Modular housing and permanence

The research found that PLACE/Ladywell improved on some other forms of temporary accommodation. Residents nevertheless remained uncertain about what would happen next and anxious about further moves.

A well-designed temporary dwelling cannot remove the disruption associated with uncertain future housing, repeated relocation, changing schools, losing proximity to work or healthcare, or separation from friends, neighbours and support networks. ExoSett agrees with the underlying criticism: modular temporary accommodation is not a substitute for adequate permanent housing, and no building system can solve housing policy or homelessness by itself.

ExoSett offers a permanent housing system with accommodation that can change.

In social housing, the site, relationship with the neighbourhood, accommodation frame, service frame, circulation, communal areas and much utility infrastructure might persist for decades. Individual modules, dwelling configurations, layouts, fittings, finishes and services supplied to accommodation might change.

ExoSett therefore seeks permanence of place and infrastructure without requiring permanence of accommodation configuration. This is a design ambition, not a demonstrated outcome.

Conventional housing often responds to changed household needs through relocation. An adaptable building may sometimes respond by changing accommodation: providing more or less space, addressing new accessibility or care requirements, or responding as children arrive or leave and households change.

Not every change can or should happen without a move. The principle is that relocation need not automatically be the only architectural response. ExoSett seeks to place adaptability in the building system rather than continually asking residents to adapt to unsuitable accommodation. Persistent frames, services and interfaces could provide a stable platform for change, although this has not yet been proven in constructed ExoSett buildings.

The research highlights residents’ concerns about remaining close to schools, employment, family, friends and support networks. A location is more than nearby amenities: its value also accumulates through people’s relationships with a place.

Long-lived ExoSett infrastructure may allow housing to change while preserving some continuity. This is a conceptual possibility, not a claim that physical adaptability guarantees social continuity. The Location page develops this design consideration.

Some PLACE/Ladywell residents reported that restrictions on small decorative changes made it harder to feel at home. Homes are not display units. Decorating, hanging pictures or shelves, moving furniture, wear, minor damage, repairs and personalisation are ordinary parts of occupation.

During manufacture, transport, installation, removal and refurbishment, it may be useful to think of an accommodation module as a cassette. During occupation, it is somebody’s home. A housing system should not ask residents to preserve accommodation as transport equipment simply because it may later be removed or reused.

Reasonable domestic use should be expected and designed for, while structural, fire-safety, service and tenancy constraints still apply. The Accommodation design page sets out this principle.

A realistic intended lifecycle is manufacture → installation → occupation → removal → inspection, refurbishment or adaptation → subsequent installation. Reuse should not mean passing somebody else’s worn home unchanged to the next resident.

Between deployments, an appropriate facility might repair damage, renew worn surfaces and finishes, inspect the structure, check or replace services, update equipment, alter internal arrangements where practical, or adapt the module for another household or use. This is a design ambition, not a developed ExoSett refurbishment standard or demonstrated commercial process.

If renewal is expected, residents need not be treated as custodians of a pristine product. Normal home-making can be accommodated during occupation, with its effects addressed later through repair and refurbishment.

PLACE/Ladywell residents also described feeling conspicuous or marked out by aspects of the development’s appearance. As the FEANTSA discussion of modular housing without second-class housing argues, people should not be identifiable or stigmatised by the construction method or tenure of their home.

Façades, balconies, entrances, landscaping, roofs and materials can respond to context while adaptable engineering sits behind them. The construction system need not determine architectural identity.

Permanent housing does not require every physical component to remain unchanged. A long-lived system may maintain continuity while components are repaired, upgraded, replaced, reconfigured or refurbished. Maintainability can contribute to usefulness without promising indefinite life.

Physical change inside a building does not by itself make the housing temporary. The important distinction is between insecurity for residents and planned change in the infrastructure that supports their homes.

Better temporary accommodation cannot provide the continuity of adequate permanent housing. ExoSett is not interesting simply because accommodation can move; its stronger possibility is that a permanent place may change around the lives of the people who live there.

The aim is not temporary housing made easier to move, but permanent housing made easier to change.

Read the Royal Holloway article, return to Research and Reading, or explore ExoSett design.