I contend the roots of the stigma Mr. Cort refers to are very obvious and still present a formidable barrier to full and unfettered acceptance of modular building. That is, the general public may or may not ever frequent a modular building plant or realize they have experienced a finished building that in whole or in part was assembled with modular components. However, we have all seen hours of news coverage devoted to trailers being destroyed in storm events. The irony here is when you look up modular building, Wikipedia touts the strength of modular building as one attribute that makes modular homes suitable for use in the storm ravaged Central Plains.

In addition, there are reams of information in the literature and the equivalent in news coverage regarding poor IAQ in modular buildings. Think of the coverage devoted to the hundreds of “formaldehyde nightmare” trailers delivered to New Orleans after Katrina, only to be left sinking into the mud because they were deemed un-inhabitable. Add to that the PR damage done by countless numbers of poor quality (read “inexpensive”) modular classrooms, field offices and utility buildings that are energy inefficient, uncomfortable and toxic and I think you can see the roots of the stigma Mr. Cort refers to all over this country – and other countries.

To many of us, trailers and modular construction are two different things. Unfortunately, to much of the general public, they are one in the same. If it arrives on a trailer, or as a trailer, it is a trailer. The stigma remains.
I can personally share I have heard numerous parents opine they do not want their child “going to school in a trailer.” Google “trailer trash” and you will see the point I am trying to make regarding perceptions in our current culture.

Ideally, it would be best to extend Mr. Cort’s definition of efficiency to include, at a minimum, energy, materials and resources. Energy, material and resource efficient building (EMREB?) resonates with the tenets of LEED, CHPS, Green Globes, SERF, and other green building rating systems the MBI is trying to gain traction with. It is one reason I believe the MBI should seriously reconsider the purpose, structure and award criteria of its annual design competition. Done effectively, the MBI competition can be an even more effective tool for market transformation.

I very much support Mr. Cort’s basic point, and am committed to seeing Triumph Modular and the MBI succeed. To that end, I would reword Mr. Cort’s closing paragraph this way:

In closing, for anyone who is professionally invested in the word, let’s define it to mean energy, material and resource “Efficient”. The goal should be to break a long pattern of misunderstanding and correct public misconception regarding modular building, and the literary injustice done to an otherwise perfectly good word. We will enable the word Modular to be seen in a positive light, and take its rightful place in language as powerful word of description. There, we fixed the problem.