The case for System Building Method and aesthetics is often compelling. Building owners are often dissatisfied with their high construction costs and the architects often feel constrained to limit their talent and creativity when confronted with the necessity of adopting System Building Method.
The design of systemised construction buildings need not lead to a monotonous form of architecture. Many of the finest such buildings in Britain are constructed with a high degree of aesthetic value. The design of a systemised building system should also aim to achieve aesthetic value and user satisfaction along with economy of materials, production methods and erection techniques.
Contents
List of figures
Acknowledgement.
Introduction
CHAPTER 1 - Historical Review
1.1 Outline of historical background
1.2 Traditional construction method.
1.3 Early system building
1.4 The birth of prefabrication
1.5 Industrial revolution
1.6 Scarcity of building materials and labour shortage
1.7 Technological novelty
Summary
CHAPTER 2. UNDERSTANDING SYSTEM BUILDING.
2.1 System Building Method
2.2 A key to buildability.
2.3 Criteria for buildability
2.3.1 Simplicity
2.3.2 Standardization
2.3.3 Communication
2.4 Principles
2.4.1 Tolerances
2.4.2 Variety reduction
2.5 Importance and relevance of buildability
2.5.1 Congestion
2.5.2 Technical innovation
2.5.3 Labour and availability of skills
2.5.4 Mechanization
2.5.5 Information
2.5.6 System building
2.6 Summary
CHAPTER 3 – An Overview of Types of System Building.
3.1 Prefabrication building
3.1.1 Monolithic unit.
3.1.1a Lightweight units
3.1.1b Heavyweight or volumetric components.
3.1.2 Total System panels.
3.1.2a open production.
3.1.2b Closed production
3.1.2b Structural systems; frames
3.2 Poured In Situ or Cast in Situ System
3.2.1 Total system formwork
3.2.2 Climb form
3.2.3 Table form
3.2.4 Slip form
3.2.5 Tunnel form
3.3 Components
3.4 Summary
CHAPTER 4- AESTHETICS
4.1 Place
4.2 Subjective matter
4.3 Structure
4.4 Style
4.5 Unity
4.6 Scale
4.7 Rhythm
4.8 Originality
4.9 Proportion
4.10 Sequence
4.11 Composition
4.12 Functionalism
4.13 Character and honesty
4.14 Aesthetic impression
4.14.1 Objective and subjective attractiveness
4.14.2 Aesthetic balance
4.14.3 Design for aesthetic
4.15 Summary
CHAPTER 5- The influence of System Building on Architecture
5.1 Modular building system
5.2 Uniformity and monotony.
5.3 Summary
CHAPTER 6 - Case studies
6.1 Case Study 1
6.1.1 Superstructure
6.2 Case study 2
6.2.1 The Montevetro, London.
6.2.2 Superstructure
6.2.3 Description and analysis of case study.
CHAPTER 7 - Conclusion
References
List of figures
Fig. 1.1 Structure functions well with the surrounding environment. (Steele, James. An architecture for people, The complete works of Hassan Fathy, Thames and Hudson, 1997).
Fig. 1.2 Medieval English ‘crucks’. (White, R.B. (1965) Prefabrication- A history of its development in Great Britain, Ministry of Technology, Building Research Station, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London 1965).
Fig. 1.3 Arcon bungalow preserved at Avoncroft Museum of Buildings. (Vale, Brenda (1995) A history of the UK Temporary housing programme, 1995).
Fig. 1.4 Uni-Seco bungalow in Kirkonnel, Scotland. (Vale, Brenda (1995) A history of the UK Temporary housing programme, 1995).
Fig. 1.5 Tarran bungalow in Eckington, Derbyshire. (Vale, Brenda (1995) A history of the UK Temporary housing programme, 1995).
Fig. 1.6 Aluminium bungalow in Hereford. (Vale, Brenda (1995) A history of the UK Temporary housing programme, 1995).
Fig. 1.7 CLASP school, Newark. Cladding and elevational components. (Vale, Brenda (1995) A history of the UK Temporary housing programme, 1995).
Fig. 2.1 Most building systems derive economies when the scale of the project itself is large. (Gifford, F.W. System building in Concrete, Industrialised building and the structural engineer, London 1966).
Fig. 2.2 The model of Etarea. (Gifford, F.W. System building in Concrete, Industrialised building and the structural engineer, London 1966).
Fig. 3.1 Erection of precast wall panels. (Fisher, B.H. Industrialised building and the structural engineer, The institution of Structural Engineers, London 1966).
Fig. 3.2 Monolithic unit. (Dietz, Albert G.H. Cutler, Laurence S. Industrialised building systems for housing, The MIT press, USA 1971).
Fig. 3.3 Total system. (Dietz, Albert G.H. Cutler, Laurence S. Industrialised building systems for housing, The MIT press, USA 1971).
Fig. 3.4 Structural system. (Dietz, Albert G.H. Cutler, Laurence S. Industrialised building systems for housing, The MIT press, USA 1971).
Fig. 3.5 Total system formwork. (System Formwork, official website of Mivan System formwork http://www.mivan.co.uk (Accessed 24th October 2005).
Fig. 3.6 Erection of system formwork on site. (System Formwork, official website of Mivan System formwork http://www.mivan.co.uk (Accessed 24th October 2005).
Fig. 3.7 Self- climbing is a revolutionary in tall building construction (Climb form, official website of hiform http://hiform.com/climbing.html (Accessed 20th October 2005).
Fig. 3.8 Table form. (System formwork, official website of RMD formwork http://rmd.com/index.html (Accessed 19th October 2005).
Fig. 3.9 Slip form is also a revolutionary new development facilitating the construction of tall buildings. (System formwork, official website of PeriHori formwork http://perihori.kwickform.com/index (Accessed 19th October 2005).
Fig. 3.10 Tunnel form is becoming one of the most common methods of cellular construction. (System formwork, official website of Hunnebeck formwork http://hunnebeck.com/index.html (Accessed 19th October 2005).
Fig. 3.11 Components. The total integration of different manufacturers’ building elements that can be combined, by virtue of their dimensional and functional integration, to create a unit. (Ferguson, Ian. Buildability in practice, Mitchell publishing company, London 1981).
Fig. 4.1 Calgary Olympic Ice Stadium. Structure, scale, proportion, brut concrete and visual power of suspended roof. (Raskin, Eugene
Architecturally speaking, Bloch publishing company, New York 1965).
Fig. 4.2 The viceroy’s house in New Delhi. (Raskin, Eugene Architecturally speaking, Bloch publishing company, New York 1965).
Fig. 4.3 The Bauhaus Complex, Dessau, Germany. (Holgate, Alan Aesthetics of built form. Oxford university press, London UK, 1992).
Fig. 5.1 Modular house in Finland. (Paulick, R. The modular building system: a prerequisite to industrialisation of building, Towards industrialised building Elsevier publishing company, 1966).
Fig. 5.2 Menzies building, Monash University, Victoria, Australia. (Schmidt, H Modular coordination, repetition and architecture, Towards industrialised building. Elsevier publishing company, 1966).
Fig. 6.1 Waterfront at the Esplanade, Penang, Malaysia. (Drawing by Razak Basri).
Fig. 6.2 Sections of the superstructure. (Drawing by Razak Basri).
Fig. 6.3 Plan shows the flexibility of system formwork in dealing with reduced column’s size. (Drawing by Razak Basri).
Fig. 6.4 Details of beams adopting same principle as column in relation to System building. (Drawing by Razak Basri).
Fig.6.5 The use of sawn plywood around the perimeter of slab’s edge. (Drawing by Razak Basri).
Fig. 6.6 Plans unsuitable for adopting high level of system building. (Drawing by Razak Basri).
Fig. 6.7 Typical floors- suitable for adopting system building due to sufficient number of reuses. (Drawing by Razak Basri).
Fig. 6.8 Façade using glass panels-option one. (Drawing by Razak Basri).
Fig. 6.9 Façade using lightweight concrete balcony to offer a more traditional look-option 2. (Drawing by Razak Basri).
Fig. 6.10 Well lit Montevetro sets against London’s skyline. (Image from Richard Rogers Partnership, 2005).
Fig. 6.11 The rear elevation of Montevetro. The contrasting materials to camouflage the true scale. (Image from Richard Rogers Partnership, 2005).
Fig. 6.12 Setting well in an environment. (Image from Richard Rogers Partnership, 2005).
Fig. 6.13 Montevetro had broken its length by the Towers housing the lift and staircase. (Image from Richard Rogers Partnership, 2005).
Fig. 6.14 Montevetro demonstrates high level of aesthetic value. (Image from Richard Rogers Partnership, 2005).
Fig. 6.15 a glassy façade taking advantage of the water element. (Image from Richard Rogers Partnership, 2005).
Acknowledgement.
The author wishes to express his appreciation and acknowledgement of the help and courtesies afforded to him by Dr. David Moore who regularly lends his advice, guidance and his invaluable opinions. The appreciation also goes to Janet Crighton who has guided the author and edited the final draft of this dissertation, the library staff who consistently assist me in finding research materials and finally to someone who wants to remain anonymous.
Introduction
The case for System Building Method and aesthetics is often compelling. Building owners are often dissatisfied with their high construction costs and the architects often feel constrained to limit their talent and creativity when confronted with the necessity of adopting System Building Method.
The design of systemised construction buildings need not lead to a monotonous form of architecture. Many of the finest such buildings in Britain are constructed with a high degree of aesthetic value. The design of a systemised building system should also aim to achieve aesthetic value and user satisfaction along with economy of materials, production methods and erection techniques.
With reference to the above and in order to understand more about the relationship between System Building Method and aesthetic values we should begin by considering the very basic building component mentioned by White (1965) which states
‘ It can be argued, of course, that the clay brick is the most convenient standard building component ever produced. It is of a suitable size to transport and handle, can be fitted into any corner of a building, and is, with very few exceptions, aesthetically satisfying at all stages of its life’.
Obviously there is a need to ask whether a brick is a suitable component in System Building Method even though it is perceived as a material of traditional building construction.
The answer to this question is very subjective and will form a basis for discussion on what is meant by system building. The dissertation will also discuss the importance of aesthetic value both for architecture in general and in System Building Method in particular.
The dissertation will examine System Building Method, arguably the most influential method to affect mass construction and demonstrate the importance of aesthetics in architectural design based on the language of architecture, rhythm, texture, pattern, and materials and what is perceived as a good looking building.
The approach of this dissertation is to highlight the three important elements, i.e. system building, buildability and aesthetics, based on ‘stand alone’ subject area and then cross reference them in chapter 6 in order to find the relationship between them.
In chapter 1, the dissertation reviews the origins of system building as opposed to traditional construction and also the effects of industrialisation on the building industry, in a process moving towards factory production of building components. It explains the historical background and offers an overview of the development of System Building Method from the English medieval period until today.
Chapter 2 explains the importance of understanding System Building Method by ascertaining the definition. This chapter emphasizes the role of system building as a key factor in buildability. It also examines the criteria, principles and the importance and relevance of buildability itself.
Chapter 3 provides a more detailed discussion of recent System Building methods and the various types of System Building Method available today, whether they are prefabs or cast in situ, together with their advantages and disadvantages.
Chapter 4 discusses the aesthetics value in the context of a wider and broader architectural perspective. It provides a detailed discussion of the architectural elements necessary to achieve aesthetics and explores the importance of aesthetics in the eyes of observers.
Chapter 5 evaluates the influence of System Building Method on architecture by emphasizing the necessity for architects to adapt themselves to a new environment in which industry dictates its requirements. The chapter also evaluates the need for architects to come to terms with both structural issues when addressing the modular system building method and creativity so that a compromise can be reached between aesthetics and buildability. In addition, this chapter also looks at uniformity and monotony as a topic of discussion including examples in relation to the criteria to understand system building which is closely related with uniformity and monotony
Chapter 6 analyses two case studies. Case study one is based on an imaginary design scheme i.e. a proposed hotel project at the esplanade in Penang. This will be discussed on the basis of ascertaining the link between aesthetic value, buildability and system building method. Case study two examines a real project, designed by Richard Rogers in London, called 103 – apartment Thames side ‘Montevetro’ project and considers the link between system building and aesthetics. Both case studies will make reference to literature mentioned in earlier chapters.
Finally chapter 7 forms a conclusion on the issues arising in the previous chapters. After having rigorous discussions on the topics of system building, buildability and aesthetics and after presenting two case studies, this chapter attempts to answer the problem of finding a balance between system building, buildability and aesthetics, concluding with the author’s reason for choosing this topic.
At the end of each chapter, the dissertation reviews the literature in the form of a summary. It also gives the idea of linking one chapter with another as a sequence of events to give a better understanding of system building, buildability and aesthetics.
1. CHAPTER 1 - Historical Review
1.1 Outline of historical background
Barry (1981) mentions that it is very important to understand the relationship between the histories of system building as opposed to traditional construction. He says ‘an obvious question for the architectural historian is whether there was such a thing as a style distinctively that of system building as opposed to other methods of construction’. To try and answer this question it is helpful to examine the historical development of the construction industry in relation to system building and how it has been and continues to be influenced by changing social and cultural values.
1.2 Traditional construction method.
The environment has always been, and remains, the most important factor influencing the construction of buildings, with particular regard to the availability of local materials and the technology and labour available at any particular time. Structure and function have always been inextricably linked both to each other and to their environment as Vale (1995) states ‘ Traditional systems of building are traditional just because they invariably represent the best use of available labour and materials to achieve a particular goal’
In an environment with heavy tropical rains followed by floods, the raised floor tradition and roofing made of local materials is perhaps the ideal and most appropriate solution. In a country where the climatic condition is hot, a high ceiling with suitable roofing materials made of mud and clay and adequate ventilation holes help to moderate the internal temperature.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Fig. 1.1 Structure functions well with the surrounding environment. (Steele, James. An architecture for people, The complete works of Hassan Fathy, Thames and Hudson, 1997).
However, in countries where the temperature is often cold, large fire-places which sore heat during the day and radiate warmth into the house at night after the fire has been put out can be found. The structure is sensitive to the environment around it. Over time man has benefited from technological development and become more adaptable and more independent of environmental factors.
1.3 Early system building
Historically, the early stage of ‘basic system building’, in Britain can be traced from as early as the 14th century when the crude timber frames better known as ‘crucks’ of old barns and cottages were cut from the tree and when they would be dismantled, numbered and carted to the site, then re-erected in their final position (White 1965). The method was widely accepted as a form of early simplification, standardization and sub-assembly of components. This shows that even at that early date there were occasions when it paid to do a certain amount of pre-cutting and assembling, and that this process saved the cost of carting portions of timber that would be wasted in working up. This happened during what we call the Medieval English period.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Fig. 1.2 Medieval English ‘Crucks’. (White, R.B. (1965) Prefabrication- A history of its development in Great Britain, Ministry of Technology, Building Research Station, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London 1965).
This shows that even at this early period in the history of construction, economics was an important consideration for the builder.
For the record, there was also an interesting instance of early fabrication when the production of Purbeck marble dressings became a flourishing industry during the 13th and the first half of the 14th centuries. These products were sent to the site in a buildable form after having been shaped and polished at the quarry.
After the 14th century, there followed a period where there was little recorded technological progress in terms of prefabrication, although there continued to be refinement of known technique. For example, the size of columns was significantly reduced, whilst being able to withstand greatly increased load. However, in general, such evidence of early prefabrication was applied to specific buildings and there was no mass production in the modern, industrial sense of the term.
1.4 The birth of prefabrication
The story of prefabrication begins in earnest during the last quarter of the 18th century, during a period of social unrest, growing rationalism and impending industrialisation. This was the period when we saw the development of unbroken line of building in Europe based on load bearing walls and arches of stones or brick (White, 1965). The change from traditional building to system building was influenced by the revolution introduced by new materials and construction processes. The completion of Coalbrookdale Iron Bridge ushered in the phenomenon of the iron era. This construction revolutionised the iron industry and British manufacturers were about to show the world that they were capable of leading the way in the development of iron in building.
1.5 Industrial revolution
The early industrial buildings often showed aesthetic sensitivity and delicacy of building treatment as in the case of Burton’s great Palm House at the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew (1845). This was mainly based on certain building materials namely iron, glass and timber which were used extensively during the industrial revolution. Industrial revolution had offered answers to the problem of providing houses rapidly at prices affordable to middle- income citizens.
It was also the industrial revolution that provided mankind with all their necessities through the process of factory manufacturing. Hence manufacturing industries were greatly influenced by the industrial revolution and this in turn also affected the building industry. Skills based on tradition and inherited or passed on to family members, or a group of selected craftsmen, were no longer applicable.
There was a need for improvement and an element of change took place due to market forces. It was a revolutionary new concept that swept the building industry. Bricks (mentioned in the introduction) took a centre stage. Bricks manufactured off- site and then transported to site, were the early good example of prefabrication. It is strong evidence that the brick was one of the first examples of a manufactured building component. At a later stage hollow bricks were recommended. They were expected to show economy in handling, in transport, and in fuel for manufacture. (White, 1965)
However, there has been a continued reluctance in this country to use hollow clay bricks and blocks, although there has been a limited output of perforated bricks for over a century where suitable clay was available, and hollow partition blocks have been on the British market since well before the last war. On the continent, the economy in the use of hollow bricks has long been recognised. The industrial revolution had brought the building industry to perform in a manner that encouraged as far as possible the manufacturing of components off-site reminiscent of the ‘crucks’ cottage of Medieval times.
In 1830 prefabricated building in its true meaning began in Britain. One of the earliest examples was a lock keeper’s cottage at Tipton Green. The cottage had walls of flanged cast iron plates bolted together and finished internally with laths, plaster and painted externally. In 1844, Britain exported prefabricated dwellings, a warehouse and a church to the West Indies, Africa and Jamaica respectively. This exportation industry was then accelerated by the gold rush in California and emigration to Australia (White, 1965). The prefabricated buildings were exported merely to fulfil a need in the British Empire and as such they lacked architectural aesthetic value.
Other fine example of the early period of industrialised building both as regards fabrication and site methods was Joseph Paxton’s design for the 1851 Exhibition Building, the Crystal Palace (White, 1965). This was a model of seemingly difficult construction method at that period of time with the application of system building and factory made assemblies designed precisely to fulfil a particular need and site processes to erect the building successfully.
Eventually, Britain witnessed the presence of more and more materials and methods that were developed especially timber and metal as components in system building.
1.6 Scarcity of building materials and labour shortage
The problems of housing shortage were very acute immediately after World War One and were marked by massive government intervention. The post world war period also saw the crisis of a building materials shortage and the government felt that the housing problems would not be solved without recourse to alternative methods of construction (White, 1965). At the same time there was a serious need to solve labour problems and to substitute suitable materials for timber, steel and brick. The government embarked on a massive housing programme assisted by architects, manufacturers and builders (Vale, 1995).
The situation was aggravated by the shortage of building materials. Brickworks might perhaps have been supplemented to a greater extent than they were by introducing concrete in situ with an improved method of shuttering. Timber remained a problem as the supply was inadequate and no further development to substitute with other materials except little recommendation on the replacement of concrete floor and a reduction of in sizes. The usage of steel was explored to a new dimension with the support of the architects to systemise construction technique.
1.7 Technological novelty
The most significant development in the history of system building in Britain was the intensity of the construction of public housing programme and other basic public amenities such as schools etc. The British government launched temporary housing programmes during World War Two continuing right up to the late fifties and early sixties. The most important event was the construction of temporary bungalows based on modular units, prefabricated, transported and assembled on site. Churchill (1944) announced the launch of a temporary housing programme at the end of the war to meet the immediate needs of returning soldiers. He said that ‘ the soldiers when they return from the war and those who have been bombed out and made to double up with other families shall be restored to homes of their own at the earliest possible moment’
Many system building manufacturers and builders responded to this announcement, but the most successful were commissioned by the following few major players, namely the Arcon Group, the Uniseco, the Tarran, the Aluminium Bungalow and schemes such as CLASP and SCOLA developed by a group of public authorities (Hertfordshire). In total they managed to construct about 183,000 (Vale, 1995) units of housing and schools throughout Britain using the very method of system building.
Arcon bungalow (38,859)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Fig. 1.3 Arcon bungalow preserved at Avoncroft Museum of Buildings. (Vale, Brenda (1995) A history of the UK Temporary housing programme, 1995).
The Uniseco (28,999)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Fig. 1.4 Uni-Seco bungalow in Kirkonnel, Scotland. (Vale, Brenda (1995) Prefabs: A history of the UK Temporary housing programme, 1995).
The Tarran (19,014)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Fig. 1.5 Tarran bungalow in Eckington, Derbyshire. (Vale, Brenda (1995) Prefabs: A history of the UK Temporary housing programme, 1995).
The aluminium bungalow (54,500) (Vale, 1995)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Fig. 1.6 Aluminium bungalow in Hereford. (Vale, Brenda (1995) Prefabs: A history of the UK Temporary housing programme, 1995).
CLASP
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Fig. 1.7CLASP (Consortium of Local Authorities’ Special Programmes) school, Newark. Cladding and elevational components. (Vale, Brenda (1995) Prefabs: A history of the UK Temporary housing programme, 1995).
Summary
Architectural characteristics in relation to system building continue to be influenced by changing social and cultural values. Equally important, the environment has always been of the greatest influence in traditional building and it was the result of the combination of these two factors that contributed to the success of the traditional building. The early stage of basic system building was demonstrated by the ‘crucks’ cottage of the 14th century. Timber frames were cut from tree and underwent a certain amount of pre-cutting and assembling. Then came the last quarter of the 18th century when the change from traditional to prefabrication was influenced by new materials and construction processes. The industrial revolution took place with the development of building materials such as iron, glass and concrete. As a result many buildings were constructed in Britain using those materials and some were exported to the British Empire. The shortage of other building materials resulted in the extensive use of steel in a bigger scale. Then, the system building entered a new era when the government embarked on the construction of a massive public housing program with the support of both architects and manufacturers.
CHAPTER 2. UNDERSTANDING SYSTEM BUILDING.
2.1 System Building Method
What is system building method? What is the purpose of system building? Although there are a great number of definitions, none of them are entirely satisfactory because they all fail to distinguish between mass produced materials and mass produced components. In fact, it is almost impossible to get a single accurate and comprehensive definition. Whether called prefabrication, building systems, system building, or industrialized building, what they have in common is that the name usually carries assumptions which favour, encourage and reinforce the necessity of applying the methods of industrialized mass production to the building process.
In order to approach a satisfactory definition, the Oxford English dictionary edited by Waite (1996) defines a system as a ‘complex whole, set of connected things or parts, organized group of things; set of organs in body with common structure or function; human or animal body as organized whole; method, scheme of action, procedure, or classifications, orderliness’ and a building is defined as a ‘house or other structure with roof and walls’ and finally method is defined as a ‘way of doing something; procedure and orderliness’
From the above therefore, it can be summarized that system building method is a method of action using set of connected parts to create an architectural structure based on procedure and orderliness.
On the other hand, to explain the application which incorporates all system building methods that have influenced architectural design, manufacture of components and parts and also site organization, we have to look at other definitions as well.
Dietz and Cutler (1971) probably give the most comprehensive account of system building ‘industrialized systems building may be defined as those incorporating a total integration of all subsystems and components into an overall process’. Not only is it concerned with the main process but also fully utilizes industrialized production, transportation, and assembly techniques. This integration is achieved through the exploitation of the underlying organizational principles.
They further reinforce their claim by saying ‘A total systems approach must integrate the functions carried on in a building with structure, environmental controls, internal transport, utilities, and efficient construction, operation and maintenance into an optimum solution.’ Dietz and Cutler (1971). That it must also be visually acceptable goes without saying.
In an attempt to widen the scope of prefabrication, White (1965) suggests that prefabrication could also mean ‘any integrated system of construction of which the parts had been prepared away from the site, or even partly so prepared. But even this could include stones dressed in the quarry or in a goods yard some miles from the site, as well as most joinery work’. This definition is arguable since the term is stretched so wide that it would lose the meaning and would not cover the many important developments connected with integrated systems.
What were considered to be the essential conditions for understanding system building methods were laid down by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in MHLG 76/65 (1965) extracted by Finnimore (1989). The Ministry defines prefabrication as ‘All measures needed to enable the industry to work more like a factory industry’. This is a very much more acceptable and accurate definition. The factory industry must not only incorporate new materials and construction techniques, the use of dry processes, increased mechanization of site processes, and the manufacture of large components under factory conditions of production and quality control but also improved management techniques, the correlation of design and production, improved control of the selection and delivery of materials, and better organization of operations on site. Industrialized building also entails training teams to work in an organised fashion on long runs of repetitive work using either new skills or old.
Earlier, the First Progress Report of the Standards Committee issued by the Ministry of Works (1944) defines prefabrication for its own purpose as meaning ‘the production under factory conditions of components that may be used in building, and of the pre-assembly of such components into units of a building’. The definition is rather short but it offers a concise explanation of both prefabrication and components.
Ultimately, cost benefit is the most important factor according to Gifford (1966), ‘Presumably, in the long term, the primary purpose of system building must be to enable the types of building to which it is applicable to be built more economically. In this respect cost is the final arbiter, provided it satisfies a given performance specification’.
The emphasis on cost is of paramount importance in system building and it should be measured across the board. It should also have an impact on other factors in which savings in manpower, speed of erection, etc, are all secondary matters which relate to local conditions and can be evaluated in terms of cost.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Fig. 2.1 Most building systems derive economies when the scale of the project itself is large. (Gifford, F.W. System building in Concrete, Industrialised building and the structural engineer, London 1966).
It is evident that a system which is cheap in material but requires a large quantity of labour is the right answer where materials are expensive and labour plentiful, but is of little value where labour is scarce, since the cost of labour is related to supply and demand, and will be high. Likewise considerations such as speed of erection and a realistic evaluation of the cost of land must be assessed. If a system enables a building to be put into use six months ahead of other forms of construction, then the value of this should be taken into account.
In countries like India, China etc. where labour supply is abundant (International Labour Organisation), a system that uses manual labour is considered to be cheap but in Scandinavia and certain other western European countries ( Coopers and Lybrand, 2004), it is difficult to operate because of high wages.
From the above definitions we can see that most of the literature agrees that system building method leads to a faster completion period, well organized site, and better quality workmanship and most importantly offers major cost benefits for clients, architects and builders. This also means that the construction method is simplified, and standardised and ensures good communication between the parties involved. For the purpose of this study the concept of system building method is to be understood in its widest possible context.
[...]
- Quote paper
- Dr. Razak Basri (Author), 2006, System Building and Aesthetics, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/176296
-
-
-
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.