Company Creates cheap 3d printable house

[Shreyas1]

The company ICON has created a 3d printable house for people in developing countries.

 

Quote

Food, water, and shelter are basic human needs, but 1.2 billion people in the world live without adequate housing, according to a report by the World Resources Institute’s Ross Center for Sustainable Cities. Today at SXSW, an Austin-based startup will unveil its approach to combat that deficiency by using low-cost 3D printing as a potential solution

 

Using the current printing technology, they can build houses for $10000 each but plan to bring costs down to $4000. The printer is capable of printing an 800 square foot house. For comparison, the average New York apartment is 866 square feet. The material used is cement for stability reasons. The company has also partnered with the nonprofit New Story that focuses on building houses in developing areas.

 

Quote

ICON has developed a method for printing a single-story 650-square-foot house out of cement in only 12 to 24 hours, a fraction of the time it takes for new construction. If all goes according to plan, a community made up of about 100 homes will be constructed for residents in El Salvador next year

 

Quote

Once ICON completes material testing and tweaking of the design, the company will move the Vulcan printer to El Salvador to begin construction. ICON says its 3D-printed houses will create minimal waste and labor costs are significantly reduced. The company also intends to build homes in the US eventually. It’s a compelling solution to solving housing shortages but one that could be contentious among labor unions that represent workers.

I think this technology and its cause is really cool, and I hope it can be out quick. ICON also plans on using this technology for space. In the developed world, I don't think this will be that useful at all considering there is no insulation, electricity, plumbing, etc. Though I do think that these features could be added on later. But then again it is still an improvement over what most people have to live like in more poverty-stricken areas.

 

Pics:

Spoiler

 

 Interior:

 

 

 

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/12/17101856/3d-printed-housing-icon-shelter-housing-crisis

[Taf the Ghost]

This is actually a much better use of 3D Printing of "houses" than some of the stranger concepts that has been pushed in the modern world. It's also a good use of testing resources, as you can provide solid quality of life improvements to parts of the world that need them, while also building out your company's R&D. No complaints about cynical marketing here. 

[RagnarokDel]

45 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

I don't think this will be that useful at all considering there is no insulation, electricity, plumbing, etc. Though I do think that these features could be added on later. But then again it is still an improvement over what most people have to live like in more poverty-stricken areas.

those can be installed pretty easily, probably before you start 3dprinting even.

[emosun]

I don't understand why 3d printing the house is better than just building the same house without a 3d printer.

it looks like the printer just prints the walls , and it prints the walls slower than a regular person could just assemble wood walls.

if you ever are in contracting you know that the fastest thing to assemble on a building are the walls and even the roof goes pretty quick. So idk why slowly 3d printing them is better short of just adding a buzzword to gain interest from investors.

[Paranoid Kami]

The speed, reduction in waste and labour costs are impressive. The 24 hours is how long it takes cement to dry and not how long it takes to build. As for the house, if you take out the designer furniture and weatherwear everything you'll find it's not as pretty as they make it out to be. Is the cement really even cheaper than wood, insulation and drywall? No second floor for family? A bunch of questions but it's cool that they're trying to make it work. Not that they're the first to think of 3d printing houses.

 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=3d+printed+home

[Cole5]

Thats pretty damn cool

[Damascus]

1 hour ago, emosun said:

assemble wood walls.

With what wood?  Most high risk areas are in deserts or scrublands, theres no wood in a barren sandy wasteland.

[emosun]

49 minutes ago, Paranoid Kami said:

The 24 hours is how long it takes cement to dry and not how long it takes to build.

I think that's how long it takes to print , because you can't lay wet cement on top of wet cement without waiting for the previous layer to harden without a form of some kind.

if they made cement houses the old way with forms or cinder blocks , they could build them as fast as they want. as cinder block don't have to dry , and forms don't have to pour in layers you can just pour it all at once.

[emosun]

2 minutes ago, Damascus said:

With what wood?  Most high risk areas are in deserts or scrublands, theres no wood in a barren sandy wasteland.

Yeah well then you ship the wood in


.... or you ship in a 3d printer , cement power , water , gas/fuel for the 3d printer to run on , and wood anyway because the 3d printer isn't going to print a cement roof....

[GoldenLag]

This isnt good for the economy you are printing in. You will outcompete any company trying to create houses and increase the amount of people without jobs. Its great tech, but you have to rememver it wont be good for the economy it is in. Especially if foreigners do it. Everyone has to do this if it is gonna work, and the number of people working will droo, which isnt good in a struggling economy

[Bananasplit_00]

1 hour ago, emosun said:

I don't understand why 3d printing the house is better than just building the same house without a 3d printer.

it looks like the printer just prints the walls , and it prints the walls slower than a regular person could just assemble wood walls.

if you ever are in contracting you know that the fastest thing to assemble on a building are the walls and even the roof goes pretty quick. So idk why slowly 3d printing them is better short of just adding a buzzword to gain interest from investors.

you dont have to pay people to put up the walls, and concrete is probably cheaper

[emosun]

6 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

you dont have to pay people to put up the walls, and concrete is probably cheaper

in a third world country you don't have to pay people anyway. don't have to pay for insurance or social security or taxes or minimum wage requirements ect.... 

[GoldenLag]

11 minutes ago, emosun said:

in a third world country you don't have to pay people anyway. don't have to pay for insurance or social security or taxes or minimum wage requirements ect.... 

The problem is to get someone to buy those houses. You cant give them away, and noone hasnmoney to buy them. Just building houses doesnt work. People need to have money, which in turn means they need jobs that pay. 

 

Im no economics expert, but its not as easy as throwing in new houses if noone can buy them

[HalGameGuru]

If memory serves the early applications for these are expedient, not economic. Useful in areas that have been struck by a natural disaster or violence. You can bring in raw materials and print out houses day after day providing safe housing for displaced people. In most places around the world most of the raw materials for concrete construction are readily available. The utilities and finishing isn't as time critical as having somewhere out of the elements to live in. THe roofs are typically prefab based on the floor plan. Pre-fab of entire parts of houses has been a thing for a long time. Many municipalities have restrictions against modular or manufactured housing though. And I believe they do have plans for multistory and more complex structures in the future.

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, Damascus said:

With what wood?  Most high risk areas are in deserts or scrublands, theres no wood in a barren sandy wasteland.

Why the hell would anyone live in a desert, there's little to no food there.

Seriously. Why do people insist on living in places where there is no food or water? If you're poor and don't have anything.... well you've got less to pack then don't you?

[Arenero14]

3 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Why the hell would anyone live in a desert, there's little to no food there.

Seriously. Why do people insist on living in places where there is no food or water? If you're poor and don't have anything.... well you've got less to pack then don't you?

What if some violent incident is keeping you away from the good places?

 

What if some warmonger is in control of the resources in your country?

 

What if you do not have the knowledge of a better place because you are uneducated or uncomunicated?

 

In my country a lot of farmers have no land because of common criminal and off-the-law armed groups.

 

In most cases, that place without resources is the OTHER place where people go.

[MrDynamicMan]

3D printed houses are very impractical. pre-fabbed cement or wood is cheaper. I really cant think of a situation where slowly 3d printing the house out of wet cement is cheaper and faster than gett 4 prefab cement walls and a roof. 

[Blackie Sheen]

2 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

3D printed houses are very impractical. pre-fabbed cement or wood is cheaper. I really cant think of a situation where slowly 3d printing the house out of wet cement is cheaper and faster than gett 4 prefab cement walls and a roof. 

The only thing I can think of is that it doesnt not require joint work between the walls

 

Edit: Also, probably shipping their 3d printer and raw material is easier than shipping prefabs walls on long distances

Edited March 13, 2018 by Blackie Sheen
Adding content

[Damascus]

9 hours ago, emosun said:

Yeah well then you ship the wood in


.... or you ship in a 3d printer , cement power , water , gas/fuel for the 3d printer to run on , and wood anyway because the 3d printer isn't going to print a cement roof....

What would be best is one of these, scaled up to build houses.  The roof would likely be corrugated plastic or steel as well, wood is never used as its faaar too expensive to ship, and impossible to replace once it's there.

8 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Why the hell would anyone live in a desert, there's little to no food there.

Seriously. Why do people insist on living in places where there is no food or water? If you're poor and don't have anything.... well you've got less to pack then don't you?

Frankly, the reason they live there is because their entire family tree did.  Besides, most people currently in need of housing probably grew up in an oasis but were pushed out due to war.

[Okjoek]

I like the idea. If only the problem of "stealing jobs" would stop getting in the way of technological advancement of our species. I hate the idea of everyone "needing a job" at this point in time. It's one of those things where I wish humanity could go back to simpler ways of existing without "land ownership" that forces homeless masses into dense population centers.

 

I digress though. I'm not entirely sure this is actually cheaper than previous forms of prefabrication.

[kokakolia]

14 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

This is actually a much better use of 3D Printing of "houses" than some of the stranger concepts that has been pushed in the modern world. It's also a good use of testing resources, as you can provide solid quality of life improvements to parts of the world that need them, while also building out your company's R&D. No complaints about cynical marketing here. 

You're improving the quality of life through a North American standard. And the North American lifestyle is not sustainable. People shouldn't own individual homes like these with lawns. Further, this lower density housing really encourages the use of cars through the inefficient use of space. So it would be no surprise that large corporations would promote such projects as that would open new markets for cars and other North American lifestyle products. We shouldn't be building individual homes anymore. High density housing, urban planning and culture should be considered moving forward. 

[AshleyAshes]

I'm mostly confused here.  3D printing is BAD at mass production.  It's great for prototyping and even short runs, but if you want to mass produce something, it's far more efficient to use larger tooled machinery to produce many identical parts.  It'd seem to be that it'd be much more efficient to mass produce homes out of prefabricated elements than to 'print' them.

[Jito463]

Next up, 3D printed people to live in the 3D printed homes!

[kokakolia]

58 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

I like the idea. If only the problem of "stealing jobs" would stop getting in the way of technological advancement of our species. I hate the idea of everyone "needing a job" at this point in time. It's one of those things where I wish humanity could go back to simpler ways of existing without "land ownership" that forces homeless masses into dense population centers.

 

I digress though. I'm not entirely sure this is actually cheaper than previous forms of prefabrication.

There are parts of the world where people live in simpler ways. These people most likely live in developing countries in "inadequate houses". Building such homes will drastically change their lifestyle into something more North American. But it is debatable whether they will be happier or not. 

[HalGameGuru]

better to have people living in deserts so arable land can be farmed. Even scrubland would be better for herding than living. Although many deserts can be brought back. As for sustainability there are plenty of ways to use houses like these in more densely populated areas. There are parts of Houston with population density akin to Manhattan, without the need of massive apartment blocks or hi-rises. Rather than houses with huge lawns I would see these being on a small footprint of land, with a central communal green space, and a communal road or transit connection. What this system allows is as needed construction that is low labor, hi speed, and efficient with raw materials.