I do not think it is an advantage to build planned packaged houses. If you prefabricate a house completely, it becomes an unnecessary restriction.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The financial benefits of prefabrication have never been as large as its advocates predicted, for although some labor costs can be reduced by machine manufacturing, on-site assembly of any building still depends to some extent on the handwork of skilled craftsmen.
Building your own house is a primal urge, one of those universal genetic drives like the need to provide for your family.
You don't make houses cheaper by making them more expensive to build.
One of the most persistent yet elusive dreams of the Modern Movement in architecture has been prefabrication: industrially made structures that can be assembled at a building site.
Building a house is like producing a movie. There's no right way to do it but a lot of wrong ways. You have to be flexible and creative. You have to move fast, be prepared - or it quickly becomes costly.
I tell you, it is easier to build a grand opera or a city center than to build a personal house.
We need prefab housing, we need to repair what can be repaired. We have appealed to the whole world to ship tents and blankets to Pakistan.
For precocity some great price is always demanded sooner or later in life.
Building a house from scratch in the middle of a field is a bit like building a prototype car. As with all prototypes, if you're building a car you usually have the luxury of producing several prototypes before you arrive at the production line version - so the opportunity for changing things is quite rich.
It's my goal to make a building as immaterial as possible. Architecture is a very material thing. It takes a lot of resources, so why not eliminate what you don't need as long as you're able to achieve the same result?
No opposing quotes found.