The world faces an increasing shortage of housing and an escalating climate emergency. These urgent global issues call for quick action and innovative solutions.
The numbers show us how stark things are. Construction activities and building operations produce more than 40% of the carbon emissions driving global warming.
At the same time, 1.6 billion people live in subpar housing. An alarming 100 million have no house at all. In both Australia and globally, the housing crisis is a pressing and unresolved issue.
Prefabricated building technology offers promising alternative solutions to this dual crisis. Prefab housing modules are made offsite in a factory. The finished components/modules can then be transported and assembled swiftly at the site of the building.
This approach could transform the housing scene. Affordable dwellings could be produced on a massive scale, while greatly reducing the environmental impacts.
This is not merely about building homes. A shift to prefab construction would be a strategic move in line with the Paris Agreement to mitigate climate change.
Cost-efficient and eco-friendly
Prefab modular construction could be considered a greener alternative in the construction sector. By greatly reducing construction waste (which accounts for 40% of landfill) and carbon emissions, it tackles these major environmental concerns head-on. A 2022 study showed modular construction can slash carbon emissions by up to 45% compared to conventional techniques.
The controlled factory-based environment of prefab construction makes it more efficient. This includes integrated reclamation and recycling of construction waste.
This approach is highly cost-effective. It’s about being resource-savvy and reducing waste to the bare minimum.
Using standardised designs and components on a large scale also cuts the cost of incorporating energy-efficient elements such as better insulation and renewable energy. Building in this way creates structures that are effective, efficient, resilient and help us combat climate change.
Among many possible construction materials, wood or timber is among the most preferred for prefab modular buildings. Timber is renewable and an efficient carbon sink. The timber in buildings locks away the CO₂ the trees absorbed from the atmosphere when they were growing.
One creative and sustainable solution to housing shortages is to build modular, adjustable prefab dwelling units. These units are robust and can be adapted to various climates and housing needs with ease.
In a world where cities are growing fast and housing needs are pressing, prefab construction can deliver quality, affordable homes at an impressive pace. It’s an efficient solution for a budget-conscious, carbon-constrained world.
Prefab buildings take many forms
The beauty of prefab construction lies in its adaptability, making it the building industry’s chameleon.
It can look good almost anywhere, from bustling cityscapes to serene countryside. Imagine a building technique that can seamlessly transition from a cozy mountain cabin to a stylish metropolitan apartment building.
Modular homes can be enlarged, modified or even disassembled and moved as communities grow and needs change.
This approach promotes long-term resilience by being adaptable to changes in the climate and housing needs. These buildings are constructed not only for the present, but also for the high-performance requirements of the future.
Leading examples from overseas
We can learn from success stories overseas.
A community-focused project in England: the prefab modular homes in Cambridge are more than just buildings; they are community cornerstones. As well as providing roofs over heads, the project is about creating a sense of belonging. These units, meticulously designed and sustainably built, are shaping the narrative of affordable housing.
Scandinavian eco-friendly living: Scandinavians have taken modular construction to heart. In this region, known for its design prowess and environmental stewardship, many modular homes are architectural marvels that embody sustainability. Cosy, energy-efficient homes with sleek designs prove that eco-friendly living can be both stylish and functional.
Versatile modular solutions in the Netherlands: Finch Buildings offers a kaleidoscope of sustainable housing. Here, modular construction is about flexibility and diversity, catering to a range of needs and styles. These timber modular solutions can adapt to different lifestyles and preferences. Housing can be as diverse as the people it shelters.
Singapore’s urban blueprint: the city-state is a showcase for the incredible possibilities of prefab modular construction. It’s seamlessly woven into urban planning. Imagine a city where buildings are not just structures, but pieces of a larger, sustainable puzzle. It is a model of how urban development can co-exist with environmental consciousness.
So what’s stopping Australia?
Australia has been slower than many countries to adopt prefab modular construction. The challenges include:
- limited government support and incentives compared to other countries
- a need for more training and expertise in designing and implementing prefab modular construction
- the traditional procurement process in construction is not well suited for prefab methods, so a shift in thinking and approach from construction managers and suppliers is required
- the Australian regulatory environment needs to evolve to promote productivity and support modern construction methods like prefabrication
- a cultural shift within the industry is also needed, so owners and developers demand more sustainable and efficient construction methods.
The situation is changing in Australia as the housing crisis has intensified. Recognition of the need for more sustainable, efficient construction methods is growing, leading to a gradual shift in government support and industry adoption.
Making development sustainable
The potential role of prefab modular construction in tackling the challenges of climate change and housing shortages cannot be overstated.
Prefab building is charming not just because it is flexible but also because the architectural features have been thoughtfully considered. Every module can be carefully crafted to complement its surroundings.
Adopting this strategy demonstrates a dedication to development that is ecologically conscious, promotes resilience and sustainability and, by meeting house needs, improves community wellbeing.
This article was first published in The Conversation.
Agree with all that. There are huge potential benefits in large-scale production of pre-fab homes designed, constructed and installed to suitably high standards. What must be avoided is corner-cutting and false economies resulting in the homes being crude, nasty and unable to endure the environmental conditions. That has been the curse of various previous programs for pre-fab housing and given them a bad reputation. And they must not fall into the trap of building such housing as a strictly ‘cheap and quick’ short-term measure to give a breathing space while work can begin on ‘real’ homes. The ‘real’ homes never materialise, and families are stuck in the shoddy pre-fabs for many years or decades after the end of their official short-term design life.
This is exactly what will happen, because the overriding driver is MOAR PEOPLE.
For no reason my FB feed has started featuring v small houses. they are usual 1BR, but very well designed and look great. plenty of potential here of quality buiolding
The fastest growing cohort in the permanent population are boomer seniors and oldies, a two decade+ ‘bubble’, while it has been understood that increasingly many are single women.
Various types of mobile, prefab and micro-housing are already manufactured in Australia, but the significant issue is local government planning laws that preclude them as backyard granny flats or flexible zoning of residential blocks catering to the same types of build (more people nowadays do neither need nor want a 2-3+ bedroom family house….preferred by developers for larger margins).
Apparently since December 2023, according to Architecture Australia in Victoria:
‘‘granny flats under 60 square metres will no longer require a planning permit for properties larger than 300 square metres with no floor or environmental overlays’
If you want to add onto an existing dwelling’s block and if the house is big you can, but if smaller, no? Sounds like the status quo?
I agree. This applies to all building.
A lot of things can be done provided minimum standards are in place. Durable and affordable building is very achievable but if you have dodgy products and builders undercutting the market, it’s hard to compete.
Okay. This is at least some kind of solution. I’d rather live in a pre-fab than a van or a tent. Even if we curtailed all immigration, the problem of
homelessness and precariat renting still exist. Some of you do not appear to realise how serious the situation is; that there is a vast, growing population of people either homeless, near-homeless, or in severe mortgage stress, and this problem not going to crawl away and die out of sight. It’s only a matter of time before the anger and the frustration begin to boil over. I agree with the Ship’s Rat that standards and controls are needed with any kind of cheap housing, but cheap housing we need, and badly.
I think that’s a unfair assertion. The problem is that just about every article that talks about “supply side” solutions fail to acknowledge that they will inevitably fail as solutions to the housing crisis we’re in unless every “supply side” solution is paired with demand reduction. We must do both. Reducing migration back to sustainable levels will also hopefully real wages start to move upwards again (as they did when the borders closed during COVID) which will help move us towards making housing actually affordable again.
If we want to prevent the balloon of public anger from going pop, then we need to let the air out quickly not pump it further. We need drastic solutions. We need migration cut to sub 100Kpa while also doing more to remove tax rorts and and other market distortions. All while making cheap (social) housing available to those who need it.
My gripe is how state governments appear to have been complicit with the FIRE sector in zoning restrictions and not funding new social/public housing capacity, watching a boomer bubble or bomb passing through, but outsourcing to private sector e.g. motels for refugees and ‘free market’ private rental for low income, then blame undefined ‘immigrants’ and ‘population growth’, too glib and easy, but accepted by too many…..
Australia has had a lack of housing problems for a few years now and the current government has immigration above 500,000. Something in the order of 7 times a sustainable immigration rate. Isn’t that the real problem?
Prefab housing, while maybe a noble idea, will do bugger all to cope with a surging population suffering under the escalating effects of climate change.
Wealth redistribution and cheap labour seems to be the current government’s priority. As it was with preceding governments.
It’s time Australia stopped trying to convert itself into a third world country.
It is refreshing to be watching the news, and hearing commentators linking migration numbers to demand on housing. For years, decades even, they either didn’t make the link, or weren’t allowed to go there.
I rarely see that in the print media, apart from Ross Gittins, Ian Verrender, occasionally.
Prefab housing is a treatment of the symptoms not a sustainable solution. Unless these measures are done in tandum with population stabilisation they won’t work.
You might be right, PM, but we currently have demand outstripping supply by hundreds of thousands. I would think treating that symptom is a matter of urgency don’t you? I bet many families wouldn’t mind living in an over 50s style village with good amenities and low rent. Better than spending over half their income or more just for a roof over their heads.
I agree Bref. Reducing migrantion to genuinely sustainable levels is a must.
‘Population stabilisation’ = US fossil fueled network of old ZPG Zero Population Growth of dec. white nationalist John ‘passive eugenics’ Tanton, white Oz admirer, visitor and hosted by SPA; living embodiment of Tanton and talking points are Trump’s Bannon, Miller, Fox et al., Brexit, Farage, GB News et al., locally RW MSM cartel and bipartisan ‘migration policies’.
Happy New Year to your tired, worn out conspiracy theories.
No, you offer nothing but the conservative nativist status quo and ignore facts vs. RW MSM agitprop.
If you claim conspiracy, then the same should be easy to knock out, here’s your opportunity?
However, one guesses ‘shooting messengers’ like our RW MSM and influencers do, is easier?
No, that’s misunderstanding population data and focus by MSM on temporary (border/OS) churn over (expanded in 2006 & spiked in short term by students, not ‘immigrants’) vs. more modest permanent migration cap of 190K p.a. inc. family units and significant proportion are already onshore and counted into the population…..
Over the next two decades, something the FIRE sector is very coy about vs. promoting FOMO fear of missing out to working age; 5.5+ million of us in permanent population ‘popping our clogs’ or ‘the big die off’; that should shake a few boomer empty nesters out of established housing.
Meanwhile, back of a ciggie packet, headline national median prices have not kept up to value (via 7% compounding test, prices doubles each decade); of course this would not be the case for many postcodes urban &/or coastal.
Meanwhile, back of a ciggie packet, headline national median prices have not kept up to value (via 7% compounding test, prices doubles each decade); of course this would not be the case for many postcodes urban &/or coastal.
Outside of the RE industries wet dreams, what is this “7% compounding test” and why on earth would it be necessary to “keep up to value” ?
House price growth has outstripped wage growth for literally decades.
I’ll write this slowly, but it’s according to Finance 101 and if more people followed this vs. FIRE media PR, political talking and nativist SPA talking points, there would not be such an overpriced market (not helped by booker and/or retiree investors).
Why buy an asset/house of unclear value when 7% value benchmark means a buyer could be at best treading water, some claim near 10% is needed depending on level of financing; on the former needs to double every decade, if not, losing value……
On your last point (‘literally’ have a source?), it’s a factor, and has been happening across the developed world, reflecting ageing populations and more retirees or the ‘boomer bomb’.
However, the good news is that workers will have increased leverage with fewer available as working age has passed the (boomer) ‘demographic sweet spot’ and then a sustained long term established property spill, over two decades….
However, SPA, RW MSM, LNP and word of mouth don’t blame stagnant wage growth or demand higher wages, but falsely correlate with undefined ‘immigration’ and ‘population growth’; given an opportunity immigrants, workers and unions would be thrown under a bus, so don’t pretend to support ‘workers’.
To… live in it ?
This makes no sense. Are you seriously suggesting people shouldn’t buy houses if they do not expect prices to increase 7%/yr (or 10%/yr !!) on average ? And that if more people “understood this” prices would somehow be lower ?
That is utterly insane.
You never cite sources so I fail to see why I should bother. But it shouldn’t take more than a few seconds with a search engine.
But if you can find anywhere in Australia where median FT income has kept up with the median house price for the last, say, 25 years I’d be fascinated to see it.
Heck, if you can find places where house price growth hasn’t been at least twice as high as wage growth for the last 25 years, I’d be interested to see them.
No it doesn’t. It reflects the decreasing bargaining power of labour.
I’m sure the poor children of the multiple generations being economically devastated in the interim by having to dump half or more of their lifetime earnings into shelter, will find much solace in that, while they pay similar levels of rent to the corporations and rich folks who buy up all those cheap houses.
“Just hold on” for decades (after there’s already been decades of unaffordable housing) doesn’t work when you’ve got a life to live (and “decades” is roughly all you’ve got to raise a family in).
But… there’s a bigger question here. Why would fewer workers increase worker leverage, if more workers do not decrease worker leverage ?
And more importantly would fewer workers (under the massive and questionable assumption that actually eventuates) really matter in a world in rapidly increasing robotics and AI capabilities ? One thing the world is not going to be short of going forward is workers.
Well of course the RW MSM and LNP aren’t going to “blame stagnant wage growth or demand higher wages”. ::eyeroll::
But, hold on. Are you trying to also say that wages should be increase in _excess_ of the 7-10% per year you asserted above that housing should grow at to be worth purchasing ?
Holy inflation, Batman !
The huge contribution by the building industry to landfill and carbon emissions is not surprising when you see a program like Grand Designs Transformation on ABC last night – two renovations, no mention of environmental costs or impacts as skip bins loaded with smashed up tiles, flooring, fixtures etc were ignored while the comperes ooh’d and aah’d over every lush new material imported at (presumably) great environmental cost was piled into the renovation – none of it necessary, in the sense of fixing something broken, but highly desirable to well-healed householders – and therein lies the real nub of the problem. Maybe Grand Designs Transformation could include a third compere to report on the actual environmental outcomes of each reno? Volumes of perfectly good materials send to landfill, carbon pollution from importing stuff, etc. The pre-fab concept is great and been around a long time, but until fixations with rooms full of imported marble (what is the cost to the local environment/community wherever that was mined?), tiles etc etc are overcome it will largely remain a good idea.
Good point. They like to highlight environmentally friendly buildings when on the show.
I used to watch Grand Designs. Not now. If I never see another budget-blowing re-do by another self-indulgent, self-concerned but worthy couple, the quality of my life will be “enhanced”. A series on how to build better with less, and less, and less would be so refreshing: 80 per cent of all materials used have to be recycled, rescued, reclaimed and the budget is a $3,000 credit card. Now, that would be worth watching.
And for a while now, I’ve wondered what effect those utterly vile competition-based, advertising-driven shows about the emotional trauma of building have had on the cost of doing just regular old kitchen updates, for example.
I live (quite happily) in a very small space. My kitchen is more of a shoe-box than a room. But the lowest quote I got for some newer cupboards and shelving, and an updated sink maybe, is $7,000 plus. Like! Really.
But when competing teams in the above said shows can win $100,000 overnight for pleasing the truly repellant judges, it’s hardly surprising, I guess . . .
So far, I’ve spent $200* getting the gas stove disconnected and taken away. It’s a start! (*I’ve actually spent $220 because the chaps who came to do the job are so great, I gave them a bit more.)
There’s an area in Wagga, where there’s numerous companies building pod homes. Wagga’s on a main highway to Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and near to inland access to QLD. These pods are made to be transported by road, so they’re long and skinny, but you can attach them to each other lengthways, sideways or stacked. Now we just need local governments to come to the party, and we’ll all be buying shares in Wagga.