped in commercial interests that left a limited amount of room for them to explore design, creativity and innovation. She suggests that when architects did venture down these paths the buildings often became too expensive to mass-produce and unrealistic to pursuit because, unlike businessman, design integrity was the only driving force, and little focus on the issue of affordability or construction technology. (Ebong, 2005)

Pioneering Architects Frank Lloyd Wright

“

The house of moderate cost is not only America’s major architectural problem but the problem most difficult for her major architects. (Wright, 2005, p489)

“

[Fig 33]

Ima Ebong suggests that since the turn of the 20th century Frank Lloyd Wright experimented with the task of creating affordable housing, he saw the opportunity as a design challenge. Wright was notorious for the creation of Usonian prefabricated kit homes in 1957. He tried to combine affordable homes with modern aesthetics (Ebong, 2005). His philosophy was environmentally friendly and organic architecture, maybe a philosophy before its time, as one recent head line read ‘Frank Lloyd Wright's 'Usonian Home' Was 74 Years Ahead Of Its Time’(Huffington Post, 2013). Ebong continues to say that, although the homes were beautiful and innovative they were simply too costly to manufacture and were not economical enough to attract lower-income buyers. The company started to loss money and stopped production. (Ebong, 2005) Usonian prefabs [Fig 33] were built with a flexible grid system. They tried to cut cost by standardising details and removing elements such as garages, attics, basements, gutters, radiators, paint, light fixtures and plaster. Two dozen of these houses were built between 19301940 and in 1959 they built the first series of prefabs. 38 (Herbers, 2006)

[Fig 34]

Le Corbusier The French architect, Le Corbusier, was certainly one of the most significant architects of the Modern Movement. Corbusier was also a major advocate of the mass produced house type. In 1927, Corbusier created The Maison Citrohan [Fig 34], “The name suggests the Citoen motor-car, with its connotations of mass-production and industrialisation, logical evolution, economy, and efficiency.” (Curl, 2012, p199)

“

Eradicate from your mind any hard and fast conception in regard to the dwelling-house and look at the question from an objective and critical angle, and you will inevitably arrive at the “House-Tool,” the mass-production house, available for everyone, incomparably healthier than the old kind (and morally so too) and beautiful in the same sense that the working tools, familiar to us in our present existence, are beautiful.

“

(Le Corbusier, 1986, p219)

Ulrich Knaack claims in her book ‘Prefabricated Systems’, that this was one of many prototypes that were innovative and exciting amongst architects and the simple structure and form manufactured industrially, compared to traditionalist thinking, was a breathe of fresh air. Jill Herbers agrees with this notion stating in her book ‘Pre Fab Modern’, “Le Corbusier’s version of a new era of mass-produced homes that would do away with “dead concepts in regard to the house” helped to inspire the International Style of architecture, which in turn shaped modern building design throughout the rest of the 20th century and into the 21st.” (Herbers, 2006, p17) However, the notion of prefabricated houses did not take off straightaway. This was due to the unnerving change it may have on the feeling of ‘home’ for people. “Modernity and mass production in architecture continued to be met with opposition from conservatives who valued identity, tradition, crafts and the professionalism of the architect – traits that were thought to disappear with serial building. This negative association deterred the industrialization of architecture.” (Knaack and Chung-Klatte et al. et al, 2012, p16)

[Fig 35]

Walter Gropius In 1923, Walter Gropius developed a ‘building block’ system of standardised flat-roofed housing and devised a construction system for the Toerten-Dessau housing system [Fig 35]. This forward thinking International Style was displayed in 1932 to the US museum of Modern Art exhibits ‘The International Style: Architecture Since 1922.’ Jill Herbers states however that this innovative style had minimal impact on mass-produced housing at the time but the style influenced many architects for years to come.(Herbers, 2006) Herbers continues to say that, Gropius had many unsuccessful attempts at mass-produced housing one example being the General Panel Corporation, designed with Konrad Wachsmann. The houses used interchangeable elements and a standardised system. They consisted new materials such as aluminium and enamel, which was more affordable and less time consuming. However, they only managed to produce 200 before going out of business in 1951. Herbers claims that the failure of this company had a huge impact to prefab movement and some people thought that if the contributions of Gropius and Wachsmann could not realise the dream of creating factory-built houses, no one’s could (Herbers, 2006).

Charles & Ray Eames Husband and wife architect designed ‘House 8’ case study, Ebong suggests that it played a pioneering role to new prefab kit homes, and it was called the ‘Kwikset’. Howevver, the Kwikset house project never got beyond the design stages, but she claims the idea of flexible design lived on. (Ebong, 2005)

“

The design demonstrated that standardised factory made components need not result in sterile, endlessly replicated static designs, but instead could result in flexible kit parts that could allow architects to more playfully and efficiently explore an endless combination of creative housing option. (Ebong, 2005, p26)

“

[Fig 36]

[Fig 37]

Case Study Houses Ulrich Knaack suggested that in the mid 1900s there was a lack of enthusiasm towards modern industrialised houses from the public. Architects were realising exciting possibilities in mass-produced housing and this attitude was frustrating for them. Responding to this, in 1945, John Entenza, an editor of the avant-garde Arts & Architecture magazine initiated a program called the Case Study Houses [Fig 37] in Los Angeles. Knaack claims that the programme was and is still an important influence in architecture. In response to the severe lack of housing after WWII, the programme aimed to introduce modern movement ideas to the public and building industries with low-cost and efficient housing. Entenza invited the likes of, Richard Neutra, Eero Sarrinen, Craig Ellwood, Charles and Ray Eames and Pierre Koenig and others to the program. The idea was to enable them to design and build low cost modern houses to be widely publicised in Entenza’s magazine to generate the client’s interest. (Knaack and Chung-Klatte et al. et al, 2012)

[Fig 38]

However, in an article produced by Stahl House Inc. it is said that, despite the skill of these architects many early designs were never constructed because they lacked clients and relevant sites and often, the designs that were actually built changed significantly from the architect’s original plans. This was due to lack of materials and other complications related to post war construction. Altogether 36 designs were conceived by these modern architects, which embodied their aspirations of answering the housing shortage and the post war-building boom to follow. The housing programme discovered the combination of open spaces and living comforts which refer to Le Corbusier’s “honest” approach with his use of new materials like concrete, steel and glass. However, their lavish and open layouts made them only affordable by the financial elite. In 1966, the Case Study House programme came to an end, but it succeeded in creating some of the most influential and innovative buildings of residential architecture all over the world. (Stahl House Inc, 2010)

Evaluation My aim in exploring the literature about these revolutionary architects was to see if quality prefabricated architecture was possible to produce and after researching the architects of the modern movement, and the Case Study Houses programme, I can see every attempt has been made to try to realise the dream of the ideal prefab home. Analysing the philosophies and achievements of the architects and the Case Study House programme, I can see that Frank Lloyd Wright had the principles of organic and environmentally friendly architecture in his prefab designs. Whereas Le Corbusier, aimed to produce logical and economic house for all, using efficient standardised mass production, and what he called â&#x20AC;&#x153;a machine for living inâ&#x20AC;? (Le Corbusier, 1923, p89). Walter Gropius explored with utilising affordable, and time efficient materials. Along with Charles and Ray Eames, Gropius also had principles of interchangeable elements and flexible designs, producing more creative prefabricated homes. Finally, the Case Study Houses discovered the combination of open spaces and living comforts, using innovative materials. Despite all these intentions, their visions of the ideal prefabricated home never took off. Were these notions realised the wrong time? Ima Ebong (2005) suggested that, architects never found the right time and place of circumstance, where design, technology, production ability, marketing, investment, consumer demand, shifting demographics, all worked in unison to create the desired results. However, my thoughts are, that time could be emerging today.

C H A P T E R

[Fig 39]

HISTORIC RESEARCH Site Visits

This section of my dissertation summarises sthe primary research I carried out regarding post-war prefabs. I compare first hand opinions and knowledge with previous information I discovered about the history prefabrication.

[Fig 40]

[Fig 41]

[Fig 42]

[Fig 43]

Site Visits

I previously spoke about The Temporary Housing Act commissioned by Winston Churchill, designed to produce quick prefabricated housing, as a response to the consequences of the war. As part of my primary research I went on two site visits to see examples of these prefabs that still exist today. One trip was to a re-erected AIROH prefab [Fig 41] at the National History Museum in St Fagans, Wales. The other trip was to a row of Phoenix prefabs [Fig 43] at Wake Field Road in Moseley, Birmingham. Of the 156,623, 7,600 were built in Wales, most of these have been demolished now, but at the open-air museum I was able to experience and collect information about a re-erected, 1948, ‘Type B2’ AIROH prefab. It is possible that this prefab will be the only one left in Wales (The National Museum Wales, 2009). A further 4,500 prefabs were built in Birmingham, 2,428 of them Phoenix (the rarest of the eleven approved designs), but only 17, substantially unaltered, original Phoenix prefabs have survived demolition, so I decided to visit them and their occupants to gather further information and first hand opinions on these prefabs. Full interviews can be located in section 1 of the Appendix. The prefabs produced by the Temporary Housing Act were said to be ‘palaces for the people’ (Blanchet, 2013). The information provided at the Museum reinforced this claim; it said, “The prefab was in many ways ‘a housewife’s paradise’, with ample storage [Fig 46] and innovative features. It boasted a fitted kitchen with hot and cold running water, a cooker (gas or electric), a ‘cooper’ for washing, as well as a built-in refrigerator [Fig 44]. The other luxury was the fitted bathroom [Fig 45] with heated towel rail”. “Little wonder then that the B2 prefabs were affectionately known as ‘tin palaces’”. (National Museum Wales, 2011) I was told by the tour guide that the house was a “triumph of spatial planning” because each building contained two bedrooms with built-in cupboards, fitted kitchen, hallway, living room and bathroom and this was the same more or less with the other four main versions of the post-war prefabs. The Museum of Wales also said that, “the quality of their design was so good that many lasted well beyond their projected lifespan. They became valued homes that were well cared for and respected.” (The National Museum Wales, 45 2009)

[Fig 44]

[Fig 45]

[Fig 46]

[Fig 47]

However, after conducting interviews with some post-war Phoenix homeowners, I question this claim. The majority of the homeowners had lived there for decades, ranging from 6 to 47 years. When asking them ‘How have they come to live here?’ none of them had chosen to live there by choice, but had moved in to care for their ill or elderly parents and had decided to stay due to convenience. I asked what they thought were ‘the main benefits of living here?’, and the response was not overwhelmingly convincing. Many of the answers were not about design or structure or about the boasted facilities rather the responses were negative, for example, “everything is at strange angles and there are bows and bulges everywhere.” [Fig 47] (Homeowner 5. 2014. Birmingham, 19 Dec.) Positive responses were rather about the garden and the privacy that they felt they had over living in a flat. One man, however, did support the claim and responded, “At the start […] everything was so unheard of, with the fitted kitchen, bathroom, cupboards, shelves, and heating system. [Figs 44-46] It was state of the art.” (Homeowner 5. 2014. Birmingham, 19 Dec.) The ‘quality of their design’ can also be disputed. The prefabs were meant to last around 1015 years and they are still around today, so the durability cannot be doubted but after the interviews many problems were raised about these, ‘tin palaces’. Most of the homeowners complained about leaks and condensation building up. They also said that before central heating was installed the house was very cold, and on sunny days it became very hot and stuffy inside. Along with the poor heating insulation, they had a serious lack of sound insulation, one homeowner said, “I can hear the sound of magpies walking on the roof and people breathing in the other rooms.” (Homeowner 5. 2014. Birmingham, 19 Dec.)

[Fig 48]

[Fig 49]

[Fig 50]

[Fig 51]

The Phoenix prefabs [Fig 51] were protected and grade II listed in 1998 and are now the only ones of their kind (Schedule). William Dargue stated in the article ‘A History of Birmingham Places and Placenames’ that they achieved this protection because of how popular they were with the tenants and when a programme was initiated to demolish and re-house them in tower blocks, they received a lot of resistance especially from elderly people who did not want to move (Dargue, 2012). However, I did not feel this notion was followed very strongly by the occupants. Some of the homeowners wanted to leave but a few of the homeowners did say that they were ‘comfortable’ now(Homeowner 1. 2014. Birmingham, 19 Dec.), now that the central heating and double-glazing had been put in, but those features were only installed recently. One lady homeowner was only staying because her husband liked to be on one floor, this hardly gives the impressions of a “housewife’s paradise”. (National Museum Wales, 2011) The site visits provided me with strong information and opinions to analyse, but not only that, one of the Phoenix homeowners gave me a ‘Schedule’. This included a description of the Temporary Housing Act, a detailed description of the structure and furnishings and a history on Phoenix prefabs and why the prefabs were constructed. I will include a scan of this valuable document in section 1 of the Appendix.

C H A P T E R

[Fig 52]

CURRENT OPINION Current Opinion

Evaluation

After conducting historic primary research I wanted to investigate whether the prefabs of that time

have had an impact on cur-

rent views. This next section of my dissertation discusses current opinions on prefabrication following a public survey and further literature review.

“

Current Opinion

Architects like Frank Lloyd Wright and Walter Gropius, […] believed passionately in the life-enhancing potential of prefabrication as a sustainable housing system in other words, as a means to more means, not the devalued and impoverished architecture-of-last-resort that came to be associated with prefabs […] architects today are once again at the forefront of engineering new ways of living.

“

(Ebong, 2005, p35)

To understand whether there is a future for prefabricated architecture I wanted to explore current views. I reviewed recent books for secondary information and carried out a public survey to collect primary data, which is located in section 2 of the Appendix. Jacobo Krauel states in his book, New Houses: Compact & Prefab, that, “The opinion is still widely held that prefabricated housing is a cheap, make-do alternative to serious construction. A mass-produced “toy” replica of a “real house”, with all the clichés and embarrassingly tasteless discrepancies in scale.” (Krauel, 2010, p2) However, many people are beginning to see differently. Architects, such as Peter and Mark Anderson, mention in their book ‘Prefab Prototypes’, that “Prefabricated construction has celebrated a renewed popularity over the last few years” (Anderson and Anderson, 2007, p1). Jill Herbers says, the reason for this could be that, “Suddenly, prefab has gone from ugly, boxy, or at best, boring, to stylish, smart, and beautiful.” And that today’s prefab is producing “some of the most wonderful buildings happening in architecture today” (Herbers, 2006, p11).

I asked the public in my survey, whether they thought prefab had a stigma attached to it and if they thought the image was tarnished due to postwar prefabs, and the overwhelming answer was yes. The majority answered no, to, ‘would you personally live in a dated prefab home?’ but despite this clear negativity towards old prefabricated buildings 82% of the people asked would live in a modern prefab home. This information supports the notion that there is a positive attitude towards prefabricated architecture. Another area of debate regarding the future of the prefabrication industry is whether the nature of its construction hinders design expression. When asked this question in the survey, 53% of the respondents agreed that it does hinder design expression. This indicates to me that the public are not yet convinced of the potential of these buildings. However, Herbers claims that prefabricated housing systems today can provide almost limitless design possibilities, adhering to the individual client’s needs, wants, and budget. The client can select materials, arrangements and sizes of their house, in accordance to the site, climate and style of their preference (Herbers, 2006). This notion is also followed by Sergi Costa Duran in ‘New Prefab: Architecture’, who also believes that prefabricated systems now allow the manufacture of almost every type and style of building (Costa Duran, 2008). To summarise the comments made by the other 47% of respondents, who disagreed in response to this question, the belief was that with advancing technology the ‘rigid form’ of prefab could be broken down. Duran, suggests that this advance in technology has already arrived. He believes that the considerable development in technology has allowed Europe to push habitual concepts to the extreme in the past 5 years, discovering solutions to new challenges in construction (Costa Duran, 2008). The Andersons, along with many other architects, agree with this opinion, they state, “Thanks to continually refined offsite production techniques, architects, engineers, builders and the general public have embraced a way to reconcile high-quality architecture.” (Anderson and Anderson, 2007, p1)

I wanted to understand what has driven prefabrication to develop so considerably in recent years and replenish this interest in the industry. Ima Ebong in ‘Kit Homes Modern’ suggests that today, there are subtle movements in social and economic patterns that have ignited the interest in prefab once again (Ebong, 2005). The Andersons concur that, “with increasing regulatory pressure, economic considerations, and environmental consciousness […] a perceptive and creative approach to prefabricated construction makes possible, affordable, well-designed buildings in harmony with their natural and public environments.” (Anderson and Anderson, 2007, p1). Ebong proposes that the failures of the past and these current successes, is due to architects today having the advantage of time and innovative technology compared to their predecessors, who were driven by the dramatic impact of war and a serious housing crisis. This dictated the speed of development and construction, so good design suffered. (Ebong, 2005) Duran claims that, “[…] despite this rapid progress in technology, society still has a negative perception of prefabricated construction, which makes its development and use more difficult. (Costa Duran, 2008, p11) and Knaack points out in ‘Prefabricated Systems: Principles of Construction’, “entirely prefabricated homes make up a tiny fraction of the British home industry”, but, encouraging, he continues to say that ‘this market is growing.” (Knaack and Chung-Klatte et al., 2012, P58) I asked the public the most important question directly, ‘Do you think that prefab architecture is the future of the building industry?’ 59% of them believed it was. This figure was far higher than I had anticipated, although the survey was only a answered by 68 people, which is a tiny sample, it indicates the changing views towards prefab and looking forward into the future. This information along side the 82% who say they would live in a modern prefab is encouraging for the potential of the prefabrication industry in the UK.

“

(Prescott, 2003, cited Birkbeck and Scoones, 2005, p.5)

Andrew Scoones says that once ‘Prefab’ was an unmentionable word especially for the marketing side of business because of the association with temporary and cheap, but he reinforces this change for the future by claiming that, the word has become recognised as a ‘rallying banner’ for designers, clients and producers of new housing methods who come together regularly to see and discuss the best and innovative developments in the field. (Birkbeck and Scoones, 2005)

“

This is not just housebuilding and construction going through another cycle of experimentation. Genuine progress is being made towards new methods of construction delivering finishes and performances to reflect higher consumer expectations and greater demands for energy efficiency. (Birkbeck and Scoones, 2005, p.7)

“

I am pleased to see that we are seeing a change, it can be done cost efficiently, variety of styles, reduce waste and reduce energy requirements. Modern methods offer huge potential, and all parts of the industry need to work together to gain the benefits.

In 2003, John Prescott published a £38bn Sustainable Communities Plan, he made it clear that ‘well designed and built homes are a pre-requisite in creating Sustainable Communities; places where people want to live and work, now and in the future’. He claimed that we are not producing enough houses to allow everyone to live sustainably. He believed through the use of ‘modern methods of construction’, housing could be built quickly, with better quality, more efficiently and that would stand the test of time. C

Some examples of recent projects are, in the year 2000, a London firm; Cartwright Pickard Architects developed Murray Grove, one of the first prefabricated urban renewal housing projects in Great Britain. In 1997 the Swedish company IKEA, develop BoKlok House. In Milton Keynes there is the Oxley Woods housing project by Rogers Strik Harbour & Partners. These prefab schemes have caught the attention of the public, as there is a high demand for affordable housing that can be adapted to the shifting demographics of today. (Knaack and Chung-Klatte et al., 2012)

Evaluation Current Opinion analysis suggests that we are experiencing a change in, what we require from our building industry, and peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attitudes towards economic considerations and environmental consciousness. In this day and age homeowners are becoming more aware of not only their own health, but also the health of the planet. In 2009 Sylvie Lemmet the director of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) states that â&#x20AC;&#x153;The building sector contributes up to 30% of global annual green house gas emissions and consumes up to 40% of all energyâ&#x20AC;? (Huovila, 2009, p3) and she claims in 40 years these emission must be reduced by 50% to evade the consequences of dramatic climate change. The building industry has the most potential to significantly change the effects we are having on the planet and our climate. Many companies are experiencing these demands of a greener and more sustainable future and are taking steps to address them. (Huovila, 2009) However, as well as these considerations, we are experiencing a housing shortage, as highlighted by John Prescott, so the industry still needs to produce mass housing, but quickly and efficiently, which lends itself to prefabricated buildings systems. The demand is increasing for more houses to be made, those houses need to be produced cost efficiently and quickly. The homes themselves need to be economical and sustainable. My next step was to explore whether these qualities can be achieved within the building industry today and if so whether public opinion has changed enough to allow this industry to grow in the UK.

C H A P T E R

[Fig 53]

MODERN PREFAB

Baufritz

The final chapter of my project is primary research that I carried out in order to investigate the area in which the building industry could be heading. I explore one particular company who pride themselves on producing unrivalled health qualities in their homes, which are ecologically friendly, and that use only the most energy efficient, emission-tested materials. The company has won numerous awards for their sustainable philosophy and construction methods.

[Fig 54]

Baufritz

“

An eco-friendly house that also actively promotes health; a home that looks after you – and your world (Baufritz, 2014)

“

[Fig 55]

The company I investigated is called Baufritz. Baufritz is a family run German Company, which operates from Erkheim, Bavaria [Fig 56], and was founded in 1896. It is currently managed by, Entrepreneur of the Year 2008, Dagmar Fritz-Kramer. She has ignited a fresh generation of architecturally modern and uniquely designed ecological and healthy homes. (Baufritz, 2014) [Fig 56]

“

The principles of healthy, ecologically friendly building construction have formed the core philosophy of our company for generations.” (Baufritz, 2014)

“

[Fig 57]

Baufritz use innovative methods based on traditional timber construction [Fig 57], and claim their houses offer maximum living comforts [Fig 55], contemporary style, to a unique design established on the client’s vision, desires and wellbeing. For their achievements and philosophy they received the accolade “Germany’s most sustainable company” in 2009.

“

[Fig 59]

“

[Fig 58]

Our guiding philosophy is driven by the desire to combine the health needs of our clients, care for the environment with absolute luxury. The result is better for you, better for the world, whilst looking nothing short of stunning. (Baufritz, 2014) The company started out as a small family run carpentry shop it has expanded into a 14,000sqm, state of the art factory [Fig 56]. Expanding future, Dagmar Fritz-Kramer founded a British office with Oliver Rehm in 2006. Baufritz (UK) Ltd has erected 20 unique properties around the UK since its establishment and has also exported to Austria, Belgium, Italy, Luxemburg, Russia and Switzerland.

Discovering this information I decided to research the company further. I organised with an architect to visit an open day in Chichester, to see one of these Baufritz houses being assembled. Here I was able not only see the construction process, but also to gather information first hand from the architect and from a few of their potential clients. The full interviews can be located in Section 3 of the Appendix.

[Fig 60]

After conducting the interviews, the benefits of prefabrication were made very clear, backing up much of my previous research.

[Fig 61]

[Fig 62]

[Fig 63]

I asked why they would choose prefab as a method of construction over using conventional methods. They highlighted the advantage of construction speed using prefab. Laura Pring, the owner of the property said, the construction will only take 5 months until the hand over date, “opposed to what would be a couple of years with the conventional way, and no doubt, there would be complications with builders” (Pring, 2014). This comment implies, again, the lack of faith and skill in UK labourers. One lady suggested that the demand for quick housing is ever increasing, she claims, “people are very impatient, […] who wants their houses built yesterday and I think the younger generation will be even less patient.” (Interview with client 1. 2014. Chichester, 28 Dec.) I found that this method of construction was popular with young families as they have a busy life style and cannot afford extra hassle and want to move in quickly. The points of less hassle, time, and tidiness were expressed by several of the potential clients.

[Fig 64]

Another benefit that came across quite strongly was the aspect of a fixed price. The clients much preferred the fact that you know what you will be paying for at the outset opposed to with conventional construction where there is more uncertainty. One lady said that she would like, “something contemporary and air tight. These homes are eco-friendly, sustainable and they are far more economical with heating.” (Interview with client 1. 2014. Chichester, 28 Dec.) this supports the implication of the changing attitude towards environmental awareness and sustainability.

[Fig 65]

I also asked the architect and clients whether they thought the negative association attached to prefabricated buildings would soon be forgotten now that technology and housing like this (Baufritz) is available, and the responses were encouraging. They commented saying that they hope so and that it would be a shame if technology and buildings like this were still associated with the old prefabs. It was also suggested that, with programmes on TV such as Grand Designs, people are more aware of how good the quality and design of prefab houses is now. With regards to Baufritz, one man stated, “Compared to old ‘prefabs’ these are light-years away.” (Interview with client 3. 2014. Chichester, 28 Dec.) The homeowners response to this question was, “It is interesting you say that because Baufritz are careful not to use the word ‘prefab’, they use ‘modular’ instead” (Pring,2014), this indicates to me that Baufritz are making attempts to move peoples perceptions of system building away from being monotonous and cheap or as quoted by Herbers “ugly, boxy, or at best, boring” (Herbers, 2006, p11), and replenish its image for the 21st century.

[Fig 66]

I asked the question, ‘do you think prefabrication hinders design expression?’ and my survey indicated agreement with this statement, however when interviewing Baufritz’s client, she said that she could have the house just how she wanted and that ‘the design was very flexible inside and out’. As with the public survey, I asked in the interviews ‘Do you think this type of technology and construction is the future for housing?’ The responses indicated that they had positive views in the long term benefits of prefabricated housing.

[Fig 67]

All the information gathered so far has been very positive and little related to its limitations. To try and expose some flaws, I asked what they thought were the disadvantages of modern prefabrication constructions such as Baufritz. The few they came up with were not disadvantages as such, but more complications. They commented on the difficulties with finding the right site and achieving planning permission to actually build. One man did not like the fact that Baufritz take ownership of the project until hand over. One lady also questioned whether they could design their houses to compliment the context of the surroundings and if there would be objections to the building from neighbouring people. When asking the architect this question, he raised the issue of practicality. Issues such as, vehicular access [Fig 67] and whether large lorries [Fig 66] can reach the site and if a large crane can operate in the space, these aspects can restrict which sites can be built on. The architect also mentioned that curves and very bespoke designs make it harder to prefabricate and would cost more.

[Fig 68]

Cost, I believe is the main concern. Baufritz believe quality of life begins in the home. They pride themselves on being able to produce housing of, “superior design, sustainable materials free from hazardous substances and the use of renewable sources of energy come together to create a home as genuinely individual as you – and one that is efficient, affordable, and beautiful; the perfect living environment” (Baufritz, 2014). [Fig 69]

[Fig 70]

I question whether these wonderfully designed and sustainable homes of the future can be produced by our building industry, in the UK, in the numbers required and at an affordable price. In 2008, Caroline McGhie commented in an article of The Telegraph saying that last year 35,000 self-build houses went up in the UK, according to the Self Build Alliance, but it remains a niche market in this country, unlike Germany where it is the norm. Yet the popularity of self-build is growing all the time. She went on to say, “When Grand Designs airs on Channel 4 broadcasting regulations ban the naming of individual companies and brands. When the kit house in Bath was identified by accident as manufactured by Baufritz, the company received 3,800 enquiries in just two hours after the show.” (McGhie, 2008) This information suggests to me there is a healthly interest for these houses in the UK today.

CONCLUSIONS DOES PREFABRICATED ARCHITECTURE HAVE A FUTURE WITHIN THE UK BUILDING INDUSTRY? My initial perceptions of prefabricated buildings, combined with the very strong opinions of public figures and organisations against the post war architecture of my own home city of Birmingham (HRH The Prince of Wales cited Gray, 2012), made me realise that arguing for the future of modular housing was going to be challenging. However my conclusion is that, given where prefabrication has come from, out of sheer necessity, this method of building has a bright future. I have investigated my research question by initially looking at the literature regarding the history of prefab. This indicated that these structures were of poor design, poor quality and unsustainable, However they were quick to mass-produce and were a cheaper alternative to conventional constructions (Herbers, 2006) therefore helping to solve the issues of the housing shortages and the lack of skills and materials at the time. (Knaack and Chung-Klatte et al., 2012) A poor reputation and negative associations where made and a stigma surrounded the name, ‘prefab’(Ebong, 2005). Regarding this I asked for public opinions in a general population, but also some people involved in the industry and some potential clients of modern prefabs. Although the population sample for these questions was small, which could threaten the reliability of the results, they did provide very valuable information on people’s opinions of prefab. As well as the negative reputation prefab gained it was also subject to poor aesthetics, design and quality due to time restraints and the limits of technology. (Ebong, 2005) Modern prefabrication has been given an enormous boost from the growing a wareness of the need for sustainability, the demands of modern life styles and modern production techniques (Prescott, 2003, cited Birkbeck and Scoones, 2005). The stigma that surrounded ‘prefabs’ is diminishing aided by popular programmes, such as Grand Designs, often promoting these alternative building methods. I explored how ‘prefab’ looks today by investigating Baufritz and their principles, which also featured on this programme. However, this is only one company and due to time limitations I was not able to explore the industry further. No cost analysis was done to compare the financial merits of conventional and modular construction methods. The people I interviewed at the Baufritz site were invited directly by Baufritz and were therefore more likely to have positively biased opinions towards the building methods and philosophy. However, by doing the visit, I did discover that the technology is available for more ecological, sustainable and cost efficient buildings today. The data from the Baufritz site visit along with the opinions of the general public survey were enough to indicate to me that the public are ready to change. I believe that the technological advances in modular construction have enabled people to looked past the negative reputation associated with it and see the benefits that prefabrication could have in producing the sustainable homes we need today. The Baufritz research has shown me that the modular industry can offer ecological and sustainable homes but the question remains as to whether we can implement their philosophy of greener living into all our buildings today. Not only that, but can we produce on mass without hindering the design or quality of the construction at an affordable cost. To further my research I would have looked at more companies and included cost analysis to investigate whether the level of quality, such as in a Baufritz home, could be produced for a larger housing market. Without this ability such housing may only be accessible to the financially elite. I am firmly of the belief that current restrictions such as affordability, flexibility of design, accessibility to sites and planning issues will diminish as demand increases.

A P P E N D I X

[Fig 71]

Section 1

Section 2

Phoenix Research Phoenix Schedule Phoenix Interviews

63 65

Public Research

Public Survey Analysis of Architects Section 3

Baufritz Research

Baufritz Client Interviews Baufritz Architect Interview

70 80

81 81 84

S E C T I O N 1

Phoenix Schedule [Fig 72]

[Fig 73]

Phoenix Interviews Homeowner 1 Interview with phoenix homeowner 1. 2014. Birmingham, 19 Dec. 1) Do you believe that prefab architecture has a stigma/negative association attached to it? “No” 2) How long have you lived here? “40 years.” 3) How have you come to live here? “I moved in with my parents, but they passed away a while ago and I decided to stay.” 4) What you think are the main benefits of living here? “No stairs because it’s all on one floor and we have a nice garden out the back. It’s small so its easier to clean.” 5) What you think are the main problems of living here? “Well, they got very cold in the winter because there isn’t any insulation, but they have installed central heating now and in the summer they get quite hot. I have a few leaks that haven’t been repaired by the council yet.” 6) Do you think your house is any less of a home then the other properties on this road? “No I wouldn’t say so, I’m quite comfortable”

Homeowner 2 Interview with phoenix homeowner 2. 2014. Birmingham, 19 Dec. 1) Do you believe that prefab architecture has a stigma/negative association attached to it?

“Yes” 2) How long have you lived here?

“20 years” 3) How have you come to live here?

“My parents moved here, they got ill and I stayed.” 4) What you think are the main benefits of living here?

“It’s on one floor so it had good disable access for my parents. The rent is very low too and its easy to clean.” 5) What you think are the main problems of living here?

“I was very cold before they installed the central heating because it has no insulation. When they removed the asbestos my roof started to leak and they council still haven’t fixed it.” 6) Do you think your house is any less of a home then the other properties on this road?

“I didn’t like the house at all when I moved in but now its warmer its more homely and I have become more comfortable”

Homeowner 3 Interview with phoenix homeowner 3. 2014. Birmingham, 19 Dec. 1) Do you believe that prefab architecture has a stigma/negative association attached to it?

“Yes” 2) How long have you lived here?

“47 years” 3) How have you come to live here? A lot of what the man said was inaudible but I think what he said was that the house was cheap and low rent compared to the others in the area and he wanted his own property and didn’t want to move into a flat. 4) What you think are the main benefits of living here? -

Low rent One floor The garden Central heating now Double-glazing now

5) What you think are the main problems of living here?

“It was very cold, it leaks often and condensation builds up” 6) Do you think your house is any less of a home then the other properties on this road? The response to this question was completely inaudible, so I can not draw a conclusive answer.

Homeowner 4 Interview with phoenix homeowner 4. 2014. Birmingham, 19 Dec.

1) Do you believe that prefab architecture has a stigma/negative association attached to it?

“Yes” 2) How long have you lived here?

“6½ years” 3) How have you come to live here?

“My husband is disabled and we needed a place which was on one floor with two bedrooms.” 4) What you think are the main benefits of living here?

“I think its more private then a flat and we have a nice garden.” 5) What you think are the main problems of living here?

“It started to leak when they removed the asbestos and we get a lot of condensation.” 6) Do you think your house is any less of a home then the other properties on this road?

“Yes, I don’t want to stay here but my husband does, he likes it!”

Homeowner 5 Interview with phoenix homeowner 5. 2014. Birmingham, 19 Dec. 1) Do you believe that prefab architecture has a stigma/negative association attached to it?

“Yes and these do because they are council property” 2) How long have you lived here?

“20 years” 3) How have you come to live here?

“It’s a long story but basically I came here to look after my mother and when she past I stayed.” 4) What you think are the main benefits of living here?

“None. Maybe the garden but that isn’t to do with the structure of the house. At the start though everything was so unheard of, with the fitted kitchen, bathroom, cupboards, shelves and heating system. It was state of the art.”

Me: “What heating system was there originally?”

“It’s got pipes that used to radiate heat in the bathroom.” 5)What you think are the main problems of living here?

“The heat insulation and sound insulation is very bad, I can hear the sound of magpies walking on the roof and people breathing in the other rooms.”

Me: “Others have been experiencing leaks?”

“No, don’t have any leaks. Another thing is everything is at strange angles and there are bows and bulges everywhere.” 6) Do you think your house is any less of a home then the other properties on this road?

“Yes I want to move out of here. But they are an interesting piece of history.”

S E C T I O N 2

Public Survey Have you got a significant interest in architecture? Yes

49 Responses

19 Responses 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

To understand the type of background the people had that I was asking I asked this question first. Many of the respondents were architecture students or professional architects, which the statistics indicate.

Do you think the image of prefab architecture was tarnished due to post war housing? Yes

43 Responses

25 Responses 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

As I progressed through my historic research it has been made clear to me that prefab was developing a bad name for itself. The lack quality and appeal in the prefabs that were produced in the post war years have had a devastating impact on the image of prefabrication. The responses above reinforce this notion.

Do you believe that prefab architecture has a stigma/negative association attached to it? Yes

50 Responses

18 Responses 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

I asked this question to see if prefab still maintained its bad name in the 21st century. The statistics suggest here that most people believe prefab still has a stigma attached to it.

Do you think a prefabricated house is less of a home then a property built using conventional methods? Yes

25 Responses

43 Responses 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Even though the people answering this survey suggested prefab has a bad association, the majority did not seem to think prefabricated houses were any less of a home. Some of the comments indicate that prefab has the potential to better quality then conventionally built homes, which can be custom built to the clientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s requirements. However there was a significant amount that disagreed, possibly deriving from the stigma.

Do you think the nature of prefab architecture hinders design expression? Yes

36 Responces

32 Responses 44%

45%

46%

47%

48%

49%

50%

51%

52%

53%

54%

One aspect of the prefab debate in my historic research and background readings was, standardisation vs. creativity. Is prefab too limiting? Can prefab be creative and not monotonous and repetitive? The response to this question was quite equal, but indicating that with our advancing technology and design, the rigid form of prefabrication can be broken down and creative.

Do you think prefab architecture is the future of building construction? Yes

40 Responses

28 Responses 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

We have become very aware of our planets resources and the carbon footprint we produce and there is also a lack of housing and skilled labourers. I have learnt that prefabrication can provide more economical, efficient, sustainable, quicker and higher quality housing, so is it this the future of the building industry? Even though prefab has its bad past, it is indicated here that people maybe starting to believe in it once more.

Do you think prefab would have a negative impact on traditional towns and cities? Yes

27 Responses

Don't Know

14 Responses 0%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

There was a very divided response to this question showing me that perhaps people are not as behind the increased use of prefabrication as they indicated in the pervious question. The comments show that if the aesthesis produced are similar to traditional buildings or compliment existing styles, then it would not have a negative impact.

Do you think an increased use of prefab would have a positive or negative impact on traditional labourers? Positive

23 Responses

45 Responses

Negative

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Personally I believe there would be a positive impact. There is a lack of skilled labourers around and poor working conditions due to our weather. Constructing a prefabricated house takes less time and skill, so it reduces labour costs. The factory provides optimum-working conditions all year round and the labourers can work effectively as a team under controlled factory conditions. Traditional workers would be able to transfer their skills into factories, whereas less qualified workers could work onsite for shorter periods. But this was not what the majority of the people asked thought.

Would you personally live in a dated prefab home?

Yes 12 Responses No

56 Responses 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

I asked the next two questions to gage whether the advances in prefabricated houses were enough to dissociate themself from the failures of their past. It is clear to see here the majority of people would never live in the old prefabs due to their poor quality, efficiency and undesirable aesthesis.

Would you personally live in a modern prefab home?

Yes

56 Responses

No 12 Responses 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

However the response to this question is to the contrary, the large majority of the people asked would live in a modern prefab house. This information paired up with, is prefab the future question, shows me the thinking towards system building has changed. The shortage of housing and skilled labour is a problem, which maybe resolved using prefabrication. The information presented here, in the survey, suggests the demand and interest for prefabrication has arrived again.

Analysis of Architects From the 68 people who answered the survey, 7 of them are qualified architects. Their knowledge and experience of the industry would be better then the average respondent, so I isolated their answers to see if what they said changed the trend of the survey. 2)

Do you believe that prefab architecture has a stigma/ negative association attached to it?

Yes - 100%

Do you think the image of prefab architecture was tarnished due to post war housing?

Yes - 100%

Do you think a prefabricated house is less of a home then a property built using conventional methods?

Yes - 50%

Do you think the nature of prefab architecture hin ders design expression?

Yes - 57%

Do you think prefab architecture is the future of building construction?

Yes - 66%

Do you think prefab would have a negative impact on traditional towns and cities?

Yes - 40%

Do you think an increased use of prefab would have a positive or negative impact on traditional laborers?

Positive - 33%

Would you personally live in a dated prefab home?

10)

Would you personally live in a dated prefab home?

Yes - 0% Yes - 71%

“Limitations can often lead to an increase in creavity” “Modern prefabricated homes have the potential to be better quality, highly insulated and built to specific client requirements” “In terms of sustainability it has huge advantages in terms of reduced construction time, less construction waste and construction quality.” “In theory, prefabrication means that work can take place all year round, in controlled factory conditions.” “Modern methods of construction, design thinking and build quality make for better architecture.” “Lack of skills, knowledge and pride in the job in the construction industry” “I am suspicious of builders ability to construct dwellings properly, i.e. I have not seen a brick cavity wall built properly for many years, as an architectural practice we design buildings pre-fabricated.”

The overall statistics of the architects gave a similar trend to the public survey. The interesting fluctuations were with question 6 and 10. 59% of people answered yes to question 6, whereas an increased 66% of the architects replied yes to prefabrication being the future of the design industry. Question 10 however, showed a small decrease, 71% of the architects would live in a modern house, oppose to the 82% of the public. Notable comments made by the architects are quoted on the left.

S E C T I O N 3

Baufritz Client Interviews Client 1 Interview with client 1. 2014. Chichester, 28 Dec. 1) Why are you here today? “I’m fascinated with these buildings and flat pack construction. I have watched all the shows and I have chosen the design I like. I just need to find a site to built on now.” 2) Why are you considering this type of construction method for your home, oppose to using conventional methods?

“I’m used to large, old, traditional homes, which are often cold and drafty so I my old age I would like something contemporary and air tight. These homes are eco-friendly, sustainable and they are far more economical with heating.” 3) Do you think the negative association attached to prefabricated buildings will soon be forgotten now that technology and housing like this (Baufritz) is available?

“Yes, I believe people are very impatient, including myself, who wants their house built yesterday and I think the younger generation will be even less patient.” 4) Do you think this type of technology and construction is the future for housing?

“Yes I think so. There is a lot less trouble with this type of building; you are not waiting for separate plumbers and electricians, who may or may not turn up. With this type of construction they all work together on-site. Also, I have had bad experiences with builders, I don’t think you can trust British builders anymore.” 5) What do you think are the advantages of modern prefabrication such as Baufritz? -

Eco-friendly Air tight Sustainable Custom built to clients wants and needs

6) What do you think are the disadvantages of modern prefabrication such as Baufritz? -

Finding Getting Whether Whether

the site planning permission the building will fit the context of its surroundings there would be any objections to the building from neighbours

Client 2 - Laura Pring Pring, L. 2014. Interview with the homeowner. Chichester, 28 Dec 1) Why are you here today?

“This is my house that is being constructed.” 2) Why are you considering this type of construction method for your home, oppose to using conventional methods?

“We bought a house here and we have no knowledge of building or architecture and found it would be more expensive to refurbish it, then to knock down and re-build. With these new builds you also don’t pay VAT, which was another reason for knocking the house down. There are many reasons for choosing this method of construction. The speed of completion, the hand over date is in less than 5 months, oppose to what would be a couple of years with the conventional way, and no doubt, there would be complications with builders. We have small children and a busy life with, which are large factors of choosing this method, the time until move in is far shorter. There is a fixed budget and you receive a schedule of exactly what will occur each week. They whole process is less messy then conventional methods, just look how tidy the building site is! We would also don’t have to employ a project manger with this build.” 3) Do you think the negative association attached to prefabricated buildings will soon be forgotten now that technology and housing like this (Baufritz) is available?

“I hope so, it would seem a shame if technology and buildings like this were still associated to the old prefab houses. It is interesting you say that because Baufritz are careful not to use the word ‘prefab’, they use ‘modular’ instead, probably in attempt to move away for the image.” 4) Do you think this type of technology and construction is the future for housing? “Yes” 5) What do you think are the advantages of modern prefabrication such as Baufritz? - You can have the house how you want, the design is very flexible inside and out - They visit the site and design the building as best as they can to fit into the context - They are very client focused and the whole process feels very personal and involving - Compared to the Hauf Haus, Baufritz housing feels far more family friendly, personal, more flexible in design, fit better into their context and less restrictive - Hauf Haus is also too expensive - The housing do not feel like prefabs or any different to any other building - They are air-tight and each panel has 5 layers of insulation - These ‘eco-friendly’ prefabs have tiny heating bills, my friend has one and her bill for the first quarter was £3.50 - The builders on site are all German and have remarkable work ethic and a real can do attitude. They showed up on time and are very tidy.

6) What do you think are the disadvantages of modern prefabrication such as Baufritz?

“I don’t think there are many. Maybe it is not affordable by everyone.”

Client 3 Interview with client 3. 2014. Chichester, 28 Dec. 1) Why are you here today?

“We are looking at our options for are new house.” 2) Why are you considering this type of construction method for your home, oppose to using conventional methods?

“The quick construction time, less hassle and there is large amount of flexible design options now. With this type of system you know what you are paying for, there is a fixed budget and there are limited delays if any. We also have small children and the speed in which to move in is important. The whole affair is just tidier, less hassle, more trusting and it is done in a controlled, effective and efficient environment.” 3) Do you think the negative association attached to prefabricated buildings will soon be forgotten now that technology and housing like this (Baufritz) is available?

“Well, a dozen of these Baufritz houses have been built in the UK now and programmes like Grand Designs are making people more aware of them, and how good the quality and design of the houses are now. Compared to old ‘prefabs’ these are light-years away.” 4) Do you think this type of technology and construction is the future for housing?

“I think it is heading that way if you can find the right site.” 5) What do you think are the advantages of modern prefabrication such as Baufritz? -

Control Time Fixed budget Limited unforeseen delays Great service Easier to maintain Eco-friendly Healthy materials which is perfect for a young family

6) What do you think are the disadvantages of modern prefabrication such as Baufritz?

“They take ownership of the project until hand over,”

Baufritz Architect Interview Architect - Peter Lumme Lumme, P. 2014. Interview with the architect. Chichester, 28 Dec

Architect 1) Has the interest increased from clients in this method of prefabricated building construction? - Very much up and down - But people are becoming more and more aware which can only be good news 2) Why do you think this is? -

We offer eco-friendly homes and healthy living We use non toxin materials Speed of construction Fixed Budget

3) Do you think the negative stigma attached to the image of ‘prefab’ is still affecting client’s choice of choosing this type of building? “They hear ‘prefab’ and think ‘cheap’ but when they look into us they realise it is not a ‘cheap’ option” 4) Do you think there is a solution in this type of construction that can target the lower end of the market? - There are companies that do produce in mass, but we specialise in individual and unique homes. 5) Do you think there is a growing market in the UK in this area of construction? - Yes I think so. With all the programmes on TV today people are seeing what companies like us can do. 6) What are the main disadvantages with this type of building construction? - Curves and very bespoke designs make it harder to prefabricate - Vehicular access can sometimes restricts which site we can build - There must also be enough room for a large crane to operate

BIBLIOGRAPHY Book References - Anderson, M. and Anderson, P. 2007. Prefab prototypes. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. - Birkbeck, D. and Scoones, A. 2005. Prefabulous homes. [London]: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. - Costa Duran, S. 2008. New prefab architecture. Barcelona, Spain: Loft. - Coolican, H. 2009. Research methods and statistics in psychology. London: Hodder Education. - Curl, J. S. 2006. A dictionary of architecture and landscape architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. - Ebong, I. 2005. Kit homes modern. New York: Collins Design. - Herbers, J. 2006. Prefab modern. New York: Collins Design : Distributed throughout the world by HarperCollins Pub. - Huovila, P. 2009. Buildings and climate change. Paris, France: UNEP, Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch. - Knaack, U., Chung-Klatte, S. and Hasselbach, R. 2012. Prefabricated Systems. Basel: Birkhäuser. - Krauel, J. 2010. New houses. Barcelona: Links. - Le Corbusier. 1986. Towards a new architecture. New York: Dover Publications. - Mccosh, F. W. J. 1997. Nissen of the huts. Bourne End: B D Pub. - Pople, N. 2005. Small houses. London: Laurence King. - The National Museum Wales. 2011. St Fagans - Museum of Welsh Life : Visitor Guide. Wales: National Museum of Wales. - Wright, F. L. 2005. An autobiography. Petaluma, CA: Pomegranate

Online Journals, Publications and Articles - Baufritz.com. 2014. About Baufritz. [online] Available at: http://www.baufritz.com/uk/baufritz/about-baufritz/ [Accessed: 28 Jan 2014]. - Blanchet, E. 2013. Elisabeth Blanchet | Prefabs: Palaces for the people. [online] Available at: http://www.photofusion.org/exhibitions/elisabeth-blanchet/ [Accessed: 25 Jan 2014]. - Clasp.gov.uk. 2014. CLASP Consortium - History. [online] Available at: http://www.clasp.gov.uk/NetBuildPro/process/6/History [Accessed: 12 Jan 2014]. - Dargue, W. 2012. Wake Green - History of Birmingham Places & Placenames A to Y. [online] Available at: http://billdargue.jimdo.com/placenames-gazetteer-a-to-y/places-w/wake-green/ [Accessed: 18 Feb 2014]. - Elman, K. 2014. Frank Lloyd Wright. [online] Available at: http://www.pbs.org/flw/legacy/essay1.html [Accessed: 20 Feb 2014]. - English-heritage.org.uk. 2007. PREFABS: Factory Homes for Post-War England. [online] Available at: http://viewfinder.english-heritage.org.uk/story/intro.aspx?storyUid=44 [Accessed: 19 Jan 2014]. - Gray, L. 2012. Prince of Wales hits out at modern buildings as ‘energy-guzzling glass boxes’ - Telegraph. [online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9056928/Prince-of-Wales-hits-out-at-modern-buildings-as-energy-guzzlingglass-boxes.html [Accessed: 23 Feb 2014]. - Huffington Post. 2013. Frank Lloyd Wright House Photos. [online] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/07/frank-lloyd-wright-house-photos_n_4235456.htm [Accessed: 19 Jan 2014]. - Mcghie, C. 2008. Grand Designs: Kevin McCloud’s trade secrets - Telegraph. [online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/luxuryhomes/3361079/Grand-Designs-Kevin-McClouds-trade-secrets.html [Accessed: 2 Feb 2014]. - Stahl House Inc. 2010. The Case Study House Program. [online] Available at: http://stahlhouse.com/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20&Itemid=115 [Accessed: 18 Jan 2014]. - The National Museum Wales. 2009. A permanent home for a temporary house - the prefab at St Fagans | Rhagor | National Museum Wales. [online] Available at: http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/rhagor/article/1865 [Accessed: 17 Dec 2014].