Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

All the justifiable questions and caveats about media inaccuracy aside, here is a story about an application of technology that could ease the suffering of billions of people by eradicating slums and housing shortages, which could eliminate the overcrowded disease-ridden refugee camps endured by those dispossessed by war or natural disaster, and which would make housing cheaper in general even in developed nations, and what are some of the first quotes and comments? Architects whinging about the "integrity" of their art, and people blithering on about the "character" of buildings being lost.

If there was a picture next to the encyclopedia entry for "first world problems", it would be of Amanda Levete. The level of vacant cretinry necessary to think your concerns about whether or not this potentially-millions-of-lives-saving 3D printed building technology will create structures with what you consider to be a sufficient level of pompous over-design should be even a minor consideration is staggering, let alone to make that your only contribution on the subject.

Building 10 houses in a day, that's pretty damn impressive feat, we should through heaps of money at it.

 Krellnus wrote:
Building 10 houses in a day, that's pretty damn impressive feat, we should through heaps of money at it.

I doubt anyone is stopping you or anyone else from throwing your heaps of money at it. And I suspect lots of investors will do so.

The tech is cool. I don't see the disaster relief aspect mentioned in the article as very practical, it will likely be easier and cheaper to bring in temp structures (tenting and CHU type) than to bring in the printer and materials needed to areas with shattered infrastructure to house the numbers of folks needed in the aftermath of a major disaster, but as part of a rebuilding effort once the crisis is handled these could be handy.

One thing I didn't like in the article:

He adds that 3D printing will encourage governments to build affordable homes because of savings in time and cost.

I personally do not see that as a government function and don't want to have to fork out tax dollars to support it. Other folks will obviously feel differently.

Actually, as long as they are cheap enough, it can be more affordable to provide low income housing than not.

I think producing good quality, well designed housing is a valid concern. There is plenty of evidence to show that poorly designed housing becomes slums and sink estates and does little . Housing that is well designed, creates good communities and works well enriches lives. Poor housing just makes the problem look better for 10 years until the rot sets in. Just look at what happened with the slum clearances in the 1930's. By the 1960s the tower blocks and garden cities were turning in to sink estates. We are seeing the same today with many social developments of the 90's and later.

 CptJake wrote:

He adds that 3D printing will encourage governments to build affordable homes because of savings in time and cost.

I personally do not see that as a government function and don't want to have to fork out tax dollars to support it. Other folks will obviously feel differently.

Depends. In the UK we have a massive problem with housing shortages. A major driver of that it the planning process that governs where houses can be built, and is massively weighted towards large builders doing the work and NIMBYS stopping development. As long as a government controls the housing market like this it has a responsibility to ensure enough supply is available. If they made it easier for small companies and individuals to build, then fine, but if you restrict the market in one way you need to manage it in another to stop run away prices and housing shortages.

 CptJake wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:
Building 10 houses in a day, that's pretty damn impressive feat, we should through heaps of money at it.

I doubt anyone is stopping you or anyone else from throwing your heaps of money at it. And I suspect lots of investors will do so.

The tech is cool. I don't see the disaster relief aspect mentioned in the article as very practical, it will likely be easier and cheaper to bring in temp structures (tenting and CHU type) than to bring in the printer and materials needed to areas with shattered infrastructure to house the numbers of folks needed in the aftermath of a major disaster, but as part of a rebuilding effort once the crisis is handled these could be handy.

One thing I didn't like in the article:

He adds that 3D printing will encourage governments to build affordable homes because of savings in time and cost.

I personally do not see that as a government function and don't want to have to fork out tax dollars to support it. Other folks will obviously feel differently.

Social housing is a question of efficiency. That may sound counter-intuitive to small-government/fiscal conservative types, but it is, because even the pretty extreme small government sorts consider protecting citizens from crime to be a core responsibility of government, and the simple fact is that societal health is like personal health in at least one major respect; prevention is better than cure. Social housing costs money yes, and it may rankle on an emotional level if you're into that whole "something for nothing" characterisation of social security as a concept, but it costs less money in the long run than dealing with all the consequences of having large numbers of people living in crappy inadequate slum housing or ending up homeless, which is what happens when you don't provide social housing.

The simple fact is we can't will those problems away, they have to be addressed, so the question becomes which option is better: "fork out tax dollars" to pay for social housing for people you have a poor opinion of; fork out an even larger amount of money to pay for the borderline-totalitarian police state that would be necessary to keep an impoverished populace in line; or live in a society filled with people driven to such extremes that crime becomes rampant? It seems pretty self-evident that the first option is the best, being that it costs the least and prevents most of the crime, but then for a lot of people "fiscal conservatism/responsibility" isn't really the issue, it's just a useful justification people use to cover a deeper feeling they can't/don't like to articulate that poverty is a moral failing and those so afflicted deserve punishment(that's a general comment, I don't know enough about your personal politics to judge).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Actually, as long as they are cheap enough, it can be more affordable to provide low income housing than not.

Its not cheaper.
There are already charities that specialize in building inexpensive one room housing in Africa. Three guys can put one up in a morning.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Actually, as long as they are cheap enough, it can be more affordable to provide low income housing than not.

Its not cheaper.
There are already charities that specialize in building inexpensive one room housing in Africa. Three guys can put one up in a morning.

It's cheaper than supporting a homeless person with no chance to get a job through out their entire life.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's cheaper than supporting a homeless person with no chance to get a job through out their entire life.

With my wholly anecdotal evidence from volunteering with the homeless, a great percentage of them are not homeless just because they don't have houses.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Actually, as long as they are cheap enough, it can be more affordable to provide low income housing than not.

Its not cheaper.
There are already charities that specialize in building inexpensive one room housing in Africa. Three guys can put one up in a morning.

It's cheaper than supporting a homeless person with no chance to get a job through out their entire life.

Its not cheaper than other building methods is what I am saying. Save your Portlandia tree hugging for somewhere else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's cheaper than supporting a homeless person with no chance to get a job through out their entire life.

With my wholly anecdotal evidence from volunteering with the homeless, a great percentage of them are not homeless just because they don't have houses.

true that.

I guess I've seen (in several countries) where structures end up gutted (all copper pipes/wiring, doors, windows, frames, plumbing fixtures and appliances and sometimes even non-load bearing framing) get removed and sold off, buildings end up being used as restrooms with human feces in every corner of every room, and the folks who allegedly were supposed to benefit from the housing are still shafted, as were the folks who paid for the structures to go up in the faith they would be helping those in need.

I've also seen that low income housing is just that, it gets populated by folks with zero upward mobility, basically cutting them off and isolating them further, and since they don't have the income to maintain the housing on their own it turns into the same slums folks are upset about. I've also seen examples (though obviously they are anecdotal evidence) where folks given something don't take care of it they way they would if they had to buy it on their own.

I also have seen 'urban renewal' projects that are nothing but schemes to enrich politically connected developers. That won't change because the tech used by the developers changes.

Now, there is a HUGE surge in urbanization around the globe, especially in coastal regions. The real problem is not housing (that is a symptom in my opinion) but lack of jobs/work for the people being crowded into these cities. Even if you could build huge apartment blocks and house them all, without ways for them to be productive and earn the $ needed for rent and to sustain their families those apartment blocks turn into slums. Better built slums, but still slums.

Are these structures just a shell or do they have integrated plumbing, electrical, and HVAC?

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Are these structures just a shell or do they have integrated plumbing, electrical, and HVAC?

I assume they are engineered to account for all that, though it may have to be installed separately (a printer using sand isn't going to put in wire or pvc) into channels/grooves cut/printed into the material. I'm sure as the tech improves you can add materials to the printer and it may be able to install pipe and even wiring as it goes through the print process, but your costs will increase. As it stands I would bet you could preconfigure sets for each design and have them dropped at each structure for a quick install of the plumbing/wiring. Ducts for HVAC could be built in the same way walls are, and ready to have the heat pump/condensers/whatever hooked up.

 Yodhrin wrote:
All the justifiable questions and caveats about media inaccuracy aside, here is a story about an application of technology that could ease the suffering of billions of people by eradicating slums and housing shortages, which could eliminate the overcrowded disease-ridden refugee camps endured by those dispossessed by war or natural disaster, and which would make housing cheaper in general even in developed nations, and what are some of the first quotes and comments? Architects whinging about the "integrity" of their art, and people blithering on about the "character" of buildings being lost.

If there was a picture next to the encyclopedia entry for "first world problems", it would be of Amanda Levete. The level of vacant cretinry necessary to think your concerns about whether or not this potentially-millions-of-lives-saving 3D printed building technology will create structures with what you consider to be a sufficient level of pompous over-design should be even a minor consideration is staggering, let alone to make that your only contribution on the subject.

So is this technology sustainable? Once the homes are made will the native population be able to maintain the structures, and carry out repairs?
Will the native people have the skills to operate these machines themselves, or will they be required to continually bring in outside assistance?
Will Less Economically Developed Countries have access to the machines, materials, and skills required to maintain this?
Do LEDCs have the infrastructure to support this work?

House Building - Solving the root cause of poverty, disease and poor education since never.

As a side note if enough homes for everyone were to spring up overnight here in the UK, the economy would collapse so fast it'll make Germanies inter war hyper inflation seem like a laugh a minute boom time.

 Yodhrin wrote:
All the justifiable questions and caveats about media inaccuracy aside, here is a story about an application of technology that could ease the suffering of billions of people by eradicating slums and housing shortages,

Can everyone so easily afford large scale 3d printers, and is the material is so much cheaper than bricks? Can communities fix broken machines as easily as a brick kiln or source the materials locally, let along process them to be printer compatible.
It is a deparate flight of fancy to assume that is is a solution to eradicate slums and remove housing shortages even if that only refer to the developed world, and not the billions that imply global distribution.

You might as well claim that 7th generation air superiority fighters are so advanced now they solve the worlds transport problems.

 Yodhrin wrote:

If there was a picture next to the encyclopedia entry for "first world problems", it would be of Amanda Levete.

Actually a good example of a first world problem will be villagers in sub-Saharan Africa trying to fix their 'local' house printer. Fixing that sort of tech is a first world problem indeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:


As a side note if enough homes for everyone were to spring up overnight here in the UK, the economy would collapse so fast it'll make Germanies inter war hyper inflation seem like a laugh a minute boom time.

Sadly that is also current Labour policy. Massive home building projects. What it actually means is extend social housing into Tory rural constituencies. The economic reality doesnt come into it.

You can make bricks from mud, straw, water, and sunlight. Show me a 3d printer more cost effective than the dirt from your back yard.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

As a side note if enough homes for everyone were to spring up overnight here in the UK, the economy would collapse so fast it'll make Germanies inter war hyper inflation seem like a laugh a minute boom time.

Which is a major issue, that our economic growth is far to reliant on house prices being inflated. What we do need is a proper program to increase stock to acceptable levels at such a rate that house prices are stable for a long period to allow inflation to raise wages to meet house prices. Rather than what we have at the moment, which is one side wanting to build tons of houses in inappropriate places (By which I mean far from jobs, not NIMBYism) and the other wanting nothing built for fear of someones house price not going up as fast as other places or losing a field they walk their dog in.

the materials these large 3d printers use is mostly construction waste CPTJAKE

as such, the usefulness in many disasters is quite large actually.

considering how often those "temporary tents" end up being permanent and the best people get, its a step up.

They are developing ones that actually use similar materials to what frazzled has above too.

 Frazzled wrote:
You can make bricks from mud, straw, water, and sunlight. Show me a 3d printer more cost effective than the dirt from your back yard.

To be fair, making/baking takes longer and you need someone with decent skills to build a stable/safe structure. If the story is accurate you can take one of these printers, insert it into a relatively austere environment (along with a flash drive containing the designs you want) and crank out relatively low cost structures pretty quickly. If nothing else, there is a military application to it. Picture being adding one of these to a 'FOB kit' and being able to use local materials to crank out buildings rather than have to ship in CHUs. It may (or may not) save on transport costs and manpower. It is worth looking at. Lift (sea or air) volume and tonnage needed to build up your combat power may be able to be more efficiently allocated. I think transport, storage and mixing of the binding material may be an issue but don't know enough about how these beasts will work.

 Orlanth wrote:


Sadly that is also current Labour policy. Massive home building projects. What it actually means is extend social housing into Tory rural constituencies. The economic reality doesnt come into it.

One of the major political hot potatoes (which has been invented) is what to do with greenbelt. and what it encompasses. I have seen developments of pretty rugged land which doesn't offer habitat to wildlife nor benefits the community as green space being protected like a bear protects its cubs. Ridiculous! The flip side is also that developers and councils will compulsory purchase existing property of existing home owners (For development purposes)but then offer a shared ownership of a new development. In London - cases have cropped up where CPO values are half what the value of the new shared property is - that is in no way a fair deal. and reflects the hunger for premier retail and investment space at the expense of homes.

 easysauce wrote:
the materials these large 3d printers use is mostly construction waste CPTJAKE

as such, the usefulness in many disasters is quite large actually.

considering how often those "temporary tents" end up being permanent and the best people get, its a step up.

They are developing ones that actually use similar materials to what frazzled has above too.

You have to move and process that waste, which means you're already having to insert and maintain heavy construction gear. You'll still need tents/temp structures.

 Krellnus wrote:
Building 10 houses in a day, that's pretty damn impressive feat, we should through heaps of money at it.

Those were Chinese houses, not necessarily what you expect over here. It was also a corporate test not a field result.

You could get a two competing companies of military Engineers to do a race in an African village to see who can make a row of decent sturdy African homes the fastest. This isnt of thing is fairly often done. There is a deal by which a company of the Royal Engineers does civic work in Kenya from time to time, and IIRC similar arangements in Sierra Leone.

However events like this do not normal housing production make. This was a corporate test in the corporations backyard with lots of local support.

You can however make s modern home in a very short space of time through tried and tested commercially avaialable techniques.

http://www.huf-haus.com/en/home.html

Huf haus have a fast build program which will build you a home in 2-4 days, from groundbreaking. Its not cheap. The entire house is modular and in pre-assembled parts.
That doesn't sound as impressive as ten houses in a day, but Huf Haus includes electricals etc, the showcase 'villa' does not.

Now Huf haus is known to me because I studied architecture at Uni long ago, there are very similar companies making modular prefabricated housing for the African market, and have or some time. Back at Uni we had an 'African section' which was a 2 year separate course in village architecture entirely based around design se of modular construction. All materials for the village would be provided. It was a criss between Ikea and Lego. These houses would not be acceptable living standards in the develop world on scale and cope, or anywhere outside the tropics on thermal resistance.

Damnit people, stop doing cool things with 3D printers before I get mine. I wanna be able to innovate too!


As for the topic, theoretically there really isn't a limit to what can be printed, so it doesn't really surprise me that houses have been figured out.

I'm not an economist or a construction worker, so I can't really comment on anything related to housing the poor (Other than I think it's a good idea).


Though I don't think anyone can say we aren't living in the future anymore....

 Mr. Burning wrote:
reflects the hunger for premier retail and investment space at the expense of homes.

I think that is a major problem.

Two things that annoy me:

One the number of retail parks and warehouse estates that pop up which could accommodate thousands of houses, with little to no complaint, and houses not being buit in the same area.
Two, the attempts to block the use of town centers for housing. There was an attempt not long ago to make change of use from retail to domestic. It got all sorts of complaints about "hollowing out out town centers". IMO it would do the opposite. It would return our towns to living communities, with places to eat, buy food, and spend time, and remove the shops that have only been there for the past 30-40 years, the shops filling our lives with stuff that never existed in the past, and stuff we can get online now. I think getting un-used shops transformed in to houses will revitalize towns across the UK and return them to what they should be, communities, rather than soulless temples to consumerism. But this won't happen as people seem to have this idea that at some point in the past all town centers were full of vibrant shops and no houses.

One thing I will say, is depending on how they are building it (I assume it's a solid plastic piece with how fast they can make them), is it also helps cut down deforestation issues due to no longer needing wood for buildings.

This stuff reminds me of old Russian prefab apartment buildings. Most houses in usa are wood anyway.

So...in order to get jobless people houses, you want tens of thousands of people to lose their job? Sounds right.

 Frazzled wrote:
You can make bricks from mud, straw, water, and sunlight. Show me a 3d printer more cost effective than the dirt from your back yard.

A lack on a house isn't why people are always homeless, a slum is a house, not a good one.
I'm sick or people thinking on thing will fix the problems if the we patch the problem, poverty isn't going away if you give the poor money.

 CptJake wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
the materials these large 3d printers use is mostly construction waste CPTJAKE

as such, the usefulness in many disasters is quite large actually.

considering how often those "temporary tents" end up being permanent and the best people get, its a step up.

They are developing ones that actually use similar materials to what frazzled has above too.

You have to move and process that waste, which means you're already having to insert and maintain heavy construction gear. You'll still need tents/temp structures.

Temporary tents require foldable cloth, printable houses require large volumes of goop.
For disaster relief a mixture of tents plus prefab containers is best, with the containers being an instant deployment of facilities like washing cooking and toilet facilities to back up a lot of large tents filled with bunk beds.

You can house a large displaced population quickly by this means.


You can possibly in the future have the Chinese come and build some 3d printed houses in Africa, it smacks of neo-colonialism though as Africans wont be able to build them, and even at the 'impressive' rate of the houses a day we are talking about processed goop house stacks. Power, lighting, water and waste facilities will be separate and also tied in if available at all.
This is not an answer to slums, its a way of making 3rd world slums outsources to the planning control of Chinese investors/bakers/masters.

This isn't a solution to third world housing needs, it's an enabler for further problems in the third world. Its economic colonialism though advanced technology an African client state has no hope in duplicating.