the sweeping brushstrokes of history similar to Aitchison’s earlier edited publication, The Architecture of Industry (2014). The prominent examples mentioned in the introduction of The Architecture of Industry have led to a generalist narration. They are not adequately linked or explored in relation to more specific less known examples. As such, while the subject is framed within a historical context, history is not discursively engaged with. The reader encounters a polemical approach to the subject often in colloquial phrases “a more holistic and integrated approach” (11), “more art than science,” (103) which added to the fragmented nature of the text (Chapter four comprises seventeen text sections and two thematic insertions in thirty-one pages) disrupts the development of an argument as well as the reading flow of the book. I am also not convinced about the final outline in Chapter six that contains some of these discrepancies and reveals the complexity of the subject as well as contradictions within the approach taken. The “disreputable” form (119) of the mobile/manufactured home is indeed a compelling starting point for rethinking the prefab housing knot. How the mobile/manufactured home informs or relates to the contemporary housing examples highlighted (BoKlok, Sweden, or the more conservative in appearance, “Show villages in Germany,” Beaufritz’s house ranges, Misawa House’s range) is not clear. While housing affordability, noted in Chapter six, is a significant thesis in itself, it seems to alter the direction of the book, as does the environmental context in the example of the estate PanaHome City Seishin-Minami. These are themes that were not central to discussions in the earlier chapters. Trying to traverse the very convoluted history and perception of prefab housing is complex enough. Add to this a big objective to identify a way forward escalates the navigation of pathway for a book and results in an oscillation between a critical analysis and a pragmatic agenda. Alternately, placing prefab housing more explicitly within the historical and contemporary crisis of housing would have allowed a specific assessment of whether it is the best way forward.

中文翻译：

---

新加坡的拉斯维加斯：民族主义现代性的暴力、进步和危机

类似于 Aitchison 早期编辑的出版物《工业建筑》（2014 年）的历史笔触。工业架构介绍中提到的突出例子导致了通才叙述。它们没有与更具体的鲜为人知的例子充分联系或探讨。因此，虽然该主题是在历史背景下构建的，但历史并不是以话语方式参与的。读者经常在口语化短语“更全面和综合的方法”（11）、“艺术多于科学”（103）中遇到对该主题的争论性方法，这增加了文本的碎片化性质（第四章包含 17 个文本）部分和 31 页中的两个主题插入）破坏了论点的发展以及本书的阅读流程。我也不相信第六章的最终大纲，其中包含一些这些差异，揭示了主题的复杂性以及所采取的方法中的矛盾。移动/制造房屋的“声名狼藉”形式（119）确实是重新思考预制房屋结的一个引人注目的起点。移动/人造住宅如何与突出显示的当代住宅示例（瑞典 BoKlok，或更保守的外观，“德国的展示村庄”，Beaufritz 的住宅范围，Misawa 住宅的范围）有关或与之相关尚不清楚。虽然第六章中提到的住房负担能力本身就是一个重要的论点，但它似乎改变了本书的方向，就像 PanaHome City Seishin-Minami 房地产例子中的环境背景一样。这些主题并不是前几章讨论的核心。试图穿越对预制房屋非常复杂的历史和看法已经足够复杂了。除此之外，确定前进方向的一个大目标会升级一本书的路径导航，并导致批判性分析和务实议程之间的摇摆不定。或者，将预制房屋更明确地置于住房的历史和当代危机中，可以具体评估这是否是最好的前进方式。除此之外，确定前进方向的一个大目标会升级一本书的路径导航，并导致批判性分析和务实议程之间的摇摆不定。或者，将预制房屋更明确地置于住房的历史和当代危机中，可以具体评估这是否是最好的前进方式。除此之外，确定前进方向的一个大目标会升级一本书的路径导航，并导致批判性分析和务实议程之间的摇摆不定。或者，将预制房屋更明确地置于住房的历史和当代危机中，可以具体评估这是否是最好的前进方式。