+
From: Randolph Fritz <randolph@xxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 20:11:35 -0700
David Sucher writes:
> I've been in the modular home business (predictable snickers from certain
> ones here) and I wouldn't hold my breath about some breakthrough in cost
> from factory construction. No great techo-fix on the horizon. So much of
> the cost of a house is site prep, permits, financing, utility
> infrastructure, etc. etc. so that the savings from modulars (I leave
> mobiles as a separate issue as I have no direct experience with them) will
> be minimal.
>
[I haven't been following this discussion that closely & may be
repeating arguments that already have been made, or be very far off
the topic. Jumping in with both feet, however...]
My sense of this for some time has been that the price of a unit of
housing has much more to do with density, aggregate income within
commmute distance (45 minutes, anytime in history), and market
differentiation (uniformity of suburban house forms leads to
uniformity of price). Ricardian rent; relative inelasticity of supply
makes the price of housing depend on the wealth of the community
rather than the cost of putting it up.
I believe architectural efforts to reduce housing prices will work to
the extent they respond to this. In other words, inasmuch as our
houses contribute to cities with the "right" number of people near the
"right" amount of income, to that extent will we succeed in producing
housing at affordable prices and rents. It's worth considering that
the real low-income housing in many cities is mobiles (certainly so in
Silicon Valley); I believe this is partly because of density (mobile
home parks are denser than SV suburbs) and partly because mobile homes
are considered less desirable and are therefore in less demand.
Given that--hell, yes!--at least let's design architecturally
worthwhile mobile homes. Hey, maybe people will like them enough so
that they'll put 'em on big plots and pay big money (it happenned to
Irving Gill with tilt-up.) :-) Hmmm...would it be possible to design
these so they would feel incomplete without neighboring homes? So
that they'd promote community? Maybe plans that, when fitted together
in detached clusters of four or six or eight would form workable
outdoor spaces? Ummmm....Penrose tilings? (Look 'em up in Scientific
American :-) Though those would have surprising five-fold symmetries
and might be hard to navigate.
Randolph