 |
| |
The affordability of manufactured housing is mainly
attributable to the efficiencies of the factory process. The controlled
environment and assembly-line techniques remove many of the problems of
the site-built sector, such as poor weather, theft, vandalism and damage
to building products and materials stored on site. Also, factory
employees are trained, scheduled and managed by one employer, as opposed
to the system of contracted labor in the site-built sector.
Manufactured home producers also benefit from the economies of scale
which result from being able to purchase large quantities of building
materials and products. As a result they are able to negotiate the
lowest possible price for items that are invariably more expensive in a
site-built house.
According to a 2002 report released by the Millennial Housing
commission, manufactured housing remains one of the largest sources of
non-subsidized housing in the nation. The report also cites that
manufactured housing accounted for almost 72% of the growth in the
nation's affordable housing stock in the 1990s. It is imperative that
manufactured housing remain affordable to those that need it most.
According to the 2002 Apgar Report, “An Examination of Manufactured
Housing as a
Community- and Asset-Building Strategy,” over the past decade and a
half, manufactured housing has emerged as an important affordable
housing option. Among households with very-low incomes (less than 50% of
AMI) 23 percent of homeownership growth between 1993 and 1999 came from
manufactured housing.
|
|
1 Jeffrey Gordon and William B. Rose, Code Comparison Summary, University of Illinois
Urbana—Champaign School of Architecture, published by the Manufactured Housing Institute, December
1997
2 NAHB Research Center, Factory and Site-Built Housing: A Comparative Analysis, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban
Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, October 1998 |
|