I think maybe you've confused the meanings of the words "worth" and "cost." If this is worth nothing then it is worthless garbage but it isn't so it's not worth $0. Title is dumb af. Also it won't cost $0 either as the building materials may be free but the equipment use and power and labor and land aren't.
The machine isn't free that's for sure. And I'm trying to figure out how they're hauling several tons of materials for free. And. The holes they are making for each structure. Not to mention there are areas of the world where seismic events occur and even though they have shapes that are supposedly resistant to those events, there doesn't seem to be alot of reinforcement in the walls to stand up to a big earthquake. I think the technology is really great. But these things and the title are overplaying their hands. And though some environmental "experts" love the idea, there are other "experts" who will do everything possible to stop these projects because of all the material that needs to be acquired. Several dozen structures are going to need alot of material.
Worse cost doesn't matter to worth. A house is worth $0 if and only if no-one would ever pay anything to live in it. (Or use it.) That's true if it's free to build, and that's true if it costs $1,000,000,000 per square foot to build. The only connection between cost and worth is that the builder of the latter is more insane than the builder of the former
I work with 3D printing and I really like what WASP does, but such click bait videos like this, which completely falsely claim that this type of building costs $ 0, do a lot of damage to the industry. A dislike from me
I stopped disliking clickbait after I learned that RUclips does not weigh positive or negative feedback but treats them the same as basic interaction video, so disliking several hundred times over actually aids in promoting the clickbait video. Very strange how the RUclips algorithmic works.
Honestly, considering the texture of the pour, I think it would be more advantageous to use the giant XYZ frames to form precision molds for casting large interlocking pieces off site. That would spare the head-ache of set-up and worry about perfect pour consistency while still taking advantage of the technology to cheaply fab large-scale intricate interlocking parts with a better finish on all but one side.
@@plebiansociety I was thinking something of a bit larger scale with rebar in it that could take full advantage of the 3D framework. Crawl back in your casket.
It's worth 0$ because anyone with money would never want it, and anyone without money will be told that because they can not afford land, tax, building permits, etc...that they can not live in it...making it worth....NOTHING!!! Don't we live in a wonderful world.
@@Johndoe-176 Nope, I'd pay a reasonable mount of money for that as a garden nook, or garden storage. I'd pay a sizable proportion of what little I had if I were homeless.
@@calorus so if your homeless you'd trade your shopping cart? Random nick nacks picked up? Maybe some drugs? Sleeping bag? Blankets? Clothes? Cause homeless people don't exactly have much if any....money... You've never been homeless have you...?
I'll never understand the whole "3d printing houses" thing. The walls and roof of a house aren't what take so much time and money to finish. When I bought my house, the walls and roof were up in a single week. The next six months was plumbing, electrical, ductwork, insulation, drywall, texturing, painting, flooring, cabinets, trim, and doors. Presumably a "3d printed" sludge house would still need most if not all of this.
its a dumb gimmick on earth, but can make for great structures on planets like mars if they can source the materials right from the soil without having to haul lots of stuff on expensive rockets, also these structures, if built on mars, can help in defending against solar radiation and sandstorms. truthfully, nothing will be done for the impovershed because the people who have the money to do this will think its a waste of time and funds. there are factories that build modular houses for dirt cheap that can be assembled in under a month, but still will never be used because most rich people only think about getting more money
@@documentedmentaldegenerati9030 Prefab houses are often built to last only a few decades, I know because I'm in one that's 45 years old and needs to be rebuilt. I wonder how long these 3d printed houses would last.
My main concern is governments blocking these projects if the lower costs mess with current property values. I WISH it would. We need to change the way we understand money.
We need to change how we think about economics as a whole, civilization has moved through many stages & adapted to new realities along the way. We would not be where we are today without slavery & it is the same with money but both are old solutions to old problems & just as slavery (mostly) has disappeared so to does money need to disappear. In a time where we have an abundance of goods, we still can't feed & house everyone but we have the ability to do both. The problem is the money based economy that truly only benefits a select few people or organisations. We need to change ourselves to the point where we do what is needed because it is right, not to get rewarded.
i find it funny that humans invented economy and we all treat it as it's above us as a species. it rules the world now. i feel like this is what A.I might become one day. we invent it. and then it starts ruling us and we won't even question it.
Really ? How about the energy used to move the printing heads? How about these people who set up the printer scaffolding and prepare and mix the dirt ? You don't want to pay them for their efforts?
@@BawkBawkBawk666 No it isn't worth $0. It might cost $0 in materials not counting power or land or labor but the effort put into building it gives it useability over the already non-zero worth dirt it's made from and hence giving it worth or value. Even a cardboard box or a hole in the side of a hill is worth more than $0 for someone who has use for it so the title and premise are incorrect. This is just how the English language and logic work; sorry.
It can be solar powered. Not free, but very cheap. And currently workers are still needed, just for less time and fewer of them. Locally sourced materials reduce transport and manufacturing costs. As automation increases costs will go down and production will speed up so the cost of housing will fall. Land will still be expensive. Though the real question will be, where are we going to find the space to put all of these new houses?
@@zaibian7 What do you mean? 3% of the land's surface is dedicated to cities right now. Literal room for buildings isn't really a problem except for tiny island nations.
I live in Grizzly Flats California. The town was destroyed the last few weeks by wildfire. This looks like a great solution for quick housing up there. Looks to be very fire resistant and quick.
Yes! I love this blend of technology with the earth and that the equipment being used to construct can operate on low energy consumption! Win win! I live in dome home in Arizona and would love to add one of these on my land.
living in tornado alley we were told a dome house would not blow away? We have a 16 x 80 mobile home that I fear would blow away. If it does maybe our next home could be concrete or mud?
Yes but the narration sounds like awful business buzzword bingo. It's so bad, there isn't a decent metaphor that I could think of that could illustrate that.
I love your content, but your audio quality could be improved. Here's a few tips : 1. Buy a pop filter 2. Point the microphone to your upper chest 3. Move back from the microphone an inch or two 4. You are obviously already using a low pass filter in an audio editing software, so you can easily do these too : 4a. Remove plosives and rumble with a high pass filter (~60hz) 4b. Remove mouth sounds (clicks and pops)
Houses are still not printed faster. Framing and sheathing a house can be done much faster than any printer can do it (for now). The longest part of building a house is plumbing, electrical, and finishing. 3D printing still does not do any of this at all.
framing and sheathing a house take 6-10 people, plus plumbing and electrical takes 6-10 people together, where you can cut labor costs in half or more this way. saving trees that make our oxygen as well. unfortunately, we have no population control, which is why we need cheap fast housing to account for all the current people and coming people. if you can do it better, then do it.
Let me know where to invest. This is an excellent idea. My only concern is if it's damaged how do you repair it whether it's an earthquake or a car running through it. is there a 3D portable printer that would go on site and repair it. And what's the skill level for the staff in doing this process.
It's clay and earth easier to repair than the cookie cutter stick homes we have today.. and if a car would drive into it I'd feel sorry for the driver and the 🚗 they both would be hurt..but not 3D printed house..
@@donnaloveall1195 I think that with concrete you'll be very safe with high winds. I've done a little construction and what is the most important part is how your roof is connected. Check with the building department of your city as to how a roof can be secured against high winds.
The unique challenges of the area must be kept in mind. This area is susceptible to flooding and high winds, so how the building is constructed has to take that into account. Looking under the homes they tend to be supported off the ground a bit to minimize the negative impacts of the former, and Im unsure how well a mud house would stand up to this. I do think it is a clever idea that should be used where it can, but I am uncertain if all areas would benefit from mud housing. Im willing to concede Ive not knowledgeable in the construction process, so its obvious I might miss something easy to note, but this is a concern I had considered. Tornadoes, hurricanes and flooding all being an issue in an area is not a common issue, however. Im sure its a relatively unique issue to small areas, but worth considering in these conversations.
Great technology. But I can't help but feeling that once you consider the machinery and transportation requirements needed for the materials, then it's going to be simpler and easier to do prefabricate in a factory and then transport components to site for construct them on site.
So with Mud/Cob or Adobe homes built using local mud/dirt/straw why not just build them like we have always done, by hand. We can forgo the expensive modern equipment and have a nice organic home. When we introduce expensive equipment we have the issue of getting the equipment in, the cost of using the equipment and the labor for those using the equipment which raises the cost of the home considerably and the home is not totally organic because it is made with a computer controlled robot that can't impart the organic feel like if you build by hand. I guess by using machines we can make laws that allow the use of mud and straw but if we do it by hand we can't. Lets just make it so we can just build our cob homes by hand legally.
@@iautonomos I did not forget about people operating the machines. All that incurs costs and the costs rise ever higher and higher the more that technology is implemented. It's all about money. Not about the person.
3D printed houses are similar to sustainable homes that preppers build out mud, clay, straw, people's garbage like the earthships by Mike Reynolds! I would like to have one of these 3D printed homes! The wave of the future for today!
I live in a frame house with a leaky roof. Water is the enemy of most homes. How do they keep these houses from turning to mud and collapsing in a rainy environment?
Seismic, thermal protection , performance in a fire: inside out, outside in, durability over 5--100-300 years, ability to withstand changes to additions: a new room, installing utilities such as HVAC, mechanical, communications, electrical?
There's a reason monocoque cars aren't common... Monocoque housing aka 3d printed houses have pluses and minuses. Repairability and durability are two major drawbacks to 3d printing.
a house shell for a 2500 square foot house only costs 30k. The other 220k is the other stuff you put into a house. Electrical, plumbing, flooring, windows, doors, exterior finishing, heating and a/c, paint etc.
Unless dude goes out to various LANDS and just starts printing home-structures, one after the other FREE....like johnny appleseed.....then NOTHING is for nothing in this monetary hellhole!
A great subject. Some commentators want a house that can be sold well rather than one that is pleasant to live in. Some can only see the given designs' looks. Some of us are impressed by the idea and possibilities that rise thereafter. I, for one, would like to learn about ingredients that should be (are) mixed with natural materials like mud that would save the designs from rain, fire or winds.
I would LOVE❤ ONE! Here in Texas it would be perfect! The Wind Never stops. And the sun is Brutal! Show me where we can live in one! Close to civilization!
I would love to own and maybe even design and print my own 3D printed home. A few additions may be required to the mix as in Wales, UK the humidity is high and also rainfall but these issues just make the task more interesting not impossible.
Might want to check the reality of Mighty Building as shown. Can't make what they show in render, just build a module home as per many legacy companies
While I think 3D printing is probably Quicker than mud brick but not necessarily cheaper we are addressing the symptom not the cure. Considering resources including food are finite perhaps a better way would be to reduce the population, just because some people may want lots of children doesn't mean they should. Nature finds balance for other animals, we should find balance for human animals.
The only way to accomplish that would be one country conquering the world and mind control drugs and reeducation classes so lets go with less genocidal more realistic goals. Why would you think we're not already being balanced by nature? No animal balances itself and we won't either.
The raw home price is not the issue here, it's the plot it needs to build on. Material wise they are perfectly in budget but when the plot comes with it, it gets unobtainable.
Yeah, that title is extremely clickbait and misleading. Engineering cost, development, technician cost, material property cost. You can’t just use local resources like dirt-clay to build a house. Ensuring consistency of the filament and to make sure it structurally sound would be a logistical nightmare and extremely expensive. Also you would have to pay for highly skilled labor, which would likely be more expensive than just building a regular house… Not to mention you have to survey the land before building the house which also cost money… How does this 3D printing make a foundation? Also claiming this could be a solution low income/poverty stricken areas is just nonsensical. You could easily build a frame fill it with that material and be substantially cheaper…
0$? Is this a donation concept available in some areas? Or is the 0$ resulting from some of the materials being cheap in some areas? Looks like the robotics may be getting into some hundreds of thousands at least to purchase. In many areas the construction coming up to local government codes may significantly increase the cost. Thank you
I think it means the materials are $0. As in once you have the machine it dosent cost anything more to print out the house. just time. (matinance cost not included
Imagine if there was a way to turn local soils into blocks that could be stacked to build homes that could be transported to areas that water isn't readily available. Oh that's right, it's called bricks.
I hear you -- but bricks (in the forms most people are familiar with) require certain types of clays & soils, and then have to be fired (essentially, baked like cakes) at certain temperatures. An alternative "brick" is made by filling a mold with concrete, but we're back to needing certain types of sands & gravels or the concrete will not hold together. Bricks also require a certain amount of specialized knowledge to use properly, especially if they're the primary material from which a building is made. They're also not as cheap as one might think; there's a reason that so many houses in the US from the late 1960s onwards are brick *veneer* instead of solid brick. I'm not sure 3D printing buildings is the way to go, since they will face some of the same issues re: consistency & chemistry of local sands/soils, but in areas where they *do* work they could be a less expensive and less labor-intensive alternative. Other technologies both old and new (rammed earth, earthbags, inflatables, etc.) really need to be looked at to solve the steadily-growing housing problem -- from both the viewpoint of structural needs and that of cost.
Material wise may be zero cost but I am curious what is really the cost? Transportation 3d printer hiring fee design and consultation fee. Because if it is really competitive it would be great to have a house like this
Sounds like we would use this as one of the many things we should do to help sustain quality human life on our planet(s). That is one of the positives. Not a true negative but I do have a question, "in many climes wouldn't it be more simple to make molded bricks. They needn't be rectangular in every dimension. We could 3D print molds of any parts that needed multiple copies. The printer could be considerably smaller depending on available materials.
@@andrewking2590 I've heard about in some documentarys but I've only seen an actual mud or modified with cement in Arizona. IDK if they made bricks\large panels or they used Simon forms to form them in place. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't highly reinforced because they could cut and remove walls with a saw made from mostly barbed wire
My main concern is that there is not enough construction quality clay to scale this up. Even if there is, it is not simple task to get and purify it. There is definitely use for this technology and material where it is available but it is not going to solve problems. In poor countries, the work is cheap. People could build they houses by hand if material and land would be available.
no such thing as construction quality clay or purified clay. it's about the mix of materials in the right proportions to extrude without trouble and harden afterwards. like concrete, get the mix wrong, and it doesn't matter how pure the cement is.
@@andrewking2590 I don’t agree. In many places the clay contains too much other substances and don’t harden enough that you can build anything from it. So my definition for construction quality clay is that it can be used for construction purposes without heavy purification.
Do you not understand the difference between cost, worth, and impact? Or are you just fishing for the algorithm? Title says house is WORTH nothing; it has no value.video proceeds to explain how amazing and valuable/beneficial the technology is. EVEN IF you meant costs $0 you dont explain how that's the case as the printer would cost something the construction people cost something and even clay has its value. What it seems like you're trying to convey is that this tech will not require material inputs from any region outside of where the project is taking place (once the infrastructure is established).
Fishing. He knows exactly what he is saying, but posting something with such a provocative title will bring lots of views, and lots of angry people like us in the comments, which pushes the video further up the rankings.
the 3d printed homes is a great idea and offers a greater level of flexibility with complex designs and low cost. imo though I would put a more finished look on the outside and inside walls for aesthetic reasons. the tech also needs to consider methods of installing basements.
The only people who take this seriously are those with zero understanding of construction. Nothing beats a traditional stick frame house in terms of cost. That is why they dominate the market. Also, the walls take only a small fraction if the total costs. Plumbing, wiring, finishing, windows and doors cost way more.
They will have some benefits that are better than our conventional houses, capitalise on these benefits at the design level. That's what first made bricks and mortar a more attractive option than old timber frame houses with thatched roofs.
Ya but houses made like that are a lot harder to live in because you can't easily run new wires for new outlets, or run new wiring through the walls, and such without going through all that huge wall of clay. Unless you plan on having the interior walls set up as a separate project. Industrial robots that build houses with wood and drywall would be better.
I have been wanting to replace my house with a concrete or similar source home. My foundation is crumbling so I will have to do something in a year or two. Plus I love that we can have a traditional home (homeowners organization's rules) but with curved walls and even a curved staircase with shorter steps to accommodate my limp. Come to Kansas (KCMO area) soon! Beautiful work.
Now I just need to win the lotto and get a small plot of land to build something like one of these on. I like the thought of customizable modular housing. If it can be adapted to environment then it means you can make these suitable to areas that are prone to earthquakes and floods by altering the materials used. If someone offered me a free house and land with something that houses 3 on the grounds it be something like this, I would take it hands down over most other types of houses.
I guess the following didn't have any costs...land , permits, engineered drawings, impact fees, surveys, grade work, 3d printing machine, power for said machine, raw materials , excavation, transportation, labor, waste removal, electrical, plumbing, septic or sewage hook up, windows, doors cabinets, flooring light and plumbing fixtures, locks, hvac, landscaping, inspections and permits.
Pretty neat idea, but we are not yet ready for it, because technology wise and moneywise i dont think everyone could actually afford it. But i dunno. I am just a casual construction worker.
Manpower, gigantic machines, cost of materials, design and architecture is definitely not $0/. A 2 room flat is minimum U$150,000......... This technology is an alternative to speed up the Completion of 1000s of delayed flats, in my country.
I would love to see some sort of complex that uses natural flow of air to control the internal temperature. Or even keep people cool durring heat waves.
$0 cost=$0 value as well. Cheap housing just means you get squeezed on utilities or usage fees. Never underestimate human greed folks. That said, I'd love this tech for making hunting cabins.
Zero cost is totally unrealistic. The land costs something, and I doubt the machine can be rented or bought for free. I suspect these homes will have similar problems to Edison’s failed concrete housing ventures. Repairs were a problem for one thing. Pipes and wiring were other problems. I can only imagine that it would be a difficult battle to get one of these approved for living in. I doubt many local building codes would deal well with these.
ok, this is pretty cool but hear me out. instead of setting this all up as a plumbing and wiring nightmare, just print big interlocking pieces off site. itll be easier to make surplus and you can think of it like lego and design your house with all these different pieces going together.
Pretty cool for use on earth. But the materials on mars will have to block lots of radiation. I suppose you could mix metal into it or make a two layer house with a "water skin".
Sadly, this all appears to be 'future potential' at best. Companies looking for external funding will say whatever the best outcome COULD be, rather than what the actual benefits are. Sadly it's been a solid decade, and it's not catching on enough, due to basic feasibility.
The problem isn't the home. The problem is land. You can build all the homes you want, but without land you have nowhere to put it. Rich people are buying up land at an alarming rate and using it as rental properties, driving up the price of buying a home.
The people who work in the building industry. What will become of their jobs ? Also need to put aside land for farms . When tech puts people out of work. What will become of society ? No job no money . Will everything become free ?
I don't see a single design here that would function in cold climates, clay simply doesn't survive annual frost. You'd have to use concrete, which would dramatically increase carbon footprint. You'd also need a far more sophisticated foundation than we see here. The comparison to conventional building is pretty meaningless since the final product is so dissimilar, and these aren't even finished buildings, they aren't ready for occupancy so that is also a relevant time factor. It has some interesting potential for basic housing, but the product simply isn't that attractive for higher social classes. I'm a builder and these lack so many features modern buildings incorporate.
About this comparison you're right but only in regard of what is available right now. It is an experimental process here focused on external walls (but it can produce inner walls too, and straight ones if desired). It could very well progress a lot during next decade, with a variety of new building materials and better finish, up to the point to become competitive with other wall building technics. Also it could be not competing with other technics, and just be an additional tool. We can imagine wooden inner walls made by cnc to get a very adjusted and fastly build interior, a bunch of solutions to cover external walls... this project is thought in order to promote this technology but does not use it at its full potential.
I think after The house printing, they need to be creative with Conduits to deliver Electricity and Water through the houses too. Just so it's easy to make simple and sensible arrangements that are cheap and effective.
Fabulous fantastic and apathetically pleasing, bio mass thermogent, practical, durable and most of all environmentally friendly and safe... SUSTAINABLE 💚💚💚💚💚We must come to the realization that Crackerjack boxes we are used to living in are not made to withstand termites, tornadoes, hail, wind, fires etc...So YES I'd live in a 3D printer house anyway..I'll know my house would be ecconomical, safe and a strong sturdy home..
This 3D Printed House Is Worth $0! Would you ever live in a 3D printed house? Comment below 👇🏡
If it is worth 0$, nobody should want to live there; it has no value. A cardboard box has value.
I think maybe you've confused the meanings of the words "worth" and "cost." If this is worth nothing then it is worthless garbage but it isn't so it's not worth $0. Title is dumb af. Also it won't cost $0 either as the building materials may be free but the equipment use and power and labor and land aren't.
Yes I would..
Yep
Yes we have no alternative but to do so.
What's with the "Worth $0" ?? There are a lot of costs building such a house,unless every single entity involved works for free.
The land it's on isn't free.
The machine isn't free that's for sure. And I'm trying to figure out how they're hauling several tons of materials for free. And. The holes they are making for each structure. Not to mention there are areas of the world where seismic events occur and even though they have shapes that are supposedly resistant to those events, there doesn't seem to be alot of reinforcement in the walls to stand up to a big earthquake.
I think the technology is really great. But these things and the title are overplaying their hands. And though some environmental "experts" love the idea, there are other "experts" who will do everything possible to stop these projects because of all the material that needs to be acquired.
Several dozen structures are going to need alot of material.
Worse cost doesn't matter to worth.
A house is worth $0 if and only if no-one would ever pay anything to live in it. (Or use it.)
That's true if it's free to build, and that's true if it costs $1,000,000,000 per square foot to build.
The only connection between cost and worth is that the builder of the latter is more insane than the builder of the former
It's worth nothing because no one wants to buy it probably lol.
Afordable efficient constructiin exists,.. sells it for a bilion dollar
I work with 3D printing and I really like what WASP does, but such click bait videos like this, which completely falsely claim that this type of building costs $ 0, do a lot of damage to the industry. A dislike from me
I stopped disliking clickbait after I learned that RUclips does not weigh positive or negative feedback but treats them the same as basic interaction video, so disliking several hundred times over actually aids in promoting the clickbait video. Very strange how the RUclips algorithmic works.
Honestly, considering the texture of the pour, I think it would be more advantageous to use the giant XYZ frames to form precision molds for casting large interlocking pieces off site. That would spare the head-ache of set-up and worry about perfect pour consistency while still taking advantage of the technology to cheaply fab large-scale intricate interlocking parts with a better finish on all but one side.
We are still in the infancy of 3D printing and robotics. Amazing things will happen in architecture in the coming century as the technology matures.
Like bricks which have been around for thousands of years.
@@plebiansociety I was thinking something of a bit larger scale with rebar in it that could take full advantage of the 3D framework. Crawl back in your casket.
@@golgothapro oh, like cinder/contruction concrete block?
@@plebiansociety Like a whole wall man, with round windows. What's wrong with you ? LOL
It's neither "worth" £0 nor costs £0.
It's worth 0$ because anyone with money would never want it, and anyone without money will be told that because they can not afford land, tax, building permits, etc...that they can not live in it...making it worth....NOTHING!!! Don't we live in a wonderful world.
@@Johndoe-176 Nope, I'd pay a reasonable mount of money for that as a garden nook, or garden storage. I'd pay a sizable proportion of what little I had if I were homeless.
@@calorus so if your homeless you'd trade your shopping cart? Random nick nacks picked up?
Maybe some drugs?
Sleeping bag? Blankets? Clothes?
Cause homeless people don't exactly have much if any....money...
You've never been homeless have you...?
@@moguldamongrel3054 It doesn't matter how little it's not $0.
50¢ ≠ $0
I'll never understand the whole "3d printing houses" thing. The walls and roof of a house aren't what take so much time and money to finish. When I bought my house, the walls and roof were up in a single week. The next six months was plumbing, electrical, ductwork, insulation, drywall, texturing, painting, flooring, cabinets, trim, and doors. Presumably a "3d printed" sludge house would still need most if not all of this.
its a dumb gimmick on earth, but can make for great structures on planets like mars if they can source the materials right from the soil without having to haul lots of stuff on expensive rockets, also these structures, if built on mars, can help in defending against solar radiation and sandstorms. truthfully, nothing will be done for the impovershed because the people who have the money to do this will think its a waste of time and funds. there are factories that build modular houses for dirt cheap that can be assembled in under a month, but still will never be used because most rich people only think about getting more money
@@documentedmentaldegenerati9030 Prefab houses are often built to last only a few decades, I know because I'm in one that's 45 years old and needs to be rebuilt.
I wonder how long these 3d printed houses would last.
@@joshuascholar3220 thas why thay are so cheao
@@joshuascholar3220 at least 15 years!
(as long as it doesn't rain, the sun's not to bright, and mud is a perfect ratio of clay and unicorn tears)
My main concern is governments blocking these projects if the lower costs mess with current property values. I WISH it would. We need to change the way we understand money.
We need to change how we think about economics as a whole, civilization has moved through many stages & adapted to new realities along the way. We would not be where we are today without slavery & it is the same with money but both are old solutions to old problems & just as slavery (mostly) has disappeared so to does money need to disappear. In a time where we have an abundance of goods, we still can't feed & house everyone but we have the ability to do both. The problem is the money based economy that truly only benefits a select few people or organisations. We need to change ourselves to the point where we do what is needed because it is right, not to get rewarded.
i find it funny that humans invented economy and we all treat it as it's above us as a species. it rules the world now.
i feel like this is what A.I might become one day. we invent it. and then it starts ruling us and we won't even question it.
Also to building codes at least in North America, are completely prohibited to this type of construction.
Really ? How about the energy used to move the printing heads? How about these people who set up the printer scaffolding and prepare and mix the dirt ? You don't want to pay them for their efforts?
The house is worth 0 dollars. Nobody said the labor or the equipment was free. Settle down.
@@BawkBawkBawk666 No it isn't worth $0. It might cost $0 in materials not counting power or land or labor but the effort put into building it gives it useability over the already non-zero worth dirt it's made from and hence giving it worth or value. Even a cardboard box or a hole in the side of a hill is worth more than $0 for someone who has use for it so the title and premise are incorrect. This is just how the English language and logic work; sorry.
It can be solar powered. Not free, but very cheap. And currently workers are still needed, just for less time and fewer of them. Locally sourced materials reduce transport and manufacturing costs. As automation increases costs will go down and production will speed up so the cost of housing will fall. Land will still be expensive. Though the real question will be, where are we going to find the space to put all of these new houses?
@@zaibian7 What do you mean? 3% of the land's surface is dedicated to cities right now. Literal room for buildings isn't really a problem except for tiny island nations.
@@filonin2 not only on islands regretfully
I live in Grizzly Flats California. The town was destroyed the last few weeks by wildfire. This looks like a great solution for quick housing up there. Looks to be very fire resistant and quick.
If your house has windows, those will often be the first thing to go when exposed to rapidly increasing temperature.
Built with the right clays for fire resistance while the fire may gut the home the structure could remain and possibly grow stronger for it.
Yes! I love this blend of technology with the earth and that the equipment being used to construct can operate on low energy consumption! Win win! I live in dome home in Arizona and would love to add one of these on my land.
Yeah ı agree with u
I also live in AZ them would be perfect for our 🏜️ environment!!
living in tornado alley we were told a dome house would not blow away? We have a 16 x 80 mobile home that I fear would blow away. If it does maybe our next home could be concrete or mud?
Yes but the narration sounds like awful business buzzword bingo. It's so bad, there isn't a decent metaphor that I could think of that could illustrate that.
I love your content, but your audio quality could be improved.
Here's a few tips :
1. Buy a pop filter
2. Point the microphone to your upper chest
3. Move back from the microphone an inch or two
4. You are obviously already using a low pass filter in an audio editing software, so you can easily do these too :
4a. Remove plosives and rumble with a high pass filter (~60hz)
4b. Remove mouth sounds (clicks and pops)
This guy never took an economics class. No such thing as a free lunch bud
Houses are still not printed faster. Framing and sheathing a house can be done much faster than any printer can do it (for now). The longest part of building a house is plumbing, electrical, and finishing. 3D printing still does not do any of this at all.
framing and sheathing a house take 6-10 people, plus plumbing and electrical takes 6-10 people together, where you can cut labor costs in half or more this way. saving trees that make our oxygen as well. unfortunately, we have no population control, which is why we need cheap fast housing to account for all the current people and coming people. if you can do it better, then do it.
Yet 🙂
Well, it's faster than pouring concrete into formwork. Wood construction is not really comparable.
ah yes, a 3D printed house. now all I need is a 3D printed wife.
6/10
Let me know where to invest. This is an excellent idea. My only concern is if it's damaged how do you repair it whether it's an earthquake or a car running through it. is there a 3D portable printer that would go on site and repair it. And what's the skill level for the staff in doing this process.
It's clay and earth easier to repair than the cookie cutter stick homes we have today.. and if a car would drive into it I'd feel sorry for the driver and the 🚗 they both would be hurt..but not 3D printed house..
Just curious as to where to get certification as a laborer for these projects. There has to be for each state.
never thought of that? your right things do happen, we live in SE OK so a house can get damaged with high winds.
@@donnaloveall1195 I think that with concrete you'll be very safe with high winds. I've done a little construction and what is the most important part is how your roof is connected. Check with the building department of your city as to how a roof can be secured against high winds.
The unique challenges of the area must be kept in mind. This area is susceptible to flooding and high winds, so how the building is constructed has to take that into account. Looking under the homes they tend to be supported off the ground a bit to minimize the negative impacts of the former, and Im unsure how well a mud house would stand up to this.
I do think it is a clever idea that should be used where it can, but I am uncertain if all areas would benefit from mud housing. Im willing to concede Ive not knowledgeable in the construction process, so its obvious I might miss something easy to note, but this is a concern I had considered.
Tornadoes, hurricanes and flooding all being an issue in an area is not a common issue, however. Im sure its a relatively unique issue to small areas, but worth considering in these conversations.
Great technology. But I can't help but feeling that once you consider the machinery and transportation requirements needed for the materials, then it's going to be simpler and easier to do prefabricate in a factory and then transport components to site for construct them on site.
So with Mud/Cob or Adobe homes built using local mud/dirt/straw why not just build them like we have always done, by hand. We can forgo the expensive modern equipment and have a nice organic home. When we introduce expensive equipment we have the issue of getting the equipment in, the cost of using the equipment and the labor for those using the equipment which raises the cost of the home considerably and the home is not totally organic because it is made with a computer controlled robot that can't impart the organic feel like if you build by hand. I guess by using machines we can make laws that allow the use of mud and straw but if we do it by hand we can't. Lets just make it so we can just build our cob homes by hand legally.
One the equipment is made cuts the cost of man labour makes them cheaper..the robots are still easier to fix than a broken back on a human..
You forgetting about people who will operate this mashine and transportation to the sight.
@@iautonomos I did not forget about people operating the machines. All that incurs costs and the costs rise ever higher and higher the more that technology is implemented. It's all about money. Not about the person.
What about less physically able/disabled people. Even if I had all supplies and permits, I wouldn't be able to build by hand.
3D printed houses are similar to sustainable homes that preppers build out mud, clay, straw, people's garbage like the earthships by Mike Reynolds! I would like to have one of these 3D printed homes! The wave of the future for today!
I live in a frame house with a leaky roof. Water is the enemy of most homes. How do they keep these houses from turning to mud and collapsing in a rainy environment?
Like all adobe structures - with a thin layer of cement.
@@MrKnutriis ok. Never seen one before.
@@MrKnutriis Um, you do know that cement is porous right? the house will still leak.
@@matthewvandeventer3632 well, there is yet another thin layer of stucco on top of the cement, for color and final waterproofing.
Seismic, thermal protection , performance in a fire: inside out, outside in, durability over 5--100-300 years, ability to withstand changes to additions: a new room, installing utilities such as HVAC, mechanical, communications, electrical?
Also ease of repair, especially after disasters.
There's a reason monocoque cars aren't common... Monocoque housing aka 3d printed houses have pluses and minuses. Repairability and durability are two major drawbacks to 3d printing.
The houses are too expensive here. There's a lot of us just hanging on to rented housing
a house shell for a 2500 square foot house only costs 30k. The other 220k is the other stuff you put into a house. Electrical, plumbing, flooring, windows, doors, exterior finishing, heating and a/c, paint etc.
@@plebiansociety An ultra-small apartment over here costs around 40k just for rent.
Unless dude goes out to various LANDS and just starts printing home-structures, one after the other FREE....like johnny appleseed.....then NOTHING is for nothing in this monetary hellhole!
A great subject. Some commentators want a house that can be sold well rather than one that is pleasant to live in. Some can only see the given designs' looks. Some of us are impressed by the idea and possibilities that rise thereafter. I, for one, would like to learn about ingredients that should be (are) mixed with natural materials like mud that would save the designs from rain, fire or winds.
Property Taxes and Labor/maintenance costs dude. This thing will still go for regular housing prices and be taxed up the.
Meanwhile ants: ah hah! It's coming together.
That's not a house is a shelter!
Billionaires be like: "Yeah, I wanna live in a mudhut!"
I would LOVE❤ ONE! Here in Texas it would be perfect! The Wind Never stops. And the sun is Brutal! Show me where we can live in one! Close to civilization!
we live in south east Oklahoma and we get the wind and rain so I know what you mean. But they have 3D printed houses in Austin?
I would love to own and maybe even design and print my own 3D printed home. A few additions may be required to the mix as in Wales, UK the humidity is high and also rainfall but these issues just make the task more interesting not impossible.
look up aircrete !
Land = $
The machine cost = 1m$+
The Material cost = 50k$+
Time Invested = $$$
Might want to check the reality of Mighty Building as shown. Can't make what they show in render, just build a module home as per many legacy companies
Maybe the idea is that there may be costs to build the house, but it legally cannot be bought or sold, its value is zero because of that!!
While I think 3D printing is probably Quicker than mud brick but not necessarily cheaper we are addressing the symptom not the cure. Considering resources including food are finite perhaps a better way would be to reduce the population, just because some people may want lots of children doesn't mean they should. Nature finds balance for other animals, we should find balance for human animals.
The only way to accomplish that would be one country conquering the world and mind control drugs and reeducation classes so lets go with less genocidal more realistic goals. Why would you think we're not already being balanced by nature? No animal balances itself and we won't either.
The raw home price is not the issue here, it's the plot it needs to build on. Material wise they are perfectly in budget but when the plot comes with it, it gets unobtainable.
labor cost plus markup of materials
Yeah, that title is extremely clickbait and misleading.
Engineering cost, development, technician cost, material property cost.
You can’t just use local resources like dirt-clay to build a house. Ensuring consistency of the filament and to make sure it structurally sound would be a logistical nightmare and extremely expensive.
Also you would have to pay for highly skilled labor, which would likely be more expensive than just building a regular house…
Not to mention you have to survey the land before building the house which also cost money… How does this 3D printing make a foundation?
Also claiming this could be a solution low income/poverty stricken areas is just nonsensical. You could easily build a frame fill it with that material and be substantially cheaper…
This is a great solution to the homeless and what's best I believe is cost effective minus material.
Main and hard part of a house is foundation and pillars and ceiling , building walls are easy already 3d printed with bricks ,
Although, a pick and place machine for bricks could be pretty cool
0$? Is this a donation concept available in some areas?
Or is the 0$ resulting from some of the materials being cheap in some areas?
Looks like the robotics may be getting into some hundreds of thousands at least to purchase.
In many areas the construction coming up to local government codes may significantly increase the cost.
Thank you
I think it means the materials are $0. As in once you have the machine it dosent cost anything more to print out the house. just time. (matinance cost not included
Imagine if there was a way to turn local soils into blocks that could be stacked to build homes that could be transported to areas that water isn't readily available. Oh that's right, it's called bricks.
I hear you -- but bricks (in the forms most people are familiar with) require certain types of clays & soils, and then have to be fired (essentially, baked like cakes) at certain temperatures. An alternative "brick" is made by filling a mold with concrete, but we're back to needing certain types of sands & gravels or the concrete will not hold together. Bricks also require a certain amount of specialized knowledge to use properly, especially if they're the primary material from which a building is made. They're also not as cheap as one might think; there's a reason that so many houses in the US from the late 1960s onwards are brick *veneer* instead of solid brick. I'm not sure 3D printing buildings is the way to go, since they will face some of the same issues re: consistency & chemistry of local sands/soils, but in areas where they *do* work they could be a less expensive and less labor-intensive alternative. Other technologies both old and new (rammed earth, earthbags, inflatables, etc.) really need to be looked at to solve the steadily-growing housing problem -- from both the viewpoint of structural needs and that of cost.
Thing that concerns me is the lack of steel reinforcement of these 3D printed houses.
Nice 3D Printed house
Material wise may be zero cost but I am curious what is really the cost? Transportation 3d printer hiring fee design and consultation fee. Because if it is really competitive it would be great to have a house like this
Sounds like we would use this as one of the many things we should do to help sustain quality human life on our planet(s). That is one of the positives. Not a true negative but I do have a question, "in many climes wouldn't it be more simple to make molded bricks. They needn't be rectangular in every dimension. We could 3D print molds of any parts that needed multiple copies. The printer could be considerably smaller depending on available materials.
they already do this, making traditional adobe homes and in other countries they do the same thing using forms to make bricks that dry in the sun.
@@andrewking2590 I've heard about in some documentarys but I've only seen an actual mud or modified with cement in Arizona. IDK if they made bricks\large panels or they used Simon forms to form them in place. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't highly reinforced because they could cut and remove walls with a saw made from mostly barbed wire
My main concern is that there is not enough construction quality clay to scale this up. Even if there is, it is not simple task to get and purify it. There is definitely use for this technology and material where it is available but it is not going to solve problems.
In poor countries, the work is cheap. People could build they houses by hand if material and land would be available.
no such thing as construction quality clay or purified clay. it's about the mix of materials in the right proportions to extrude without trouble and harden afterwards. like concrete, get the mix wrong, and it doesn't matter how pure the cement is.
@@andrewking2590 I don’t agree. In many places the clay contains too much other substances and don’t harden enough that you can build anything from it.
So my definition for construction quality clay is that it can be used for construction purposes without heavy purification.
The title isn’t in any way addressed-which makes it clickbait.
Homelessness is NOT a global problem as we can see if we look at Finland.
Nifty but cheap, little waste and incredible thermal characteristics is the realm of SIP homes.
Do you not understand the difference between cost, worth, and impact? Or are you just fishing for the algorithm?
Title says house is WORTH nothing; it has no value.video proceeds to explain how amazing and valuable/beneficial the technology is.
EVEN IF you meant costs $0 you dont explain how that's the case as the printer would cost something the construction people cost something and even clay has its value.
What it seems like you're trying to convey is that this tech will not require material inputs from any region outside of where the project is taking place (once the infrastructure is established).
Fishing. He knows exactly what he is saying, but posting something with such a provocative title will bring lots of views, and lots of angry people like us in the comments, which pushes the video further up the rankings.
the 3d printed homes is a great idea and offers a greater level of flexibility with complex designs and low cost. imo though I would put a more finished look on the outside and inside walls for aesthetic reasons. the tech also needs to consider methods of installing basements.
I built the same thing in my toilet after bad burritos and chocolate ice cream.
The only people who take this seriously are those with zero understanding of construction. Nothing beats a traditional stick frame house in terms of cost. That is why they dominate the market. Also, the walls take only a small fraction if the total costs. Plumbing, wiring, finishing, windows and doors cost way more.
They will have some benefits that are better than our conventional houses, capitalise on these benefits at the design level. That's what first made bricks and mortar a more attractive option than old timber frame houses with thatched roofs.
Ya but houses made like that are a lot harder to live in because you can't easily run new wires for new outlets, or run new wiring through the walls, and such without going through all that huge wall of clay. Unless you plan on having the interior walls set up as a separate project. Industrial robots that build houses with wood and drywall would be better.
I have been wanting to replace my house with a concrete or similar source home. My foundation is crumbling so I will have to do something in a year or two. Plus I love that we can have a traditional home (homeowners organization's rules) but with curved walls and even a curved staircase with shorter steps to accommodate my limp. Come to Kansas (KCMO area) soon! Beautiful work.
You don't need 3D printing tech, to build with mud.
Now I just need to win the lotto and get a small plot of land to build something like one of these on. I like the thought of customizable modular housing. If it can be adapted to environment then it means you can make these suitable to areas that are prone to earthquakes and floods by altering the materials used. If someone offered me a free house and land with something that houses 3 on the grounds it be something like this, I would take it hands down over most other types of houses.
You think people can't afford to build a shack but they can afford thousands of pounds of concrete?
I guess the following didn't have any costs...land , permits, engineered drawings, impact fees, surveys, grade work, 3d printing machine, power for said machine, raw materials , excavation, transportation, labor, waste removal, electrical, plumbing, septic or sewage hook up, windows, doors cabinets, flooring light and plumbing fixtures, locks, hvac, landscaping, inspections and permits.
Yeah, but they also don't need as many employees and will likely drive the homelessness problem more so than solve it.
Pretty neat idea, but we are not yet ready for it, because technology wise and moneywise i dont think everyone could actually afford it. But i dunno. I am just a casual construction worker.
Worth indicates the level of usefulness. To be worth $0 means it is totally useless. Grammar matters.
How do these houses stand up to flooding tornadoes and earthquakes?
Due to climate change these are valid questions!
just use volcanic ashes concrete, that way volcanic areas would thrive collecting and selling it.
It's unaccessible to poor people...you need large structure, machines, qualified workers and money
As much as I like the idea, it definitely is NOT free. Significantly cheaper? Maybe. Free? No way
There's no reason that the equipment used for making such housing can't be made open source once properly dialed in.
Manpower, gigantic machines, cost of materials, design and architecture is definitely not $0/. A 2 room flat is minimum U$150,000......... This technology is an alternative to speed up the Completion of 1000s of delayed flats, in my country.
I would love to see some sort of complex that uses natural flow of air to control the internal temperature. Or even keep people cool durring heat waves.
I don't remember which buildings they are but I have seen some that do that exact thing.
$0 cost=$0 value as well.
Cheap housing just means you get squeezed on utilities or usage fees. Never underestimate human greed folks. That said, I'd love this tech for making hunting cabins.
Zero cost is totally unrealistic. The land costs something, and I doubt the machine can be rented or bought for free.
I suspect these homes will have similar problems to Edison’s failed concrete housing ventures. Repairs were a problem for one thing. Pipes and wiring were other problems.
I can only imagine that it would be a difficult battle to get one of these approved for living in. I doubt many local building codes would deal well with these.
ok, this is pretty cool but hear me out. instead of setting this all up as a plumbing and wiring nightmare, just print big interlocking pieces off site. itll be easier to make surplus and you can think of it like lego and design your house with all these different pieces going together.
And, it’s probably termite proof.
Pretty cool for use on earth. But the materials on mars will have to block lots of radiation. I suppose you could mix metal into it or make a two layer house with a "water skin".
Ok I need one of those houses
say if the home gets old and needs to be replaced you can use the mats that are already there from the old home to build a new 1
The audio of this video is certainly worth $0...
Sadly, this all appears to be 'future potential' at best. Companies looking for external funding will say whatever the best outcome COULD be, rather than what the actual benefits are. Sadly it's been a solid decade, and it's not catching on enough, due to basic feasibility.
A house is not just walls and a roof, else a card board box would suffice.
If only these houses came with kitchens
It really does look like I would pay $0 for it tbh
If the house is worth $0 than what do you call the materials, labor, and machinery used to make the house? Are they all worthless too?
I wonder how much the house printers are?
The problem isn't the home. The problem is land. You can build all the homes you want, but without land you have nowhere to put it. Rich people are buying up land at an alarming rate and using it as rental properties, driving up the price of buying a home.
Cool now print me a Castel with towers and ramparts.
I own a 3D printer and let me tell you, the amount of work I put in to get that thing working is probably in thousands of dollars.
The people who work in the building industry. What will become of their jobs ? Also need to put aside land for farms . When tech puts people out of work. What will become of society ? No job no money . Will everything become free ?
Great ideas to build on.
yes
Человеки пережили катаклизмы в каменных пещерах! Использование бетона - правильное направление для выживания человеков! Молодцы! Удачи!
Yeah, I agree.
I don't see a single design here that would function in cold climates, clay simply doesn't survive annual frost. You'd have to use concrete, which would dramatically increase carbon footprint. You'd also need a far more sophisticated foundation than we see here.
The comparison to conventional building is pretty meaningless since the final product is so dissimilar, and these aren't even finished buildings, they aren't ready for occupancy so that is also a relevant time factor.
It has some interesting potential for basic housing, but the product simply isn't that attractive for higher social classes. I'm a builder and these lack so many features modern buildings incorporate.
About this comparison you're right but only in regard of what is available right now. It is an experimental process here focused on external walls (but it can produce inner walls too, and straight ones if desired). It could very well progress a lot during next decade, with a variety of new building materials and better finish, up to the point to become competitive with other wall building technics.
Also it could be not competing with other technics, and just be an additional tool. We can imagine wooden inner walls made by cnc to get a very adjusted and fastly build interior, a bunch of solutions to cover external walls... this project is thought in order to promote this technology but does not use it at its full potential.
Hear: house from organic material
Think: your house will decompose in year(s)
I want to know if they can be buried in temperate climates. using these to make a 'shire' like dwelling....
Love the Beehive one wow cool!!
Very Impressive!
I think after The house printing, they need to be creative with Conduits to deliver Electricity and Water through the houses too. Just so it's easy to make simple and sensible arrangements that are cheap and effective.
It's 3D printing: You just leave spaces in the structure. Once it's built the electrician and plumber come along to fit the interiors.
Until the machine malfunctions and you get mush
If u wanna build a house on mars you should build it in a tornado area (to simulate the weather there)
OK I'll buy it for $1
Fabulous fantastic and apathetically pleasing, bio mass thermogent, practical, durable and most of all environmentally friendly and safe... SUSTAINABLE 💚💚💚💚💚We must come to the realization that Crackerjack boxes we are used to living in are not made to withstand termites, tornadoes, hail, wind, fires etc...So YES I'd live in a 3D printer house anyway..I'll know my house would be ecconomical, safe and a strong sturdy home..
how much cost for machine and programming ?