HONEYCOMB HOUSING

Reducing the Cost of Land and Infrastructure in Housing Development

Mazlin Ghazali, Ir. C.T. Sia, Datuk Eddie Chen,
Edmund Foo and Mohd. Peter Davis
*
FIRST DRAFT October 2005
Honeycomb Housing - Reducing the Cost of Land
and Infrastructure in Housing Development.

FIRST DRAFT

Mazlin Ghazali, Arkitek M. Ghazali (admin@tessellar.com), Ir. C.T. Sia,

Perunding Metro, Dato Eddie Chen, Metro Kajang Bhd., Edmund Foo,
JUB Segar, Mohd. Peter Davis, Institute of Advanced Technology, UPM

Preliminary Notes
This is the first draft of a paper to be submitted to the Institute of
Engineers Journal. It is an introduction to the Honeycomb Concept.
It looks into various theoretical comparisons with the conventional
terrace house layout. It provides an explanation for the Figure 1
improvements in land-use efficiency and density. Finally there is a
Rectilinear grids may be distorted
detailed comparison, conventional versus honeycomb, for an
actual 60 acre site. but retain their linear nature

This first draft is for distribution to Metro Kajang Bhd and their Civil
Engineering and Quantity Surveying Consultants for review and
comments.

INTRODUCTION

Conventional row housing and the linear approach to planning

Dwellings can be arranged on individual plots of land as detached units
or linked to each other. Whether detached or linked, they line up along
streets to form row housing. In a row house, owners of individual plots of
landed property maintain sole occupancy rights. Rectilinear grids have
been used as the fundamental tool for subdividing land, where linear
roads provide access to individually owned plots of land. Roads and
gridlines may be distorted by design or necessity but they retain their
linear nature (figure1).

Terrace housing
Terrace housing has long been considered the densest form of landed
property development possible. Indeed, of all the types of housing in
Malaysia, it is the terrace house that predominates (figure 2). The typical
lot varies from 16’ x 50’ to 24’ x 100’, but the most common lots now are
20’ x 65’ and 22’ x 70’. The ubiquitous terrace house plan has been
designed and re-designed many times but always within the same
restrictive framework without much scope for innovation.
Figure 2
The ubiquitous
terrace house
The housing layout has also become stereotyped. In the typical estate, the
terrace houses are lined up along grid-lines with 40’ service roads in front
and much narrower back lanes and side lanes. Communal areas for
schools, civic and religious buildings, as well as open areas for children’s
playgrounds and parks, are also provided. Despite the infrastructure
provided, it can be said that the design of many housing estates does not
really meet the practical needs of the average resident. Apart from the
aesthetic boredom of rows and rows of houses, among the drawbacks of
the terrace house layout is the lack of public security and any genuine
sense of community . With the rising price of land in urban areas, many
people are resigned to apartments. The terrace house, for all its
drawbacks, has been elevated to the status of a dream-home.

Honeycomb Housing
In “Honeycomb Housing”, instead of rows of terrace houses, we are
proposing that every house is in a cul-de-sac with a garden in the middle
(figure 3), where giant shady trees will be planted. The courtyard in the Figure 3
middle of the houses is not just a street for transit: it is a place safe
Cul-de-sac with a Figure 4
enough from speeding cars and criminals, for even pre-schoolers to play
garden in the middle Source: Sime Uep Bhd advertisement
on.

Of course houses in cul-de-sacs are very much sought after in countries

like the US and Australia. The ‘horse-shoe layout’ of high-cost detached
houses in Subang Jaya has been heralded as an innovative design that has
sadly not been repeated elsewhere (figure 4). What we propose here is
suitable not only for high-cost houses but can even be applied to medium
cost and low-medium cost housing - even to low-cost housing.

In the “Honeycomb cul-de-sac” we add a central green area as open space

instead of just tarmac. This cul-de-sac (figure 5), were it to be built with
detached houses, and located in the Klang Valley would probably cost
RM 1 million or more. They would typically have a built-up area of
4000sf, on land of about 6000sf. However, instead of detached single
family homes around the cul-de-sac, we can divide the buildings into two
houses such that each home faces a different cul-de-sac. In this case, each
unit would only have 2000sf built-up area, on 3000sf of land. We can also
slice up the buildings into three, four or six so that a pair of houses faces
each cul-de-sac (figure 6). As we partition each building into more units,
we are reducing the size of built-up area and land area for each unit. And
we are increasing the number density of the development. Indeed in the
sextuplex version, each house could be has a built-up area of less than
700sf and land area, 1000sf. This is already equivalent to the size of the
low-cost terrace house of lot size 18’x 55’. However, take note that as we
reduce the size and affordability of the housing units, we are in no way Figure 5
reducing the quality of the external environment found in the cul-de-sac! This cul-de-sac if built detached Figure 6
houses in the Klang valley would cost Each building block can be partitioned into two,
more than RM 1 million each. three, four or six units..
Our aim is to recreate the best elements of kampong and small-town life:
where children can play outside our homes with friends without fear
from crime and traffic, in a community where people know and talk to Figure 7
each other. We are trying to create a more suitable environment for the Something better than our existing
“kampong boy of the future” (7) – something better than our existing terrace houses
terrace houses. And honeycomb housing can deliver all the benefits of the
cul-de-sac housing environment. A discussion of the benefits to residents
and homeowners can be found in “Honeycomb Housing and Tessellation
Planning”; Planning Malaysia, Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners
(2005) III, 71-98, Kuala Lumpur.

But will the cost of land and infrastructure be higher than that of densely
packed terrace housing? We will first deal with the issue of land-use in
the section below. The third section will address the issue of • HONEYCOMB vs TERRACE
infrastructural cost. Figure 8
• 5 UNIT Comparison between 5 units and 16 units of honeycomb
LAND-USE EFFICIENCY • HONEYCOMB HOUSE TERRACE HOUSE
quadruplex and duplexes with 5 units of equivalent
• (SM) (%) (SM) (%) terrace houses.
Small-scale comparison with terrace houses • ROAD 334 26 611 41
A honeycomb neighbourhood comprising 5 units of quadriplexes and
duplexes is compared with a terrace house arrangement of an equivalent • GREEN 93 7 103 7

5 units (figure 8). Although the land size of the houses is the same, when • HOUSE 861 67 761 52
we analyze the breakdown of land-use, we find that the area used up for • TOTAL 1288 100 1475 100
roads (yellow) in the honeycomb layout is much less than that in the
• 16 UNIT
terrace house layout. Because we have made the green area to be of the
• HONEYCOMB HOUSE TERRACE HOUSE
same size, therefore there is more saleable land.
• (SM) (%) (SM) (%)

We then compared a honeycomb neighbourhood comprising 16 units of • ROAD 879 23 1323 35

quadriplexes and duplexes against a terrace house arrangement of an • GREEN 264 7 269 7
equivalent 16 units. It is demonstrated in the table shown that the
• HOUSE 2721 70 2190 58
honeycomb layout is more land-use efficient.
• TOTAL 3864 100 3782 100
A similar exercise comparing 2 and 8 detached houses laid out in rows
and against the same numbers of equivalent honeycomb houses comes to
the same conclusion (figure 9).
• HONEYCOMB vs LINEAR DETACHED HOUSES

• 5 UNIT
• HONEYCOMB LINEAR
• (SM) (%) (SM) (%)

• ROAD 334 26 426 33

• GREEN 93 7 90 7

• HOUSE 861 67 761 60

• TOTAL 1288 100 1275 100

Figure 9 • 16 UNIT
• HONEYCOMB LINEAR
Comparison between 2 and 8 units of • (SM) (%) (SM) (%)
honeycomb and linear detached • ROAD 879 23 818 25
houses. • GREEN 264 7 235 7

• HOUSE 2721 70 2190 68

• TOTAL 3864 100 3782 100

 Figure 12

Figure 12
Comparison of Honeycomb versus Terrace at Demak Laut, Kuching.
Medium-scale comparison with terrace houses Terrace Honeycomb

We then made a comparison between a ‘honeycomb’ layout comprising Road 47% 33%
258 three-bedroom low-medium cost double-storey houses of 1200sf Saleable land 44% 58%
Figure 10
built-up area on 15.6 acres of land, and that a terrace-house layout Comparison between theoretically efficient
Green area 9% 9%
consisting of 288 equivalent 3 bedroom low-medium cost double storey terrace house layout versus honeycomb layout
Number of units per 15 units 15 units
houses of also 1200sf with 18’ frontage on 21.74 acres (figure 10). Both acre
layouts are efficient are theoretically efficient with the land size and Average lot size 1261 sf 1658 sf
shape suited to the requirements of the rectilinear and honeycomb
30% larger!
geometry. The size of land and number of units are not exactly the same,
but this is acceptable because we are interested in the ratios.

We find that ‘honeycomb’ housing produces here greatly increased land

use efficiencies. These advantages are summarized in the mathematical
table comparing the terrace housing against quadruplex/sextuplex
288 units low 258 units equivalent
honeycomb housing (table 11). The density is the same but the amount of
medium cost low medium cost
road for the ‘honeycomb’ is only 33% against 47% for the terrace.
terrace houses on honeycomb on 15.6
Consequently, the average size of each lot is 30% larger!
21.74 acres acres
Terrace Honeycomb
Road 47% 33%
Saleable land 44% 58%
Green area 9% 9%

Number of units per acre 15 units 15 units

Average lot size 1261 sf 1658 sf

30% larger!
Table 11

Real Site Comparisons

We have done several comparative studies, comparing actual terrace-
house layouts to alternative ‘honeycomb’ layouts, to illustrate how
honeycomb layouts are more efficient than conventional rectilinear grid
layouts. We have done several comparative studies to illustrate how
honeycomb layouts are more efficient than conventional rectilinear grid
layouts. The study of alternative layouts at Demak Laut, Kuching in
Sarawak (figure 12 in the next page) is one example. In this example,
there is the same number of units. The green areas and provisions for
amenities are about the same. The terrace alternative yields only about
40% sellable residential land. This yield is quite common for any landed
property development. However, the honeycomb layout can yield about
56% saleable land. The reason for this can be seen in the reduction in road
reserve – from 38% to 23% (figure 13). Figure 13
Comparison of Honeycomb versus Terrace
at Demak Laut, Kuching.

Figure 12 overleaf
Another example, for a project in Sungai Lunchoo, Plentong in Johor
Bahru, shows again how the ‘honeycomb’ layout reduces the amount of
road and improves the ratio of saleable land (figure 14-15)

Why is the honeycomb layout efficient?

First of all, the back-lane in the terrace house situation is wasteful – this
feature is totally eliminated in honeycomb housing.

Secondly, we can reduce the amount of circulation space in a through

road by cutting it off at the end. The final length is replaced by paved
area designed for turning (figure 16).

Given a fixed area and number of houses to access, the shorter the cul-de-
sac, the less the area taken up by the road (figure 17). A square cul-de-sac
neighbourhood has less road area than a long rectangular one. A circular
one by itself would be the most efficient. However, as shown below the
circle does not tessellate (figure 18)...

However, hexagonal neighbourhoods interlock without gap or overlap.

The third consideration is the length of the distribution roads that encircle
a precinct. The perimeter of a hexagonal precinct is 7% shorter than the
Figure 14
perimeter of a square one of the same area (figure 19).
Comparison of Honeycomb versus terrace
house at Sungai Lunchoo, Plentong
The fourth factor is the shape of the individual lot and its effect on the
buildable footprint after taking account of setback requirements. In the
example shown, the truncated triangle shape of 6000 square feet yields a
higher plinth area compared to a typical 60’ x 100’ site (figure 20).

All of the above factors combine in honeycomb housing to produce

greatly increased efficiency of land use. A terrace can be seen as a row of AFFORDABLE FOR EVERY MALAYSIAN FAMILY
houses surrounded by roads. In contrast, honeycomb houses surround
the road. It is easy to understand intuitively that roads accessing
internally are more efficient than roads accessing houses from the
external boundary. This accounts for the efficiency of cul-de-sacs in
general, and partly explains the efficiency of ‘honeycomb housing’.

Figure 15
Comparison of Honeycomb versus terrace
house at Sungai Lunchoo, Plentong
Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18
Less road in the cul-de-sac The shorter the A circular cul-de-sac is more efficient than
than the through road the less the area the square cul-de-sac….but circles don’t
taken up by road tessellate

Figure 19 Figure 20
The perimeter of the hexagon is 7% less than Both lots are 6000sf, but the honeycomb lot
the square having the same area yields the higher buildable footprint
REDUCING THE COST OF INFRASTRUCTURE DESCRIPTION HONEYCOMB HOUSES TERRACE HOUSES

We would reasonably expect that the amount of roads is a good proxy for
Comparison of UNIT ACRE % UNIT ACRE %

the cost of infrastructure : drains, water mains, sewerage pipes, electrical Acreage, Units and HONEYCOMB HOUSES
cables and telephone lines all run along roads – the shorter the road, the QUADRUPLEX HOUSES
lower should be the length of the other services. To test out this out, we Density STANDARD LOT : 1387 SF
undertook to start comparing in detail the cost of water reticulation, FOOTPRINT : 650 SF 200 7.51 15.43%
sewerage piping, roads and drains in a honeycomb layout against that of TRIPLEX HOUSES
a conventional layout. STANDARD LOT : 3870 SF
FOOTPRINT :1896 SF 31 2.79 5.73%
Real site comparison DUPLEX HOUSES
We approached Dato Eddie Chen, the CEO of a respected developer STANDARD LOT : 3974 SF
(Metro Kajang Bhd) to help us undertake a cost comparison between a FOOTPRINT : 2200 SF 50 5.55 11.40%
rectilinear and honeycomb layout. He was sufficiently intrigued by the
TRIPLEX HOUSES
‘honeycomb’ concept to participate in a research project to study the STANDARD LOT : 4766 SF
comparative cost of infrastructure of a ‘honeycomb’ layout. A control FOOTPRINT : 2493 SF 14 1.64 3.37%
layout was adopted. This was the layout of a recently completed 60 acre
BUNGALOW
housing scheme in Kajang, Bukit Mewah.
STANDARD LOT : 6500 SF
FOOTPRINT : 2698 SF 33 6.43 13.21%
Given that Metro Kajang is a very experienced developer. Obviously, a TERRACE HOUSES
lot of effort went into revenue out of every single square foot. The layout, DOUBLE STOREY 152 5.71 11.73%
as far as rectilinear developments go, is highly efficient. The developer TERRACE 20'X70'=1400SF
made available to us the full set of layout plans, engineering drawings, DOUBLE STOREY 33 1.5 3.08%
Specifications and Bills of Quantities. A ‘honeycomb layout was prepared. TERRACE 20'X75'=1500SF
SEMI DETACHED 48 4.3 8.83%
We then had an Engineering Consultant, Perunding Metro (no connection
BUNGALOW 45'X80'=3600SF
with Metro Kajang Bhd.) under the direction of Ir. C.T. Sia, prepare the
Sewerage, Water Reticulation and Roads and Drains drawings using the Figure 22 SEMI DETACHED
BUNGALOW 50'X100'=5000SF
38 5.21 10.70%

details and specifications adopted in the original design. In this way, a BUNGALOW 33 6.49 13.33%
fair ‘apple to apple’ comparison could be undertaken. The quantities of 65'X100'=6500SF
the main items were then measured and the results tabulated for SUB-TOTAL SELLABLE LAND 328 23.92 49.14% 304 23.21 47.68%
comparison. Edmund Foo, of Quantity Surveyors, JUB Segar then APARTMENT(850 SF) 240 3.52 7.23%
APARTMENT(665 SF) 240 3.52 7.23%
provided realistic rates to apply against the quantities.
Proposed Housing
GENERAL
JALAN 13.56 27.86% 14.42 29.62%

RESULTS Development At Mukim KAWASAN LAPANG

KEMUDAHAN AWAM
3.78 7.76% 3.63 7.46%

Semenyih, SURAU,TADIKA,DEWAN,GERAI 1.52 3.12% 1.52 3.12%

Land-use efficiency LKM(LOJI KUMBAHAN MEKANIKAL) 0.88 1.81% 0.88 1.81%
After completing the alternative honeycomb layout, a detailed
breakdown of the land use was produced. Similarly, the drawing of the
Ulu Langat District, RUMAH PAM
ELEVATED WATER TANK
0.25
0.36
0.51%
0.74%
0.25
0.36
0.51%
0.74%
PENCAWANG ELEKTRIK DAN PPU 0.89 1.83% 0.89 1.83%
existing layout was subject to the same detailed breakdown. The
drawings of the original and honeycomb layouts are given in figures 20. Selangor Darul Ehsan, SUB-TOTAL OTHERS 3.9 8.01% 3.9 8.01%

The detailed land-use breakdown of the two layout designs is shown in Malaysia TOTAL
DENSITY
568
11.7
48.68 100.00% 544
11.2
48.68 100.00%

table 22 in the next page.

Figure 21 overleaf
 Proposed Housing Development At Mukim Semenyih,Ulu Langat District,
Figure 21 Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.
 Figure 23
Comparison of the Quantity of Water Reticulation System

Proposed Housing Development At Mukim Semenyih, Ulu Langat District, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
 COMPARISON OF THE QUANTITY OF WATER RETICULATION SYSTEM

The main results are shown below (table 23). The Saleable land in the (A) ORIGINAL PROPOSAL (B) ARKITEK M. GHAZALI PROPOSAL SAVING OF PERCENTAGE OF
ITEM DESCRIPTION
honeycomb option is 23.92 acres compared to 23.21 acres in the original ( TERRACE HOUSE SYSTEM ) ( HONEYCOMB SYSTEM ) SYSTEM SAVING
layout, an increase of 3.1%. The land to be used as road reserve in the
honeycomb option is 13.56 acres compared to 14.42 acres in the original 1 150mmø UPVC PIPE 3291.43 m 2489.58 m 801.85 m 24.36%
layout, a reduction of 6%. The Green area is increased by 4%, whilst there
is no change in the area of the Amenities. The number of units of landed 2 200mmø UPVC PIPE 1181.02 m 1097.19 m 83.83 m 7.10%
property is increased from 304 to 328 units, up by 7.9%.
Have more pipes
3 150mmø MS PIPE 292.40 m 473.70 m -181.30 m across the premix
Saleable Road Green Amenities Units road, however it still
Land Reserve (acres) (acres) has saving in the
(acres) (acres) 4 200mmø MS PIPE 59.17 m 156.82 m -97.65 m overall water
reticulation system
Original Built 23.21 14.42 7.46 8.01 304
Option
Honeycomb 23.92 13.56 7.76 8.01 328 Proposed Housing Development At Mukim Semenyih, Ulu Langat District,
Increase/(decrease) 0.71 (0.86) 0.3 0 24 Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
% 3.1% (6%) 4% 0% 7.9% Figure 24
Increase/(decrease)
Table 23 COMPARISON OF THE QUANTITY OF SEWERAGE SYSTEM

Water reticulation system ITEM DESCRIPTION

(A) ORIGINAL PROPOSAL (B) ARKITEK M. GHAZALI PROPOSAL SAVING OF PERCENTAGE OF
( TERRACE HOUSE SYSTEM ) ( HONEYCOMB SYSTEM ) SYSTEM SAVING
The main cost-centers picked up are 150mm and 200mm UPVC pipes and
150mm and 200mm mild steel (ms) pipes. The mild steel pipes are used 1 225mmø VCP PIPE 3628.50 m 3084.10 m 544.40 m 15.00%
where the pipes run below the premixed roads. The layouts of the built
and honeycomb alternative options are given in figures 23 (next page) 2 300mmø VCP PIPE 207.00 m 131.00 m 76.00 m 36.71%
and the comparison is shown in table 24. There is an overall reduction in
quantities for the honeycomb option; however there are more mild steel 3 NOS. OF MANHOLE 83.00 Nos. 64.00 Nos. 19.00 Nos. 22.89%

pipes.
Proposed Housing Development At Mukim Semenyih,
Sewerage system Figure 26 Ulu Langat District, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
The main cost-centers picked up are 225mm and 300mm diameter
Vitrified Clay Pipes (VCP) pipes and manholes. The layouts of the built
and honeycomb alternative options are given in figures 25 (next pages)
and the comparison is shown in table 26. There is an overall reduction in COMPARISON OF THE QUANTITY OF ROAD & DRAINAGE SYSTEM
quantities for the honeycomb option. There is a 15% saving in the length
(A) ORIGINAL PROPOSAL (B) ARKITEK M. GHAZALI PROPOSAL SAVING OF PERCENTAGE OF
of 225mm VCP pipes, a 37% reduction in 300mm diameter pipes and a ITEM DESCRIPTION
( TERRACE HOUSE SYSTEM ) ( HONEYCOMB SYSTEM ) SYSTEM SAVING
23% reduction in the number of manholes.
1 0.6m DRAIN WIDE 7414.00 m 6690.00 m 724.00 m 9.77%
Drains
The main cost-centers picked up are drains and culverts. The drains are 2 0.9m DRAIN WIDE 186.00 m 292.00 m -106.00 m NO CRITICAL
0.6m wide, 0.9m wide and 1.2m wide. The culverts are 1.2mX 0.6m, 1.2X
0.9m and 1.8mX 1.2m. The layouts of the built and honeycomb alternative 3 1.2m DRAIN WIDE 389.00 m 165.00 m 224.00 m 57.58%

options are given in figures 27 (next few pages) and the comparison is
4 1.2 X 0.6m BOX CULV. 176.00 m 132.00 m 44.00 m 25.00%
shown in table 28. There is an overall reduction in quantities for the
honeycomb option. There is a 10% saving in the length of 0.6m wide drains, 5 1.2 X 0.9m BOX CULV. (BC1) 41.00 m 40.00 m 1.00 m 2.44%
a 57% increase in the 0.9m wide drains and a 58% reduction in the 1.2m
wide drains. In addition, the length of the culverts were reduced – for the 6 1.8 X 1.2m BOX CULV. 35.00 m 24.00 m 11.00 m 31.43%
1.2mX 0.6m, 25%; 1.2X 0.9m ,2%; and 1.8mX 1.2m, 31%.
7 PREMIX ACCESS ROAD 28798.94 m2 26667.67 m2 2131.27 m 7.40%

Figure 28 Proposed Housing Development At Mukim Semenyih,

Ulu Langat District, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
 Figure 25
Comparison of the Quantity of Sewerage System

Proposed Housing Development At Mukim Semenyih, Ulu Langat District, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
 Figure 27
Comparison of the Quantity of Road and Drainage System

Proposed Housing Development At Mukim Semenyih, Ulu Langat District, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
TABLE 29
COMPARISON OF COST SAVING FOR INFRASTRUCTURAL WORKS
(A) ORIGINAL PROPOSAL RATE TOTAL (B) AMG PROPOSAL RATE TOTAL SAVING OF RATE TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
ITEM DESCRIPTION
( TERRACE HOUSE SYSTEM ) (RM) RM ( HONEYCOMB SYSTEM ) (RM) RM SYSTEM (RM) RM SAVING

SEWERAGE SYSTEM
1 225mmø VCP PIPE 3628.50 m 112 406,392 3084.10 m 112 345,419 544.40 m 112 60,973 15.00%

2 300mmø VCP PIPE 207.00 m 243 50,301 131.00 m 243 31,833 76.00 m 243 18,468 36.71%

3 NOS. OF MANHOLE 83.00 Nos. 2,500 207,500 64.00 Nos. 2,500 160,000 19.00 Nos. 2,500 47,500 22.89%

Sub Total 664,193 Sub Total 537,252 Sub Total 126,941

ROAD & DRAINAGE

1 0.6m DRAIN WIDE 7414.00 m 150 1,112,100 6690.00 m 150 1,003,500 724.00 m 150 108,600 9.77%

2 0.9m DRAIN WIDE 186.00 m 200 37,200 292.00 m 200 58,400 -106.00 m 200 (21,200) NO CRITICAL

3 1.2m DRAIN WIDE 389.00 m 250 97,250 165.00 m 250 41,250 224.00 m 250 56,000 57.58%

4 1.2 X 0.6m BOX CULV. 176.00 m 600 105,600 132.00 m 600 79,200 44.00 m 600 26,400 25.00%

5 1.2 X 0.9m BOX CULV. (BC1) 41.00 m 700 28,700 40.00 m 700 28,000 1.00 m 700 700 2.44%

6 1.8 X 1.2m BOX CULV. 35.00 m 1,000 35,000 24.00 m 1,000 24,000 11.00 m 1,000 11,000 31.43%

7 PREMIX ACCESS ROAD 28798.94 m2 48 1,382,349 26667.67 m2 48 1,280,048 2131.27 m 48 102,301 7.40%

Sub Total 2,798,199 Sub Total 2,514,398 Sub Total 283,801

WATER RETICULATION
1 150mmø UPVC PIPE 3291.43 m 35 115,200 2489.58 m 35 87,135 801.85 m 35 28,065 24.36%

2 200mmø UPVC PIPE 1181.02 m 62 73,223 1097.19 m 62 68,026 83.83 m 62 5,197 7.10%
Have more pipes
3 150mmø MS PIPE 292.40 m 105 30,702 473.70 m 105 49,739 -181.30 m 105 (19,037) across the premix
road, however it still
has saving in the
4 200mmø MS PIPE 59.17 m 120 7,101 156.82 m 120 18,818 -97.65 m 120 (11,718) overall water
reticulation system

Sub Total 226,226 Sub Total 223,718 Sub Total 2,508

GRAND TOTAL 3,688,618 GRAND TOTAL 3,275,368 GRAND TOTAL 413,250 11.20%

No of Units 304 328

Cost per Unit 12,134 9,986 2,148 17.70%
Roads
The total area of the premixed road surface for both options were measured as follows – 28,799sm for
the original option and 26,668sm for the honeycomb option. Refer to figures 27 and table 28 again. The
honeycomb option saved 2,131sm of road surface.
Overall Cost Comparison
We found that the honeycomb layout produced lower cost figures for all the works compared with the
conventional design (table 29).
For the Water Reticulation works, there is an overall reduction in quantities for the honeycomb option,
however there are more mild steel pipes. Since the mild steel pipes are more expensive, overall, the cost
of the honeycomb project is only cheaper by RM2508. I.e. only a 1% reduction in cost.
For the Sewerage works, there is an overall reduction in quantities for the honeycomb option. There is a
15% saving in the length of 225mm VCP pipes, a 37% reduction in 300mm diameter pipes and a 23%
reduction in the number of manholes. Overall, the cost of the honeycomb proposal is cheaper by a
substantial amount - RM126,941, i.e. a 19% reduction in cost .
For the Drainage works, there is a 10% saving in the length of 0.6m wide drains, a 57% increase in the
0.9m wide drains and a 58% reduction in the 1.2m wide drains. In addition, the length of the culverts
were reduced – for the 1.2mX 0.6m, by 25%; 1.2X 0.9m ,by 2%; and 1.8mX 1.2m, 31%. Overall, the cost of
the honeycomb project is cheaper by a substantial amount – RM181,500, i.e. a 13% reduction in cost .
For the Road works, the honeycomb option saved 2,131sm of road surface. The cost of the honeycomb
proposal is cheaper by a substantial amount – RM102,301, i.e. a 7.4% reduction in cost.
The cost of the original design was RM3,688,618 compared to the honeycomb design, RM3,275,368. The
honeycomb proposal turned out to be RM413,250 cheaper, a substantial 11% saving. However, there are
more units in the honeycomb version – 328 instead of 304. This is an increase of 7.9%. Taken on per-unit
basis, the savings in water reticulation, sewerage, roads and drains are as follows:
Total Cost No of Cost per unit
(RM) Units (RM)
Original Built Option 3,688,618 304 12,133.12
Honeycomb 3,275,368 328 9,985.88
Table 30
Overall savings per unit is RM 2147.24 or 17.7%.
DISCUSSION
It is interesting to note that the savings in the total area of road reserve is quite small. This amount is
certainly less than that of the examples given earlier. I believe the reasons for this are as follows:
1. There are more units resulting in a higher density. These extra units bring down the area of road
reserve per unit, and seen in this perspective, the reduction in roads becomes higher.
2. Only about a third of the layout is taken up by terrace houses. As shown earlier in the
comparison between 3 and 8 units of detached units in a rectilinear layout versus the
‘honeycomb’ layout, there is a reduction in the amount of savings in roads. This is due to the
absence of back-lanes in detached housing. In addition, the rectilinear layout of the detached lots
employed a lot of cul-de-sacs which are land-use efficient.
3. The land designated for ‘future development’ was obviously shaped to take on continuing rows
of terrace houses. A ‘honeycomb layout’ would have sliced out a different shape. As it is, the
layout of ‘honeycomb’ houses at the periphery of the land for ‘future development’ became
rather inefficient.
Given the small saving in road reserve area, the results become all the more remarkable. The roads
pavement area itself saw a reduction of 7%. Quite substantial reductions were found for the cost of
drains and culverts, sewerage pipes and manholes, and water mains.
Applying realistic rates to the outline bill of quantities, we found that the overall savings in the cost of
the infrastructural services to be approximately RM413,250 or 11%, and the per-unit savings to be 17%.
Another factor to consider is the extra saleable land made available in the honeycomb layout. The extra
land that can be sold is 0.71 acres or 30928 sf. If we price this land at RM50 per sf, the extra sale value
unlocked will be RM 1,546,380.
CONCLUSION
From the studies undertaken above, we have found that the adoption of the ‘honeycomb’ layout has
brought about clear improvements in land-use efficiency through a reduction in the area of roads. In the
example, the reduction in the amount of roads, bring with it clear savings in the cost of roads, drains,
water reticulation and sewerage lines. This example is, of course, based on a specific built project, and
we cannot conclude that the employment of the ‘honeycomb’ layout will always give better results
compared to rectilinear layouts. However, it has been shown that even in a case where the savings in
amount of land used for road reserve is quite small, there is still substantial savings to be made in the
infrastructure.
The reduction in roads brought about an increase in the saleable area. In this case study, the increase in
saleable area is marginal, i.e. 3%. However the estimated contribution to the bottom line is a hefty RM
1.5 million, almost four times the estimated savings from infrastructure.
Certainly, the honeycomb technique has been shown to have its inherent advantages, and for
developers tired of looking at rectilinear proposals, an honeycomb concept now presents a cost saving
alternative. More than that, the benefits to be made from increasing sales revenue through having more
land to sell, can be substantial.