Built Offsite — one of Australia’s leading publications covering prefabrication, modular and offsite construction — recently sat down with Michael for a two-part interview series, and we couldn’t be prouder of the result. Read across the industry by builders, designers, developers and manufacturers, Built Offsite spotlights the people and ideas shaping how Australia builds. So it’s a real honour to have Michael’s story featured.

In this first instalment, Michael reflects on the path that took him from a 25-year career in investment and finance into building performance, Passive House and prefabrication — and how an investment mindset, focused on understanding and reducing risk, came to shape everything we do across Reimagined Habitat, Efficient Habitat and Net Zero Plus. It’s a candid look at why we believe performance should be measured, not assumed, and why reducing the gap between design intent and real-world outcomes matters so much.

Part two follows soon, where Michael explores how these lessons led to the creation of Uncommon Living and its approach to medium-density housing and Australia’s “missing middle.”

We hope you enjoy the read — the full article is below:
From Finance to Housing: How An Investment Mindset Is Reshaping Residential Construction

Most build cost comparisons in Australian residential construction stop at one number: the contract price at the start of the project. It is the easiest figure to compare, the one most owners and developers fixate on, and the one that hides almost everything that actually determines the financial outcome of the build.

This post is for developers and builders who want a more honest comparison — what prefab Passive House actually costs over a realistic ten-year horizon, against a standard Australian build using equivalent square metreage, equivalent finishes, and equivalent intent.

It is not a sales document. The numbers below are illustrative ranges based on our experience, public Australian construction data, and the operating-cost picture for typical detached homes. Your project will vary. But the shape of the conclusion is what matters.

The headline-cost trap

The standard mental model in Australian construction looks something like this:

• Standard build: cheaper per square metre, longer to deliver, lower performance, lower comfort, but the contract price is the number on the page.
• Prefab Passive House: more expensive per square metre, shorter to deliver, much higher performance, much better comfort, but the contract price is higher than the standard option.

It is a comparison that gives “more expensive” all the weight and “shorter to deliver” and “higher performance” almost none.

The problem is that the contract price comparison is comparing two genuinely different products as if they were the same product. A Passive House is not a slightly better standard home. It is a fundamentally different building that uses a third of the energy, lasts longer with less maintenance, holds its temperature without mechanical effort, and is dramatically less expensive to run.

When you put those characteristics into the comparison, the contract price gap closes faster than most clients expect — and often inverts.

What standard construction actually costs

A typical new Australian detached home built to current minimum code (7 stars NatHERS) costs in the region of $3,000-$4,000 per square metre, depending on location and finish level. For a 200 sqm home, that puts the headline build cost around $600,000 to $800,000.

But the headline cost is not the total cost. Add to it:

• Construction loan interest over nine to twelve months of build time
• Site supervision, insurance, security, scaffold and amenities for the same period
• Variations and provisional sums that typically add 5-15% to the contract price
• Rectification and warranty work in the first two years post-handover (especially for moisture-related defects, which are the most common Australian residential warranty claim category)
• Trade scheduling risk when subcontractors don’t show up on the date the programme assumed

These are not exotic costs. They are present on every standard build. They are simply not in the contract price column.

A useful way to think about it: the contract price is the cost of the materials and the trades. Everything above is the cost of the process by which those materials and trades got assembled into a building.

What prefab Passive House actually costs

The headline number for a comparable prefab Passive House from Net Zero Plus is typically 10-20% higher per square metre than a standard build, depending on the specification, the climate zone, and how much of the design you adapt from a reference vs. design from scratch.

That is the part of the comparison clients usually focus on. What gets missed is what disappears from the cost column underneath.

• Construction loan interest drops because the build runs three to four months instead of nine to twelve.
• Site supervision and amenities drop in line with the shorter timeline.
• Variations and provisional sums drop because most of the unknowns are resolved in the engineering documentation before any panel is cut.
• Trade scheduling risk drops because most of the build is happening in a factory that runs to a controlled programme, not on a site that depends on the weather.
• Rework risk drops because factory-cut panels are dimensionally accurate.

Across our projects we typically see the delivered cost of a prefab Passive House come in at parity with — or slightly under — a comparable standard build, even though the headline contract price was higher.

That is before we get to operating cost.

The carrying cost trap

For developers, the carrying-cost picture is where the gap actually widens.

A $700,000 standard build on a 9-12 month timeline accrues construction loan interest of around $35,000-$50,000 at current rates. The same build on a 3-4 month prefab timeline accrues around $12,000-$18,000. The saving is roughly $20,000-$30,000 of pure capital cost per build, before any other consideration.

Multiply that across a portfolio of ten builds and you have $200,000-$300,000 of construction loan interest that simply does not exist on your prefab pipeline. That is real cash that goes to your bottom line instead of your bank’s.

The same story plays out across every line item that is proportional to time on site — supervision, insurance, amenities, security, hire equipment. Time is one of the most expensive things in construction, and prefab is one of the few interventions that genuinely compresses it.

The 10-year operating cost picture

Once handover happens, the comparison shifts again — this time decisively in favour of Passive House.

A standard new Australian home (7 stars, code minimum) typically uses around 80-120 kWh per square metre per year for heating and cooling, plus baseline electricity. For a 200 sqm home, that translates into annual energy bills in the order of $3,500-$5,000 at current electricity prices.

A certified Passive House uses around 15 kWh per square metre per year for heating and cooling — about a fifth. For the same 200 sqm home, the annual energy bill drops to around $700-$1,200. The saving is in the range of $2,500-$4,000 per year per home.

Over ten years, that is $25,000-$40,000 of avoided energy cost per home — without counting electricity price inflation, which has run well above CPI for the past decade.

Add to this:

• Lower maintenance costs (factory-built envelope, fewer condensation-related repairs)
• Lower insurance volatility on mould and weather-related claims
• Higher resale value (energy efficiency is now a measurable property attribute in most Australian markets)
• Lower vacancy rates for rental stock (tenants pay attention to running costs)

The ten-year cost-of-ownership picture, on conservative assumptions, puts prefab Passive House comfortably ahead of a standard build — often by $40,000-$60,000 net for a typical detached home.

Where the developer maths gets interesting

For a developer running a portfolio, the maths compounds. Compressed build times mean faster turnover of capital. Higher rental yields per dwelling mean better debt-service coverage. Passive House certification supports premium pricing in markets where buyers have started to look for it.

But the deepest effect is what it does to risk. Prefab Passive House moves significant chunks of the build risk out of the variable, site-based, weather-and-trades part of construction and into the predictable, factory-based, documented part of construction. Developers who think hard about portfolio risk tend to value that predictability more highly than the headline cost difference.

There is also the planning argument. The ACT now recognises Passive House as an official compliance pathway. Other Australian jurisdictions are watching closely. Builds that meet a recognised performance certification are increasingly easier to permit, easier to finance through green lending products, and easier to sell.

Where the builder maths gets interesting

For builders, the maths is a bit different but no less compelling.

Prefab Passive House sits at the high-margin end of the residential market. The clients commissioning these builds are typically less price-sensitive, more brief-stable, and easier to work with than the commodity end of the market. The build itself is faster, more predictable, and less prone to the cascading subcontractor problems that destroy margins on standard projects.

The builder who develops a real prefab Passive House capability becomes — fairly quickly — one of a small number of builders that designers, developers and clients seek out for the higher-end work. That positioning is hard to replicate and tends to be sticky.

Frequently asked questions

Is prefab Passive House really cheaper than standard construction once you count everything?
For a like-for-like comparison on a typical detached home over ten years of ownership, in our experience: yes, comfortably. The gap depends on energy prices, finance costs and how much variation a standard build accumulates — but the direction of the comparison is consistent.

What about smaller projects — does the maths still work?
For builds under about 100 sqm the upfront cost gap can be harder to close. For most standard residential scales (150-300 sqm) the comparison runs as described above.

How much of the saving depends on energy prices staying high?
Most of it. If Australian electricity prices return to early-2010s levels, the 10-year operating saving narrows. They are unlikely to, but the sensitivity analysis is real.

How do I get a more specific number for my project?
The honest answer is we need to see the design, the site, and the brief. We can run a comparative cost model for you as part of the feasibility conversation — for developers and builders the conversation tends to focus on different lines, but the framework is the same.

---

Want to see the numbers for your specific project? Get a free quote within 48 hours — or read Advantages of a Passive House for the broader case.