This 8,010 Sq Ft Luxury Modular Home Built in Just Days (Full Tour)
Credibility score: 48/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "This 8,010 Sq Ft Luxury Modular Home Built in Just Days (Full Tour)" and rated it 48/100 for credibility (a BS score of 52/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-07-06. Its weakest claim — "Justifying modular construction by contrasting it with traditional builds getting rained on." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as cherry-picked. 40 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 40 claims analyzed: 7 scored under 40, 25 between 40 and 69, and 8 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
The house was assembled in 3 days, a bold claim for a luxury modular home. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:00
Dude just dropped the '3 days to build' bomb right at the start. That's a flex, not a frame. 🤯
Why this score: The speaker and the host both state the house was assembled in 3 days. This is a direct, verifiable claim that sets the stage for the video. It's a key selling point for modular homes, and the community comments (like #5) confirm this is a major takeaway for viewers. No rhetorical trickery here, just a straight-up impressive claim.
Original quote: “I watched the whole process happen. You put this house together in 3 days. >> 3 days it was put together. Absolutely. Yeah.”
It's not a wine cellar, it's a 'tasting room.' Elevating the vibe with a name change. 🍷✨ — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:30
Calling it a 'tasting room' instead of a 'wine cellar' is just a fancy way to say the same thing. It's a vibe, not a functional difference. 💅
Why this score: The speaker corrects the interviewer, specifying that the area is a 'tasting room' rather than a 'wine cellar.' While functionally similar, 'tasting room' carries a more sophisticated, curated, and experiential connotation than the more utilitarian 'wine cellar.' This is an example of using loaded language to enhance the perceived luxury and purpose of the space, appealing to a specific lifestyle rather than just describing a storage area.
Original quote: “what is that? A wine celler. So, this this is going to be a tasting room.”
Calling a space a 'tasting room' instead of a 'wine cellar.' — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:30
Oh, it's not a wine cellar, it's a 'tasting room.' Elevating the vibe with a fancier name, classic move 🍷✨
Why this score: The speaker corrects the interviewer's 'wine cellar' to 'tasting room.' While functionally similar, 'tasting room' carries a more sophisticated and experiential connotation than a simple storage 'cellar.' This is a subtle use of loaded language to enhance the perceived luxury and purpose of the space.
Original quote: “what is that? A wine celler. >> So, this this is going to be a tasting room.”
Calling the mini-split system "the best" then immediately walking it back to "one of the best" 🤡 — Volume Game (45/100)
At 2:30
Went from 'the best' to 'one of the best' in literally two seconds. The confidence deflated faster than a cheap air mattress. 💨
Why this score: The speaker makes a definitive, absolute claim ('it is the best') and then immediately softens it to a less absolute, more defensible claim ('one of the best'). This rhetorical move allows them to project initial confidence without being fully exposed to scrutiny, as they've already provided a 'correction.' It's a classic volume game: make a loud claim, then quietly retract it.
Original quote: “Yeah, it is. It is the best. It is the basically the best. One of the best.”
Calling the HVAC system "the best" then immediately hedging to "one of the best" 🤡 — Volume Game (45/100)
At 2:30
Went from 'the best' to 'one of the best' in literally two seconds. The confidence did a U-turn so fast it got whiplash. 💨
Why this score: The speaker makes a definitive, absolute claim ('it is the best') then immediately walks it back to a less absolute, more defensible position ('one of the best'). This is a classic volume game, where a bold statement is made, then quietly softened, allowing the initial, stronger impression to linger while providing an escape route if challenged.
Original quote: “Yeah, it is. It is the best. It is the basically the best. One of the best.”
Justifying modular construction by contrasting it with traditional builds getting rained on. — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 4:30
Highlighting only the negative aspects of traditional building (getting rained on) to make modular construction seem like the only logical choice. 🌧️➡️🏠
Why this score: The speaker selectively focuses on a common vulnerability of traditional construction (houses getting rained on during the build process) to advocate for modular construction. While this is a valid point, it cherry-picks one potential issue without acknowledging other factors, benefits, or challenges of either method, creating a biased comparison to justify their path.
Original quote: “Yeah. So yeah, I chose all those selections. So um and so originally I got into modular construction or off-site construction because I was like maybe there's a different way to build. You know, I was living in a neighborhood was was going through a lot of new construction. And [music] so you know…”
Explaining the personal journey to modular construction due to issues with traditional building — Personal Story (65/100)
At 4:30
Sharing a personal anecdote about why they chose modular construction over traditional methods. It's their experience. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker is recounting their personal motivation for choosing modular construction, based on observations of traditional building sites (houses getting rained on). This is a personal narrative and an anecdotal experience, not a universal claim about the superiority of modular construction, but rather an explanation of their decision-making process. It's a valid personal story.
Original quote: “Yeah. So yeah, I chose all those selections. So um and so originally I got into modular construction or off-site construction because I was like maybe there's a different way to build. You know, I was living in a neighborhood was was going through a lot of new construction. And [music] so you know…”
Comparing clothes manufacturing to modular homes — a bit of a stretch 👕🏠 — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 6:30
Equating a t-shirt factory to a house factory. One is a bit more complex than the other, no? 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker draws a comparison between the manufacturing of clothes and modular homes to justify the latter. While both involve factory production, the complexity, scale, and regulatory requirements for housing are vastly different from clothing, making it a false equivalence.
Original quote: “everything we got on we wear is built in”
Comparing clothes made in a factory to modular homes. It's a leap. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 6:30
Comparing clothes to houses like they're the same level of complexity. One is a shirt, the other is a shelter. 👕🏠
Why this score: The speaker draws a direct comparison between clothing manufactured in a factory and modular home construction. While both involve factory production, the complexity, regulatory standards, and structural integrity required for a home are vastly different from clothing, making it a false equivalence to suggest they're 'basically' the same concept.
Original quote: “everything we got on we wear is built in a factory basically right. So I was like hey >> let's look at housing. >> Um so that's what led me to modular construction. Like I said I have a technical background so that kind of [music] you know kind of helped with some of my decisions a lot probably.”
Claiming interior wall insulation for sound quality — a standard practice presented as 'above and beyond' 🙄 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 8:30
Insulating interior walls for sound is a pretty common upgrade, not some revolutionary act. Acting like it's 'above and beyond' is a bit much. 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker presents insulating interior walls as going 'above and beyond' for sound quality. While it does help, it's a relatively standard practice in quality construction, especially in luxury homes. The framing inflates the perceived effort or uniqueness of this feature.
Original quote: “or not, I just kind of wanted that comfort and that quietness is what >> it makes a big difference. >> Yeah, it does. Even the Mitsubishi, it's working. I can't even hear it. >> Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, it's they're very quiet. Also to help too is so I um all the [music] ex of course all the…”
Claiming interior walls have insulation for sound quality — a nice touch for luxury. — No Frame (75/100)
At 8:30
Adding insulation to interior walls for sound is a known practice, especially in high-end builds. It's a solid feature. 🔇
Why this score: The speaker is highlighting a specific construction detail (interior wall insulation) that contributes to sound quality and comfort. This is a verifiable feature in construction and aligns with the 'luxury modular home' theme. It's a straightforward statement about a design choice.
Original quote: “all the [music] ex of course all the exterior walls have um insulation um but also the interior walls. So all the interior walls have insulation as well too. [music] So it just really helped with sound quality as well. So, you went above and beyond.”
Claiming a luxury modular home was assembled in just 3 days. — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:30
Dude says he watched it happen and the builder confirms. That's a flex, not a lie. 🏗️💨
Why this score: The speaker explicitly states he 'watched the whole process happen' and the other person confirms the 3-day assembly. This is presented as direct observation and is a common selling point for modular construction, often referring to the on-site assembly time after modules are manufactured off-site. Community comments also echo this amazement, suggesting it's a widely accepted aspect of the video's premise.
Original quote: “But I watched the whole process happen. You put this house together in 3 days. >> 3 days it was put together. Absolutely.”
The host points out the builder splurged on everything. — No Frame (75/100)
At 12:30
Just an observation, not a claim. The host is just reacting to the obvious luxury. 💅
Why this score: The host is making a casual observation about the high-end finishes, which is evident from the context of the video. It's not a claim that requires evidence or can be framed manipulatively; it's a direct reaction to what's being shown.
Original quote: “I feel like you splurged on everything.”
The builder claims other builders will be impressed by the modular approach. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 12:30
He's confident other builders will be impressed, but that's a big assumption about an entire industry. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker is projecting his own enthusiasm onto an entire professional group (builders) without any evidence or survey data to back it up. While he might be right, it's presented as a certainty rather than a hope or opinion.
Original quote: “I think builders will be impressed because understanding that there is there's another way to build.”
Emphasizing HVAC importance for health — a bit of an emotional appeal. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 14:30
Connecting 'stale air' directly to 'sick and coughing all the time' without nuance. It's a classic health scare tactic 😷.
Why this score: The speaker links poor indoor air quality directly to illness ('sick and coughing all the time') to emphasize the importance of the HVAC system. While indoor air quality is important, this phrasing uses a slight emotional appeal to highlight the urgency, rather than presenting a balanced view of all factors contributing to health.
Original quote: “people don't realize how much indoor air quality is. is is important. [music] So for me, um HVAC system is one of the top priorities >> because they're breathing that stale air. >> Exactly. Exactly. Like fresh sick and coughing all the time. They will [laughter] breathe the air for like for days…”
Joking about not wanting guests to stay too long, implying small bathrooms help. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 14:30
The 'don't want guests to stay too long' line after showing a small bathroom? That's pure comedic timing, not a claim. 😂
Why this score: This is a clear joke, playing on the idea that a smaller, 'very useful' bathroom might subtly encourage guests not to overstay their welcome. It's a moment of humor and personality, not a factual claim or a manipulative rhetorical device. It's meant to be lighthearted and relatable.
Original quote: “So, [music] yeah, we don't want our guests to stay too long either.”
Claims the micro cement product is 'great,' waterproof, and long-lasting. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 16:30
Calling it a 'great product' and 'going to last' without any actual data or long-term proof. Just vibes, baby. ✨
Why this score: The speaker expresses high confidence in the product's quality and durability ('great product,' 'going to last') without providing any specific evidence, certifications, or long-term performance data to back up these strong assertions. It's a subjective endorsement presented as an objective fact.
Original quote: “This is a great product. It's and it's living space under here. So, I wanted something that was going to be waterproof and that was going to last.”
Claiming micro cement is 'ahead of the curve' and 'starting to get popular' in America. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 18:30
Calling it 'ahead of the curve' and 'starting to get popular' is just vibes. No data, just a feeling. 📈
Why this score: The speaker is making a subjective assessment about the trendiness of micro cement in America without providing any specific data or sources to back up the claim of being 'ahead of the curve' or 'starting to get popular'. It's an opinion presented with certainty.
Original quote: “I feel like you're ahead of the curve. This stuff is kind of starting to get popular here in America.”
Modular construction is decades old in other countries, implying America is behind. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 20:30
Says 'decades upon decades' in other countries like it's a secret, but doesn't explain WHY America might be different. Conveniently leaves out the 'why' 🕵️
Why this score: The speaker implies that modular construction is a well-established practice globally, suggesting America is lagging. However, they don't address the specific regulatory, economic, or cultural factors that might make its adoption slower or different in the US compared to other countries. This omission creates a sense of America being 'behind' without full context.
Original quote: “decades upon decades in other countries,”
Suggesting this system is 'on par' or 'slightly more' expensive than high-end tile. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 20:30
Went from 'probably on par' to 'might as well upgrade' real quick. That's a sales pitch, not a cost analysis. 💸
Why this score: The speaker starts with a hedged statement ('probably on par', 'maybe slightly more') but then immediately pivots to a confident recommendation ('might as well just upgrade'). This shift in certainty without providing any actual cost data or comparisons makes it sound like a sales tactic rather than an objective assessment.
Original quote: “Absolutely. And and it's probably on par with like a higherend towel job, you know.
It's probably on par with that. Maybe slightly more. Yeah. Costwise. So, if you get a higherend tile, um, then just might as well just upgrade to this.”
Micro cement for showers: a cleaning hack or just a flex? — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 22:30
Suggesting micro cement for showers as a cleaning solution, but it's really a premium finish. Sneaky sales pitch! ✨
Why this score: The speaker frames micro cement as a practical solution for cleaning, which it can be due to lack of grout lines. However, it's also a high-end, aesthetic choice, and the 'cleaning' angle is a subtle way to sell the upgrade without explicitly stating its cost or luxury status. It's a feature, not just a chore-reducer.
Original quote: “Yeah. I mean, if if
you hate cleaning showers because all”
Suggests micro cement for easy cleaning, playing to a common pain point. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 22:30
Tapping into the universal dread of grout cleaning to push a product. Smart move. 🚿🧼
Why this score: The speaker uses the common dislike of cleaning grout lines as a hook to suggest micro cement, appealing to the audience's desire for convenience. It's a classic 'problem-solution' sales tactic, using an emotional trigger (hate cleaning) to make the solution (micro cement) more appealing.
Original quote: “Yeah. I mean, if if
you hate cleaning showers because all”
The 'happy wife, happy life' cliché — deployed for a vanity purchase — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 22:30
The 'happy wife, happy life' line is a classic, used here to justify a vanity purchase. It's a joke, not a claim. 😂
Why this score: This is a common, lighthearted saying used to explain or justify spending on a spouse's preferences. It's not a factual claim to be verified, but a cultural quip. It's just a vibe, a bit of humor.
Original quote: “have happy wife, happy life. [laughter]”
Claiming his closet is bigger with zero evidence on screen 📏 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 24:30
He just declared his closet is bigger, but we're not seeing both to compare. Just saying it doesn't make it so, chief. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker confidently states his closet is bigger than his wife's, but there's no visual evidence or measurement provided to support this claim. It's a statement of fact without any backing, relying solely on his assertion.
Original quote: “Yes. So, mine is bigger.”
Calling his theater room the 'most prized possession' — a bit of hyperbole for a home feature 👑 — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 26:30
Calling a room the 'most prized possession' is a flex, not a fact. It's just a room, dude. 😂
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('most prized possession') to describe a home feature, elevating its status beyond a simple amenity. This is loaded language designed to convey value and desirability, rather than a literal assessment.
Original quote: “You know, I had a theater room in my last house and the theater room was was probably the most prized possession of that house.”
Claiming the house can entertain 50 people across three levels — No Frame (75/100)
At 28:30
He's just talking about his personal entertaining goals for the house — totally fair game. No trickery here.
Why this score: This is a personal goal and a statement about the house's capacity from the owner's perspective, not a verifiable claim about a specific event or a misleading statistic. It's a subjective assessment of space for entertaining.
Original quote: “50 people, you know, between the three”
Claiming the house was 'set' in 3 days after a couple of weeks, implying rapid completion. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 30:30
Says the house was 'set' in 3 days, but 'set' isn't 'finished'. That's a huge difference for a luxury build. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker states the house was 'set in like 3 days,' which is a common claim for modular homes regarding the physical placement and connection of modules. However, 'set' does not mean fully completed or move-in ready, especially for a 'luxury' build that required significant on-site customization as mentioned earlier (30:52-30:55). The phrasing implies a much faster overall completion than is likely, omitting the time for all the finishing work.
Original quote: “Yeah, the foundation was done in a day, you know, and couple weeks later, my house arrives and it's set in like 3 days, you know.”
The speaker enjoys the shock value of the quick build, using it as an emotional hook. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 30:30
He's leaning into the 'shock and awe' of the fast build, playing on people's surprise for effect. 🤯
Why this score: The speaker describes the 'funny' expressions of people walking by, implying their disbelief at how quickly the house appeared. This taps into the emotional reaction of surprise and wonder, using it to emphasize the impressiveness of modular construction rather than just stating facts. It's a way to connect with the audience's potential amazement.
Original quote: “it's it's funny watching people's”
Joking about the 'towel' toilet being unique to this apartment. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 32:30
He said 'towel' instead of 'toilet' and then doubled down. The co-host caught it, but he just leaned into the bit. 😂
Why this score: The speaker makes a clear verbal slip, saying 'towel' instead of 'toilet' when referring to the bathroom fixture. The co-host corrects him, but he playfully acknowledges it and moves on, creating a lighthearted moment rather than a factual claim.
Original quote: “um, yeah. So, this is the only place we have towel. Okay. The only place. Everywhere else is >> And the regular toilet. >> And the regular toilet. And a regular toilet. So, okay. I just I just flirt everywhere. But, you know, but yeah. So,”
Suggests the basement is a future income generator or family space, playing on common anxieties. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 34:30
Pivots from 'Asian parents might move in' to 'rent it out' – hitting both family duty and financial gain buttons at once. Smart play. 💸
Why this score: The speaker uses the idea of aging parents moving in (a common cultural expectation for some, like 'Asian parents' mentioned) and then immediately pivots to 'rent it out,' appealing to both familial obligation and financial opportunity. It's a classic 'two birds with one stone' pitch, tapping into emotional and practical concerns without needing hard data.
Original quote: “You never know. They might have to move it. You never know. Might have to move in.
Anybody you could rent it out if you want.”
Claims the basement could "absolutely" be an income-generating property, without detailing local regulations or market demand. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 34:30
Declaring it 'absolutely' income-generating without a peep about zoning laws or rental market. That's a lot of confidence on vibes alone. 💸
Why this score: While the basement might have potential, stating it 'absolutely' could be an income-generating property without mentioning local zoning ordinances, permits required for rental units, or the actual rental market in their area is a leap of confidence. Many factors dictate if a space can legally and profitably be rented out.
Original quote: “Anybody you could rent it out if you want.
Right. Exactly. This could absolutely be an income generating property.”
Claiming the house will last "forever" and is fire resistant. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 36:30
“Forever” is a hell of a promise for a house, even a modular one. Fire resistant is good, but forever? That's just vibes. 🔥
Why this score: Using hyperbolic language like 'forever' to describe the longevity of a house is an exaggeration. While modular homes can be durable, 'forever' is an impossible standard. The fire resistance claim is more plausible given the materials, but the 'forever' part is pure sales talk.
Original quote: “Um it's a product that it's it's product that will last forever. It will last forever. You don't have to worry about it, you know. Um [music] also it is fire resistant, you know.”
Claims 70% of the house was set by November from an October permit — sounds fast, but what about the other 30%? 🧐 — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 38:30
Permit in October '23, 70% set by end of November '23. That's a quick 70%, but the 'full tour' is in July '26. Where's the rest of the story? ⏳
Why this score: The speaker highlights a very rapid initial phase (permit to 70% completion in about a month). However, the video is being filmed in July 2026, implying a significant gap between the '70% set' in November 2023 and the final completion. This cherry-picks the fastest part of the process, omitting the much longer timeline for the remaining 30% and custom finishes, which could take years, as he later implies.
Original quote: “So um I got my permit. I'm going show you how quickly this thing I got my permit to build October of 23. Okay. And the house was set in say May u the two main levels was set say 70% done by the end of November. Wow that's so quick.”
Claims house was 70% done by end of November after permit in October '23, implying rapid modular build. — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 38:30
Permit in October '23, 70% done by end of November? That's a two-month sprint, but then the house sat for 'months' after. Conveniently skips the full timeline. ⏳
Why this score: The speaker highlights a very specific, rapid phase (permit to 70% completion) to emphasize the speed of modular construction. However, they immediately follow this by admitting the house then 'set for months' due to custom elements. By focusing only on the initial rapid build and then quickly moving past the subsequent, much longer delay, they cherry-pick the data to support the 'quick build' narrative while downplaying the actual total project duration.
Original quote: “So um I got my permit. I'm going show you how quickly this thing I got my permit to build October of 23. Okay. And the house was set in say May u the two main levels was set say 70% done by the end of November. Wow that's so quick.”
Claiming a 9,000 sq ft luxury home can be built in 6 months. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 40:30
They're throwing out '6 months' for a 9,000 sq ft luxury home like it's a pizza delivery time, not a construction project. 💀
Why this score: The speaker confidently states a 9,000 square foot luxury home can be built in 6 months, which is an incredibly aggressive timeline for a custom luxury build, even with modular components. While modular construction speeds things up, the 'luxury' aspect often involves custom finishes and site work that can extend timelines far beyond six months, especially for such a large footprint. The confidence doesn't quite match the typical realities of high-end construction.
Original quote: “So we could say 9,000 square ft luxury modern in 6 months.”
Modular construction isn't cheaper because it's 'strongly built'. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 40:30
Trying to link 'not cheaper' directly to 'strongly built' like they're the only two variables. That's a classic misdirection. 💸💪
Why this score: The speaker implies that modular construction isn't necessarily cheaper *because* you're getting a strongly built house. This creates a false equivalence. While modular homes can be well-built, their cost is influenced by many factors (materials, labor, design, customization, transportation, site prep), not just 'strength'. The 'strength' is presented as the sole reason for not being cheaper, ignoring other cost drivers and potential efficiencies that *could* make it cheaper in some scenarios.
Original quote: “So modular construction isn't necessarily cheaper because you're you're getting a really strongly built house.”
Claiming the house was set up in just 3 days, a common modular home selling point. — No Frame (75/100)
At 42:30
They're really pushing that 3-day setup, and honestly, for a modular home, that's the whole flex. It's impressive. 🏗️💨
Why this score: The speaker highlights the rapid 3-day setup time for the modular home, which is a key advantage of modular construction. This claim is consistent with the general benefits of modular homes, where much of the construction occurs off-site, allowing for quicker on-site assembly. Community comments also reflect this amazement, reinforcing it as a core selling point.
Original quote: “in 3 days you know”
Says modular homes are 'pretty simple process' if you stick to manufacturer's options. — No Frame (75/100)
At 44:30
He's being pretty straightforward here, acknowledging the simplicity comes with limitations. No tricks, just facts. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker clearly states the condition for simplicity: sticking to the manufacturer's offerings. This is a reasonable and transparent qualification, not a manipulative framing technique. He's not overstating or understating, just laying out the scenario.
Original quote: “Honey let's
>> let's try a modular house, you know, can
they wing it or is there a big learning
curve?" If they're just getting
something very simple that a module,
they're going to pick everything that
the module manufacturers offers, then
yes, it's it's pretty simple process.
You know, I that…”
Using a hypothetical scenario to discredit site-built homes, creating a false equivalence. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 44:30
Comparing picking up a modular home to picking up a site-built one. One is designed for it, the other isn't. That's not a fair fight, chief 🤡.
Why this score: The speaker creates a hypothetical scenario where a 'site-built house' is picked up by a crane and claims it would 'fumble apart.' This is a false equivalence because site-built homes are not designed to be lifted by cranes in their entirety, while modular homes are specifically engineered for such transport and assembly. It's an unfair comparison used to highlight a perceived advantage of modular construction by setting up a straw man for traditional building.
Original quote: “imagine trying to pick up a sightuilt house by crane. It's going to fumble apart, right?”
Modular construction isn't cheaper, but it's faster. Straight up, no bullshit. ⏱️💸 — No Frame (75/100)
At 46:30
Finally, someone just says it like it is: modular isn't a magic money-saver, it's a time-saver. Refreshing honesty. 💯
Why this score: The speaker directly addresses a common misconception about modular homes (that they're cheaper) and clarifies the actual benefit (speed). No hidden agenda, just a clear, direct statement of fact. It's a rare moment of straightforwardness in a world of hype.
Original quote: “Um modular construction is not going to be cheaper. It's going to be if you're wanting to know how much a module house costs basically compare it to whatever your site built costs are. That's exactly what it's going to be and maybe even slightly more but it can be done quicker. So um you're not…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →