Who will be the next rising superpower

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
4,574
Canada
This is very misleading. If 90% of the building is manufactured in factories, the actual construction time is the manufacturing time in those factories plus the time to assemble the pre-manufactured pieces on-site. Think months or years instead of "19 days".

Just for your information, concrete foundation piles must "cure" for at least 30 days during which time the concrete used to make them is repeatedly tested for strength. If the superstructure is steel, that's one thing, but if it's concrete, the same rules apply, unless there's no strength testing going on, in which case, Good Luck.

In 1968, the Hilton Paseo Del Rio Hotel was built in three months, using concrete modules where 1 module = 1 room. The true construction time was actually the time needed to pour the concrete modules plus the actual on-site assembly time. It was still a remarkable accomplishment, because the room modules were lifted into place complete with furniture, carpet, electrical hookups, air conditioning and plumbing.

19 days? I don't think so.
Sure, it will take months or years if the business model is to take orders first, build prefabricated modules second, and then assemble the construction last. But that isn't what the company is doing. Considering there is a construction boom in China, I don't think that business model makes sense.

Broad Group is building the modules first, grouping them into packages (packages being standardized buildings like hotels, kindergartens, swimming pools, etc.) second, and then taking orders third. The actual assembling at the site comes last. It is "assemble an existing but disassembled building"-to-order instead of "building modules of a non-existing building and then assemble"-to-order. In this business model, the client gets their project delivered in 19 days because at the time of order, that building already exists, just in a different form. The client will really get their project delivered in months or years if the are no ready-made packages and that modules had to be built at the time of order.

You have to view prefabricated construction not as a method of construction but as a finished product in itself. Building a business model this way creates time saving for contractor and especially the client. This is how Broad Group views it.
 
Jun 2012
1,780
chandigarh
This is very misleading. If 90% of the building is manufactured in factories, the actual construction time is the manufacturing time in those factories plus the time to assemble the pre-manufactured pieces on-site. Think months or years instead of "19 days".

Just for your information, concrete foundation piles must "cure" for at least 30 days during which time the concrete used to make them is repeatedly tested for strength. If the superstructure is steel, that's one thing, but if it's concrete, the same rules apply, unless there's no strength testing going on, in which case, Good Luck.

In 1968, the Hilton Paseo Del Rio Hotel was built in three months, using concrete modules where 1 module = 1 room. The true construction time was actually the time needed to pour the concrete modules plus the actual on-site assembly time. It was still a remarkable accomplishment, because the room modules were lifted into place complete with furniture, carpet, electrical hookups, air conditioning and plumbing.

19 days? I don't think so.
Actually if there is enough demand for manufacturing such stuff. The workflow of a factory can be designed in such a way that time take to produce material for even a building can be brought down to 3-4 days. A single car takes 19 days to manufacture. But a single car can be rolled out in factory in 2 days.
 

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
4,574
Canada
Actually if there is enough demand for manufacturing such stuff. The workflow of a factory can be designed in such a way that time take to produce material for even a building can be brought down to 3-4 days. A single car takes 19 days to manufacture. But a single car can be rolled out in factory in 2 days.
Exactly. There is a demand. China wants to build. So Broad Group build the modules when clients haven't ordered them yet to get them ready. When the client logs on, picks, and orders one out of multiple existing packages (buildings), the company just deliver pull the modules they've already stockpiled, stuff into into a package, and deliver it to the construction site to be assembled.

I can't imagine why anyone would build modules after an order is made. It makes sense to build them first before an order is placed. If there is a huge demand for a car, you don't build it after it is ordered. You build lots of them beforehand and deliver as they are ordered.
 
Last edited:

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,501
China
Exactly. There is a demand. China wants to build. So Broad Group build the modules when clients haven't ordered them yet to get them ready. When the client logs on, picks, and orders one out of multiple existing packages (buildings), the company just deliver pull the modules they've already stockpiled, stuff into into a package, and deliver it to the construction site to be assembled.

I can't imagine why anyone would build modules after an order is made. It makes sense to build them first before an order is placed. If there is a huge demand for a car, you don't build it after it is ordered. You build lots of them beforehand and deliver as they are ordered.
Broad Group is questioned that this method would not be universal. this questioning is coming from academics, not financial guys.

the case is not a reason for over-optimism.
 

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
4,574
Canada
I'd expect the vast majority of construction to still rely on concrete. Some of the group's projects are on hold due to public and government concerns and only built around 30 buildings of varying height.
 
Jun 2012
1,780
chandigarh
Broad Group is questioned that this method would not be universal. this questioning is coming from academics, not financial guys.

the case is not a reason for over-optimism.
prefabrication of housing is not a new process. it has been happening for ages now. Although prefabrication of skyscrapers does not exist. But general 4 bedroom houses , it is pretty common.
 

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,481
Malaysia
7. Stealing? Why is not stealing if Vietnam is building on a territory claimed by Malaezia, or when the Philippines is building on a territory claimed by Taiwan, or Vietnam. What about the Malaysian military buildings there, is not that like stealing from Vietnam?! Why is everyone is picking only China?!
Taiwan has the same claim as China. Why is that Nine-Dash Line not outrageous? Oh, Taiwan is a US friend. Never mind then.
Just take the Arbitration Panel ruling, based on 200-mile EEZ. Period. Then everything resolved. No China, no Taiwan, no Vietnam, on Spratlys Islands. Only Philippines, Brunei & Malaysia.
 

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,493
The Arbitration, whose rulings were rejected by the UN as legally legit, is not as one sided as the media would have you believe. That is probably why the Philippines are now more prone to bilateral talks. Let's look at the points that the arbitration rejected:

1) Philippines claimed "China's maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, like those of the Philippines, may not extend beyond those permitted by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea".

^The arbitration did NOT award the Philippines on that point

2) Philippines claimed "China's claims to sovereign rights and jurisdiction, and to "historic rights", with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the so-called "nine-dash line" are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China's maritime entitlements under UNCLOS"

^the arbitration did NOT award the Philippines on that point

5) Philippines claimed" Mischief Reef and Thomas Shoal are part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines"

^The arbitration did NOT award the Philippines on that point

8) Philippines claimed "China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exercise of the sovereign rights of the Philippines with respect to the living and non-living resources of its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf"

^The arbitration did NOT award the Philippines on that point

9) Philippines claimed "China has unlawfully failed to prevent its nationals and vessels from exploiting the living resources in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines"

^The arbitration did NOT award the Philippines on that point

12) Philippines claimed "China's occupation and construction acitivities on Mischief Reef violate the provisions of the Convention concerning artifical islands, installations, and structures, violate China's duties to protect and preserve the marine environment und rthe Convention, and constitue unlawful acts of attempted appropriation in violation of the Convention"

^The arbitration did NOT award the Philippines on that point

14) Philippines claimed "Since the commencement of this arbitration in January 2013, China has unlawfully aggravated and extended the dispute by, among other things, interfering with the Philippines' right of navigation in the waters at, and adjacent to Second Thomas Shoal, preventing the rotation and resupply of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal, and endangering the health and well-being of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal"

^The arbitration did NOT award the Philippines on that point.


Source: "Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China"

The Philippines has the least legal claim of the claimants. Its territorial boundaries was set within its own constitution, which excludes the Spratly islands. It started claiming the islands during a time when other countries had already been claiming it for generations.
 
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Just take the Arbitration Panel ruling, based on 200-mile EEZ. Period. Then everything resolved. No China, no Taiwan, no Vietnam, on Spratlys Islands. Only Philippines, Brunei & Malaysia.
Let us see about the turn of events. That is just what the paper reflects per ruling by the Arbitration Panel.

I don't even think that such document is for purposes of the Philippine interests, because the nation has no power to enforce that. It will rather benefit the American interest by using such document for purposes of imposing their will just in case there is a need to do so.

While there is that ruling, China remains to be there. Can any of these nations pull them out from that territory?

Only if the Americans say, we need that. The justification is that document. The rule of law then reigns.
 

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,501
China
Just take the Arbitration Panel ruling, based on 200-mile EEZ. Period. Then everything resolved. No China, no Taiwan, no Vietnam, on Spratlys Islands. Only Philippines, Brunei & Malaysia.
EEZ is based on territory. you cannot determine territory based on "200 miles", which is one of several ways to determine the EEZ.

your logic and argument is baseless.
Only if the Americans say, we need that.
a kind suggestion. there is no free lunch.
americans won't be useful because 1. chinese don't actually listen to them 2. when people aruge how china is being brittle and relying on the US, the same thing happens for US, too 3. during a conflict between china and US, of course, the inter-between zones will burn first, neither china or US, because of the establishment of US military bases in the inter-between zone.
 
Last edited: