Is modular construction suffering from an identity problem?

Modular construction has been hailed as the future of the building industry for more than a decade. Promises of speed, efficiency, reduced waste and improved quality have made it a go-to headline topic, particularly in sectors struggling with time and budget pressures such as housing, healthcare and education. Yet despite these accolades, modular construction seems caught in an unusual limbo. While the method is gaining adoption, it is also frequently misunderstood, misrepresented and sometimes unfairly criticised. So, is modular truly suffering from an identity problem? And if so, what does that mean for the wider construction sector, writes John Ridgeway?

At its core, modular construction is about manufacturing repeatable building elements offsite and assembling them onsite. This approach offers obvious benefits such as predictable timelines, reduced on-site labour, tighter quality control and potential for less disruption to surrounding communities. In theory, it’s a method perfectly suited to the challenges of modern construction, from labour shortages to sustainability demands.

Yet public perception often lags behind the reality. Many still equate modular with prefabricated housing of the post-war era, the boxy, repetitive structures that symbolised low-cost, low-quality mass production. Despite technological advances in design, materials, and engineering, modular construction is still judged against these outdated stereotypes. Critics cite uniformity, aesthetic limitations and perceived lack of durability as ongoing concerns, even when modern modular buildings frequently exceed traditional construction standards for energy efficiency, resilience and design flexibility.

This disconnect between promise and perception raises an essential question - is the industry itself contributing to modular’s identity problem? Marketing campaigns often pitch modular as a revolutionary solution, creating sky-high expectations. When these expectations collide with the realities of complex projects, supply chain constraints, or local planning requirements, disappointment is inevitable. The result is a reputational gap where modular is simultaneously overhyped and undervalued.

Complexity behind the scenes

Part of modular’s identity struggle comes from the complexity of the method itself. Unlike traditional construction, where every project is a unique combination of design, labour and materials, modular requires careful coordination between design, factory production, logistics and onsite assembly. A misalignment at any point can lead to delays, cost overruns, or performance issues - challenges that are often amplified in the public eye because modular projects are highly visible and any problems are often framed as inherent to the method rather than the project management.

Moreover, modular is not a one-size-fits-all solution. There are numerous approaches, from volumetric modules (fully complete units) to panelised systems (components assembled onsite). Each carries distinct advantages and limitations and not every approach suits every project. Misunderstanding these nuances can result in modular being applied inappropriately, further feeding criticism and confusion about what modular construction can realistically deliver.

Architects and designers also play a significant role in shaping modular’s identity. For some, modular is seen as a constraint, a method that limits creativity. For others, it’s a canvas for experimentation, enabling complex forms, bespoke finishes and sustainable innovations that would be challenging with conventional methods.

The challenge is that this duality is rarely communicated effectively. Success stories of modular innovation, such as high-rise residential towers, healthcare facilities or fully bespoke office buildings, often remain niche or are overshadowed by discussions about affordability, speed and industrialisation. As a result, the broader narrative risks portraying modular as either purely industrial or overly rigid - neither of which reflects the full picture.

Beyond this perception, structural issues in the supply chain and regulatory environment also contribute to the identity problem. Modular construction depends on advanced logistics, specialised factories and coordinated delivery schedules. When supply chains are disrupted - whether due to material shortages, transportation delays, or lack of skilled labour - modular can appear fragile compared to traditional methods, reinforcing doubts about its reliability.

Regulation and planning policy add another layer of complexity. Local authorities and planning frameworks are often calibrated for traditional construction, creating obstacles for modular projects in areas such as fire safety, structural approval, or energy compliance. Navigating these rules can be cumbersome, especially when modular projects challenge conventional assumptions. Each barrier reinforces the perception that modular is somehow unconventional or “experimental,” even when it meets or exceeds regulatory standards.

Is modular overhyped or underappreciated?

The identity question forces the industry to confront two competing narratives. On one hand, modular has been overhyped in marketing and media coverage, with claims of overnight construction and guaranteed cost savings that rarely reflect the realities of complex projects. Overpromising can erode trust when the method encounters the same practical challenges faced by traditional construction.

On the other hand, modular is underappreciated in terms of its technological potential and adaptability. The latest generation of modular solutions can incorporate sustainable materials, integrate smart building technologies and deliver high-quality, architecturally complex structures that challenge the outdated stereotype of prefab monotony. These achievements are often underreported, creating a gap between what the industry can deliver and what stakeholders expect.

This duality of being overhyped yet undervalued, is the essence of modular’s identity problem. Until the sector reconciles the marketing narratives with practical realities and communicates the nuanced capabilities of modern modular systems, the method will continue to be judged unfairly.

Finding a clearer identity

Addressing modular’s identity problem therefore, requires action on multiple fronts. First, the industry needs clearer, more realistic communication about what modular can and cannot achieve. This means showcasing successful projects, sharing lessons from failures, and providing transparency about timelines, costs and design flexibility.

Secondly, collaboration across the supply chain must be strengthened. Architects, engineers, factory managers and contractors need shared standards and expectations to ensure modular projects deliver their potential. When teams operate in silos, problems are magnified, feeding misconceptions about the method rather than reflecting project-specific issues.

Finally, policy and procurement need to catch up. Supportive regulations, incentives for offsite manufacturing, and frameworks that recognise the long-term value of modular can help reposition it from niche solution to mainstream methodology. As these enablers come into place, modular can step out of its shadow of uncertainty and demonstrate its full potential as a transformative approach to construction.

Without doubt, modular construction is at a crossroads. Its benefits are clear, yet its reputation remains caught between outdated stereotypes, overenthusiastic marketing, and systemic industry challenges. It is simultaneously overhyped and underappreciated, praised for speed and efficiency while questioned for quality and flexibility.

Solving this identity problem is about more than just public perception. It requires a fundamental alignment of expectations, processes and policies across the construction ecosystem. When done right, modular is not just a tool for efficiency - it is a platform for innovation, resilience and sustainability in an industry under pressure to adapt.

If modular can define its identity more clearly, demonstrate its versatility and align with the practical realities of design, supply chains and policy, it has the potential to be more than a trend. It can become a mainstream method capable of addressing some of the biggest challenges facing construction today - from housing shortages to climate resilience - and finally earn a reputation that reflects its true value.