🏗️ Cutting Construction Costs on Multifamily Housing in Connecticut 20% Less in Half the Time
Modular construction offers a faster and often more cost-effective alternative to traditional stick-built methods for multifamily housing in Connecticut. Stick-built projects typically cost between $180 and $250 per square foot, while modular options can be 10–20% less expensive, with base models averaging $50 to $100 per square foot. Beyond cost savings, modular construction significantly shortens project timelines—by up to 60%—reducing labor and financing expenses and accelerating returns. Both methods meet the same building codes, but modular designs frequently include energy-efficient features that can lower utility costs over time. However, factors such as transportation, site prep, and local zoning can influence final costs, making project-specific analysis essential when choosing the best approach.
How Modular Construction Cuts Multifamily Costs in Connecticut: A Developer’s Guide
🚀 Introduction
As land prices rise and labor costs soar, Connecticut developers are rethinking how to build faster, smarter, and more affordably. Modular and panelized construction methods are no longer fringe solutions — they’re the future of multifamily housing.
This in-depth guide compares the real-world costs of modular vs. stick-built construction across 3-unit, 20-unit, and 200-unit projects. Whether you’re a builder, investor, or municipality, you’ll learn where the savings are, how modular impacts timelines, and why forward-thinking developers are embracing off-site construction.
🏗️ What Is Modular vs. Stick-Built Construction?
Modular construction involves fabricating entire sections of a building (modules) in a factory. These modules are delivered and assembled on-site like massive building blocks — speeding up the timeline and reducing waste.
Stick-built construction, on the other hand, is fully built on site using traditional materials and labor. While flexible, it’s more vulnerable to cost overruns, weather delays, and labor shortages.
To learn more about how these two methods differ structurally and economically, the National Institute of Building Sciences published a study showing modular projects average 5% lower total development cost and 30% faster build times across dozens of multifamily developments.
🔍 CT-Specific Cost Breakdown
| Project Size | Stick-Built (Turnkey) | Modular (Turnkey) | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 Units (~3,000 SF) | $660k–$750k | $570k–$660k | ~12–15% |
| 20 Units (~20,000 SF) | $6M–$7M | $5.4M–$6M | ~8–12% |
| 200 Units (~200,000 SF) | $60M–$70M | $52M–$60M | ~10–15% |
👉 These savings are supported by HomeGuide’s 2025 Modular Cost Index, which confirms modular homes typically cost 10–20% less than site-built homes nationwide.
🧠 What Drives Modular Savings?
- Labor Efficiency: Learn more in this Connecticut labor cost study.
- Shorter Build Times: According to Partner Engineering’s industry analysis, modular can cut project timelines by 30–50%.
- Lower Waste & Rework: The DOE Building America study shows modular buildings generate up to 76% less jobsite waste.
- Concurrent Construction: While site prep happens, modules are built in parallel — reducing delays and risk.
📉 Modular Isn’t Always Cheaper — But It’s Usually Smarter
Modular isn’t guaranteed to be cheaper in every scenario. Complex architectural designs, tight delivery routes, or unprepared zoning boards can narrow the gap. But in most CT cases, especially for repeatable multifamily units, modular’s cost predictability, schedule advantage, and reduced on-site risk make it a smarter long-term play.
Explore Connecticut’s Construction Cost Guidelines for detailed benchmarks.
📈 Why Now? Modular Is Going Mainstream
Projects like Berkeley Way Apartments show that modular works at scale. Architectural Digest calls modular the future of housing for its speed, precision, and sustainability.
🧰 Next Steps for Developers
- ✅ Evaluate your site access and zoning
- ✅ Work with a modular-friendly architect
- ✅ Engage a factory early to align design + build
- ✅ Ask your lender about modular-friendly financing terms
Need a turnkey partner? BIOS Homes can help from concept to crane.
🔎 Learn More
- NIBS Modular Cost Comparison Report
- DOE Energy Savings Study on Modular vs. Site-Built
- Multifamily Cost Breakdown – Modular vs. Traditional
The Full Research:
Comparative Cost Analysis: Modular vs. Stick-Built Multifamily in Connecticut
Assumptions and Connecticut Context
To ensure an apples-to-apples comparison, we assume typical unit sizes of roughly 1,000 sq.ft. per unit (including a share of common areas). Thus, a 3-unit building is ~3,000 sq.ft., a 20-unit building ~20,000 sq.ft., and a 200-unit project ~200,000 sq.ft. (these are simplified estimates for comparison). All scenarios assume wood-frame construction (common for low- and mid-rise multifamily) unless noted. Connecticut is a relatively high-cost region for construction – on average about 8% higher than U.S. norms – due in part to expensive labor and strict codes
. In fact, Connecticut’s average building cost is around $281 per sq.ft. for new homes
, and many contractors report skilled labor shortages driving up costs
. These regional factors inform the cost estimates below. We present two cost scopes for each scenario:
-
Turnkey (All-In) Development Cost: Includes land preparation (site work, foundation), the full building construction, MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing systems) and interior finishes – essentially the total cost to deliver a completed project ready for occupancy (excluding land acquisition).
-
Building-Only Cost (Structure & Core): Focuses on the building’s structure/envelope and core systems, excluding external site prep and infrastructure. This roughly corresponds to the vertical construction cost (the “bricks and sticks”), separating out site-specific expenses. (Modular “building-only” costs refer to the manufactured modules plus assembly, while stick-built “building-only” is on-site structure erection; both inherently include integrated MEP and interior finishes to the degree needed to have a complete structure.)
All costs are given as cost per square foot (psf) and approximate total dollars, to facilitate comparisons. These estimates rely on industry data and CT-specific benchmarks – for instance, Connecticut’s housing authority suggests roughly $168 per sq.ft. as a baseline for new wood-frame apartment construction
(basic finishes), though actual market costs often run higher. By contrast, a recent analysis of modular multifamily projects nationwide found an average cost around $279 per sq.ft. (turnkey)
, reflecting projects in higher-cost areas. Our CT estimates fall between these figures, factoring in local labor rates, material costs, and typical contractor pricing in 2025.
Cost Comparison by Project Size
Small Multifamily: 3-Unit (Triplex)
Assume a three-family home of ~3,000 sq.ft. total (e.g. three 1,000 sq.ft. apartments stacked or side-by-side). This is akin to building a large single-family house or duplex in terms of scale. In Connecticut, such small projects tend to have higher per-unit costs due to fewer economies of scale.
-
Stick-Built (Traditional) – Building-Only: Approximately $200–$230 per sq.ft., which is about $600k–$690k for the 3,000 sq.ft structure. Turnkey Development: Around $220–$250 per sq.ft. all-in once you add foundation, site prep, and utilities, totaling roughly $660k–$750k. These numbers align with CT’s custom-home building rates (often $180–$250+ per sq.ft.
) plus a bit extra for multifamily-specific code requirements (e.g. fire sprinklers, common egress). For example, if a stick-built triplex costs $230/sf fully finished, that’s $690k total; if site prep is $60k (adding $20/sf), the turnkey cost is $750k.
-
Modular Construction – Building-Only: About $170–$200 per sq.ft., or roughly $510k–$600k for the delivered modular units and assembly. Modular manufacturers can often build duplex/triplex modules at lower cost due to efficiency and lower factory labor costs (production in lower-cost regions). Turnkey: Including foundation, transportation, assembly, and hookup, expect roughly $190–$220 per sq.ft. (around $570k–$660k total). In practice, a modular triplex might be completed for around $600k (vs $700k+ stick-built), saving on the order of $50k–$150k. This ~10–20% cost reduction for modular in a small project comes from lower on-site labor and a faster timeline, though savings at this small scale tend toward the lower end of that range.
-
Cost Differential: In dollar terms, modular construction for a 3-unit building in CT might save about $80k–$100k relative to stick-built on a $650k–$700k project (roughly 12–15% savings). If stick-built is around $230/sf and modular is $200/sf, that’s a ~$30/sf difference. Modular also yields time savings – e.g. a stick-built triplex might take ~8+ months, whereas modular could cut a few months off the schedule, reducing carrying costs. However, the percentage savings on a very small project are often modest; some CT builders note that with today’s high site-built costs, even modest homes can run $300+ per sq.ft., making modular attractive
. Still, fixed costs like transporting modules and crane setup mean a single triplex won’t realize the full economies that larger modular projects do.
Medium Multifamily: 20-Unit Apartment Building
Consider a low-rise apartment building of ~20,000 sq.ft. (e.g. twenty 1,000 sq.ft. units, perhaps 3 stories with 7–8 units per floor). This scale is common for infill apartments or small condo buildings. There are more opportunities for economies of scale here, though CT labor and material costs are still significant.
-
Stick-Built – Building-Only: Approximately $180–$210 per sq.ft. for the structure, which comes to $3.6–$4.2 million for 20,000 sq.ft. of building. Turnkey: Including site development (e.g. parking, grading, utilities tie-ins) and all finishes, costs might rise to around $300–$350 per sq.ft. for a total of $6–$7 million. This aligns with national averages where a 20-unit apartment building can cost $6–$8M to build in 2025
. Connecticut’s baseline for wood-frame multifamily ($168/sf
) would put 20k sq.ft. around $3.3M in hard costs, but real-world projects with mid-range finishes and union labor can easily land in the $300+ per sq.ft. range (i.e. $6M). In CT’s suburbs or smaller cities, stick-built 20-unit hard costs might be closer to $250/sf ($5M), but in higher-cost parts of CT or with prevailing wages, $350/sf ($7M) is plausible.
-
Modular Construction – Building-Only: Roughly $160–$190 per sq.ft., totaling about $3.2–$3.8 million for the modular portions (manufacturing and on-site stacking). Turnkey: After adding foundation, site work, and module installation costs, the all-in might be around $270–$320 per sq.ft., roughly $5.4–$6.4 million total. In percentage terms, the modular approach might trim 10–15% off the construction cost for a 20-unit project. For example, if a traditional build would be $6.5M, a modular equivalent might be on the order of $5.8–$6M – saving a few hundred thousand dollars. Industry sources often cite modular savings in this ballpark (around 10% savings) due to reduced labor and improved efficiency
. A Department of Energy study of dozens of multifamily projects found modular yielded about 5% overall cost savings on average
, but with potentially larger savings in high-wage markets. In CT, where construction wages are high, a well-executed modular 20-unit build could likely realize on the order of 5–15% cost reduction versus stick-built, depending on site conditions.
-
Cost Differential: For a 20-unit building, a stick-built project might budget around $6.5 million (approx. $325/sf), whereas modular could come in closer to $5.8–$6.0 million (~$290/sf). That represents perhaps $500k–$700k in savings for modular, or roughly 8–12% of total costs. Per square foot, maybe a $30–$40/sf advantage to modular. Additionally, the schedule advantage of modular (often finishing 30–50% faster
) can save months of financing interest and allow earlier occupancy – an important financial factor for a developer. In Connecticut, where permitting can be lengthy, the ability to fabricate units off-site while site work is underway means the project can be delivered faster, translating to cost savings that aren’t captured just by the raw $/sf numbers.
Large Multifamily: 200-Unit Development
For a project of ~200 units (~200,000 sq.ft. total), multiple building configurations are possible. Let’s assume a mid-rise apartment complex – for instance, several 4- or 5-story wood-frame buildings or a couple of larger structures, potentially with a podium or elevator cores (common for larger projects). At this scale, economies of scale kick in, but so do additional costs for things like structured parking or steel podiums if required. Connecticut’s costs for a big project can vary widely based on design (wood vs. steel, etc.) and location (urban sites may have costly union labor and tight-site logistics).
-
Stick-Built – Building-Only: If using wood framing for most of the structure, the core building cost might average $170–$200 per sq.ft. at this scale (about $34–$40 million for 200k sq.ft.). If part of the building is concrete or steel (for a podium or if heights exceed wood limits), that portion could run higher (steel framing can push costs well above $200/sf
). Turnkey: Including all site improvements, parking, amenities (which large developments often have), and interior build-out, a 200-unit stick-built development in CT could range roughly $250–$350 per sq.ft. overall. That equates to $50–$70 million total. (Nationally, 200-unit complex costs in 2025 span a broad range, roughly $50M on the low end to $100M+ for high-end urban builds
, reflecting how variables like parking garages and luxury finishes add cost.) For example, a straightforward garden-style 200-unit in CT might be $250/sf ($50M), whereas an urban 5-story with garage and elevators might be $300+ per sf (i.e. $60M or more). In very high-cost CT locales or with union labor, budgets could approach $350/sf ($70M).
-
Modular Construction – Building-Only: With a large number of repeated modules, manufacturers can offer better pricing; building-only costs might be around $150–$180 per sq.ft. for the modular components at this volume (approximately $30–$36 million for 200k sq.ft. of modules). Turnkey: Additional on-site costs (foundations, assembling hundreds of modules, significant site work for a large property) would bring the total to roughly $230–$300 per sq.ft.. That implies a range of about $46–$60 million for a 200-unit modular project. The spread is wide because design choices matter – e.g. if the project requires a concrete podium or large elevators, those parts might still be site-built conventionally, narrowing the cost difference. However, modular construction tends to maximise savings at larger scales: factories can bulk-procure materials and keep production lines moving for identical units, and the reduction in on-site labor is massive (the off-site portion might be 40–60% of the project cost on a large job
). It’s reasonable to expect 10–15% cost savings for modular at the 200-unit scale, and possibly more if the alternative is a high-cost urban stick-built approach. Some case studies report dramatic savings – for instance, a 260-unit modular project in California cost about $230k per unit versus $600k+ per unit if done conventionally in that market
– a result of shifting labor to a cheaper locale and cutting site time. In Connecticut we wouldn’t see that extreme gap, but it illustrates the potential.
-
Cost Differential: If a conventional stick-built 200-unit development might cost $60 million in CT, a comparable modular approach might come in around $52–$55 million, saving on the order of $5–$8 million. That’s roughly 10–15% savings, or about $25–$40 per sq.ft. lower cost for modular. In per-unit terms, if stick-built cost $300k per apartment, modular might be $260k–$270k. These savings stem from both direct cost reductions (lower factory labor costs, less waste, fewer schedule overruns) and indirect savings (shorter project duration reduces developer overhead and interest). It’s worth noting that large projects in CT may trigger prevailing wage requirements (if public funding is involved), which inflate on-site labor costs; modular can mitigate this by performing much of the work in a factory where those wage rules might not apply. Additionally, as project size grows, permitting and coordination costs for modular become more efficient – the upfront effort to design modules pays off over hundreds of units. Overall, a well-planned modular build in this size range could deliver a multi-million dollar cost reduction versus stick-built construction in Connecticut.
Average Savings and Cost Differentials
Modular construction generally offers cost savings compared to traditional stick-building, but the magnitude varies with project size and complexity. On average, modular multifamily projects have shown single-digit percentage savings in total development cost – one extensive study found about 5% overall cost savings for modular vs. site-built, when controlling for other factors
. However, many industry estimates are more optimistic, often citing 10–20% cheaper construction with modular methods
. In practice, the savings tend to be on the lower end (or even cost-neutral) for small projects, and more pronounced for larger, repetitive projects:
-
Small 3-Unit: Modular saved roughly $80k (12%) in our comparison. Because fixed costs (factory setup, transport) are spread over few units, savings <10% are common here – sometimes modular might only break even or save a nominal amount, with the main benefit being speed.
-
20-Unit Building: Modular showed perhaps $500k (8–12%) savings. Mid-size projects often realize around 10% cost reduction if optimized for modular, although less-efficient designs could erode savings.
-
200-Unit Development: Modular projected to save on the order of $5–8M, roughly 10–15%. Large multifamily projects best leverage bulk production and concurrent schedule gains, pushing savings toward the upper end of typical ranges.
It’s important to note these are hard cost savings. When factoring time value of money, modular’s faster delivery (often finishing 30–50% sooner
) can amplify financial benefits – e.g. opening a 200-unit building 6 months early yields rent income that effectively increases the project’s ROI. In Connecticut’s environment of labor shortages and rising interest rates, even a 5–10% cost saving can significantly improve a project’s feasibility. Conversely, if a modular project isn’t well-designed for assembly efficiency or if transportation logistics are challenging, some of the cost advantage can be lost. Overall, Connecticut developers can expect low double-digit percentage savings with modular for suitably designed multifamily projects, alongside a substantially shorter construction period. As one source summarizes, “Modular home building costs 10 to 20 percent less than stick-built homes, and [they] are built 30% to 60% faster”
. Real-world data in multifamily suggests the true average is toward the lower end of that range, but specific cases in high-cost areas have far exceeded 20% savings (as seen in extreme examples like the California project with >50% cost reduction
). Connecticut’s cost differential will not be that dramatic, but modular construction does offer a tangible cost advantage in many scenarios.
Factors Influencing Cost Differentials
Several key factors affect why (and how much) modular construction can cost less than (or occasionally more than) traditional stick-built construction:
-
Economies of Scale: Modular benefits from repetition. The more units or modules in a project, the more the factory process can reduce unit costs. Small custom projects may not see much savings, whereas large multi-unit developments reap bulk discounts on materials and efficient labor usage in the plant. In our analysis, the % savings grew as unit count increased. Scale is one of the biggest drivers of cost efficiency in modular builds.
-
Labor Costs and Productivity: In high-wage regions like CT (which has skilled labor shortages and labor costs ~8% above U.S. average
), shifting a large portion of labor to a factory in a lower-cost area can greatly reduce expenses. For example, a Connecticut builder might use factories in Pennsylvania where wages and cost of living are lower
. This means the on-site labor needed in CT (which might require union or prevailing wages on big jobs) is minimized. Modular also reduces labor needs overall through automation and concurrent building – fewer total worker hours are needed for the same building. This labor efficiency is a major source of savings. However, if a project is located in a low-wage area or if the factory labor ends up being expensive, the advantage shrinks.
-
Construction Timeline and Carrying Costs: Modular construction can overlap phases – while modules are built in the factory, site work (foundations, utilities) happens simultaneously. This shortened schedule (often cutting months off construction for larger projects
) reduces general conditions, supervision costs, and construction loan interest. In CT, where winters can hamper site work, avoiding weather delays by working indoors is another time advantage. Faster completion means lower overhead and earlier revenue from rents, effectively improving the cost side of the equation. These time-related savings might not show up in a simple $/sf comparison but are very real financially.
-
Material Costs and Waste: Bulk purchasing of materials by modular manufacturers can lower material unit prices. Factories also tend to have less material waste – exact cuts and reuse of scraps – which can save a few percentage points of cost. The flip side is that modular units often have extra material in certain areas (e.g. double framing at module connections, additional structure to handle transport)
. Overall, material cost per sf is roughly comparable between the methods
, but modular’s waste reduction and factory inventory control can provide a slight edge. In CT, where lumber and materials are at national market prices, this factor isn’t region-specific, but any reduction in waste is a cost win.
-
Design and Engineering: A project’s design heavily influences cost outcomes. Simple, repetitive layouts (uniform unit sizes, stackable floor plans) maximize modular efficiency. If a multifamily design is very complex or requires large open spaces that don’t fit standard module sizes, stick-built might end up cheaper because modular would require custom solutions or lose efficiency. Developers may need to invest more in upfront design/engineering for modular (to break the building into modules and detail all connections), but that upfront cost pays off during construction. In CT, working with architects/engineers familiar with modular is key – some additional design fees may apply, but those are usually offset by construction savings.
-
Transportation and Logistics: Getting modules from the factory to the Connecticut job site incurs transport costs (trucking, possibly police escorts for oversize loads, etc.) and requires cranes for installation. Short distances and easy site access keep these costs low; long distances or tricky urban sites add cost. For instance, if the nearest suitable factory is 300 miles away, freight costs and risk of delays increase. In CT, which is a small state, modules are often sourced from factories in the Northeast (Pennsylvania, etc.), making transport manageable. Still, site logistics (e.g. staging space for modules, crane setup) can affect the budget – urban infill sites might need road closures or night installs, adding expense. Good planning can mitigate these issues, but they are a factor not faced in traditional builds (which instead face continuous material deliveries and more on-site work over time).
-
Permitting and Code Compliance: Both modular and stick-built projects must meet Connecticut’s building code (2018 ICC-based State Code, as of 2022). Modular units are held to the same standards as site-built
, but the approval process differs – typically, modular plans are reviewed by a third-party or state agency for code compliance before construction, and each module is inspected in-factory. Local officials then mainly inspect the assembly, connections, and site work. This can potentially streamline the local permitting process (since much of the build is pre-approved), but it also means developers must have final decisions earlier. In CT, gaining local acceptance for modular (zoning boards, etc.) can be a factor – some officials unfamiliar with modular may need education, which could affect timelines. Generally, permitting costs (fees) are similar either way, but approval timelines might be shorter for modular if done right, which again feeds into carrying cost savings.
-
Quality and Rework: Modular construction’s factory setting often yields higher quality control – jigs and fixtures ensure square construction, and modules are built out of the weather, avoiding moisture issues. This can reduce cost in subtle ways: less rework, fewer delays for fixes, and possibly lower long-term maintenance costs (though that’s beyond initial construction budget). Stick-built projects might incur more change orders and mistakes that add cost, especially if labor is rushed or less experienced – something more likely when there’s a labor shortage. On the other hand, if a module is built with a mistake, fixing it can be costlier once on site (so it requires rigorous QA/QC in the plant). By and large, modular reduces on-site surprises and keeps budgets predictable
, which can prevent cost overruns.
-
Financing and Developer Preferences: Some lenders or investors may still be cautious about modular if they are unfamiliar with it, potentially affecting financing costs or requirements (e.g. requiring a higher contingency). However, with modular gaining traction (6%+ of new commercial starts and growing
), this is becoming less of an issue. For a Connecticut developer, choosing modular might involve a learning curve and selecting a contractor experienced in modular assembly – these soft factors can influence the realized cost. A well-prepared team might hit the cost savings targets, whereas an inexperienced team could face delays that eat into the savings.
In summary, the cost difference between modular and stick-built is not a fixed number – it hinges on these factors. Connecticut’s high labor cost and the repetitive nature of multifamily units create a favorable scenario for modular to save money, but careful project planning is essential to capture those savings.
Pros and Cons of Each Method
Finally, beyond pure cost, there are broader pros and cons to consider for modular vs. stick-built construction in multifamily development:
Modular Construction: Pros and Cons
Pros (Modular):
-
Faster Completion: Modular projects are completed significantly faster by parallelizing off-site fabrication with on-site prep. A timeline reduction of 30–50% is often cited
, meaning revenue from rents can start sooner. Faster build times also reduce exposure to weather and market volatility.
-
Lower Labor Requirements On-Site: Because up to 40–60% of the work is done off-site
, fewer trade workers are needed at the job location. This is a huge advantage in CT, where labor is costly and sometimes scarce. It also means less disruption at the site (useful in urban areas or tight neighborhoods).
-
Cost Efficiency and Predictability: As detailed above, modular can offer cost savings (often ~10% give or take) through lower labor costs, bulk material purchasing, and reduced schedule overruns. Budgeting can be more predictable – modular contracts are often fixed earlier with fewer change orders later
. For developers, this means a lower risk of cost creep. In high-cost regions, modular’s savings are even more attractive, and even when savings are small, the speed advantage improves the project’s financial metrics.
-
Quality Control: Modules are built in a controlled factory environment with consistent crews and oversight. This often yields high build quality – straight walls, tight tolerances, and solid construction (modules are built to withstand transport, sometimes making them sturdier). Building indoors also keeps materials dry (no rain or snow during framing). Studies found modular building envelopes often have equal or better quality (e.g. similar or lower air leakage rates) than site-built
. This can translate to better energy efficiency and fewer warranty issues.
-
Reduced Waste & Sustainability: Factories optimize material usage, so modular generates less construction waste. This is both environmentally friendly and saves disposal costs. Additionally, having fewer workers commuting to the site and less idling of machinery can reduce the project’s carbon footprint. Some developers pursue modular partly for the sustainability angle.
-
Safer and Cleaner Worksite: With much of the work off-site, there are fewer personnel and activities on the construction site. This can improve safety (fewer chances for accidents in a crowded site) and keeps the site quieter and cleaner for the community. For multifamily developments in established CT neighborhoods, this is a community relations plus.
Cons (Modular):
-
Design Constraints: Modular construction works best with standardized, linear layouts. There are limitations on module dimensions (e.g. highway transport restrictions typically limit modules to ~14–16 feet wide, ~60–70 feet long, and ~11 feet tall or so). This can constrain unit design – large open floor plans or irregular shapes are hard to do. Architects must often design within a grid of module sizes, which can limit creativity or require complex combinations of modules for larger spaces. Developers seeking a very custom or luxury aesthetic may find modular design options more limiting or require expensive custom modules.
-
Upfront Planning and Engineering: A modular project demands that all decisions be made early. The lead time for shop drawings, coordination of MEP across modules, and factory sequencing means you front-load the design effort. Changes mid-stream are difficult or expensive (once modules are built, changing them is not trivial). This is a cultural shift from traditional projects where some design elements can be tweaked during construction. If the development team isn’t experienced with this process, the pre-construction phase can be intense.
-
Transportation & Site Logistics Challenges: Moving large modules from factory to site has risks – delays due to weather or permits, traffic issues, or even accidents. There are also costs for fuel and escort vehicles. At the site, you need space for staging modules and a crane to lift them into place. If the site is in a dense CT city (say downtown Hartford or Stamford), these logistics can be complex: narrow streets, overhead wires, or neighbors could pose issues. While stick-built also has deliveries, they are smaller and continuous rather than a few huge critical moves. A modular project’s success can hinge on flawless logistics during the set. Any hiccup (like a crane breakdown or a module that doesn’t fit) can cause schedule and cost pain.
-
Financing and Perception: Some banks or investors unfamiliar with modular might be hesitant, worrying about unproven contractors or the collateral value of half-built modules. There’s also historically been a perception hurdle – modular was sometimes unfairly seen as “lower quality” or like mobile homes, though this is changing as high-profile modular projects succeed. In Connecticut, where modular multifamily is still not mainstream, a developer might need to educate stakeholders or ensure the chosen modular builder has a strong track record to satisfy financiers. This isn’t a deal-breaker, but it’s a consideration that stick-built doesn’t face to the same extent.
-
Factory Capacity and Scheduling: When using modular, your project timeline is tied to the factory’s schedule and capacity. If the factory has delays, your modules might arrive late. In the current market, modular factories have finite slots – a surge in demand or a large project in queue could mean waiting to start production. In contrast, with stick-built, you have more flexibility to ramp crews up or down on-site (assuming labor is available). Essentially, you are a bit dependent on the manufacturer. Choosing a reputable factory with capacity is crucial; in CT, that might mean engaging one of the established Northeast modular producers. If a factory were to have financial issues mid-project, it could pose a serious problem (though this is rare).
-
Inter-module Work and Integration: Even after modules are set, there’s still work to do: connecting utilities between modules, sealing joints, exterior finish on seams, etc. This “button-up” work can be tricky and requires high precision – e.g. ensuring a plumbing line from one module aligns with the next. While this is all solvable, it means a modular project isn’t 100% complete upon module installation; there’s a phase of integration that requires skilled labor. If that phase is underestimated, costs can rise. Essentially, the last 10% of the building (stitching modules together) can generate punch-list items and requires careful project management.
Stick-Built Construction: Pros and Cons
Pros (Stick-Built):
-
Design Flexibility: Traditional construction offers maximum flexibility in design. Architects can create unique shapes, overhangs, varied unit layouts, and adjust plans on the fly if needed. There are no modular dimension constraints – each part can be built to whatever shape needed (within engineering limits). For high-end multifamily or architecturally complex buildings, stick-built is often the only viable choice. Changes or customization for specific tenant needs are easier to accommodate during construction. This flexibility is a major advantage if the project demands a bespoke design or if the developer anticipates iterative design development.
-
Simplicity of Process (Well-Understood Method): The conventional construction process is widely understood by contractors, subcontractors, lenders, and regulators. In Connecticut, most builders, trades, and code officials have extensive experience with stick-built multifamily projects. This means less of a learning curve and typically a larger pool of bidders. There’s no need to coordinate factory production or transport – everything happens on site in a sequence that the industry has followed for decades. For a developer, this can mean less perceived execution risk (assuming a competent GC is hired) because the process is straightforward and familiar.
-
Local Economic Benefits: Building on-site employs local labor and businesses. From a community perspective, a stick-built project might be seen as contributing jobs to local tradespeople. While this doesn’t directly affect the developer’s cost, it can be a factor in gaining community support or meeting local hiring goals. (Modular still involves local work for assembly and site prep, but a chunk of labor is elsewhere.) Connecticut towns that prioritize local union labor might favor traditional builds in some cases.
-
No Size Limitations: Unlike modular, which might have practical limits on building height or module size, stick-built can incorporate different structural systems as needed. If you need a taller building, you can shift to steel or concrete construction for part or all of it. There’s full freedom to mix materials (e.g. a concrete podium with wood above, which is common for 5+ story apartments). Modular high-rise is possible but more complex. With site-built, you choose the method (wood, steel, concrete) on each portion to optimize cost and code – there’s flexibility to do that without being tied into one approach.
-
On-the-Fly Adjustments: In traditional projects, if issues arise or design changes are desired mid-construction, it’s often possible to adjust course by issuing change orders. While changes can be costly, they are at least feasible. For instance, if the developer wants to upgrade finishes or reconfigure a couple of units, the contractor can usually accommodate it (for a price). In modular, that window for changes is much more limited (once modules are built, changes are very constrained). So stick-built offers more adaptability if market conditions change or if unforeseen site issues require design modifications. In a renovation/addition context (not our focus here), stick-built is far superior, but even in new construction, that adaptability can be valuable.
Cons (Stick-Built):
-
Longer Construction Time: Conventional building is sequential and weather-dependent. In Connecticut, a stick-built multifamily may take 12–18+ months (depending on size), with significant exposure to winter weather slowdowns, site delays, etc. This longer timeline means higher interest costs on loans, more months of paying a general contractor’s general conditions, and delayed revenue. It also increases the risk of something going wrong (bad weather, schedule slips, etc.). The protracted schedule can be a big financial drawback, especially for large projects where each month of delay can mean hundreds of thousands in costs or lost income.
-
Higher On-Site Labor Costs: With stick-built, everything is done on site, meaning you need a large workforce of various trades physically present throughout the project. In high-cost labor markets like CT (often with union labor on bigger jobs), this results in substantially higher labor expenses. Construction wages, overtime for accelerated schedules, and potential labor shortages all add cost. Also, managing a big workforce on site (safety, supervision, logistics) adds overhead. Essentially, the labor inefficiencies (workers waiting on others, weather stoppages, etc.) and higher hourly rates mean stick-built can be expensive – as reflected in CT’s above-average construction costs
.
-
Risk of Cost Overruns: Traditional builds face more uncertainty in cost. Weather delays can cause overtime or idle time; material price fluctuations (say lumber spikes) hit the budget if not pre-purchased; and change orders for errors or unforeseen conditions are common. A developer might start a stick-built project with a tight budget, only to find costs creeping up due to issues that arise over a year-long build. Even contractor bids often include contingencies for these unknowns (driving the price up). Thus, stick-built can carry a higher risk of budget blowouts, whereas modular contracts often lock in a large portion of cost upfront
. For example, if framing takes longer than expected on site, that adds cost, whereas in a factory the schedule is more controlled.
-
Quality Variability: The quality of a site-built project heavily depends on the crew and site supervision. A rainy week can ruin drywall if not protected, a rushed subcontractor might do a sloppy job that needs repair, etc. While good builders mitigate this, the fact is on-site construction is subject to weather, varying craftsmanship, and less oversight than a factory line. This can lead to issues like warping from moisture, inconsistent insulation installation, or other defects that might require rework or cause future maintenance problems. As noted earlier, studies have found modular often has equal or better envelope tightness and energy performance
. Stick-built can absolutely be high quality, but it requires vigilant project management and some luck with conditions. Any rework or inefficiency due to quality issues on site drives costs up (and isn’t always caught before walls are closed).
-
Site Disruption and Logistics: A stick-built project means constant deliveries of materials, ongoing noise from construction, and potentially more impact on the surrounding area for a longer time. For large multifamily developments, this can mean months of truck traffic through local roads (affecting neighbors and potentially drawing community complaints or even fines if issues occur). In tight urban CT sites, storing materials and equipment can be challenging since everything has to be on site for longer durations. While these factors don’t always show up as line-item costs, they can indirectly cause delays or require mitigation measures (e.g. renting nearby lots for staging, security for an active site, etc.). Modular compresses the disruptive period. Stick-built means the community endures the construction nuisance for longer, which in some cases can lead to additional constraints (strict work hours, etc. that slow progress).
-
Dependency on Weather and Season: Connecticut’s climate – cold winters, possible heavy snowfall, and rain – can significantly impact stick-built schedules. Concrete can’t be poured in deep cold without special measures, snow can shut down a site, and rain can waterlog excavations or framing. Contractors can tent and heat areas or adjust sequences, but all of that adds cost. Winter conditions usually slow down work or incur extra expense (heating, hoarding, winter mix concrete, etc.). Modular, by building indoors, avoids much of this. So stick-built carries the weather risk fully, which often translates to either schedule delays or added costs for weather protection. A single storm could delay critical work by a week, for example. Over a long project, these add up.
In summary, stick-built construction offers unparalleled flexibility and a tried-and-true process which can be advantageous for certain projects, but it generally comes with higher costs, longer timelines, and greater risk of delays in a place like Connecticut. Modular construction, conversely, offers speed and potential cost savings, especially as project size grows, but requires upfront commitment to a modular-friendly design and careful coordination. The best choice depends on the project’s priorities: if cost and time are critical and the design can be modularized, modular construction often provides a significant edge in Connecticut’s market
; if unique design or on-site adaptability is paramount, stick-built may be the more appropriate route despite the higher costs.
Sources:
-
Connecticut Housing Finance Authority – Construction Cost Guidelines 2024
(baseline per-square-foot costs for multifamily in CT).
-
National Apartment Association (Ed Finkel, Units Magazine) – Data on modular multifamily project averages
and case studies
.
-
HomeGuide 2025 – Comparison of modular vs. stick-built home costs (10–20% modular savings)
.
-
National Institute of Building Sciences (Kevin Grosskopf, 2024) – Study of 48 modular vs 158 site-built projects (average 5% cost savings, 30% faster with modular)
.
-
Architectural Digest (2025) – Connecticut construction cost premium (CT ~$281/sf and ~8% above national average; labor shortage impacts)
.
-
Westchester Modular Homes (industry insight) – Modular advantages in labor and efficiency (e.g. use of lower-cost factory labor in PA for New England projects)
.
-
Multifamily.Loans Investor Guide (2025) – Typical apartment construction costs by unit count (e.g. ~$6–8M for 20 units)
.
-
Partner Engineering (David Linkson, 2019) – Modular benefits overview (time savings up to 50%, cost savings up to 25%)
.
These sources and data points underpin the analysis, providing context specific to Connecticut’s pricing and the relative performance of modular vs. stick-built construction methods.
