Every government is keen to assert itself and be seen as making changes for the good of the country. However, change for change’s sake when it comes to building has often led to disaster. Think back to the high rise developments of the 1960s and the housing estates of the 1970s that were deemed innovative and ground breaking but which left their residents miserable in sub standard accommodation and anti-social communities.
John Prescott’s call for innovation in building techniques and perception that can only mean ‘new’ methods of building – in this case prefabrication - is misguided, anti-competitive and ignores the centuries of successful building that have gone before.
Effective Use of Public Money? The streamrolling of lightweight prefabricated building methods into the public sector – when a cheaper and proven alternative already exists – seems doomed to failure.
Masonry construction has been found to be 10% cheaper than prefabricated methods by Kate Barker, takes the same amount of time to build and is longer lasting than prefabricated methods, which at present can only claim a lifespan of 50 years. This being so, the THB challenges the Government’s current policy, particularly when it comes to the prudent spending of public money.
Consumer Preference With consumer preference being for homes constructed in brick and block – 90% according to MORI - because of its durability, solidity, thermal efficiency and adaptability, is it fair to house lower income families in homes that provide alternative standards?
Every government is keen to assert itself and be seen as making changes for the good of the country. However, change for change’s sake when it comes to building has often led to disaster. Think back to the high rise developments of the 1960s and the housing estates of the 1970s that were deemed innovative and ground breaking but which left their residents miserable in sub standard accommodation and anti-social communities.
With consumer preference being for homes constructed in brick and block – 90% according to MORI - because of its durability, solidity, thermal efficiency and adaptability, is it fair to house lower income families in homes that provide alternative standards?