ABSTRACT
Most critics would argue that the construction industry was "out-to-lunch" during the industrial revolution, and that it belongs in the nonprogressive sector. The most serious problem with such an assertion is the policy implication that if people could encourage greater use of mass production techniques, people could substantially lower the cost of new construction. If a shift to a more industrialized housebuilding process, making use of the same basic materials currently used in residential construction, will not significantly reduce the cost of housing, what about development and application of new building materials as a path to cost reduction? In the judgment of both the Kaiser and the Douglas panels, reductions in construction costs can be brought about by improved management techniques in the industry itself and through increasing reliance on off-site fabrication. Thus, construction is a reasonably responsive industry that must satisfy a traditional clientele, "building code jurisdictions thousands of little kingdoms, each having its own way," and discriminatory zoning ordinances.
