6 ms·

"...range in price from around $450,000 to close to $600,000." In other words, there is little economic incentive to recommend this construction method. Not m

"...range in price from around $450,000 to close to $600,000." In other words, there is little economic incentive to recommend this construction method. Not much in the way of aesthetics either --- unless you want a ranch box.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
brudgers 2y ago
3D printing doesn't relieve any important construction constraints and probably raises costs because unfamiliarity increases risks and increased risk increases price. Superstructure is about the easiest and fastest part of residential construction. Sitework, finishes, and MEP systems are harder, tend to take longer, and cost more. Anyway, market rate housing sells at market rates no matter how it is built.
- liontwist 2y ago
  > market rate housing sells at market rates no matter how it is built. This is true. Do you see any opportunity for efficiencies in rebuilds?
  - brudgers 2y ago
    What do you mean by “efficiencies?”
    - liontwist 2y ago
      Like you mentioned the market for housing is more about where people want to live, and the actual building on it is less important (up to first order quality and space), so that optimizing construction costs doesn’t really save money on housing. But suppose we have a country of aging housing. Could prefabrication techniques result in lower costs when replacing existing buildings without a land transfer?
      - brudgers 2y ago
        1. In successful businesses, lower costs usually correlate to greater profits not lower prices. This is particularly the case with the narrow section of the real-estate market that is single family housing (single family housing is about the lowest and worst use of real-estate (i.e. the opposite of highest and best use)). 2. Single family home construction in the US is highly prefabricated. You can go into any Home Depot and get lumber, fasteners, fixtures, appliances, and anything else you need to build a house. All of it movable and installable without much mechanization beyond a truck (and Home Depot will rent you one of those). 3. Tearing down existing houses for replacement only makes economic sense in two cases. The first is when the value of the land justifies more expensive construction (e.g. MacMansions). The second is when redevelopment is not for the market (e.g. Habitat for Humanity). 4. It is a mistake to look at construction as inefficient. Construction is just one component of real-estate markets. 5. We have very efficient prefabricated housing. It tends to look like mobile homes. 6. Wealth preservation is the primary function of the real-estate industry. Buying and selling for profit is the low end. The real money in real-estate resides in income producing property not single family houses.
        eightysixfour 2y ago
        > 3. Tearing down existing houses for replacement only makes economic sense in two cases. The first is when the value of the land justifies more expensive construction (e.g. MacMansions). The second is when redevelopment is not for the market (e.g. Habitat for Humanity). Interesting you chose “MacMansions” as the example instead of increased density. In my (very) urban area they tear down single family homes and replace them with 6-9 town homes.
        brudgers 2y ago
        I chose MacMansions because it was clear and ordinary and uncomplicated. Building a six pack is driven by the same basic economic condition, the existing building is economically obsolescent.
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    > This is true. Do you see any opportunity for efficiencies in rebuilds? When this technology has become much more established, the "risk premium" can be decreased by a lot. Then one can start to find methods to make the process more economic. And I see quite some potential there, because 3D printing can potentially be done in a much more "automatic" way than other existing house building processes.
- pxmpxm 2y ago
  >Superstructure is about the easiest and fastest part of residential construction. I'm perpetually confused on that front - interior, especially drywall, is stupid labor and time intensive (have to wait for taped joints to dry). There should be huge econmomies of scale for prefab walls with electric and ducting built in, yet all we see is this sort of 3d printing stuff.
  - brudgers 2y ago
    How do you finish the joints between sections of prefabricated walls? Where do you store hundreds of running feet of prefabricated wall during construction delays? How do you move sections of prefabricated wall into and within a dryed-in building? How do you trim a section to fit and extend another when construction is not ideal? Who is responsible when something is not right? And of course there’s getting UL listings for any proprietary electrical connections and issues of inspection for code compliance. Prefabricated walls are common and are suitable for cubical farms. They tend to cost more psf than regular construction but can be depreciated as furniture and reconfigured more easily than site built walls and fixtures.
    - wombatpm 2y ago
      Standardized wall sections, JIT inventory management, dedicated install teams?
      - dhosek 2y ago
        My parents’ home, built in the 1950s was built from pre-fabricated components. From what my dad says (his mother was the original owner of the home), the fit of walls was very poor and they had to do a lot of patching to fill in gaps between the walls and the ceilings. There have been numerous attempts at prefabricated building but all have failed to gain any traction.
        teruakohatu 2y ago
        A lot of homes in New Zealand were sent over 150 years ago from Australia and Europe as prefabricated kits. Apart from the abysmal lack of insulation, they are still going strong. Right now most new houses have the wood framing CNC manufactured based on plans, shipped to the building site and assembled, then modified as needed by the builder. Our roofs are almost exclusively steel, which are also CNC cut and shipped to the site and installed by roofers.
- cbames89 2y ago
  It's ~21% the cost of a home, it's actually the single most costly and labor intense category. That being said it does only take 14-21 days to frame a home.
  - brudgers 2y ago
    At scale it takes significantly less time because the designs are familiar and there are not mobilizations and demobilizations. The next framing job is on the next lot.
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      So if a technology could cut that cost in half it would be desirable even if it took twice as long because in real terms your final cost drops 10% and only takes 2 more weeks.
      - brudgers 2y ago
        It would depend on what else was in the spreadsheet.
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  Anyway, market rate housing sells at market rates no matter how it is built. This is a demonstration project. If there were any economic advantage, I would expect them to be eager to demonstrate it. But such does not appear to be the case. $450-600K for a simple, single story ranch 30 miles outside of Austin is not exactly awe inspiring.
- Dig1t 2y ago
  Many of these printed homes just leave the concrete exposed inside the home. They can just be painted directly, and they are also well insulated already so you don’t need to fill the wall with insulation. So not only are you framing differently but you can skip the drywall and insulation steps of construction as well. This is the type of finish work you are talking about I think.
  - brudgers 2y ago
    You still have to mobilize a drywall crew for ceilings. And your painter needs to use another primer and paint system for the concrete. Hanging interior doors and trimming them out is no longer a job for nails. Same for crown and base moldings and kitchen cabinets. And you still have to insulate. Four feet of concrete wall thickness is needed for a nominal R10.
torginus 2y ago
I never understood how 3D printing buildings even come about. Desktop 3D printers work by melting thermoplastics that solidify when cooled down and is ready for the next layer. With concrete, you have to wait for it to set before you can print on top of it. D
- ben_w 2y ago
  I think it happened because a nerd like us wanted to make a castle for their kid to play in, and that became an effective concrete printer, and that got in the news and inspired… mostly buildings that would have been easier with prefabricated concrete slabs, and which almost completely fail to take advantage of the opportunities that 3D printing can offer.
- dhosek 2y ago
  This page from Cemex might answer some of your questions https://www.cemexventures.com/3d-printing-in-construction/ https://www.cemexventures.com/3d-printing-in-construction/
  - dhosek 2y ago
    Tt’s worth noting that this article makes it sound like ICON invented everything from scratch, but the technology is much older than the company.
9cb14c1ec0 2y ago
That's the selling price. It doesn't say anything at all about construction costs, but more about the housing market in general.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  I disagree. I checked Georgetown, TX for comparable homes in the area (3b/2ba, ~1500 sqft) and it seems many houses are going for under $400k. But “Dyce” sells for $470k. https://www.lennar.com/new-homes/texas/austin-central-texas/georgetown/wolf-ranch/genesis-collection https://www.lennar.com/new-homes/texas/austin-central-texas/... Just as a random example, this is a comparable house (bigger in fact) and selling for $365k. https://www.redfin.com/TX/Georgetown/346-White-River-Dr-78626/home/144199509 https://www.redfin.com/TX/Georgetown/346-White-River-Dr-7862... I think this is a really cool technology but it’s not competitive yet.
  - tantalor 2y ago
    You misunderstood. If I can build a house for half the cost, that goes to my profit margin, not a discount for the buyer.
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      As Jeff Bezos says, your margin is my opportunity. So yes, it would drive costs down. But we aren’t even there yet because the houses aren’t being sold because they’re too expensive. Another way to pad your profit margins would be to raise the asking price of the $360k home by $100k. There is a reason people aren’t doing that.
      - dghlsakjg 2y ago
        That’s not how real estate works. Amazon deals in commodity goods that are easily substituteable. Housing is different because every single one is unique (by virtue of location) and also incredibly scarce (again, location). Housing markets tend to strongly fight any tendency towards underpricing. When a house is underpriced, buyers will get into a bidding war and push the price back into the fair market price.
nyclounge 2y ago
That is what I was thinking. I mean what is nice about those prefab housings like the ones you see on Amazon and Walmart is that they are really cheap!
Dig1t 2y ago
I disagree, they are priced the same as a new timber framed house but concrete is way better insulated and more efficient, which is great for the Texas heat. Also they are much more resistant to storm damage. Look at the results in Florida where the only houses left standing after hurricanes are the ones which are built with ICF (insulated concrete forms) So for the same money I would argue you are getting a better product. That’s also saying nothing about a more consistent build quality. Timber framed houses vary a lot in quality depending on the crew who built them and the quality of the materials used. Framing with a robot means that there is far less variation in quality, vs framing with crews of humans who are often paid a little as possible and told to work as quickly as possible.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

brudgers 2y ago

3D printing doesn't relieve any important construction constraints and probably raises costs because unfamiliarity increases risks and increased risk increases price. Superstructure is about the easiest and fastest part of residential construction. Sitework, finishes, and MEP systems are harder, tend to take longer, and cost more. Anyway, market rate housing sells at market rates no matter how it is built.

liontwist 2y ago
> market rate housing sells at market rates no matter how it is built. This is true. Do you see any opportunity for efficiencies in rebuilds?
- brudgers 2y ago
  What do you mean by “efficiencies?”
  - liontwist 2y ago
    Like you mentioned the market for housing is more about where people want to live, and the actual building on it is less important (up to first order quality and space), so that optimizing construction costs doesn’t really save money on housing. But suppose we have a country of aging housing. Could prefabrication techniques result in lower costs when replacing existing buildings without a land transfer?
    - brudgers 2y ago
      1. In successful businesses, lower costs usually correlate to greater profits not lower prices. This is particularly the case with the narrow section of the real-estate market that is single family housing (single family housing is about the lowest and worst use of real-estate (i.e. the opposite of highest and best use)). 2. Single family home construction in the US is highly prefabricated. You can go into any Home Depot and get lumber, fasteners, fixtures, appliances, and anything else you need to build a house. All of it movable and installable without much mechanization beyond a truck (and Home Depot will rent you one of those). 3. Tearing down existing houses for replacement only makes economic sense in two cases. The first is when the value of the land justifies more expensive construction (e.g. MacMansions). The second is when redevelopment is not for the market (e.g. Habitat for Humanity). 4. It is a mistake to look at construction as inefficient. Construction is just one component of real-estate markets. 5. We have very efficient prefabricated housing. It tends to look like mobile homes. 6. Wealth preservation is the primary function of the real-estate industry. Buying and selling for profit is the low end. The real money in real-estate resides in income producing property not single family houses.
      - eightysixfour 2y ago
        > 3. Tearing down existing houses for replacement only makes economic sense in two cases. The first is when the value of the land justifies more expensive construction (e.g. MacMansions). The second is when redevelopment is not for the market (e.g. Habitat for Humanity). Interesting you chose “MacMansions” as the example instead of increased density. In my (very) urban area they tear down single family homes and replace them with 6-9 town homes.
        brudgers 2y ago
        I chose MacMansions because it was clear and ordinary and uncomplicated. Building a six pack is driven by the same basic economic condition, the existing building is economically obsolescent.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > This is true. Do you see any opportunity for efficiencies in rebuilds? When this technology has become much more established, the "risk premium" can be decreased by a lot. Then one can start to find methods to make the process more economic. And I see quite some potential there, because 3D printing can potentially be done in a much more "automatic" way than other existing house building processes.
pxmpxm 2y ago
>Superstructure is about the easiest and fastest part of residential construction. I'm perpetually confused on that front - interior, especially drywall, is stupid labor and time intensive (have to wait for taped joints to dry). There should be huge econmomies of scale for prefab walls with electric and ducting built in, yet all we see is this sort of 3d printing stuff.
- brudgers 2y ago
  How do you finish the joints between sections of prefabricated walls? Where do you store hundreds of running feet of prefabricated wall during construction delays? How do you move sections of prefabricated wall into and within a dryed-in building? How do you trim a section to fit and extend another when construction is not ideal? Who is responsible when something is not right? And of course there’s getting UL listings for any proprietary electrical connections and issues of inspection for code compliance. Prefabricated walls are common and are suitable for cubical farms. They tend to cost more psf than regular construction but can be depreciated as furniture and reconfigured more easily than site built walls and fixtures.
  - wombatpm 2y ago
    Standardized wall sections, JIT inventory management, dedicated install teams?
    - dhosek 2y ago
      My parents’ home, built in the 1950s was built from pre-fabricated components. From what my dad says (his mother was the original owner of the home), the fit of walls was very poor and they had to do a lot of patching to fill in gaps between the walls and the ceilings. There have been numerous attempts at prefabricated building but all have failed to gain any traction.
      - teruakohatu 2y ago
        A lot of homes in New Zealand were sent over 150 years ago from Australia and Europe as prefabricated kits. Apart from the abysmal lack of insulation, they are still going strong. Right now most new houses have the wood framing CNC manufactured based on plans, shipped to the building site and assembled, then modified as needed by the builder. Our roofs are almost exclusively steel, which are also CNC cut and shipped to the site and installed by roofers.
cbames89 2y ago
It's ~21% the cost of a home, it's actually the single most costly and labor intense category. That being said it does only take 14-21 days to frame a home.
- brudgers 2y ago
  At scale it takes significantly less time because the designs are familiar and there are not mobilizations and demobilizations. The next framing job is on the next lot.
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    So if a technology could cut that cost in half it would be desirable even if it took twice as long because in real terms your final cost drops 10% and only takes 2 more weeks.
    - brudgers 2y ago
      It would depend on what else was in the spreadsheet.
jqpabc123 2y ago
Anyway, market rate housing sells at market rates no matter how it is built. This is a demonstration project. If there were any economic advantage, I would expect them to be eager to demonstrate it. But such does not appear to be the case. $450-600K for a simple, single story ranch 30 miles outside of Austin is not exactly awe inspiring.
Dig1t 2y ago
Many of these printed homes just leave the concrete exposed inside the home. They can just be painted directly, and they are also well insulated already so you don’t need to fill the wall with insulation. So not only are you framing differently but you can skip the drywall and insulation steps of construction as well. This is the type of finish work you are talking about I think.
- brudgers 2y ago
  You still have to mobilize a drywall crew for ceilings. And your painter needs to use another primer and paint system for the concrete. Hanging interior doors and trimming them out is no longer a job for nails. Same for crown and base moldings and kitchen cabinets. And you still have to insulate. Four feet of concrete wall thickness is needed for a nominal R10.

torginus 2y ago

I never understood how 3D printing buildings even come about. Desktop 3D printers work by melting thermoplastics that solidify when cooled down and is ready for the next layer. With concrete, you have to wait for it to set before you can print on top of it. D

ben_w 2y ago
I think it happened because a nerd like us wanted to make a castle for their kid to play in, and that became an effective concrete printer, and that got in the news and inspired… mostly buildings that would have been easier with prefabricated concrete slabs, and which almost completely fail to take advantage of the opportunities that 3D printing can offer.
dhosek 2y ago
This page from Cemex might answer some of your questions https://www.cemexventures.com/3d-printing-in-construction/ https://www.cemexventures.com/3d-printing-in-construction/
- dhosek 2y ago
  Tt’s worth noting that this article makes it sound like ICON invented everything from scratch, but the technology is much older than the company.

9cb14c1ec0 2y ago

That's the selling price. It doesn't say anything at all about construction costs, but more about the housing market in general.

janalsncm 2y ago
I disagree. I checked Georgetown, TX for comparable homes in the area (3b/2ba, ~1500 sqft) and it seems many houses are going for under $400k. But “Dyce” sells for $470k. https://www.lennar.com/new-homes/texas/austin-central-texas/georgetown/wolf-ranch/genesis-collection https://www.lennar.com/new-homes/texas/austin-central-texas/... Just as a random example, this is a comparable house (bigger in fact) and selling for $365k. https://www.redfin.com/TX/Georgetown/346-White-River-Dr-78626/home/144199509 https://www.redfin.com/TX/Georgetown/346-White-River-Dr-7862... I think this is a really cool technology but it’s not competitive yet.
- tantalor 2y ago
  You misunderstood. If I can build a house for half the cost, that goes to my profit margin, not a discount for the buyer.
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    As Jeff Bezos says, your margin is my opportunity. So yes, it would drive costs down. But we aren’t even there yet because the houses aren’t being sold because they’re too expensive. Another way to pad your profit margins would be to raise the asking price of the $360k home by $100k. There is a reason people aren’t doing that.
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      That’s not how real estate works. Amazon deals in commodity goods that are easily substituteable. Housing is different because every single one is unique (by virtue of location) and also incredibly scarce (again, location). Housing markets tend to strongly fight any tendency towards underpricing. When a house is underpriced, buyers will get into a bidding war and push the price back into the fair market price.

nyclounge 2y ago

That is what I was thinking. I mean what is nice about those prefab housings like the ones you see on Amazon and Walmart is that they are really cheap!

Dig1t 2y ago

I disagree, they are priced the same as a new timber framed house but concrete is way better insulated and more efficient, which is great for the Texas heat. Also they are much more resistant to storm damage. Look at the results in Florida where the only houses left standing after hurricanes are the ones which are built with ICF (insulated concrete forms) So for the same money I would argue you are getting a better product. That’s also saying nothing about a more consistent build quality. Timber framed houses vary a lot in quality depending on the crew who built them and the quality of the materials used. Framing with a robot means that there is far less variation in quality, vs framing with crews of humans who are often paid a little as possible and told to work as quickly as possible.