> Components like exterior walls and roofs were designed to have as simple shapes as possible (no complex hips or wall jogs), and

This is a traditional and eminently sensible approach that has been lost in the "McMansion" era.

Simpler roof shapes are not only cheaper to build, but also are far easier to deal and insulate, and therefore more energy efficient.

Instead, simple energy efficient design is today mostly used in some high end custom homes while production homes are often overly complex and inefficient, relying on oversized mechanical equipment to make up for poor design choices.

> rooms were arranged so that plumbing lines could be placed near each other to simplify pipe routing.

There's a simple method to quantify this known as the "hot water rectangle". On the house's overhead view, draw the smallest rectangle that includes all the hot water faucets and the water heater.

The size of the rectangle affects build cost, efficiency, and hot water delivery performance. In many large houses there is no consideration for this at the design stage, so they end up using (wasteful) hot water recirculation pumps.

1. https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/the-hot-water-r...

Doesn't seem like this production method was particularly advantageous:

> But even at its early-50s heyday, while Levitt was an efficient builder, he wasn’t unrivaled. Levitt and Sons sold its early Levittown homes for around $10 per square foot, but many other builders (none of whom operated at Levitt’s scale) sold their homes at similar prices.

As property prices have increased, I doubt that the cost of building the house is even the major cost factor - it's probably mostly property value for the lot.

Edit: It also strikes me that we have something even better today - pre-fab or "mobile" homes that can be delivered by truck to a suitable plot of land. These haven't solved the housing crisis either.

“ Supporters praised Levitt for giving thousands of Americans the chance to own a home, while others criticized the cookie-cutter Levittown homes as a further intrusion of a hollow consumerist culture and lifestyle.”

NIMBYs have always existed it seems, but we don’t have the lax land use laws that result in screwing over young families less than we do now.

Maybe housing policy is the great filter.

> “arduous, long, and expensive process” of approvals, as well as being forced to meet higher (and more expensive) standards for things like sidewalks,

I now live in a neighborhood with about 200 homes all built right after WWII, all 3 bed/1 bath 1,200 sq. ft. with minor variations[0]. No sidewalks! Pedestrian-friendly access is not cheap.

[0]by now, many have been modified to add a bath/bedroom

While the slow strangulation of Levitt's mass production formula for building large volumes of homes that were affordable for people who otherwise couldn't afford housing was the saddest part, in 1994 Levitt died in poverty close to the well over 20,000 affordable homes he had built in Long Island.

> Crews would go to a house, perform their required task (using material that had been pre-delivered), then move on to the next house. Within the crew, work was further specialized: on the washing machine installation crew, William Levitt noted that “one man did nothing but fix bolts into the floor, another followed to attach the machine,” and so on. By breaking down the process into repetitive, well-defined steps, workers didn’t have to spend time figuring out what they should do

Having worked over the years on multiple tract-home projects doing labor, framing, stacking (installing the prefab truss packages), and layout (snapping lines on slabs marking out where everything goes) I can affirm that this IS how its done with variance per-project and usually with several floorplans to scratch that "novelty" itch for buyers. The homes go up fast with each crew sweeping through a few units at a time doing their respective parts. It's efficient that way.

> keeping construction on track meant a steady, uninterrupted stream of material that arrived at the jobsite exactly when needed.

A lot of the materials (especially lumber) are queued up ahead of each project starting to ensure that daily flow happens. On jobs I worked on as labor my job was to hand deliver any lumber resupply requests that were below some efficiency threshold for using the heavy off road forklift -- if memory serves me correctly, 20 pieces.

The windows and trusses were all pre-fabricated and delivered in bundled packages for each floorplan.

Production home building does exist (in the US):

* https://www.newhomesource.com/learn/custom-or-production-bui...

* https://www.foxridgehomesbc.com/news-feed/the-differences-be...

* https://www.nahb.org/other/consumer-resources/types-of-home-...

This is in contrast to a "spec" (speculation) home where a smaller builder buys land themselves and builds a (single?) house and then sells it after (no buyer is lined up before hand).

Someone could also go with a "custom" home, where the eventual resident themselves have some land and hire someone (general contract (GC)) to build it (or they act a GC themselves and hire all the subs (sub-contractors) themselves).

A "production builder" is probably the closest thing to 'factory line' assembly/construction. Generally this is what is happening when a sub-division is built up; usually a certain percentage of the units have a signed purchased agreement and a deposit.

We have a small 4-story condo going into a lot behind us now (and for the past 4 months). It's remarkabke how stop and go visible progress is, even though the there's people on the site 5 or 6 days a week.

Two weeks of earth moving. Then prep. Do the foundation in a week. Then prep. Framing in a week and a half. Now endless jobs of plumbing, electrical, windows, this and that, on and on for weeks.

For factory built homes to really be a win, then need a very high level of integration. An easy to snap together frame doesn't actually save much time or effort. But if there's really finished walls with utilities built-in (and also accessible for future maintenance) then I can see the effort being potentially useful.

There is an area where "mass production of housing" became widespread, which the article completely overlooks: multi-storey apartment buildings. These are arguably better for a city than suburban sprawl, but (due to being affordable) got a bad rep too, so the building of these larger buildings also shifted back to more artisanal processes.

One interesting thing to note, is that in 1949 Levit sold houses in Levittown for $7990, which adjusted for "Inflation" to 2024 dollars is equivalent to $105K. Those exact same houses that sold for $105K in 2024 dollars in 1949 are now selling for north of $500K.

I don't think this blog is right - a lot of suburban homes are modular and actually built in factories on an assembly line. For example, in Canada Mattamy homes uses an assembly line: https://www.mammoet.com/cases/mattamy/

Another homebuilding revolution that didn't happen was Edison's concrete homes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38057265

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/thomas-edisons-concrete-...

The fact is, they did revolutionize homebuilding because they made people realize that homes were something the mass market could afford - if it was done correctly.

Many time the realization of the idea the important thing. Apple didn't win the personal computer market, but its ideas defined the personal computer. Levitt may not have become a billionaire, but his idea that houses were for everyone won.

compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Irony_of_Fate#Plot

> For decades, people have tried to bring mass production methods to housing: to build houses the way we build cars. While no one has succeeded

What is this bs? Whoever wrote this has no knowledge of the soviet bloc & the "house factories". Come on.

https://www.zupagrafika.com/shop/eastern-blocks

Same reason Lustron homes are little more than historical novelties

I grew up in Levittown. I don’t ever want to go back.

The article could use a lot more pictures.