We Keep Asking for Affordable Housing. Will We Make Room for It?

I keep coming back to a question that deserves more attention whenever housing affordability comes up: How serious are we about making room for the homes people can afford? We can encourage factory investment, improve production and promote better designs, but eventually every home needs an address. That is where the conversation moves from what the industry can build to what a community will accept.

A recent Governing article by Pew’s Dennis Su and Rachel Siegel examines how states can expand manufactured housing through changes to zoning, financing and other policies. Their argument deserves the attention of everyone in offsite construction: improving the home itself only goes so far when the rules around its placement and purchase remain obstacles. Read the Governing article.

For me, this raises a practical challenge for public officials. Before commissioning another housing study, take a proposed manufactured home through your own approval process. Find out where it can go, what the buyer must do, and how much uncertainty that buyer faces before anyone can schedule delivery.

Empty Apartments, Full Shelters: Who Are We Building Affordable Housing For?

I have to wonder what we are measuring when we celebrate another affordable housing development. Are we counting completed apartments, or asking whether the people who need them most can actually move in? An Associated Press report published by ABC15 describes more than 4,500 apartments classified as affordable sitting vacant in Austin while people with extremely limited incomes struggle to find shelter. That should make everyone involved in housing pause before announcing the next success story. 

The report identifies a mismatch between the incomes many subsidized developments serve and what the poorest renters can pay. It also describes developers whose mortgage and operating costs make deeper rent reductions difficult without additional assistance. Those two realities deserve to be considered together. Blaming a developer does little good if the property cannot cover its expenses, but calling an apartment affordable offers little comfort to someone whose monthly income cannot cover the rent.

For those of us in offsite construction, this raises a question I believe belongs in every discussion about housing innovation: affordable for whom? Before we debate factory capacity, production speed, or the next building system, I want to know the intended resident’s income and the monthly housing payment the project must achieve. That gives the construction team a meaningful target. Otherwise, we risk congratulating ourselves for solving a production problem while leaving the affordability question unanswered.

I would like every affordable housing announcement to explain who can realistically live there, what residents will pay, and what assistance is needed to make those payments possible. Those questions should shape the project from the beginning. A ribbon cutting marks an accomplishment, but I believe the more meaningful test comes afterward, when a resident receives the keys and can afford to keep them.

CLICK HERE to read the entire ABC15 article

Gary’s Observation

I remain convinced that offsite construction has an important role in the housing conversation, but we should be precise about what we promise. A better way to build deserves serious consideration; it also needs a financial plan that connects the finished home to the intended resident. My question for the next affordable housing panel is simple: show me how the person with the smallest paycheck gets through the front door. If we can answer that clearly, we have something worth celebrating.

Bring Your Questions to the East Coast Factory Innovation Roundtable

Gary Fleisher, the Modcoach, and Jorie Wisnefski invite you to the East Coast Factory Innovation Roundtable on October 28, from 8:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. at the Inn at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Sponsored by Uni-Frame and 4WardSolutions, this one-day event includes breakfast and lunch.

This will be more than another meeting where speakers simply tell you what they can do for your company. Attendees will have more opportunities than ever to ask questions, challenge ideas, and discuss the real issues facing offsite construction.

Companies may bring up to four people, with management, engineering, production, and sales professionals strongly encouraged to attend. Builders, developers, factory teams, suppliers, and people from across the offsite construction community are invited to join the conversation.

Register for the October 28 Roundtable

China Isn’t Just Exporting Products Anymore—It’s Exporting Houses

For years, the words “Made in China” brought to mind electronics, appliances, furniture, and countless consumer products shipped worldwide. Today, that same manufacturing reach is moving into housing, as Chinese companies increasingly promote prefabricated and modular homes to international buyers seeking faster construction, lower labor requirements, and more predictable pricing. What was once viewed as a niche export is becoming part of a much larger global housing conversation.

Chinese manufacturers seem to understand something many American offsite companies still struggle to accept: the international market does not always want another factory—it wants a finished building system that can be purchased, shipped, and assembled. By combining standardized designs, industrial-scale production and established export networks, these companies can offer homes, classrooms, offices, worker accommodations and emergency housing to buyers thousands of miles from the factory. A single production line can turn out 50 housing modules a day.

That does not mean every imported modular house will meet the building codes, climate demands, financing requirements, or consumer expectations of every country. 

Buyers must still examine structural standards, fire resistance, energy performance, transportation costs, foundations, utility connections, installation responsibilities, and long-term service. An attractive factory price can quickly lose its appeal when the building reaches a port, and everyone begins asking who will obtain approvals, complete the site work, and stand behind the warranty.

Even with those challenges, China’s growing presence in the global prefabricated-housing market should attract the attention of every American modular and offsite manufacturer. Chinese producers are not waiting for the world to discover them. They are displaying their products internationally, refining standardized designs and presenting factory-built housing as an exportable consumer product rather than a regional construction service. Whether they ultimately succeed in every market is less important than the fact that they are willing to compete in them.

Gary’s Observation

The greatest lesson may not be that China can manufacture modular houses more cheaply. It may be that Chinese companies think globally, while much of the American modular industry still thinks within a comfortable delivery radius of its factories. 

American manufacturers have tremendous strengths in engineering, code compliance, quality, and regional market knowledge, but those advantages will not protect them indefinitely from international competitors that improve their products with every shipment. 

We should not dismiss these homes simply because they arrive in containers or because some early examples may fail to meet our standards. We should study how they are designed, marketed, sold, and delivered, because the company that learns how to turn a building into a repeatable global product may help determine the next chapter of offsite construction.

Gen Z Is Walking Into Our Factories—and Challenging Everything We Learned About Work

For the past two or three decades, Generation X and older Millennials have gradually assumed control of America’s offsite construction companies. We are now the owners, general managers, production managers, department heads, and supervisors responsible for getting homes through the factory and onto the jobsite.

Most of us learned management from people who believed personal problems belonged at home, overtime was part of the job, and complaining was something employees did after work. When production fell behind, everyone stayed late. When a department was short-handed, the dependable employees were expected to carry more of the load. If the plant manager lost his temper, people usually avoided him until he calmed down.

It was not always healthy, but it was familiar.

Now Generation Z is entering our factories, and many of these young workers are rejecting that entire understanding of employment. They are not simply asking for higher wages or more vacation time. They are questioning why the workplace operates the way it does, why management communicates so poorly, and why sacrificing mental health should be considered proof of commitment.

That makes many veteran managers uncomfortable.

We see young employees who need more direction, become overwhelmed more easily, question instructions, resist mandatory overtime, and use words such as “toxic,” “burnout,” “boundaries,” and “mental health” far more often than previous generations. Some managers conclude that Gen Z is lazy, fragile or completely unprepared for the realities of factory work.

Enough evidence supports some of that frustration.

There is also enough evidence to suggest that we may be misunderstanding part of what we are seeing.

The central question is not whether Generation Z must adapt to the offsite construction industry. They absolutely must. A production line cannot stop every time an employee feels uncomfortable, a module cannot leave the factory with defective wiring because someone was having a difficult day, and a customer will not accept a missed delivery date because the production team needed better work-life balance.

However, the industry must decide whether every management practice inherited from previous generations is worth defending.

What You Should Know Before Starting Up a New Offsite Factory

Starting a new offsite construction factory is exciting—maybe too exciting. There is something powerful about standing in an empty building, looking at a set of plans and imagining production lines, finished modules rolling out the door, builders calling for more homes, and a company that finally helps solve the housing problem everyone keeps talking about.

I understand the attraction. You may have identified a genuine need in your market because local builders cannot obtain dependable factory capacity or housing demand is growing faster than conventional builders can respond. Perhaps you have spent years watching existing factories miss deadlines, deliver homes with too many problems, or treat customers as though they should be grateful for whatever they receive.

You may honestly believe you can do it better, and you might be right. Before ordering the equipment, hiring the first production manager, or signing a lease on a building that looks perfect from the interstate, however, you should take enough time to determine whether the opportunity is as strong as it appears.

I am not suggesting that every new factory is headed for trouble. Offsite construction needs new ideas, stronger leadership, better factories, and people willing to take calculated risks. The industry will not grow if everyone remains on the sidelines waiting for someone else to solve its problems.

The danger is that many prospective owners do not fully understand what they are starting. They are not simply creating construction companies; they are creating manufacturing companies that happen to build homes. That distinction has swallowed more good intentions, investor capital, and promising startups than most people in the industry care to admit.

Learning from Fires That Friction Creates

Fresh Eyes on Modular By: Jorie Wisnefski

I learned about Wright’s Law this week from Regan Robertson, and I immediately saw how it applies to modular construction.

Someone else has already tested the idea inside a modular construction factory.

Wright’s Law describes a simple relationship: as cumulative production increases, the resources required to produce each additional unit tend to decrease. People learn. Processes improve. Technology gets refined. Mistakes get eliminated.

Those of us who are parents call it, Learning by Doing.

A 2023 study, Identification of Learning Effects in Modular Construction Manufacturing, analyzed production data from an actual modular factory. Researchers found that production time generally decreased as cumulative production increased. In the factory they studied, production time dropped from more than 190 days to around 120 days during the mass production of 149 modular units.

That's a great example of learning through repetition.

Doing something repeatedly isn't necessarily the same as learning from it.

We learn when something doesn't work.

A delay. A material shortage. A scheduling problem. A workaround everyone has just accepted. A module sitting in a yard because the next step in the process isn't ready.

Those moments create friction.

And we tend to try to eliminate friction.

But we should also see friction as information.

Innovation lives in friction.

However, recognizing a problem doesn't change a single thing. There has to be awareness that a change is needed, a willingness to change it, knowledge of the right innovation, application of that knowledge, and tenacity for the new approach.

Learning doesn't become innovation until it changes what happens.

That's an interesting lesson for modular construction because friction doesn't happen in just one place.

A purchasing decision can create a production problem. A production decision can create a transportation problem. A transportation delay can affect the jobsite. A foundation issue can waylay a finished module.

Everyone may understand their own piece of the process well, but are we capturing what the friction is teaching us about the whole process?

Modular has an enormous opportunity right there.

If we're going to scale the industry, we shouldn't just focus on building more. We should be getting better at turning experience into knowledge and, therein, knowledge into better processes.

What we’re learning from those problems is part of the thinking behind the conversation Gary Fleisher and I are putting together for our October summit in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. We’re bringing together people who understand different points across the process—from ERP and purchasing through manufacturing, transportation, foundations and the jobsite—to talk honestly about what drives them crazy in their own part of the process, how they’ve worked around it, and where they’re still looking for better answers.

Register for the October 28 Roundtable

The idea isn’t that no one has the definitive solution. It’s that someone else in the room may have seen the problem from a different angle, tried something that could help, or have an idea worth exploring. We’re hoping to create a space where people can troubleshoot and think through the problems together.

The goal isn't to talk about innovation in the abstract.

It's to look at the friction, understand what the fire is telling us, and see what we can learn from it.

Because if Wright's Law is right, experience should make us better.

And we have to make sure we're really learning from it.

Jorie Wisnefski

** Repetition can make us better, but only if we learn from the problems we encounter. In modular construction, friction between different parts of the process can reveal opportunities to improve. Gary Fleisher and Jorie Wisnefski’s October summit will bring modular construction people together to share those problems, compare what they've tried, and brainstorm better solutions.

Can Bioplastics Move Beyond Packaging and Into Construction? with Video

Plastic has become one of construction’s most useful—and troublesome—materials.

It appears in insulation, vapor barriers, plumbing, flooring, roofing membranes, window components, sealants, siding, packaging, and countless other products. Its durability makes it valuable inside a building, but that same durability becomes a problem when the material is discarded and remains in the environment for decades or centuries.

Bioplastics are often presented as the greener answer. They can be produced partly or entirely from renewable materials, and some are designed to biodegrade or be composted under specific conditions.

That sounds promising. It also requires more explanation than the word “bioplastic” usually receives.

Not every bioplastic is biodegradable. Not every biodegradable plastic is plant-based. Even compostable materials may require an industrial facility and carefully controlled conditions before they break down.

As construction searches for lower-impact materials, bioplastics deserve serious attention—but preferably without pretending they are all the same or ready to replace conventional building plastics everywhere.