Prefab: Green or Greewashing?
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 04.17.07
Over at Inhabitat, Bob Ellenberg, an experienced builder and contributor, asks the question. He expresses "frustration with all of the prefab housing companies jumping on the eco bandwagon and claiming their products are green simply because they are prefabricated" and "some of the claims I see being made relative to overall sustainability of prefab houses are overstated and might even be considered “Green-Washing.” At Green Options, Philip picks up the story and asks "How "green" is prefab building, and should it be embraced by those who want a greener building?" Preston of Jetson Green responds with "The other thing we can't forget about prefabs is that they look great. There's a segment of the population that likes the modern look and wants them to be green in a big way." Here is my contribution to the debate:
99.99% of prefab buildings look like crap, are wall to wall vinyl, use unsustainable materials and leak energy like sieves. From Fort MacMurray to New Orleans, prefabs provide substandard housing for millions who deserve better.
Prefab means factory built housing, which can be anything from RV's to FEMA trailers to mobile homes to Living Homes. It is a method of building. A tool that can work with bloodstained teak or lovingly harvested FSC timber, with designs stolen from a 1980 plan book or created by a Ray Kappe. Like any building, prefab is as green as its builders want it to be.
I was drawn to prefab not because of green, but because of design. The conventional architect model of business does not work for housing; only the ultra rich can afford great architects, the very rich can afford one of the many hack architects, and everyone else just gets whatever crap the developers want to put on the table. Unlike industrial design, houses don't get prototyped; every one is a one-off, and many just don't work very well. As Frank Lloyd Wright said, "Doctors are lucky, they get to bury their mistakes. Architects can only plant vines" Prefab is a way to distribute the work of a talented architect over a larger number of units and give them an opportunity to get it right.
With prefab, designs are repeated, and they get better with practice. Every single glidehouse that Michelle Kaufmann builds is a little more refined, and a little better than the previous. Just like in any other product, one strives each time to waste a little less and squeeze out inefficiencies and cost. Since Michelle believes in good green design, each house is a little tighter, healthier and greener, but most importantly it is available to customers who could not otherwise afford a house built with sustainable materials designed by a talented architect. (Michelle also provides an interesting comparison of the first glidehouse to her own identical site built house here)
Prefab holds the promise of delivering a greener home in less time and perhaps even less money, but it is only as green as the designer and the builder. Michelle Kaufmann, Jennifer Siegel, Leo Marmol, Steve Glenn and Andy Thomson know where their materials come from, how far they have travelled, to what tolerances they are installed. You can call any of them up and buy their green and elegant designs now at a quoted price. Try that with conventional construction.
I addressed the waste and fuel issues in my response at Inhabitat and will repeat them below for convenience:
I work with a prefab manufacturer as my day job and would like to respond to the points raised here.
MATERIAL WASTE
Studies in the Canadian construction industry have shown that as much as 30% of materials are wasted through theft, water damage, or offcuts being tossed in the dumpster. In a prefab factory, nothing is stolen, nothing is thrown out, even the sawdust is used for heating. An onsite builder orders materials with a little bit of surplus to cover waste and may not have another job to take it to; in a factory it goes back onto the rack.
OVERENGINEERING
absolutely true, probably 10% more material than in conventional houses. However we are still 20% ahead of the game and it is actually going into the house and making it stronger. I know of cases where a lot is getting redeveloped and the house is taken apart and sold to someone else and is still strong enough to be picked up and recycled on another lot. That is worth something.
CARBON COST OF SHIPPING
Again, true, we have big trucks and escorts and cranes travelling hundreds of miles. For one day, after building the house in the plant in ten days. Most of the workers in the plant live within 20 minutes of the factory. On a conventional jobsite you have workers driving long distances (for country properties I have known carpenters to drive an hour and a half each way) for ten times as long, usually in big honking Ford F150’s. Then they run out of nails and have to run an hour into town. We did a study for a grant application and compared the carbon footprint of a conventional house to a prefab and came up that prefab used one quarter the fuel, primarily because of speed in the plant, reduced man-hours and employees who drove regular cars a short distance to a full day’s work rather than living out of pickups for months.
I agree that there is an element of greenwashing going on, most prefabs are still built of vinyl and formaldehyde and sitting in unsustainable locations dependent on car transport. They are also mostly still trying to mimic the ugliest of conventional construction. But however you look at it, building a house while you are standing in the rain or snow using handheld equipment is going to be slower and less efficient than building in a factory with sophisticated tools.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Enter Inhabitat's Pimp My Eco-Ride Contest, Score a Shiny, New Strida
- Surf Green with Eco-Friendly Surf Gear
- The Green Message Behind Michael Jackson's Death
- Create a Go Green Plan: Follow Wa$ted!'s Salon Example
- Meet Green Business Consultant Tyler Moorehead, of GreenUnlimited
- Recycled Plastic Workout Gear is Great for Fitness, Great for Planet
Great Post. I'm as architect as well, and I love green design, but there are so many factors to consider before you label something green. It can be confusing and frustrating sometimes.
You're right. I think this topic has focused the discussion to the finer point that prefab, in and of itself, is not green. Just being a prefab doesn't give you green cred.
Another thing, I should qualify my comments reproduced above. In my mind, the word "prefab" refers to the modern variety being produced by the greats mentioned in your article: Jennifer Siegal, Ray Kappe + Steve Glenn, Leo Marmol, Michelle Kaufmann, etc. So when I say prefabs look great, I'm referring to their stuff, not to the manufactured home, the mobile home, or the pre-fabricated metal buildings, etc. If you include all of this in the word prefab, which most people probably do, there's a lot of ugly prefab buildings out there. And not too many of them are green either.
Hmmm, so they use 20% less materials. Then why are NICE prefab homes more expensive than conventional?
Why does green stuff have to be such a ripoff?
Green is not a ripoff, its just that our houses have become like our food- make it as cheap as you can, price is what matters. A nice prefab home is built with nice materials, which all cost more than vinyl.
editor,
please indicate when you add your own commentary to my post. thanks.
and i meant that prefab homes are more or equally expensive than/as custom homes of THE SAME QUALITY.
the problem with green products is that they are priced beyond what makes economic sense to average consumers. truly green organizations should be more interested in saving the world than maintaining an industry-normal IRR.
Why do we see so few prefabs designed for dense city environments? I'm tired of seeing time and time again the same rectangular prefab design. These always seem designed for placement in wide open countryside with their large sliding glass doors ("indoor/outdoor living") and decking. Who can honestly say this represents a design challenge for an architect?
Most of us don't have the luxury of living in spacious open countryside. Where are the prefabs that address the problems of city living? You know, the fact that your home might not be south-facing with golden shafts of light conveniently falling into your living room. That it might be in a noisy environment near roads; that the view outside your window is possibly another neighbours house across the street, not green rolling hills.
Can you build prefabs that are green and comfortable and well-designed and afford some privacy and quiet in dense urban environments? It is quite a challenge when you think about it. Maybe that's why so many architects opt for the easy (but unrealistic) "open countryside" design instead.
In reply to Firoz - Michelle Kaufmann's latest design is great, and designed solely for city lots.
http://www.mkd-arc.com/homedesigns/mksolaire/index.cfm
I am surprised but pleased by the amount of discussion my article on Inhabitat generated. It has resulted in many branches of discussion and a lot of good points have been brought up. I don’t delve into personal taste in design as I’ve always found most traditional styles of architecture as well as modern contemporary appealing and the principles of green building apply across the board. I would hope to see green being promoted regardless of style or price range.
Lloyd also touches on some aspects of the cost/price issue and it is very relevant to the green building issue. Though some green building aspects are simply good practices that don’t add to the cost, better design and better built homes almost always cost more and we live in a capitalistic society in which price is usually king (I think he compared it to our food in a comment he added to). As building cost have increased rapidly in the past few years it will be even more so as we move forward. We can blame developers and builders for what we don’t like about most of the current offerings but the reality is that their offerings are market driven and if it didn’t sell we’d see something different. I don’t make this statement as an acceptance of the status quo but simply a reality check that says ongoing change will not come easy and that all of us who are interested in greener building have a long road ahead of us and a lot more work before we see some of the significant changes we would like. I think the tide has turned and we have the momentum but it will take all of us whether architects, builders or consumers to do what we can to educate all those we come in contact with of better and greener practices in home design and building so that the market place demands it. However, the bottom line is the more money you can spend—the greener you can make it. The homes at the lowest price points will probably be the last to adopt the measures that cost more but it will come eventually.
I’d also like to respond to a couple of the comments.
The current architects mentioned have done some great designs and we are all aware of them because of the publicity they have received. But I have also seen a lot of great work from architects that are not well known and there are some of them very involved with prefab manufacturers making efforts to bring modern green design to the market place.
I assume Frioz’s reference to prefabs for the city is multifamily since the reference is to “dense city environments”. These are huge financial under takings and will only be done when the investors believe there is sufficient demand for what they can build at a particular price. As for your statement, “Maybe that's why so many architects opt for the easy (but unrealistic) "open countryside" design instead.”, architects may love their work but they do it as a profession. Let my suggest that most of them would be happy to design what you would like to see if you will hire them to do so.