Prefabricated

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
ProQuest Information and Learning

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
prefabricated
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1*1 Library and
Archives Canada
Bibliotheque et
Archives Canada
978 - 0 - 494 - 37622-5
Published Heritage Direction du
Branch Patrimoine de ('edition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington

Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K 1A0N 4
Canada Canada
Your file Votre reference

ISBN:
Our file Notre reference
ISBN:
NOTICE: AVIS:
The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive
exclusive license allowing Library permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives
and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, prefer,
telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans
loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres,
worldwide, for commercial or non sur support microforme, papier, electronique
commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats.
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur

ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protege cette these.
this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la these.ni des extraits substantiels de
nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement
may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation.
reproduced without the author's
permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne

Privacy Act some supporting sur la protection de la vie privee,
forms may have been removed quelques formulaires secondaires
from this thesis. ont ete enleves de cette these.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires

in the document page count, aient inclus dans la pagination,
their removal does not represent il n’y aura aucun contenu manquant.
any loss of content from the
thesis.
i+i
Canada
abstract
Prefabricated is a Master’s Degree Project prepared to fulfill the requirements for the Master of Key words:
Architecture programme in the faculty of Environmental Design at the University of Calgary. Prefab
Prefabricated
Modular
As the name suggest, this project is an exploration into the world of prefabricated architecture. It Mass-Customization
does not perform any research into the development into prefabrication systems but is an explo-
ration into the application of a specific prefab technology to an equally specific design problem:
the Calgary Infill. The definitions of Prefab are explored and determined as they inform this and
other projects. Through concepts such as mass-customization, the project is defined as a design
system, a mediated design toolset, which attempts at reconciling these disparate methods of
housing production. In relation to this undertaking, the project looks at what the applications
of this proposal would include and determines strategy in the introduction of prefabrication
into areas that would not normally use other construction methods. Asking the question of
whether or not prefabrication on the large scale is beneficial to a project of this type reveals
issues contained therein.
■ ■
II
acknowledgements
■ ■■
I would like to thank John Brown for supervision and guidance during this project and the work
leading up to it. I would also like to thank Paul Rogers for acting as external advisor and for in
sight into the manufacturing industry. Also, I would like to thank Cory Krygierforthe opportunites
to work with prefabrication, design and construction in general. I would also like to thank all the
industry representatives for your assistance with the research, especially Blair Turner of SRI
Homes for your help that went beyond expectations. Also to Mr. Bill, Marino, Craig and John for
always being supportive of the students and our work and for making suring the faculty does not
fall apart.
I would like to thank my friends and familty in and out of school who were subjected to listen
ing to my mindless ranting and general obsession with prefabrication. I would expecially like
to thank the guys at school who have been extremely helpful in developing my ideas. I have
enjoyed getting to know all of you as I have gradually emerged from hiding during the last
couple of years.
I would like to thank my family for their support during this time spent in University. Most of
all I would like to thank my wife Terese and my daughter Gabriella for their amazing help and
their ability to keep me from going crazy or losing perspective during this endeavor. Thank
you for your love and support. I love you.
iv
contents
abstract i
acknowledgements jjj
contents v
preface
introduction
vii
1
v
prefab 5
mass-customization 17
project 23
design 31
conclusion 53
illustration Credits 59
notes 61
bibliography 63
■
>
preface
I ask this question in the following document and I suppose I should ask it of myself now: why
Prefab? I was first introduced to prefabricated construction when I was working in a small drafting
firm in Calgary. At that time, I worked on a house that was constructed using structural insulated
panels (SIP) but my involvement in this project was minimal. Shortly thereafter, I came across the
book Prefab by Allison Arieff and Bryan Burkhart and this further piqued my interest. Afterward,
I was involved in a SIP project for a single family house and there was speculation about the
\
possibility of a project involving modular infill homes in the future. It was around this time that I
discovered the movement known as Modernist Prefab.
Prefab as a system of production is interesting and potentially useful, but an architectural
movement is intriguing. I am still not sure what I thought of a movement based on the
prefabrication of houses. I am aware that there are some feasible reasons for adopting
Prefab and there are also some fairly obvious social connotations and potential controversies
that exist. Based on this knowledge, I made my first attempt at tackling the issue in a
directed study entitled, “Questioning Prefab”, which resulted in a less than intelligible rant
on the potential concerns and potentials of prefabricating a house. This study helped me
to realize that Prefab is a multifaceted issue that requires much study. Hence, this project:
“Prefabricated”.
Beginning with a precedent study looking at the current trends in prefabrication I ventured at
understanding the drive behind this movement and this took me to Los Angeles for the Prefab
Now 1 conference sponsored by Dwell magazine of which Allison Arieff is the Editor-in-Chief.
Early in the conference, I was mostly sold on the concept. The conference was a showcase
and lecture series from some of the most enthusiastic proponents of the Modernist Prefab
movement. Later in the afternoon, I was reminded, in a lecture by Wes Jones of Jones
■ I I
Partners and SCIArc, of why I was interested in this concept to begin with.
VIII This is some sort of marketing frenzy as we’ve seen already. Prefab is
no slam dunk, hence this conference. There has been, in the discussion
of Prefab, a certain amount of dumping on architects and I am up here
as that asshole. I am probably the only non-marketing person you will
hear from today...Let’s start off...by defining this term Prefab that we
have been using rather loosely. On the one hand, as has been said,
just about everything today is already to some extent prefabricated if it
uses building products, or even to that extent 2x4s. Yet the acceptance
of this convenience does not automatically extend to an acceptance of the
sort of real Prefab that we are talking about today...Why Prefab? Well to
all of us the advantages seem obvious...Why not Prefab? To some of us,
this seems equally obvious. It’s a question, in the end, of freedom... both in
terms of choice of the consumer and also of the possibility that it represents
for the designer. Prefab also means prefigured; predesigned. Otherwise
it’s really just another name for something moved from somewhere else to
the place that it ultimately ends up...The market has also been conflicted
about Prefab, as we heard, and we can blame this as the cause of the
past failures and also the cause of the continuing relatively slow start,
although we are a bit more upbeat these days about the subject...There
is, of course the market acceptance, which is a problem...of Modernism in
general, which we all in this room know. And I, for one, think that it would
be a shame if the result of all the prostelitizing for Prefab were to cause
it to become synonymous with Modernism in the public’s eye. That’s the
architect talking.1
As Wes Jones was outlining his research and proposing a Prefab system, PRO/con, he directly
criticized the obvious and potentially dangerous enthusiasm of the Modernist Prefab proponents.
His wary development of a system is an inspiration to the development of this Master’s Degree
Project and, I would hope, to all future endeavors I choose to undertake in this field.
I have never endeavored to devise a new prefabrication system. There are many more qualified
people out in the industry that are already working on this subject. The scope of this project is to
l
use existing systems and concepts to work towards a final product; an innovation of practice and
design, not an innovation in process. I believe that the danger in always exploring the processes
and ignoring the application of those methods has the potential to deliver unexpected
negative results. Architecture affects the world in which we live and as such it affects our lives
personally. To abandon critical thinking in favour of developing a system for the sake of the
system is irresponsible at best. I am not against prefabrication in any way. I see the outright
rejection of Prefab, or any other technological development, to be equally irresponsible to the
architectural community as the complete acceptance of it. As the document will communicate,
I see the faith in the cult of Prefab as the negative development in this field. As a concept,
Prefab has many interesting modes in which it functions.
X
introduction
Prefabrication is all things to all men, and a source of confusion to many...

Its basis is not so much a logical theory as a cult. And as a cult it has won
ardent and persuasive adherents, united by a belief in a better house, for
less money, through more efficient methods of house production.2
Prefabricated architecture is a strange world. It is a highly developed margin of the construction

industry that has been progressing with constant persistence.3 It is a business venture that,
despite a typically negative reputation, has succeeded in achieving a presence in the larger
construction industry. As an architectural movement, it seems to be a sort of fashion or,
as the above statement surmises, a cult with a belief in the translation of the products of
industry into the production of the dwelling house. This faith in the cult of modernism, and of
industrialization, can be found in the words of those such as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe who
stated, “Wherever technology reaches its real fulfillment, it transcends into architecture.”4
Even though some of this faith is part of the collective western architectural history, the concept
of industrializing housing seems to upset the architectural community to a degree.5 This is
what makes this topic interesting: it is a logical extension of the Modern movement but it does
not acquire the same respect of conventional architecture. Also, the contemporary examples
of Modern prefab seem to be an extension of the preoccupation with industrial development
and not the extension of the exploration of an architectural Zeitgeist as the earlier Modernist
explorations were. As such it seems to be detached from its roots and reveals itself as an
echo of past themes. As some forms of prefabrication have entered into the conventions of
the building and design industry, the discussion about prefab architecture can be seen as
either premature or delayed.
This Master’s Degree Project ventures at exploring some of the themes of prefabricated
architecture. It applies the lessons gained by employing a specific prefabrication process
to a typical design problem within the Calgary market: the infill house. Roughly described
as a 17’ wide by 52-55’ long single detached dwelling, the infill is an atypical example of an
upper-scale housing typology. Taking the example of the infill, this project uses the modular
home method where the house arrives on site in a small number of larger sections. The local
modular method employed is the SRI Homes6system as an example of a modular construction
facility that is fairly representative of the modular home type. As a tool for mitigating the
inevitable conflicts between the infill market and the prefabricated process, the concept of
mass-customization is introduced. Through mass-customization, the project works within the
bounds of the design problem, considering the larger cultural and social implications inherent in
the project. There has been no effort in describing a new system of construction or fabrication but
rather an application of an existing process to a design problem. Although material and product
innovation is an interesting topic, it is not contained within the mandate and scope of this project.
Thus, the only variations made on the actual prefabrication system are cases where there is no
real impact on the production system as contained within the factory.
As an expansion of the design exploration, a basic question of significance develops: why Prefab?
The proponents of this sector will have their reasons and some situations might warrant this type
of design solution but, in what is known as the Modernist Prefab school, the reasons can appear
as justifications for a preoccupation with this unusual and somewhat controversial field. This
is not to say that Prefab is in any way negative, it merely questions why some of this activity is
occurring. It also questions whether or not a prefabricated home is the kind of home that the
architectural community should be pursuing.
it’s dwell’s 2006 calendar
it’s prefab
u tmm
-
e: tSSS’ '
prefab
“Prefab is viewed as a design and production ideology that has the potential to deliver affordable
modernism.”7 Modernist Prefab is said to be a response to the reality that custom Modernist
homes are often out of the reach of many homebuyers. Albeit affordability is a goal of Modernist
Prefabbers, this is merely one official goal as asserted by a major proponent of Modernist Prefab
and its application in practice is anything but universal. Affordability is not the only purpose to
the prefab home. Such issues as quality of construction, waste reduction, energy efficiency,
simplification and expediting of the construction process are major factors in the prefabricated
home and of manufacturing in general. It would seem more useful to condense all of these goals
as a more directed use of resources, as one goal rather than a series of smaller goals. Another
benefit that is claimed by the prefabrication industry is a superior structural soundness due
to the additional considerations required to transfer the product from factory to site. This
is a benefit but not a direct goal and should be considered a byproduct of the construction
process. With the goals and benefits of prefabrication accounted for, these issues appear as
a potential rationalization for a form of faddism and do not exist as pure intentions.
A potential cause of the proliferation of this current movement is a Modernist preoccupation

with the products of industry. Described as ‘the holy grail of modernism’ by many of the
Modernist Prefab designers8, the obsession with prefabrication or mass-production of the
modern dwelling has been explored by some of the most respected architects of the 20th
century.9 There are many historical examples of this preoccupation with Prefab and mass-
produced housing. “There exists a new spirit...Industry on the grand scale must occupy
itself with building and establish the elements of the house on a mass-production basis.
We must create the mass-production spirit.”10 Le Corbusier opined that industry could help
solve housing shortages and produce a superior product to conventional buildings.11 His
explorations into mass-produced housing and the associated analogies to other forms of
production are key to the development of the prefab concept. Walter Gropius also maintained
a faith in industry to provide a new realm of architecture and of the dwelling itself. He stated,
“a pre-fabricated house can be loaded on to a couple of lorries at the factory - walls, floors,
roof, fittings and all - conveyed to the site, and put together in next to no time regardless of the
season of the year.”12 The Copper-plate Houses he helped develop at the Bauhaus are the
physical manifestation of this theory of a prefabricated house. Beyond the Bauhaus, Gropius
entered into ventures with other practitioners such as Konrad Wachsmann. Their venture,
The Packaged House13can be included in “the long continuum of noble failures” 14that prefab
h -
has endured. The question of whether or not industrialization in the building industry should
happen seems to have been of little concern to the developers of the Modernist movement.
Instead it is a question of how this industrialization should occur and how to design and
construct within this new architectural paradigm.15 The same attitude extends into the new
school of Modernist Prefab architecture. Prefabrication as a sector of the construction and
design industries has progressed quite steadily since the era of the early proponents. Despite
the enthusiasm of the developers of the Modernist movement, the industry has largely been
removed from the hands of the architectural community and has become fairly obscure in the
larger architectural context.16
Prefabrication is an ill-defined and often marginalized sector in the design and construction
community. The fact that various prefabrication methods are labeled under different names
such as modular home, manufactured home, panelized home, controlled environmental
construction (cec), and even terms like ready-to-move (rtm) shows a general reluctance to
even use the name Prefab. Some members of the industry deny producing a prefabricated
product altogether.17 On the opposite end of the spectrum are the contemporary Modernist
Prefab proponents that have claimed and pronounced the term proudly and with enthusiasm
and even sponsor conferences on the subject. As all of this is taking place, it is difficult to
locate an explicit and useful definition of the term itself. There seems to be an unwritten
definition that is understood and accepted by those within and outside of the industry. It is a
definition that could be understood to be that which is more prefabricated, or prepared offsite,
than the norm. This is a roaming definition as the norm is constantly shifting in relation to
this subject. This type of definition also relies on giving examples to mediate the general
lack of a set norm. Another definition of the term is seen as a continuum with pure prefab on
one end and pure site construction on the other end.18 Defining the term with respect to the
MODULAR CONSTRUCTION
15% 15% 30% 40%
Design Engineering Site Preparation W IM ^ W N !S »
Fabrication in plant
CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION
15% 15% 30% 40%
Design Engineering Site Preparation Construction

continuum would conclude that the definition does not state a binary relationship of prefab
versus not prefab but exists as a measure of the level of prefabrication inherent in the building
technology. Prefab, along this definition, prevails in most of the current building industry as
builders and designers alike try to expedite the building process by using components such
as shop-prepared steel, window components, stairs, cabinets and, more specifically to the
low-density housing industry, engineered floor joists, roof trusses and such. The presence
and the continual adoption of these products is what makes the first definition problematic.
Similarly, the continuum definition fails as it is inherently subjective and as such has no
quantitative aspects. This issue is further compounded when the systems are reduced to
where each component of the system is placed along the continuum thus shifting the system
along the spectrum based on the components. This leads it to inevitable debate as to the
basis of the placement of a prefabricated system along the continuum.
An extension of these definitions would indicate the term Prefab, as a description of a specific
form of technology or method of construction, is a fabrication in itself. Although the two
previously mentioned definitions are useful, they do not seem completely satisfactory. It could
be more useful to use a definition referring to the spirit of prefab and the attitude that prevails in
this industry. After this, the definition becomes one of intentions and of a strategy of preparing
components of a building beforehand and of a self-imposed recognition of prefabrication.
To define a system as a form of prefabrication in the most absolute possible way, it would
be to say that the spirit of the system is one of extending this notion of constructing offsite
to beyond what is commonly expected given the various forms of technology used and the
multitude of other variables that modify the project. This definition is also flawed, in that it is
difficult to determine the intentions of a prefabricated system as an observer and not an active
participant in the development of that system. However, it is useful in determining a design
11
fabprefab decreasing degrees of prefabrication ^
increasing degrees of on-site labor
mobile hom e* ► kit-home ► modular/panelized home ► ► custom home
manufactured off-site, kit manufactured and building designed using pre-existing custom designed,
transported to the site in a packaged off-site, modular products/systems. custom-built on-site
largely completed state, assem bled on-site. built on-site using modular/prefab from "standard" materials.
minimal on-site labor. components and “standard” on-site labor-intensive,
materials.
scope for a project under development and is being explored as a basis for the development
of this project.
Prefab has become a sort of negative term as thought of by many people within our culture.
The thought of prefabricated architecture conjures images of trailer parks and all of the
socioeconomic issues contained within this subculture. This censorious opinion of the
prefabrication industry is not without foundation. Prefabricated housing has garnered a lot
of disrespect, earning a reputation for being sub-par,19and has been glibly referred to as
CATNAP (cheapest available technology, narrowly avoiding prosecution)20. The construction
of the often erroneously named mobile home21 and its ensuing infrastructure and culture is
not the most socially successful endeavor. Despite the reputation of prefabrication and the
inherent problems, it seems as though enough people have faith in the viability of prefab to
continue its production. The problem with prefabrication does not reside in the functional
or even the technological but more within the sociopolitical constructs within the present
culture. Perhaps this is due to a lack of education and new marketing on the subject or a
lack of significant application outside of the realm of the manufactured housing environment
and market. Considering the inability to define Prefab in terms of a binary definition, it seems
unusual for designers and proponents of prefabricated projects to referto their work as Prefab.
This can suggest that there is no need for more marketing on the subject of Prefab but rather
a need for a lack of marketing. This would mean defining the various Prefab houses as
merely houses and rejecting of this poorly considered designation.
One potential basis for a lack of acceptance of the prefabrication method is the perceived
lack of choice or customization. This perception is both correct and incorrect. Prefabrication
does not function very well within the realm of pure customization as some of its benefits stem
from a control of materials and speed of production, both of which come from a standardized
mode of production involving the potential for repetition and familiarity. Manufacturers say
that anything is possible but that some things come at a cost as in any industry. In fact, a
large percentage of prefabricated projects are completely customized projects; many of the
precedents of Modern Prefab are examples of these one-off productions. Referring again
to the general goal of prefab, better resource application, this is potentially negated in the
presence of complete customization. Due to this, Prefab is seen as a mass-produced, one-
size-fits-all solution to a design problem which is not conducive to such a solution. Perceptions
of prefabrication and the potentials of the system might be related to the general lack of any
concrete idea of what it means.
There is a fairly clear perception of the prefabricated home. Although this perception is
changing and by no means universal, the single long bar plan or the aptly-named double-
wide are the standard by which prefabricated homes are judged. Even when a prefab house
transcends these classifications, one would compare it to these models and judge it not
completely as architecture in and of itself but relative to these established norms within the
14 prefabrication history and culture. The design of a Prefab home is either a reaction against,
or an adherence to, the accepted norm. This can be extended to say that if a prefabricated
method is adapted to a market or condition that would not normally involve a prefabricated
solution, it would seem as though it was imported. This is because the usual market for
prefabricated houses, at least in the manufactured housing sector, is rural housing orthe trailer
parkand its various derrivatives. In short, prefabricated houses are normally seen in their
designated area, which is often a lower-income market than other forms of construction.
CD
mass customization
As manufactured goods can often be overly prescriptive, the concept of mass-customization has
17
arisen to work with the products of industrialization and move them toward a more individualized
result. The concept itself is inherently paradoxical as a mixture of mass-production and
customization. In mass-production, the factory produces a series of identical parts, which make up
a production line; a whole. In customization, each of those parts is not a part but a whole in itself.
Mass-customization seeks to combine the whole and the part into one, where it could be possible
to mass-produce unique goods and services, tailored to the individual person or situation22. Mass-
customization allows for greater variety and individuality in products and services but doing so in
a way that is resource efficient and steers away from outright customization. Although many
more mature mass-customization schemes involve a variety of systems development and
computer applications, the more basic concepts of the idea are being explored here. In the
case of the modular home, new technologies are not being explored in the current model being
studied. There exist alternate technological processes that can be used in the production of
prefabricated housing but due to market conditions as well as market perceptions these are
avoided.23 The fact that there are perceptions of what a house needs to be directly relates to
the limitations of technological innovation in this field. Frankly, people do not seem to want to
live in anything they would see as unusual or unbefitting a house.
Mass-customization does not function in a singular fashion but can exist on different levels
within industrialized production. A significant example of the mass-customization concept is
the manufacture of the automobile. In this once completely standardized industry, options
and choices are becoming increasingly available to the consumer for them to tailor the vehicle
to their needs. In this way, many cars are produced without a duplicate, “giving them each a
mass-produced uniqueness.”24
From the car company’s perspective, the mass customizing is done by the
dealers who place the order with the factory...The decision as to what cars to
produce is therefore made at the end of the chain, in the delivery system.25
This type of mass-customization can be thus defined as delivery-level as it is a
customization of the service of the car and the direct interface between the customer
and the vehicle itself.
In the production of the automobile, there exists another level of mass-customization that the
typical consumer is sometimes unaware of and is likely of little interest to them. This is not a
consumer-level customization but a production-level mass-customizing principle that seeks
to increase repetition and simplify the production of the car. For a considerable time, the car
companies have created standard components of the car that could be translated to various
models. In this way, they were able to reduce the number of different chassis, engines,
suspensions and such to a minimal number of variations and at the same time, provide
adequate selection of products. It is through the variation of the various other components
of the car as well as the combination of the foundational components that leads to this
mass-customization and uniqueness of each vehicle. Both types of mass-customization,
production-level and delivery-level, are of interest to this project. These two different mass-
customization concepts can be used in concert to develop a project from its inception as a
system to the tailoring of that system to the individual design problem. Similar concepts could
be applied to the prefabrication of houses without significant technological change.
20
CM
CM
project
The project is the application of prefabrication to the typical infill home in Calgary. As there is a
perception of the prefabricated home, there is a comparable perception of the infill home. This
is an increasingly demanding market sector, for which the typical home is fairly expensive when
compared the larger housing market. This is also an area where there is a real potential for
well-designed, modern homes and is a market that often encourages innovation in design. This
stands in direct contrast to the market of the more conventional prefabricated home. Some issues
appear when attempting to reconcile the standards of the Infill market and the standards of the
modular system. If the process, as contained within the factory proper, or the act of transporting
do not allow for a commonly desired material or form, then that material or form will be left to
site construction. In cases such as this, the need for additional site construction, although
not desirable, is seen as not only possible but necessary, in a market such as this. It would
be detrimental to the project to limit based on these restrictions as it would stand in contrast
to the infill typology and market.
The project has progressed based on the definition that refers to the intention of prefab. It
ventures at discovering the potentials of a system having a large degree of prefabrication in
the specific process. Modular construction, defined within the manufactured housing sector,
comprises of largely completed sections of a house that either arrive on the site as one
complete piece or combined with other sections on-site as an assembly. In the example
explored in the design project, this takes the shape of a Modular (Sectional) Stack-on version
of manufactured housing, which in the simplest terms is one section stacked on top of
another.26 This very specific version of the modular house is produced alongside the more
typical single and double wide manufactured homes in the same facility.
The factory operates as a virtually organic entity. Each phase in the module’s development
along the shop floor, both in terms of assembly and what are referred to as mini-factories
feeding the main production line, occur in concert and succession. The different components
of the house are prepared in the static mini-factories, as per their designation, and are inserted
into the moving production line of the entire module. The organization of the factory does not
automatically mean that this is a pure assembly line method. As there are often bottlenecks
in the production of the modular home, workers are not usually limited to one area of the
factory floor. Employees are often moved around in the facility to various areas within their
skill set, as they are needed, to ensure the fastest procession of the module.27 Keeping the
L O
CM
various tasks as simple and undemanding as possible ensures both limited production halts
and increased mobility of the factory worker. For example, the wall framer takes the lumber,
drywall, insulation and such and assembles them into a wall that will be inserted into the
module. However, the framer did not decide how the wall is to be fashioned or even where
to place each individual stud. Instead, to decrease the potential for delays, this is determined
in advance by the designer and the engineering department of the factory organization. In
essence, the system of production attempts to limit the need for problem solving by the
worker. One could determine that the workers in the factory begin to be defined as a tool
of the factory and designer. The potential negative consequence of this determination is
the reduction of an autonomous individual manifested in the factory worker to the status of
functional entity. This is unfortunate, but necessary within the goals of the factory production
method, especially in this case where automation is limited.
One of the benefits of prefabrication is quality. The most commonly perceived way in which
quality relates to Prefab is through the process of construction. The most important aspect
of this is the fact that prefabricated houses are constructed in a controlled environment,
hence one of the aliases, controlled environmental construction (cec). This protects the
materials and products as well as the module itself from moisture and other environmental
factors. The factory conditions also provide the ability to bring the work to a more comfortable
level, which reduces worker fatigue and injury potential but also provides the ability to obtain
better connections between materials and products used in the house. The other way in
which quality has the potential to become a major benefit comes from the basic nature of
prefabrication in that it is predetermined and repeated. Details and standards can be defined
before a project is even ordered or developed and these details are not new to those who will
be building them. The degree of control is then increased as each of the trades responsible
h -
CSI
V' I1 <!1"
** 1 ’
g p s
for the various elements are directly affiliated with the production company and facility. As
such, the tradespeople largely remain constant and can be relied upon to repeat the same
details with a level of precision and confidence.
The benefits of quality of detailing and construction are fairly obvious in terms of the soundness
and longevity of the house. These also provide advantages for the occupant. This occurs with
the potential reduction of air pollutants, such as mold, by creating better seals and protecting
materials during construction. The advantages also extend to a fine-tuning of space and
detail which provide the occupant with a better-designed living environment. Therefore,
the prefabrication process as an agent of evolutionary design has the ability to improve the
livability of not only the more typical Prefab houses but of housing of all types.
In prefabricated architecture, there are requirements taken from the tasks of transportability
and ease and speed of assembly, that distinguish it from other construction methods. This
influence is governed by physical dimensions of a system of roadways and, consequently,
trucks, overpasses and such. This system is consequently governed by regulatory bodies
of government, which determine the safe transport of such products and the limits and
allowances essential to the smooth operation of such public activities. These regulations and
physical characteristics of transportation law, not just the act of transporting itself, influence
the transportation requirements of the module. In some cases, this can cause requiring
additional sectioning of the dwelling to remain within these restrictions.
0 5
CM
aSS'OO-
d ^ 0 « t*0*"1
pr p u r t n e r ^
ONNO®
***** < *****
duoed ^ ^ ' 5S'°nU' ^
ReproduC
design
The example of the production of the automobile given earlier has been a driving factor for
this design project. This is a conceptual basis for some of the organizational constructs as
they relate to mass-customization and the simplification of the manufacturing process. It is
not a physical determination of the project as the technological systems involved in producing
houses and cars are mostly unrelated. The design system uses the analogy of the car chassis
to describe the basis of the prefabricated home. The chassis is equated to a standard frame of
the house: the floor and roof plates and the vertical circulation. Just as one chassis construction
can be used to produce multiple car models, this prefab system uses one configuration of floor
] 8.60m
!1 0 .0 0 m
Q_
CD
■D
O
«+—
O
O
’’sf-
; ! ¥ -
4 : .* • W Q Z 'l M O Z 'l
- 1
• T
¥
¥ r-'™
l
:
^rr.
y
\/ “T is
/V
11
w
-j-J "jn_|jr
t4 111
U U J02¥ W Q Z l
[
CM
CO
CO
CO
[USZZ'U
l_ J L—
[wZZ'll
[UJZZ'U
— Ti ‘ -r i
[wzz'tf
—
[UiZZ’ l l
__ J L_ _
mzz'ii
120'deep lot
E __
[U JZZ-Lj
MS
r - i i— ri [UJZ2-L]
1- 1 1-
■ i [wzru
L _-J L
W Z Z 'V l
[LUZZ* U
-r i
[u * Z 2 * U
— - i- H - [uiZZ'U
[LUZZ' I.]
I L_ _ LJ J L
[UJZZ‘ 1-]
*
[UJZZ'lJ II
tP II
fi -r- i
[W Z Z ‘ 1]
%P
- - ti 1■— ir
4
— - - - 4i -
NZZ'd i—
■
i-
i
L__.J L. J___L
[U JZZ-1]
125’ deep lot
,P
buzz'll
,p
s i- r-r--r ■ i
[ W Z Z 'I ]
,p
1t r
i
i— -f [LUZZ-1
.] ii— i-
i
L . .J L ._ ,p ll. J__ L
IWZZ'I]
,p
{U *ZZ'V \
,p
r-t " -r i
[ui1,6*0]
,e
—rt aiqtliJB/vj-
h ' T ' “ Ti [LUZZ* I ] —H
i i
~r--r
I 1 h [luzzh ] — i i - i — i-
,p
F ll ¥ l E.
OJ
^Tpg
J*.CM
“ c \l
-| CM i*.CM
^TCNJ “ CM
E
CO
JO
and roof plates and produces multiple floor plans. This is one way that the production-level
mass-customization enters into the project as the framework of the project allows for the
development of the delivery-level customizations to take place. The different configurations of
rooms, such as the bathroom and laundry core of the second floor plans are examples of this
type of customization. These types of options are analogous to the major options determined
in the manufacturing of automobiles. This would include things like type of transmission or
size of engine. These analogies can be drawn all the way to the final skin of the home and
the final skin of the car, number of doors and such. The skin of the home is made up of a
wall system that is conceptually modularized, increasing repetition at the factory level but
allowing for a customization at the delivery level. Even material and colour choices have their
counterpart within the comparison of the automobile and the prefabricated home. Despite this
analogy, the system of production and construction remains the same as the typical modular
home. Considering this, the project introduces mass-customization as a management and
organizational strategy and avoids development outside the commonly accepted production
standards. The project is interested in “the mass customizing principle...sufficient without
major new technologies.”28
As this project seeks to remain in this production system and accept the inherent restraints
of it, a negotiation of the various goals and potentials is required. Extending the notion
of mass-customization, the project seeks to enter into the realm of prefabrication with a
mediated design toolset. This mediation endeavors to satisfy some purely functional values
inherent in the prefabrication method, which have been enveloped within the goal of a guided
application of resources, as discussed earlier. The intervention into the design process is
determined by the factory floor production method and is designed to extract the potentials
of this mode of production without being overly prescriptive to the design process. This
design system recognizes its constituents as being part of a system of construction and
moves them into theoretical assemblies to better adhere to this method of construction. It
LO
CO
S 'lr
■o
©
JQ
^ m
a>
io n
x:
determines set variations of major areas of the house where infinite potential and variation
once existed. It seems as though this would significantly reduce the abilities of the designer
to import some sense of applied order to the house as determined by the individual project.
In reality, it both limits the designer and at the same time it frees the designer to operate
without concern of the operational realities of the factory environment. The designer is no
longer obligated to be concerned with the issues associated with prefabricated production.
The system acts to concern itself with these realities and as such it frees the designer to
concentrate on the programmatic or spatial and formal aspects of the house itself. In this
fashion, the system represents a releasing of obligation to the technological and practical
constraints in prefabrication.
In addition to this releasing of obligation to the production method, the designer is able to
be no longer interested in very small issues of design. The design system has dealt with
these issues in advance and given the designer the ability to concern themselves with the
development of the specific project. Smaller details and design concepts are determined and
eventually would have been built a number of times over. This also allows for satisfactory
design of the smaller variables where they might not have been considered outside of the
system. They are built into the design system and the method of production and as such
the designer is asked not to reinvent the wheel but merely to find out which wheel to add to
the home. In this way, the design system is the prototype for many future houses and this
translates into fewer unknown variables. This is contrasted with the typical design method,
where each of these variables would need to be designed and developed in each individual
project. This contributes to the speed and potentially the cost, of design and also has the
potential to increase confidence for both the designer and the client.
The design system, not to be misconstrued as equivalent to the prefabrication system, is

the tool of the designer. It is not entirely a reality of how the modular home will be produced
c o
C( a
X
£
7030 a)
.c
■c
(U a
U)
C
but a function of how one can use the benefits of the factory condition to accomplish a
set of goals. This system is itself determined to increase the size of project variables to
predetermined elements and create a system that can be easily communicated and repeated
for familiarity. As the development of this system progressed, certain associations could be
drawn between this system and other modes of prefabricated housing. For example, the
4’-0” module organization of the exterior contained in the design system is almost directly
transferable to types of panelized wall systems such as the structural insulated panel (SIP).
This is not to say that the exact realization of this system is entirely transferable but rather
that a similar organization and approach is applicable to these other prefabricated systems.
It is through this relation of the various systems that the parent of these systems reveals
itself. The more typical onsite, wood frame construction practices are the cause and result of
a system of products used in the manufacture of houses in many of the local systems. The
2x4, 4’x8’ sheet of plywood and many other products are used in all of these systems and
prevail within them all. The products have dimensions and properties gained through the
intervention of humankind and not as an unaffected natural phenomenon. This generational
mode of production is not unusual in many industries where parts move from one factory
to another until the final product is produced using the products of another design and
production. This is also not dissimilar from typical methods of construction that are built
upon a layering and assemblage of varying components. In the Calgary region, the lack of
essential difference between the elements of typical construction and the basic elements of
modular construction allows for an efficient transference of trade knowledge. This also leads
to certain commonalities in design and construction and a potential blurring of distinctions
between the different methods.
Is this system then merely an organizational system for the design of a wood frame house
and not specific to modular prefab? Definitely not. There are a whole range of determining
factors included in the development of the system that are specific to modular prefab. The
$
cm c m
BS
modes of transportation as well as the realities of the factory condition, for example, are
directly determinant on the design system. Although application of the organization strategy
could be beneficial to the custom home industry, the goals of custom homes are not equivalent
to the goals of Prefab. The similarities between this organizational system, developed for
modular prefab, and the other modes of housing production are mostly a determination of
the common material foundation. To say that this is only an organizational system for wood
frame construction as a whole is to deny all the other intricacies that inform the development
of the house itself. Imagine if the system of building is changed to become another form of
prefabrication or the felling and hewing of logs, for example. The organizational strategies
would change in these cases, minimally with the former and drastically with the latter. This
is a system for designing a modular, infill home and it is tailored to operate within the bounds
of both of these fields.
The organizational structure of the design system is not overly complicated. In many ways, it
is a kit of parts but as a design system only and not as a physical kit. The system or toolset
acts to simplify and aid the act of designing the prefabricated infill. The designer is asked to
choose the chassis, either a side or front entry and either one, two or three bedroom upper
floor plans. There are then other choices that correspond to these decisions such as the
kitchen layout or the bathroom layout and things such as the size and configuration of closets
and additional entries. These items are all chosen from a set of predetermined, predesigned
layouts. The skin of the building and the corresponding glazing options are also chosen
from a set number of options organized according to the 4’-0"x4’-0” plan grid. Finally, the
exterior of the building is clad using a set of built-out pieces and panels that would fit into a
j-channel grid along the same lines as the sections of glazing. Both the system of built-out,
wrapping pieces and the panels would be added after the assembly of the major modules
is complete. As with most designs, there is no single process or order to the overall design
and the decisions made. Obviously, there are some decisions that are dependent upon other
hi
Q
11
H
□
H HD
HI
Id)
« id )
□
CPI m am □
□ Kl i— i
□□
a Es
□ □ □
ft H I 4 ft H I 4 ft H I 4
C P )3 C H )D C H )3
pm Id) H)
HI HI HI
HI HI HI
HI Ml Ml
III III HII
mu HII mi
HI HI HI
L X X
n
£
lie
l!i | UJ
h @ (3
choices but the design begins from any vantage point and the designer with their clients
would determine this vantage point and the process of each individual project.
The design system is intended to be a tool for the designer, and as such it should create the
ability to respond not only to the desires of the client but also respond to the specific conditions
of each site and project. The location of some programmatic elements and the development
of the skin of the system have the ability to respond to views, light conditions, orientation
as well as conditions born out of building and living in an urban context and coexisting with
neighbours. Included in this project are the specific design examples, which demonstrate this
response to site and project conditions. As stated earlier, the design system is intended to
mediate between the designer and the realities of prefabricated construction methods. The
designer, aided by the design system, acts as an intermediary between prefabrication and
the Calgary infill. The design system is then able to improve the ability of the designer to
use the prefabrication system. It also helps the production system respond to the needs of
the project, both in terms of the general idea of the Calgary infill house but also in terms of a
specific house on a specific site.
44
to
\ S M 9 ]A P jJ J S 0 J %
%
©
G il E ft »ree^'e'fi g ^B ens
«e ^ _ \ i'\ e ^ § - s m b ia p u js a r ->S— o> sv ° <D S M 9 IA P1J1S9J
CL • ■*•
%
0! flS> 3 iC T t
ad
to xn
c3
3S, 3S CO
iiM ' ^ - n 3Qogsajcliaajjs~

93U 9S £ aouasajd }aaj;s
Q ^ i n n .e^ %
-^ ~ N '<o
CO
f
□
______ L _ i_______ / c
' " ' 9 , 1
O <rJ3 :S 5 ^ w o a
3=nt
R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
example 1
CD
h -
1 i
i
i
1
1
m 1
1
f
i
i
i
- _ j
W W W B B
----- --
i
—
----------------------- ------------------- ------
---------------------------■
-----------
■ 1
----------- --------------------------
_____ !_ _
I
---------E -i-------------------
T i
i i i J
o o
"N T
05
T = f
- J U _____ .-U —
- 44 —
— |-
-I-
_ J
"IT
I I ""
_ y i i
example 2
O
LO
< w- X *.
CM
lO
conclusion
This project attempts the integration of two disparate subjects within the architecture community:
53
Prefab and the infill. In attempting to reconcile their differences it addresses the issues contained
within these modes of architectural production. The concept of mass-customization as an
extension of mass-production has been used to aid this integration and as a concept in and
of itself, it has altered the development of this project profoundly. The design evolved into a
design system, the mediated design toolset, which is used to design the various iterations of the
prefabricated infill house. This was done without regarding the consequences of doing so, but
instead the project ventured at exposing and developing these issues that inform a project of
this type. The social and cultural implications of such an undertaking are interesting but not
insurmountable as design problems. Architects, and everyone else, should be careful to use
such a system as a potential tool to achieve a desired result and not to use prefabrication
simply for its own purposes. In relation to the social issues with this type of project, one could
surmise that removing the prefabricated nature of the project would remove these issues as
well and that there has to be a clear purpose for introducing such concerns.
Cost benefits are often seen to be the main reason for introducing Prefab into a design problem
but perhaps this should not be the main concern. In terms of construction benefits, quality of
construction from the ability to achieve better connections and seals as well as the benefits
of working in a controlled environment, which causes a reduction in moisture issues, should
be considered. The issue of time reduction through constructing the house concurrently with
site and foundation construction is also a noted benefit. The quality of the house not only
improves with regard to construction quality but also with quality of design through the initial
consideration of each variable in the design system that removes the need to develop these
smaller details with each new project. This also has the potential to reduce design time and
reduce revisions to the design of the house. There might be cost benefits inherent in the
quality and time benefits and this has potential to make this design more accessable. As
long as designers state better housing for less money as their main goal, it seems they will
be nearly doomed to fail. The idea of not producing and marketing prefabricated housing as
cheaper but rather talk about it as better and faster is one that seems to apply to this project
and the subject of Prefab in general. Remove the concept of the Prefab house and replace
it with the concept of the better designed and better constructed house and remove the
negative issues associated with prefabricated housing. At the same time, this might lead to
a more appropriate concept of what the project is.
To say that the Modernist Prefab group is extending the goals of the early modernists is to
deny the fact that contemporary architecture uses the products of industry on a fairly large
scale. The Modernist Prefab proponents are attempting a revolution based on this cult of the
Modernist Prefab. Over the past century, it is clear that an evolution of industrial processes in
the construction and design industry is steadily progressing. The discussion of Prefab can be
seen as delayed in that the products of industry have already infiltrated the design world. The
discussion can be seen as premature in that the natural evolution of the construction industry
will likely continue its current trend and move to include additional factory produced elements
with or without this discussion. This would determine that the discussion should occur when this
application is a generally accepted option for architecture.
Is Prefab a viable option for creating homes? The benefits of this mode of production indicate
that it is, in fact, a logical option for many situations. Is Prefab a viable option for creating any
kind of home in any market? Architects should be finding ways in which Prefab can be applied as
a potential option for the development of a project, but they should not be doing so in a way that
serves Prefab and not the project itself. The evolution of the industrialization of the building industry
has come through the continual adoption of prefabricated technology as these products become
beneficial to a project. The various production methods in architecture are used to meet a set of
goals. These objectives do not usually include the application of a product and this application
should never be one of the goals. In the Prefab community, the application of Prefab for the sake
of Prefab seems to be a significant driving factor within the industry. This is how the cult of Prefab
operates. The proponents would argue that they are producing Prefab to fulfill a set of goals:
the directed application of resources designed to provide a better home. These proponents, and
anyone else for that matter, should be careful that the use of prefabrication itself should not enter
into the set of goals but should rather operate as a means to achieving the goals.
As the evolution of industrialization continues into the future, the application of prefabricated
technology might move to where the applicability of this discussion is negated. The norm
of the level of prefabrication will continue to shift to where many of the technologies that are
currently discussed as Prefab will slide to the other end of the continuum. This is how many of
the prefabricated technologies used in conventional building practices have become accepted
and virtually unrecognizable as Prefab. As the norm, as it relates to the definition of Prefab,
is continuously shifting in time and in terms of location, maybe pressing beyond this norm
could be seen as unneeded. It can also be argued that the distinction between Prefab and
not Prefab should not be considered in the current realities of design and construction. This
would not only remove the issues surrounding Prefab but also remove the norm itself. If one
removes the normative ideas of architecture and the house as it relates to the way something
is created, they arrive to where the most appropriate method of producing architecture can
be explored without cultural bias. As a cultural and social act, architecture will operate within
the functions of the culture and time, so this counter-culture version of architecture be seen
as operating in opposition to the Zeitgeist. Wes Jones stated in his lecture to the Prefab Now
conference in Los Angeles:
This whole prefab thing kind of poses a dilemma for architects...The problem
for us as architects is that prefabrication and modularity are not really
architectural issues. They’re not really about architecture, they’re about
building; construction.29
This statement is correct but incomplete. The role of the architect and the designer is,
necessarily, to apply the systems and technology that are needed and appropriate to the
design problem at hand.
This project, Prefabricated, has been defined as the mediated design toolset. The basic function
of the system is to enlargen the project variables to a point where there is more potential for
repetition of process and limited time spent determining common elements. The system defines
programmatic areas and designs the organization of the house itself so that it is through these
larger, interchangable functional areas and conceptual modularization that the variation in design
can occur. In this way, the design system allows for a significant degree of response to specific
project variables and at the same time creates an arena where the benefits of prefabrication can
be used without changing or complicating the process.
This design system, coupled with the developped prefabrication processes, create a better house
than a lot of what is in the market. The concept of cost is an abstract variable in this project.
It looks to give a better designed, better constructed house, which can be delivered with more
predictability and speed of construction. This uses many of the benefits of standardization and
mass-customization, as they relate to the current prefabrication processes, to deliver quality in
terms of both construction and design.
CO
LO
pg. 4
pg. 7
back cover/dwell magazine 2006 calendar/
historical precedents
illustrations
Worker’s Housing/photo & drawings/le Corbusier & Pierre Jeanneret/Towards a New Architecture/Le Corbusier
Copper Plate Houses/photo/Walter Gropius/The New Architecture and the Bauhaus/Walter Gropius
The Packaged House/drawings/Walter Gropius & Konrad Wachsmann/The Prefabricated Home/Colin Davies
pg. 9 Modular Construction Flow Chart/diagram/Kevin Mullin/information from http://www.atco.com/companies/atco_structures.htm
Prefab - Not Prefab & Prefab Sliders/photo montage/Kevin Muliin
pg. 11 Prefab Continuum/diagram/Michael Sylvester/http://www.fabprefab.com/fabfiles/g!ossary.htm
pg. 13 Manufactured Home Dealer/photo/Kevin Muliin
pg. 15 Trailers/photos/www.mls.ca
pg. 16 Custom Shoes/photos/www.nikeid.com
pg. 19 Smart Cars in a Variety of Colour Combinations/photos/http://www.thesmart.ca/index.cfm?ID=4720
pg. 21 House ‘Chassis’/rendering/Kevin Muliin
Car Chassis/photo/http://www.progressiveautomotive.com/55CJ.htm
pg. 22 Infills/photos/Kevin Muliin
pg. 25 SRI Construction/photos/Blair Turner
pg. 27 Assembly/rendering & photo montage/Kevin Mullin/http://www.cedarriver.info/Crane%20Lift%201 .JPG
pg. 30 Toolbox/photo/http://www.jcu.edu.au/office/tld/learnjcu/toolbox/index.shtml
pg. 32 Physical Limitations/drawing/Kevin Muliin
pg. 33 Grids/drawing/Kevin Muliin
pg. 35 Comparing Models/drawing & photos/Kevin Mullin/www.toyota.com K Q
pg. 37 Second Floor Plans/drawing/Kevin Muliin ^ v'
pg. 38-39 The Big Picture/rendering/Kevin Muliin
pg. 41 The System in Plan/drawing/Kevin Muilin
pg. 42 A plethora of possibilities/drawings/Kevin Muliin
pg. 43 Skin Explainations - Wall Organization/renderings/Kevin Muilin
pg. 45 Site considerations/drawings/Kevin Muilin
pg. 46-47 Example 1/drawings/Kevin Muilin
pg. 48 Examples Rendering 1/rendering & photo montage/Kevin Muliin
pg. 49 Examples Rendering 2/rendering & photo montage/Kevin Muilin
pg. 50-51 Example 2/drawings/Kevin Muilin
pg. 52 Transport/rendering & photo montage/Kevin Mullin/http://urbanrefugee.ca/move/
1Wes Jones, “The Shipping Container as Building Block”, lecture from Prefab Now Conference 28-
30 October 2005, accessed 24 March 2006, audio file available from: http://media.dwellmag.com/
audio/Wes_Jones.mp3.
2Allison Arieff and Bryan Burkhart, Prefab, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Gibbs Smith, 2002), p.20.
3Colin Davies, The Prefabricated Home, (Great Briton: Cromwell Press, 2005),pp. 8-9.
4 Ulrich Conrads, Programs and Manifestos of 20th Century Architecture, (London and Cambridge
Massachusetts: Lund Humphreys and MIT, 1970), p. 154.
5Davies, p. 9.
6“SRI Homes,” accessed 22 March 2006, available from http://www.srihomes.com.
7 Michael Sylvester, “Fabprefab,” accessed 22 March 2006, available from: http://www.fabprefab.
com.
8Tom Vanderbilt, “Some Assembly Required,” accessed 25 March 2006, available from: http://www.
wired.com/wired/archive/14.01/prefab.html.
Chris Steins, “Prefab Housing For The Masses,” accessed 24 March 2006, last updated 5 January
2006 available from: http://www.planetizen.com/node/18425.
9 Davies, p.9.
10Le Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture, (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1986), p. 227.
11Ibid., p. 236.
12Walter Gropius, The New Architecture and the Bauhaus, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T.
Press, 1965), p. 43.
13Davies, pp. 19-25.
14Arieff and Burkhart, p. 10.
15Conrads, p. 81.
16Davies, pp.9-10.
17Michael Morley, Building with Structural Insulated Panels (SIPS): Strength and Energy Efficiency
Through Structural Panel Construction, (Newtown, Connecticut: The Taunton Press, 2000), p. 38.
18There are alternate definitions of the term Prefab. One of which is illustrated at can be found at,
Michael Sylvester, “Fabprefab,” accessed 22 March 2006, available from http://www.fabprefab.com
19Arieff and Burkhart, p. 9.
20 Ibid.
21Thomas E. Nutt-Powell, Manufactured Homes: Making Sense of a Housing Opportunity. (Boston,
Massachusetts: Auburn House Publishing Company, 1982), p. 3. | |
22Stanley Davis, Future Perfect, (Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1987), p. 140.
23Ibid,.
24Ibid., p. 161
25 Ibid.
26John A. Reidelbach, Modular housing, 1972: statistics and specifics, (Annandale, Virginia: Modco,
1972), p. 234.
27Michael A. Mullens, “Production Flow and Shop Floor Control: Structuring the Modular Factory for
Custom Homebuilding,” unpublished, p. 3.
28Davis, p. 155
29Jones.
61
CM
CO
Arieff, Allison and Bryan Burkhart. Prefab. Salt Lake City, Utah: Gibbs Smith, 2002.
Conrads, Ulrich. Programs and Manifestos of 2CP Century Architecture. London and Cambridge bibliography
Massachusetts: Lund Humphreys and MIT, 1970.
Curtis, William J.R. Modern Architecture since 1900. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2001.
Davies, Colin. The Prefabricated Home. Great Briton: Cromwell Press, 2005.
Davis, Stanley. Future Perfect. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1987.
“Greensmart Homes." Accessed 22 March 2006. Available from: http://www.greensmarthomes.
com.
Gropius, Walter. The New Architecture and the Bauhaus. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T.
Press, 1965.
Heidegger, Martin. Basic Writings. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1993.
Jones, Wes. “The Shipping Container as Building Block”. Lecture from Prefab Now Conference 28-
30 October 2005. Accessed 24 March 2006. Audio file available from: http://media.dwellmag.
com/audio/Wes_Jones.mp3.
Le Corbusier. Towards a New Architecture. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1986.
“Martin Heidegger: The Question Concerning Technology." Accessed 22 March 2006. Available from:
http://www.beloit.edu/~philorel/facuIty/davidvessey/Heidegger22702.html.
Morley, Michael. Building with Structural Insulated Panels (SIPS): Strength and Energy Efficiency
Through Structural Panel Construction. Newtown, Connecticut: The Taunton Press, 2000.
Mullens, Michael A. “Production Flow and Shop Floor Control: Structuring the Modular Factory for
63
Custom Homebuilding.” Unpublished.
Nutt-Powell, Thomas E. Manufactured Homes: Making Sense of a Housing Opportunity. Boston,
Massachusetts: Auburn House Publishing Company, 1982.
Reidelbach, John A. Modular Housing, 1972: Statistics and Specifics. Annandale, Virginia: Modco,
1972.
“SRI Homes.” Accessed 22 March 2006. Available from http://www.srihomes.com/.
Sylvester, Michael. “Fabprefab.” Accessed 22 March 2006. Available from http://www.fabprefab.com

Prefabricated

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prefabricated

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

ProQuest Information and Learning

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington

Your file Votre reference

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires

Prefabrication is all things to all men, and a source of confusion to many...

Prefabricated architecture is a strange world. It is a highly developed margin of the construction

A potential cause of the proliferation of this current movement is a Modernist preoccupation

15% 15% 30% 40%

Design Engineering Site Preparation W IM ^ W N !S »

15% 15% 30% 40%

Design Engineering Site Preparation Construction

mobile hom e* ► kit-home ► modular/panelized home ► ► custom home

The design system, not to be misconstrued as equivalent to the prefabrication system, is

iiM ' ^ - n 3Qogsajcliaajjs~

' " ' 9 , 1

----------------------- ------------------- ------

You might also like