UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

______, 20 _____

I,______, hereby submit this as part of the requirements for the degree of:

______in: ______It is entitled: ______

Approved by: ______Prefabricating Home

A Compelling Case for Quality in Manufactured Housing

A thesis submitted to the Division of Research

and Advanced Studies of the University of

Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Architecture

A presentation of research conducted in the

School of Architecture and Interior Design of

the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and

Planning.

May, 2003 by

Matthew A. Spangler

Bachelor of Science in Architecture,

University of Cincinnati, 2001

Committee: Barry Stedman, Ph.D., Chair

Michael McInturf, AIA

David Edelman, Ph.D. Abstract

Statement of Purpose

The mobile home evolved as a low-cost alternative to site-built housing from the fusion of prefabricated housing systems and travel trailers. Low-income families adopted it as a viable form of affordable home ownership, and for several decades manufactured housing remained dedicated to this market.

Twenty years ago the design began to turn toward the middle classes, styling itself after the ideal suburban home—in spatial configuration, materiality, and price. Manufactured housing strayed from the benefits of prefabrication and became a factory-built image of the suburban community, leaving an entire socioeconomic class without suitable housing alternatives.

Design through modular prefabrication offers the potential for a low-cost housing system that can flex to the specific needs of nearly any user or site condition. Only by rediscovering the aesthetic, spatial, and economic benefits of systems design and modular construction will manufactured housing offer an alternative for those who can afford little else. Copyright Limitations of Use

This thesis is © Copyright Matthew Alan Spangler 2003, Some Rights Reserved. This scholarly work is submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Master of Architecture. All works cited copyright their respective owners, all rights reserved.

This work may be retransmitted with attribution for personal use, non-commercial use, per the Creative Commons License, which may be found online at: http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/1.0/

The license reads, in part:

Attribution: The licensor permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. In return, licensees must give the original author credit.

Noncommercial: The licensor permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. In return, licensees may not use the work for commercial purposes -- unless they get the licensor’s permission.

Share Alike: The licensor permits others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the one that governs the licensor’s work.

Acknowledgements

For my wife, Amanda, and my family, who have sacrificed selflessly for my academic pursuits. My thanks as well for the guidance provided throughout this project by the members of my thesis committee. This investigation is dedicated to the lifelong residents of mobile homes who find their world of opportunities quickly shrinking around them. Contents

Contents 1

Referenced Images 3

Introduction Overview 7

Thesis Propositions Project Foundations 8 Manufactured Housing 9 The People 11

History Origins of Manufactured Housing 16 Prefabrication Emerges 16 The Rise of Mobility 20 Convergence 22 Moving Beyond 25

Precedent Introduction to Precedents 28 Modular Housing Precedents Corbusier – Pessac 30 Safdie – Habitat ’67 32 KFN Systems – SU-SI and FRED 34 Manufactured Housing 36

Theory Typology and Manufactured Housing Typology in Culture 38 Typology and Home 40 Infiltration of Image 41 Restoring Integrity 43 Systems of Modularity and Production Production Principles 45 Modularity in Production 46 Joints in the System 51 Ground Rules for Production 51 Economics of Modularity 53 Conclusions 54

Conceptual System Analysis Introduction to System Models 56 Conceptual System Models Factory-Direct Module 57 DOM-INO Module 58 Unitized Component Module 59 Kit of Parts 60

Project Program Element Inventory 61 The Entry / Gathering Space 61 The Family Room 63 The Kitchen 64

1 The Bedroom 66 The Bathroom 67 The Storage Space 69 The Utility Space 70 The Circulation Space 71 Site The Trailer Park 73 Selection and Analysis 75

Design Enclosure System Design Schematics 84 Structural Insulated Panels 86 System Design 87

Conclusions Reflections 94

Annotated List of Works Consulted 95

2 Referenced Images

Following are the image credits for the illustrations utilized in this document. Photographer and publication source are listed where appropriate and available. Abbreviated citations appear in full in section “Annotated List of Works Consulted” at the end of the document.

Introduction

Figure 1. Carol Burch-Brown. From Burch-Brown and Rigsbee, Trailers, 92. Figure 2. From Herbert, The Dream of the Factory-Made House, 322. Figure 3. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 99. Figure 4. Carol Burch-Brown. From Burch-Brown and Rigsbee, Trailers, title page. Figure 5. Photograph by author. Figure 6. Carol Burch-Brown. From Burch-Brown and Rigsbee, Trailers, 0. Figure 7. From Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 24. Figure 8. Photograph by author. Figure 9. Photograph by author. Figure 10. Photograph by author. Figure 11. Carol Burch-Brown. From Burch-Brown and Rigsbee, Trailers, 40. Figure 12. Carol Burch-Brown. From Burch-Brown and Rigsbee, Trailers, 21. Figure 13. Photograph by author. Figure 14. Photograph by author. Figure 15. Carol Burch-Brown. From Burch-Brown and Rigsbee, Trailers, 77. Figure 16. Carol Burch-Brown. From Burch-Brown and Rigsbee, Trailers, 43. Figure 17. Carol Burch-Brown. From Burch-Brown and Rigsbee, Trailers, 22. Figure 18. Photograph by author.

History

Figure 1. From Transportable Environments. ed. Robert Kronenburg. New York: Routledge, 1998. Image from page 178. Figure 2. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 14. Figure 3. From Kronenburg, Houses in Motion, 45. Figure 4. From Transportable Environments. ed. Robert Kronenburg. New York: Routledge, 1998. Image from page 58. Figure 5. From Sergeant, John. Frank Lloyd Wright’s Usonian Houses. New York: Watson Guptill Publications, 1984. Image from page 17. Figure 6. From Sergeant, John. Frank Lloyd Wright’s Usonian Houses. New York: Watson Guptill Publications, 1984. Image from page 18. Figure 7. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 20. Figure 8. From Glancey, 20th Century Architecture, 184. Figure 9. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 26. Figure 10. From Glancey, 20th Century Architecture, 225. Figure 11. From Kronenburg, Houses in Motion, 18. Figure 12. From Kronenburg, Houses in Motion, 80. Figure 13. From Kronenburg, Houses in Motion, 81. Figure 14. From Burkhart and Hunt, Airstream: The History of the Land Yacht, 75. Figure 15. From Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 65. Figure 16. From Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 110. Figure 17. From Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 132. Figure 18. From Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 137.

3 Figure 19. From Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 146. Figure 20. From Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 147. Figure 21. From Siegal, Mobile: The Art of Portable Architecture, 111. Figure 22. From Siegal, Mobile: The Art of Portable Architecture, 113. Figure 23. From Siegal, Mobile: The Art of Portable Architecture, 101. Figure 24. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 56. Figure 25. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 90.

Precedent

Figure 1. From McKean, Crystal Palace: Joseph Paxton and Charles Fox, 10. Figure 2. From McKean, Crystal Palace: Joseph Paxton and Charles Fox, 11. Figure 3. From McKean, Crystal Palace: Joseph Paxton and Charles Fox, 50. Figure 4. From Ferrand, Feugas, and Veyret, Le Corbusier: Les Quartiers Modernes Fruges, 14. Figure 5. From www.serial-design.com/designers/quartiers.htm, Serial-Design.com, 2001, image lc96. Figure 6. From www.arch.columbia.edu/DDL/cad/A4535/S01cad/class_notes/images/domino.jpg, Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture Planning, and Preservation, image domino. Figure 7. From Ferrand, Feugas, and Veyret, Le Corbusier: Les Quartiers Modernes Fruges, 13. Figure 8. From Ferrand, Feugas, and Veyret, Le Corbusier: Les Quartiers Modernes Fruges, 43. Figure 9. From www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/20house.html, Boston College Digital Archive of American Architecture, Jeffery Howe, 1998, image habitat1a_t. Figure 10. From Kohn, Moshe Safdie, 53. Figure 11. From Kohn, Moshe Safdie, 46. Figure 12. From Kohn, Moshe Safdie, 51. Figure 13. From Kohn, Moshe Safdie, 55. Figure 14. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 100. Figure 15. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 101. Figure 16. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 102-103. Figure 17. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 99. Figure 18. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 97. Figure 19. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 97. Figure 20. Photograph by author. Figure 21. Photograph by author. Figure 22. Photograph by author. Figure 23. Photograph by author. Figure 24. Photograph by author. Figure 25. Photograph by author.

Theory

Figure 1. Photograph by author. Figure 2. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 84. Figure 3. From www.nps.gov/fone/natlroad.htm, National Park Service – ParkNet, 2003, image conestoga. Figure 4. Photograph by author. Figure 5. From Herbert, The Dream of the Factory-Made House, 322. Figure 6. Photograph by author. Figure 7. Photograph by author. Figure 8. Photograph by author. Figure 9. From Kronenburg, Houses in Motion, 50. Figure 10. Carol Burch-Brown. From Burch-Brown and Rigsbee, Trailers, 52.

4 Figure 11. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 107. Figure 12. From Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 104. Figure 13. Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village. From Smith, Terry. Making the Modern. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993. Image from page 22. Figure 14. From Andreasen, Kahler, and Lund, Design for Assembly, 12. Figure 15. From Herbert, The Dream of the Factory-Made House, 316. Figure 16. Margaret Bourke-White. From Smith, Terry. Making the Modern. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993. Image from page 195. Figure 17. From Herbert, The Dream of the Factory-Made House, 47. Figure 18. From Rabb, Judith and Bernard. Good Shelter. New York: Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Co., 1975. Image from page 63. Figure 19. From Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 56. Figure 20. From Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 64. Figure 21. From Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 68. Figure 22. From Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 68. Figure 23. From Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 68. Figure 24. From Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 68. Figure 25. From Herbert, The Dream of the Factory-Made House, 100. Figure 26. From Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 77. Figure 27. Photograph by author. Figure 28. Diagram by author. Figure 29. Diagram by author. Figure 30. From Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 115. Figure 31. From Andreasen, Kahler, and Lund, Design for Assembly, 90. Figure 32. From Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 56. Figure 33. From March and Steadman, The Geometry of Environment, 223. Figure 34. Photograph by author. Figure 35. From Herbert, The Dream of the Factory-Made House, 100. Figure 36. From Andreasen, Kahler, and Lund, Design for Assembly, 28.

Conceptual System Analysis

Figure 1. Diagram by author. Figure 2. Diagram by author. Figure 3. Diagram by author. Figure 4. Diagram by author. Figure 5. Diagram by author. Figure 6. Diagram by author. Figure 7. Diagram by author. Figure 8. Diagram by author. Figure 9. Diagram by author. Figure 10. Diagram by author. Figure 11. Diagram by author. Figure 12. Diagram by author. Figure 13. Diagram by author. Figure 14. Diagram by author. Figure 15. Diagram by author. Figure 16. Diagram by author. Figure 17. Diagram by author. Figure 18. Diagram by author. Figure 19. Diagram by author. Figure 20. Diagram by author.

5 Project

Figure 1. Diagram by author. Figure 2. Diagram by author. Figure 3. Diagram by author. Figure 4. Diagram by author. Figure 5. Diagram by author. Figure 6. Diagram by author. Figure 7. Diagram by author. Figure 8. Diagram by author. Figure 9. Diagram by author. Figure 10. Diagram by author. Figure 11. From Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 193. Figure 12. From Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association, Site Planning Kit, “Site Plan Examples” insert diagram. Figure 13. From Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association, Site Planning Kit, “Site Plan Examples” insert diagram. Figure 14. From Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association, Site Planning Kit, “Site Plan Examples” insert diagram. Figure 15. From Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 193. Diagrammatic overlay by author. Figure 16. From Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association, Site Planning Kit, “Systems Housing” insert diagram. Figure 17. From Northern Kentucky’s Future, area map. Figure 18. Diagram by author. Figure 19. Diagram by author. Figure 20. Diagram by author. Figure 21. Diagram by author. Figure 22. Diagram by author. Figure 23. Diagram by author. Figure 24. Diagram by author. Figure 25. Diagram by author. Figure 26. Diagram by author. Figure 27. Diagram by author. Figure 28. Diagram by author.

Design

Figure 1. Photograph by author. Figure 2. Photograph by author. Figure 3. Photograph by author. Figure 4. Diagram by author. Figure 5. Photograph by author. Figure 6. Photograph by author. Figure 7. Drawing by author. Figure 8. Drawing by author. Figure 9. Drawing by author. Figure 10. Drawing by author. Figure 11. Drawing by author. Figure 12. Drawing by author. Figure 13. Drawing by author. Figure 14. Drawing by author. Figure 15. Drawing by author. Figure 16. Drawing by author.

6

Introduction Overview

The escalating costs of site-built homes paired with the decline of existing trailer parks has left an entire socioeconomic class without suitable housing options. The application of systems theories and quality materials to contemporary manufactured housing design yields an immediate alternative for those who can afford little else.

This research examines the basis of manufactured housing, beginning with the current economic and demographic conditions it supports. The project specifically profiles low- income families that continue to lose their homes: either the land underneath them is sold or they simply fall over. Though the proposed system of housing may inevitably spread to all economic strata because of its extreme flexibility and expandability, it may serve its best purpose as a replacement for these aging trailer homes and as a refuge for their residents.

Included within the document is a brief history of the building type, which details the converging paths of prefabrication technologies and mobile dwelling units. The future of portable architecture and machine fabrication is a topic of constant exploration for contemporary architects, but few examine its ramifications on the low-income market. Some current projects are included, as well as precedent projects that informed the design of the proposed housing system.

The theoretical element of the research includes a discussion of the misappropriation of typology within today’s manufactured housing design, paralleling it with society’s strive to reach middle class aesthetic ideals. An explanation of systems theories within modular design and factory production follows, providing an understanding of the issues affecting the design of a totally prefabricated housing system.

This thesis concludes with the project itself, from the range of programmatic options to the actual design of sample homes. Placement of the home within the greater community is discussed with a brief historical retrospective of the origin of the modern trailer park. Investigating new methods of forming the physical layout of the community are important to the success of the project as a whole. The panelized system design is addressed with an emphasis on the flexibility of the layout for individual families. The project section also explores the possibilities for the system in the larger market of an increased economic spectrum—as a home that may eventually be marketed to families of any income level.

7 Thesis Propositions Project Foundations

Many people think that mobile home parks depress the value of adjacent properties and increase traffic and crime. They are widely perceived as hotbeds of sex and violence…On the scale of general social acceptability, mobile home parks rank somewhere in the neighborhood of junkyards, but junkyards for people rather than for automobiles. They are segregated to remote and unattractive places in the less desirable parts of the outer urban fringes…to keep them from offending the sensitivities of better folk who might happen to wander past.1

Manufactured housing has become a viable alternative to traditional site-built homes. Stigmatized for years as the poor man’s house, the manufactured home gradually increased in quality and design enough to begin to reach the middle class consumer market. In the attempt to develop a home that could compete with suburbia, manufacturers largely stopped producing homes that were financially viable for low-income families—the same demographic group that sustained manufactured housing over the last fifty years.

Figure 1. Three boys growing up In addition, the contemporary manufactured home ignores in a trailer park. many of the factory production processes that gave early models their unique aesthetic and differentiated them from the site-built suburban homes of the time. The sequence of assembly for a manufactured home now mirrors the construction of any other house—except it takes place under a roof. In theory, quality may be more rigorously controlled in a factory environment than in a site-built context. Work is never slowed by weather or temperature, allowing some companies to produce and ship ten or more homes in a single day. Beyond the obvious benefits of a controlled environment and assembly line construction sequencing, the Figure 2. Early mobile home. industry mostly ignores the advantages of factory fabrication and modular design.

As these homes are increasingly marketed to the economic middle classes and retirees, the low-income families that formerly populated trailer parks and comprised the bulk of the market for manufactured housing are forced to turn to other options. They look to small apartments with no outdoor space or multi-family units that pack neighbors together as closely as possible. Perhaps worst of all are the barely standing, 1960’s-era trailers that have been continuously patched and pieced together. These trailers have practically no resale value, but those who have nowhere else to turn for housing perpetuate their existence.

Figure 3. FRED, a contemporary manufactured home design from Architects have begun to realize the design opportunities KFN Systems. possible with the use of modular and systems theories. A variety of high-end residential projects and temporary or portable structures have been produced within the last few years. More are on the way. There is no reason why these same theories cannot be turned toward the issue of

1 John Fraser Hart, Michelle J. Rhodes, and John T. Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 2.

8 affordable housing. In fact, the principles of modular systems could allow nearly endless combinations of plan, enclosure, and siting while maintaining a cost balance approachable by families of the lowest income levels. One building type may be transformed into a variety of configurations to suit nearly any need. It should employ an aesthetic that speaks directly to the processes of its design and construction, and that serves as a proud symbol of ownership for those with little else.

Figure 4. 1980’s Mobile home Only by re-conceiving the aesthetic and function of retailer. contemporary manufactured homes through modular design systems will an affordable, efficient, and flexible housing typology arise—one that will provide low-income families with a sense of ownership of quality property.

Manufactured Housing

Manufactured housing, mobile homes, and trailers are, colloquially speaking, one and the same. “Mobile home” is the all-encompassing term for manufactured housing that was produced before 1976 and the enactment of the Housing and Urban Development Code (HUD Code). The code officially changed the nomenclature of the industry from “mobile” to “manufactured.” However, most people still refer to single and double section homes (single- and double- wides) as mobile homes. The term is a derivative from the early travel trailers that evolved into modern manufactured housing (reference History for more information on this Figure 5. Current manufactured home in northern Kentucky. subject). “Mobile home” became a part of the American lexicon and has persisted, even though the homes are no longer meant to be mobile at all.2

A manufactured home is produced entirely within a factory setting, and is regulated by the HUD Code. The size of a manufactured home may vary from model to model and company to company, but all are transported via truck to the site for installation. These houses initially were single section units, but they quickly developed into multi-sectional models with component massing blocks that were joined on-site. Thus, double-wides, and even triple-wides have replaced the traditional single-wide as the norm in the industry, as home sizes increase to match the growing square footage of suburban dwellings.3

Manufactured housing is becoming more and more popular and prevalent in a society dealing with the ever-increasing costs of site-built homes. Factory fabricated housing recently accounted for 30 percent of all new single-family homes sold in the United States. The 1990 Census of Housing found that seven percent of the country lived in manufactured housing.4

2 Understanding Today’s Manufactured Housing (Arlington, Virginia: Manufactured Housing Institute, n.d), 2. 3 Understanding Today’s Manufactured Housing, 2. 4 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 1-2.

9 The numbers continue to rise as these homes appeal more and more to a middle class market. In 1975, the cost of a new mobile home averaged $11,440. Ten years later it had inflated to $21,800.5 By 2000, manufactured housing was averaging $46,500 per home—still substantially less than the $207,000 that new site-built homes averaged—but out of the realm of possibility for the lower levels of income in this country. Even a single-section home averaged $30,400, plus the cost of purchasing or renting the land for it to rest on.6

Figure 6. Scene from a trailer The issue of cost is compounded by unwillingness on the part park in Virginia. of many financial institutions to lend money for financing the purchase of a manufactured home. A 1982 decision by the Texas Supreme Court suggested that mobile homes had inherent structural differences from site-built houses that made them inferior to permanent structures. This separate categorization of mobile homes essentially allowed communities to exclude them from local zoning laws and effectively segregated the housing type.7 They have traditionally been associated with substandard construction materials and techniques, and have a reputation for collapse in high winds or extreme weather. Mobile home communities are perceived to lower surrounding property values, and are usually physically separated from neighboring subdivisions in an attempt to keep out a supposed bad element:

Figure 7. Wind damaged home. Americans…perceive mobile homes as cheap, flimsy, and undesirable housing for unattractive people. They assume that the residents of mobile homes are seriously deficient: deficient in income, deficient in education, deficient in intelligence, and deficient in moral fiber.8

The production of manufactured housing relies primarily on the availability of skilled labor working in low-tech capacities within a factory setting. The start-up costs for a factory are relatively little, and most companies today stock minimal overhead, opting instead for a “just-in-time” supply philosophy. Materials are occasionally suspect: some early postwar factories used simple hose lengths for water piping, minimal 2x2 wall framing, and lamp cords for electrical runs. The HUD Code has tightened the materiality of the homes, but the emphasis still is not placed on using materials of the highest caliber.9

Figure 8. Scene from a current Though initially classified as personal property (and ineligible trailer park in northern Kentucky. for mortgages), manufactured housing becomes real property when secured to a permanent foundation. The change in status helps little in securing fair financing. Normal mortgages on mobile homes last only seven to twelve years, as opposed to 20-25 years for site-builts. The average life

5 Allan D. Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 12-13. 6 Understanding Today’s Manufactured Housing, 1. 7 Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 25. 8 Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 2. 9 Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 114-117.

10 expectancy of the mobile home is as little as 20 years— compared to as much as 100 years for traditional housing.10 Thus, mortgage rates are often a few points higher for manufactured homes than for traditional homes. Lenders continue to be wary of the perceived higher risk of a mobile home loan, even though the default rate for mobile home loans is, on average, lower than that for site-built homes. Financing must often be procured through the same company selling the house, an arrangement that would seem not to favor the buyer.11

Figure 9. Home for sale. The downside is that the most affordable mobiles for low- income buyers are not new single-wides but older mobiles in rural parks, because new mobiles, at prices of $70,000 and up, are priced beyond their reach.12

Consider that mobile homes are simply no longer mobile. An estimated 95 percent of them, once initially sited, are never moved again.13 The costs of relocation are prohibitive. 1990 estimates listed the cost of moving a single-wide at as much as $3,000 and a double-wide at $12,000. These numbers alone may explain the persistent rehabilitation and reuse of decades-old models, which are simply not worth the move offsite.14 Further estimates locate 54 percent of all manufactured houses on rental property, either single sites or within mobile home parks. Only 39 percent were located on private property held by the owner of the house. The rest were in rare owner-held lots in mobile home parks. As much as a quarter of all manufactured houses in the country were located in and around cities in 1990. But a whopping 56 percent of mobile homes were located in rural areas, primarily in the southern states where they traditionally have Figure 10. Immobile mobile home. been more widely accepted as a form of lower-cost housing.15

The problem is that manufactured housing has ceased to be available to everyone. While the social stigmas are slowly dissipated with the new “traditional” home forms that the current middle class homes take, the trailers of ten, twenty, and thirty years ago remain. As the prices of new models increase, people are driven to occupying these trailers—most of which have long exceeded their lifespan. Few, if any, inexpensive alternatives exist today.

The People

Contemporary manufactured housing provides an adequate housing solution for many middle-class, middle-income families today. It appeals more strongly to retirees: the

10 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 5. 11 Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 218. 12 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 131. 13 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 31. 14 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 80-81. 15 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 31-35.

11 average head-of-household age for manufactured housing in 1999 was a robust 52.6 years. The employment status for these households appears solid—57 percent of household heads were employed full-time and 29 percent were retired. Only seven percent were unemployed. The disparities arise when studying the average annual household income in the manufactured housing community. It was $26,900 in 1999, but fully 56 percent made less than $30,000. Even worse, 33 percent earned less than $20,000 per year. As much as 10 percent of these families brought in less than $10,000 over the course of a year.16 Compare these numbers to the median income of all families in the United States as of 1999. At $48,950, it is nearly double that of families occupying manufactured homes. Even outside of metropolitan areas, where many of the older trailer parks are located, the median income is $40,499.17 Nearly 65 percent of all families made $35,000 or more while 10 percent brought in less than $15,000.18 Clearly, a disparity exists between the income of Middle America and the manufactured housing community— especially at the lowest end of the spectrum. It is within the last two earnings segments of manufactured homes residents, and especially in the under-$10,000 range, that this design Figure 11. Resident of a trailer home in Virginia. research must focus. This is the low-income, low-opportunity group that is quickly being left behind by the advancement of current manufactured housing.

The bulk of these factory-produced houses are home to only one or two people—65 percent, in fact. Another 28 percent support families of three or four, but seven percent are home to five or more people.19 Imagine cramming five, six, seven, or even eight family members in a double-wide, or even a single-wide. Worse still, imagine that the home was fabricated in 1972 and should have been demolished 15 years ago. It was probably all that this family could afford, though they’ve spent a considerable amount of their meager funds on the continual repairs that keep the trailer intact. When it finally does disintegrate, this family will have few options—a new manufactured home (and many that are used) has become far too expensive and the family likely will not qualify for affordable financing rates anyway. Nor will they be likely to see any insurance money for the loss of their old home, since insurance companies have balked in recent years at covering mobile homes.20 Should they be forced to move to a small apartment, or another run-down trailer community because the market has ignored them, moving beyond their means?

Figure 12. Resident of a trailer A brief study of the American Housing Survey for 1999 further home in Virginia. illuminates the specific group of people that this project

16 Understanding Today’s Manufactured Housing, 6. 17 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-209, Money Income in the United States: 1999 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000), 14. 18 U.S. Census Bureau, Money Income in the United States: 1999, 19. 19 Understanding Today’s Manufactured Housing, 6. 20 Carol Burch-Brown and David Rigsbee, Trailers (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1996), 79.

12 seeks to serve. Just over 450,000 families residing in trailers made $5,000 or less per year. Over one-third of these had no income at all, or even a negative income. One million families made no more than $10,000 and barely more than 800,000 more made as much as $15,000 per year. The median monthly payment for a mobile home was $356, though payments ranged from less than $100 to more than $1,500. The bulk of mobile home owners paid $500 or less every month.21

Almost 40 percent of all mobile homes that were owner- Figure 13. Older mobile home, northern Kentucky. occupied in 1999 were built after 1990. These are decidedly not the homes that are available to the low-income demographic. Homes from the preceding decade still account for nearly 23 percent of the available manufactured housing stock, and homes from the 1970’s make up 28 percent of this total. These are the units that are available at an affordable cost to low-income families—but they yield an equally low return, and have almost no value at the end of their use. Most mobile homes were valued at less than $40,000 in 1999—the value of two-thirds of them was below $30,000.22 Older manufactured housing has depreciated in value to the point that resale is nearly impossible. Instead of making a lasting investment in a quality home, most trailer- Figure 14. A child’s abandoned dwellers can only afford to meet the monthly site-lease costs bicycle. for an older, well used home.

The popular public perceptions of the owners and residents of mobile homes and trailer parks worsened steadily since the inception of widespread manufactured housing. Initially, prefabricated housing systems were necessary to counter the post World War II housing demand. Once it had been satiated, mobile homes became a source of housing for families who could not afford the suburbs. Trailer parks began before the war as collections of travel trailers for overnight or short-term stays. Eventually, people simply Figure 15. The clutter of the began to stay indefinitely. The negative perception began mobile home. shortly after. Derided in 1937 by Fortune magazine as “crowded rookeries of itinerant flophouses,”23 mobile home communities quickly became the bane of society. Residents of the towns invaded by trailer parks felt that the mobile home dwellers did not pay an equivalent share of taxes for city services, and that their very existence depreciated the value of properties nearby. Worse yet, trailer parks were widely perceived to be a destabilizing force, clouding the morality of the entire community.24

Traditionally viewed as breeding grounds for socially corrupt behavior, trailer parks—and their residents—have been Figure 16. Storage space is hard segregated from the rest of society and all but forgotten. to come by in a trailer.

21 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H150/99-RV, American Housing Survey for the United States: 1999 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003), 87-91. 22 U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States: 1999, 108, 167. 23 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 9. 24 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 2-9.

13 Make no mistake; these are not the shiny new manufactured home communities of the last ten years. These are the patchwork mixtures of trailers and mobile homes that service those people whom suburbia has forgotten. Though statistics regarding the condition of these neighborhoods are difficult to break out of the larger category of manufactured housing, some numbers are, at least, telling.

A quarter of all families residing in mobile homes reported the presence of street noise or traffic in their communities in 1999. Nearly 40 percent of these found the conditions to be at least bothersome, some to the point that they considered moving. Neighborhood crime was reported by 11 percent of the mobile home population. Though this number is relatively low, well over half of the respondents found the conditions serious enough that they affected the life of the family. Other problems reported included noise, litter, and poor city services. Some simply reported problems with the people living around them.25 Mobile home communities are largely without racial diversity. People of Caucasian descent occupy nearly 90 percent of all mobile homes in America. African Americans account for most of the remaining 10 Figure 17. A father and his child. percent of mobile home residents.26 This extreme disparity seems to indicate a set of deeply cultural biases toward and against (respectively) manufactured homes.

Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan have illustrated several case study families in their book The Unknown World of the Mobile Home. Following are two excerpts:

Mr. and Mrs. F (early 20’s) and the new baby live in a single- wide on land next to her parents’ house where they do not have to pay rent. They financed their mobile home through a dealership because they did not have the money for a down payment, had not established credit, and so could not qualify for a home loan.

Mr. S (late 30’s) lives alone in a single-wide on land he rents. His wife got the house after their divorce, and he cannot afford a house because of support payments. He would not have been able to afford even the mobile home if the dealer had not worked out a low schedule of payments for him.27

These stories are typical illustrations from a community type where personal space is minimal and income is hard to find. In answer to the previously posed question: should low- Figure 18. Contemporary kids income families be forced to accept the risks of run-down growing up in a trailer park. trailers simply because manufactured housing has turned to a middle-class market? The answer, of course is “no.” The systems of prefabrication offer the opportunity for an affordable, flexible solution. Quality materials, design, and construction should elicit easier financing options, and

25 U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States: 1999, 58. 26 U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States: 1999, 108. 27 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 54-56.

14 increase the usability and durability of the home. A new typology has the potential to lift poverty-stricken trailer- dwellers from the depths of society to a plateau of pride and ownership.

Thus, this exploration will attempt to analyze the elemental nature of the home to effectively utilize principles of mass production and prefabrication. The creation of a new modular housing type should preserve economy of form and finance while stimulating the basic quality of life within the low-end manufactured housing market. An essential component of this design is mutability of form and function, so that it might be made to conform to changing lifestyles and conditions of living. The system will be adaptable enough to insert into existing contexts, though it will primarily function as the basic typology of its own community—a community that must address issues of spatial planning and social welfare in order to engage both the dreams of its population and the realities of their lives.

15 History Origins of Manufactured Housing

Most prefab buildings…are inexpensive and functional. But they need to be more than that, and, with precious few exceptions, they aren’t. The reasons for this are many and varied, ranging from financial institutions’ unwillingness to finance them, developers’ reluctance to alter a fairly successful formula, and some architects’ fears that the further proliferation of prefabrication will put them out of business.28

Contemporary manufactured housing developed over the course of the last century as the convergence of prefabrication and mobility. They have been represented through the years by innovations in transportable shelter and full factory fabrication of buildings. These once-divergent tracks came together in the form of manufactured housing, or “trailers” as they are more popularly known.

The combination of prefabrication and mobility reflects both economics and convenience, yielding new opportunities in the housing market. Families who could never hope to afford traditional site-built homes have found the prospects of ownership of a manufactured house to be an appealing alternative to renting. However, in spite of its broad roots, affordable manufactured housing has yet to gain widespread public acceptance.

The brief history that follows traces the rise of the contemporary manufactured house by detailing the evolutions of prefabrication and mobility.

Prefabrication Emerges

The origins of prefabricated housing date at least to 17th century fishermen’s houses, constructed of a panelized wood system devised in England. The houses were shipped in raw panel form from the factory to the location of the fishing fleet, where the panels were assembled into individual houses. Log cabin construction was simplified through the development of a Swedish manufacturing process. The innovation was a system of notching that allowed simpler erection of the cabin structures. Two centuries later, in 1849, prefabricated houses were used during the California gold rush as temporary housing for fortune-seekers. The miners received kit-built homes that provided a quick solution to a sudden housing shortage.29 However, prefabricated buildings had already been widely marketed in England for nearly two Figure 1. Manning Portable Colonial Cottage. decades. John Manning developed the Manning Portable Colonial Cottage in 1830. Working as a carpenter in London, Manning recognized the opportunity to design an easily shipped and constructed housing kit to satisfy the need for housing in England’s colonies. His system addressed the real concerns of construction. Each panel was designed to be

28 Allison Arieff and Bryan Burkhart, Prefab (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, Publisher, 2002), 9. 29 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 13.

16 handled by a single person, and the system consisted of a series of repetitive panels of equal dimension. The entire kit could be shipped in a relatively small space, increasing the overall economy of the system. In environments that had been largely dominated by tent structures, Manning’s product was instantly successful.30

Sears, Roebuck, and Company, as well as other mail-order retailers, began selling ready-to-build “kit” houses in 1895. With factories located near reserves of supply and labor, the company industrialized the entire production process for the build-it-yourself housing kits. Owners both selected and erected their own dwellings from a wide range of designs, calculated to appeal to nearly any taste or economic situation. The Sears homes could consist of nearly 30,000 separate component pieces. Their success was predicated by an attention to materiality and affordability that gave owners a sense of ownership of a major piece of the American dream. They remain some of the sturdiest homes 31 Figure 2. Sears homes catalog. ever constructed in this country.

Sears paved the way for Howard Fisher’s project, the General Houses Corporation, created in 1932. The company specialized in affordable, factory-fabricated housing and utilized some of the same production concepts that drove automobile production.32 The corporation designed and specified the component parts for its houses, and contracted with other companies for their fabrication. General Houses itself acted as an assembly line, putting the parts together and selling the completed homes. It sold a wood-frame model for $2980 and a steel-frame model for $4500.33 General Houses was committed to offering a product that reflected contemporary concepts and new advances in housing. Though its owner suggested that public tastes would drive the designs, the company struggled with the population’s disdain for assembly-line homes.34 Though General Houses was a precursor to today’s manufactured housing, the philosophies of the company would not fully enter the market until nearly a half-century later.

Corbusier made major inroads in the use of prefabricated systems with his DOM-INO concept of 1914 that eliminated bearing walls in favor of reinforced concrete columns and slabs (discussed further in “Precedent”). His investigations Figure 3. Sears homes catalog. stimulated others to pursue methods of prefabricated systems.35 Jennifer Siegal suggests that this era demonstrated fully the necessity and appeal of prefabricated systems:

30 Robert Kronenburg, Houses in Motion: The Genesis, History, and Development of the Portable Building, Second Edition (West Sussex, Great Britain: Wiley-Academy, 2002), 44. 31 Kronenburg, Houses in Motion: The Genesis, History, and Development of the Portable Building, 44-45. 32 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 15. 33 Allan Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 98. 34 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 15. 35 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 15.

17

their promise offered greater economy, speed of erection, reduction in need for skilled labor on the site, and a higher quality product due to factory manufacture.36

Numerous creative manufactured housing schemes entered the market over the next 20 years, most with limited success. Buckminster Fuller unveiled one such idea in 1929, the Dymaxion House. It was his attempt to promote more efficient lifestyles through technology, practicality, and allure for his consumer base. The house was a hexagonal construction that defied traditional notions of housing typology.37 Fuller’s design was based in mass production and minimal weight. While the average cost of a new home at the time was $8,000, Fuller’s model would sell for $1,500. Figure 4. Dymaxion home. Dymaxion was, at its core, a rebellion against the inefficiencies of the traditional construction industry. He hoped to produce an advanced environment for living that would be available to those who could never hope to afford a conventional house.38 The design was never put into production, suggesting that Fuller overestimated the public reaction to at least one of his positions.

Frank Lloyd Wright attempted an affordable housing system in 1936 with the Usonian line of dwellings. Treating the tight economics of the Usonian House as a challenge, rather than a limitation, Wright devised a grid system that lent itself to modular dimensions throughout the house, while also allowing flexibility of form so that each house was unique. Wright eliminated features such as garages, gutters, lighting fixtures, paint, and radiators, thus testing the will of many of his clients. His efforts were relatively successful, if not always Figure 5. Wright’s Usonian plan. practical in every situation, and began to fuse modularity and manufacturing.39

The possibilities of industrialized production intrigued Walter Gropius and Konrad Wachsmann enough to join together in the design of a panelized housing system. In 1942 the General Panel Corporation was launched to produce and sell this “Packaged House” scheme. At a demonstration of the system, spectators witnessed both the erection and deconstruction of an entire house within a single day.40 The concept was based on the utilization of current manufacturing technologies to provide a new type of house. It did not sell as well as other designs that directly adapted Figure 6. Usonian home. existing housing typologies and relied on older, more proven technologies.41 The Packaged House system created modular stressed-skin panels, eight feet high and three feet, four inches wide. The irregular width and some structural

36 Jennifer Siegal, Mobile: The Art of Portable Architecture (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002), 019. 37 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 18. 38 Kronenburg, Houses in Motion: The Genesis, History, and Development of the Portable Building, 50-51. 39 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 17-19. 40 Gilbert Herbert, The Dream of the Factory-Made House (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1984), 265- 267. 41 Kronenburg, Houses in Motion: The Genesis, History, and Development of the Portable Building, 70.

18 redundancies within the panel design drastically decreased the efficiency and economy of the system. The Corporation finally failed in 1951, having struggled financially for nearly ten years and never realizing the public demand for the system that had been projected upon its design.42 Nonetheless, both Gropius and Wachsmann remained interested in factory fabrication processes. The General Panel Corporation had succeeded in demonstrating a fully modular, interchangeable design for the residential market.

Figure 7. General Panel William Levitt became the father of mass-produced housing Corporation’s Packaged House. developments in 1945 at Levittown, Pennsylvania. He theorized that larger production numbers lowered the cost per house to construct, and accordingly located his factories on the same site where the houses were to be built. The standardization of the home led to entire communities of repetitively similar houses, all built with 2x4 construction and mass-produced parts. The bleak exteriors were the sacrifice for efficiency of production, economy of ownership, and speed of erection. Most families compensated by decorating the houses with individuality, independence, and pride in a way that evoked home.43

The Case Study Houses completed by Charles and Ray Eames between 1952 and 1958 demonstrated different combinations of standard prefabricated industrial components into a well- designed residential form. They primarily featured steel and glass, and highlighted the possibilities available for architects even as labor costs rose and the number of skilled craftsmen decreased.44 The Eames’ treated technology and industry as a material palette from which to assemble their architecture. They worked within a prefabricated steel frame, filling in the walls with a variety of panel types to create a manufactured, yet unique aesthetic.45 Though they did not confine themselves to a specific set of factory parts, their efforts were instrumental in demonstrating that collections of manufactured industrial components could be both beautiful and affordable.

Pierre Koenig also designed Case Study Houses. Like the Eames houses, Koenig used steel frames and the latest industrial technologies to fit together a prefabricated house designed for efficiency of assembly. He allowed the materials to express themselves, building an aesthetic from the system rather than applied ornamentation.46 Using the most current industrial products allowed Koenig to Figure 8. Eames’ personal Case demonstrate a Modern lifestyle that was relaxed and idyllic. Study home. The homes were meant to project ease of use and

42 Herbert, The Dream of the Factory-Made House, 292-307. 43 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 27. 44 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 28. 45 Kronenburg, Houses in Motion: The Genesis, History, and Development of the Portable Building, 53-54. 46 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 28.

19 accessibility through the smooth integration of manufactured components.47

Modular prefabrication was thrust into the world consciousness at Montreal’s World Expo of 1967. Moshe Safdie designed a housing complex composed of 158 living units created from 354 poured concrete cubes. By stacking the modules, residents were allowed to utilize the roof of the unit below as a garden and terrace space. The individual boxes were prefabricated on the ground and lifted into place on a huge structural frame. Though the community still exists today, the project ran far over budget and the construction process posed numerous safety issues. Concrete

Figure 9. Koenig’s Case Study proved to be too heavy to remain a feasible option for the home. design. Nonetheless, Habitat represents an important exploration to explore of modularity within the prefabrication process.48

Corbusier’s final building, completed after his death, was the Centre Le Corbusier in Zurich, Switzerland. The building features a system of geometric panels, both metal and glass, placed within a structural steel framework. The panels were meant to be completely repeatable and could be arranged in a variety of patterns, from a straight-line configuration to a sequentially staggered arrangement. The entire wall system was constructed beneath a giant, separately suspended roof. The building represents the culmination of Corbusier’s forays into an architecture derived from prefabrication processes. Figure 10. Centre Le Corbusier. The panel system created almost limitless possibilities for the specific aesthetic of the enclosure system, within the overall module of construction.49

As some designers were exploring the options afforded by prefabrication and modularity, others were investigating the possibilities of fully mobile design.

The Rise of Mobility

The tipi may represent the world’s first truly mobile home. Nearly 6,000 years ago, the first Native Americans left their permanent dwellings to track and hunt migratory herds. The tipi evolved as a portable shelter that afforded tribes a new range of mobility across the land. It was a simple construction, formed from a series of braced poles that yielded a conical shell. The exterior was covered with animal skins to provide shelter and privacy. The entire unit could be quickly erected or disassembled to meet the needs of a far- ranging people. The individual parts of this early home were Figure 11. Native American tipi. easily replaced or repaired whenever the tribe chose to

47 Jonathan Glancey, 20th Century Architecture: The Structures That Shaped the Twentieth Century (London: Carlton Books Limited, 1998), 202. 48 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 33. 49 Glancey, 20th Century Architecture: The Structures That Shaped the Twentieth Century, 225.

20 pause. The effect was an entire community that flowed over the landscape—a truly transient people.50

Centuries later, the American westward expansion was facilitated by the mass production of the Conestoga wagon. Conceived as a freight transport device for the trip west, it was easily fabricated and became the standard for nineteenth-century frontier travel. Eventually the wagon began to serve as a mobile home on the ranges of the Figure 12. Conestoga wagon. frontier. This multiplicity of purpose was not necessarily designed into the Conestoga, but was a result of the harsh realities of the frontier crossing.51

The American love affair with the wilderness faltered very little over the next several decades. At the beginning of the 20th century several camper designs began to slowly redefine notions of mobile living. Glenn Curtis’ Aerocar of 1919 was spurred by a growing interest in family camping excursions. It was designed to be towed behind the family car—one projecting end fit neatly over the trunk of the car. The trailer contained all the amenities of home: sleeping bunks, a kitchen area, storage space, running water, and a lounge. Some models even featured air conditioning. The Aerocar Figure 13. Aerocar being towed. gave its owners the opportunity to take the comforts of home with them on their backwoods adventures.52

Arthur Sherman’s Covered Wagon company of 1929 was a fusion of mass production and mobile living. In the midst of an economic depression, Sherman produced 35 trailers per day and in 1936 had manufactured one of every six commercial trailers. The design shifted the door to the side of the module, allowing the interior spaces to be better defined. The new configuration reflected the fixed-use nature of the spaces in the home. Americans were essentially striving to take their houses with them on the road. The production process utilized assembly line technologies. Most of the component parts were produced elsewhere and merely assembled in the Covered Wagon plants. The units under construction moved along the production line and were built up along the way, reversing the conventional construction methodology of bringing all necessary materials directly to the project. It was a step in the search for a more efficient means of producing a housing module.53

The touring wagon evolved into the familiar streamlined form of the Airstream Trailer series. Begun in 1936, Airstream Incorporated reconceived human mobility into an easily marketable form. The sleekly aerodynamic machine aesthetic of the trailer spoke openly of the factory production processes that were responsible for its fabrication. For the moment, at least, America found a connection

50 Kronenburg, Houses in Motion: The Genesis, History, and Development of the Portable Building, 18-19. 51 Kronenburg, Houses in Motion: The Genesis, History, and Development of the Portable Building, 80. 52 Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 32. 53 Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 50-51.

21 between modern design and modern living. Even though that connection has all but evaporated over the decades since, Airstream continues to produce the same honestly revealing designs.54

When an engine was added in 1961 to the basic mobile Figure 14. Airstream production trailer design, the recreational vehicle was born—a vehicle line. that represented a home on the road. But the mobile home truly evolved during and after World War II, when the demand for affordable housing spiked dramatically—a need that was fulfilled by the transformation of the touring trailer into a mobile house.55

Convergence

Prefabricated housing and mobile design began to come together, forming the modern manufactured housing industry. Initially, these homes closely resembled the travel trailers of the first half of the century. As long-term, static uses became increasingly associated with mobile homes, the design philosophy of the industry shifted toward a more traditional home aesthetic.

Trailers began to be used as permanent residences. People located them in summer destinations and left them there, using them part of the year as vacation getaways. The next logical step was a form of permanent housing that was somewhat mobile, to suit the needs of these sometimes- occupants. The conceptual Durham House was just such a product. It was to be produced in a factory and transported on a flatbed to its site. Once offloaded, the Durham House was no longer meant to be mobile—it had no wheels or axles and resembled today’s manufactured housing. In much the same type of arrangement that exists today, owners would purchase the home (for $1,500 to $3,000) but had to provide the site themselves. This model would have been the first to Figure 15. Durham House. offer a “double-wide” option, joining two units on-site to offer a deeper living space. And the Durham House eschewed the trailer aesthetic, instead modeling itself after the “typical” American home, complete with clapboard siding. Its significance lies in its connection to a specific site, an unprecedented step for mobile unites. Unfortunately, it was never produced.56

The post-war era keyed the rapid expansion of the mobile home industry. Spartan Aircraft turned to the trailer market after the need for aircraft production dwindled. Using the basic structural principles employed in the design of airplanes, the company created a trailer that more closely resembled a home than a touring camper. Like the Airstream Figure 16. Spartan trailer. series, the Spartan trailers used aluminum sheet cladding

54 Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 54-55. 55 Siegal, Mobile: The Art of Portable Architecture, 020-021. 56 Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 65-67.

22 fastened to structural ribs in an aerodynamic design meant to facilitate towing the unit behind a car. But Spartan’s product was targeted toward those who could not afford the plush touring trailers that Airstream, and others, produced. It was a much more economically accessible product that served a market looking specifically for affordable housing. Even beyond this new philosophy for the trailer, Spartan made innovations in the purchasing process. The company offered financing and insurance on both new and used models, a paradigm that continues today.57

Elmer Frey introduced a new design for the mobile home in 1954. His Marshfield Homes model was ten feet wide, rather than the eight feet that had previously been the standard. The extra space allowed a more typical home plan than earlier models, which used the middle rooms as access corridors to the bedrooms on the ends of the units. Frey’s design incorporated a hall along one side of the home, and provided more storage space in the primary living areas. Perhaps more important than the spatial ramifications was the classification of this new product. Frey successfully Figure 17. Ten-wide Marshfield Home model. argued that the unit was not a trailer but a mobile home, and obtained the oversized load permits that allowed over-the- road flatbed transport of the house from factory to site. These models could no longer be towed behind the family car—they had evolved from travel trailer to permanent home.58

Frey’s introduction of the ten-wide, and its ensuing popularity, led to the further enlargement of the mobile home. The size continued to increase with the release of the 14-wide model, and the units continued to become more and more like typical site-built homes. Many featured amenities such as walk-in closets, cathedral ceilings, and open kitchens with islands. Eventually, building on the Durham House model, the mainstream mobile home industry produced the doublewide, a multi-sectional prefabricated house.59 As the house expanded, its design began to reflect the desires of Figure 18. Marshfield Home. the product’s consumer base; the units began to look less and less like the old house trailers and more like suburban homes. Doors increased from six feet to seven feet high and began to swing inward, or slide along tracks. Windows that were formerly awning-style modules became casement or bay windows. Interiors began featuring drapes and movable furniture (in opposition to the previously built-in furniture), and as space expanded owners found plenty of room for every appliance normally associated with a site-built home.60

Designers attempted to imbue manufactured housing with a unique aesthetic that would reflect its new position as a

57 Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes, 110-111. 58 John Fraser Hart, Michelle J. Rhodes, and John T. Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 19-20. 59 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 20-21. 60 Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile, 136-141.

23 viable housing alternative, yet maintain a sense of the factory fabrication processes that went into its construction. Famed designer Raymond Loewy created a series of mobile homes that never were produced. The Marlette Company marketed a line of homes designed in the manner of Mies van der Rohe, complete with exposed steel structure and large glass infill panels. The experiment lasted less than a year. As late as 1970, manufacturers were still looking for a unique design edge. National Homes turned to the Taliesin Studio of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation for a prairie-style mobile home. The design was displayed, but never built.61 Eventually the industry gave up attempting to differentiate itself from traditional housing designs. Figure 19. Marlette home design. The late 1960’s saw a tremendous lack of low-cost housing. Mobile home manufacturers had an instant market share, but tended to exploit it by using unsubstantial materials and inferior construction techniques.62 As a result, many communities passed strict zoning ordinances against manufactured housing. Though popular throughout the 1970’s, mobile homes also gained a social stigma. Most site- built communities rejected trailers. The lack of a cohesive building code for the manufactured housing industry made Figure 20. Taliesin studio home the exclusion of mobile homes a simple matter of legalities.63 design. To remedy the situation, the United States Congress passed the Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act in 1974. The law allowed the creation of the Housing and Urban Development Code, a building code to regulate all manufactured housing. It was instituted in 1976, and took precedence over all other state and local building codes. The HUD Code immediately unified the construction standards of the manufactured housing industry, but may also have drastically shifted its consumer base.64

The low-income demographic that had once jump-started the development of manufactured housing was all but left behind in the next two decades. The HUD Code drove the cost of affordable housing up and many small manufacturers were forced to shut their operations down. There was more money to be made from a middle-class market, and designs (and prices) shifted accordingly. By 1994, fifty percent of mobile home owners were between the ages of 30 and 49; half of them had incomes between $20,000 and $40,000.65 Some models grew to include sections 16 feet wide and as much as 80 feet long. This raw square footage alone was enough to price most low income buyers out of the manufactured housing market. The suburban typology invaded the mobile home industry, and all remnants of the colorful history of the building type were lost.

61 Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile, 145-147. 62 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 23. 63 Kronenburg, Houses in Motion: The Genesis, History, and Development of the Portable Building, 83. 64 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 23-25. 65 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 25-26.

24 Ideally, prefabrication combines traditional materials with contemporary aesthetics to create innovative housing solutions. In truth, the majority of new housing constructs— prefab and stick-built alike—cling to a formula that fails to address the evolving nature of families, the need for energy efficiency and environmental sensitivity, and a more modern vernacular style desired by a new generation of home buyers. The homes we are used to have less and less relevance to our contemporary needs. It is imperative that the home evolves to meet those needs.66

Today, architects experiment more frequently with modular and manufactured housing solutions. These experiments have thus far failed to make a significant impact on the affordable manufactured housing market. Manufactured housing emulates traditional housing—and neither seeks to evolve out of its steadily demanded niche market to more adequately reflect the realities of contemporary life. Design is slow to shift, especially in today’s residential market that is controlled more by developers and manufacturers than by architects. The evolution has halted. A century of rapid-fire innovation has landed, for the last 20 years, in bland representations of houses built to a suburban ideology. A few projects have pushed the capabilities of manufactured housing, both in terms of design and affordability, but it is still primarily sold from factory-to-truck-to-site as a middle-class economic alternative to the ever-inflating costs of owning a conventional home.

Moving Beyond

Mobility and prefabrication continue to be interwoven in the architectural context. Society is still becoming more comfortable with a transient lifestyle and more willing to directly accept the architecture of factory fabrication. Design continues to emphasize efficiency and economy of material and production. A new aesthetic is emerging.

Jennifer Siegal’s Office of Mobile Design (OMD) is dedicated to pursuing the possibilities of prefabricated and mobile architecture. Appropriately enough, they have conceptualized the next generation of the trailer home, calling it simply the Portable House. The structure itself perches lightly on the ground rather than sitting heavily on the site. Each unit features a flexibility of space that allows certain spatial components to expand or contract, based on the needs of the occupants. The groupings of transparencies Figure 21. OMD’s Portable House investigates the nature of interior and translucencies in the shell allow the house to take full space. advantage of natural light and air.67 The Portable House focuses on “green” (environmentally friendly) technologies and materials to conserve energy. The structural wall panels save 80 percent of the material normally used in stick

66 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 36. 67 Siegal, Mobile: The Art of Portable Architecture, 110-111.

25 construction and insulate far better. This refashioning of the trailer park moves toward a much more nomadic lifestyle wherein the houses themselves structure the community; the occupants may pack up and move on at any moment. Siegal suggests that as lifestyles shift, so too do the ways in which our society views transience and permanence.68

OMD is also responsible for the Mobile ECO LAB, a fixture of the Hollywood community. Designed as a transportable learning lab, the ECO LAB focuses on teaching school children about environmental issues. The project is built on top of a 35-foot cargo trailer with ramps and platforms that are deployed when class is in session.69 Children wind through the ECO LAB structure, learning about sustainability in a forum constructed from donated and recycled materials. Figure 22. OMD’s ECO LAB in When the lesson is over, the lab compresses again and rolls Hollywood, California is a away.70 completely mobile learning center. Acconci Studio has created a Mobile Linear City housed in a truck’s cargo space that confronts issues of privacy and permanence. The “city” consists of a series of modules, each one fits inside the next via a track system. The modules slide out from the back of the truck and sit on support legs. Each living unit features corrugated steel walls and a floor of steel grating. Panels within the walls fold up and down to provide both functional surfaces and openings to the exterior. The net effect is that greater utilization of the unit’s features leads to less privacy within the module.71 The project explores the nature of privacy as it is tied to the concept of home and forces living to become a communal activity. There is both safety and mistrust in the transience and the openness that the Linear City provides.

With an eye to mass production, Rocio Romero created the LV Home in Laguna Verde, Chile. The house is nearly 1,000 square feet, yet was built for about $30,000 and features a Figure 23. Acconci Studio’s Mobile Linear City, transported on minimal profile both in material and design. The industrial a truck bed. aesthetic of the exterior is derived from the use of corrugated zincalume, glass, and concrete systems, all of which afford a high degree of durability and a low maintenance profile. Efficiency was the key for Romero in this design, which indicates the possibility of using prefabrication processes if this house were to be mass-produced.72 Though almost stark in appearance, the house demonstrates an economy and flexibility within the planning and construction that could easily be converted for large-scale marketability.

Figure 24. Romero’s LV Home in In many ways, the Benthem House is much like the KFN Laguna Verde, Chile relies on Systems projects (FRED and SU-SI). But it is somewhat more efficiency of space, systems, and unorthodox in appearance and had a specific set of materials.

68 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 142-143. 69 Kronenburg, Houses in Motion: The Genesis, History, and Development of the Portable Building, 146. 70 Siegal, Mobile: The Art of Portable Architecture, 112. 71 Siegal, Mobile: The Art of Portable Architecture, 100-101. 72 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 54-57.

26 constraints under which it was designed. The house is the result of an architectural competition in the Netherlands. With nearly a carte blanche in terms of codes, site, and program, Jan Benthem created a prefabricated house in as minimal a way as he could. The winning entry would occupy the site for five years and then had to be removed—so it only made sense to use inexpensive, lightweight materials and to design the home as a shell for living, rather than with a specific plan in mind. A steel space frame supports the module, lifting it several feet off the ground. Though there are no immediate plans to put the design into mass Figure 25. The Benthem House is a competition entry in Amsterdam production, the plans and materials are straightforward that relies on simple enough to suggest that it could be prefabricated in great prefabricated systems. quantities.73

As the costs of conventional housing continue to rise, more people are turning to architecture of mobility and especially prefabrication for economical solutions. Designers are working with shipping containers to create repeatable, stackable, portable homes. Manufactured housing slowly advances as well, forced along by the demands of an increasingly savvy consumer base. The ever-growing awareness of sustainability issues is forcing architects to consider the efficiency of the materials and systems they specify.

73 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 90-95.

27 Precedent Introduction to Precedents

The industrial revolution moved design and production from the hands of the artisans to the realm of the factory, and eventually the production line. The possibilities afforded by factory fabrication opened the building industry to systematized design, a concept that developed gradually and reached its nineteenth century apogee in the form of the Crystal Palace.

Joseph Paxton created a modular framework of cast iron and glass for the Crystal Palace that paved the way for the future Figure 1. Crystal Palace development of steel construction. Though it was not the first elevation. project to utilize iron and glass construction, Paxton’s scheme was of the first and largest examples of fully demountable modular design. The project became the precedent for many of the component-based structural systems that would follow. The construction process was remarkably quick, spanning only a six-month period between 1850 and 1851. Since efficiency of material was crucial, the entire construction process was sequenced so that each piece used in construction could be reutilized later in the final building.74

The exhibition hall was designed according to a seven-meter module, the basis for the production of all the component systems, and the layout of the interior. The concept of the repeatable module, of nearly any size, is a primary factor in today’s manufacturing processes. It appears in structural grids, plan sequencing, and especially in material sizing. Though the building techniques and materials employed in the project (iron, glass, large span structures) were not new, they were combined in an original and groundbreaking scheme. Paxton used them as part of a 48-component Figure 2. The Crystal Palace – an system that was assembled to completely construct the iron and glass construction building.75 The structure was built piece-by-piece and did not system. incorporate any component weighing over one ton; instead it was fabricated from many repetitions of a few elements.

This standardization was a testament to the industrial revolution and the new capacity to mass-produce building components.76 The construction period was brief because the system was so fully designed and so simply put together. The subsequent dismantling and re-erection on a new site was unprecedented for a building of its immense size. The Crystal Palace remains the largest prefabricated building to be fully demountable, and serves as a conceptual and Figure 3. Crystal Palace pragmatic basis for the evolution of manufactured building component pieces. systems throughout the modern period.77

74 Jennifer Siegal, Mobile: The Art of Portable Architecture (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002), 018. 75 Robert Kronenburg, Houses in Motion: The Genesis, History, and Development of the Portable Building, Second Edition (West Sussex, Great Britain: Wiley-Academy, 2002), 46-47. 76 John McKean, Crystal Palace: Joseph Paxton and Charles Fox (London: Phaidon Press, Ltd., 1994), 21. 77 Kronenburg, Houses in Motion: The Genesis, History, and Development of the Portable Building, 46-47.

28

The examination of a few noteworthy precedent projects illustrates the range of building systems possible with prefabrication and factory production technologies. The benefits and drawbacks of each system become more clearly defined when considered as part of a collection of case studies of modular design.

To this end, four such discussions follow. Corbusier’s DOM-INO system received an early test at a factory community in Pessac, France. It provided modular design with an extreme range of flexibility within the plan layout and massing schemes. Moshe Safdie’s Habitat ’67 thrust modularity onto the world stage with a residential community composed entirely of an assembly of site-cast concrete boxes. The design maintains a unique form not by varying the individual units, but by staggering and shifting the modules within the structural framework. Safdie achieved variety through different combinations of the units into living spaces. KFN Systems is currently reinventing and advancing the image of prefabrication with the FRED and SU-SI projects. Both are factory-fabricated dwellings that offer style and mobility while maintaining the basic principles of economy of production and efficiency of use. A contemporary manufactured housing study is included to demonstrate the state of the industry today. It reveals current trends in design, transport, and materiality that are widespread across the industry.

These precedents serve as a collection of knowledge about prefabrication and modularity that must be built upon in order for a new concept of low-cost manufactured housing to be successful. No one solution addresses all of the needs of the target user group, but ideas from these projects may serve as a basis for further innovation.

29 Precedent Corbusier - Pessac

Le Corbusier proclaimed the Quartiers Modernes Fruges at Pessac housing to be an experiment in his theories on mass production and urban design. It was, indeed, a proving ground for his revolutionary DOM-INO system, one of the foremost predecessors of the modern prefabrication processes inherent to the design and construction of modular housing.

The DOM-INO system consisted, simply, of repeated bays of four columnar posts sandwiched between two slabs. The system could be easily repeated, and stacked to heights of a Figure 4. Cite Fruges – Pessac. few stories, thus creating a highly flexible, easily producible building system. Since the system relied merely on the placement of the corner columns and the construction of the intermediate slabs, the interior partitions could be located virtually anywhere within the scheme. This extreme flexibility posed almost limitless design possibilities, as well as the opportunity to consistently replicate housing models through the constant repetition of a single production process.78

The Pessac development was the brainchild of Henry Fruges, who approached Corbusier in May of 1924 to inquire about the feasibility of creating a low-cost, social housing development to accommodate the workers of Fruges' sawmill.79 It was not difficult to convince Corbusier to participate in a project with the potential to shift the dynamic of contemporary French social policy - which was still a product of pre-war, late 19th century thought. The Figure 5. Polychroming the project was conceived as an opportunity to advance the DOM-INO system exterior. processes of mass production, while bringing low-cost housing into the public spotlight.80

Corbusier called the house a "machine for living"81 but also believed that the reconsideration of habitat could drastically improve the morality of inhabitants. To that end, Corbusier used the Pessac housing development to experiment with urban design on a human scale, notions derivative of the garden city theories. Studies of building type, spatial layout, and exterior polychromy were enacted in the living laboratory that he created.82 The entire neighborhood was organized with two basic house types ("low" rise and "high" rise) distributed around a central square and related to a Figure 6. DOM-INO construction communal building, the canteen-hostelry that served to tie system. the community together.83 The open space that flows around

78 Brian Brace Taylor, Le Corbusier at Pessac: The Search for Systems and Standards in the Design of Low Cost Housing (Paris: Fondation Le Corbusier, 1972), 2-3. 79 Taylor, Le Corbusier at Pessac: The Search for Systems and Standards in the Design of Low Cost Housing, 52. 80 Marylene Ferrand, Jean-Pierre Feugas, Bernard Le Roy, and Jean-Luc Veyret, Le Corbusier: Les Quartiers Modernes Fruges (Paris: Fondation Le Corbusier, 1998), 63-70. 81 Ferrand, Feugas, Le Roy, and Veyret, Le Corbusier: Les Quartiers Modernes Fruges, 123. 82 Taylor, Le Corbusier at Pessac: The Search for Systems and Standards in the Design of Low Cost Housing, 12-14. 83 Ferrand, Feugas, Le Roy, and Veyret, Le Corbusier: Les Quartiers Modernes Fruges, 54.

30 the individual houses is continuous throughout the development, destroying differentiation of external public and private space and instead creating communal space.

The Quartiers Modernes Fruges is an important, and early exhibition of the results of prototyping combined with easily reproducible production techniques. Corbusier believed that modern living necessitated a new scheme for both the house and the city as a whole.84 The development of the modular cell brought forth a plethora of modular and manufactured typologies through the decades that followed Pessac. Corbusier's original plan experimented with cement-gun technologies so that walls could be essentially sprayed on in the field. Success with this gunite technique was limited, and the procedure was eventually abandoned in favor of better- Figure 7. Study of polychromy for proven construction technologies.85 exterior walls and urban layout. The utilization of space and the placement of the individual units on the site suggests that high-density housing does not have to be carried out with cyclic monotony, but rather can be formulated so that public and private overlap into harmonious community. Corbusier shifted the orientation of many neighboring houses so that each received an individual orientation, and thus a measure of privacy within the collective.86 He often combined two houses into a single built form, effectively visually expanding the resultant open green space for both houses. The design process took into account the motions of daily living and created and matched them to functional features in the belief that "architecture creates a space that leads to the fulfillment of man, that satisfies his spiritual and emotional needs."87 Human activity was analyzed, accounted for, and reduced to commonalities by which life might be described. In the quest for economy - of space, use, and material - these principles are crucial. Pessac provides an initial discourse on mass production of socially viable housing, and the intricate possibilities of variation inherent to any such system. But the real lesson of Pessac may lie in the promotion of low-cost housing that elevated the status of an entire societal group with class, dignity, and affordability at a time when that typology was Figure 8. “Skyscraper” type plans. finding itself to be ignored in the collective consciousness.

84 Ferrand, Feugas, Le Roy, and Veyret, Le Corbusier: Les Quartiers Modernes Fruges, 123. 85 Taylor, Le Corbusier at Pessac: The Search for Systems and Standards in the Design of Low Cost Housing, 14-15. 86 Taylor, Le Corbusier at Pessac: The Search for Systems and Standards in the Design of Low Cost Housing, 4. 87 Ferrand, Feugas, Le Roy, and Veyret, Le Corbusier: Les Quartiers Modernes Fruges, 74.

31 Precedent Safdie – Habitat ‘67

Moshe Safdie's vision of high density modular urban housing began with his undergraduate thesis design, and evolved over several years into Habitat '67, a key component of the 1967 Montreal World Exposition. The original concept proposed a staggering 1200 residential units and full school and commercial facilities spread between a 22-story mass and a 12-story mass, at an estimated cost of $42 million. The plan was eventually shaved to a mere $13.5 million, to 88 Figure 9. Habitat ’67 from afar. accommodate 158 residential units over 12 stories. Though the program was drastically cut, the innovations into modular design remained.

Safdie's original schematic design entailed the fabrication of 17'-6" x 38'-6" x 10'-6" concrete boxes that would effectively "plug-in" to a huge set of A-frame superstructures. In the revised scheme, however, the boxes themselves became the bulk of the vertical and horizontal structure. The units were connected to each other, the stair and elevator towers, and the pedestrian ways that occurred at every fourth floor. The entire mass became a giant, self-supporting structural frame composed of individually constructed and inserted habitable concrete modules.89

Fifteen different housing types were created, from one- bedroom modules to four bedroom houses, necessitating the creation of 354 total boxes. The units were fabricated at a precast concrete factory built on-site for the project. Unique to this Habitat '67 is its creation of a consistent community throughout the complex that binds together the variety of tenant types that formulate its society.90 Habitat provided a Figure 10. One Habitat housing sense of equality of form and living between all of its users cluster composed of individual concrete block modules. because its basic unit replicated itself in all instances, and was merely fit to different purposes in different locations and situations. Everyone had the same basis for dwelling - some just had a greater number of cubes than others did.91

Sorkin refers to Cerda's discussions of geometry in his analysis of Habitat '67: "the squared block is the clear and genuine expression of mathematical equality which is the equality of rights and interests, of justice itself.”92 This reading of Safdie's design again begs questions of social policy. Is housing a right or a privilege? Does Habitat actively avail itself to all through its versatility of function, yet equality of form? Individuality is certainly present in this community; in fact the Figure 11. Lifting a site-fabricated sheer bleakness of the construction invites tenants to module into position. personalize and humanize the spaces within (and without).

88 Irena Zantovska Murray, ed., Moshe Safdie: Buildings and Projects, 1967-1992 (Buffalo: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1996), 48. 89 Murray, Moshe Safdie: Buildings and Projects, 1967-1992, 48-50. 90 Murray, Moshe Safdie: Buildings and Projects, 1967-1992, 50. 91 Michael Sorkin, “Habitat and After,” Moshe Safdie, ed. Wendy Kohn (London: Academy Editions, 1996), 15. 92 Sorkin, “Habitat and After,” 15.

32 Sorkin suggests that the physical expression of Habitat is repressed by the lack of worldwide repetition of this particular building type - that is, the design would cease to be an unspoiled, pristine oddity, and would become more a part of the vernacular culture if it had been utilized elsewhere.93 Though this is likely true, it is important not to overlook the amount of personalization and variation that has been attained even within the rigid structuring of the design of this particular building system.

Each of the residences features an outdoor terrace and maintains a garden (on the roof of a house below), and has windows out on three sides of the unit. Most of the interior

Figure 12. Perspective section. fixtures and surfaces were factory fabricated as single units off-site and inserted into the concrete boxes before they were fully assembled.94 The possibilities offered by fifteen different design schemes interspersed throughout the complex are delineated most readily in building sections that depict both vertical and horizontal adjacencies.

The plans for the Habitat modules were not necessarily astonishing, nor did they themselves greatly further the concepts of modular design. The value of the Habitat '67 project lies in its repetitive use of the same easily fabricated form, and in the ways that it instills diversity into the means of dwelling in prefabricated architecture. It is quite possible to achieve a great deal of flexibility and variety of habitation within the structure of a unitary modular system. Here, too, is demonstrated an attempt at the artificial formulation of community - albeit on a decidedly urban scale - that roots itself in basic notions of equality and shared lifestyle; these are lessons which may be readily applied to today's modular and manufactured housing community designs.

Figure 13. Three-box unit.

93 Sorkin, “Habitat and After,” 15-16. 94 Wendy Kohn, ed., Moshe Safdie (London: Academy Editions, 1996), 41.

33 Precedent KFN Systems – SU-SI and FRED

KFN Systems is a partnership between Johannes and Oskar Kaufmann, formed to pursue avenues of contemporary prefabricated and modular housing solutions. The SU-SI and FRED production models target affordability through the benefits of mass production.

SU-SI is KFN's contemporary mobile home; a house that is transportable by truck and may be fully erected within five hours of site delivery. The purpose of the design lies in the Figure 14. SU-SI on site. exploration and modernization of the traditional mobile- home typology. With the belief that contemporary culture demands more mobility, while requiring a level of comfort not afforded by traditional mobile architecture, KFN stepped away from site-built housing toward less conventional ideas about habitation.95

The twelve meter by three-meter timber frame is completely factory fabricated, as are the interior partitions and the exterior cladding. Spruce is heavily utilized on the roughly forty square meter interior, and highly insulated manufactured panels form the enclosure system. An emphasis has been placed on designing usable space within the exterior shell that retains a level of flexibility to suit most users.96 The basic massing of the system does not change, but the interior layout may be customized (as can the Figure 15. SU-SI in transit. materials selected throughout the house) - several basic volumes are available to meet a variety of individualized spatial demands.97

Economy was a paramount concern in the design of this prefabricated system. The house sells for about $50,000 and is constructed in a mere five weeks. Since space is at a relative premium, many of the interior features serve multiple purposes (window mullions double as shelving units, etc.). The house is often placed on stilts effectively creating a near- house sized volume on the ground to be utilized for storage - primarily of cars - thus eliminating the need for a garage or carport on the site.98

These ideas of spatial economy and the redefinition of mobility lend insight into contemporary consumer desires, and offer an intriguing solution to the question of high- Figure 16. SU-SI interior. quality, low cost manufactured housing.

95 Allison Arieff and Bryan Burkhart, Prefab (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, Publisher, 2002), 101. 96 Juerg Meister and Carl Toledo, nextroom architektur datenbank, 7 December 2002, http://db.nextroom.at/imp/db_impressum.htm. 97 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 101. 98 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 101.

34 Prefabricated housing continues to evolve with FRED, also a product of KFN Systems. FRED was conceived as a low cost, low impact alternative to fixed and traditional stick-built housing. Oskar Kaufmann noted that "I always had the idea to sell prefab houses that would be cheap to buy, but would also have a certain attitude.”99 FRED is the conversion of these oft-opposed forces, a boxily affordable, yet groundbreaking and trend setting architectural construction that explores the levels of variability offered within a single modular unit.100 Figure 17. FRED expanded. FRED consists of two block like unit volumes fitted together in a collapsible/expandable style. When "closed," the plan is roughly three meters by three meters and large enough to provide basic habitational space for an economic individual. An electric drive train expands the module by pushing the inner cube out of the interior space and effectively doubling the habitable area.101 The exterior of the larger (outer) block is five meters by five meters by five meters and is inspired (and resembles) a simple construction from children's building blocks. The system is structurally stable enough to allow the units to be stacked or combined linearly to one another. This flexibility allows the compilation of one or several modules to take almost any form imaginable with basic block units. The interior furnishings, the plan, the facade type, and the overall external massing of FRED are limited only by the needs of the Figure 18. Situating FRED on-site. user and the basic unitary specifications of the system itself.102

The construction process is eased by the use of standard modular conventions fitted together to form the housing unit. FRED is of a basic timber construction and takes only five weeks to construct.103 Once delivered to the site, the system requires only two hours to assemble. Site preparation includes only a slab and basic aboveground footings for each unit to rest on. The use of standardized, mass produced fittings also allows the architect to quote a price for the home as soon as the configuration is designed.104

The variety of spatial types created by the interchangeability of use and material within the basic FRED unit suggests that multiplicity of use is feasible on the programmatic level and should be exploited in order to maximize the economies of Figure 19. FRED interior. mass production.

99 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 97. 100 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 97. 101 Meister and Toledo, nextroom architektur datenbank. 102 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 97. 103 Meister and Toledo, nextroom architektur datenbank. 104 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 97.

35 Precedent Manufactured Housing

The evolution of the mobile home has terminated in contemporary prefabricated manufactured housing, exemplified by local community retailers. These homes are completely factory fabricated and transported by truck to sites within the planned community. The site itself requires little preparation beyond a slab and rudimentary foundation work, in addition to the provision of necessary utility services prepared for their eventual connection to the housing unit.

This particular brand of manufactured housing has increased in popularity. It is owned equally across a wide adult age Figure 20. Single-wide home awaiting relocation. group, from 30 years to 70 years or more. The average reported age of owners in the Cincinnati area is nearly 53 years - indeed, many communities specifically cater to those 50 and older. Most of the owners in this sector of manufactured housing earn less than $30,000 every year (the median income is $26,900). Studies show that the bulk of these homes support two or less members, but that the average home size is two point four members.105

Holiday Homes’ official publication describes "Manufactured Homes" as follows:

These are homes built entirely in the factory under a federal building code...Manufactured homes may be single- or multi-section and are transported to the site and installed. The federal standards regulate manufactured housing design and construction, strength and durability, transportability, fire resistance, energy efficiency and quality...On-site additions, such as garages, decks and Figure 21. Site awaiting porches, often add to the attractiveness of manufactured development. homes and must be built to local, state, or regional building codes.106

The HUD Code, used to regulate manufactured housing, is written specifically to address factory production techniques.107 Perhaps it is because of this stringent control over the production of these houses that we witness little variety, creativity, or innovation in them. Retailers offer a few models of single- and double-wide units that purport to meet most of the needs of their users. Variety is uncommon in manufactured housing.

The "communities" created by the contemporary manufactured housing market consist of closely-packed houses on small lots, and have advanced little from their trailer park forbears. Image has gained importance, likely as a marketing tool to continue to boost sales, so each plot of Figure 22. Slab on site. land carries with it a small patch of grass - ownership is

105 Understanding Today’s Manufactured Housing (Arlington, V.A.: Manufactured Housing Institute, n.d.), 2-6. 106 Understanding Today’s Manufactured Housing, 2. 107 Understanding Today’s Manufactured Housing, 3.

36 mythified into a symbolic representation of the typical suburban property.

Current manufactured housing presents itself as a low-cost alternative to site-built housing. It boasts nearly all the amenities that traditionally constructed houses contain. The owner trades cost for raw space and quality of finish, and perhaps for location. The average sale price for a single- section manufactured house was $30,400 in 2000; the average cost of a site-built home in the same year was $207,000. The cost per square foot of a site-built house was Figure 23. Typical site distribution over $40.00 more.108 in a manufactured home community. The benefits of factory fabrication are clearly stated in contemporary manufactured housing. Costs may be reduced by virtue of volume of production and minimization of diversity within the product line. And it is clear that the consumer market desires the same advantages and amenities realized in a traditional site-built home. It is in the appropriateness for the individual user that this current system of housing struggles.

Figure 24. Single-wide living and kitchen area.

Figure 25. Typical master bathroom in a manufactured home.

108 Understanding Today’s Manufactured Housing, 1.

37 Theory Typology and Manufactured Housing

”Eradicate from your mind any hard and fast conceptions in regard to the dwelling-house and look at the question from an objective and critical angle, and you will inevitably arrive at the “House- Machine,” the mass-production house, available for everyone, incomparably healthier than the old kind (and morally so, too) and beautiful…” - Le Corbusier, 1931

Typology in Culture

Throughout history the home has played a central role in human existence. The very acts of living occur in the home— a dwelling place, the place wherein people spend large portions of their lives. By forming an understanding of home, people develop a framework to evaluate and understand the outside world. The basic philosophy of the home as a place devoted to shelter, family, and safety has shifted relatively little over centuries of architectural development and societal change. However, the aesthetic of the contemporary American residence bears little resemblance to its predecessors of even a century ago. Changing social dynamics have impacted the typologies through which Figure 1. The suburban condition housing design is understood. Nowhere is this shift more as it exists in Cincinnati. evident than within the manufactured housing community. Relatively new associations of type and form derived from contemporary middle-class society have reduced the typology of the manufactured home to mere mimicry of suburbia.

The beginning of typology’s impact on form was stated by Aldo Rossi in The Architecture of the City—“type developed according to both needs and aspirations to beauty; a particular type was associated with a form and a way of life, although its specific shape varied widely from society to society.”109 The dynamic between culture and typology shows long-term shifts with time and trends. But in the short- term these changes are barely apparent. The construction industry, especially, changes gradually. It is slow to exploit new materiality and technology in favor of remaining true to the supposed timeless and proven methods of building. Stacked and stick construction techniques continue to dominate the industry, especially in the residential sector. The acceptance of new prefabrication techniques has been slow to evolve—even slower is the reconciliation of a unique aesthetic associated with these processes. The status quo is preserved by simple market inertia.

An examination of the large-scale ramifications of culture on housing demonstrates sweeping shifts—especially in the realm of affordable manufactured housing. Houses were once the

109 Aldo Rossi, “Extract from The Architecture of the City,” Architecture, Criticism, Ideology, ed. Joan Ockman (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Architectural Press, 1985), 397.

38 most basic representation of civilization. They were constants, rooted in historicism and tradition, which represented humanity’s stability.110 This steadiness was shaken somewhat by the advent of the trailer park, a highly impermanent and inconstant community. These homes shifted from the role of permanence to one of transience, both in location and tenancy. The accepted typology of home represented totally different ideals, and should have been recognized as unacceptable for manufactured housing. The question became, “what form was appropriate and meaningful for a home that spoke of a mobile society?”

To answer the question, one must begin with Anthony Vidler, who proposed a definition of type that springs from the Modern Movement of the early twentieth century. It bears directly on the subsequent development of the mobile home and its transformation of affordable manufactured housing. The theory essentially suggests that the processes inherent to the production of architecture should control the direction of architectural design.111 This is essentially a denial of unique but arbitrary form within architectural design. It creates a formal character derived specifically from the means of production of the product and its specific methods of use. In this case, form results directly from the way the home is to be built and used—an honest approach to generating a typology that communicates the entire life of the project. Figure 2. Materiality and production should be reflected in Designers too often apply notions of typological form in a the home. (Shown here in the Trub House in Zurich) superficial manner that disregards associated meaning and specific opportunities. For instance, it is not the design of a place for learning; it is the design of a school. Architects do not design places to gather and express spirituality. They design churches. And people live in houses—whose form often ends up being dictated as much by tradition (and again, market inertia) as anything else. These shallow associations of form and use have flattened typology and stifled creativity.

Rafael Moneo suggested that typology both describes and produces architecture, but that this production process must be a fluid force; the architect begins designing with the understanding of the typological foundations of form, use, and precedent, but transforms each design to establish a specific singularity for each object. But in spite of the opportunities to innovate provided within the design process certain forms are returned to repeatedly. Specific problems continue to lead to similar solutions over and over again.112 Even the advent of manufactured housing, a subset of the traditional home typology, has failed to dent the contemporary formal notions of what a home looks like.

110 Andrei Codrescu, foreward to Mobile: The Art of Portable Architecture, by Jennifer Siegal (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002), 011. 111 Anthony Vidler, “The Third Typology,” Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, an Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995 (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), 258-264. 112 Rafael Moneo, “On Typology,” Oppositions, 13th ed. (n.p., 1978), 23-27.

39

Typology and Home

Mobile housing in the United States traces its roots to the mass-produced Conestoga wagons of the nineteenth century westward expansion. They were a uniquely mobile blend of the need for transport, shelter, and property storage. They introduced the concept of itinerant living to this country. The long-term derivatives of these wagons were the first trailer homes. The evolution of manufactured housing continued through a variety of completely prefabricated house schemes. As mobile homes became less and less mobile they began more and more to resemble site-built homes—even though they were still produced in a factory. Figure 3. Conestoga wagon, an early mobile home. By accentuating the pragmatics of the construction process, type could become prototype in the manner of Corbusier’s Dom-ino housing method. The unitization of architectural objects shifted the field towards the exploitation of mass production techniques, and away from the continuation of older forms and ideas.113 But type has come instead to represent an inclusion of certain concrete attributes derived from cultural notions of use. These meanings become attached to forms—the suburban house, for example, maintains a pitched roof, shutters, and horizontal siding because that is what people have come to expect. These elements persist more through convention than through ongoing investigation and design. Nowhere is this more certain than within the manufactured housing community, that currently patterns itself after the prototypical suburban home. Figure 4. Vinyl siding, a hallmark of suburbia. Ideally, prefabrication combines traditional materials with contemporary aesthetics to create innovative housing solutions. In truth, the majority of new housing constructs— prefab and stick-built alike—cling to a formula that fails to address the evolving nature of families…and a more modern vernacular style desired by a new generation of home buyers. The homes we are used to have less and less relevance to our contemporary needs. It is imperative that the home evolves to meet those needs.114

But it largely has not. The impact of typology on residential design has been so shallow, yet so complete, that architectural innovation and the re-examination of patterns of use and living have been all but squelched. American manufactured homes now continue the trend. For decades, prefabricated and mobile housing marketed itself to a relatively narrow economic scope—primarily those who could not afford the land, construction, and mortgage costs of a site-built home, but would not be relegated to a low-rent apartment. It attracted the lower end of the economic spectrum and couples just beginning life together. Only

113 Moneo, “On Typology,” 27-33. 114 Allison Arieff and Bryan Burkhart, Prefab (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, Publisher, 2002), 36.

40 recently has the prefab concept come in vogue—entire retirement communities have sprung up around the country and manufactured housing is one of the fastest-expanding housing markets. The forms of these homes changed drastically over the last fifty years—they no longer have wheels (since they no longer move) and most have traditional gabled roofs and more standardized spatial configurations. These represent strong shifts in the typology that refer more and more to an entirely different economic and social group. The prefabricated house has all but lost its Figure 5. Historic trailer typology. unique identity and has forsaken the population it was designed for.

Infiltration of Image

The misuse of type in residential design has been exaggerated to such a level that it dominates all other theoretic components inherent to the architect’s intention. Corbusier’s ideal of architectural prototype suggests that housing should be “unit[s], the result of factory production process, capable of being sent anywhere.”115 This vision of the architectural process could permeate residential design as the honest revelation of mass production. Instead, factory fabricated housing is produced in the very image of more traditional site-built housing, even though the methods of construction, the specific demands of the user group, and indeed the very programmatic requirements are often vastly different than those of the typical urban or suburban client. Figure 6. Typical manufactured Manufactured housing is intended to situate itself in exactly home. the same manner in every location, a denial of site- specificity. Yet it retains the image of homes created for a specific region or a unique site.116

The suggestion that form is appropriate simply because it imitates what has come before or what has served adequately in other applications is preposterous. It completely devalues the ramifications of programmatic, contextual, and spatial investigations—the hallmarks of critical architectural design. In this way, manufactured housing becomes interested only in recognition of image and not at all with pure expression of process and purpose. There is an utter absence of individuality or singularity of form. The typological shell is created through factory prefabrication, but it is completed without realizing any specifically unique programmatic fill. Current manufactured housing deals the consumer a familiar image, but one that is an image through and through.

Perhaps the “American Dream” has interfered with the coherent rationalization of the American housing market. The middle class aspires to the station of the upper class, the

115 Moneo, “On Typology,” 33. 116 Moneo, “On Typology,” 33.

41 lower classes crave the stuff of the middle class, and the cycle continues ad infinitum. So even though traditional middle class homes have evolved relatively little, or perhaps precisely because of this trend, they are held up as the model of the “perfect” American house—a typifier of ownership, a tangible product of success and hard work, and an affirmation of a firm place in the collective culture. The image of suburban America has become the guarantee of this American Dream, and in this regard serves as an archetypal unit for popular philosophies of what one’s aspirations “should be.” Forget, for a moment, that this vision Figure 7. The “American Dream,” is appropriate for only a limited subsection of the culture. It is a home and a patch of grass the vision to which nearly all aspire. (shown here in western Cincinnati). The effect on the consumer housing market is an overwhelming demand for middle-class suburban housing. Brick veneers and vinyl siding march in seemingly endless rows through suburbia, capped by gabled roofs and asphalt shingling. The colors are neutral, beiges, grays, and browns dominate the landscape. Yards are small, green, and well trimmed; they may feature one or two ornamental trees, replanted after the site was cleared for construction. In some neighborhoods the houses so resemble each other that personalization is nearly impossible. The plans and interior layouts of the houses are nearly similar, and are often chosen from pre-designed sets. Life is forced to fit itself to “design,” rather than allowing design to be informed by individual living patterns. It is more typecasting than typology—entire groups of people are represented by the same generic images. But they are the images that have come to represent the middle-class suburban lifestyle—and manufactured housing has followed along, amplifying the suburban resonance. The image, then, sells the product more than any specific functional requirements that it satisfies.

Thus, manufactured housing has regressed, becoming more and more visually similar to site-built residential work. Advances in mass production and manufacturing technologies have made it far easier than ever before to produce homes in the factory—but these advances have also facilitated the simple replication of the vision and form of suburbia in the modern trailer park. These technologies should be innovating a new form that provides manufactured housing with a unique and proud aesthetic. The distinct mobile form that was once the image of a specific subculture has been supplanted by a suburban vernacular that, in the Figure 8. Manufactured housing words of Wes Jones, communities mimic suburban developments (shown here in does not reflect the traditional pervasive concern for western Cincinnati) efficiency and attendant sense of appropriateness, but a market-driven vision of what that should be, as capricious as the consumer pool and the advertising dollars which stir it.117

117 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 36.

42 This has not always been the case—in fact, manufactured housing has stirred the imagination of architects for decades. The Dom-ino system, the Dymaxion house, and Wright’s Usonian plans uniquely examined mass production aesthetics.118 These projects are indicative of transformations of the American house into more critically introspective permutations of a structure for dwelling. They begin with the basic formal and environmental assumptions of the traditional house, but conclude with fundamentally altered aesthetic and functional characteristics—yet they manage to retain an intrinsic link to the type category that elicits house. That none of the schemes have survived the tests of time, taste, and shifting economics is strongly indicative of society’s pursuit of image-only.

People strive for the picture that represents a lifestyle. And they are caught in a vicious circle. Developers build based on what has already sold to the market, afraid to take chances on serious innovations that could result in financial loss. Consumers buy based on what developers offer, Figure 9. Geometries of Fuller’s assuming that the product will give them the suburban Dymaxion house. ideal…and the style persists. Change is a tenuous prospect, especially where housing is concerned, since it represents the largest investment most people will ever make. Taking a chance on a product that is looks and feels different than what has supposedly already been “proven” must seem like gambling with one’s future happiness—and is a risk that most cannot afford to take.

Compounding the issue further are the struggles of the lower economic classes to reach the vision of a middle class suburban life. It is evident that manufactured housing has the opportunity to elevate its consumers through uniquely tailored design. But even more evident is its penchant for delivering exactly what the consumer desires—a replica of a suburban home. The skewed sense of what typology offers pervades even the factory processes, where traditional stick construction is still used. Until the consumer is persuaded away from the image of “house,” truer forms of residential architecture will remain elusive. Figure 10. The mixing of typologies in a trailer in Virginia. Restoring Integrity

Rossi argued for a much more broad synthesis of type that examines architecture with emphasis on finding value and consequence in the formation of real place.119 It is this line of reasoning that is clearly absent from manufactured housing today. In the pursuit of the façade of a typological ideal, issues including economics, pragmatics, materiality, specific aesthetic, and generation of meaningful place have been all but lost. These are all issues that must be valued in a critical

118 Arieff and Burkhart, Prefab, 13-24. 119 Rossi, “Extract from The Architecture of the City,” 394.

43 understanding of the generation of type, and the generation of form and space from type.

An opportunity exists in manufactured housing to meet the specific needs of individual homeowners without sacrificing the clear advantages of prefabrication. A modular approach to the home would allow consumers to “design” their dwellings with respect to the exact spatial demands they require—it would even allow them to adjust the housing unit as their specific life situations change. The typological basis for the home should be rooted not merely in the aesthetic of the suburban house, but more fixedly in the activities that create a dwelling place. Christian Norberg- Schulz offers that dwellings are the “total man-place Figure 11. Assembly options. relationship…located in space and exposed to a certain environmental character…[which] presupposes identification with the environment.”120 They account not only for the structures inherent to dwelling, but also for the feeling—the acts and consequences—of dwelling. The physical enclosure of the home provides only a visual framework for the typology, which lies within the deeper meaning of home.121

Manufactured housing does not need to imitate traditional housing, especially since the design is nothing more than a derivation. Type is unfortunately treated as a mere visual device, creating imagery evocative of suburban middle class housing. It should instead strive to remodel form and suggest the specific benefits of the prefabrication process, thereby creating an identity for manufactured housing communities. Rather than innovating within the theoretical construct of typology, manufacturers currently submit to the bland repetition of empty formal and functional design.

Typology exists as a fusion of both the structure and meaning of an architectural object. The resulting type associates itself with a highly specific set of formal characteristics—a set that changes at least minutely for every new instance. More important is the correlation between type and particular lifestyle—in this way typology establishes itself as the filter through which architecture is analyzed and understood. If it is true that type “reacts dialectically with technique, function, and style, as well as with the collective character and the individual moment of the architectural artifact,”122 then greater variation of architectural form and habitational quality should be realized. That it is not seems to be the primary evidence of the misappropriation of typology within Figure 12. KFN Systems’ Two- manufactured housing today. Family House in Austria, a contemporary prefabricated home.

120 Christian Norberg-Schulz, “The Phenomenon of Place,” Architecture, Criticism, Ideology, ed. Joan Ockman (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Architectural Press, 1985), 423-424. 121 Norberg-Schulz, “The Phenomenon of Place,” 416-423. 122 Rossi, “Extract from The Architecture of the City,” 398.

44 Theory Systems of Modularity and Production

There can be no doubt that the first prerequisite for a good building has always been the best tools and the best methods, and it is in industrialization that this condition is best fulfilled. For industrialization brings within our reach a level of technical accuracy, quality and precision never before attained in the history of building. Industry, not the individual and not craftsmanship, determines what can be achieved and thus establishes the boundaries of the possible.123

Production Principles

Contemporary construction, both site and factory-based, utilizes the advances in systems and modular theory that have been realized over the last century through progress in industrialization and mass production techniques. Mobile homes were one of the first building types to focus the entire production process within the factory setting, in order to ensure exact replication and tight quality control. The attention to precision that could be attained in the realm of mass production led to drastic code reformations for “non- permanent” homes and produced lower retail costs. The effect was instant relevance in the housing market.124

The construction industry has long wrestled to balance the benefits of industrialization and mass production with the Figure 13. Historic assembly line. corresponding perception of loss of craft and individuality of object. In fact the pragmatics of contemporary construction insist upon a machine-centric manufacturing process that takes full advantage of available technologies to ensure infinitely repeatable precision.

Machine production varies from hand craftsmanship in its endless ability to produce exact copies of architectural objects and construction materials. But the real value of industrial production lies in its lack of distinction between simplicity and complexity. Creating intricate pieces requires no more or less exertion from the machine than does the creation of simple pieces—the difference lies merely in the setup of the machining process. Thus the disparity between the economics of simple and complex construction has shrunk dramatically, eliminating the economic advantage of hand production.125 Prefabrication essentially provides a value for production (given that the scale of production is Figure 14. Simplicity and adequate) and focuses primarily on the economies and complexity in manufactured efficiencies associated with the processes of transport and components. construction.126

123 Konrad Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design (New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1961), 49. 124 Ezra D. Ehrenkrantz, Architectural Systems: A Needs, Resources, and Design Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989), 110. 125 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 49-52. 126 Ehrenkrantz, Architectural Systems: A Needs, Resources, and Design Approach, 110.

45 Modularity in Production

The essence of the modular concept is the deconstruction of a design into smaller and smaller sub-components until a singular modular unit is arrived at for each piece of the total finished product. Ideally, each of these sub-modules may be operated upon with a degree of independence from the other sub-modules. If all of these sub-modules are interrelated so that the construction of one relies directly on information or development from another, the entire production process is slowed. By breaking the product into a series of increasingly smaller components, decisions about the whole product may be made initially and carried down

Figure 15. Modular assembly through the system. This parallelism drastically reduces the process on a manufactured time needed to develop the full system. Dimensioning the housing line. final product first, for example, aids in dimensioning the component parts and determining the modes of production required for the entire system. In addition, changes may be easily made to facilitate shifting technologies, functions, and aesthetics within the design.127

Konrad Wachsmann proposed theories of modular coordination that relate directly to the manufacturing and construction processes. Essentially, the specific size, shape, and relative proportion of construction pieces should be a derivative of an exploration of the machines utilized during the production process. The methods required in the relation and connection of the pieces to each other should be analyzed. Modular coordination relies heavily on specification and reduction of tolerances between design and construction, both in the object sense and as a result of external factors encountered during and after erection. The determination of the dimensional extremes within a single system effectively sets the bounds for production within the system.128

The module is the abstract fundamental unit of measurement that, by means of multiplication, subtraction or division, numerically determines the geometrical system of a given modular order.129

Pragmatic considerations affect the design of the modules. People still interact with the production cycle and the Figure 16. Plow blades produced with prefabrication systems. finished product, so the modules must relate to the proportions of the human figure. Motions such as walking, stretching, bending, and reaching must be accounted for in the design of the overriding building module. The dimensions of doors and windows, the height of countertops and benches, and the length of beds and baths are all directly defined by the average size of the human figure. These

127 Shirley, Gordon V., “Modular Design and the Economics of Design for Manufacturing,” Integrating Design and Manufacturing for Competitive Advantage, Ed. Gerald I. Susman (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). 84-93. 128 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 54. 129 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 54.

46 considerations are just as important as the technical issues since they directly affect the end user.130

The objective of modular design is a single base unit that rationalizes a balance between a variety of classifications of physical properties. This cellular unit may become part of a larger building module or may itself be the building block. Wachsmann’s modular categories establish performance criteria for each unit; these categories must be holistically considered to realize efficient modular design. The categories, and brief descriptions follow:

Material Module: The effects of specific raw material sizes and the capabilities of the machines that handle these materials affect the material module. The limitations once imposed by the handling of raw materials have been lessened by the increased capacity of machine tools over hand tools. Thus the material module is no longer directly linked to the human scale, but instead may be designed to be more relevant to production processes and the resulting product.131 The four-foot by eight-foot module is repeated Figure 17. Material modules throughout a variety of sheet-good building products impact assembly techniques. including plywood, sheathings, and drywall. Standardization of the material module facilitates the quick assembly of building components. A consistent material module also unifies the means of transportation of various construction materials.

Performance Module: Performance incorporates the way that materials are used in a post-production sense. The finished product should exploit the significant physical properties of the base material without emphasizing any deficiencies within the material. The performance module is concerned primarily with the structural and economic efficiencies of the material and product.132 Consider the grain of wood—it causes the material to have greater strength in one direction than in the other, a factor that must be considered when working with wood products. Figure 18. Houses awaiting Consequently, plywood, with its layers of alternating grain, is transport and final assembly. specifically designed to remove the strong directionality that any single component might exert on the module as a whole. Structural supports may be regularly spaced over 16 inches or more in stick construction, based on the structural capabilities of dimensional lumber and the spanning potential of sheathing materials. Buildings should be designed to maximize the capacity of each material while maintaining an adequate safety factor.

Geometry Module: Dimensional proportion is directly governed by the geometry module, in a mathematically logical system of size ratios. Geometry essentially conveys

130 Lionel March and Philip Steadman, The Geometry of Environment (London: RIBA Publications Limited, 1971), 202. 131 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 60. 132 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 60.

47 the specific fit of the modular system within the framework of the construction as a whole. It establishes a consistent level of flexibility within the system through the expansion and contraction of the size ratios. Using both constant and related factors, the relative dimensions of component parts may be determined by the geometry module.133 Masonry dimensions, especially brick, are designed with dimensional proportions in mind. For instance, three courses of standard brick measure eight inches, a normative dimension for both masonry units and other building products.

Handling Module: Literally, the ability of the modular unit to be handled by an acceptable number of laborers, including storage, transportation, and erection. It takes into account Figure 19. Unitary geometries. both the size and weight of the piece: control by one or two people is the preferred result. Specifics such as average arm length and lifting ability have great impact on the development of the handling module.134 Contemporary construction has dictated a four-foot by eight-foot handling module for most sheet goods—this is the largest size that may be easily manipulated by one or two people.

Structural Module: The position, size, and support capabilities of the structural members are determined within the structural module. The structure may be internal or external to the individual modular units, but its placement directly affects the overall proportioning of the system. The structural module also governs the location of joints and module-to- module connections that occur within the system. In this regard, it has a great impact on the definition of many of the other construction modules. A larger structural spacing often means a heftier structural component, which likely impacts the design of the entire modular system. Remember that none of these modules may stand alone or develop independently—for the system to function properly, they must all be interrelated.135

Element Module: The element module defines the relationship of specific surface material characteristics. The system must strike a balance between individuality of object and multiplicity of use within each piece that best utilizes the physical and visual properties of the surface. Wachsmann defines three major elemental categories: opaque, transparent, and surface-defining. A smaller element module allows for greater combinability within the overall system, but also effectively creates more pieces to be joined within the system.136 The possibility of combining two or more of the elemental module categories (opaque and transparent for instance) would create highly flexible space that could be Figure 20. Joint and structural shifted for a variety of uses. module working in unison.

133 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 60-61. 134 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 61. 135 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 61-62. 136 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 62-64.

48 Joint Module: The specific position and type of jointed connections within the modular system is paramount to the flexibility of use that defines the system. The joint module examines the geometric distribution of joints within the system in order to establish an acceptable elasticity of location for each connector. It is entirely possible that the components of the joint module also serve directly within the structural, component, or element modules and are positioned within the basic allowances of the geometry module. It is a connector both in theory and practice. The joint module must be flexible enough to be both structural and aesthetic within the modular system.137

Component Module: The component module allows for the placement of extraneous pieces within the modular system (objects placed within the space), establishing specific rules governing location, connection, and relationship within subdivisions of the modular unit. It effectively encompasses all of the real parts of the system that cannot practically be fit into the specific geometries of the system. The component Figure 21. Installation of module often handles stairs, for example, because their component module. precise and unique requirements allow for little flexibility in their design. These free components are linked to each other and the rest of the system consistently, allowing the module to fit within the production process.138

Tolerance Module: The overall fit of the system is governed by the tolerance module, which factors in the minute gain realized between connections, as well as expansion and contraction, and compensates for them in the dimensions of the system. It is directly linked to the joint module, since most of the effects of tolerances are felt in the areas where component pieces come together. The tolerance module Figure 22. Diagram of modular may also affect the sequence of production, especially if the tolerances. fit of certain parts directly drives the installation of other pieces within the system.139 The entire system must be assembled with a minimal accumulation of error, though this tolerance level varies with the construction type. Factory- produced parts demand a far tighter fit than construction that occurs in the field, since the factory setting provides far greater controls over fabrication and assembly.

Installation Module: Quite simply, the location and means of installation of all the mechanical services required within a building system. The installation module locates and standardizes the placement of these systems within the individual unitary modules in order to create a comprehensive mechanical system. The essence of this module is the efficient placement of each system’s transport Figure 23. Installation points and distribution mechanisms. The study of the hierarchy of within the system. the systems within each piece of the building should help in determining the placement and importance of the

137 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 66. 138 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 67-68. 139 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 68.

49 components at each installation point. For instance, in a bathroom the placement of pipes would likely take precedence over the placement of ducts and cables— though this might not always be the case. Each situation warrants new examination of the distribution of the installation module.140

Fixture Module: The fixture module establishes parameters for the installation of post-construction fixtures that must fit within the modular system. Whether or not they are movable or removable, they must conform to the geometry that drives the design. Scale and proportion are determined not only by the built-up pieces of the product, but also by the fixtures that populate it. It is telling that manufacturers have Figure 24. Fixture module. adapted their products to the modular systems of the construction trades, often working through basic two and four-foot grids in cabinet and appliance design. Since the effects of the fixture module are often much more readily visible than those of other modules, it is of paramount consequence that they blend seamlessly into the system.141 The locations of post-production fixtures may be anticipated within the design and construction processes since they often depend on other services and utilities (plumbing, electricity) to operate.

Planning Module: The planning module is the collection of all the modular systems into a quantifiable agreement within which each system may both interact with the others and exist individually. It is essentially the resulting dimensional grid that determines and coordinates the production of each unitary piece. The planning module provides the commonality through which all other modular systems are integrated into the finished product. Though it is based in theory, it is perhaps the one tangible key to making all of the modules work in unison.142

On a smaller scale, the production of individual system components entails a set of design, fabrication, and use considerations. Products may be categorized by their range of function and motion within the built system. This is compounded by particular functional requirements and the assignment of functional duties to individual components. Production pieces are ordered by considerations of specific material interactions and properties, but of equal concern is the ease with which the piece may be removed from the system or replaced within the system. And of perhaps most immediate consequence are the aesthetic concerns. Especially in the housing market, modular design can and should foster a unique aesthetic that reflects the processes of Figure 25. Wachsmann-designed the production system. Yet it must still remain acceptable to component panel system.

140 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 69. 141 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 69. 142 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 70.

50 a consumer base most familiar with conventional stick construction.143

Joints in the System

The joining of component pieces in modular systems is a necessary reality of systems construction. Wachsmann identifies four connection types that should service any panel-to-panel connection requirement: two-way connections, three-way connections, four-way connections, Figure 26. Possible joint types. and two-way connections forming a right angle. He also suggests that end connectors may actually be separately conceived module-termination pieces that close and seal the exposed end of a unit panel. The problem arising from the need for joinery is the inherent aesthetic. Joints create “flaws” in the finished surface of the modular system, imperfections that are often unacceptable to the end user.

Traditionally, these joined areas have been patched or covered to hide them from sight, creating a more marketable visual effect, but also perpetuating untruths about the construction techniques inherent to the system. The hiding of jointed areas also decreases the economy of the system, since more material and labor costs are built into the effort. Exposing the joined areas, and allowing the systematic nature of the construction to be easily read realizes a measure of authenticity and economic practicality.144 The “joined” aesthetic is gaining popularity in the contemporary market, as applied surface panels and revealed connections appear more frequently in architectural design. We are slowly becoming an openly modular society, though this Figure 27. Exposing the joints visual trend has yet to be expressed in the bulk of between panels. manufactured housing available today.

The importance of the specific joining systems employed in the overall modular system is clear when considering the replacement or upgrade of its individual components. A connection technique that facilitates demountability is desirable in nearly every situation, since one of the benefits of a modular system is its easily replaceable nature. Modular panels should be able to be applied and removed without disturbing the bulk of the constructed system. This may imply a connection device that is easily accessed from either inside or outside the system, or that may be mechanically removed and reinstalled without tremendous effort.145

Ground Rules for Production

Production is driven by three simple ideas. One may subtract from an object, removing or taking from it in some way. One

143 M. Myrup Andreasen, S. Kahler, and T. Lund, Design for Assembly (New York: IFS (Publications) Ltd., 1983), 21. 144 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 76-78. 145 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 76-84.

51 might also add to an object, giving back to it or joining it to another. And objects may be formed—this is both the creation and deformation of the object. In addition, we may consider the motion of the machine that performs the above functions as a fourth activity. Within these four, all of the processes of fabrication may be defined.146

A study of subtraction reveals a great impact on the economics of production. The selection of the means of subtraction bears heavily on the resulting product and the waste that is produced. The efficiency of material that is necessary to a large-scale production effort is driven by the amount of subtracted waste that is produced, and by its value as a reclaimable resource. The subtractive tool itself is nearly as important as the product it produces, so the innovation of these tools plays a role in the overall economy of the product.147

Gluing, pressing, welding, bonding, and mechanically fastening are all additive techniques used in the production process. The immediate benefit of adding is the creation of a larger, perhaps stronger unit from a number of smaller, more easily transportable units. Pieces with smaller individual Figure 28. Subtraction. modularities may be joined to fit within the planning module of the product. Occasionally addition also means increased strength or sturdiness where more material or special configurations could mean more resistance to external forces. The drawback of an additive method is its propensity to be somewhat unstable. Pieces that have been added to one another always bear the possibility of some future separation that could be catastrophic within the workings of the system as a whole.148

Forming is a combination of addition, subtraction, and a few unique processes that test the plasticity of raw materials. Molding, casting, and extruding are common means of forming necessary components. The additive and subtractive processes are incorporated into the sizing and creation of the individual molds and templates, and decisions based on economies of scale and assembly must be made before a component can be formed. Again, the method of forming must be perfectly matched with both the material and purpose in order to realize maximum efficacy in the final product.149

Prefabrication and standardization are inexorably linked in discussions of modularity and mass production. Standardized production over a large market yields products that may be produced by one maker and assembled by another, potentially saving time and money. The production line Figure 29. Addition. becomes a series of branches merging in a central assembly

146 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 92. 147 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 92-93. 148 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 94-97. 149 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 98-99.

52 area, rather than a linear arrangement dependent on the completion of one step before the next may commence. The speed of production is increased as the assembly process becomes more efficient. Offsite prefabrication essentially automates the production process by delivering key components in a ready-to-assemble state.150

Economics of Modularity

Costs within a modular production system may be broken into three basic categories: variable costs, joint costs, and common costs. Variable costs are often related to specific

Figure 30. Fleetwood production material and labor, and fluctuate throughout the system. line. Joint costs are shared by related products, and occur between similar product lines. Common costs are distributed across the entire system and are equally incurred and shared by all production modules. Variable costs will always be incurred in differing amounts based on the materials and processes necessary within the system. Reducing the number of variables and increasing the commonalities of production, thus reducing joint and common expenditures, may best realize the economies of modularization.151

Efficient production demands that a balance be struck between the range of options desired and the effort and investment needed to produce that range. Too many variables means limited production runs with a great deal of Figure 31. A few variables may time and money spent refining and reworking the machines. be combined to produce a wide Too few variables may well mean a disinterested consumer array of options. base and similar economic failure. Furthermore, the range of products benefits from some general relationships—if they all adhere to similar modular systems they gain value in their combinability and interchangeability. As a result, the construction industry has plywood, drywall, and cladding panels of a similar size. They may be combined in a variety of ways within the standard construction module without any significant post-production alterations—a highly efficient means of building. The precursors to contemporary prefabricated housing operated on a variety of modular systems, and were accordingly far less successful than today’s more cohesively modular models.152

The most efficient modules are similar in all dimensions— effectively forming a cube. The cube may be scaled up or down to fit the specific needs of individual components, but by retaining an exacting system of proportion, maximum efficiency may be realized from each raw material in the system. In building construction, a smaller base module Figure 32. The most efficient yields far more design and fabrication options. In practice, modular system. the current standard base module is (nominally) four inches,

150 Professor Henrik Nissen, Industrialized Building and Design, Trans. Pauline Katborg (London: Cement and Concrete Association, 1972), 18-20. 151 Shirley, Gordon V., “Modular Design and the Economics of Design for Manufacturing,” 93-95. 152 March and Steadman, The Geometry of Environment, 199-200.

53 catering to both masonry and stud dimensions. The sequencing and placement of all components may be maximized because an exact and consistent module exists.153

Limiting the number of dimensional modules employed in a design may produce a pleasant aesthetic return. Rhythms and proportions are more easily established and understood when the field has been thinned of extraneous distractions. So for the architect, simplicity may be a blessing. Simplicity also saves the manufacturer from producing wide ranges of sizes and options, but in doing so may limit the viability of the product. It is better business to produce a wider range of very specifically dimensioned products than it is to fabricate only a select few. To a point, more options (especially of smaller dimensions) allows exponentially more combinations, so that nearly any situation may be resolved with an amalgamation of parts. Though the manufacturer expends more resources in production, the products become Figure 33. Expanding the basic tremendously more valuable because of their overall module arithmetically. versatility.154 March and Steadman compare this phenomenon to the structure of currency or weight-measure. The smaller units of the system may be combined to form nearly any size or quantity. Both the large and small units may be utilized in measuring or dimensioning the overall system.155

Economic sustainability of a mass produced system relies on reaching a break-even point, where expenditures and income are at least equal. Each component of the system carries with it a specific cost—the cost includes setting up the machines necessary to fabricate the part, the actual production process, and the shipping and assembly costs. The system carries with it a minimum production run necessary to recoup the costs associated with setup and fabrication. Once sales reach the minimum level, and essentially pay for these startup costs, the further production and sale of each unit will at least break even, and should Figure 34. Material and joint move into margins of profit (if that is the intention of creating coming together. the product). Thus, the minimum production run necessary to break even should be analyzed at the beginning of any project, in order to determine the economic feasibility of the system as a whole.

Conclusions

Standardization is easily achieved when designing within the mass production framework—although the continuing technical advances within the construction industry create their own set of ever-shifting parameters for design. Of perhaps greatest concern to the architectural profession is

153 March and Steadman, The Geometry of Environment, 200-202. 154 March and Steadman, The Geometry of Environment, 215. 155 March and Steadman, The Geometry of Environment, 212.

54 the public acceptance of new standards of production.156 Sociology largely dictates the impact of innovation on the contemporary market—will a product be accepted as an advance of individual quality of life, or will it be rejected for aesthetic or functional reasons. Producers often study what the most advanced yet still reasonably acceptable options are. The public may be relatively fickle in its sense of taste, but occasionally will reach out to embrace an original design concept or a groundbreaking visual trend. Trial and error (and subsequent correction) seems to be the method of market study, though a careful inspection of current trends and desires may yield more accurate predictions of the course of aesthetic taste.

The tremendous initial cost of factory manufacturing forces the continuation of conventional construction techniques, even though industrialized assembly realizes great gains in quality, productivity, and economy. Manufactured housing, in particular, benefits from a “just-in-time” delivery methodology, wherein overhead and inventory costs are reduced by the as-needed delivery of component parts. Nevertheless, the risk of failure and substantial financial loss Figure 35. A steel house by Josef has curbed the spread of manufactured housing as a systems Hoffman demonstrates the shifting 157 of manufactured homes toward approach. suburban stylings. Different philosophies have arisen concerning the application of modular production in manufactured housing. The factory-finished model is common today; it consists of a completely finished and furnished house shipped to a site. This method involves virtually no site assembly, but is relatively inflexible. More changeable is the component kit that may be assembled in different arrangements. Standardized parts are designed to fit together in a variety of ways, allowing a measure of design variability within a single modular system. The open building concept allows an exterior shell to be manufactured and prepared to receive a variety of installations. It recognizes the multiple levels of activity that occur within a house and creates a permanent structure Figure 36. Basic modular within which new furnishings and technologies may be easily principles applied to mass- incorporated. Developing a standard module for the interior produced products, such as LEGO fixtures allows virtually limitless possibilities for spatial toys, demonstrates the assembly design.158 and variability of the system.

Mass production, with its inherent economies of scale and efficiencies of material, must remain in the design conversation as a viable alternative to traditional construction. Of even greater consequence is the adoption of a systemic modular approach to building. Factory fabrication processes must ensure levels of quality and compatibility that mesh seamlessly with inspired design and investigation into the processes of living.

156 Wachsmann, The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design, 74. 157 David Gann, Flexibility and Choice in Housing (Bristol, Great Britain: The Policy Press, 1999), 12-14. 158 Gann, Flexibility and Choice in Housing, 16-20.

55 Conceptual System Analysis Introduction to System Models

After examining and understanding precedents to contemporary manufactured housing and the theories of systems design and production, it is possible to begin to propose conceptual systems designs. These concepts may act as a building point for the theoretical and practical development of a working model for affordable manufactured housing. These studies should be considered both individually and as a collection of schemes that may be interwoven in the pursuit of a design solution.

The Factory-Direct module utilizes a simple volumetric massing that provides for several cladding options, and almost limitless interior spatial configurations. The DOM-INO module is based principally on Corbusier’s DOM-INO housing scheme. With flat floor plates supported by intermediate columns, the interior plan possibilities are nearly limitless. The exterior cladding options are also much greater than in other systems. The Unitized Component module breaks the program into individual physical programmatic elements and allows them to be connected in a variety of configurations. This scheme offers far more long-term flexibility than either of the previous two. The Kit of Parts breaks down every element of the home into standardized pieces that may be combined in a variety of ways. This system also provides for a great deal of flexibility of form to suit each family’s specific needs.

The primary concerns in the analysis of these systems must be the relative economies of fabrication, assembly, and delivery. Each offers a unique set of design possibilities that must be reconciled with the labor necessary for its production. The solution is likely a synthesis of two or more individual schemes into a design that combines pragmatics, economics, spatial flexibility, and systems production theories into a marketable form.

56 Conceptual System Analysis Factory-Direct Module

The current manufactured housing market utilizes total factory fabrication of the housing units, transporting them to site as oversized flatbed loads. This method seems to be a derivative of historic mobile home theory—the creation of an easily transportable house module that is completely constructed within the confines of a factory, leaving only Figure 1. The massing block. delivery and placement as external variables. Modern housing expands upon the single-unit module, combining multiple factory units into double and even triple-wide houses that are tied together during the site installation. The consumer realizes a savings in on-site labor and delivery time, and may occupy the house almost as soon as it is planted.

Manufactured housing is quite similar to traditional site-built housing, utilizing some of the same stick-by-stick construction methods within the factory. Walls may be individually built and installed, or panel systems may be used within a Figure 2. Panelizing the walls. structural framework. These methods are relatively efficient and conducive to factory construction—especially integral structural/skin panels. Thus the Factory-Direct Module concept makes use of the existing basis of factory fabrication, breaking it into a smaller, more adaptable grid. Customization and specialization may occur within the established grid, though much of the inherent initial flexibility occurs within the exterior envelope and the physical plan. Both remain within the limits of the basic massing.

In its entirety, this scheme allows for relatively little Figure 3. Applied surfaces. adaptability in the long term for the consumer. Options for combination in modular “bundles” are limited by the mass, cost, and structuring of the individual units. Stacking separate housing modules is possible, but requires augmented structuring in key areas. Any of these connection options would require advance planning and fabrication. It is important to remember that any large customization within this scheme adds to the factory cost without adding a finely controllable measure of personalization of the module.

Figure 4. Wrapping the mass. The rules binding this scheme make it less attractive than some other conceptual approaches that, in the end, deliver roughly the same product. However, this approach may realize the greatest economy of material and labor of any of the schemes. The surfaces and potential panel systems supply the greatest opportunity for modification. The interior partitions may be placed nearly anywhere, much like the DOM-INO module that follows, which provides an opportunity for highly individualized interior spaces. However, the basic massing must always remain the same in order to maximize the savings.

Figure 5. Variety of plan forms.

57 Conceptual System Analysis DOM-INO Module

An early form of standardized housing manifested itself in Corbusier’s DOM-INO concept. Consisting primarily of structural columns supporting continuous floor slabs, the DOM-INO method allowed nearly endless flexibility of plan within the exterior mass of the building. The modules could be stacked to allow vertical expansion, or butted next to each other to enlarge the plan on a modular scale. The Figure 6. The DOM-INO concept. original system existed on a house-sized scale, but the conceptual system shown here could be composed of much smaller modular units, allowing greater variation in form and massing. The benefit in using smaller units may be realized only in the massing, since the design provides nearly a carte- blanche tableau when laying the plan within the system.

The possibilities for the profile and exterior plan may be greatly increased from Corbusier’s rectilinear design. Much Figure 7. Variety of edge of the structural system is site-fabricated, allowing greater treatments. specificity within the design. But this site fabrication also increases the labor costs and relative time necessary to completely erect the house. It is a fairly permanent system, not one that may be easily relocated or modified after construction—it is perhaps the most permanent of the conceptual designs under consideration.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of this conceptual system lies within the “curtain wall” approach that may be taken to the interior and exterior sheathing and surfaces. Since the structure and slabs exist separate from the enclosure, nearly Figure 8. Stacking and rotational options. any convenient gridded modular system may be utilized (in this case a four foot/eight foot system makes sense as it aligns with current construction technologies). This would allow nearly endless possibilities and interchangeability of exterior design and aesthetic.

Figure 9. Stacking options. The blank modules themselves present numerous possibilities for configuration. Beyond stacking the units on top of each other and placing them next to each other, it is conceivably possible to structure the columns and slab so that one may stand a module on end, thus creating a space as high as a standard unit is long. This could be useful in creating vertical circulation corridors or especially high spaces in particular Figure 10. Plan configuration spots within the plan. options.

Even though this system provides a measure of variety, it is still confined by the module size and shape. It reduces factory fabrication almost to a minimum, though it allows nearly any interior plan to be devised. But its permanence may not suit the needs of the modular and manufactured home markets.

Figure 11. Stacking and plan options.

58 Conceptual System Analysis Unitized Component Module

The unitized component module represents an effort to break the standard manufactured housing mass into its elemental programmatic pieces, thereby creating a level of flexibility and customization impossible to realize within the framework of the current system. Individual modular blocks are designed to support specific program element concepts such as “kitchen”, “bedroom”, “family room”, “bathroom”, and “entry area”. By breaking the program into its base Figure 12. Massing with unitized components, the individual has tremendous freedom in the modules. design and programming of his or her specific home. The nature of piecing together these modular blocks allows the house to expand, contract, and change in accordance with the specific needs of its owners. The possibility exists to further differentiate each space with regard to quality of finish and furnishings, allowing families to upgrade or downgrade the house to reflect their current lifestyle.

Principles of mass production could conceivably limit the number of options for production of the modules—a balance between affordability and range of possibility must be met, as the primary marketing point for this design is its range of Figure 13. Connections between consumer choice. The unitized component module strikes a unitized modules. balance between factory fabrication and site assembly. The units (and all unit variables) should be constructed within the confines of the factory and may be truck-transported to the site. Primary site labor should consist of “plugging” the units into one another.

Figure 14. Connection and Each component module is individually structured and may surfacing options. be capable of supporting stacking, thus allowing homes to grow vertically, or allowing multiple houses to be stacked upon one another. If a panelized wall system is employed— with the establishment of a regular grid structure—the orientation possibilities of each space and the entire spatial design increases markedly. The introduction of ordered structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical layouts facilitates this multiplicity of orientation. The physical configuration possibilities are numerous—with no centrally located mass, a measure of equality is distributed throughout the specific programmatic blocks. The approach allows a reexamination of the distribution of space within the Figure 15. Modular bathroom. traditional home plan, and may lead to reconsiderations of the already-defined functions of each space.

Figure 16. Spreading and stacking options. 59 Conceptual System Analysis Kit of Parts

The kit of parts is the most basic, and yet most extreme permutation of the manufactured housing concept. This system deconstructs the house into its individual component units based on the modulation of a standardized grid. The grid should pay respect to the dimensions that dominate the contemporary construction industry. The approach completely breaks down the notion of pre-programmed spatial elements, allowing the exact component materials Figure 17. The kit of parts. and configurations used in one “room” to be directly or indirectly transferred to use in another. The basis of “program” comes to rely specifically on human use patterns and specific equipment pieces that outfit the space, rather than preconceptions of design or aesthetic.

Factory fabrication of the individual construction pieces is maximized with this system—however, a proportional increase in on-site labor is inherent to the system. Because the house is composed of a series component parts, assembly becomes paramount in establishing the unique sense of place within Figure 18. Building enclosure with each design. The house essentially folds flat, allowing easy the kit of parts. shipping and delivery of the construction pieces—but the building process is similar to that intrinsic to stick construction. Individual panels could carry with them the basic structuring and distribution systems, but the panels would still require labor for erection and assembly, with many connections to be made between the individual panels. Another option may be the separate construction of the structural bays, with installation of panels that simply “snap on” to the completed Figure 19. Connection system. structure. Again, either process allows an enormous degree of flexibility, but the trade-off lies in the time and labor required to complete the construction.

From an economic perspective, this system would seem to work best by limiting the number of panel types and finishes, in order to best utilize mass production. Consumers may compensate for the loss of variety by exploiting the multiplicity of design possibilities offered by the panel units. The massing and planning options for the building are nearly limitless, and the system could easily be structured to expand vertically as well as spreading horizontally. Renovations or changes to the house in the future would be quite simple—by merely replacing a few panels the entire aesthetic and experience of the house may be altered.

Figure 20. Dimensional ratios.

60 Project Program Element Inventory

The program elements for a typical home were analyzed according to several parameters dealing with environment, surface, systems, and space. The accompanying illustrations demonstrate graphically the relative plan area for each space. The design of the housing system is based on a four- foot module, represented by the grid behind each illustration. Several layout options are presented for each room, in an effort to more efficiently combine the programmatic spaces into the modular shell. The multiple options also allow a measure of flexibility within each plan, in an effort to satisfy the distinct needs of individual families. Spatial representations that are shown as more saturated were deemed to be better fits within the construction of the complete housing system.

The various combinations of these spaces should facilitate nearly any programming requirements for almost any family situation. Ideally, the home is structured so that extra space may be added or subtracted as the family structure grows or shrinks. Individual spaces within the massing of the home should be allowed to expand or contract as well. This flexibility of plan should allow for a consistent aesthetic, but virtually any imaginable spatial needs.

Entry / Gathering Space

Area: Typically between 24 and 50 square feet.

Floor Surfacing: The heaviest traffic in the house occurs in the primary entry area, as well as in any secondary entry areas. It is imperative that the first surface encountered upon entering the house be fully weather-resistant. This includes water/moisture resistance and impermeability to soiling. The floor surface must also be of a durability to resist multiple forms of impact resulting from a variety of shoe, body, and object types. Hard, panelized surfaces are commonly employed in entry areas as they meet the resistance qualifications and are easily replaced piece-by- piece according to need. The floor panels should allow for regular mechanical runs and at least one vent location.

Wall Surfacing: The entry/gathering space requires walls of some durability, since it does serve as the primary portal to the house proper. Moisture resistance, impact resistance, and resistance to soiling are primary concerns, especially from floor level up to a point around waist level. Stray feet, animals, and umbrella spray are just a few of the factor to consider that could potentially damage the wall surface at Figure 1. this lower level. The walls in this area are often used to Entry and Gathering display pictures, heirlooms, and other personal information about the family—as an introduction to the household. Thus

61 the surface material should be of a nature that lends itself to quick redesigns and changes in display and appearance. These wall panels should allow electrical wiring, and should provide for electrical outlets and switch locations, though they may not be directly necessary in the space.

Ceiling Surfacing: The ceiling surfacing should be generally moisture and weather-resistant, though the immediate impact on the ceiling by the activities in the entry area should be lessened in proportion to the ceiling’s proximity to the floor. Thus, any of a variety of surface materials should be acceptable. The ceiling panels may be required to accommodate regular mechanical runs, electrical wiring, and at least one vent location.

Light: Some daylight is desirable in the entry space, though the presence of the entry portal causes this area to be a prime location for thermal loss. The relatively small size of the space creates difficulties inserting windows in addition to the necessary door, so much of the light in the space may be artificial, either of a central or perimeter nature.

Mechanical/Utility Requirements: Climatic control supplies the bulk of the mechanical requirements in this space. The space must be properly heated, cooled, and conditioned to counteract the effects of the consistent entry of the outside atmosphere and occasional exposure to exterior weather conditions. One or two electrical outlets may be desirable, but this decision will likely depend on the needs of the particular family situation. Water is not required in the entry/gathering space.

Acoustics: Acoustic control in the entry area may be a tricky issue. It is a primary gathering space—where a great deal of conversation and action occur, but it must be designed to at the same instant resist exterior forces and present the home. Thus sound transmission to other spaces may be more important than acoustics within the space. Buffering the noise from the entry area is desirable to an extent, although it may also be advantageous to allow some sound to filter to the surrounding areas of the home. The sounds of family members arriving home or guests arriving for dinner may act as auditory cues for the rest of the family, and may add to the auditory ambience of the house.

Thermal: The entry space is an area of primary infiltration of the external environmental conditions and loss of the interior atmosphere. Every time the door opens, an air exchange is enacted that affects the thermal characteristics of the space and of the surrounding spaces. While it is difficult to stop this process, it is possible (and necessary) to quickly compensate for it by reconditioning the space. It would also be beneficial to design the space in such a way that the transmission of the thermal gain or loss is localized and not conducted to the surrounding spaces.

62

Family Room

Area: Typically between 220 and 260 square feet.

Floor Surfacing: The family room floor surface should accommodate moderate overall traffic and heavy zones of traffic, and should lend itself to multiple uses. Impact and stain resistance are desirable qualities that support the variety of activities likely to take place in the family room. Children are likely to inhabit the floor area, necessitating a surface material that responds gently to the human body. Multiplicity of surface material may be desirable, since certain areas do little more than support furniture—they have inactive use profiles. Harder, more durable surfacing may be advantageous on primary circulation routes through the space. All floor panels should allow for regular mechanical runs and regularly spaced perimeter ventilation.

Wall Surfacing: There are few special requirements placed on the family room wall surfacing. The surface materials should afford a moderate level of impact, dirt, moisture resistance, but the primary concerns will likely be aesthetic in this space. Family room walls are traditionally neutral and serve only as a background for the social events enacted in the space. All wall panels should allow electrical wiring, regularly spaced electrical outlets, and appropriate switch locations.

Ceiling Surfacing: The ceiling surface material in the family room has few special requirements. It should be generally moisture resistant, but is largely an aesthetic decision. The ceiling in this space should likely complement the wall Figure 2. Family Room. surface, and will be required to accommodate regular mechanical runs, electrical wiring, and perimeter ventilation.

Light: This spatial type traditionally utilizes great quantities of natural light admitted through one or several large windows. Placement of the family room, then, tends to be to the exterior (and front) of the housing mass. The family room often serves as the primary entertaining space in the house, and the character of the entire household may be established here. Thus it is imperative that an appropriate mix of natural and artificial lighting be realized. Artificial light is often provided by primary lamp units resting at floor level, and may be augmented by direct or indirect ceiling fixtures.

Mechanical/Utility Requirements: Multiple locations will be required for electrical service in this space, to support a wide variety of electrical devices positioned throughout the room. Common equipment in this space includes: television, stereo, video-DVD device, multiple lamps, novelty fixtures, and personal computer. Ceiling fans and operable windows are engaged to assist with ventilation, but standard heating and

63 cooling is necessary throughout the space. Several vent locations are probably necessary, considering the relatively large size of the space and its multiple connections to the rest of the spatial modules. Moderate heat gain may be realized with proportion to the number of electrical devices in the room. Flexibility of location of each device within the room should be a priority. Water and other services are not necessary in the family room space.

Acoustics: The family room often serves as the center of gathering and activity for the residents of the home, and often contains a television or stereo for entertainment. Thus the acoustics of this space must be carefully controlled, to ensure an environment suitable for conversation or family gatherings. The materials in this space are often soft, in part to reduce the ambient sound. Acoustic control must be maintained here since the family area is often located at the core of the house, where noise generated in it may spread to the surrounding rooms.

Thermal: It is incumbent upon the mechanical systems of the house to provide the primary thermal control within the family room. The space may realize some heat gain based on the number of people inhabiting it, and the amount of electric equipment running within it, but the effects will be minimal when compared with some other spaces in the house. The primary objectives are to maintain a temperature that is comfortable to those who occupy the space and to manage the impact from the family room on the surrounding spaces.

Kitchen

Area: Typically between 190 and 240 square feet.

Floor Surfacing: Standard kitchen floor surfacing must resist occasional food and drink spills, some water, and general moisture. It must be a high-traffic, heavy endurance material that is easily removed and replaced. The combination of food preparation and dining in the same program element suggests the need to continue this surfacing throughout the space. Alternative surfacing may be utilized in the dining area, though it must still maintain qualities of moisture and stain resistance. The dining area will likely receive spot and zone traffic rather than comprehensive high traffic. All floor panels should allow for regular mechanical runs and regularly spaced vents.

Wall Surfacing: The food preparation area requires a “wet” wall to a height a few inches above the food preparation surface. It may either be continuous from the floor level or integrated with the cabinetry and appliance placement in the area. The wall surface above the food preparation area should generally resist heat and moisture, but may be any of Figure 3. Kitchen a variety of materials. The wall surfacing in the dining area

64 should also be generally moisture resistant, but may again be any of a variety of materials. All wall panels should allow electrical wiring, regularly spaced electrical outlets, and appropriate switch locations.

Ceiling Surfacing: The food preparation area ceiling should be generally moisture resistant, and especially resistant to heat and substances such as grease that may spray up from the cooking area. The dining area ceiling may be any of a variety of materials. Ceiling panels may be required to accommodate regular mechanical runs, electrical wiring, and regularly spaced vents.

Light: Daylight is desirable in the kitchen, especially in the food preparation area. This program area has often traditionally served as a location for an auxiliary entry to the home, frequently in the form of glassed-in patio or French doors that double as light sources. Artificial task lighting should be provided as needed in the food preparation area, and in the dining area. The isolation of these two programmatic spaces is often accomplished through changes in lighting style and quality.

Mechanical/Utility Requirements: Heavy electric service should be provided to the kitchen area to support the use of a range and oven, microwave, refrigerator, disposal unit, and an assortment of handheld appliances in addition to the normal requirements for artificial lighting. Standard wall outlets are necessary per code and grounded outlets should be provided in the food preparation area. Water (hot and cold) and wastewater removal should be provided to the food preparation area, primarily in the vicinity of the sink. Standard heating and cooling is necessary in the food preparation and dining areas, as well as supplemental ventilation in the food preparation area (usually in the form of an direct exterior-venting fan). Tremendous heat is generated by the use of stove and oven units, and it should be evacuated immediately to the exterior.

Acoustics: The process of preparing food carries with it a certain volume of unavoidable sound creation—pots, pans, cupboard doors, kitchen fans—it is not a quiet process. A measure of this noise may be desirable, as it lends itself to the ambience of the home. But some of the sound is likely undesirable, and should be mediated by the surfaces and furnishings within the space. The dining area may require further sound dampening to facilitate dinner conversation—a change of material here may be desirable.

Thermal: The heat created by the cooking processes and the cold released through the use of a refrigerator or freezer must be accounted for. Many kitchens feature fans that vent directly to the exterior located near or over the cooking surfaces, for the direct dissipation of heat. The relatively open nature of most kitchens, especially contemporary

65 kitchens, allows the thermal gains within the space to spread throughout the surrounding areas. Provisions should be made to control the dispersal of heat within the space—especially if the food preparation space is directly adjacent to the dining area or any other heavily utilized space.

Bedroom

Area: Typically between 190 and 225 square feet for primary bedrooms, between 95 and 130 square feet for secondary bedrooms.

Floor Surfacing: The bedroom floor surface must be suitable to support multiple large furniture pieces and a moderate level of foot traffic. Little else is required of the bedroom floor. The floor panels should accommodate regular mechanical runs and vents along the perimeter of the space.

Wall Surfacing: Impact resistance is the primary concern of the bedroom wall surfacing, but even this requirement is lessened by the relative lack of consistent activity in the space. Since most of the furniture in the room tends to be large and immobile, and placed around the perimeter of the room, the chance of much interaction with the wall surfaces is fairly slim. The primary function, then, of the wall panels in the bedroom is in support of the requisite electrical service and necessary daylight.

Ceiling Surfacing: The ceiling of the bedroom may be primarily an aesthetic decision—with little need to resist any Figure 4. Primary Bedroom. specific forces, this surface material may be nearly anything. The ceiling system should accommodate mechanical runs and appropriate vents, and should allow for electrical wiring.

Light: The bedroom space often utilizes direct or indirect daylight, so exterior walls and appropriate window locations are necessary. Artificial light should be added to the natural light, either in the form of overhead fixtures or personal/floor level lamps. The ambience of the bedroom may be greatly affected by the selection of lighting type and means of filtration. Specific task lighting may be necessary in certain areas of the room where particular activities take place.

Mechanical/Utility Requirements: Basic electrical service is necessary in the bedroom, primarily for lighting and small appliances or electronics. Electrical outlets should be regularly placed and positioned to be particularly available near the bed area. Regular vent distributions should ensure proper thermal integrity within the space.

Acoustics: Residents will likely spend 25-30 percent of their day in the bedroom space. Thus, controlling the environment within the space is of principal importance. Traditionally, the Figure 5. Secondary Bedroom. bedroom has been a center of privacy within the house,

66 meaning that acoustic transmission to other spaces within the house should be all but eliminated. The materials, surfaces, and furnishings within the space typically do a great deal to control the sound within the room. The presence of carpet, mattresses, and clothes—the traditional fixtures in bedroom spaces—are soft enough to absorb much of the sound generated. Any further acoustic dampening should be designed as integral to the construction of the room.

Thermal: Similarly, the large chunks of time spent within the bedroom necessitate careful thermal control. Giving the user control of the temperature of the space may be an option, since many people are quite particular with regard to the temperature of their sleeping environment. The primary environmental controls exist in the mechanical heating and cooling systems for the house—there are usually few sources, beyond bodies in the space, to impact the thermal character of the room.

Bathroom

Area: Typically between 70 and 85 square feet for primary bathrooms, between 50 and 65 square feet for secondary bathrooms.

Floor Surfacing: The floor surface must be primarily water resistant, considering the amount of water and moisture used and created in the bathroom. The potential for water to linger on the floor is much higher here than in any other space, so qualities like slip-resistance and mildew resistance are also important to the surface material. The bathroom realizes a fair amount of repetitive traffic, necessitating a measure of strength inherent to the material on the floor. The floor should support mechanical runs and locations for vents (it is especially important to maintain an air exchange in this space).

Wall Surfacing: “Wet” walls are necessary throughout most of the bathroom space. In the sink and toilet areas, these walls should extend to a height just above the splash level. The presence of shower or bath units may require the “wet” portion of the wall to extend higher, perhaps even all the way up to the ceiling. The “wet” walls should be impervious Figure 6. Primary to water and moisture, and be of a material that is strongly Bathroom resistant to lingering mildew and easily cleaned. The remaining wall surfaces in the bathroom should maintain a level of moisture resistance—even if they will not be directly impacted by sprayed or splashed water, they will doubtlessly experience some effect from steam generated within the space. The wall panels should allow electrical wiring and enough outlets to facilitate the use of small appliances—the outlets in this space will likely be GFI-equipped. The bathroom walls will also be required to support the primary plumbing runs, to the sink, toilet, and shower/bath.

67

Ceiling Surfacing: Moisture is the primary concern when selecting the ceiling surfacing in the bathroom. Much like the upper walls, the ceiling will be required to resist steam and heat generated within the room. A major exhaust fan will likely be located in the ceiling, to assist in the evacuation of some of this moisture and heat. The ceiling panels should accommodate regular mechanical runs, and may need to support electrical wiring and auxiliary ventilation.

Light: Some daylight may be desirable in the bathroom, though these spaces are traditionally artificially lit. If windows are used, their placement must be carefully considered to protect the privacy inherent to the activities within the space. Other lighting may be located to generally illuminate the space, or in a way that tasks specific illumination to specific activities. Fluorescents are often used in bathrooms since their low-energy and long life fit well within the use patterns of the space.

Mechanical/Utility Requirements: The bathroom requires water supply and wastewater removal at several locations. Proper thermal control is necessary, but difficult to achieve when considering the effects of the heat gain/loss created Figure 7. Secondary by a shower or bath fixture. A dedicated exhaust fan is Bathroom usually incorporated to preserve the air quality of the room and to evacuate as much extraneous heat and moisture as possible. Electrical service is required, but should be provided in a GFI format to protect against electrical shock. The number of outlets may be limited to discourage heavy electrical appliance use in this space.

Acoustics: Managing of the acoustic condition in the bathroom may be difficult. Substantial sound is generated from running water, fan units, and small appliances (not to mention singing) and it tends to reverberate throughout the room, considering the hard surfaces that are typically employed to resist water and heat damage. The primary opportunity for acoustic control occurs within the structuring of the physical construction of the space—within the walls, ceiling, and floor.

Thermal: Just as difficult is the question of thermal control in the bathroom. The materials typically employed in this space readily transmit heat and (especially) cold, while the activities of showering and bathing may create tremendous quantities of heat and steam that dramatically affect the thermal profile of the space. In addition, the needs of the users of the space must be met, based on their specific activities. For instance, a person just stepping out of the shower might require the room to be warmer than one who is engaged in washing before dinner. Mechanical systems generally seem to be designed to respond to the average needs of the house as a whole, which may or may not correspond to the specific needs of the bathroom at any

68 given time. Thus, proper insulation of the space and an effective exhaust fan are the primary means of maintaining thermal integrity.

Storage

Area: Typically between 20 and 35 square feet.

Floor Surfacing: A typical multipurpose storage space must resist a variety of forces acting on the floor surface. Impact and spill resistance are of primary importance in storage areas, considering the variety of household materials and objects typically stored there. The flooring must have strength sufficient to support stacked shelving or large appliances. The floor panels should allow for a mechanical run and at least one vent location.

Wall Surfacing: The wall surfacing in a typical storage space must meet many of the same standards as the floor surfacing—impact resistance, and spill resistance are the most significant qualities necessary. Aesthetics and superior thermal properties are generally of lesser importance in a true storage space. The propensity of damage to the wall surface is increased as more storage units stack higher in the space. Storage space wall panels should allow for electrical wiring, but may or may not require outlet or switch locations, depending on the nature of what is being stored.

Ceiling Surfacing: The ceiling surfacing in the storage space Figure 8. Storage. has few requirements placed upon it. There is little danger of impact or spillage, and few other concerns that would specifically affect the choice of material utilized in the space. The panels may be required to accommodate a mechanical run, electrical wiring, and one or two appropriately placed vents.

Light: Light is of little importance in the storage space for most of the day. It becomes highly important, though, when one is searching for particular items in the space. Thus, focused task lighting should be available on demand, though it will be relatively rarely used.

Mechanical/Utility Requirements: Electricity should be supplied to the room, though a minimum number of outlets are necessary. Basic thermal control is necessary within the space, but its overall static nature should find a basic equilibrium with the general climate of the rest of the house.

Acoustics: Typical storage spaces generate little or no sound. The static nature of the objects stored within the space creates little need for acoustic dampening—thus the use of materials in this room should not be affected by concerns of acoustic insulation. Storage space materials

69 tend to be hard (and often unfinished), inexpensive, and easily replaced in case of damage.

Thermal: Again, because of the storage function of the space, and the inert nature of the objects within it, thermal control is not of tremendous importance. Maintaining a moderate temperature within the space should suffice, unless it is to be utilized in the storage of highly specialized, temperature-sensitive items. General storage requires minimal heating and cooling, if any at all, since it is not often a space occupied by residents.

Utility Space

Area: Typically between 35 and 50 square feet.

Floor Surfacing: The floor surfacing in the utility space should be flexible enough to support a variety of uses. The space may serve as a storage unit for the mechanical systems of the house (heating, air conditioning, water heater) or it could be a much more dynamic space that includes a washer and dryer, utility sink, or other oft-utilized device. It is clear that the floor should resist water infiltration and should be strong enough to support heavy mechanical equipment, as well as live loads resulting from foot traffic and use. A variety of chemicals may be used in the space, requiring an increased resistance from the floor surfacing in case of spills. The floor panels should accommodate primary mechanical trunks, auxiliary runs, and vent locations.

Wall Surfacing: The wall surfacing in the utility space should be of a utilitarian nature—with impact resistance and moisture resistance of principal importance. It may be necessary to provide a “wet” wall in the presence of laundry machines or a utility sink. Any contact with the walls will likely come with the insertion or removal of the equipment within the space, so at most times the activity within the room will Figure 9. have little effect on the wall surfacing. The wall panels Utility Space. should allow electrical wiring, regular outlets (and any special outlet types to accommodate heavy mechanical equipment), and switch locations.

Ceiling Surfacing: The ceiling surfacing in a typical utility space has few requirements placed upon it. There is little danger of impact or water damage, and few other concerns that would specifically affect the choice of material utilized in the space. The ceiling panels will likely be required to accommodate a primary mechanical trunk, and may contain electrical wiring, and one or two appropriately placed vents.

Light: The utility space generally requires little light, and daylight is not necessary at all. If the space is used to primarily house the mechanical systems for the house, a rudimentary fixture providing a low output should be the

70 maximum illumination necessary. Better lighting may be required if the space is used actively (laundry, etc.).

Mechanical/Utility Requirements: This space is designed to serve as the mechanical center of the house. Sufficient electrical supply should be provided to the module to serve all of the primary mechanical units controlling the climate of the house, in addition to the requirements of any necessary artificial lighting. Dedicated outlets to serve the specialized mechanical units may augment standard outlets. As a center of water and air distribution to the rest of the house, the space must accommodate primary and secondary ventilation service and return ducts, and primary water pipes. Thus the space should be equipped with an exterior vent to provide a fresh air exchange and water/wastewater service.

Acoustics: Acoustic control in this space is of a moderately high degree of importance. The auditory insulating effect should be sufficient to deaden the sound created by the various pieces of mechanical equipment housed within the space. Surfaces in this area tend to be hard, with little acoustic character since they must resist water and chemicals, and be easily replaced. But as the center of distribution of utilities throughout the house, the utility space will generate a substantial amount of constant noise, some of which will be transmitted through the various ducts and pipes emanating from the space.

Thermal: Thermal insulation and control is of some importance in the utility space, since it is the center of thermal production within the house. The primary concern likely will be heat gain, since it the creation of heat to supply the home that is of chief importance in the space. The system should compensate for heat released into the space, but special provisions may be necessary since areas of localized heat within the house are undesirable.

Circulation

Area: Typically 4 feet wide and up to 16 feet in length.

Floor Surfacing: The circulation spaces receive some of the heaviest consistent traffic in the house. The floor surface in these areas must primarily resist this constant foot traffic as well as any moisture or weather-related elements brought into the space as a result of this heavy use. These spaces are often surfaced with the same materials used in the entry space, or serve as transition spaces between the entry and the specific rooms throughout the house. The floor panels should allow regular mechanical runs and regularly spaced vents along their length.

Figure 10. Wall Surfacing: The primary concern of the circulation space Circulation Space. wall surfacing is resisting the inevitable impacts that result

71 from heavy repeated use. Again, these spaces may serve as extensions of the entry space or as transitions to the rooms distributed throughout the house. The wall panels should be supplied with electrical wiring, plenty of regularly spaced outlet locations, and switch locations (these may relate to the circulatory corridor or to rooms distributed along the circulation space).

Ceiling Surfacing: The ceiling surfacing should be generally moisture resistant, though the impact on the ceiling of the activity in the circulation areas should be very little. Again, the circulation space may act as a transition space from room to room. Thus, any of a variety of surface materials should be acceptable. The ceiling panels may be required to accommodate regular mechanical runs, electrical wiring, and regular vent locations throughout the space.

Light: Adequate lighting is a necessity in the circulation space; especially considering the volume of traffic it will receive throughout the house. Daylight is often difficult to supply to the circulation spaces, since they are usually closeted on the interior of the housing mass. But the notion of supplying direct daylight to the circulation space is intriguing, and would perhaps shift its function away from a purely utilitarian use toward becoming more of an occupiable space. Artificial lighting should be regularly placed to actively illuminate the entire space.

Mechanical/Utility Requirements: Electrical service is the primary mechanical requirement for the circulation space. Regular outlet locations will ensure a high degree of flexibility of use within the space, and may also help serve the surrounding program elements. The possibility of relatively long travel distances within the circulation space necessitates proper thermal control, with the placement of enough ventilation locations to offset any gain/loss from the surrounding spaces.

Acoustics: The circulation corridors maintain a consistent level of foot traffic, and thus sound generation. The surfaces in these spaces typically assist in deadening the sound within the space, but it is necessary to maintain a low level of acoustic transmission to the spaces adjoining the circulation areas.

Thermal: The thermal integrity of the circulation spaces depends largely on the placement of the space, the program areas it connects, and the materials used within the space. In general, the inclusion of sufficient vent locations should be enough to balance the temperature of the space with the effects of the thermal conditions in the surrounding spaces.

72 Project Site

Mobile home parks vary enormously, and we need all kinds…Their range of quality has widened…in recent years. The best have become very good indeed, while the poorest remain ominous and repugnant, and a few are so threatening that we fear to venture into them.159

The Trailer Park

The evolution of the trailer park from campground to permanent community has been well documented over the course of the last century, and especially the last 50 years. The development of this community type has traditionally emphasized efficiency and economy (and profit in some cases) over the quality of life created for the residents of the park. Many of the social ills often associated with trailer parks and mobile home communities may be directly derived from the often-bleak living conditions that persist even today.

Briefly, trailer parks began when families needed overnight Figure 11. Typical trailer park community plan. resting spots while on vacation. Though free at first, fees were introduced by 1924 in order to discourage unwanted parties from spending long periods in the park. Some chose to use these areas as a source of permanent residence from the start—usually salesmen or others who traveled often and needed a less permanent home than most families.160 At least initially, these temporary parks were a source of pride for their communities, and cities rivaled each other for the prestige of having the “best” park in the region. Most sites Figure 12. Sketch of a trailer had services such as water, electric supply, toilets and community. showers, and often even kitchens. It is somewhat ironic that a community typology, which began as a source of pride, has degenerated into a source of shame and ill will for many cities.161 During the Great Depression, the permanent resident population exploded, since affordable housing was difficult to find elsewhere. World War II caused many people to relocate near factories and munitions plants. The results were new mobile home communities, assembled as temporary housing and clustered around the factory core. After the war, the housing crisis worsened, and trailers were pressed into service as an affordable alternative for families across the country.162

Early trailer parks were designed for easy access—coming and going. Individual lots were tightly spaced and Figure 13. Cul-de-sacs softened perpendicular to the street so that the trailers could be the layout of trailer parks. backed in and pulled out quickly. As the communities became more permanent their design shifted slightly. Lots were angled away from the street, and streets were often

159 John Fraser Hart, Michelle J. Rhodes, and John T. Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 77. 160 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 8-15. 161 Allan D. Wallis, Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 39. 162 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 8-15.

73 gently curved in an attempt to achieve a more suburban aesthetic. Once it was apparent that trailers were no longer mobile many communities took a decidedly suburban approach, using cul-de-sacs and circular drives in the street grid. The changes softened the overall look of the trailer park, but were largely cosmetic and did very little to change the social climate of the community. Other visual steps, such as hiding the trailer hitch, skirting the undercarriage, and landscaping the lots were intended to make the mobile homes feel more permanent in their setting.163

Figure 14. Trailer parks were often The quality of a trailer park often directly correlates to its planned to be unique. scale. Small communities of 20 to 30 units usually cannot afford paved roads, consistent siting, and special services. Parks of 30 to 100 units have the financial means to employ a full-time manager and are much more efficient with the layout of the property. Density is still an issue, however, as some parks pack as many as 10 to 15 homes in a single acre.164 A few feet separate neighbors—the front door of one unit may open out onto the back door of another. The monotony and endless repetition of the trailer park visually stunts the community and eliminates much of the sense of private, personal space for any resident.

The design of the park may also depend on the value of the units within it. The system proposed in this project (refer to “Design”) as a solution to the low-cost housing problem may be expanded to be marketable to nearly any economic spectrum. The specific layout of each community will likely be based on the financial means of its residents. Groups of higher-priced homes may be able to afford larger lots, more individual space, and generally less-dense neighborhood configurations—they will also likely consist of larger, more expensive homes. The low-income residents for whom this project is primarily targeted will benefit from better design within the community. Though each house will be smaller Figure 15. Eight units are sited within a rough acre in this plan. (more affordable), a more humane treatment of adjacencies and home placement within each lot will lead to the accentuation of privacy and personal space for residents. It will also maintain the tightly woven neighborhood atmosphere characteristic of trailer parks. Small clusters of homes could maximize the community open space while preserving the density necessary to make the entire project financially feasible for both landowner and homeowner.

The establishment of the communities themselves could benefit from the involvement of a dedicated development corporation. The current model, in which a landowner charges residents a fee to rent the land their home is parked on, could be difficult to successfully institute with a new housing system. The current model is predicated on the use of mobile homes of similar sizes and shapes that may be sited

163 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 28. 164 Hart, Rhodes, and Morgan, The Unknown World of the Mobile Home, 77.

74 the same way throughout the park. The proposed system allows for a variety of home configurations and demands a new approach to positioning each home within the community. A development company could act as a landowner, a site designer, and a home manufacturer—a holistic approach that could also ease the financial burden on individual homeowners. Financing becomes less expensive when it can be offered in mass quantities to an Figure 16. Standard trailer park configuration. entire community—a community whose existence itself is ensured by the financier. Of course, this is merely one model for creating entirely new communities—the proposed housing system could fit into any existing context as well.

Selection and Analysis

The issue of site within this project is a question not so much of “where,” but of “how.” The housing system is designed to fit within a fairly traditional use pattern, as a component of a larger neighborhood of similar homes. This is the historic and contemporary means of community creation, and one that would seem to be relatively difficult to reinvent successfully. The potential benefit of this newly designed system lies in the ability to insert individual homes into almost any context. It is completely conceivable that these low-income modular dwellings could appear in communities of their own, as replacements in existing mobile home parks, as urban or suburban infill units, or alone on individual sites.

Thus, the issue of specific site begins to lose particular importance within the context of the project.

Trailer parks and manufactured housing communities grow at the extreme edges of cities, though they may be the heart of smaller communities. For the purposes of this investigation, a local site was desirable, somewhere on the outskirts of the City of Cincinnati proper. The project is specifically designed to improve the existing conditions of life for the low-income, trailer-dwelling demographic, rather than to reinvent the entire concept of the mobile home park. An open site that could conceivably be developed for such a use sometime in the near future was appropriate. The northern and eastern edges of the city are already highly-developed, and the Figure 17. Kenton County site western edge is almost underdeveloped. So the search location map. turned southward, into the northern counties of Kentucky, where development continues rapidly but where plenty of land is still available. After researching the area through the Northern Kentucky Area Planning Commission, an appropriate site was located in Independence, in Kenton County.

Kenton County's housing stock grew more than 13 percent over the last 10 years, with less than a seven percent vacancy rate. However, the rate of construction is expected to drop in the next few years as the population continues to age. Independence itself shows a school system capable of

75 handling an expanding population: its public high school and elementary schools currently operate at slightly over two- thirds capacity. The site in question has been pre-zoned medium-density residential, so it seemed a suitable spot to plan a manufactured housing community.165 Independence is primed for growth, and features most major services (food, shopping, etc.) within a five minute drive from the site. It is a community with a variety of housing types. Older, smaller houses hug the edges of the site in question while newer, larger homes spread across the fields nearby. Middle class neighborhoods are spaced sporadically within the rolling terrain of the area.

The site itself consists of three major ridges extending to the northeast, east, and southeast. Buildable land extends from the northwest corner of the area down each of the ridges for some distance before falling off sharply in steep hillsides. There are several natural drainage features created by the land configuration. Each valley between two ridges drains Figure 18. Site conditions away from the bulk of the site, and a drainage basin/pond diagram. exists at the base of the middle ridge. Few trees actually are present on the interior of the site, especially in buildable areas - a benefit to the effort to keep site preparation and construction costs low while creating an economically- responsible manufactured community.

Community reception to the project is difficult to gauge. Traditionally, trailer parks have been deemed much less desirable than site-built suburban neighborhoods, but the usual design scheme and financial factors that affect the socioeconomic base of trailer park residents has a great deal to do with this prejudice. Improving the design of the community itself and the quality of life for those living in it should create a more positive image of manufactured housing, and generally make it more acceptable to others.

Figure 19 shows the dispersal of average single-wide mobile home units over a one acre plot of land. Obviously as extra personal space—yard, driveway, etc—is increased the efficiency of placement of the homes decreases. The plan that offers the most additional space accommodates only six units. The economics of current trailer park operation make it very difficult to reconcile allocating an entire acre for six homes.

Of course as the mobile homes are more efficiently packed into the acre, the size of the extra space shrinks drastically. The most severe scheme shown at the left fits 14 homes into an acre, without any personal space whatsoever. Though this plan is a bit overwhelming, it is not inconceivable in areas where the quantity of paying residents takes precedence over quality of life. Figure 19. Acreage use study.

165 Northern Kentucky’s Future: A Comprehensive Plan for Development, CD-ROM, 2001 ed. (Kenton County, Kentucky: Northern Kentucky Area Planning Commission, 2001), 6-1 – 6-4.

76 The individual schemes in the left column begin to conceptually reposition the mobile home units to preserve a minimum density while creating a greater sense of privacy or community. Some standard suburban designs were tested first by positioning the homes either back-to-back or facing each other across a common internal courtyard. The yard space is drastically increased in either plan, though the proximity to one’s neighbor—at least on one side of the home—also may increase.

From this basis, the schemes may be shifted into layouts that emphasize personal space, common space, or preservation of a privileged view. Allowing the physical formation of the homes to create a ring around a central courtyard / commons area provides each home with a bit of personal buffer in front of it. The buffer zone spills into a common area that may be shared by all the families in the grouping. In this way, smaller communities within the subdivision can exist, increasing positive interaction and safety for all.

Pinwheeling the houses in the scheme offers increased personal space—each house gains a yard—but decreases the public space within the system. Spreading the homes from the center creates a central courtyard / commons area from which each home emanates. The public space becomes tighter and more intimate while the personal space expands.

Figure 20. Unit distribution study. If these schemes are projected out across a larger section of the development, it is possible to study the overall effect of each plan.

Spreading the facing-homes scheme across a larger plot of land reveals an unsettling character to the aesthetic distribution of the homes. The scheme essentially recreates the worst visual characteristics of older mobile home communities, allowing rows of houses to march in endless columns across the landscape. The narrow corridors between sets of homes would likely be very unsafe, and would act as wind tunnels and refuse repositories. This scheme alone does not solve the issues plaguing manufactured community design.

Figure 21. Unit distribution study.

77

Using the courtyard scheme over a large area begins to define smaller zones of public / private interaction within each mini-community. The system becomes introverted in each case, sacrificing the community of hundreds for a tightly clustered group of eight. The houses literally turn their backs on the street and on the surrounding modular groupings, facing in toward the public center of each zone. The obvious benefit is the bond between neighbors that could develop through this proposal, and the opportunity to take control of the public space as a habitational group.

The drawbacks, however, are in the spaces external to the smaller communities. Undesirable corridors are created between the groupings. Some of the homes in each group could potentially find their back doors opening directly onto the neighborhood street. And the personal space within the courtyard is necessarily shared by sets of homes at 90-degree angles to each other. The scheme may improve upon existing conditions, but it is likely not the final solution.

Figure 22. Unit distribution study.

Pinwheeling the homes provides the greatest opportunity for individual space—that is, realizing the supposed “American Dream” of a house, a yard, and a view. The scheme to the left improves if the houses are angled slightly, reducing the impact of the adjacent home, or if the entire grouping is rotated off the 90-degree grid. Individual groups would ideally be rotated at a variety of angles as shown in Figure 23 to provide some visual interest to the overall composition. The “core” in the center of the house grouping could be devoted to supplying utility services to each house, or could be a vertical circulation route onto the roof of each home.

The primary drawback here is density. As the least spatially efficient scheme, the pinwheel fits only four homes into each acre. The ramifications of wasted space are primarily economic in nature. Lot prices increase to offset the loss of potential tenant space. Groundskeeping costs could increase since the scheme allows for a large portion of undedicated space to exist between the home clusters. More space should also mean more landscaping, another increase over more tightly distributed plans. Figure 23. Unit distribution study. In the end, the best solution to the issue of manufactured housing site design is most likely an eccentric combination of many of these schemes. Working within the parameters of the flexible modular system proposed by this investigation allows site design to become far more free-flowing than ever before. Because homes are not strictly bound by combinations of parallel rectangular masses, the shape of

78 the community may be a derivative of the houses that populate it. Individual homes may have projecting wings that form three-sided enclosures. Or they may continue to be simple single-wide massing blocks that present a planar front to the exterior. Grouping these homes into compatible clusters presents a puzzle for the architect of the community, one that can only be solved on a case-by-case basis to ensure variety and visual interest. The emphasis should always be toward providing families with a sense of ownership and responsibility while maintaining the outdoor community that thrives within the trailer park.

The following pages illustrate various progressions of community planning schematics.

Figure 24. Unit distribution study.

79 Figure 25. Radial configuration. The homes create a central courtyard. The diagram above analyzes public space and compares it with privileged view.

80 Figure 26. Staggered configuration. The houses form a larger shared central space, but cut down on the peripheral space.

81 Figure 27. Modified pinwheel configuration. The pinwheel forms a tight interior space, but maximizes each home’s privileged space. Rotating the plan increases the available space and breaks the monotony of the standard park plan

82

Figure 28. Right angle configuration. This plan creates pairs of homes that effectively share a wedge of space. Some concerns arise in the open space between housing clusters, and within the density patterns the plan creates

83 Design Enclosure System Design Schematics

The design of the modular housing system is predicated on the establishment of a basic module of tolerance, material, handling, and production that can be carried through all phases of design and construction. The building industry currently utilizes a four-foot module, especially in the areas of sheet goods and lumber. Since the pragmatic side of the investigation demands a strict attention to economy of both labor and material, the employment of the standard building module is a logical decision.

Much of the unique nature of the building system is based in its enclosure system, a feature that provides a great deal of the flexibility of the building. The walls are constructed in four-foot panel sections. Each panel fits anywhere within the system—thus walls, windows, and doors gain a measure of freedom to be placed at any point around the enclosure. The exterior elevations, while bound by the massing of the floor plate and the volume of the building, may take nearly any form, but should express many of the functions occurring Figure 1. Window panel. on the interior of the house.

The illustration on the following page demonstrates the immense range of possibility of an interchangeable panel system. Early in the design process, all of the options shown were considered for inclusion in the final system. Eventually the potential capital necessary to produce such wide range of options began to limit the system. It is important to keep in mind that the target market for this product is a low-income demographic who currently inhabit inherited or very old mobile homes. The flexibility of a few options—door, solid panel, two or three window types—was considered adequate to satisfy almost any desire when used in conjunction with the adaptable interior space.

The panels are structural insulated panels—structural sandwich panels that provide exterior cladding, insulation and vapor protection, and finished interior sheathing in a single modular unit. As a point of fact, they have been employed in all exterior bounding surfaces in this project: that is, they serve as the walls, ceiling, and floor for the house, making it both very energy-efficient, and sound within the principles of systems production. The entire system is allowed to function on the same modular dimensions by unifying all the enclosure materials. This could even facilitate swapping panels, or changing their relative location throughout the building’s lifespan.

The exterior of the panels will be clad in corrugated and sheet aluminum. The interior will simply be the inside face of the structural panel—finish-grade plywood that may be stained, painted, or otherwise enhanced. The simplicity of Figure 2. Interior claddings. these materials allows the production-centric nature of the

84 design to be read within the aesthetic of the completed house. Their relatively low cost is crucial in creating a home of elevated quality but stable and affordable price.

Figure 3. Exterior cladding.

Figure 4. Panel options.

85 Design Structural Insulated Panels

Structural insulated panels (SIPs) are not a new building product, but have barely dented the construction market thanks to the inertia created by decades of stick construction. Each panel is totally inclusive of structure, sheathing, insulation, enclosure, and (in this case) finish. Traditionally the panels have consisted of a thick layer of expanded polystyrene (EPS) laminated between two sheets of oriented strand board (OSB). Panels are connected via spline plates that are glued and nailed within each panel. Wall assemblies are glued and nailed to blocking strips located at the perimeter of the floor plate. The roof/ceiling assembly is screwed into blocking strips supported on top of the wall panels. SIPs construction creates higher insulating values than standard stick construction. Increasing the depth of insulating foam within the system pushes these values higher. The entire system is closed at its joints with sealant, making the house so airtight that forced-air systems are necessary to realize a proper air exchange. The benefit to the user lies in the drastically reduced energy costs, the ease Figure 5. Structural insulated panels serve as the structural and speed of assembly, and the resulting extended life of the underlayment for all surfaces. house.

This design incorporates the mechanical systems into the mass of the structural insulated panel. SIPs construction currently uses small chases cut into the EPS at regular intervals in each wall panel to run electrical and data wiring. The 10-inch thick panels used in this project for the floor plates allow even larger mechanical, electrical, and plumbing chases to be formed into the foam interior. The chase system in this house divides each floor plate into thirds latitudinally and in half longitudinally. The consistent position of the chase helps to locate the most logical spots for the utilities connections throughout the house.

Figure 6. The OSB/EPS/OSB For this project, plywood replaces the standard OSB facing sandwich construction provides on the panel systems. Though initially more expensive than both structure and insulation. OSB, plywood presents a warm, pleasing surface material for the interior of the house. The elimination of other interior surfaces saves labor and material costs that usually escalate the price of the home.

86 Design System Design

The basic philosophy of the design process has been to create as much as possible from as little as possible. To this end, the design features the previously discussed panel system, which allows a variety of enclosure schemes. The interior of the house is driven by a 12-foot by 36-foot floor plate, created from 12-foot widths of structural insulated panel bound by a ledgered beam system at its perimeter. These plates may be combined in a variety of configurations, determined by each family’s specific spatial needs and the total square footage required by the family. Each modular mass may be either completely or partially enclosed, and can feature any combination of windows, doors, and wall panels.

It is inside the home, however, that the true range of the system comes alive. A relatively simple system of full-height storage units, dimensioned along the modular tolerances, serves as all of the interior partitions. When necessary, these units are installed with pocket doors to close off private areas of the house. The closets act as both storage space and walls—and they may be relocated throughout the house as the needs of the family change over time. This is truly a housing system that grows with its family through the years, even to the point of allowing entirely new massing plates to be added throughout the life of the system. Imagine deciding one day that the master bedroom needs to be larger. Since the family room is rarely used, the partition- closet that separates the two spaces is moved farther into the family room, instantly giving extra space to the master bedroom. The same money used to buy a static manufactured home can now be invested in a house that has no fixed form, other than what its users decide upon.

Figure 7. Basic single-module housing unit.

This basic, one-module house supplies 432 square feet of space and is appropriate for single occupants who need little space, or those who simply cannot afford anything larger. The system is exactly the same as that used in the larger

87 assemblies—the only difference is that this house incorporates only one 12-foot by 36-foot floor plate. The kitchen and living space flow smoothly together, and the bedroom is of a relatively large size at one end of the house. Note the pocket door installed in the storage unit. The system essentially eliminates the construction of corridors and extra doorways by allowing the storage pieces to perform all the requisite functions of privacy and enclosure.

Figure 8. Massing assembly with two modules. This house (at a smaller scale for purposes of clarity) boasts twice the raw space of the single-block home, and adds a second bedroom and bath. The kitchen is a separate space, sequestered from the family room by a two-module long closet. Storage has long been an issue in trailer parks, since trailers traditionally provided very little of it. The life of each resident was essentially on display all the time. There is no process of discovery; everything is immediately apparent. This design system seeks to remedy the deficiency by almost overcompensating with storage in the hope that (without a garage) it might be adequate to handle most of the family’s possessions.

Nearly any configuration is possible within the bounds of this system, provided that each floor plate fits the 12-foot by 16- foot module. Since each module, and enclosure is essentially structurally self-supporting (and may be augmented by interior wall panels, only when necessary) more and more modules may be added to the mass of the house until the requisite square footage for individual family is reached. The interior layouts suggest an extreme range of possibilities as well. Working in conjunction with the placement of the floor plates, rooms may grow to become almost any size or shape desired, and may always be enclosed by sets of storage modules. Two and three-bedroom sample plans follow later in this section, in a variety of spatial configurations—but the possibilities are nearly limitless.

88 The bathroom modules (shown in section in figure 9) operate under roughly the same logic as the storage partitions. They are prefabricated fiberglass shells that may be disconnected from the plumbing services and moved throughout the house. Though slightly more limited by the locations of service connections, the bathroom units have a broad range of freedom of location within the house, and may serve as fill between two larger programmatic spaces. They may also act as spatial dividers, especially next to bedrooms or public spaces. Interesting possibilities exist within the use of fiberglass for the room shell. A wide array of colors and translucencies are possible with fiberglass technologies, allowing these units to become visual and spatial accents within the home.

Figure 9. Bathroom module.

Once again, this project was conceived as a means to provide a prefabricated housing system for low-income families who struggle even to procure a loan for today’s manufactured housing. The increase in materiality and construction quality provided by the SIPs construction and the design of the system is intended to augment both the real durability of the home and the public image of the low-cost manufactured house. Loans are currently in short supply and available only at noncompetitive rates for most people seeking to buy this sort of home—they are considered a risk to default, and the homes are still viewed as somewhat flimsy. Increasing the demonstrable reliability of the housing system should result in more standard financing options for clients on the low end of the economic spectrum.

The target price is $30,000 for a two-module housing unit, nearly 900 square feet of quality space. This price should be

89 competitive with contemporary manufactured homes. The new design offers much more flexibility in spatial use and configuration, as well as more durable materials. The price could easily dip below $30,000, especially for single-module efficiency units. Cost within this system, as it is within any housing system, is essentially a function of space. Thus, the system may be marketed to any income group simply by increasing the scale of the house.

As the system develops, it will be possible to begin to vary the finish materials used within the house. While the laminate countertops may be appropriate for a family looking for an affordable solution, those in a stronger economic position may desire stainless steel counters and appliances. The sheet aluminum skin on the exterior of the house could eventually be upgraded to finer finishes, as could the interior wall surfaces. Other options available at an increased price might include large porches or patios, pitched roofs with cathedral ceilings, interior fireplaces, and general upgrades to interior fixtures throughout the entire home. Though the system is capable of serving any spatial demand at its most basic level, an attempt to expand sales into other economic markets must acknowledge the particular demands of these markets. But when one considers that 1,700 square feet of space could be available for around $60,000, and that 2,500 square feet could be purchased for $90,000, the system begins to seem like a solid investment for families of nearly any economic status.

Figure 10. Elevation. The basic elevation is composed of the component elements of the system. The four-foot panel module is visible, and the fenestration indicates some of the interior functions of the house. Allowing the house to rest elevated on low feet lifts its mass off the ground and provides a further range of options for the homeowner. Mounting the house on taller columns creates supplementary storage space under the house— perhaps to be utilized for larger objects or as a place to park

90 the family automobiles. These adjustable feet also allow the house to be quickly and easily planted on nearly any site condition or grade. Adjustments within the columnar structure create a constant floor level, regardless of the surrounding ground; this feature reduces the overall cost of the system by eliminating a great deal of site preparation.

The sample configuration below spreads the modules, creating more emphasis on the wings of the house, while allowing guests to enter into the center. The primary and secondary bedrooms are located in opposite wings, each with its own bathroom, separated by a communal area and the kitchen. This configuration creates two courtyard areas that could become interesting play spaces for children.

Figure 11. Spread massing.

With the massing of a standard double-wide, this plan may most resemble its contemporaries in the manufactured housing industry. It incorporates more storage space than other models, and creates an open-plan kitchen/dining/living area.

Figure 12. Double-wide plan.

91 Another standard two-module configuration shifts the focus of the home to linear space. The two interior sides of the house create a large, semi-confined yard space. The overall size of the home seems larger, even though it actually occupies the same square footage as the previous plan example.

Figure 13. “L” plan.

Larger configurations, using three or more modules create larger dwellings for expanding families. One option inherent to this system is expansion and contraction over time. As families grow and shrink, the house may be changed (increased or decreased in size) to reflect the new status. Just as interior spaces may be reconfigured, entire massing modules may be added or subtracted from the home.

Figure 14. Elevation.

92

Figure 15. “U” plan.

Figure 16. Elevation demonstrating room underneath for the family cars.

Thus, the system utilizes the previously discussed theories of modular systems and prefabrication to create a unique aesthetic for a subset of the American culture that has little other opportunity for ownership. Their needs may be met for the same price, or even less than current manufactured homes, and they will continue to be met as the building changes with them through the years.

93 Conclusions Reflections

Manufactured housing has descended from a lineage of prefabrication and mobility. It has served the casual tourist, the impoverished drifters, the post-war housing crunch, middle class Americans, and low-income trailer-dwellers alike. It has changed form, from something once very machinelike to a blob of suburbanity that disappears in the contemporary landscape of the country. In an effort to both thrive and survive, manufactured housing has all but turned its back on the very population that sustained it for decades—the low-income subset who are forced to mobile homes because there is nothing else.

There may not be any single hard and fast solution for the growing numbers of low-income families who find themselves placeless, bouncing from one trailer park to another, as landowners continue to sell in search of bigger dollars in other ventures. Trailer parks continue to be curious balances of open community and festering social concerns caused by proximity, surroundings, and basic economic status. Most residents cannot qualify for affordable loans to escape the problem because even the best manufactured housing is still something of a risk. They are trapped, perpetually, in a cycle that sends them from one crumbling trailer to another.

The housing system proposed in this investigation is based in ideas of quality and economy. It delivers exactly what the individual consumer desires, and can continue to deliver as long as the system lasts. It provides an easy means of entering the manufactured housing market, and later expanding ideas of ownership and property—without moving anywhere. It adjusts to the site in both a contextual and social way that can elevate the pride of an entire community. It breaks the tradition of linear rows of trailers marching off into the sunset with more contemporary thoughts about site design. And the system is available with current technologies, materials, and delivery methods. There is no need to wait any longer to make a change to uplift an entire socioeconomic group from the housing plight that it continually finds itself in.

94 Annotated List of Works Consulted Selected Bibliography

Andreasen, M. Myrup, S. Kahler, and T. Lund. Design for Assembly. New York: IFS (Publications) Ltd., 1983. An introduction to the relationships between design, manufacturing, and assembly, Design for Assembly graphically depicts the sequencing and options of each phase of the production process. The book contains some compelling images that describe the principles of manufacturing.

Arieff, Allison and Bryan Burkhart. Prefab. Salt Lake City, Utah: Gibbs Smith, Publisher, 2002. The book briefly traces the roots of contemporary prefabricated architecture, and focuses primarily on short case studies that study a broad cross section of current prefabricated projects. Of special concern to this study are several sections dealing with single-family dwellings, and a review of designs and technologies currently in the conceptual stage.

Bair, Frederick H., Jr. Local Regulation of Mobile Home Parks, Travel Trailer Parks, and Related Facilities. Chicago: Mobile Homes Research Foundation, 1965. Bair outlines the components of standard zoning regulations for mobile home parks and travel trailer parks, as well as describing standard state regulations and site development systems.

Burch-Brown, Carol, and David Rigsbee. Trailers. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1996. The book is based in anecdotal musings that probe the questions of form and function of the trailer. Burch-Brown’s powerful photography captures the image of the trailer park community as it exists for the most desperate and compels a deeper examination of the necessary lifestyle of these people.

Burkhart, Bryan and David Hunt. Airstream: The History of the Land Yacht. San Francisco, Chronicle Books, 2000. Burkhart and Hunt offer a largely pictorial history of the Airstream trailer, from its creation by Wally Byam during the trailer surge of the 1930’s to its current state. They place the Airstream within the context of the larger development of mobile dwellings while demonstrating the versatility that has allowed the company to outlast all others.

Codrescu, Andrei. Foreword. Mobile: The Art of Portable Architecture. By Jennifer Siegal. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002. Codrescu argues that the constantly shifting physical landscape of communities demands a mobile form of dwelling that indulges impermanence while facilitating living. Essentially, home is wherever one is rather than a precise location on the map.

Ehrenkrantz, Ezra D. Architectural Systems: A Needs, Resources, and Design Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989. Ehrenkrantz presents systems-based design as a way to respond to a continually shifting society. He focuses on the user and the building’s performance, as well as external factors including land, finance, management, technology, and labor. The theories are tested through a series of case studies.

Ferrand, Marylene, Jean-Pierre Feugas, Bernard Le Roy, and Jean-Luc Veyret. Le Corbusier: Les Quartiers Modernes Fruges. Paris: Fondation Le Corbusier, 1998. This comprehensive study of the Pessac housing project focuses on Corbusier’s innovations into housing systems and design methodologies. His philosophies regarding urban layout are mixed with his ideas about the impact of the home on the social standing of the occupant, and social housing in general. The history of the site is illustrated textually and graphically, and the authors discuss the impact of color on the housing community as a whole.

95 Gann, David. Flexibility and Choice in Housing. Bristol, Great Britain: The Policy Press, 1999. The book assesses technologies and methods employed in the Netherlands and Finland in the manufacturing of new housing complexes. The discussions of the real manufacturing practices and several conceptual design systems illustrate possibilities for the layout of an efficient manufactured housing design.

Glancey, Jonathan. 20th Century Architecture: The Structures That Shaped the Twentieth Century. London: Carlton Books Limited, 1998. The book is a survey of landmark architectural works throughout the twentieth century. Design and history information is included about each project, and the book is sequenced in a roughly chronological order, offering a comparison of multiple projects from the same period.

Hart, John Fraser, Michelle J. Rhodes, and John T. Morgan. The Unknown World of the Mobile Home. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. The book traces the history of the mobile home and the trailer park with an emphasis on the use of case studies to illustrate the current and historical roles of trailers. Of particular interest are discussions of the HUD Code and methods of analysis of the dispersal of mobile home communities.

Holiday Homes. Milford, Ohio: Holiday Homes/Freedom Homes, n.d. A brochure from the manufactured housing retailer that discusses the basic information necessary for consumers to better understand manufactured housing. Some statistical information and introductory definitions augment the text.

Herbert, Gilbert. The Dream of the Factory-Made House. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1984. Herbert traces the evolution of the prefabricated house to the General Panel Corporation formed in the early 1940’s by Walter Gropius and Konrad Wachsmann. The book illuminates the fascination that architects had with the factory process, and the notion of manufactured architecture. It examines the possibilities that arise when designers are constrained by a system of standardized parts.

Kaufmann, Johannes and Oskar Leo Kaufmann. KFN Systems. 7 December 2002 http://www.kaufmannkaufmann.com/. The home page of KFN Systems links to project descriptions for the FRED and SU-SI prefabricated home projects. Included are statistical data and imagery for each project.

Kaufmann, Oskar Leo. OSKAR LEO KAUFMANN: ZIVILTECHNIKER GESMBH. 7 December 2002 http://www.olk.cc/. Oskar Leo Kaufmann’s website introduces his projects, awards, and citations and contains further imagery of the FRED and SU-SI projects.

Kohn, Wendy, ed. Moshe Safdie. London: Academy Editions, 1996. Kohn’s book collects essays and summaries of many of Safdie’s projects over 40 years into a comprehensive monograph. In particular, the Habitat series of modular communities are illuminating case studies of prefabrication in residential applications.

Kronenburg, Robert. Houses in Motion: The Genesis, History, and Development of the Portable Building. Second Edition. West Sussex, Great Britain: Wiley-Academy, 2002. Kronenburg traces the history of portable architecture, from its aboriginal beginnings through the industrial revolution and modern movement to the contemporary concepts of portability. The book also examines portable architecture in a military context and from a construction point of view, centering on the manufacturing processes inherent to systems building.

Kronenburg, Robert. Preface. Mobile: The Art of Portable Architecture. By Jennifer Siegal. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002. Kronenburg focuses on solutions to the shelter demands of a nomadic human society, emphasizing flexibility and mobility

96 above all else. He notes that society’s return to mobility is enhanced by ever- advancing technologies and information distribution.

Manufactured Home Installation Training Manual. Steven Winter Associates, Inc. (for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development): Norwalk, Connecticut. 1999. The technical manual takes a step-by-step approach to the installation of manufactured homes, from site preparation to connecting sections and anchoring the building to its footings.

Manufactured Housing Institute Home Page. Manufactured Housing Institute. 27 March 2003 http://www.manufacturedhousing.org. The Manufactured Housing Institute is the de facto regulatory and promotional body for the manufactured housing industry. The website contains information on the evolution of the Institute and of the housing type itself, as well as references to the introduction of the HUD Code and current sources of manufactured housing retailers.

March, Lionel and Philip Steadman. The Geometry of Environment. London: RIBA Publications Limited, 1971. The book details an approach to architecture that relies on mathematic theory to establish basic form and proportion within design. A section dealing with modularity and its basis in numbers was especially important to this project. March and Steadman explain the establishment of a modular system that can be both expanded and contracted within the shared design and construction systems.

McGee, Tylon J. “Manufactured Housing: Barriers to an Affordable Housing Alternative (Perceptions, Design, and Legal Issues).” Thesis. University of Cincinnati, 2002. The thesis examines manufactured housing in the public context, and studies design and legal issues associated with the building type. The supporting statistics from the Manufactured Housing Institute and discussions of the HUD Code bolster the redefinition of the trailer park.

McKean, John. Crystal Palace: Joseph Paxton and Charles Fox. London: Phaidon Press, Ltd., 1994. McKean chronicles the design, construction, and relocation of Paxton’s Crystal Palace from the first notions of an international exhibition. Particularly important are discussions of the project’s “kit of parts” approach and the groundbreaking prefabrication processes that led to its unprecedented speed of erection and deconstruction.

Meister, Juerg and Carl Toledo. nextroom architektur datenbank. 7 December 2002 http://db.nextroom.at/imp/db_impressum.htm. The nextroom architecture data base collects text, images, and statistical information related to architecture, especially contemporary architecture. It provided statistics for KFN Systems’ Fred and SU-SI projects.

Moneo, Rafael. “On Typology.” Oppositions 13 (Summer 1978): 23-45. Moneo defines and conceptualizes type in architecture and theorizes that design and typology combine to form specific individual form. Moneo traces the development of typological theory into the Modern era, and questions whether typology is even relevant today—or whether it must be redefined in light of an ever more interconnected world.

Murray, Irena Zantovska, ed. Moshe Safdie: Buildings and Projects, 1967-1992. Buffalo: McGill- Queen’s University Press, 1996. A comprehensive collection of Safdie’s works from 1958- 1992, Murray includes biographical and philosophical information about the architect as well as a bibliography for the works. The profile of Habitat ’67 describes the modular theory at work behind the project.

97 Nissen, Professor Henrik. Industrialized Building and Modular Design. Trans. Pauline Katborg. London: Cement and Concrete Association, 1972. The beginning of the book contains discussions on modular systems and the theories of modularity and standardization. Chapters devoted to studies of individual modular projects follow. Nissen’s commentary on the relationship between material dimensions, manufacturing dimensions, and planning dimensions was useful in establishing a design module for the project.

Norberg-Schulz, Christian. “The Phenomenon of Place.” Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995. Ed. Kate Nesbitt. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. 414-427. The essay applies a phenomenological filter to notions of place, examining Heidigger’s theories and analyzing the characters and boundaries that form space. Norberg-Schulz considers the factors that combine to form place, and the role of humanity in associating identity with specific place.

Northern Kentucky’s Future: A Comprehensive Plan for Development. CD-ROM. 2001 ed. Kenton County, Kentucky: Northern Kentucky Area Planning Commission, 2001. The plan for community and commercial development provides statistical information for Kenton County, Kentucky. The plan is useful in helping to identify areas primed for and capable of handling further growth, both residentially and industrially.

Oechslin, W. “Premises for the Resumption of the Discussion of Typology.” Assemblage (1), 1986. 37-52. Oechslin traces the foundations of the modern understanding of typology by discussing and contrasting the 19th century arguments of Quatremere de Quincy and Durand. The discussion focuses on type as a formal tool and the elimination of simple standardization.

“Perpetual Motion: A Modern Nomad’s Guide to Life.” Dwell December 2002: 74-82. The article is a collection of photographs and descriptions of portable and mobile forms, objects, and dwellings that are currently available for purchase. Highlighted are KFN Systems’ SU-SI house, kit and bag-based houses, and prefabricated service and living structures.

Rossi, Aldo. “Extract from The Architecture of the City.” Architecture, Criticism, Ideology. Ed. Joan Ockman. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Architectural Press, 1985. 393-398. Rossi constructs typology from the notion of architecture as the formation of a living environment, examining both the whole as a single piece and as a sum of the parts. Type is explored as a generator of a wide variety of forms rather than as a model for repetition, and as a basic denominator for design.

Sanders, Welford. Manufactured Housing Site Development Guide. Chicago: American Planning Association, 1993. Sanders details the step-by-step processes of site development for a community of manufactured homes and reinforces his points through the exploration of several case studies. He expands the discussion of site planning and fabrication with a preliminary chapter dealing with the financing and marketing of such a project.

Shirley, Gordon V. “Modular Design and the Economics of Design for Manufacturing.” Integrating Design and Manufacturing for Competitive Advantage. Ed. Gerald I. Susman. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. 82-99. Shirley’s essay discusses the economics and pragmatics of modular design. He approaches the subject by assembling the system through a series of individual design problems, as part of a holistic manufacturing process. The text follows an example of modular design that

98 illustrates the construction and delivery questions inherent to prefabrication and assembly.

Siegal, Jennifer. Mobile: The Art of Portable Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002. Siegal presents a case-study-based overview of the state of contemporary design and technologies related to portable architecture. As many of the projects are still in a digital concept phase, the introductory discussion of the history of mobile architecture (including mobile homes, manufactured housing, and the associated production processes) is of greater value to this project.

Site Planning Kit. Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association, Land Development Division. 1973. The technical manual touches on nearly all aspects of developing a mobile home community, from zoning and site planning to site utilities, cost estimations, and sample community regulations. The manual includes sample site plans and plans for the placement of individual units. The publication was issued before the Housing and Urban Development Code was brought into law, but much of the design information remains standard, even today.

Sorkin, Michael. “Habitat and After.” Moshe Safdie. Ed. Wendy Kohn. London: Academy Editions, 1996. 15-17. Sorkin discusses the accretion of individuality in the collection of modular cells that is Safdie’s Habitat ’67. He addresses the project as an extension of Modernism that resulted in a unique solution to the conflict between the urban and suburban context.

Taylor, Brian Brace. Le Corbusier at Pessac: The Search for Systems and Standards in the Design of Low Cost Housing. Paris: Fondation Le Corbusier, 1972. Taylor follows the evolution of Corbusier’s housing experiment at Pessac, France. He addresses the social impact of the large-scale prefabricated housing solution innovated in the DOM-INO system, and details the flexibility of design offered by the project. An additional insert bears photos and diagrams describing the construction process.

Thomas, Richard K. Three-Dimensional Design: A Cellular Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1969. Using diagrams and paper models, Thomas illustrates geometric cellular systems and their use in design. The book addresses the expandable nature of the cellular module and its repeatability as a building unit.

Understanding Today’s Manufactured Housing. Arlington, Virginia: Manufactured Housing Institute, n.d. This publication from the Manufactured Housing Institute relates cost and safety data to the consumer through text and graphics. Current cost and financing information is included.

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H150/99-RV. American Housing Survey for the United States: 1999. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003. The U.S. Census publication studies the demographic breakdown of American housing by type, occupancy, location, etc. It investigates the specific characteristics of different types of housing communities. Of primary interest were studies of mobile home demographics and crime/satisfaction statistics.

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-209. Money Income in the United States: 1999. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000. The U.S. Census publication studies the income data from 1999 for families, households, and individuals living in the United States. The document compares the relative income levels from 1999 to those of the previous two years, and breaks the data down according to several demographic categories.

99 Vidler, Anthony. “The Third Typology.” Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995. Ed. Kate Nesbitt. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. 260-264. Vidler suggests a new typology that reacts to the existing typologies based on the primitive hut and machine processes. He bases his ideas in the form of the traditional city, allowing the city as a whole to exist as a separate typological entity. His discussion of the associations of meaning and form extend beyond his argument to a more general discussion of contemporary typological theory.

Wachsmann, Konrad. The Turning Point of Building: Structure and Design. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1961. Wachsmann’s seminal work on the theory of manufacturing systems design revolves around his establishment of 12 abstract design modules. The modules tie together concept, material, and construction and may be viewed as a basis for creating all the components of prefabricated architecture. Wachsmann bases his theories in case study analyses of major prefabricated projects throughout history.

Wallis, Allan D. Wheel Estate: The Rise and Decline of Mobile Homes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Wallis traces the evolution of the mobile home from touring trailer to abode, comparing the trends in static and mobile housing over the last century. He argues that it is through the combination of innovation and regulation that the housing type has developed, and examines the societal factors that have affected the perception and distribution of mobile homes.

Zeiger, Mimi. “Living A-to-Z.” Dwell December 2002: 60-67. Detailing the houses of a New York-Los Angeles artist, Andrea Zittel, the article focuses on her western home—a prefabricated house that is fully portable and represents the minimum conditions and amenities for living.

100