Three Little Pigs: Modern Methods of Construction versus Traditional Building - Coursework Example

Academia - Research January Three Little Pigs: MMC versus Traditional Building It is no secret that starter homes are the realm of economical building. This means that, out of necessity, the majority of first home owners need to look for the cheapest housing possible to fit into a low budget. Building societies, companies and metropolitan planners know this and cater to that fact. Group dwellings in new estates are where those seeking to become first home owners go: it is sensible, as long as they trust they will get a quality house for the money they pay. One of the most serious financial commitments of a lifetime is accompanied by mortgage payments for nearly a lifetime. For most families this means they do not want to see their house deteriorate faster than their home loan balance shrinks. Quality housing for small budgets has to be considered profitably, but ethically, by builders, no matter how fundamental their clients’ needs might be, (Emmitt and Gorse, 2005) and there are a number of options. Here, the advantages and disadvantages of traditional building methods will be weighed against those of Modern Methods of Construction (MMC). Many are those who believe in the benefits brought about by MMC (English Partnerships, 2008). There are also those who firmly believe in the positive aspects of traditional methods. (National Heritage Training Group, 2007) When the project at hand is the construction of a group of two-storey, three-bedroomed dwellings on one site, a number of aspects must be kept in mind. From the basic demands of the site in question, that is, orientation, gradient, soil and surface type and location (coastal, inland, etc) to the fundamental functional requirements of safety, functionality, durability and comfort. The overarching aim is to achieve all aspects in the most economical, harmless and well-timed fashion using the most appropriate materials available (Emmit and Gorse, ibid). There is also the consideration of methodology. In order to protect the traditional aspect of English architecture, it is thought wise to follow designs known to be visually pleasing, popular, and that blend in with existing buildings in the area. Historical context is important. On the other hand, to avoid blandness and sameness, innovation in design is vital for keeping the visual architecture alive and interesting. Change is necessary, and it is also unavoidable. Design must also conform with the use families make of their houses and how design plays a part in their function. MMC makes sure modern activities, environmental considerations, and changing use of space is catered for. Adaptability and form follow function. Traditional design and methods, however, ensure that basic rules of construction that have been tried and tested along the centuries are not ignored. Function dictates sense in design. (National Audit Office, 2005) Understanding these factors is important during the design phase of planning. Due consideration must be given to other dwellings in the area: a certain amount of conformity is essential. Few people like to think they live in something ultra-modern that sticks out amongst existing traditional habitations. By the same token, a totally traditional new-build might seem a bit hackneyed and chronologically incorrect, giving prospective purchasers a similar feeling of discomfort. The planning phase must allow for a certain amount of uniformity among the new dwellings to be built, not only in aspect, size and characteristics, but in materials used, methods of construction and ultimate quality and resilience. Resilience in a traditional sense means using quality materials that last without corruption. In a modern sense, it means standing the test of time and not becoming too dated in style. Having said that, it is also possible to build a time-honoured style using modern materials and methods, and building a modern style using traditional methods and standard materials (English Partnerships 2008). The different parts that make up a two-storey, three-bedroomed house cannot depart too much from the generally understood components of a house: foundations, frame, walls, roof and apertures. These must fulfil the functions of shelter, safety and privacy and provide facilities for cooking, sleeping and washing while ensuring flow of air, maintenance of temperature and avoidance of build-up of smells, noise and other annoying things. (Emmit and Gorse, ibid). So in both traditional and modern outlooks, the sum total of a house is always greater than its individual parts. These parts have traditionally been constructed and assembled on-site, with materials carted there and used piecemeal, according to architects’ and planners’ prints. This method has its benefits, since alterations and adjustments can occur by varying quantities and measurements if found necessary (National Heritage Training Group 2007). Modern Methods of Construction, on the other hand, allow for a large proportion of the building to be designed and constructed off-site according to plans and prints. This can happen in different locations according to the different sections being used. Sections and methods can vary widely, according to different existing methods available. These are: - Volumetric construction - Panellised systems - Hybrid construction - Sub-assemblies and components - Site-based methods of construction (Ross, 2005) Volumetric modules are three-dimensional units such as rooms and roof-spaces that are built in a factory, transported to the house site and assembled with other parts there. Individual flat panels can also be used. These can variably be made of concrete, timber, steel, or composite materials. SIPs are Structural Insulated Panels: a sandwich construction of sheet material bonded to a foam insulation core. These have become very popular for pre-fabricated housing, since they are extremely time-efficient and light - if a bit awkward to handle - and can save time and money. Their efficiency in use, that is, their ability to insulate houses, has been scientifically calculated and proved to be well within community-decided levels. (Ross 2005) Compared with the time and money considerations attached to traditional building, using volumetric module and flat panel construction is superior, but there are obvious design restrictions. Architects must come up with ways to achieve a pleasing external appearance while accommodating all the facilities and space demands of current expectations (Emmit & Gorse 2005). And they must do this using large components that give a limited amount of flexibility, no matter how creative or ingenious they are. Although concrete and glass-fibre moulding has reach technical standards that allow for some novel shapes, the flexibility for pleasing forms that results in traditional features and apertures is unlikely to be reached. Traditional building methods, on the other hand, only allow the possibility for recent technological demands to be incorporated with some difficulty. Architects have to define and design new methods to allow for ‘clever’ wiring, insulation, heating, cooling and to combine the demand for certain room combinations by modern families. The two diverse methods have not always been this different. There has been a long period during which building methods have evolved, with newer methods infiltrating the system and being incorporated all the time. Advantages of new ways have been seen to work both economically and in working efficiency. Older more cumbersome methods have been gradually displaced. (Ross 2005) But there is nothing more heart-warming for English buyers than the sense of ‘home’ they get from design aspects such as gabled roofs, dormer windows, Scotia-bordered frames, entrance canopies and wainscoting, not to mention double-hung windows and buttresses. These can only be incorporated into new-builds at great expense and with the traditional aspects designed and appended at some stage of the process. The concept of first-home owners moving into their first two-up, two-down cottage on some anonymous housing estate is fast being supplanted by neat smaller developments on private or community-based pockets. Design and ergonomic - as well as social - considerations are studied in depth before any such development can start. On one hand, this approach is to be commended for its foresight and ability to plan for the needs of the future modern family. On the other hand, much is lost in the way of organic evolution such as has been experienced in houses and even estates and whole villages that we have inherited from communities of the past (Emmit and Gorse 2005). Skills and heritage trades are being lost, and only the intervention of societies such as the National Heritage Training Group, the Building Skills Academy and others, who have formed initiatives to maintain - and even rescue - long-held traditions of masonry, sculpture, carpentry, brick laying, plastering and tiling using old-fashioned methods. Paradoxically, a section of the market is being instrumental in the saving of these skills by demanding houses built in old ways: but it is certainly not the first-home owner market (Building Skills Academy, 2010). MMC is definitely here to stay because it has been found to offer advantages. These include, but are not limited to, using lighter and more durable materials, using moulding and pouring to replace time-consuming bricklaying, erecting and joining using mechanised methods, which can save time and on-site injuries (Workplace Health and Safety is an issue), and mass-production of components that can be warehoused and used on demand. Traditional methods offer no such options, but the advantages of value placed in traditionally-constructed homes cannot be underestimated. Real estate values are not only based on habitability and purpose. There are aspects (even though emotional or psychological) that add to the value of existing buildings on the market (Ross, 2005). When a house comes up for sale, the many aspects of its value come into play. These include of course the method of construction. If the purchasers need the emotional ingredients of tradition and all it implies, a house built in the old-fashioned way using old-fashioned materials will win out on one that was built the MMC way using prefabricated units, no matter how more efficient, warmer, cooler or spacious it seems. The ‘green’ option, however, does come into play. There is great doubt whether any traditionally built house complies with modern latter-day environmental considerations. It is not only the materials used and how they were sourced that come into discussion, although these play a large role (for example the firing of bricks which contributes to CO2 emissions). MMC is designed and structured to take in - from the earliest stages of design and sourcing - all facets of environmental concerns and legislation. Buildings ‘as a whole’ and the different portions and materials they are made of are all examined for validity, and only used if they conform to norms set in place by various county, shire, region or national building by-laws (National Audit Office 2005). EU regulations also apply. Any three-bedroomed, two-storey habitation being built now must necessarily fall within a number of considerations. If two of these houses were to be built faithfully in tandem, one using all-traditional methods and materials, and the other all MMC-scoped materials and systems, it would be very hard to judge by a prospective purchaser as to which one could be described as the most appropriate home for them in the second decade of the 2000s. One would of necessity be much more expensive, but perhaps endure longer. One would respond and provide for modern living much better, and perhaps be more comfortable, but would suffer the pressures (in fashion and durability) of time sooner. Sources Cited Building Skills Academy Spirited Teaching for the Building Industry 2010 < http://www.buildingskillsacademy.co.uk/> Accessed 05/01/2010 Emmit, Stephen & Gorse Christopher,2005, Barrys introduction to construction of buildings, Blackwell English Partnerships Modern Methods of Construction 2008 Accessed 30/12/2009 National Heritage Training Group Traditional British Craft Skills 2007 Accessed 30/12/2009 National Audit Office Helping the Nation Spend Wisely: Using Modern Methods of Construction to Build Homes More Quickly and Efficiently 2005 Accessed 30/12/2009 Ross, Keith, 2005, Modern Methods of House Construction: A Surveyors Guide IHS BRE Read More