Qualitative analysis compares modular and conventional construction systems, indicating systemic barriers in urban housing transformation.
The housing crisis in rapidly transforming earthquake zones represents the exhaustion of conventional construction paradigms. Unlike single-focused analyses, this study compares conventional reinforced concrete and modular steel systems from a holistic lifecycle perspective, using Turkey as a strategic laboratory for urban transformation. Employing qualitative content analysis, it maps in-depth interviews with 14 sector experts onto a ‘Dialectical Life Cycle Matrix’ via frequency-based consensus indicators. Expert assessments indicate that conventional methods face a structural bottleneck driven by architectural uniformity, labour-related weaknesses, rising costs, and prolonged durations, triggering seismic vulnerability, compromised living quality, and non-circular end-of-life outcomes. Modular systems counter this through factory-controlled rapid production, QA/QC mechanisms, and economies of scale, integrating guaranteed safety and the robust option of steel with R&D-driven human comfort. However, transitioning requires relinquishing deep-rooted advantages—financial flexibility, established order, regulatory comfort, cultural perception, and morphological harmony—introducing local trade-offs: high initial investment, geometric plot and logistical constraints, cultural barriers, and design concerns. Consequently, universal technologies cannot be directly transferred. To overcome Turkey’s local barriers, this study proposes a three-stage transition model: (I) civil and public-led legislative and workforce reforms; (II) financial innovation and gradual hybrid adaptation; and (III) industrial maturation transforming housing into a continuously updated living product.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bütün et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: