In 1924, Le Corbusier wrote in Towards an Architecture, “if houses were built industrially, mass produced like chassis, an aesthetic would be formed with surprising precision."

It’s hard to deny his point – especially during the rise of automobiles – but it seems a bit hopeful to me that he would assume this manufactured “aesthetic” would result in that of a good one.

A century later, we would describe this aesthetic as "modular housing."

Modular housing is a construction method that uses pre-fabricated sections or modules, produced in a factory setting. This approach mirrors the automotive industry, where parts are mass-produced and assembled quickly, allowing for streamlined construction processes.

Last year, the New York Times published an article on modular housing, titled How an American Dream of Housing Became a Reality in Sweden. We all know the Swedes are ahead of the game when it comes to efficiency and functionality – shoutout IKEA – however, this article really caught our attention for several reasons. [1]

First, it's fascinating that the US Department of Housing and Urban Development launched an industrialized housing initiative called “Operation Breakthrough” in 1971 and it didn't last more than two years despite being relatively successful. Operation Breakthrough built nearly 3,000 homes during that 2 year span using modular construction methods. At that time, the US had a serious housing shortage and this method of construction made total sense. So why did Operation Breakthrough stop? Politics perhaps.

Meanwhile, in Scandinavia, Francesca Mari explains how the Swedish sovereignty successfully adopted modular housing practices by funding local factories that highly resemble automobile plants. They chose to subsidize more factories, help construct all the interconnected parts of a home on an assembly line – from awnings to master bathrooms – and then rapidly assemble affordable housing using this modular kit of parts on site.

Seems logical.

Yet, why aren’t we approaching it this way in the US? "While nearly every other industry [in the US] has become more productive since 1968, productivity in home-building — the amount of work done by one worker in one hour, essentially — has declined by half," according to Mari. I think a major cause of this can be attributed to all the rules and regulations around the permitting and zoning process – an undeniably slow system. [2]

Anyway, while diving into all this modular construction-talk, I came across something quite interesting. In 1936, Le Corbusier designed “a minimalist vehicle for maximum functionality” with the help of his cousin Pierre Jeanneret. [3]

According to Corbusier this was the most functional and aero-dynamic form for a car. Two years later, in 1938, Hitler “designed” the Volkswagen Beetle – aka the people’s car.

Did one inspire the other?

A bold claim, but not entirely unfounded. Both vehicles were rooted in the idea of mass production and accessibility, designed to serve the everyday person rather than the elite. Yet, one became a global icon — despite its suspect beginnings — while the other remained a sketch in a manifesto.

The Voiture Minimum never saw mass production — it remained a theoretical ideal rather than a functional reality. Meanwhile, the Volkswagen Beetle — though tainted by its origins — became one of the most successful cars in history. Industrial design is nothing without industry. Vision alone isn’t enough — systems, infrastructure, and political will determine whether an idea actually makes it to market.

Plus, a little bit of market-making advertising to introduce the Beetle to the US didn't hurt demand; it sold like wildfire in the free wheeling mid 60s where its compact size and affordable price were seen as an asset.

But back to housing.

Modular construction makes sense — economically, environmentally, and logistically. But like Corbusier’s car, the concept remains largely aspirational in the US. Sweden proved it works. Japan has been doing it for decades. Even post-war America flirted with it through initiatives like Operation Breakthrough, yet the U.S. housing market continues to resist innovation.

Why?

Unlike the auto industry, which thrives on efficiency (kind of) the American housing sector is tangled in red tape, outdated zoning laws, and financial incentives that favor the status quo. Developers still lean on traditional construction methods because they’re entrenched in a system that rewards inefficiency.

That's why we have an enteral housing crisis where affordability remains elusive, and sustainability is rarely a thought, normally an afterthought.

Le Corbusier may have imagined a world where homes were produced like cars, but nearly a century later, we’re still struggling to turn that vision into reality.

Until housing is treated with the same industrial rigor as automobiles, the dream of an efficient, affordable, and scalable housing solution will remain just that — a dream.

The blueprint is there — but does anyone want to build it?