1003 are modern methods of construction compatible

1. Transcript from Waterfront Conference on MMC
Are Modern Methods of Construction compatible with best
practice urban design?
Alex Ely
My background is I was at CABE; I am an architect but I was Senior Policy Adviser
at CABE and when I was there we were asked to give evidence to a Parliamentary
Select Committee about affordable housing and modern methods and there was
this question that came up which was: won’t modern methods result in repetitive
identikit housing? I don’t know if any of you have noticed what the volume house
builders have been doing for the last 20 years but you might have noticed in
this magazine in front of you there is a reference to CABE’s design audit and it
was an assessment of housing developments in the North of England. It refers
to how schemes were rated; 94% of schemes were average or poor and they
suffered from lower expectations and standardised designs. Now most of those
developments are actually traditional forms of construction. So let’s not confuse
modern methods with dull and repetitive housing because there is probably more
risk that traditional build will result in that.
[Slide 1: Main objectives of report] I was asked to go over some findings from
a piece of research we did at CABE which was commissioned by the Housing
Corporation looking at the relationship of design construction and management
of modern methods of construction projects in relation to design quality and
determine how modern methods of construction can contribute to greater design
success or failure and then also identify lessons for future Government funding of
innovative social housing. Now this was specifically done in relation to the Kick-
Start funding programme that the Housing Corporation was running at the time.
Just on that last point one of the key observations was that they weren’t making
funding available early enough in the process. Most of the schemes that were
submitted for the funding had already received planning permission. So the scope
for modern methods to influence design quality was already pretty reduced.
So the first recommendation was that the Housing Corporation needs to be
offering longer term funding programmes so that RSLs can size up and recognise
that actually cost effectiveness of modern methods comes about through a long
term programme.
[Slide 2: Process] In brief we sent out questionnaires to RSLs that had used
the Kick-Start or applied for Kick-Start funding and also reviewed some of their
schemes that had come forward and received funding and these were some
responses to the questionnaire that we ran and unsurprisingly most decisions to
use MMC were based on speed of construction. There were no cases in which the
design team first and foremost made the decision to use MMC and design quality
was actually third on the list in terms of priorities.
As I mentioned, in most cases the designs had already been determined, planning
permission granted and then they decided what system they were going to use
which is completely back to front and upside down and unhelpful in terms of
raising design quality. It was partly to do with the funding structures so that they
could get funding with the kind of schemes they already had in the pipeline.
[Slide 3: time – cost – quality] This brings to mind James’s point about time,
cost and quality. We know there are tensions at play when you try to prioritise
time, cost and quality and as noted in those findings if speed and cost come
out first, inevitably quality suffers. So perhaps we need a better assessment of
what we mean by best value and are we thinking about the whole life cost of a
development rather than the initial outset costs.

2. [Slide 4: Findings] The report was actually fairly inconclusive; pretty much there
is no relationship between modern methods and design quality. You can have
good buildings, well designed using modern methods and you can have bad
buildings using modern methods. So maybe it was a face-saving exercise, I don’t
know but the Housing Corporation probably didn’t get the results they were after.
But just to quickly run through some of the findings; in terms of function there was
no impact on modern methods. Modern methods pretty much allow flexibility of
plan; allow the client’s requirements to be met in terms of house types and house
sizes and so on.
What struck us more was actually this issue of appearance and the systems
used or rather the houses proposed tended towards traditional styling which was
requested by Local Authorities and the clients. So they would specifically request
masonry construction with pitched roofs and small windows. I’m not sure why
Local Authorities request small windows; it always beggars belief really when
construction allows us to do whatever we want; why we would want to go back to a
medieval attitude to elevations and window sizes.
I think what we found is that there is perhaps a lack of understanding of what
traditional styling means. In terms of detailing and material, apart from certain
limitations of choice with panellised systems there is a virtually unrestricted range
of cladding, masonry or renders that could be applied to pretty much all of the
systems we looked at which goes back to this question why are we wanting it to
look like traditional? Or rather, what do we mean by traditional?
And then flexibility and sustainability: well all the schemes worked in terms
of flexibility; internal layouts allowed for extensions although there was the
possibility that some of them need specialist contractors and consultants to come
back to site if you want to extend it or adapt it. It is not like your Georgian house
that you can just knock down a partition wall necessarily with some systems;
so we have got to think about the long-term flexibility of a house and how the
systems allow for change; having said that most of them can adapt with the right
know-how.
None of the schemes we looked at had exceptional eco-homes as targets but
as James has shown with Millennium Village it is achievable and Oliver had
mentioned that again we can achieve very sustainable, very environmental homes.
[Slide 5: Diagram] But what we were disappointed with was that it seemed we
struggled to find an appropriate language for modern method housing with the
exception of the top right image, this is an interesting project; it is the Oakridge
Scheme by Sentinel Housing Association. Pretty much all the other schemes
tended to confuse this idea that is demanded by Local Authorities for vernacular,
which is set out in local plans or PPG3, with historicist expression. Vernacular is
about the reading of a site; it is about the understanding of the place, the materials
that are indigenous to a place. It is not about necessarily dragging up historical
expressions which don’t actually necessarily mean anything in terms of the
methods and systems used.
[Slide 6: Photographs] So in this system, sorry about the poor quality images,
this is innovative modern methods, it is concrete volumetric construction and yet
we resort to a language of sort of brick lintels. Well it doesn’t need brick lintels
so can we not find perhaps a more interesting way of describing these systems.
Now that doesn’t mean, I am not against traditional architecture at all, I think I am
interested in how we find a closer language and appropriate language for modern
methods housing.
So in summary the research was inconclusive and MMC can result in good or bad
design.

3. [Slide 7: Importance of early design coordination] The next question that I was
posed for this talk was: what is the importance of early design coordination? I
think some of that evidence showed that actually you can’t really shoehorn in a
modern method into an already perceived design. Logistics and access is one
issue that needs to be considered in terms of choosing the right methods of
construction. We can’t all have helicopters to fly in our pre-fab house but tight
urban sites might not suit certain systems such as fully volumetric construction
because of transport loads and sizes and so on.
In terms of building set out and module, well again we found that there was a
degree of flexibility and all the clients briefs could be met with any system but it
does tend to result in standardised unit size. I think most of the systems we saw
didn’t really exploit the section; they went well in plan but we’ve kind of lost our
opportunities to exploit double height spaces, interlocking sections and so on that
characterised some of our best housing in the past.
And then architectural language and integrity I’ve talked about; when you start
a design project start with a system in mind and then let that be a driver for the
architectural language or at least work simultaneously.
Finally, environment, design and comfort: we’ve heard more about this already
and I think in the context of design we’ve got to recognise that different modern
methods of construction perform differently. With lightweight timber frame
construction you need good shading, good passive ventilation, good thermal
ventilation because they are thermally lightweight or you need to find some way
of increasing the thermal mass. So just dressing it in a traditional architecture
isn’t necessarily going to work for that system; we’ve got to think about how those
systems perform environmentally.
Now I just want to run through some systems that we’ve been looking at in the
office against some exemplar schemes that either we’ve been developing or
I am going to blatantly refer to more established practices that are doing very
interesting work including Proctor Matthews who best illustrates some of the
systems that I am going to talk about.
[Slide 8: Panellised construction] The first type of system is light gauge steel
frame and timber frame construction. I don’t know how much of this you have
heard this morning from other speakers but bear with me if I repeat some of the
systems you might have heard about but there are current suppliers such as
Surebuild and Fusion providing light gauge steel systems and Space 4 who are
part of Westbury Homes providing timber frame. And this is just an example of
a scheme we have done in the office called the M House which is quite a good
solution if you want to get out of paying the Chancellor’s current roof tax because
it is mobile and can be moved between sites and I don’t know how they would
classify it in terms of planning and roof tax. However, that is an example of a
scheme that uses this system; initially the prototype was timber frame and then it
was redeveloped using a light gauge steel frame.
[Slide 9: Advantages and Disadvantages] Now the advantages of using light gauge
timber construction are that it is efficient to transport; it is highly quality controlled
in the factory; pre-insulated and so on. The disadvantages are that it needs a much
higher degree of finish on site than some of the volumetric systems and also in
terms of efficiency; to set up a factory it needs a high volume of units; Space 4’s
factory is currently running at only about 50% capacity. So the demand is there if
a planning system can be freed up then actually there is capacity to increase the
number of timber framed housing.
We worry about modern methods perhaps sometimes but again let’s remind
ourselves that timber construction has actually been around forever actually.
We’ve only got to think back to 14th century timber tithe barns or even earlier;
Abbe Laugier’s illustration of the first primitive hut which kind of preceded the
slide 10

4. temple is the thing that architects refer to as the first piece of architecture, it
actually shows timber frame construction. So it is nothing to fear and there are
some great houses that have been made using this system.
Now it does tend to be limited to houses because it is not necessarily that suitable
for apartment buildings although there are some systems that can go up to four or
five stories.
[Slide 10: Diagram] This is a scheme that we developed in the office for a town
house using the Space 4 system. It offers a high degree of internal flexibility and
deliberately explores ideas of lofty internal space on the top floor; so literally
exploiting the volume that can be allowed through these systems; also importantly
thinking about environmental design so we have deep reveals and balconies that
provide the shading that you need with light weight structural systems. And then
we also wanted to explore how the structure could be expressed at the ground
floor. So almost like Elizabethan construction, you reveal the timber frame at the
ground floor and then it is clad with a brick slip system above.
[Slide 11: Sittingbourne] Then put together on site it can result in detached
houses, terraced house or semi-detached houses. You can really combine them
in any way.
[Slide 12: Clague Architects] This scheme by Clague Associates called Lacuna
has won many awards; including a Building for Life Gold Award and it is the
most interesting example I know of timber frame technology and it uses a system
called Super E which was imported from Canada. It offers very high environmental
performance and good energy ratings.
[Slide 13: Solid panel construction] In terms of subject matter I was asked to talk
about urban design; it doesn’t limit urban design opportunities as you can see.
The next system is the Closed panel system; effectively timber frame but with
the structure defined by the cladding as much as it is by the frame. So you
have insulated timber systems such as Tekhaus or Innovare Systems; they are
called SIPs, Structural Insulated Panels. Or you have the composite board such
as Lenotech which is one we are using on a scheme on the left which is a little
roof-top extension that can be craned up, or rather the wall panels are craned up
in single pieces. What I like about this kind of system is that it is sort of closest
to the way architects make models, usually out of balsa wood or cardboard so
almost it is like a scaled-up version of an architect’s model.
[Slide 14: Advantages and Disadvantages] The benefits are that you have
increased your pre-finishing off site and you can either put a breather membrane
and the cladding on the outside or just plaster on the inside. It is light weight;
space efficient for transport in that it can be shipped in containers. The downside
is that it requires site finishing and it is thermally light weight so we need to think
carefully about shading and ventilation.
[Slide 15: Hyde and Moat HA] We have just been looking at using this system for
a large-scale urban project. We have been working with Innovare Systems who are
part of Geoffrey Osborne. It is difficult to talk about modern methods in relation
to urban design because modern methods is what sits behind the building and
makes up the building so urban design is a slightly different exercise. You could
say if one building makes architecture, two makes urban design. The question
then is what sort of opportunities do modern methods allow for variety for a
site with lots of character and identity? So with this scheme in our office we are
deliberately looking at how you can use one system but hopefully create a fair
degree of character; it’s a mixed tenure development of 210 houses; mixed tenure
and mixed accommodation so a mixture of terraced housing, detached family
housing and small apartment blocks.

5. [Slide 17: Diagram] I think we have tried to create character through a varied
roofscape through varied elevation treatments and different materials and so on.
I think the other question about the relationship of MMC and urban design also
raises for me a question, not just about how modern methods are used for house
construction but also what role they could play in construction of the public realm.
[Slide 18: Diagram] I am quite interested in the Dutch systems or Dutch
contractors who use machines to lay set paving on streets. They just have a kind
of machine that rolls down the street and lays out the road or they have robots that
make brick-panelled construction.
So I wonder why in this country we are still using fairly unskilled labour to lay our
public realm when actually if we used more intelligent modern methods perhaps
we could have a higher quality. Instead of black top we could have set paviours
more cheaply and quickly.
[Slide 20: Volumetric Construction] The next system or form of systems is
represented by a scheme we’ve just heard about: Proctor Matthews scheme in
Baron’s Place and here captured under one heading Volumetric construction
both steel volumetric and concrete volumetric systems that we saw in one of
those earlier slides. And then we’ve got contractors or systems suppliers such
as Spaceover, Yorkon, Britspace and Meteor Systems. Spaceover, I’ll come on to
Spaceover, we’ve just heard about them but I think they are a slightly apart from
perhaps the likes of Yorkon or Britspace.
Now I suppose when we think about modern methods we tend to think about
pre-fabrication in its sort of volumetric form so this very much evokes the idea of
pre-fab but having said that I think current systems are much more sophisticated
than the portacabins which are considered as a predecessor of modern methods
or what used to be called pre-fab.
[Slide 21: Advantages and Disadvantages] So the volumetric systems have
benefits of being fully finished pre-site in terms of internal finishes; there is a
high degree of quality control in the factory; time is massively reduced on site.
The disadvantage is that you are shipping air effectively so you perhaps have
increased shipping costs; especially with some systems that are being imported
from other countries. There is a very interesting scheme by Hyde which uses a
system called Buma which is imported from Poland and it requires a high degree
of skilled installation.
[Slide 22: Spaceover] The Spaceover Scheme: again this is the Proctor Matthews
scheme we heard about in Clapton Road and to me Spaceover seems to be one of
the more interesting operators because they offer a turn key service from design
and assembly through to construction and I think this is where modern methods
and design really needs to work together on an efficient procurement process.
Too many systems we’ve seen are disjointed in terms of what happens between
the contractor who is working on the site and the systems supplier who is
supplying the modules, I won’t dwell on this because we’ve just heard about
this but for me I think what is interesting about the Proctor Matthew scheme at
Clapton Road is that it lends itself very well to air-rights housing. So there is a
steel framed podium onto which the modules go and I can just imagine so many
urban conditions where that would be a value. Places where we would want retail
perhaps on the ground floor with housing above. So modern methods can lend
itself very well to mixed use development which is increasingly going to be a
concern if we are building sustainable communities and a lot of urban housing.

6. [Slide 24: Diagram] The Spaceover system as an example is specifically aimed at
affordable and key worker housing sectors who are actually playing more of a key
role in housing development strategy and I think the RSL sector is very interesting
in that they don’t have the same hang ups or risk aversion that perhaps we see in
the private sector. That may be driven by the fact that funding is available for RSLs
who use and adopt modern methods.
[Slide 25: AHMM Architects/Cartwright Pickard] It seems that some of the most
advanced and most innovative modern methods schemes are actually being led
by the affordable housing sector such as these two on the left by Allford, Hall,
Monaghan and Morris and on the right by Cartwright Pickard; two schemes for the
Peabody Trust which have picked up heaps of awards and I think have very much
led the way but then have informed more recent schemes that use volumetric
construction.
[Slide 26: Hybrid construction] Another system, the one I am most interested
in is hybrid constructions where you pull together the high value items of pod
bathrooms and kitchens with panellised construction of walls and floor cassettes.
It seems to be very efficient because you are not transporting air in quite the same
way as with fully volumetric system but you are transporting units that demand
a high quality of finish such as the bathrooms and then the wall panels can be
efficiently packed up and moved to site so this scheme illustrated is by Forge
Llewelyn; it was again for Peabody Trust.
[Slide 27: Advantages and Disadvantages] Now the benefits here being that you’ve
got a mixed degree of pre-finish off site; you’ve got high quality control of the high
value items; you’ve got this twin tracking going on of the pods being built off site
at the same time as you can be getting on with the on site work and at the same
time you’ve got a lot of flexibility of internal work and layout and so on. In terms of
disadvantages well it does need skilled installation and moderate shipping costs.
[Slide 28: Photograph] So this is a scheme by Feilden Clegg Bradley again for
Peabody that has this hybrid system of pod bathrooms and then a steel frame,
open panel construction for the walls.
As you can see it lends itself well to high-density urban schemes.
[Slide 30: Diagrams] And then just to illustrate that actually hybrid systems can
work just as well, well I say just as well, we haven’t built this; but just as well for
suburban housing. This is kind of a fun scheme we did in the office for a concept
house for the future and it was very much based on the idea of steel framed
construction which you can just bolt on or clad with different systems but then
your rooms inside come as sort of prêt a habiter and they are sort of ready made
rooms and you could choose from a catalogue of room types that you might want.
[Slide 31: Concrete systems] And then finally tunnel form construction and
also concrete panel although that is less in favour perhaps since our previous
experimentation with modern methods back in the 1960s. Tunnel form is
essentially formed by pouring concrete into a formwork to form walls and floors
and then the tunnel is moved every 24-hours to create the next floor or the next
unit along.
[Slide 32: Advantages and Disadvantages] It offers a high degree of thermal
mass; good sound insulation; good fire resistance; efficient construction and the
evidence suggests that there is about 15% time saving on the frame construction.
Also you can inset the services into the concrete as you are building it so you’ve
got those chased into the concrete and also if you use steel formwork it produced
a very nice plasterwork like finish which can then just be painted inside. The
disadvantage is that there are high set up costs and modest time savings on site
and also I think, although I might be corrected by my colleague at the BRE, but

7. high embodied energy. It is not necessarily one of the most environmentally
friendly forms of construction and yet actually in the Netherlands it makes up
40% of all residential construction, that is both in Belgium and in Holland, so a
very popular system there and I think actually they have a very different idea about
design quality there and I am kind of really surprised about the design of both
affordable and private housing in the Netherlands.
[Slide 33: Photograph] The other advantage is that it is very good for high density
and can reach up to 40 stories.
[Slide 34: Photograph] I think as long as you work within the constraints of regular
wall alignment it actually provides a very excellent system and it works on a
module of between 2.4 and 6.6 metres wide which can then be subdivided.
[Slide 35: Photograph] I am just going to finish with a couple of images of some
Dutch housing and I think if you are ever looking for a field trip to take your
colleagues on or your bosses on or your clients on it is well worth seeing how the
Dutch equate modern methods with design quality. As I said they tend to have a
more limited range of modern methods that they adopt but actually the general
commitment to high design standards and more particularly to high construction
standards is really something to be admired so well worth going. I took a group of
RSLs and Housing Corporation representatives and I think they are all saying: why
can’t we get some Dutch contractors over here to do our housing? I’d like to see
the competition being opened up perhaps to more European contractors to see
whether we can’t get some better quality housing over here.
[Slide 36: Photograph] So in summary; modern methods are compatible with
good design but they are only a means to an end; they are not necessarily going
to result in good design and design will only be as good as the skills used. At the
end of the day good design comes with good clients.
In the words of Peter Cook, he had a great quote: ‘I’ve learnt from my mistakes
and I’m now able to repeat them almost exactly.’ I think that is perhaps what we
need to avoid because thankfully we can learn from our mistakes and we can use
modern methods now to actually really raise the game and raise the standard of
design quality.
There was another quote in this magazine which I thought was appropriate to
finish on, it was from Joanna Averley who has been appointed as Design Director
of the Olympic Village and she says: ‘Many projects go wrong because there
isn’t the follow through from vision to reality and because the budget that is set
at the outset doesn’t relate to the brief. You need strong client leadership and
commitment to design quality.’ I think that applies to housing, applies to any form
of building and with good leadership and commitment to design quality you can
make modern methods work for you. Thank you.
slide 31