We last looked at 3D-printed buildings about three years ago. At the time, the technology was still nascent. Although there was a lot of enthusiasm, many efforts were academic, with little commercial deployment, and practitioners were experimenting with a wide range of approaches.
I attended the SXSW ICON event and know a few folks over there and I think this is a fair characterization of their progress thusfar. I was surprised to learn that their printer (at least the gantry version) is capable of doing horizontal reinforcement. They seemed to gloss over this in the presentation but it seemed big to me. However, for vertical reinforcement they are still printing pockets for a laborer to slot the rebar into, and then filling the pocket.
On the construction costs side, I think they vastly understate the gains from specialization and streamlined processes that have come from the standardization of the conventional American house building process. Trades like electrical, plumbing, painting, HVAC, and framed fixtures like widows seem like they could get easily double in labor costs, considering most tradesmen and contractors will be unfamiliar with the new wall system and might struggle to work around it's constraints.
I was also a bit disappointed to see that their home designer Vitruvius can't match up floorplans to concept/tour photos, although it seemed to be something people were quite positive about despite this. I'm most excited for the design marketplace and their plan to offer commissions (no indication how significant this might be yet) to home designers for every house printed.
The CEO seemed to want to push people to live more remotely in these types of printed communities, which seemed a bit like a cope one might resort to so as to avoid acknowledging that none of this tech addresses land cost, which is the real root of the housing crisis.
Overall positive outlook, but deserves a few grains of salt.
I'm a 3d printing enthusiast with a background in home construction. Finally, a subject which I might have something somewhat intelligent to say!
It's pretty amazing what kind of overhang angles you can get with traditional FDM 3d printing, but it's dependent on a lot of variables that require tweaking to get just right. The traditional rule of thumb is 45 degrees, but there's techniques that can get you 90 degrees! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjGeBYOPmHA just one example technique) I wouldn't be surprised if with the right setup that you could 3d print a 6/12 or possibly a 4/12 roof. It would likely have a pretty ugly underside at those low angles.
There is definitely a place for printed homes, just like other prefabricated solutions. The hype, however, is unjustified.
I have similar concerns that apply to both prefabricated and printed structures. Because of the large amount of resources required, buildings of all types should be as long-lasting as possible. What is often forgotten in this space is that in order to achieve longevity, buildings must be adaptable to changing usage patterns. The greatest advantage that traditional construction has is that you can cost-effectively add to or update traditional structures several times over their useful lifespan without compromising structural integrity. But when it comes to prefabricated structures or printed ones, the design criteria are exceedingly rigid for that initial use case. And if one goes in to make changes, that will require a pretty in-depth engineering analysis of what is feasible, much more involved than a traditional model. And likely to be completely impractical at the end of the day.
It seemed strange that we are using 3D printing to make relatively simple modernist buildings. You'd imagine the new technology would enable the return of ornamentation heavy construction that was more commonplace before the 20th century. That would be especially appealing to Hindu Americans living in California.
The problem, at least in many rich countries, is not the price of building housing, but restrictive zoning and expensive land. It is definitely great to hear that there is still lots of innovation in construction, but it won't solve any housing crises (not that they claim it would).
Brian's post that breaks down housing costs (immediately prior to this one) is a summation of why Icon will ultimately fail. Builders "solved" the efficiency problem of structural systems for small scale buildings with stick framing by the 1850's. Cast in place concrete is also pretty impressive. Icon's technology might have some spillover applications someday, but I doubt manufacturers of dimensional lumber are losing sleep over this construction method.
I'll be interested to see how these concrete structures hold up to the notorious clay soil in Texas. Are they going to do the typical concrete thing and crack all over the place once settling and shifting occurs due to the underlying soil? Is the roof rated to last the lifetime of the house as well? I imagine repairing the roof on one of these buildings is a massive expense relative to traditional roofs.
If these buildings prove sturdier than wood-framed structures over time across a variety of environments, then long-term operational and maintenance costs are an additional advantage (notwithstanding Patrick's point about adaptability to structural changes). It sounds like they are already better insulators for climate control than wooden structures, which means lower energy costs.
And just some other questions I had when looking at these houses:
1. Is everything that is anchored to the walls done with masonry anchors? Are any adjustments or hardware needed to deal with the ridged wall surfaces?
2. How is wifi signal in a structure where all of the walls are concrete? Concrete tends to block signals pretty badly, meaning you'll either need to go back to lots of wired connections or have wifi repeaters and/or access points all over the place.
3. How are exterior walls waterproofed?
4. What are the limits on the size, particularly height, for buildings constructed this way? I know there were plans to 3D print a skyscraper in Dubai, but that project looks to be DOA. If this process becomes common but is only economical for single-family homes, I could see a future where apartment, condo, and office interior finishing practices diverge quite a bit from single-family home construction since the former is still done using traditional stud wall building methods. Thus economies of scale for materials and labor gets "cut in half" to some extent.
Very interesting. I’m 40 yrs in the trade in NY and I can vouch that here $/sf for traditional homes is about $400/sf. Also RS means costs are natl average: one needs to factor by location. Good luck with the 3d kit house.
Interesting. I think labor will continue to get more expensive, so they don't need to come done that much in price. As long as the order of magnitude in cost is correct, they have a very good chance of being successful. When prices are close bet on automation.
I attended the SXSW ICON event and know a few folks over there and I think this is a fair characterization of their progress thusfar. I was surprised to learn that their printer (at least the gantry version) is capable of doing horizontal reinforcement. They seemed to gloss over this in the presentation but it seemed big to me. However, for vertical reinforcement they are still printing pockets for a laborer to slot the rebar into, and then filling the pocket.
On the construction costs side, I think they vastly understate the gains from specialization and streamlined processes that have come from the standardization of the conventional American house building process. Trades like electrical, plumbing, painting, HVAC, and framed fixtures like widows seem like they could get easily double in labor costs, considering most tradesmen and contractors will be unfamiliar with the new wall system and might struggle to work around it's constraints.
I was also a bit disappointed to see that their home designer Vitruvius can't match up floorplans to concept/tour photos, although it seemed to be something people were quite positive about despite this. I'm most excited for the design marketplace and their plan to offer commissions (no indication how significant this might be yet) to home designers for every house printed.
The CEO seemed to want to push people to live more remotely in these types of printed communities, which seemed a bit like a cope one might resort to so as to avoid acknowledging that none of this tech addresses land cost, which is the real root of the housing crisis.
Overall positive outlook, but deserves a few grains of salt.
I'm a 3d printing enthusiast with a background in home construction. Finally, a subject which I might have something somewhat intelligent to say!
It's pretty amazing what kind of overhang angles you can get with traditional FDM 3d printing, but it's dependent on a lot of variables that require tweaking to get just right. The traditional rule of thumb is 45 degrees, but there's techniques that can get you 90 degrees! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjGeBYOPmHA just one example technique) I wouldn't be surprised if with the right setup that you could 3d print a 6/12 or possibly a 4/12 roof. It would likely have a pretty ugly underside at those low angles.
Good analysis
There is definitely a place for printed homes, just like other prefabricated solutions. The hype, however, is unjustified.
I have similar concerns that apply to both prefabricated and printed structures. Because of the large amount of resources required, buildings of all types should be as long-lasting as possible. What is often forgotten in this space is that in order to achieve longevity, buildings must be adaptable to changing usage patterns. The greatest advantage that traditional construction has is that you can cost-effectively add to or update traditional structures several times over their useful lifespan without compromising structural integrity. But when it comes to prefabricated structures or printed ones, the design criteria are exceedingly rigid for that initial use case. And if one goes in to make changes, that will require a pretty in-depth engineering analysis of what is feasible, much more involved than a traditional model. And likely to be completely impractical at the end of the day.
It seemed strange that we are using 3D printing to make relatively simple modernist buildings. You'd imagine the new technology would enable the return of ornamentation heavy construction that was more commonplace before the 20th century. That would be especially appealing to Hindu Americans living in California.
The problem, at least in many rich countries, is not the price of building housing, but restrictive zoning and expensive land. It is definitely great to hear that there is still lots of innovation in construction, but it won't solve any housing crises (not that they claim it would).
Brian's post that breaks down housing costs (immediately prior to this one) is a summation of why Icon will ultimately fail. Builders "solved" the efficiency problem of structural systems for small scale buildings with stick framing by the 1850's. Cast in place concrete is also pretty impressive. Icon's technology might have some spillover applications someday, but I doubt manufacturers of dimensional lumber are losing sleep over this construction method.
I'll be interested to see how these concrete structures hold up to the notorious clay soil in Texas. Are they going to do the typical concrete thing and crack all over the place once settling and shifting occurs due to the underlying soil? Is the roof rated to last the lifetime of the house as well? I imagine repairing the roof on one of these buildings is a massive expense relative to traditional roofs.
If these buildings prove sturdier than wood-framed structures over time across a variety of environments, then long-term operational and maintenance costs are an additional advantage (notwithstanding Patrick's point about adaptability to structural changes). It sounds like they are already better insulators for climate control than wooden structures, which means lower energy costs.
And just some other questions I had when looking at these houses:
1. Is everything that is anchored to the walls done with masonry anchors? Are any adjustments or hardware needed to deal with the ridged wall surfaces?
2. How is wifi signal in a structure where all of the walls are concrete? Concrete tends to block signals pretty badly, meaning you'll either need to go back to lots of wired connections or have wifi repeaters and/or access points all over the place.
3. How are exterior walls waterproofed?
4. What are the limits on the size, particularly height, for buildings constructed this way? I know there were plans to 3D print a skyscraper in Dubai, but that project looks to be DOA. If this process becomes common but is only economical for single-family homes, I could see a future where apartment, condo, and office interior finishing practices diverge quite a bit from single-family home construction since the former is still done using traditional stud wall building methods. Thus economies of scale for materials and labor gets "cut in half" to some extent.
Still seems like technology trying to find a reason for it's existence rather than technology that was developed from the ground up for a purpose.
Very interesting. I’m 40 yrs in the trade in NY and I can vouch that here $/sf for traditional homes is about $400/sf. Also RS means costs are natl average: one needs to factor by location. Good luck with the 3d kit house.
Interesting. I think labor will continue to get more expensive, so they don't need to come done that much in price. As long as the order of magnitude in cost is correct, they have a very good chance of being successful. When prices are close bet on automation.
Nice post. Check out Danish company COBOD for an alternative take on 3D-printing homes.