Architects push to lead Ireland’s modern construction shift

By Eka Safitri • October 21, 2026
Rory Ryan, Director, Ryan + Lamb Architects.
Rory Ryan, Director, Ryan + Lamb Architects.

The claim that modern methods of construction (MMC) restrict creativity or reduce architecture to basic prefabrication remains a widespread misconception. In fact, MMC provides architects with greater precision, efficiency, and design flexibility when applied thoughtfully. Rory Ryan, director of Ryan + Lamb Architects, insists the profession must drive the adoption of MMC rather than react to it, particularly as Ireland faces growing pressure for faster, higher-quality, and more reliable building projects.

MMC is already deeply integrated into contemporary architectural practices, even if many architects overlook its presence. Techniques such as point-cloud surveys, drone-based mapping, and factory-produced components all fall under MMC’s umbrella. However, persistent confusion surrounds modular construction and prefabrication, with many assuming MMC simply means repetitive, box-like structures. This overlooks the full range of MMC categories, which include insulated concrete forms (ICF), 3D printing, and hybrid systems. Even standard windows, designed off-site and delivered ready for installation, qualify as MMC components.

Ryan attributes the misunderstanding to a lack of familiarity. Architects often believe MMC limits creative freedom. The critical factor, he emphasizes, is incorporating MMC from the concept stage—not treating it as an afterthought.

Why Late Adoption of MMC Costs Time and Creativity

When MMC is considered early in the design process, its advantages become evident. A recent project Ryan discussed could have been completed in four volumetric units within three months instead of the original nine-month timeline, had MMC been part of the initial planning. However, many architects only explore MMC feasibility mid-project, by which point constraints like planning permissions often make implementation difficult. This delay leads to lost efficiency and missed opportunities for innovation.

Ryan’s work demonstrates that MMC excels when architects treat it as a design tool rather than a limitation. Factory production eliminates quality inconsistencies, reduces material waste, and ensures predictable schedules. Clients benefit from cost and program certainty, while architects gain more time for creative problem-solving. The private sector has adopted MMC more quickly than public bodies, frustrated by traditional construction’s unpredictability—delays, unskilled labor, and weather disruptions.

Read Also: Irish Firm Pioneers BIM Certification with Digital Plans

Public procurement processes remain a significant obstacle. Many frameworks rely on outdated templates that do not accommodate MMC’s requirements, excluding qualified providers from bidding. Ryan advises hesitant architects to visit manufacturing facilities to see MMC in action, observing module assembly, digital integration, and direct discussions with manufacturers can dispel misconceptions and highlight its potential.

How MMC Actually Expands Architectural Innovation

One common objection is that MMC stifles creativity, but Ryan argues it actually expands it. Just as the Bauhaus movement redefined reinforced concrete a century ago, MMC can serve as an innovative design tool when properly integrated. The challenge lies in shifting from viewing it as an afterthought to treating it as a core element of modern architecture.

Ryan’s core argument is that MMC is not a threat to design; it is an extension of it. The question is not whether architects can adapt, but whether they will lead the transition before external pressures dictate the change. The manufacturing infrastructure is already in place, and the tools are available. What is needed now is for the profession to adopt MMC as a creative opportunity rather than a constraint.

In a recent lecture, Ryan illustrated how a school project could have been delivered faster and with greater precision if MMC had been considered from the beginning. The difference between a nine-month build and a three-month delivery extends beyond speed; it represents a fundamental shift in how architecture engages with construction from initial sketches to final details.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *