Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LoudTsu t1_j42l3go wrote

Surely this will make housing more affordable. Just kidding.

168

GodzlIIa t1_j42laoi wrote

If its not cheaper is it at least faster?

53

LoudTsu t1_j42lf3e wrote

Oh it's cheaper. Don't know about faster.

60

OozeNAahz t1_j42lvlt wrote

From what I have seen they price similar to normally built homes. So may be cheaper to produce than traditional but don’t know it saves buyers money yet.

46

Ok-disaster2022 t1_j43x215 wrote

Well it's concrete walled construction. If it sells for the same price per square foot as stick framing it's something of a bargain. Concrete can be better insulated and structurally stronger, though it comes down to methods and builders. The downside is concrete will reduce EM penetration and reduce the range of cell and wifi reception. Proper planning would be needed to ameliorate the issue.

22

LayWhere t1_j45schr wrote

Considering the insulation in a typical timber frame house has an R value of 5-6 and a 200mm concrete wall has an R value of 0.3 you're looking at 16x more insulation in a regular house.

5

[deleted] t1_j43sedw wrote

[deleted]

3

OozeNAahz t1_j43w39f wrote

Housing costs are through the roof right now. So more affordable housing is very desirable. And lower prices because of cheaper manufacturing is usually an outcome you see with these sort of changes.

8

[deleted] t1_j4485g4 wrote

[deleted]

0

OozeNAahz t1_j44pju5 wrote

Not always. You can get folks that realize they can leverage an advantage based on their efficiency to make a lot more by producing at a discount but at greater volume which tends to put a whole lot of pressure on their competition. Whole lot of ways those sort of economics can play out. And no reason that the model that has always occurred for housing stays the same with improved tech.

3

PineappleLemur t1_j45in06 wrote

They're not affordable for other reasons.. construction materials price rise is a small part of it.

Demend is through the roof the building takes time.. people are willing to pay a lot more than it's "worth" and then there's corporations that will buy for renting and they do massive buys.

0

kurotech t1_j461mw4 wrote

It's just concrete and a robot the concrete is like 5k the robot 100k but it could be moved they will still sell these places for 500k and call it a day

0

mycleverusername t1_j42rpm3 wrote

Why would this be cheaper? From what I understand, they 3d print the walls, then you have to go back in and fur out and drywall all the interior walls so you can install insulation, plumbing and electrical.

So where's the savings? You are just replacing the exterior siding and finish, the rest of the house is the same as building it traditionally. Seems like this would be more expensive.

6

Ok-disaster2022 t1_j43xo2x wrote

The Concrete isn't just siding, it's structural. So depending on the roof design the interior space can be entirely changeable with no interior structural walls. Also concrete is more resistant to wind damage. If you see a single home standing while all the neighbors are flattened, it's probably a concrete home or has other significant structural improvements.

My statement is a lot of ifs though. However single family homes aren't the optimal method for affordable housing or effective infrstructructual and city planning. Multifamily construction can be far more energy and resource efficient, if designed and implemented correctly.

5

mycleverusername t1_j46wdz6 wrote

Yes, but what I'm saying is that per the building code, you need insulation. You also need electrical (but obviously that can be face-mounted). Perhaps some of the interior walls can be painted concrete, but the exterior walls will all have to be studded and drywalled (in most areas). Those studs can also be structural. So you are basically installing 2 structural walls instead of one.

All of the "savings" that these houses claim to have can easily be done with standard, current construction practices; you just need the lead time and planning to do it. Which is exactly why no one does it.

1

Schnort t1_j4olga5 wrote

You don’t need interior walls because the exterior walls aren’t strong enough.

You need interior walls because the joists aren’t stiff enough to support the ceiling and the exterior walls need something to keep them from bulging/falling outward as the weight of the roof transfers to them.

1

Maxamillion-X72 t1_j44v807 wrote

There are spaces within the concrete walls for insulation and utilities. They may not drywall the inside. Parge coat it and spray it with a concrete sealer, then either paint or install prefab panels, tiles, stone veneer, shiplap, etc.

0

mycleverusername t1_j46uwon wrote

No, those spaces have rebar in them and will be filled with concrete. Otherwise the structure would have no lateral strength at all.

0

King_Tamino t1_j45zqu2 wrote

And longer lasting?

Even if not. Still seeing a lot potential since it allows to minimize wasted space and allows to easily lay pipes etc. for cables and so on.

0

thebannanaman t1_j4529op wrote

It is neither. This thing is not building a house. Building a house is a many stepped process this is only replacing the framing step. There is still wiring, plumbing, finishing, glazing, and many other expensive specialty trades this thing is not capable of doing yet.

4

HandsyBread t1_j4567a4 wrote

I have major doubts about it being faster. Concrete forms for a standard house can be set up in a few hours with a small crew of 5-10 people. And with a line of concrete trucks it can take a few hours to pour the walls, the forms are usually removed the following day, and the walls are useable immediately. From start to finish poured walls can take 1-2 days to set up and pour.

The article says it will take 330 hours to print this house, which is way more time then it would take to set up forms and pour concrete walls.

2

speedypotatoo t1_j435cwd wrote

i mean, it looks like a total of 4 people to manage the whole thing, 330 hours to print is really great. Houses usually take a year to build

−8

AlienPrimate t1_j43iahh wrote

An average house does not take a year to build. Assuming the video was talking about all levels, a 4000 sqft would take a 4 man crew about 3-5 weeks to go from foundation to siding and shingles. What the concrete frame of a house doesn't account for is the need for a cavity for utilities to go through. Someone still has to go through the interior and frame with wood to allow for plumbing, electrical, and hvac. A smaller simple house can be done even quicker. My brother's house with a main level of about 1700 sqft was started on a Monday and painted the following Saturday with driveway, patio, and sidewalk all poured.

3

Schnort t1_j4olt4i wrote

You’re comparing apples to oranges.

This is 330 hours to print the walls, which is comparable to the framing stage in traditional building, which is only a week or so.

1

Lilpops13 t1_j46ia34 wrote

They’ll find a way to call it luxery housing

1