A tale of two houses: Manufactured homes and industrialized construction in the U.S. and Sweden

Source abstract

Communities in the U.S. face an intensifying housing affordability crisis driven in part by rising construction costs, skilled labor shortages, and stagnant productivity in the building industry. Many researchers and policymakers point to industrialized construction (IC)—the application of manufacturing methods to the building sector—as a framework for expanding production and reducing costs. The history of IC in the U.S. is marked by ambitious efforts with mixed results, including manufactured “HUD Code” homes as well as resurgent investment from private capital in recent decades. Countries like Sweden, on the other hand, have successfully integrated IC methods into their national housing strategy. This commentary traces the parallel tracks of the manufactured housing and IC sector in the U.S., contrasted with Sweden’s long trajectory towards a mature IC ecosystem. Four key takeaways stand out for the U.S. housing market: the value of the “triple helix model” for coordination between government, academia, and industry; the importance of strategic government interventions that do not “choose winners”; the effectiveness of building code harmonization in unlocking scale; and the potential to vertically integrate key business functions within a company to optimize the benefits of IC. Ultimately, this commentary highlights areas for synergistic and systemic shifts in the public and private sector to leverage IC methods as a part of the solution to the U.S. housing crisis.