SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Monday April 24 2017, @06:15PM (9 children)
Small houses like described in the article are relatively simple since the entire house can be built one layer at a time, and can be contained within the printer housing, just like conventional 3d printers.
What I want to know is what happens when you want to build a house that is too big to fit inside the printer. Most people with enough land to build a house are going to want something larger than 38m^2. That's basically just a really big hut.
I personally wouldn't be happy in a house less than 100m^2. I like a little distance between the area where I cook and where I poop.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24 2017, @06:23PM (6 children)
Yeah, that thing looks tiny. I'm certain I've seen tents bigger than that.
Made we wonder if the ideal medium for these printers is terrafoam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24 2017, @06:30PM
Do I smell Manna?
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Monday April 24 2017, @06:35PM (4 children)
The size is a little small, but I don't honestly think it's horrible. It's 38 square meters according to the website, which is about 400 square feet. I have roughly twice that in my current townhouse that I share with my girlfriend. I don't have a ton of stuff, but I probably could fit into it if I was single. Stack two of these on top of each other with stairs or side by side with some sort of hallway and you should have a reasonably livable space for a couple or small family even.
Plus I think they look cool.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24 2017, @06:45PM (1 child)
>girlfriend
iTriggered.
>400 square feet
Land tax not affordable under UBI. Tube living recommended.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24 2017, @06:51PM
Girlfriend? Tube living? I live under a bridge and my girlfriend is a radio personality on a billboard. I've never heard her voice because I don't have a radio.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DECbot on Monday April 24 2017, @08:08PM (1 child)
When $kids >= 2, you'll start looking for houses over 2000 ft² (185 m²). Each kid needs about 250 ft² that is non-overlapping with the other kids' territories to keep the screaming to a minimum. And you need the additional 1500 ft² for the feeding facilities, hygiene enforcement rooms, exercise room with audio-visual stimulus box (preferably you'll have two of these rooms to avoid arguments of what is playing on said stimulus box), and housing for the onsite parental units. The alternative is typically high-density child housing paired with free-range child rearing. Yet, in today's atmosphere of nosy helicopter parent neighbors, that will likely result in interference from the local federal enforcement agency.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 24 2017, @09:06PM
These alternatives are too unattainable or undesirable for much of the population now.
"Child-free" rearing, as you say, will likely get you in trouble with CPS if not actual jail time like the guy in LA recently who was convicted of child endangerment and imprisoned for making his kid walk 1 mile home as a punishment.
Having a proper amount of space inside to avoid the legal problems will cost at least $1M in a desirable area (one where you can get a job).
The answer is simple: don't have kids. Our society actively punishes you for having kids, so the simple solution is to just not have any. Eventually, this problem will correct itself.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday April 25 2017, @09:35AM (1 child)
I wonder if you could make a bunch of these in close proximity and link them together to make a larger house. And I'm certain you can make them in a variety of shapes, or make part, then move the printer, and make more, to get an overall larger structure. This is how much they made in a day. Give them a week and I'm sure they can build something far more substantial.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday April 25 2017, @01:23PM
You could probably even coordinate multiple adjacent arms working simultaneously so that the walls all went up at the same speed and there would be no "intersection issues" where the support arm printing the base of section 2 needs to pass through the space already occupied by the upper portions of section 1.