Build it right the first time

In the past few years, some universities have started using prefabricated, modular buildings to serve as dormitories. Though not necessarily as hardy as the structures IU students are used to seeing, the buildings are not flimsy by any stretch – made of brick, concrete and steel, they more or less fit in on most campuses.\nAre these dormitories the wave of the future, a way to combat rising costs and the inconvenience of construction? Though clearly their supporters would say “yes,” it’s really unlikely that such buildings will become a permanent and widespread staple of campuses across the nation.\nSuch buildings have a stigma about them. Most students think of modular construction as it was in grade school – bare bones, corrugated metal structures that were brought in when there just wasn’t the time or money to build legitimate additions onto the school. These buildings scream inferiority to many – it would feel to students that they are being shunted off to the side, unwanted, while the “cool kids” get to live in buildings that weren’t brought to the campus on a truck.\nSuch a feeling may be unfair, but it’s likely unavoidable. Even with advances in technology, a prefabricated building seems inferior to a conventional building.\nAlso, the real quality of the buildings is suspect. The buildings are billed as being almost as good – if not just as good – as their conventional counterparts. However, it seems there’s a bit more room for error in a building scheme that involves construction of modules followed by assembly, as opposed to one that just involves the single step of construction.\nThat’s not to mention the fact that one modular dormitory was described by a Yale student quoted in The New York Times as having walls that didn’t quite fit together and uneven bathroom floors. This may be uncommon, but it’s still worrisome.\nThese buildings are also sold as being significantly cheaper than conventional construction. However, according to the same New York Times article, the savings are only about 5 to 10 percent. It seems like that would be a small price to pay to ensure quality.\nImage is also an issue. Many students, as mentioned above, think negative thoughts when confronted with the idea of prefab construction. A college that used the method extensively might come off as cheap or illegitimate – like going to school on a MASH outpost, ready to pack up and move anytime the front lines changed. If students think a college seems shady, they will not attend – though that would of course solve the space issue quickly.\nThe biggest part of the sales pitch is that these buildings minimize disruptions on the campus caused by construction. Conventional construction takes a long time and is cumbersome, so students could be without housing or could be distracted by the work. After thinking about all of the disadvantages, though, the one main advantage pales in comparison.\nUnless technology improves or the price difference steepens, it’s far smarter to just stick to conventional construction. It’s worked for hundreds of years, and enough hasn’t changed yet to buck the trend.