Nick Pinder, Mariya Rankin and Magdalena Prus explore the contractual and regulatory implications of a cookie-cutter approach to housebuilding
The Labour government’s plan to “get Britain building again” is certainly ambitious. With no government in recent years having met its own affordable housing targets, the scale of this ambition may well prove to have been significantly understated.
But in an industry that is constantly asked to find ways to adapt and innovate within new legal and regulatory targets, one answer might be found by looking back to the success of Henry Ford’s revolutionary approach to standardisation. This approach could help meet both targets and regulations at the scale and pace required.
Balancing affordability and safety – the pitfalls of minimum requirements
Affordability and safety are necessarily paramount in the housing sector, but the construction industry must learn from past mistakes associated with cookie-cutter designs.
When not executed well, these designs can lead to significant issues such as water ingress, poor insulation, energy inefficiency and safety.
>>Also read: Tony Bingham on why Grenfell shows it’s time to scrap design and build
>>Also read: Safety comes first in the JCT’s updated contract suite
One of the main criticisms of cookie-cutter design is its tendency to focus on meeting minimum requirements. In an industry that strives for excellence in design, standardisation should not be seen as the enemy of innovation. By incentivising and guiding the industry towards a project-lifecycle approach, the strong demand for safe, sustainable and aesthetically pleasing affordable homes can be met.
Challenges of embracing a project-lifecycle approach
The concept of project-lifecycle or design life introduces a layer of complexity, as these terms lack a clear legal definition. Generally they imply that a building should not require major repairs over a specified period, but this rarely creates sufficient certainty for all parties to become comfortable with how liability issues are to be apportioned.
The concept of project-lifecycle or design life introduces a layer of complexity, as these terms lack a clear legal definition
From a contractual perspective, a more pragmatic solution involves creating technical specifications tailored to the specific use case. These specifications should be well-considered, understood by all parties, and referenced throughout the design and construction process, similar to a risk register. Risk can be apportioned with greater certainty and the specification itself can serve as the basis for creating replicable designs capable of being tailored to respond to local contexts.
Achieving efficiency with bespoke repeatability
By setting specific, targeted criteria and parameters for design and construction, it is possible to achieve efficiencies akin to Henry Ford’s assembly line while maintaining a level of bespoke design.
To achieve this, designers need to be empowered to bring fresh design solutions and foster technical and aesthetic innovation. Historically, the London County Council architects department played a pivotal role in the development of postwar London. Through public buildings, housing estates and infrastructure projects it addressed housing demands and urban decline.
By focusing on a project-lifecycle approach and creating robust technical specifications… the industry can achieve these efficiencies
Similarly, local authorities’ role in delivering social housing projects is an important one. The projects delivered in the 1970s with the support of the London borough of Camden’s architects department embraced new construction technologies and materials, creating iconic structures and innovative urban arrangements, while delivering high-density housing schemes.
Most recently, the appointment of “new town architects” by the mayor of London, as part of a two-year pilot scheme “to promote good growth and design in neighbourhoods across the capital” represents an opportunity to shape the built environment based on the expertise and skills of planners and architects.
This shows that repeatability can deliver scale without sacrificing quality or innovation, the absence of which has plagued cookie-cutter designs in the past.
Balancing standardisation and innovation
Standardisation can streamline processes and reduce costs, making housing more affordable. However, it must be done thoughtfully.
By focusing on a project-lifecycle approach and creating robust technical specifications and tested, repeatable designs which are then delivered in buildings’ construction, the industry can achieve the efficiencies of Henry Ford-style housebuilding.
To achieve this, the development of large-panel technology has demonstrated some areas for attention:
- Quality assurance during the manufacturing process (elements must meet standards and dimensions for smooth assembly)
- Development of new technologies to meet thermal and services requirements
- Thorough testing of solutions in technical, functional and economic terms
- Quality of workmanship and installation
- Appropriate maintenance throughout the service life.
Clear and consistent guidelines can help meet the necessary standards, and mitigate risks associated with changing regulations. In fact, as one of the construction industry’s biggest and most important clients, government has an opportunity to lead by example and drive change, especially if it can achieve cross-party commitment to long term policy.
Conclusion
As the UK grapples with its housing crisis, a Henry Ford style of housebuilding offers a potential solution, providing the scale and pace needed to meet housing targets. It seems inevitable that housing will become more expensive at least in the short term, but by learning from past endeavours and embracing a project-lifecycle approach, the construction industry can ensure that standardisation does not come at the expense of quality or innovation. That innovation can in turn help to bring the construction cost of housing down. The project-lifecycle approach can be a pathway to creating affordable, safe, and sustainable homes for all.
No comments yet