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) 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.