How To Deliver On The Promise of MegaProjects

Due to the large scale and outlook attached to them, mega-projects have a large opportunity for failure. Typically, the failure begins at the outset of the project, whether that be due to poor justification for the project, misalignment among stakeholders, insufficient planning, or inability to find and use appropriate capabilities.

Underestimated costs and overestimated benefits often offset the baseline for assessing overall project performance. This is why it is important for organizations to first establish social and economic priorities before even considering what projects will answer their needs. Once social and economic priorities are established, only then can a project be considered. Selecting projects must be fact-based and transparent in order to ensure accountability with stakeholders and the public.

Successful Megaprojects Must Have Robust Risk-analysis or Risk-management Protocols

It’s also important to maintain adequate controls. Successful megaprojects must have robust risk-analysis or risk-management protocols and provide timely reports on progress relative to budgets and deadlines. Typically, progress is measured on the basis of cash flow, which is less than ideal as data could be out of date and payments to contractors do not correlate construction progress. Instead, project managers should deliver real-time data to measure activity in the field. For example, cubic meters of concrete poured relative to work plans and budgets.

Overall, improving project performance requires better planning and preparation in three areas: doing engineering and risk analysis before construction, streamlining permitting and land acquisition, and building a project team with the appropriate mix of abilities.

Project developers and sponsors should put more focus into pre-planning such as engineering and risk analysis before the construction phase. Unfortunately, most organizations and sponsors are reluctant to spend a significant amount of money on early-stage planning because they often lack the necessary funds, they are eager to break ground and they worry the design will be modified after construction is underway, making up-front designs pointless.

However, it’s proven that if developers spend three to five percent of capital cost on early-stage engineering and design, results are far better in terms of delivering the project on-time and on-budget. This is because through the design process, challenges will be addressed and resolved before they occur during the construction phase, saving both time and money.

It’s not unusual for permits and approvals to take longer than the building of a megaproject. However, if developers look to streamline permitting and land acquisition, that would significantly improve project performance. Best practices in issuing permits involve prioritizing projects, defining clear roles and responsibilities and establishing deadlines.

In England and Wales, developers applied these approaches to cut the time needed to approve power-industry infrastructure from 12 months to only nine months. On average, timelines for approval spanned four years throughout the rest of Europe. Likewise, the state of Virginia’s plan to widen Interstate 495 in 2012 was able to cut costs and save hundreds of homes thanks to land acquisition planning by a private design company.

Investors and Owners Must Take an Active Role in Creating the Project Team

When it’s all said and done, projects cannot deliver the best possible return on investment without a well-resourced and qualified network of project managers, advisers and controllers. Investors and owners must take an active role in creating the project team.

It’s not enough to have a vague overview of what the project might look like in the end. Instead, it’s necessary to review risks and costs and draft a detailed, practical approach to tackle various issues. An experienced project manager cannot do it all alone. The project team must include individuals with the appropriate skills, such as legal and technical expertise, contract management, project reporting, stakeholder management, and government and community relations among others.

Failure to Properly Plan for These Projects Could Have a Negative Impact on Society

While mega-projects are important in filling economic and social needs, failure to properly plan for these projects could have a negative impact on society. Take Centro Financiero Confinanzas (Venezuela), the eighth tallest building in Latin America at 45 stories, located in the financial district of Venezuela’s capital, Caracas for example.

To those unaware of its history, the Centro Financiero Confinanzas is actually home to over 700 families, a “vertical slum” that is a truly fascinating example of reappropriation of space in an urban environment. An ironic symbol of financial failure that was intended to represent the unstoppable march of Venezuela’s booming economy.

It’s much more than an unbuilt building, bridge or tunnel, failed mega-projects are a blow to the economic growth and social improvements of communities around the world.

January 24, 2016July 1, 2022

Small Projects Often Mean Greater Innovation

Small projects often embody more innovation than larger more costly or high profile ones.

Innovation is a wide concept that includes improvements in processes, products and services. It involves incorporating new ideas which generate changes that help solve the needs of a company and so increase its competitiveness. That’s hardly big news. But what may be surprising to some is that innovation has itself, well, innovated and it isn’t what it used to be.

New materials and energy, design approaches, as well as advances in digital technology and big data, are creating a wave of innovation within the construction industry. These new ideas are increasingly often tested and proven on smaller and agiler projects. Investing time and money is well spent on these ideas and technical improvements can then be used on large-scale developments.

Here are three exciting small projects:

Vanke Pavilion - Milan Expo 2015 / Daniel Libeskind — Vanke Pavilion – Milan Expo 2015 / Daniel Libeskind

VANKE PAVILION Milan, Italy — VANKE PAVILION
Milan, Italy

1. Vanke Pavilion – Milan Expo 2015

The corporate pavilion for Vanke China explores key issues related to the theme of the Expo Milano 2015, “Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life”.

Situated on the southeast edge of the Lake Arena, the 800-square meter pavilion appears to rise from the east, forming a dynamic, vertical landscape.

The original tiling pattern would have resulted in thousands of ceramic tiles of different sizes and shapes. The resulting complexity and lack of repetition could have led to high costs and a longer erection time.

Working with Architects Studio Libeskind, Format Engineers (Engineering Designers with backgrounds in structural engineering, coding, mathematics, and architecture) changed the pattern from thousands of different tiles to less than a dozen and simplified the backing structure generating huge cost savings. Format Engineers also proposed ‘slicing’ of the building and then fabrication of the primary structure of steel ribs using low tech flat steel plate elements. These were then used in a series of long span portalised frames reminiscent of the ribs and spars in traditional boat building resulting in a column-free area for the display of Chinese Cultural Heritage.

The frame was built to a budget and without difficulty ahead of the neighboring Expo buildings.

Building Size
12 meters high
740 mq gross floor area (exhibition, service & VIP levels)
130 mq roof terrace

Architect: Studio Libeskind

Engineer: Format Engineers

2. Oxford Brookes Rain Pavilion

The Rain Pavilion is an urban forest sculpture forming the front entrance to Oxford Brookes University’s Architecture Faculty.

“Rain Pavilion artwork is a sensory experience for the community.”

The complex form required extensive wind modeling and comprehensive structural analysis within a generative 3d model. This was allied with Format Engineers in-house code for the self-organization of voids and their subsequent redistribution.

.At each stage of the design process different modeling and analysis techniques were used to exploit the form and to optimise the structure. The considerable challenges posed by the slenderness of the structure and its dynamic behavior under wind were resolved by combining Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) (a branch of fluid mechanics that uses numerical analysis and algorithms to solve and analyze problems that involve fluid flows) with a generative design environment. Conceptual design introduced the ideas of tubular stems and folded steel canopies, both of which were perforated by circular holes arranged to allow the interplay of light and water through the structure. The voids were generated using a self-organizing process.

Grasshopper (a graphical algorithm computer 3-D modeling tool) was used to produce a mesh that could include the voids in both the stems and the petals.

The Rain Pavilion is designed to celebrate the sound of rain, and the noise of water interacting with different sections of the installation is part of the experience of passing through it. The structure has a design life of five years and can be transported to other locations.

Architect: Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

Engineer: Format Engineers

3. KREOD Pavilion

The KREOD pavilions were first erected on the London Greenwich Olympic site in 2012. Easily rearranged, three pod-like pavilions were formed with a wooden structural framework comprised of an open hexagonal composition.

Standing three meters tall, each double-curved wooden shell enclosed a footprint of 20 square meters, totaling 60 square meters. A waterproof tensile membrane sealed the interior from the elements fully portable with demountable joints, the individual components can be stacked for efficient transportation.

Chun Qing Li the architect required a temporary exhibition or function space that could be erected and demounted mostly by hand and by untrained staff. The quality of finish needed to echo that of handmade furniture and had to be low cost and quick to erect. The continuously changing double curved form of the enclosure meant that in theory, every nodal connection was different. A conventional bolted solution would have cost hundreds of pounds per fixing. Format Engineers suggestion of a ‘reciprocal’ jointed timber grid shell required standard bolts which equated to a fraction of the normal cost. It also allowed the structure to be built from simple and light flat timber elements.

The structure used Kebony timber throughout, a sustainable alternative to tropical hardwood. As this material had not previously been used in a structural context Format Engineers undertook load testing of the material and the connections at the University of Cambridge. The timber was fabricated using CNC routing (a computer controlled cutting machine) allowing a highly accurate fit between members and basic erection on site.

Architect: Chun Qing Li

Engineer: Format Engineers

November 8, 2015July 1, 2022

5 of the World’s Most Spectacular Megaprojects

We seem to be entering a new age of megaprojects as countries around the world mobilise the private sector to invest heavily in multi-billion or sometimes multi-trillion dollar infrastructure initiatives.

Megaprojects (sometimes also spelled “mega projects”) are very large investment projects and require care in the project development process to reduce any possible optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation.

The most expensive large-scale megaprojects in the world range from bridges, tunnels, highways, railways, airports, seaports, power plants, dams and wastewater projects to entire city districts.

Megaprojects seem to be practically recession-proof and have continued despite the 2008 global economic slowdown likely spurred megaproject construction, since the governments of some countries among them China, India, and the United States saw investment in infrastructure as a way to stimulate growth. Moreover, many large corporations are locked into megaprojects, because only enormous undertakings seem capable of nudging their bottom lines.

Here, we take a look at 5 of the biggest, most important and spectacular megaprojects around the world.

Waterworld Hotel Concept, Songjiang, China By Atkin’s Architecture Group

Songjiang Hotel, China

“We Drew Our Inspiration from the Quarry Setting” Says Atkins Design Studio

The five-star hotel is designed by UK architecture office Atkins for Shimao Group and will offer around 400 rooms, with underwater restaurants, clubs, shopping facilities, a 10-meter deep aquarium and various sport activities such as rock climbing and bungee jumping.

The waterfall is a key feature of this hotel built into a 328-foot-tall quarry outside of Shanghai. The 19-story hotel will have the waterfall cascading down the middle and two hotel floors that are entirely underwater.

The building will get its energy from geothermal sources and will feature a green roof.

With its 650 architects spread around the world in 60 offices, Atkins Design Studio is an enormous organisation, with some pretty amazing Megaprojects under its belt.

Three Gorges Dam

Man has long used technology to harness nature and dam building has always been one of the most controversial methods.

Building a dam causes dramatic effects on the environment, yet can benefit man in innumerable ways.

Three Gorges Dam located in Sandouping, Yiling, Hubeiis is the largest power station in the world and took 14 years to complete at a cost of USD $37 billion ( ¥180 billion). The original estimated cost was USD $6 billion ( ¥20 billion). It can produce as much as 15 nuclear power plants and is expected to create 10% of China’s entire energy supply.

The Three Gorges Dam has moved 39 trillion kilograms of water 175 metres above sea level which scientists believe has altered the planet enough to change the speed at which the earth rotates.

The dam was first suggested by Sun Yat-sen, the first president of the Republic of China in 1919 and people have been working on it, researching how it would work and where exactly it would go for nearly 100 years.

London Crossrail

Crossrail is Europe’s largest infrastructure project and is set to boost London’s rail capacity by 10%. The project will deliver approximately 11.9km of twin bore tunnels.

The $23 billion development 73-mile rail project will connect London from East to West, improving access to Heathrow Airport, central London as well as city’s surrounding towns and suburbs.

Eight boring machines have been cutting their way through earth to create 26 miles (42km) of tunnels.

Construction of Crossrail began at Canary Wharf in London Docklands on 15 May 2009, with tunnelling work starting in May 2012.

The Crossrail project is about 65% complete and engineers will now continue upgrading existing stations and building new stations in central London and London Docklands.

Working in partnership with China Southwest Architectural Design and Research Institute and the China Railway Design Institute, ADPI also won the competition to design and develop Terminal 3 at Chongqing Jiangbei International Airport in 2011. Phase 1 of the project will increase the airport’s capacity to 45 million passengers per year by 2020.

Beijing International Airport Terminal 1 to be World’s Biggest

Beijing’s new international airport

January 2013 saw work approved for a new airport in Beijing. With large sweeping, non-conforming arches that span inwards with curves to the interior, there is a definite stamp of Zaha Hadid Architects with their design language.

Playing host to eight runways and with the capabilities to cater for 130 million passengers every year, Beijing’s new international airport will be among the world’s largest and busiest once complete in 2017.

One Giant Leap for Mankind

International Space station

The International Space Station (ISS) is the largest artificial body in orbit and can often be seen with the naked eye from Earth.

It may be one of the most ambitious scientific ventures ever and also the largest masterpiece of the human engineering in orbit around Earth at present. The station consists mainly of habitable and science modules, external trusses and solar panels to provide power.

The ISS provides a platform to conduct scientific research including astrobiology, astronomy, human research including space medicine and life sciences, physical sciences, materials science, space weather and weather on Earth.

What exciting projects did we miss on our list? Let us know in the comments section below.

November 2, 2015July 1, 2022

13 Basic Facts You Should Know about Modular Homes

The concept behind a tiny garden pavilion in London, UK was simplified by the following equation: shed + office = Shoffice.

Modular homes sometimes referred to as “factory-built construction“, encompass a category of housing built in sections typically at a factory location. These houses must conform to local and regional building codes for the country the buyer plans to situate the dwelling.

Just like site-built housing, construction teams build modular homes to last and increase in value over time. As the factory finishes building sections of the house, each piece is transported to the homeowners build site on large truck beds. Local building contractors then assemble the house and inspectors ensure the manufacturer has built your residence to code. Most customers find that modular housing is less expensive than site-built homes.

1. Benefits of Construction

One of the benefits of construction is that manufacturers build them indoors in an enclosed factory setting, where the materials used to build the homes are not subject to adverse weather during construction.

Most building contractors can finish erecting a house in as little as 1-2 weeks, though it may take up to 4 weeks or more for local contractors to finish building the dwelling on-site once it has been delivered.

2. Differences Between Modular and Site Built

Modular homes are not the same as site-built homes, which contractors create 100% at the build site. That means the
contractor must collect all the materials for a house and built it on-site. Like a modular home, the site-built home must conform to all regional, state and local building codes. Many refer to site-built construction as stick-built homes. Stick built housing is also well-built and designed to last a lifetime.

3. Difference Between Modular and Manufactured

Manufactured housing is another form of factory construction. Many consumers have mistakenly referred to these homes in the past as mobile homes. Others refer to manufactured homes as trailers. Manufacturers do build these houses in a factory like modular homes on a steel chassis.

The manufacturer then transports sections of the home to the building site as completed. These dwellings are usually less expensive than both modular housing and site built housing, in part because they don’t come with a permanent foundation. Trailers and mobile homes are more likely to depreciate than modular or site built homes.

4, Advantages of Modular Construction Over Site Built

Modular homes offer many advantages over traditional site built dwellings. Many consider modular homes a hybrid breed of housing. Not a manufactured house and not a site built house, these homes offer consumers multiple benefits including costs savings, quality and convenience. In many ways modular homes surpasses site built housing in quality and efficiency.

Modulars have grown up. They are more and more becoming a mainstream selection for first time and secondary homebuyers. Most people now realise they don’t’ have to give up design quality or customization to buy a prefabricated house. One of the biggest misconceptions people have of prefabricated housing is they are look alike. “Boxy” is not a word that can begin to describe prefab dwellings. In fact, more suitable descriptions of these buidlings would include: “Elegant, durable, customised and high-class”. Many people find they can afford to include more specialization and customization when they buy a factory built house over a traditional stick built construction.

5. Cutting-edge Designs

Looking for a building design with a little pizzazz? You need to check out the latest architectural designs associated with prefabricated buildings. Firms are now building more elegant and unique designs to meet the increasing demands of selective customers. People are selecting modular designs over stick built designs to build their dream homes.

6. Customised Design and Modification

There are hundreds of companies that offer modular prefabricated construction kits and plans, and most employ various architects and specialized designers to help customize your home. That means you have more choices and a wider selection of designers to choose from. If you don’t find a style you like with one designer you can often move onto another, without even switching manufacturers.

7. Huge Range of Selection

Its always best to select a home that matches your lifestyle and design preferences.

8. Rapid Customisation

These are often the ideal selection for homeowners in need of a speedily designed homes. You simply can’t build a dwelling faster. Site built housing can take months to design and build. A manufacturer can design and place a prefab house in a few short weeks. You can pick from just as many different styles as you would a site built home if not more, but don’t have to wait weeks for contractors to build your custom house.

9. Precise Budgeting and Timing

Yet another benefit of these designs is the lack of guesswork involved. You don’t have to worry about how something will look. You know that everything will arrive to the build site complete and you will know the exact outcome. You also don’t need to worry about unexpected expenses, which is commonly the case with site built homes. With a prefabricated house, you know exactly what your home will cost and can control that cost from the point of buying to final construction. This isn’t the case with stick built housing. With stick built housing you also have to worry about surprises in the middle of construction. It isn’t uncommon for example, for a contractor to quit in the middle of a project. If this happens you have few choices.

Your home will sit partially built until you are able to find a new construction team. This alone may cost you valuable time and money.

10. Improved Energy Efficiency

Many prefab houses also come with what manufacturers call the “Energy Star” certification. This is a national company that promotes energy efficiency. Buildings with this label use 30-40 percent less energy yearly than traditional stick built housing.

This saves you time and money. Some key features of prefabricated housing that help improve energy efficiency include tight installation, high performance and weather resistant windows, controlled air systems and duct systems, upgraded air-conditioning and heating units and use of efficient lighting and heating appliances. As a bonus, these features not only save on annual energy costs but also improve the quality of your indoor air. Think energy efficiency isn’t significant? Think again. Over the lifetime of your house you could save thousands of pounds in energy bills by buying a prefabricated dwelling.

11. Design Modification is Easier

Most prefab homemakers now use computer aided design systems when conducting operations. This adds to the efficiency of construction and improves the appearance and architecture of homes. Prefabricated construction ranges from plain vanilla styling to intricate and complex modern designs.

12. On Time and on Budget

Perhaps the two biggest features or benefits of prefabricated housing that manufacturers hone in on are the speed that they can be built with and the competitive pricing they can offer on the final product. This is one reason that modular homes are gaining popularity.

13. Appreciate in Value

These dwellings also appreciate much like site built housing designs. Most homeowners are interested in building value in their house over time. Prefab housing afford you the opportunity to do this (keep in mind however much appreciation is dependent on real estate location). Select a good build site and your house will gain significant value over time. Other factors may also affect appreciation including landscaping and how well the house is cared for year after year. These factors also affect site built housing. Unlike mobile homes, which depreciate, a modular homeowner can expect to gain value from their home year after year. Study after study suggests that modular homes appreciate just as well as site built homes. They are also just as easily insured and financed.

As far as risk goes, you are no more at risk buying prefabricated housing than site built construction.

Modular Home Facts

Modular homes appraise the same as their on-site built counterparts do.
Modular homes can be more easilly customised.
Most modular home companies have their own in-house engineering departments that utilize CAD (Computer Aided Design).
Modular home designs vary in style and size.
Modular homes are permanent structures – “real property.”
Modular homes are considered a form of “Green Building.”
Modular homes are faster to build than a 100% site-built home.
Home loans for modular are the same as if buying a 100% site-built home.
Insuring your modular home is the same as a 100% site-built home.
Modular homes can be built to withstand 175 mph winds.
Modular homes can be built for accessible living and designed for future conveniences.

Would you consider a modular home for yourself, or are you more of a traditionalist?

October 24, 2015July 1, 2022

9 Suggestions for Overcoming Barriers to Good Design When Using Modern Methods of Construction (Mmc)

The term ‘Modern Methods of Construction’ (MMC) embraces a range of technologies involving various forms of prefabrication and off-site assembly.

MMC is increasingly regarded as a realistic means of improving quality, reducing time spent on-site, improving on-site safety and addressing skills shortages in the construction of UK housing.

The variety of systems now available potentially allows the designer enough choice to sidestep problems deriving from constraints posed by the use of any one method. MMC systems, from closed-panel timber framed systems to bathroom pods are a palette from which designers can make choices. They are not necessarily stand-alone solutions that anticipate all the needs of an individual site and can be mixed and matched as appropriate.

These limitations are not obstacles to achieving the good design in MMC-based schemes, but may hinder the incorporation of more complex and innovative types of MMC from which greater overall benefits may be obtained which are considered under the following headings:

1. COST UNCERTAINTY

There is no doubt that, given products of comparable performance the key issue in purchases of MMC construction systems is the price. At present not enough is known about the potential costs of using volumetric and closed panel systems to enable confident specification at an early date. This inhibits designers from exploring the full potential of MMC systems. This is particularly true of the less repetitive, small, one-off scheme, where a smaller margin of benefits is gained from using MMC. The principal barrier to the uptake of MMC, therefore, seems to be the perception of cost uncertainty with respect to using more complex systems. Without doing substantial project-specific research, consultants and their clients simply do not know with enough degree of certainty how much the volumetric or closed panel systems are likely to cost, and what would be the savings to overall project costs produced by potential speed gains to offset against increased capital expenditure.

This is due to the complexity of assessing the ratio of cost of repetitive elements where pricing is relatively straightforward to the cost of adjusting elements or building in another method for the abnormal condition. Decisions to use innovative systems are likely to be made once designs are well progressed to enable teams to be more certain of costs. This can increase the potential for change or result in design compromise as the designer attempts to incorporate the specific limitations of a particular system in their design.

In an attempt to improve this situation, the MMC consultant and or clients could pull together a directory of MMC expanded to include cost comparison data. The huge range of variables involved inevitably makes this difficult, but a database of current construction cost information would be an invaluable resource.

2. PLANNING PROCESS AND EARLY COMMITMENT TO A SYSTEM

The time it can take to obtain planning permission has obvious implications both for project cost but also, in some circumstances, for architectural design innovation.

Most of the more complex types of MMC have an impact on dimensioning, the choice of external finish and detailing may have some effect on the buildings mass. Therefore, the construction system should be chosen prior to a planning application to avoid abortive work, redesign or amendment, or even resubmission for planning permission.

However, developers whose money is at risk, frequently hold off deciding on the construction technique until the last practicable moment, in order to get any advantage from fluctuations in material or component pricing.

Given the potential for lengthy duration of planning applications, this means that there is little incentive to prepare initial designs for planning with a prior decision to incorporate MMC firmly embedded. In cases where the developer has a financial or business link with the supplier, this is less likely to be the case. As the majority of commercial or residential developments involve some kind of arrangement with a developer, agreement on construction systems is often left to the stage after planning.

3. TIME INVESTMENT

Another very significant factor is the time investment required at the early stages of projects. This is needed to develop the design when the project is still at risk. There is a direct relationship between the scale and complexity of MMC component and the amount of time required to develop a design at an early stage.

The introduction of advanced or complex MMC techniques into the design process is potentially costly to the design team. A significant amount of research is needed to explore alternative systems, to obtain verification of suppliers’ credentials, investigate mortgage and insurance issues, visit previous sites, talk to system suppliers, obtain technical performance guidelines, understand junctions and interfaces, coordinate other consultants, obtain building control input and so on.

For a consultant, the only way of investing in this research is either through timely payment of increased fees by a visionary understanding client or through the anticipation of increased future productivity through repetition when a project is phased, or large enough, or likely to be followed by another similar project.

The potential of learning a system and then being able to repeat lessons learned efficiently is a powerful incentive for both client and consultant. By contrast, HTA’ s project at Basingstoke is an example of a phased project with a three to four-year duration allowed the design team to repeat various elements of the design, and the manufacturer to develop improved solutions to technical and supply problems.

4. INSUFFICIENT COMMUNICATION

Improved dialogue at the outset of the project is vital if design quality is to be maximised. Constraints and opportunities implicit within a particular system are more easily incorporated into design if partners communicate pre-planning. Increased early communication can be fostered through improved long-term partnering relationships.

Clients should also partner with a range of suppliers and architects so that choice and flexibility is not restricted.

5. INEXPERIENCE

Generally, the inexperienced client or design team will have to do more research, with the result that there is likely to be significant design development without a specific system being incorporated.

This is a disincentive to using a more complex system involving a higher proportion of MMC, where early decision making and knowledge of a system’ s capabilities have a decisive influence on the nature of the architecture. However, encouraging the take up of MMC through the use of a dedicated funding mechanism may assist clients in finding time for research into suitable MMC techniques.

6. SUPPLIER’S ROLE

Site capacity studies and early stage pre-planning design studies could be undertaken directly by system suppliers on behalf of clients, cutting out the usual procedure of commissioning design work by independent consultants.

7. ASSUMPTIONS

There are a number of assumptions that are generally held about certain types of MMC that may have been valid at one time but are no longer true today. There is a need for reliable and up to date information comparing system criteria, performance data, timescales, lead in times, capacity, construction time, sequencing issues, limitations, and benefits.

Therefore it would be helpful if a forum for discussion and experience exchange was set up.

8. DEMONSTRATING THE BENEFITS OF MMC

There is still a large amount of skepticism about the need to go very far down the line with MMC. This is reflected in the acceptance of the desirability of maintaining or indeed enhancing the pool of traditional craft skills throughout the UK.

A balanced view is that there is a demonstrable need for the wider use of MMC which is recognized by both industry and government. The best way for clients and the public generally to become more confident and knowledgeable about the quality of design achievable through MMC is to see it demonstrated.

9. FINANCIAL INCENTIVES

There is no doubt that spreading the burden of investment through the life of a project helps to ensure a higher standard of specification and hence quality. In the Netherlands, a ‘ Green Financing’ system has been developed by the Dutch government that provides favorable loan finance when certain sustainable standards are reached. In the UK, the Gallions HA has pioneered a study of this, based on a scheme in Thamesmead, ‘ the Ecopark project’.

Eco Park is an eco-friendly business park built on the False Bay coast. This business park is at the cutting-edge of sustainable design and offers a unique working environment in a secure, well-managed facility.

September 25, 2015July 1, 2022

Why Do Projects Fail?

September 20, 2015July 1, 2022

Prefab Comeback

Prefab housing suffers from bad stigma due to the fact that some people saw the prefabs as ugly and characterless, and were afraid they would become slums – hardly the promised housing fit for heroes following the second World War. However, building homes from pre-made parts can save time and money. The term prefab or prefabrication often evokes thoughts of poor construction, substandard living conditions and a long-standing “temporary” solution.

Prefab dwellings are making a comeback driven by a lack of affordable housing, a rapidly growing economy and changing demographic trends.

Methods Methods of Construction (Mmc) Offer Significant Potential to Minimise Construction Costs

The term ‘Modern Methods of Construction‘ refers to a collection of relatively new building construction techniques that aim to offer more advantages over traditional construction methods. Off-site construction (OSC) is a modern method of construction, based on off-site manufacturing of building elements.

With exponentially lower construction costs, quicker construction, reduced labor costs and having the ability to achieve zero defects, MMC is gaining a lot of attention as the potential answer to the UK’s housing crisis.

In a valiant attempt to strip away prefabricated housings’ bad rep are MMC with contemporary sleek designs, and constructed to withstand the test of time. MMC housing has the capability to deliver both quality and quantity housing to the tune of ‘ £50,000 per unit.

MMC units hold the promise of being extremely energy efficient and environmentally sustainable. Many versions of MMC take into account how to utilise natural resources and reduce each unit’s carbon footprint. In addition, MMC also addresses environmental concerns by creating much less waste than a standard brick-and-mortar project. While it is plausible that a traditional build could hire a waste removal company who would have the ability to recycle up to 90 percent of the construction waste; with MMC projects, this will automatically happen.

There have already been a number of successful examples of MMC housing constructed in various parts of the United Kingdom. The M-house (pronounced “mouse”) is designed and constructed to last an upwards of 100 years. While Architect Alford Hall have created quality MMC apartment buildings proudly showcasing a patio and private entrance for each flat.

While many of the MMC homes are still in their early years the upkeep and maintenance will be reduced by 50% since the OSC process lowers the risk of non-conformities.

MMC homes are being fabricated and designed to accommodate many different lifestyles, such as, two-story homes, tall six-story apartment buildings, single-family homes and log cabins are all available options for families looking at MMC.

While there is a plethora of design options available all MMC OSC projects have a common theme. The internal workings of the homes are fabricated off-site, while only the “outer skin” comes to fruition on-site. To even further streamline the process, it has been suggested that having a “catalog of pre-selected materials increases supplier relationships and makes the design process more streamlined.”

With the small sample available with progressive MMC systems, it is currently reasonable to conclude that using modern methods of construction to build homes can cost more than traditional home building procedures; due to the need for specialised MMC design consultants. However, outside of costs, MMC remains a faster home building method than traditional brick and block house building and is slowly becoming a relevant front-runner to answer the UK’s housing shortage.

August 27, 2015April 5, 2024

MoVoCoSy – Modular Volumetric Construction System

System Design: Arup Building Architects: make

January 11, 2002July 1, 2022

The Ideal Home Exhibition: Live-in Quarters

The Ideal Home exhibition has not always been the first place to look for cutting edge housing design in recent years. But in 2002 two ground-breaking apartments were demonstrated – the Live-in Quarters concept house and the Space over keyworkers prototype. Over 10,000 visitors to the exhibition registered their interest in gaining further information when construction started, thus proving the enormous demand for high-quality accommodation of this kind.

Live-in Quarters (LQ) is both developer and manufacturer waiting to supply the London market. It has produced a family of concept houses for low-cost accommodation designed to suit single people and key workers. It has been set up specifically to deal with the problems of London and anticipates high rise schemes of six to 12 stories built in a galvanized lightweight steel frame. LQ propose to have their own factory located in East London. LQ customers are seen as those who wish to get on to the first rung on the property ladder, frequently key workers and single people earning less than £30,000 a year. They took a brief from Keep London Working, the result of which was the 26m2 flat exhibited at the Ideal Home Exhibition which provided total privacy and security with individual showers, WC, and kitchens. They also exhibited a two-story unit where the first floor contained an executive 33m2 studio. In addition to the normal options for mortgage purchase, shared equity and rent, they are planning to offer a new form of tenure called equity rent. In simple form, this enables residents to convert their rent into a percentage of the equity depending on the period of time they stay in the property without any risk of negative equity.

Architect: The Design Buro, Levitt Bernstein