SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A startup is 3D printing houses in under a day at a cost of about $10,000 each, and hopes to get it down to $4,000 each:
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. The company has partnered with New Story, a nonprofit that is vested in international housing solutions. "We have been building homes for communities in Haiti, El Salvador, and Bolivia," Alexandria Lafci, co-founder of New Story, tells The Verge.
[...] Using the Vulcan printer, ICON can print an entire home for $10,000 and plans to bring costs down to $4,000 per house. "It's much cheaper than the typical American home," Ballard says. It's capable of printing a home that's 800 square feet, a significantly bigger structure than properties pushed by the tiny home movement, which top out at about 400 square feet. In contrast, the average New York apartment is about 866 square feet.
The model has a living room, bedroom, bathroom, and a curved porch. "There are a few other companies that have printed homes and structures," Ballard says. "But they are printed in a warehouse, or they look like Yoda huts. For this venture to succeed, they have to be the best houses." The use of cement as a common material will help normalize the process for potential tenants that question the sturdiness of the structure. "I think if we were printing in plastic we would encounter some issues."
Also at Fortune, Wired, and BGR.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @11:05PM (16 children)
The actual cost of construction is generally not a problem.
The attitude of society and the conflicting interests of the government
are a problem. Case in point: Brazil's favelas. They've actually spent
money attempting to remove and relocate people who built affordable
housing for themselves. Note that as a general rule, favela dwellings
are multiple stories because it's an efficient way to house people in a dense
area. You generally won't find poor people building single-story unless
it's in the country. I can almost guarantee you that their greatest concern
isn't the cost of construction. Poor people all over the world build remarkably
sturdy structures. They may not be as good as code construction, but if
it's a choice between the street and substandard housing, you'll pick sub-standard
every time.
IMHO, if you want to house the poor you're better off lobbying for
alternative building codes and alternative ways to provide services (e.g., public
bath rooms and showers rather than trying to put modern plumbing
in every house).
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @11:21PM (8 children)
Let's translate:
Because poor people, by virtue of being poor, aren't worth as much as real humans. As such, they are undeserving of such things as proper building codes, private bathrooms and the like. Amirite?
Let's go farther and not allow them to have kitchens either. That would obviate the need for running water in their homes at all. As long as their is a McDonald's they'll be fine.
Since they're subhuman due to their lack of financial resources, they aren't entitled to decent housing. Or schools. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to participate in the political process.
The real problem is that you can't just kill them all en masse, thus resolving the issue once and for all. Fucking bleeding hearts make me sick!
=====
Does that just about cover it, other AC?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 16 2018, @11:51PM (2 children)
I'm actually somewhat in favor of reduced building code requirements for affordable housing, it's better than no building codes at all.
If you want to live in a district that has communal bathrooms, that's a personal choice - maybe you're saving your money for your multi-billion startup idea and you don't want to waste any of your investment stake on un-necessary things like running water in your apartment. Personally, I think the insulation requirements for new construction in Florida should be relaxed for non-airconditioned space, and that a bedroom should have the option to be built as non-airconditioned space.
What shouldn't be allowed are low-capital cost structures that raise overall cost of living. For example: open sewage in the streets - cost to install? $1.50 for a bucket. Cost to maintain? Hundreds of thousands to treat cholera outbreaks, etc. Better to require actual sanitary sewer accessibility and use, Europeans used the bathroom at the end of the hall for a hundred years, and Americans had outhouses around the same time - that's much lower cost than private and indoor plumbing, and can still be reasonably sanitary.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @12:24AM (1 child)
So you agree with AC then? The poor are undeserving (due to being poor) and should have to use technology we abandoned 100 years ago. Does that belief extend to antibiotics and use of electronic devices too?
How magnanimous of you. Congratulations! If I knew who you were, I'd nominate you for a Nobel prize!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @08:15AM
Does the dead chicken count?
I was told I was to be awarded the "pullet surprise".
Never believe what you hear. Wasn't quite what I expected. Get it in writing.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:49AM (3 children)
You seem to be a little confused about what building codes are. They are a set of unfunded mandates and prohibitions. A building code might say "plywood used as exterior sheathing shall be of 3/8" or greater thickness." That doesn't mean that poor people are entitled to 3/8" plywood. It means that were they to attempt building with 1/4" plywood they would be hassled by The Man.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @09:05AM
What it more likely means is that developers building for undeserving (poor) people would be more likely to use shoddier components than when they build for the deserving (well off) people.
While some people do build their own homes with their own hands, that's a minor exception rather than the rule.
Relaxing building codes in this fashion would similar to increasing allowable heavy metals (lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, etc.) in the food and water of poor folks, but retaining the lower allowable levels for wealthier ones. The argument being that we can give these folks more of what they need, we just need to do it cheaper -- and if that's more dangerous for them, that's just too bad, they're poor people after all. They don't really deserve to be treated like real humans.
And as long as it doesn't directly impact you, that's perfectly fine isn't it?
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:57PM (1 child)
Maybe you are being sarcastic. But in our area, during the last residential building boom, builders would set up a new corp, build a bunch of houses using cheap/shoddy methods, sell the houses to people who can't see inside the walls, then dissolve the corp and disappear. rinse and repeat.
The homeowners have no recourse when their new house starts falling apart after a year or two because there are gaps behind the siding, etc.
So there is no practical market-based recourse to fix this.
Sometimes, the only/best way is to have regulations and inspectors to make sure something is done properly as the general public doesn't have a practical way to independently do so.
Sure, some codes and regulations can be bad: but having none is almost always worse once people start trying to make money off of a thing.
Free/unregulated internet good: ISP's inserting ads into your feed: bad.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Saturday March 17 2018, @09:02PM
You and AC are both arguing against strawmen while missing the point. I didn't see anyone in the thread suggest that regulations relating to basic safety should be removed altogether. The question here is how overly extravagent building codes can help poor people who are living in cardboard boxes because they can't afford to live in any kind of legit, bureaucrat-approved house.
Your story about shady builders is missing some key information. Did they build houses which failed to meet existing codes, in which case the problem was simple fraud on their part, the local government failing to enforce the codes, and the buyers overpaying due to an assumption that codes had been followed? Or are you trying to say that there were no regulations in effect and the houses were sold without any guarantees? I find that doubtful, based on your description of the legal ninjitsu that these builders apparently felt the need to employ. But even so, I don't know what recourse you expect the buyers to have in this case. If you buy a $100 car AS-IS, don't expect the seller to come fix it for you when it breaks down.
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Saturday March 17 2018, @01:19PM
You have two ugly choices: add building code requirements that some people can't afford to meet, or provide degrading and likely to be dirty or dangerous communal bathrooms and kitchens. The former is not automatically the right answer, because if someone can't afford a house that meets building codes they'll be homeless without communal bathrooms and without communal kitchens.
Don't get me wrong. I want everyone to have a safe home with its own plumbing, electricity, cooking areas, and internet access. But how do you take these third world towns with hundreds of thousands of residents from where they are now to where everyone with a conscience wants them to be?
Maybe the grandparent post author is just a jerk, but I'm assuming that person is thinking of the same dilemma that I am.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 16 2018, @11:44PM
My understanding of the favelas in Rio is that they are not up to any particular standard, somewhat hazardous to the occupants, not very sanitary, etc. So, if you're o.k. living without effective protection from insects, exposed to your neighbor's sewage, and subject to potential collapse at any time... sure, favelas are fine.
One of the problems with favelas in a metro area like Rio is provision of services, like running water, fire protection, police protection, reliable and safe electricity, and even personal transit in and out can take a long time every day. Due to this, if you are going to send an ambulance in to help a person in need, it's going to be more costly and less effective than the same service delivered to a district with better road access. So, do you raise taxes on the favelas to a higher rate to reflect the cost of services? Not likely.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Saturday March 17 2018, @12:07AM (4 children)
Residential construction has fallen very badly behind, and been bloated with a ton of crap. Look at the world of difference between residential and commercial. Tiltwall, in which concrete panels are made beforehand, trucked in, and installed by placing flat with the base at the final location, then tilted up, has been used in commercial construction for decades. It works. But the public still thinks that and other methods of building "manufactured homes" are cheap and shoddy.
Further, need cranes for tiltwall, and often city ordinances forbid the use of cranes in residential zones. Cities tend to have many ordinances that keep residential manufacturing static, for political reasons. Like, the plumber's union of one city I know made sure that only metal pipes could be used in housing, no PVC allowed. They're just one of many entrenched interests who benefit from such restrictions. Wouldn't surprise me if a bricklaying organization supported the ban on cranes, if indeed they aren't the driving force behind it. Rooftop solar is another that's run afoul of city ordinances, but there, cities have had to loosen up. Cities can be incredibly controlling and fascist. Think oppressive Home Owners Association, just on a larger scale. What many do is work around the restrictions by simply building outside city limits.
On the other hand, builders are cheap bastards who will cut every corner they're allowed, even if that means the house is a fire trap waiting for one spark. For instance, wooden shingles was a very brief fad that ended when they were responsible for entire apartment complexes and neighborhoods going up in flames because one house caught fire. Another common mistake is building in an area subject to flooding or severe erosion. But hey, cheap land, you know? I would never move into a house below a dam or in a floodplain, but so many people are completely oblivious to such considerations.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday March 17 2018, @12:13AM (1 child)
https://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/Who-exactly-will-stricter-floodplain-development-12750913.php [chron.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday March 17 2018, @12:32AM
In England upper classes live on the top of the hill, middle on the slopes, and low on the river banks. How come waterfronts are so trendy?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday March 17 2018, @01:26PM
You mean it has fallen behind the rate of intake of immigrants needing housing. If the West stopped taking in immigrants, it would not need to be spending half its effort on building more housing and infrastructure. Oh, of course, the immigrants are needed to build that infrastrucure to accommodate more immigrants to build more infrastructure to accommodate more immigrants to build ........
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:29PM
Not just city. In Florida, The Sunshine State, the electric power
monopolyservice provider is lobbying hard to try to keep solar power generation in their ownership, instead of letting it out to the residents of the state.🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday March 17 2018, @01:19PM
Translation :- built affordable housing for themselves --->> built shanties