Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A lot of the comments seem to conflate three or four different things:

* built on-site vs. fabricated in (usually) a big woodworking shop

* built according to an off-the-rack architectural design vs. built to the architect and clients' desires

* finished with standard materials (on site) vs. finished with custom floors, kitchen cabinets, paints, triple glazing, whatever (on site)

* completely built (modular) units that are just moved into place -- rare, but it exists, e.g. container homes

For residential construction, as far as I can tell there aren't really any cost savings associated with remote fabrication, but the house might be up faster, quality control is a bit better and foul weather is less likely to mess with the schedule. However, it's completely custom, with no limitations whatsoever. The shell itself might be prefab, but it will be finished on-site with a brick facade or render or wood boards or, heck, quarried stone if you like.

Using a standard design as well as the builder's default choice for your tiles, cabinets, toilets, what have you, will save money because these "start to finish" builders (or sometimes general contractors) buy in bulk and pass on some of the savings, but the more you want to customize, the less you save.

The article talks about a very specific kind of prefab that is highly standardized but where nevertheless even the floor plans can be customized, albeit limited to certain standardized sizes and a small set of options, sort of like how you buy a car.



Most custom houses have standard sizes as well. If you want a 8.5 foot wall it will cost more than the standard 8 or 9 foot walls.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: