Ludwig Mies van der Rohe: Industrialized Building

The necessity of the industrialization of construction has, until recently, been denied by almost all parties involved, and it must be considered a progress that this question is now being seriously discussed by a wider circle, even though very few are truly convinced about it. Continuing industrialization in all fields would have taken hold regardless of the outdated views of construction trades if specific circumstances had not prevented it and blocked the way. Industrialization of construction should be seen as the core issue of building in our time. If we succeed in pushing forward industrialization, then social, economic, technical, and also artistic questions can be easily resolved. The question of how industrialization of construction should be carried out can be answered by determining what has so far stood in its way. The claim that delayed forms of operation would be the cause is not applicable. They are not the cause but a consequence of a certain state and do not stand in opposition to the nature of the old construction economy. Attempts at new operational forms have been made several times and have only taken hold in those sectors of construction that allowed for industrialization. Additionally, the modular character of today's construction is being overestimated. It is almost only applied in the construction of halls for industry and agriculture, and it was first the steel construction companies that created modular structural components in their enterprises. More recently, the timber industry is also trying to industrially process its components to enable assembly. In almost all other constructions, the same purely craft-like method has been maintained since time immemorial. This character will not change either through working methods or economic forms and ensures the survival of small enterprises. Savings on materials and wages can be achieved by using larger and different formats of stone, as new construction methods show, while it should be considered that brick construction proves undeniable advantages against these new methods. It is not so much about the rationalization of existing methods of work as it is about a fundamental transformation of construction as a whole.
As long as the same material is fundamentally used, the character of the construction will not change, and this character subsequently determines the forms of operation. Industrialization of construction is a matter of material. Therefore, the demand for new materials is the first prerequisite. Our technology must succeed in inventing a building material that can be technically procured and industrially processed. It will be necessary that this material is lightweight, as it not only allows for industrialization but requires it. The industrial production of all components can only be rationalized during the production process, and work at the construction site will then take on the exclusive character of assembly, which can be limited to an unexpectedly short time. New trends in building art will also find their own roles here. It is clear to me that the construction craft will be destroyed in its current form; anyone who laments that craftsmen will not be able to build the houses of the future should consider that a saddler can no longer make an automobile either.
Construction entrepreneurs will be forced to decide whether they really want to build rationally, or if the prevailing aesthetic speculation in Europe (in any guise) will dictate their production.
The industrialization of construction is intrinsically tied to industrial operation.