SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A company called Apis Cor has 3D printed a (tiny) house in 24 hours for $10,000, which comes out to about $275/m2.
Reconstructing Buckingham Palace at 77,000 m2 this way would cost only about $21 million. According to a 2010 estimate in The Guardian: "you could build a new energy-efficient replica of the palace for a knock-down £320m", which translates to $552 million.
So: 3D printing the palace would save over a HALF BILLION DOLLARS! Muahahaha (pinkies up!).
Video of the building process.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
3D Printed House for Cheap in 24 Hours
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 47 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
TOO BAD YOU CAN'T BUY a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin
real fast and freak everybody out.
-- Jack Handey, The New Mexican, 1988.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24 2017, @06:13PM (9 children)
You know what this means? Revitalization on the grand scale!
Housing construction has become so stagnant that new homes offer very little in the way of innovation, and yet cost so much money (which, I suppose, is one of the reasons there's so little innovation—who has the resources to fuck around?).
The alternative is to buy an old house, which is undoubtedly shit, not only due to the poor standards of yore, but also due to the fact that most people are incorrigible slobs who have never heard of the word "maintain".
Cheaper building will allow the world to knock down the cruft that has taken over human society, and try something new and innovative in its place; architecture will once again be a worthy profession.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 24 2017, @09:01PM (4 children)
Old houses are almost invariably far better-built than new ones, as craftsmanship has gone down the toilet. However, technology is a lot better now, which makes up for the lousy craftsmanship for the most part.
The best thing to do is to buy an old house, then gut it mostly, and renovate extensively. The framing should be excellent, but the insulation and windows will be terrible on an old house, as will the plumbing and electric. Of course, this is highly laborious so it's usually cheaper to just demolish and build new.
Another thing that'd be great is to build a new steel-frame house from a builder that specializes in that, using a construction crew that's better than the incompetents that typical tract house builders use.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday April 24 2017, @09:26PM (3 children)
Builders cut corners.
They didn't used to, but maybe the time-money equation has become so important now that any minor saving is worth it.
Framing is only "to spec", as is plumbing and electrical installation, no better than legally required.
Electricians run line diagonally across joists (no one needs to get in a roof, so that isn't a tripping hazard!)
However, renovation is more expensive. The old house won't have the right layout, ripping walls out means additional supports (expensive, when the wall above is brick), and then you have to get "specialist" tradesmen, or your brickwork, plaste and fixtures won't match the "old" parts.
No one expects a house to last 20 years, let alone 100, so why over-engineer?
Mourn for loss of pride and quality (fridges, washing machines, houses...etc etc)
/rant /lament
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @08:20AM (2 children)
No one expects a house to last 20 years, let alone 100, so why over-engineer?
Wait what? My house is 140 years old and it's one of the newer ones in my area. What are you building your houses out of? Straw?
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday April 25 2017, @09:32AM (1 child)
most houses being built on estates in Australia (and likely, in many other places) are timber-framed, brick veneer, usually built after a knock-down of a house built sometime between 1922 and 1990. Massive building boom after WWI AND WWII, but mostly the WWI houses have already been extensively modified or demolished.
An 'old' house in some areas would be ~50 years old. Many new houses are being built after knocking down 1980's or 1990's houses.
modifying is more expensive, in most cases, than knock-down, rebuild. So, next person might live in your house, but the one after than will almost certainly be knocking it down.
Many 1930's houses are still in liveable, if not good, condition.
Many are ready for the bulldozer.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @01:40PM
Ah - ok. Not straw. Sticks ;)
Everything in Britain is built from bricks, and is built to last. And not even any big bad wolves here!
Houses in britain are sold as either freehold (normal, own the house) or leasehold (you own a mostly-rent-free right to live in the house for X years). X used to be about 99, but many people got upset at how short that was, so it's commonly 999 now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24 2017, @09:20PM (2 children)
Wood-frame housing stands up to earthquakes well when compared to other building methods.
I wonder if these folks have a formula for those of us on the Pacific Rim, considering the Magnitude 7 events that have pancaked [google.com] concrete structures [google.com] in these parts.
...and a configuration that will withstand the Magnitude 8 event that we get every 150 years or so (we're overdue) would be awesome.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday April 24 2017, @10:36PM
If a disaster were to hit San Francisco, I'd rather it be a lethal disease outbreak brought in by refugees and immigrants granted sanctuary by the city -- for it would be a shame if all that classic architecture were destroyed in a quake. The population not so much.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:28AM
Communities composed entirely of Styrofoam™ are already a reality in progressively minded Japan.
[...] models tested by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) did not merely meet earthquake standards; they remained fully intact after being shaken harder than the strongest earthquakes ever recorded.
-- https://www.nachi.org/styrofoam-homes.htm [nachi.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday April 25 2017, @06:21AM
Architecture got bad reputation because all too often they design houses that look like concrete boxes and is hostile to their inhabitants. Complete lack of reality connect (just like some other professions).