Standardisation has become one of the most widely discussed concepts in construction, driven by rising costs, labour shortages, and pressure on delivery timelines. Standard designs, repetitive modules, and predefined construction solutions promise efficiency, cost control, and rapid execution. Beyond these benefits, however, a legitimate question arises: what is lost through standardisation?

From an economic perspective, the advantages are clear. Standardisation reduces design errors, simplifies procurement, and allows the use of teams that are easier to train. Moreover, it facilitates prefabrication and automation—two essential directions for the construction industry in the coming decade.

The issue emerges at the level of identity and adaptation. Standardised buildings tend to overlook local specificities: climate, urban context, and architectural culture. In dense urban areas, the rigid application of standard solutions can generate uniform spaces, lacking character and facing integration challenges.

In reality, standardisation should not be viewed as a single rigid model, but as a tool. Construction solutions can be standardised while architecture and functionality remain flexible. This approach enables cost control without sacrificing quality or the project’s character.

Standardisation, therefore, is not a loss of identity in itself. It becomes problematic only when applied mechanically, without adaptation. When used intelligently, it can be one of the strongest economic advantages of modern construction.

(Photo: Freepik)