What future does the Blueprint Robotics factory in Baltimore portend for housing construction? This huge German plant certainly rivals Pulte’s former facility in the same market (shuttered in 2008). And it may even eclipse the robotics/automation going forward in multiple truss plants IF the Blueprint panelization process yields much lower jobsite labor.
The Baltimore area provides perhaps the best locale to extend panelization to floors and roofs, since wall panels are so widely accepted there. Add the fact that townhouse units have been a Baltimore staple for hundreds of years and they provide arguably the best venue for componentization (see my earlier articles on High Density Housing). Though CM’s are successfully serving this market with floors, roofs, and walls, none of their packages approach the completeness of the Blueprint product.
The proximity of the Blueprint plant to booming infill housing areas helps compensate for the increased cost of transporting bulky panelized assemblies. Since these assemblies unload considerably faster than individual trusses and can be installed directly in place, they greatly reduce erection time. Floor panels have leveraged these advantages in many multi-family projects in Minneapolis, Boston, and other Northern cities. The Blueprint model proposes to extend the labor savings proven in erecting floor panels to both wall and roof systems.
The Blueprint concept will succeed only if “give backs” by onsite trades offset increased factory and transport costs. While framers often fail to return their labor savings on detached housing, they are much more likely to give back gains realized through “economies of scale” when framing multiple units consecutively. This explains the success of floor panels on large multi-family projects, and why the Blueprint model may prove to be most successful on high density projects (see attached examples of Blueprint projects).
A considerable unknown is the viability of closed wall panels, based on earlier experiences in this market (chronicled here previously). Even though less onsite work is required by electrical, plumbing, and HVAC trades, will they “give back” enough to pay for the additional plant labor expended. Foundation inaccuracies, which plagued earlier attempts at closed panelization, are much lesser factors on high density units, as proven by the success of conventional wall panel suppliers in this venue.
In summary, the success of the Blueprint Robotics model depends upon extending considerably the 60% labor savings proven by “Framing the American Dream.” The robust townhouse market near downtown Baltimore provides a great venue for the Blueprint experiment, without impacting conventional component manufacturers, so far. However, the inevitable down cycle of the housing market could easily undermine their investment, as it did Pulte’s, before start-up costs are recouped.
Next Month:
Panelization Resurgence, continued