So then if we cut the US numbers to 1/3 to reflect your numbers, that means the modular pre-starts are 116,100 US vs Sweden’s 10,800 or roughly 10x what Sweden does.
1 Like
The FAQ on their site mentions that owners would have to check with local authority about permits. The way they describe it doesn’t give me confidence that a permit would be granted, though (the emphasis was added):
Madi is a temporary construction designed to be closed quickly…and moved to another place, in order to follow the needs of the owner.
The carnival scenario happened in France, so I have no idea how it was regulated. That was another reason why I wasn’t gonna risk it.
You always have to check with the local building authority, in other words apply for a building permit.
From what I’ve seen on their website, getting a building permit for a M.A.DI. shouldn’t be a problem anywhere in Europe (provided building isn’t banned on the designated site per se).
BTW, France is heavily regulated.
No matter how you slice a huge market like the US, the numbers will come out higher than a small country such as Sweden. Sweden has about the area of California, and the population roughly of New Jersey. Their accomplishment is that they have industrialized their entire housing construction industry in a remarkable efficient way. The US modular industry may have more starts, but if their technological prowess made a clear advantage for them why has their market share not increased? The fact that the number of individual starts may be higher in the US means nothing. The US is still behind in adoption, and behind in the technology applied to building. 3% of a market is small, even if the numbers are bigger than 90% of a market which is huge.
1 Like
I know right, it sucks when your builder told you your new house would be ready in two weeks but forgot to factor in the 6-12 week lead time to build the pre-fab kit offsite.
1 Like
But comparing Sweden to the US is like comparing a pepperoni to a pepperoni pizza, sure Maine might be like Sweden, but then there are places like Tennessee or New Mexico. The same building techniques are not needed in all 48 states for climate alone, much less geography (which can vary heavily inside a state as well). In a moderate climate area where basements are common, like North Carolina, a pre-fab system is going to save you very little in cost or time unless you are building out identical houses. Now in a northern area where the weather becomes more of a restriction, then building as much inside makes sense. I’ve watched enough Grand Designs to realize pre-fab systems have their place, and one has to weigh all their available options.
1 Like
Lol. Pretty sure any builder factors that in. With all things there is scheduling of both materials and labor.
1 Like
I would hope so, but what Lava is showing is step 9 of 10 in thd Ikea house builders book. And then he is acting like “see how much time we saved!”, but in the entirety of the project you have saved very little.
Weather / climate is only one factor that makes off site building more efficient. In fact residential construction in Sweden and the US have more in common than almost any other country but Canada. In fact there has been hundreds of years of technology exchange between Sweden and the US in residential construction.
And seriously, you are going to use what you gleaned watching “Grand Designs” to back up your opinion?
Fabricating a house in components off site takes much less time and labor than building the same on site. This is well established practice - not some lark that I am claiming on the internet.
The wall panels for the home in the video are typically prepped in factory in a week or less.
If you buy a house in Sweden you will have to wait 6-12 weeks for it to be installed, yes, but you are not waiting for them to build your house, you are waiting for them to build the 6-12 houses that were ordered before yours.
1 Like
I am betting you still saved a significant amount of time because it is mass produced and the same. Building a house takes lots of steps and it is often held up by inspections and waiting on different people doing different jobs (concrete, plumbing, wiring, etc.) Now probably with this house they still have some of the touches to finish up, but come on, 6 hours is a hell of a short time. I can’t fucking do any small household repair in under 6 hours half the time.
Yes before that took lots of pre planning and scheduling. But the advantage of a pre-fab thing like this is it can be easily mass produced. So you have a factory making 1000 of each component, and when the order comes in, they gather each component, and put it together to be shipped and assembled. Certainly it took MORE time than 6 hours total - that was just the last step. But it certainly took a lot less time over all.
To use your Ikea analogy, it takes a lot less time overall to buy any book shelf and put it together, vs buying boards and tools and put one together and sand and finish and stain. (Unless you are doing that shelf that is cinder blocks and unfinished boards.)
No matter how you spin it, the U.S. produces and makes use of more modular and prefabricated homes than just about anyone else which is why I challenged your assertion that
and
No one but you mentioned “technological prowess” or claimed “a clear advantage”. That’s just you responding to an argument that never happened. But to answer your question about the market share, it’s simple. We in the U.S. do not like modular and pre-fab homes as much as we like traditional construction for many reasons. On of which is that traditional homes give better resale value at the end of our stay and therefore represent a smarter investment than the cheaper alternative. Additionally, modular and pre-fab homes do not have the record of longevity that traditional construction enjoys meaning your investment is much more speculative than it has to be. I’m sure there are many reasons but in the end the U.S. modular and pre-fab home construction industry is an order of magnitude larger than Sweden making your claims demonstrably false.
Wow - friend, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
-
Modular homes and “Trailer Homes” are not the same thing. Modular construction is stronger, higher quality than site built. It just does not enjoy enough efficiency over site built to flourish. Resale value of Modular homes is indistinguishable from site built. All your assumptions and prejudices are based on HUD code trailers that don’t even meet building codes.
-
Swedish off site built - “prefab” if you wish - is higher quality than site built, more efficient, delivers better value, and more profit to a well organized builder.
You are posturing that the US modular industry is ahead of Sweden because of quantity - fine, enjoy your own private idaho. I have no need to convince you of your delusions. Pat yourself on the back - you just made America Great Again.
Demonstrably false. As you yourself stated 3% of new home starts in the U.S. are of the Swedish style modular construction. We covered that in a prior post so I’m not sure where your disconnect comes from.
Really? Upon what do you base that claim?
I seriously can’t understand your insistence on diminishing the U.S. modular housing sector. That sector uses the same tech Sweden uses and produces more per year than Sweden.
Hey buddy, I’m not the one doubling down on falsehoods here.
No - 3% of housing starts are Modular. American modular does not equal “Swedish Style”. American modular is equal to site building indoors. Swedish off site is manufacturing with everything associated with that - supply train management, on line quality control, ISO quality certification, well trained and valued employees.
It does not use the same tech. There is a world of difference - as I said 20-30yrs behind. There are only a handful of NA companies that have embraced this but are relatively new ventures. These companies are adopting process and methods from Sweden, in most cases using machines and tooling from Sweden and Germany.
You obviously don’t know truth from false - you are the proverbial bull in the china shop. I’d admonish you for embarrassing yourself by taking strong stands on things you don’t understand, but I don’t believe anybody here really gives a shit what you think.
And why would I care about that? But seriously, nothing you have said backs up your claim that Swedish style modular homes are higher quality than traditional site built. Nor does your bloviating negate the fact that the same techniques used in Sweden are also being used in the U.S. albeit with fewer manufacturers. Additionally, your lashing out with personal attacks does not detract from the simple truth that the same RANDEK tools used in Sweden are in use in the U.S. which would be odd considering that we are supposedly 20-30 years behind.
I think perhaps you confuse market acceptance with technological capability. U.S. home buyers are less interested in buying modular or prefabricated homes simply because they have a poor reputation here in the U.S. I’m not arguing that attitude is a good one, only that it exists. The only thing keeping the U.S. from overtaking Sweden in modular home construction is market demand and acceptance and not some imagined technology gap as you have argued.
Calling you a bull in the china shop constitutes personal attacks?
Congratulations on coming up with Randek - clearly you know how to use a search engine. Do you think its not obvious that with each reply you are grasping for facts?
I know all about Randek because my company ByggHouse is their representatives in North America. I know who their customers are and who is using their machines, and I know who is using their competitors machines. And I know who is not using them, and who is seeking to use them. I’ve been to the factories and observed the techniques and I know the difference between American Modular Construction and Swedish Off Site Manufacturing. There are very few using the Swedish tech and methods, and even some that have purchased machines are not using manufacturing to its full potential.
Meanwhile you demand me to explain facts that are widely understood in the industry. Why manufactured quality is higher than site built quality? No - I will not. Nor will I explain why we know the earth is round, or why gravity makes things fall. You can educate yourself if you wish, or wallow in your ignorance, demonstrating what you don’t know to all of us. And if you consider that a personal attack - fine, report me.
So, by your own admission the same tech and methods are being used in the U.S. and yet you argue we are 20-30 years behind. Perhaps you need to get your story straight. Do you think so few use those methods because we are somehow behind or do you think so few use them because there isn’t enough demand?
I’m not in the industry and I’ve demanded nothing from you. I’ve only asked you back up your repeated claims with some sort of fact based evidence rather than taking your word for it. The reason I ask is because I have read several articles by people in the industry talking about the benefits of modular homes and none of them claimed they were higher quality than other methods but rather focused on other aspects which make them appealing.
Yes it does. When the discourse moves away from facts and devolves in to insulting comments, snark, and admonishment, the conversation ceases to be a civil one.
My own admission? I did not realize I was on the stand under oath your honor. Yes - we are 20-30yrs behind. The fact that some companies are beginning to adpot these techniques does not magically advance our entire industry. I am not contradicting myself or lying as you suggest. Saying we are 20-30yrs behind does not equate that there is no effort to improve manufacturing in the US. You are using sleazy argument techniques here. You want to talk about facts, then you base your argument on these huge illogical leaps, and then you claim I am lying or being untruthful. I criticize you for it and then you cry “personal attack”.
I think so few use the techniques because there was and has been plenty of money to be made by developing raw land into parcels - easy to do. So much money could be made there that there was little pressure to make home building more efficient - hard to do.
So yes, you could say that was low demand. But the market has changed, and now there is the realization that efficiencies can be achieved in the areas, and all are turning towards Swedish and German tool makers to learn how to do whats every day in Sweden.
The facts are there and too vast for me to present in this forum. I have no obligation to educate you, and my refusal to do so does not render my claims invalid. It only means you don’t know what you don’t know. You don’t have to take my word for it. You have also presented no evidence counter to my claims, except “I have read several articles by people in the industry”. My advice is if you want to speak with authority about it you’ll have to try harder.
