|
|||||||||||||||
sustainable placemaking forum 79 Parkway London NW1 7PP tel. 020 7485 8555 fax 020 7485 1232 |
|||||||||||||||
|
seminar proceedings |
|
|
A seminar series organised by HTA Architects Ltd Report of seminar held on new technology (focusing on Amphion timber frame) held on 21 September 2000 in Birmingham Main conclusions Quality in existing housing is poor and much recent development may well not stand the test of time Shortage of trained labour is an important factor in this. Future emphasis needs to concentrate on providing better paid work with the opportunity of permanent employment and good working conditions New technologies do not save money in the initial stages: volume is needed Innovation must take hold in the private sector: social housing alone will not succeed in changing the housebuilding industry The Housing Corporation's kick-start programme provides a useful way to push the innovation agenda forward and is already helping such programmes as Amphion timber frame There needs to be an emphasis on presenting new technology to buyers and tenants. Evidence such as Murray Grove shows that consumers appreciate better quality Introduction by Ben Derbyshire, HTA Architects This seminar is one of a linked series to explore the implications - and what we need to change in the way we do things - to achieve sustainable placemaking. The purpose is to define our objectives and to find other organisations that can help us deliver: we want to work with others to achieve a new vernacular. We aim to put together a report on what we have discussed in this series. So far discussions have covered: the overall concept: what we mean by placemaking and how partnering and innovation contribute - what we learned was that trust is the key; finance: a lot of time was spent on PFI and its complications, particularly from a housing association perspective. But it became clear was that funders must be fully involved from the start; users: the lessons of the East German Trabant car which disappeared once the country opened up, suggest that most houses produced in the UK would not be purchased in customers had a real choice; technologies: the first seminar centred on light steel frame and panel systems - what was surprising but encouraging was the enthusiasm expressed by developers present towards new approaches. HTA Architects is now working to take this further and engage people. We want to have a go at setting out a project that sets out the way of building places where people will want to live in the twenty first century. We want to build on the experience of competitions and projects we have been involved with, where we have been able to demonstrate ideas and principles. We aim to amalgamate these into a very visual presentation. We want to demonstrate the implications and impact of information technology on placemaking. After this, we hope to move to what we describe as the 'new vernacular' which we believe "has an open construction system delivering increased performance and flexibility, enabling different homes to be designed in different styles with no significant restraint on spatial arrangements, and at reduced cost". We are mindful that innovative projects are probably too small to be demonstrably convincing about delivering the future. They tend to be more expensive at the start - we really need substantial volume. We do think there will be a role for design organisations. We are hugely heartened to note that it is now recognised that design really does have a part to play in improving the product. The mantra I repeat at HTA is that the business of design happens everywhere in the work that we do; the purpose is to add value to the business of our customers. It happens from the footings and the drains right up to the roof. It is about adding value - it isn't about adding expensive bits. We believe we can make a significant contribution - in one way or another we are involved in commissions involving 20,000 homes. The search is on for collaborators. We can't as an industry simply import low cost formulae. We believe that improvements in cost and quality will only come from a mixture of home grown changes - these will have to come not only from change in construction techniques but also changes in culture. The Amphion consortium which involves 23 RSLs (as at October 2000) appointed the Beazer Group as a member, to produce timber frame homes. The group already had a long established timber frame manufacturing operation. Its product is known as Tee-u-Tec an advanced form of timber frame construction, which uses existing approved techniques and components. Beazer builds about 1150 homes a year for RSLs and about 75% of its partnership programme is brownfield. The group is involved in a number of estate regeneration cross subsidy partnerships. Andy McCosh has been with the Beazer for ten years, and was appointed as a director of the partnership division in 1992. He was a member of the DTI task force to Japan in 1998 and led Beazer's response to the Amphion consortium in 1999. Amphion timber frame Amphion represents a robust form of timber frame and is tailored to meet the requirements of the consortium members. It involves the manufacture of engineered components which are produced at present in a controlled factory environment in Glasgow: the intention is to minimise on-site installation times. It is transferable to our own markets. Part of the enthusiasm at Beazer in our response was our intention to see the benefits work through our private sale market as well as in social housing. The product uses storey height large panel walls, floor cassettes and a variety of roofing systems all of which are intended to be suitable for fast track crane installation. The external walls are storey high external wall panels. (They have 140mm compared with standard 89mm.) Factory fitted insulation is sealed into the wall panel. The panels have conduits fitted for electrical wiring plumbing and heating. The panels are closed on the external side with a moisture resistant board. The combination of the external board and the high vapour resistance internal sheathing works with the insulation to allow something quite useful - with brick bound systems we are able to eliminate an external brick membrane and the internal vapour barrier. Floors are currently solid concrete or beam and block though by preference in a technology-based product they will be cassettes. The mid floors are always factory manufactured cassettes. I-beams are used to give clear spans to help do away with the need for load bearing internal walls. The current standard product can achieve spans of up to 5.5 metres. It is possible to improve on that, though there are additional costs. The first schemes have used conventional roof trusses. For preference these will be replaced by cassettes which can be craned into position, enabling faster construction. They are more expensive but allow the internal roof space to be used. Windows and doors are factory pre-fixed. Much of the Amphion programme will remain brick clad. Performance When we first started this process, we were quite worried that the more solid frame would cost more money - and it does. But when we look at factory processes we think we will make further cost inroads and achieve better quality. The main reason the technology is proving in any way cost effective is as a result of savings on site labour and overheads. It is a balancing act currently to make the equation square up. At Hyde's Deptford scheme we are able to erect and frame and install roofs on a pair of semis in 48 hours. We also hope that there will be less opportunity for mistakes, and the more we are able to industrialise the process, the more we can improve the quality, the more we can reduce defects, and the more added value people are going to see from the products. Production We have a 40, 000 sq ft new factory in Ipswich docks - Torwood 2. This is almost twice the size of our existing factory in Scotland. We are bringing in our timber by boat using mainly Scandinavian timber resources for quality reasons. The raw material comes straight from the wharf into the production line. We have a partnering agreement with our main suppliers, to ensure that all our timber comes from managed sustainable forests. The machinery is also Scandinavian and the most advanced in the UK. The programme and Egan The programme doesn't just deal with rent, it also covers shared ownership We are aiming to use different technologies on one site. We are not trying to pretend that there is only one technological solution to house building. The Amphion consortium is, I believe, the first fully Egan compliant partnering agreement. It attempts to tackle every single element of the Egan report in some way: we are not just talking about the manufacturing process. We are concerned with measurement, KPIs, process change and everything else. Several of the Amphion projects have Housing Forum demonstration status: any that aren’t will still be subject to Housing Forum benchmarking. Looking ahead The intention is to amass a volume, and, increasingly, to use Amphion on regeneration schemes. We believe the fast track programme and clean construction will be well received by the tenants and occupiers particularly where decant programmes are involved. Production will be transferred progressively into the factory - we are targeted within the consortium to move to 75% or even 80% off site production over the four year period of the agreement. We have also indicated within the group that we are very keen to establish new factories according to demand and have already declared an intention within the next two years to develop operations in the midlands, the south west and Wales. We are happy we have started a process. We know we have a long way to go and that others are taking a different road - that's absolutely fine. We pay respect to whatever is moving forward and encourage people to do more and keep it going. Discussion I am interested in the extent to which this particular volume programme is generated by volumes based on Beazer's private programme. A substantial share of housing association new build programmes is dependent on a whole range of developers big and small entering into planning agreements, who will be reluctant to hand over the business opportunities to Beazer. (Developer/housebuilder) Part of the Egan agenda has been about stimulating private sector responses, and a concern that major housebuilders were not deeply involved. When we set about formulating our policy, we did so in partnership with our internal divisions to encourage them to take advantage of the technology, and mindful of the way housing association programmes go up an down. It would have been impossible for us to commission the factory solely on anticipated demand though the Housing Corporation programme: we would not want such an exposed situation in case the tap was turned off. We will be transferring the technology across sectors. On section 106, it is the case that we supply quite a chunk of the Amphion programme where we have land opportunities - we are helping our own supply chain as part of the partnering agreement. For instance, 255 homes are being produced through Tee-U-Tec, because we own the land. Kick-start helps to the extent that it makes it possible to supply packages and allows developers to retain ownership of their sites and programmes. We are happy in the right circumstances to supply other builders - that means contractors who understand the product and how it needs to be treated. We should be able to achieve some very good partnering arrangements that are principally manufacturing based. The issue that arises is value, value added and production capacity. We have made an £x million investment. This is an open market and we look forward to seeing other developers' factories up and running. (Andy McCosh) In many regeneration schemes tenants have a say in the programme. How can we persuade them to agree to new technology given the memories of system built failures of the past? (Housing association) I agree that this is a problem. Where we have commissioned research among tenants and owners to gain reactions, it appears they don't want the product - so I'm not quite sure how we managed to sell 1,000 timber frame homes last year! Now we have completed homes, we aim to give access to people. We have also had a series of requests for tenants to see the homes and gain an understanding. So there is an educational role to be performed and also to give people experience. We are involved in the Zethus centre at Dartford - similar to the customer centres in Japan where they exhibit products - which aims to demonstrate new technology. This will also provide responses. The other thing to get across to people is that we are not building the same product as in the 1980s (though it has to be said that there is still conventional timber frame being produced and sold successfully around the country). There is also the issue of training. Tee-U-Tech is being erected by direct labour and we employ site installation managers. Customer service teams will not simply respond to emergency calls but will deal with customer feedback. This is a long road and we have years of neglect to deal with. We could of course stay where we are, but I can't stand the thought any longer that sites will remain such awful places to work with no permanence of employment or prospects, and where the industry is staring disaster in the face. In our case we do not think we are driving the pace of change too fast. It is a step change and we need to test it. (Andy McCosh) In the urban market we have to build high, yet all the examples from Amphion so far are houses. And what are the prospects on costs? (Housing association) Our technology is most suitable for buildings with five or less storeys - this means it will cover most schemes. Where we are building higher than this we will use alternative technologies. As far as costs are concerned I am convinced that our products will become cheaper as a result of volume, consistency and a high degree of replication of components. It will be possible to reduce frame costs in the factory and include high quality kitchens and bathrooms. But some of that will translate into increased land prices particularly in the south east with the increasingly desperate problem of lack of available land. As long as there is not an adequate supply, any savings in technological improvement will translate into the price paid. New technology will give competitive advantage between housebuilders rather than something that will bring a benefit in lower housing prices: that is commercial reality. (Andy McCosh) With all the effort around I'd like to know whether there is any evidence that some of the benefits of new technology will allow you to do things that you can't achieve with conventional building. For instance, will it allow more space and greater flexible in use of that space, or indeed off-plan choices? If not, then the prospect is depressing. However, at Peabody's Murray Grove scheme, surveyors are suggesting that its valuation has shot up because it has been innovatively designed. (Ben Derbyshire, HTA Architects) I think we are all very complacent about quality: I do not think homes are very good. A lot of what is produced won't stand the test of time. At Murray Grove, 5% extra was deliberately put in to achieve higher quality. The quite extensive feedback suggests it is much appreciated and incredibly popular. It is not good enough - or even good business practice - to say industrial construction technology can be successful simply because it is cheaper. (British Airways did not become the world's favourite airline by lower pricing: it was quality. It may have now run into problems now, but everyone else spotted what was happening and raised their game.) The secret is to use the technology for better quality. When I go out and see some schemes built conventionally, my heart sinks at the brickwork, for instance - it is so awful. The lesson of Murray Grove is to go for it - use architecture and innovation. There is a market out there. Don't be tempted to cover up everything - there is no law which says houses must be built with brick. (Housing association) In some ways we have not come very far. There is an exhibition at the Museum of London which shows how in 55 BC the Romans used prefabricated timber systems. (Developer/housebuilder) It has always seemed to me that that social housing is a foot in the door: cracking the private market is key to innovation and it won't stick unless the private market buys into it. So far things are going fine. There is leadership, but we have got to make sure that the followers end up as the majority. I am not gloomy but I think we have got to spread the Latham/Egan message even further. (Housing corporation)
This is not just about technology - the industry has to tackle many processes. But I think we will see houses being built which are distinctive and will develop as brands. I feel I will have succeeded when I see a major scheme by a prestige builder using Tee-U-Tech. I don’t think it will be long before it happens - it is amazing how it is now possible to think what would have been impossible in the past. We are likely to see a distinction between those that have used innovation and those that haven't - the latter will hope we fail. There are commercial risks which is why we greatly value the funding for research and innovation is available and allows us to go out and trial things. But I hope that in ten years we will all be building a better product. I think we all have to innovate and that will include those who claim they will never change their construction processes. (Andy McCosh) Even timber frame houses suffer from poor brickwork which will carry on unless there is more training The issue is really about getting defects down as low as possible and get quality at such a high level that you don’t have to employ large numbers of people putting things right. (Supplier) The issue of providing real customer care rather than dealing with all the problems was a fundamental driver for us - we did not want any more letters from unhappy customers, either sale or rent. The lack of investment in training in the past is an issue but there is a limited range of options about what you can do immediately because the labour force is simply not available. The industry needs to develop people trained in quality who are better paid with permanent jobs. Well-treated workers will want to stay with their companies. But there are other factors we haven't talked about such as forms of contract and traditional altercational relationships which mean site management is not enjoyable. Pressures on RSLs by the Housing Corporation and government to reduce costs have had implications. Letting so many contracts on financially squeezed margins has hit the welfare of people on site, and quality. It is all part of a trend that we have got to break. We have all come to that conclusion very late in the day. Quality is so bad that no immediate training programme is going to solve it. I think it is fundamentally flawed to believe that you can stick something together in rain and mud and think that is the best way of doing it. We don't build cars on that basis and don’t see any reason why we should do that with housing. Why do we work with a process that is so fundamentally open to error, accident and failure? There has to be a triple agenda about product, process and respecting people Whether we use bricks or not is a side issue. We must grab those main points, do something and then see whether we have made a difference or not. (Andy McCosh) This seminar series operates on a 'Chatham House rules' basis. However, many of the participants have already expressed their willingness to have their contributions credited to them. In the other cases, speakers have not yet given clearance - no inference should be drawn from this. Anyone wishing to quote the speakers should speak to them direct for their permission. For further information, contact Chris Bazlinton, Editor on 01279 771468. HTA Architects Limited 79 Parkway London NW1 7PP telephone 020 7485 8555 fax 020 7485 1232 email hta@hta-arch.co.uk ISDN 0207267 0061
|
Home · Introduction · Seminars · Discussion Forum · Participants · Resources · Contact Us