A four-tonne machine just printed a house in the US
October 14, 2024 7:51 AM Subscribe
A four-tonne machine just printed a house in the US. Texas just opened its biggest 3D-printed neighbourhood as a solution to its acute housing problem.
The whole "3D printing houses to fight housing shortage" trope reeks of technological fix.
posted by bluefrog at 8:06 AM on October 14 [36 favorites]
posted by bluefrog at 8:06 AM on October 14 [36 favorites]
There's a lot of reasons you build houses out of things that can be modified. These probably will be okay for "starter homes" as if those were a thing that existed anymore, but I feel like a house that's so difficult to modify will run into lots of issues down the road.
posted by Ferreous at 8:16 AM on October 14 [2 favorites]
posted by Ferreous at 8:16 AM on October 14 [2 favorites]
"Where there were maybe five different crews coming in to build a wall system, we now have one crew and one robot," he said.
I...kinda doubt that. To build a wall you need framers, drywallers, electricians, painters...who else, architects? concrete pourers for the slab? This 3D printer thing isn't finishing the walls, running conduit, etc., it maybe replaces the framers and drywallers, but from the look of the walls you need a plasterer before painting. Otherwise, I mean, you can build a house with premade panels from a custom manufacturer in a highly automated manufacturing process, like the "Castle walls" in Legos, and put them together which is probably about 4 tons of shipping but minus however many tons of concrete. Is a cinder-block construction crew any more work than this? Or even putting up forms and pouring solid concrete walls?
(I've been seeing the "3d printed houses" thing for probably 20 years if not longer, it never looks like much of an improvement, weirdly layered concrete walls with no discernable structure since concrete doesn't really "stick" to itself, especially if it's this really thick stuff)
posted by AzraelBrown at 8:20 AM on October 14 [16 favorites]
I...kinda doubt that. To build a wall you need framers, drywallers, electricians, painters...who else, architects? concrete pourers for the slab? This 3D printer thing isn't finishing the walls, running conduit, etc., it maybe replaces the framers and drywallers, but from the look of the walls you need a plasterer before painting. Otherwise, I mean, you can build a house with premade panels from a custom manufacturer in a highly automated manufacturing process, like the "Castle walls" in Legos, and put them together which is probably about 4 tons of shipping but minus however many tons of concrete. Is a cinder-block construction crew any more work than this? Or even putting up forms and pouring solid concrete walls?
(I've been seeing the "3d printed houses" thing for probably 20 years if not longer, it never looks like much of an improvement, weirdly layered concrete walls with no discernable structure since concrete doesn't really "stick" to itself, especially if it's this really thick stuff)
posted by AzraelBrown at 8:20 AM on October 14 [16 favorites]
I used to work in the modular industry. These articles frustrate the hell out of me. I don't want to downplay the neat stuff being done here - and building-scale robotics is certainly neat - but here are the most common distortions of truth when it comes to "printed" buildings, all of which appear to be on display:
- This device prints concrete. It doesn't place windows, or plumbing, or electrical, or the roof and roof structure (and, commonly, the foundation). The "3 days" reported is just time erecting vertical structure. It's a long way from being done after those 3 days.
- There are a nearly identical number of trades on site to a site built building - you're replacing your framer and exterior finish carpenter.
- This form of construction is normally unreinforced - great in Austin, maybe less great elsewhere. It's also (as of yet) infeasible past a single story.
- Also, commonly, the entire interior of the building is conventionally constructed.
This is akin to having a robot that places CMU blocks onsite for a concrete block house. This is a lot faster, and in hot, termite and flood prone areas a concrete house is a great idea. I also think these look a lot nicer than CMU. But these are not a magic bullet to creating housing affordability.
The majority of any tract home is already prefabricated, just in smaller pieces. The key to "housing affordability" isn't in construction technology - though that can certainly help. It's in policy and urban design. I'm not seeing any of those innovations on display here.
The primary innovation here is the transformation of construction into "tech" - which allows the developer to siphon some VC money to make the houses cheaper. I'm all in favor of that but it's hard to make it last.
posted by q*ben at 8:22 AM on October 14 [71 favorites]
- This device prints concrete. It doesn't place windows, or plumbing, or electrical, or the roof and roof structure (and, commonly, the foundation). The "3 days" reported is just time erecting vertical structure. It's a long way from being done after those 3 days.
- There are a nearly identical number of trades on site to a site built building - you're replacing your framer and exterior finish carpenter.
- This form of construction is normally unreinforced - great in Austin, maybe less great elsewhere. It's also (as of yet) infeasible past a single story.
- Also, commonly, the entire interior of the building is conventionally constructed.
This is akin to having a robot that places CMU blocks onsite for a concrete block house. This is a lot faster, and in hot, termite and flood prone areas a concrete house is a great idea. I also think these look a lot nicer than CMU. But these are not a magic bullet to creating housing affordability.
The majority of any tract home is already prefabricated, just in smaller pieces. The key to "housing affordability" isn't in construction technology - though that can certainly help. It's in policy and urban design. I'm not seeing any of those innovations on display here.
The primary innovation here is the transformation of construction into "tech" - which allows the developer to siphon some VC money to make the houses cheaper. I'm all in favor of that but it's hard to make it last.
posted by q*ben at 8:22 AM on October 14 [71 favorites]
also, concrete is fucking terrible for the environment
posted by Ferreous at 8:23 AM on October 14 [9 favorites]
posted by Ferreous at 8:23 AM on October 14 [9 favorites]
I feel this is deep bunkum to sell big robot printers to the military but I can’t quite work it out. There’s just too much fussiness with these things. You want to make affordable housing you put up low rise apartments which are cheaper per square foot and much more ecologically sound from materials and energy use. You want to sell some new bullshit technology, you do this.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:25 AM on October 14 [6 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:25 AM on October 14 [6 favorites]
I remember looking at internet tours of these houses when they were first announced. They're... something. I bounced off the textured interior walls hard. They look like a nightmare to dust, paint, or hang anything on.
posted by mersen at 8:26 AM on October 14
posted by mersen at 8:26 AM on October 14
More houses in Georgetown for people who work in Austin is maybe a solution to one problem by definitely making another one worse.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:28 AM on October 14 [5 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:28 AM on October 14 [5 favorites]
3D printing houses is one of those ideas that sounds great - if you have no inkling of how buildings are built. Which is why the idea sells well to the techbro set.
If you do have that inkling, however - then you realize that a trained crew can raise framed walls much faster than the printer can print. Not to mention that those framed walls are a lot easier to put utilities in, or modify in the future.
I'm really tired of 3D printing evangelists who try to treat it as The Answer, instead of a manufacturing modality that has strengths and weaknesses.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:31 AM on October 14 [20 favorites]
If you do have that inkling, however - then you realize that a trained crew can raise framed walls much faster than the printer can print. Not to mention that those framed walls are a lot easier to put utilities in, or modify in the future.
I'm really tired of 3D printing evangelists who try to treat it as The Answer, instead of a manufacturing modality that has strengths and weaknesses.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:31 AM on October 14 [20 favorites]
The roof looks like a cybertruck because it's metal. If you look at the actual houses, they are squarish but every corner is rounded. The concrete printer can't do sharp corners! It'd be kind of great if they leaned into this aspect and made everything very hobbit-like. Personally, I hate square rooms, but love arches and rounded corners etc. An organization was supposed to 3D print a whole community in my town, but checking google maps just now, I see nothing.
posted by jabah at 8:31 AM on October 14
posted by jabah at 8:31 AM on October 14
The development started in late 2022, and about one-third of the homes have already been sold, with prices ranging from $US400,000 to $US600,000.
This is also not affordable housing.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 8:32 AM on October 14 [41 favorites]
This is also not affordable housing.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 8:32 AM on October 14 [41 favorites]
In a previous thread, I think someone mentioned these buildings will create very persistent ruins, ghost towns lasting many hundreds of years. That would be kinda cool, imo, as long as it was just in a few places.
posted by ryanrs at 8:35 AM on October 14 [2 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 8:35 AM on October 14 [2 favorites]
Great Big Mulp got there first: more 400k+ homes is not a great solution for "affordability"
posted by Saxon Kane at 8:36 AM on October 14 [5 favorites]
posted by Saxon Kane at 8:36 AM on October 14 [5 favorites]
Ferreous, I know that I'm responding to a one-sentence comment but I can't help but use the opening to help shed light on embodied carbon in construction. I'll keep it to two things:
1. The best way to reduce the environmental impact of construction is through building reuse. The second best way is by careful selection of site and typology. In this case, it doesn't matter what they built, single family homes on a greenfield site has a massive impact. Here's a good report talking about which strategies are most effective.
2. When reducing impact on a construction project, choice of material is important, but choice of how to deploy that material has a greater impact. It is possible to design environmentally friendly buildings out of many materials (though not EPS foam, please don't use that). Concrete is the biggest problem not because it has the biggest impact per volume or weight but because we use so much of it. That being said, wood construction is pretty hard to beat in terms of impact. Here's a good study showing the variance on individual buildings.
posted by q*ben at 8:40 AM on October 14 [7 favorites]
1. The best way to reduce the environmental impact of construction is through building reuse. The second best way is by careful selection of site and typology. In this case, it doesn't matter what they built, single family homes on a greenfield site has a massive impact. Here's a good report talking about which strategies are most effective.
2. When reducing impact on a construction project, choice of material is important, but choice of how to deploy that material has a greater impact. It is possible to design environmentally friendly buildings out of many materials (though not EPS foam, please don't use that). Concrete is the biggest problem not because it has the biggest impact per volume or weight but because we use so much of it. That being said, wood construction is pretty hard to beat in terms of impact. Here's a good study showing the variance on individual buildings.
posted by q*ben at 8:40 AM on October 14 [7 favorites]
The FPP is basically a re-written press release from ICON and Lennar, the builders of the "planned community" this is part of. A somewhat better depiction of the process, per q*ben is this article from ZDnet: https://www.zdnet.com/article/3d-printed-homes-are-all-the-rage-but-are-they-solving-any-of-humanitys-problems/. Smithsonian has another take that includes Habitat for Humanity experimenting with this: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/can-3d-printing-help-address-affordable-housing-crisis-in-united-states-180983821/.
There was an episode of AppleTV's series Home (series 1, ep 9) that showed ICON working on 3D homes intended for extremely low income people in Mexico. They built 50 homes but I cannot find any follow up to how they have withstood weather and use, and whether the location was suitable for people to use.
posted by drossdragon at 8:43 AM on October 14 [4 favorites]
There was an episode of AppleTV's series Home (series 1, ep 9) that showed ICON working on 3D homes intended for extremely low income people in Mexico. They built 50 homes but I cannot find any follow up to how they have withstood weather and use, and whether the location was suitable for people to use.
posted by drossdragon at 8:43 AM on October 14 [4 favorites]
The so-called “housing crisis” is a crisis of capitalism, and sabotaging/disempowering working class tradies will only deepen that crisis.
posted by tummy_rub at 8:44 AM on October 14 [18 favorites]
posted by tummy_rub at 8:44 AM on October 14 [18 favorites]
== PC LOAD SHEETROCK ==posted by zaixfeep at 8:48 AM on October 14 [27 favorites]
Drossdragon, that Smithsonian article is really good! For the record I don't think ICON's work is bad or uninteresting, but I'm bothered that it's assuming suburban single family housing as the architecture of the future. A faster horse indeed.
posted by q*ben at 8:49 AM on October 14
posted by q*ben at 8:49 AM on October 14
I've been keeping an eye on a company out of Australia with their HadrianX tech-- which seem to be a nice balance between the two technologies. Instead of just squirting concrete like a 3D printer (with the fairly lax tolerances and inability for sharp corners, flat walls etc) they use real block, and one of the nice ideas is-- because a human doesn't have to handle the blocks, you can start scaling that building block size up (45kg etc per block).
Their model is essentially a kit house, but block built and computer controlled. So their rig rocks up to the site, along with a container of block/sled/packages, then the computer controlled until unloads the blocks (which have been packed in the correct order from the factory) and stacks/sticks em up.
I spend a decent amount of time around construction sites, and while the block part is often the quickest/easiest part, the flip side is the errors made during that stage feeds all the way through the rest of the project.
posted by Static Vagabond at 8:58 AM on October 14 [3 favorites]
Their model is essentially a kit house, but block built and computer controlled. So their rig rocks up to the site, along with a container of block/sled/packages, then the computer controlled until unloads the blocks (which have been packed in the correct order from the factory) and stacks/sticks em up.
I spend a decent amount of time around construction sites, and while the block part is often the quickest/easiest part, the flip side is the errors made during that stage feeds all the way through the rest of the project.
posted by Static Vagabond at 8:58 AM on October 14 [3 favorites]
>crisis of capitalism
Report: Institutional Investors Will Own Over 40% of Single-Family Rental Homes by 2030
(somebody should make a table game about this)
posted by torokunai at 9:17 AM on October 14 [13 favorites]
Report: Institutional Investors Will Own Over 40% of Single-Family Rental Homes by 2030
(somebody should make a table game about this)
posted by torokunai at 9:17 AM on October 14 [13 favorites]
I hate this spin. You're not going to solve a housing problem by building single-family homes in a remote suburb.
It looks like the interior walls are spooged out by the 3D printer, which means you can't hang a picture on a nail, and taking a wall out is a much bigger undertaking than with stick framing. And it further exacerbates the environmental cost of the concrete.
The 3D printing angle has a certain gee-whiz quality, but that's all it has going for it right now. There are other modern building techniques/materials, like SIPs, that permit the basic structure to go up very quickly.
posted by adamrice at 9:42 AM on October 14 [3 favorites]
It looks like the interior walls are spooged out by the 3D printer, which means you can't hang a picture on a nail, and taking a wall out is a much bigger undertaking than with stick framing. And it further exacerbates the environmental cost of the concrete.
The 3D printing angle has a certain gee-whiz quality, but that's all it has going for it right now. There are other modern building techniques/materials, like SIPs, that permit the basic structure to go up very quickly.
posted by adamrice at 9:42 AM on October 14 [3 favorites]
Kinda cool looking. Found some pix, for those interested.
posted by davidmsc at 9:50 AM on October 14 [2 favorites]
posted by davidmsc at 9:50 AM on October 14 [2 favorites]
Here's the Wolf Ranch community marketing site where these homes are showcased to buyers. And here's Icon's project site with some interesting build photos.
The layouts are pretty standard 3 bed single-level homes. I've seen 100+ year-old cottage communities with essentially the same design (minus the attached garage and the bizarre structural kitchen island, of course). It's a comfortable, practical design and the concrete walls are probably great for noise insulation.
At over 5000 sq ft of greenfield land per home, though, plus the land for new access roads, this is a sprawl machine.
posted by VelveteenBabbitt at 10:41 AM on October 14
The layouts are pretty standard 3 bed single-level homes. I've seen 100+ year-old cottage communities with essentially the same design (minus the attached garage and the bizarre structural kitchen island, of course). It's a comfortable, practical design and the concrete walls are probably great for noise insulation.
At over 5000 sq ft of greenfield land per home, though, plus the land for new access roads, this is a sprawl machine.
posted by VelveteenBabbitt at 10:41 AM on October 14
There was a 60 minutes episode about this last year. We're all gonna live on the Moon or in Marfa.
posted by credulous at 11:54 AM on October 14
posted by credulous at 11:54 AM on October 14
An Italian company demo’d 3D printed buildings using local clay.
I want to get excited about these new building technologies but I suspect I’ll still be a renter for the rest of my life.
posted by Eikonaut at 12:33 PM on October 14
I want to get excited about these new building technologies but I suspect I’ll still be a renter for the rest of my life.
posted by Eikonaut at 12:33 PM on October 14
> NoxAeternum: "Which is why the idea sells well to the techbro set."
I seem to recall something very similar aeons ago on Twitter where someone (most likely one of the aforementioned techbros) proposed a new cheaper brick-making scheme as a solution to the housing crisis.
posted by mhum at 1:27 PM on October 14
I seem to recall something very similar aeons ago on Twitter where someone (most likely one of the aforementioned techbros) proposed a new cheaper brick-making scheme as a solution to the housing crisis.
posted by mhum at 1:27 PM on October 14
Do these only print one-story homes? Where’s the residential tower builder bot? Ugh, what a disgrace.
posted by Callisto Prime at 1:40 PM on October 14
posted by Callisto Prime at 1:40 PM on October 14
Credulous beat me to the 60 minutes link. This has been followed extensively in builder-oriented media.
Video 1
Video 2
Video 3
Video 4
TL/DR: Saying these are the “solution” to the housing shortage is sort of like saying that Hybrid SUVs are the solution to the climate crisis. Better than other options but nowhere close to a solution.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 2:07 PM on October 14 [2 favorites]
Video 1
Video 2
Video 3
Video 4
TL/DR: Saying these are the “solution” to the housing shortage is sort of like saying that Hybrid SUVs are the solution to the climate crisis. Better than other options but nowhere close to a solution.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 2:07 PM on October 14 [2 favorites]
Ooo, ooo, I know how this story goes. Next they're going to put the houses on wheels and claim they've invented trains.
posted by AlSweigart at 4:13 PM on October 14 [3 favorites]
posted by AlSweigart at 4:13 PM on October 14 [3 favorites]
The whole "3D printing houses to fight housing shortage" trope reeks of technological fix.
And?
The admonition I'm seeing more often,, writing off a "technological fix" is just kinda batshit, as if technology can't fix a particular problem. History is awash in technological fixes across all aspects of life that we all benefit from, in ways that were never even envisioned from the start. Technology has fixed every aspect of housing, for every dwelling, that every person reading this post, uses. The question here is, what this technology actually fixes, if anything?
posted by 2N2222 at 5:59 PM on October 14 [2 favorites]
And?
The admonition I'm seeing more often,, writing off a "technological fix" is just kinda batshit, as if technology can't fix a particular problem. History is awash in technological fixes across all aspects of life that we all benefit from, in ways that were never even envisioned from the start. Technology has fixed every aspect of housing, for every dwelling, that every person reading this post, uses. The question here is, what this technology actually fixes, if anything?
posted by 2N2222 at 5:59 PM on October 14 [2 favorites]
Bricks are the OG engineered modular construction technology.
I absolutely adore my FDM 3d printer and what it enables me to make but for building a house you need way more than concrete extrusion. I suspect that on-site construction 3d printing will be a niche technology until multi-material construction printers have matured to the point they can also apply insulation fill and surface renders and install electricals while also handling overhangs gracefully.
Until then, if I were betting on the next automated construction trend it would be brick laying robots which already exist and are arguably still a type of 3d printer but avoid the pitfall of a forced weird aesthetic.
posted by neonamber at 8:57 PM on October 14
I absolutely adore my FDM 3d printer and what it enables me to make but for building a house you need way more than concrete extrusion. I suspect that on-site construction 3d printing will be a niche technology until multi-material construction printers have matured to the point they can also apply insulation fill and surface renders and install electricals while also handling overhangs gracefully.
Until then, if I were betting on the next automated construction trend it would be brick laying robots which already exist and are arguably still a type of 3d printer but avoid the pitfall of a forced weird aesthetic.
posted by neonamber at 8:57 PM on October 14
I would like to know about the properties of corners where they are nice and and round with no joins. Are they stronger? And to the point about lack of reinforcement, maybe that's why the walls seem quite thick? I know a wee bit about rammed earth construction and essentially the thick wall of a cheap material is doing the same job as a thinner wall with reinforcement.
My friends here in NZ are working on laser cut kitset housing as their high tech solution to housing cost...
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:55 AM on October 15 [1 favorite]
My friends here in NZ are working on laser cut kitset housing as their high tech solution to housing cost...
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:55 AM on October 15 [1 favorite]
Mod note: [btw, q*ben's comment and this interesting discussion have been added to the sidebar and Best Of Blog!]
posted by taz (staff) at 4:00 AM on October 15 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 4:00 AM on October 15 [1 favorite]
I was able to see the ICON construction process and finished projects in person maybe a year or two ago. To call it “3d printing” was 100% hype—operating the “printer” required constant attention and backbreaking manual labor from a trained crew roasting in the Texas sun, and it seemed the project was way behind schedule despite the usual “perpetual crunch time” model of VC-backed management. Other commenters pretty much covered my thoughts already. A bricklaying robot would seem far closer to an achievable efficiency improvement with fewer aesthetic problems than hose-fed concrete 3d printing as it stands. Or robot assistants guided by humans for lifting and placing more traditional materials. I know a skilled drywall contractor with years in the industry who still feels the need to destroy his body for work, because there is currently ino way to separate the skilled and unskilled parts of the job with premium quality results . But I guess it’s all the same to the developers and investors.
posted by mubba at 10:35 AM on October 15
posted by mubba at 10:35 AM on October 15
Technology has fixed every aspect of housing, for every dwelling, that every person reading this post, uses. The question here is, what this technology actually fixes, if anything?
Did the hammer hammer the nail or did I? Technology doesn't exist in this way, there is no sense at all talking about it like that. We have all the technology needed to house everybody on the planet while also feeding everybody. Why should we talk about this crap except to pump some stock?
posted by mayoarchitect at 12:06 PM on October 15
Did the hammer hammer the nail or did I? Technology doesn't exist in this way, there is no sense at all talking about it like that. We have all the technology needed to house everybody on the planet while also feeding everybody. Why should we talk about this crap except to pump some stock?
posted by mayoarchitect at 12:06 PM on October 15
« Older Surviving Pompeii | Whence are a few of my favorite things [Free... Newer »
posted by SPrintF at 8:03 AM on October 14 [2 favorites]