Prefabrication experiments - 10 - Aircraft Industries Research Organisation for Housing – the A.I.R.O.H. house

Prefabrication, «the oldest new idea» in architecture is often related to the ideal of affordable mass-produced housing. Many experiments, however, when studied within their social and political contexts convey less progressive values relating more to the economics of industry and less with the noble value of quality housing. Well known experiments such as the Lustron house or even Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion house arose from the government’s efforts to reactivate and recycle «wartime» industries in the wake of their declining production toward the housing industry. Factories, workers and material use were imperatives to the sustainability of the war effort and instrumental components of the post-war prefabricated house.

This symbiotic association between state and industry, in Great Britain, was the basis for one of the major experiments in prefabrication by an industry not concerned with housing. The Ministry of Aircraft Production (MAP) established, A.I.R.O.H, to sustain production capabilities of the aircraft industry through the post-war economic downturn threatening both the aluminium and the aircraft industries.

The AIROH house is not really an architectural experiment as its logic stems solely from an industrial perspective supported by the MAP. It is however an interesting experiment in prefabrication in as mush as the house was completely factory produced in a manner analogous to aircraft production. The simple bungalow volume was divided into 4 sections or modules completed in the factory and delivered on site. Sitework was minimal and limited to foundations and infrastructure connections. The aluminium frame was somewhat of a panelized system similar to early stressed skin aircraft construction (walls, floors, roof acting together to minimize module deflection). The semi-monocoque shell envelope was filled with a mortar-based insulation. The plan was a simple straightforward bungalow that offered little in terms of spatial innovation and little in terms of aesthetic research.

When it finally reached production, the AIROH design, was 50% more costly than what the housing authority accepted at the time. The MAP was a powerful lobby and the Termporary Accomodations Act of 1944 accepted the AIROH house as one of their potential products and ordered over 50 000 houses. The system was however, a costly alternative to what the competition was offering and lacked the added value of architectural design or the ordering flexibility of on-site building. The AIROH house was more of an industry-feeding political strategy than a housing solution.

On-site assembly of the AIROH house modules