The concept of volumetric house building, where entire homes are built in factories and transported to their final destination sounds like a dream come true for the housing crisis. In theory it's efficient, streamlined, and fits neatly into the modern world’s obsession with prefabrication and automation. But scratch beneath the surface, and you'll find that the reality is far from ideal. While the romantic idea of constructing homes off-site and simply "plugging them in" is compelling, there are significant flaws that make this approach fundamentally unworkable on a large scale.
Operational Expenditure: The Hidden Burden of Factory Operations
One of the largest misconceptions about volumetric house building is that factory-based construction is inherently more cost-effective. This idea stems from comparing it to industries like car manufacturing, where economies of scale can drive down costs. However, unlike construction sites, a factory dedicated to building entire houses comes with massive overheads such as rental costs and energy bills.
Contractors working on traditional construction sites don’t have to pay rent for the land that they’re building on. In contrast, a factory has to bear enormous rental costs and rates, especially if it’s big enough to handle the manufacture of full-sized homes. These factories often need vast amounts of space, with all the utilities, machinery, and compliance costs that come along with it. This burden significantly increases the overheads for volumetric house manufacturers, making the process more expensive than it initially seems.
Construction workers are highly skilled and often well-paid professionals. But in traditional construction, workers are only paid when they are needed on-site. This flexible workforce structure allows construction companies to manage labour costs more effectively, scaling up or down depending on the project's stage and requirements.
In a factory, however, workers need to be employed full-time, whether the factory is running at full capacity or not. This creates a financial burden, especially when demand slows down or projects are delayed. Factory staff must be paid regardless of production needs, making labour costs in volumetric building a much larger, fixed expense compared to on-site construction.
So how does this translate in real terms? Building 5,000 houses annually in a factory setting equates to about 14 houses per day and demonstrates a best-case, high-volume production scenario with significant cost efficiencies. Each house requires about 8 weeks to manufacture, with an average of 5 full-time staff working 5 days a week at £250 per day. Calculating labour for each house at this rate gives an approximate labour cost of £50,000 per unit (5 days × 8 weeks × 5 workers × £250). For 5,000 houses, this totals an estimated annual labour cost of £250 million.
The production footprint is also large. Each house requires about 40 sqm, but with storage and access space, each unit needs around 160 sqm. With 750 houses in simultaneous production to maintain the annual target, the factory requires about 120,000 sqm. At a UK industrial rental rate of £10 per sqm per month, annual rent would be around £14.4 million.
In summary, the combined annual costs just for building labour and land rent would total approximately £264.4 million, or about £52,880 per house. This is ignoring a whole raft of other costs including materials, energy etc.
Capital Expenditure: The Upfront Investment Problem
In traditional construction, most of the major equipment; cranes, excavators, scaffolding etc is rented only when it’s needed. This rental model minimises capital expenditure and allows builders to only spend money when necessary.
However, in the context of a factory designed for volumetric house building, most of the equipment must be purchased upfront. These tools and machines are specific to the process and must be available at all times. This creates enormous upfront costs that are not recoverable in the same flexible way as in traditional construction. The scale of investment required for these factories is colossal, and more often than not, these facilities don’t operate at their full potential year-round due to fluctuating demand. As a result, this enormous capital expenditure can quickly turn into a financial burden if demand doesn't match production capacity.
Capacity Mismatch: The Financial Black Hole
Building homes, whether on-site or off-site, is always subject to delays. Planning permission can hold up projects for months, if not years. This is a universal problem in construction. But the way these delays affect traditional builders versus volumetric manufacturers is starkly different.
When demand slows down, traditional construction companies can scale back operations, delaying the start of new projects or reducing the workforce. They can hunker down and ride out periods of low sales or market uncertainty.
For volumetric factories, however, the fixed costs keep ticking regardless of output. They can't afford to hunker down because they are locked into paying for their factory overheads, full-time employees, and the machinery they've already invested in. Any mismatch between factory capacity and market demand can cause massive financial losses, leaving little room for flexibility or resilience during slower periods.
The Real Solution: Process Innovation
While volumetric house building may seem like an appealing answer to the housing crisis, it fundamentally misunderstands the complexities of the construction process. The problem is not just with how homes are physically built; it also lies in the efficiency and sustainability of the construction process itself.
To solve the housing crisis, we need to innovate in the backend of construction, finding ways to speed up design processes, streamline supply chains, and make on-site building more sustainable. The goal should be to build faster, reduce waste, and cut emissions, not to reinvent the wheel by shifting construction to factories.
This is the Vector mentality. By focusing on improving the efficiency and sustainability of the traditional construction process, we can make meaningful progress toward addressing the housing crisis. Technological advances like standardised systems, advanced materials, and smarter project management systems can offer the speed and cost benefits needed without the downsides of full-scale factory house building.
In the end, the solution isn't about where houses are built, but how we build them!
Comments