Knerr, D G (1996) "The house America has been waiting for": The Lustron Experiment in factory-made housing, 1946-1954. PhD thesis, University of Cincinnati, USA.
Abstract
This dissertation explores the history of the Lustron Corporation within the context of industrial, political, and urban history. The Lustron Corporation was the largest and most completely industrialized prefabricated housing company in the history of the United States. Beginning in 1947, Lustron manufactured porcelain enameled steel houses in a one million square foot plant on 106 acres of land in Columbus, Ohio. Just one year after its incorporation, Lustron's capital investment exceeded that of the next forty largest prefabricated housing firms. The company planned to produce 100 houses per day, each of them neatly arranged on specially designed tractor-trailers for delivery throughout the nation. Though radical in its use of porcelain enameled steel, the Lustron house--a one-story, gabled-roof ranch with a bay window and side porch--looked much like other postwar-era dwellings. Behind its traditional facade, however, lay hopes and expectations for a new era in American housing. The unprecedented scale and scope of Lustron's operations attracted intense interest and scrutiny from the press, the public, the government, and the prefabricated housing industry. The Lustron "experiment" in mass produced housing represented a major test for prefabrication. Years of interest and anticipation regarding the "industrialization" of the house construction process focused attention on Lustron's strategy, structure, problems, and prospects. At last, the nation would see if a large, highly capitalized firm could usher in a new age of affordable factory made housing. The efficiencies of mass production, integrated manufacturing, and economies of scale promised to lead the American housing industry away from its decentralized, undercapitalized, and inefficient past toward a level of rationalization and organization found in most other sectors of the industrial economy. Once hailed as the best hope for the industrialization of housing, by the early 1950s Lustron collapsed amid foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings. The company had produced only 2,498 houses. Lustron began with the goal of providing affordable single family dwellings for wage earners, the "mass market" for mass production. But the company was ultimately unable to provide a house which most wage earners could afford. Without access to the market segment which rationalized large scale production, the Lustron experiment made little economic sense.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Miller, Z L |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | United States; capital investment; dwellings; experiment; government; industrialization; investment; manufacturing; market; prefabrication |
| Index terms: | capital investment, market segment, United States, experiment, strategy, industrialization, window, housing, house construction, history, efficiency, dissertation, land, roof, prefabrication, bankruptcy |
| Subjects: | Geography, architectural elements, economic development, building construction, market analysis, research dissemination and communication, construction type, economic analysis, performance management, design practice, management, data collection methods, architectural and construction history, real estate economics |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Sustainability, Quality Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Construction Technology, Design Practice, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here