Yep, probably wrong. There's a truism in architecture: "Buildings are built for people." Not to be works of art or cultural enhancements, but to serve a need

Yep, probably wrong. There's a truism in architecture: "Buildings are built for people." Not to be works of art or cultural enhancements, but to serve a need. I think it applies here, too. A home is one of the most personal possessions anyone can own. Although you can make arguments all day long about efficiencies in design and mass production, I think just about everyone in the world who owns a home would much rather have one designed to fit them and their purpose, not one made from large scale standard parts. I say this as someone who has a number of unusual things desired in a home, and who has had a lot of difficulty deviating from "standards" for home use. The efficiency benefit of standardization is also a standardized jail for people who want to do something different. There's a place in the market for cookie cutter homes if costs must be reduced to minimum or construction time must be minimized, but in pretty much every other instance, people want the opposite of what this company is selling.