An extensive inspection of construction in the Soviet Union, a numberof years ago, noted that the Russians were building flats, two and one-half rooms each, with a bath and a kitchenette. Each factory-produced flat was a box about 35 feet long, 14 feet wide and 10 feet high. These boxes were then moved out to the building site and simply stacked as a kid would stack blocks. This greatly speaded up production time so that an 80 family apartment could go up in three days. But is wa not a building job at all rather it closely resembled an assembly job. Is building cessing to be a building activity and instead becoming an assemble activity? If thi is the case, where does that leave the future of the contractor? His future will depend upon how far and how fast this revolution goes. The revolution goes differently in different parts of the world because of the differing urgency of circumstances which lead to the industrialization of construction. For example, in France, there is a system whereby the state, with close collaboration from private industries, determines and evaluates the usefulness of an innovation in building construction. Approximately 75 percent of all building is done by the French government which gives them the possibility of introducing new innovations very quickly. The United States, however, is one nation which builds extensively and well but in which there is no national system for introducing innovations. Our problem here is to bring about innovation under private enterprise with a minimum of governmental jurisdiction. So what is the future of the general contractor in the face of this revolution? It will remain bright because the American general contractor has never been wanting in ingenuity or boldness and that is all you need to face any revolution.