Modular Houses – Main Problems

Modular houses have increasingly found their place in the real estate market recently. This was expected, given their simplicity and affordability.

Of course, modular houses can offer a range of advantages, but they also come with their drawbacks. From an architectural perspective—not as mere construction, but from the viewpoint of aestheticians—we present five major problems that are predominant with such buildings: four aesthetic problems and one logistical misconception.

Aesthetic Problem No. 1 – Design Limitations and Their Implications

Modular houses often have design limitations. This arises, among other things, as a result of a market previously dominated (until recently) exclusively by the construction industry, which is industrialized rather than creative.

Although almost every company producing modular buildings can execute the designs of any other (we’re talking about small-scale, relatively simple projects), they are generally limited to a range of similar designs that all resemble “simplified mid-20th century American suburban houses.”

This might not seem like a problem, but considering today’s radically different definitions of what a house represents, this issue raises further questions.

A house has become an extension of our personality, or more precisely, our public Persona. This is the modern definition. Previously, such a definition was reserved for the highest echelons of society. Today, when nearly everyone can read Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations and find themselves identifying with Caesar’s problems, we can observe that everyday awareness (life) has elevated beyond mere profane existence. On one hand, this shows how far we’ve advanced as a civilization; however, with this progress comes an increase in expectations—not only from the world but also from ourselves.

A house is no longer just a shelter or a practical space, but a symbolic exponent of our aesthetic judgments and ethical values.

For aesthetic or ethical views to be visible, we need more than a historically simplified stylization of the status quo. A personalized language is required—one that reflects the individual’s views and perception of the world, particularly of what is considered “beautiful” and “good.”

These judgments cannot emerge from prefabricated, generic forms that dominate the modular housing market, as individuality is lost, and the value of unique (individual) elements disappears.

Aesthetic Problem No. 2 – Lack of Connection to the Environment

Modular houses often suffer from a key aesthetic issue—a lack of integration with the natural environment and local culture. Although their universality and flexibility are marketed as advantages, this approach leads to architecture that often feels alien in its surroundings. Rather than adapting to the specifics of the terrain and social context, modular houses typically follow pre-defined models, resulting in a discordant presence in the environment.

Modern architecture demands interaction with nature, not only for aesthetics but also for ecological sustainability and connection to the surroundings. In modular houses, however, this often falls short. The design, meant to be universal, rarely considers the specific features of the landscape, such as topography, vegetation, or climate. The result is a uniform structure that appears unnatural in rural settings, while in urban areas, it may seem generic and soulless. This architectural disconnect often gives the impression that a modular house was “placed” into a space rather than growing organically from it as a natural extension of the landscape.

Instead of expressing local identity through design that reflects specific cultural and historical references, modular houses often appear as “products,” devoid of uniqueness and local symbolism. This sense of architectural “detachment” not only contributes to the aesthetic issue but also reduces the sense of belonging and connection to the surroundings.

Aesthetic Problem No. 3 – Material Quality

The quality of materials used in modular houses can vary, and they are often inferior to those used in traditional construction. This can lead to issues with durability and house maintenance, among others.

Modern solutions are also sustainable solutions—eco-friendly and sensor-friendly. It’s no surprise that the so-called Japandi style has found its place in the normative standards of interior architecture. The combination of natural and natural.

What modern materials lack is that primal, paternal pleasure of the tactile sensations of wood and stone, which connect us to our collective memory of the primal home. This memory is an ontological part of home architecture.

Despite the first impression of familiar house forms, modern modular homes imply a “mass” product. Cheap plastic, excessive metal, and concrete blocks strongly suggest a “product,” impoverished of its authenticity and original spirit, which should not seek a place in the definition of home. This impoverishment is not a consequence of the number of “mass-produced” houses but lies in the architectural deficiencies themselves. The architecture is cheap, not the house itself. The house is no longer “the thing” but has become “the stuff.”

Aesthetic Problem No. 4 – Standardization of Proportions and Disruption of the Human Experience

One of the less obvious but very significant aesthetic issues with modular houses is their tendency toward standardization of proportions and dimensions, which often disrupts the human experience of space. By its nature, modular design tends toward uniformity and efficiency, but this rationalization of space often comes at the expense of the subtle yet important dimension of architecture—its emotional and perceptual experience.

Traditional architecture, over centuries, has developed an understanding of how proportions and spatial dimensions affect our physical and psychological state. Architectural elements such as ceiling height, hallway width, and window size are not arbitrary—they are carefully designed to create a certain feeling, whether it be grandeur, comfort, intimacy, or openness. Modular houses, however, due to their production-oriented nature, often overlook this complexity in favor of rationalized standards that dictate universal dimensions and relationships within the space.

In addition to physical proportions, there is also the problem of uniform rhythm in the arrangement of interior and exterior elements—ornaments, or more precisely, their lack or complete absence. Due to their prefab nature, modular houses often have a predictable and mechanical rhythm in the structure of facades, windows, and other elements. This repetitiveness of monolithic constituents, although economically justified, creates monotony that can lead to psychological fatigue and a loss of interest in the space. In architecture, rhythm and variation of elements are key to creating a dynamic space, allowing users to connect with their environment on an intuitive level. Modular design, however, often leans toward uniformity, which can result in a mechanical space devoid of life and soul.

Logistical Misconception

Although modular houses are often advertised as a cheaper alternative to traditional houses, costs can be high, especially when considering the expense of delivering the modules to the location. The costs are even higher if shipping from another country is involved.

Many people mistakenly assume that local assembly companies only build houses from their portfolio. Modular houses are a construction system. This construction system is known to all building companies and consists of prefabricated parts related to the structure and infill, the so-called sandwich walls. If a local construction company can build one, they can build almost any house that falls under the same construction principle and similar scale.

What people often don’t know is that they can submit their own house plan and request something entirely different from what’s offered.

This flexibility allows for the creation of a house that truly reflects the owner’s taste and identity, avoiding generic and standardized designs that often fail to express individuality. In this way, modular construction ceases to be limited to company offerings and becomes a tool for customizing a house to the specific user experience.

Modularity and Authenticity: Between the Universal and the Personal

Modular houses confront us with the question of what it means to have a home in an era of quick solutions and mass production. While they offer efficiency and affordability, they remind us of the fundamental tension between the universal and the specific, between the general and the personal. Through them, we challenge ourselves: how do we create a space that is not just a physical structure but a bearer of our inner worlds, our values, and our ideals? A home, as more than just a shelter, becomes an extension of our identity, a space where our inner and outer realities meet. Modular houses encourage us to recognize that the real challenge is not in building walls but in creating a space that reflects our deep, authentic connection with the world and with ourselves.