>So, I'm all for building more housing, it's really the only thing that can fundamentally fix things, but it sounds like we need to get better at building cheaper housing.
I don't disagree but I think people will object to "cheap" based on aesthetics. The closest thing I can think of is Soviet Union I know they used prefabricated elements in their building construction. People love to complain about the ugliness of Soviet style architecture.
Prefabricated doesn't have to mean ugly, it doesn't have to mean it's made out of concrete. It doesn't mean that everything has to look the same either.
I think the industry prefers the term "modular" due to the stigma, but they're the same thing.
While I'm not a huge fan of how this turned out, here's a recent modular high-rise in Manhattan that doesn't look hideous: http://narchitects.com/work/carmel-place/
This doesn't really argue against your soviet comments either, but you can see that you can do a lot with the idea (though the complicated form lead and uilders' inexperience to pretty high costs): http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-innovative-homel...
But you can stick whatever facade you want onto this. I've read quite a few comments about sticking brick veneer onto these to make them look just like regular buildings.
Using modules means you can build the modules off-site in a factory, rather than on a construction site, and maybe we can eventually bring some automation into how those modules are built.
I don't disagree but I think people will object to "cheap" based on aesthetics. The closest thing I can think of is Soviet Union I know they used prefabricated elements in their building construction. People love to complain about the ugliness of Soviet style architecture.