Modular housing stuck in never-ever land
The industry is seen
as being in need of revolutionary new ideas if it is to ever fulfill its
long-running promise of delivering high-quality, low-cost housing.
The modular-housing industry desperately needs an infusion
of new ideas akin to Amazon's online retail platform or Tesla Motors' electric
car before it can even begin to play a role in helping the de Blasio
administration build or preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing over the
next nine years, according to experts who spoke on a panel Monday night.
The New York
chapter of the American Institute of Architects hosted the talk after city
officials informally inquired as to whether modular could feasibly play a role
in the mayor's plans. And though the panelists from top city architecture firms
agreed that the futuristic method presented the perfect alternative to
hopelessly expensive and inefficient current construction practices, they also
conceded that no one within the industry is prepared to take on reform in a
major way.
"It is going to be some character like [venture
capitalist and Tesla CEO] Elon Musk, who says this is the most ridiculous
industry on earth ... and is counterproductive in every way, shape and
form," said Stephen Kieran, partner at architecture firm Kieran Timberlake,
which is has several modular projects under its belt.
The concept of modular construction, in which apartments are
built in a factory and then stacked on-site, has been hailed as the future of
development since the first such units rolled off an assembly line decades ago.
Yet for all its promise, the industry is still nowhere near providing the sort
of cheap and quick housing units that places such as the Big Apple are in dire
need of, according to the experts.
For one, the factories where the units are built have not
scaled up enough to make any sizable dent in the city's housing problem, and
shipping the units by truck is extremely expensive.
In response, Garrison Architects, the designer of a modular
hotel going up in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, decided to ship the units by
boat—from a factory overseas, where labor costs are also lower.
"These guys were actually shipping 170 modules from Poland for less money than was budgeted to ship
them from Indiana ,"
said James Garrison, principal of the firm.
Innovation in modular construction has been slow in part
because architecture firms don't have the capital to embark on long-term
experimental projects that might advance the industry. In fact, they have
trouble financing the types of cutting-edge buildings that are being stacked
into place today.
"Another challenge in this process was to work with
lenders who could get comfortable paying for something they couldn't kick, they
couldn't touch, they couldn't see up in the air—and that's a big problem,"
said Jeffrey Brown, chief executive of Jeffrey M. Brown Associates, who
discussed a successful modular building his firm built along with Gluck+
Architects in Manhattan's Inwood.
While the cost of Mr. Brown's project came in at $200 per
buildable square foot with no overruns, it is little wonder banks might balk at
such loans when larger-scale projects like Forest City Ratner's 363-unit B2
BKLYN project, in the shadow of the Barclays Center, have been mired in
lawsuits, run tens of millions of dollars over budget and are at least a year
behind schedule. However, the American Institute of Architects' New York acting
president, Tomas Rossant, said that the project is still a big step for the modular
industry.
In the meantime, the architects did have a number of
suggestions that might make building modular in New York City easier. For one, the city could
bake new provisions into the zoning code that would allow developers to build
higher to offset the thicker-than-normal floors often found in modular
buildings.
In addition, many of the panelists suggested a tax credit to
incentivize building, and shrinking the size of a standard modular unit so that
it could fit onto a standard-size tractor trailer. That would avoid special
scrutiny by the city's Department of Transportation and could even be delivered
during the day instead of at night, when there is little traffic that can be
disrupted.
3 comments:
Coach,
I found it interesting that not one manufacturer was asked to be on the panel. I'm not dismissing everything the panel said as there were some valid comments. However, I'm growing very tired of the construction community as a whole simply assuming that modular is the "cheap" alternative. If you can get the same code compliant building, in half the time, why do you expect it to also be cheaper? The savings really is on the schedule. And I'm REALLY tired of everyone pointing to the Forest City project when citing issues with modular, as if that we the typical project to measure against. And I'm really, really tired of the suggestion that this industry needs to wait for its knight in shining armor with pockets full of cash before we "realize our potential". Baloney!
Interesting article and discussion by Architects. I did not see from the article if there were people who actually have to fabricate the product, that is designed, as part of this panel. So it is cheaper to transport from Poland than ship in the US? While I find that hard to believe, if true, then does this not speak to an issue that needs to be addressed in other areas such as transport restrictions. From State to State there are different sizes that can be shipped and some very restrictive. Banks are an issue but it can be solved. The biggest hurdle is getting people to understand that the product may not be cheaper but at least on par with site building. The advantage is the speed and potential soft cost savings. I sincerely doubt we will see significant cost breaks that these panelists are looking for.
I spoke on the panel in June, so there has been some representation by manufacturers. I disagree with some of what is said here (building to shipping container dimensions is probably only a cost savings if that is a platform you will build EVERYTHING to in order to achieve appropriate scale, or if one is trying to offshore work to areas of the world lacking the wages and worker protections of the U.S. - such as the Poland example cited in the article).
As far as designer-led panels, this one was well-qualified (I've worked with all these gentlemen on projects or proposals) but perspective from a fabricator might have driven the conversation in a more interesting and constructive direction.
Post a Comment