Prefabbed homes have promise but 3d printed homes aren't worth the cost yet. You still need to have a trained crew always nearby to monitor, maintain, and refill the printer. And moving and setting up the printer requires a lot of work plus you still need to manually lay the foundation. And you still need to do all the actual work for the rest of the house, all the printer does is set some walls.
The only time it makes sense is when producing tons of cheap housing side by side (like in rural African countries). But it still costs too much to move the few machines on existence to Africa and set up training and resupply lines. Its easier and cheaper to just manually build houses still.
Prefabbed houses have promise in efficiency, but why would you pay 50k+ for a motel room that still needs you to buy land, transport it, pay to run city hookups and has no room for growing a family/guests? It only has appeal because of how fricked the housing market is right now and people are desperate. Once the market crashes people will buy their mcMansions with 4 empty rooms like usual.
I dont think its a good idea for africa, since it just shifts a bunch of relatively simple jobs (building concrete brick houses to african standards) into a small number of trained jobs. The one thing africa really has is numerous laborers, I dont think man-hour-efficiency is the bottleneck.
Its a bottleneck as long as you have to pay your workers. Having lots of workers doing inefficient work is great when they're slave labor - ultimately you can fix every problem just by throwing additional labor at it, even if it takes longer. When you have to pay your workers, having more of them means you pay more wages, and having less efficient labor means you pay more wages for the same amount of work.
First world standard kinda screwed you on this one.
The major issue with 3d printing is lack of suitable building material that is strong, resistant to environment and heat, ideally non-flammable, setting in under an hour with sufficiently strong bonding between layers, while being cheap and easily available in large volumes at the same time. Concrete sets for days unless you pack it full of additives that destroy its low cost advantage and/or mechanical properties, polymers are expensive and have a lot of other problems, and the rest is somewhere inbetween with none being really adequate.
This, and there's also little reason to print buildings in the first place. It's pretty much limited to walls only which amount to like 10% or less of the overall cost and labor, and even of those you aren't saving much compared to traditional methods. Even the ability to freeform walls is largely a meme because any wall or angle that isn't straight is a pain in the ass in the long run if we're talking about actual livable house and not an art piece.
Singlewide trailers. Anything built after '78(I think) is built to a uniform code, they then changed names from mobile homes to Manufactured homes. Just get a cheap one, rehab it with better siding and maybe build a self-supported roof and you'd be good to go. Trailers always seem to have roofing issues. Cities HATE the trailerminded individual, so good luck finding any land where they are able to be located if you are wanting something near a city. I just recently got some land in a small town near my work and plan to do this.
>Cities HATE the trailerminded individual, so good luck finding any land where they are able to be located if you are wanting something near a city.
Because trailer parks swiftly become nigslum shitholes. Trailers are fine outside civilization as short-term homes while building something better, but one can also build a workshop then live in that while building a superior home of whatever style. I fricking hate trailer repair which is why I refuse to own one. If I had to I'd get a commercial office trailer as those are intended for abuse then I'd mod that for comfort.
All this shit sounds like something manufactured to discourage affordable budget housing. Why is it so troublesome for people to be able to afford a house rather than becoming eternal renters?
Frick trailer parks. I'm talking owning a cheap lot of land and putting an affordable (compared to regular houses at least) mobile home on it and living there, something that's discouraged because popular opinion and media portrayal is "living in a trailer of any type is for poor white trash drug addicts and you should feel bad".
no, not all of them. A lot of properties are slab with hookups and you own the land. It completely depends on the park. Sometimes there is only a communal HOA and taxes are separate. This isn't to say that a lot of trailerparks are not this way, but to broadly say they are all landlease is far too broad.
because they are stupid and moronic
concrete in insanely expensive
concrete blocks are bulked with gravel which makes them relatively cheap
you can't pump that kind of mix through a nozzle like that and expect it to "print"
they always show you round or curved shaped houses as an incentive to use this technology in reality nobody wants a round house to live in because you can't put anything against a wall or hang a picture or tv.
Cant you just cast prefabricated wall segment from the same concrete you make blocks from? that seems easier than printing on site.
I think they made our "commieblocks" that way, just standardized segments that fit together. Take that idea, make it more flexible (to appeal to the consumer who wants an "individual" home) and you got low man hour, individual housing.
you could do but the second reason is that solid concrete isn't a good enough insulator, timber frame uses insulation sheets, brick houses are two skins with an air gap for insulation. a solid pour would only work in a stable temporate climate.
on that note, you could absolutely pour into a framework but you have to be clever about how you form a cavity insulation layer because the framework needs ssupport against tonnes of concrete which is difficult to get in a 6ft high wall 2 inch gap, or just glue insulation on the outside and kill hundreds of immigrants like what they did at grenfell tower block in london
The same reason(s) everything not popular in shell construction is not popular in shell construction. When you learn that shell cost isn't everything and why some methods are more limiting than empowering you'll be ready to make informed choices. Niche oddball moronic shell questions abound on PrepHole because noobs aren't serious and want spoonfeeding instead of using google as advised.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all live in 3D printed rammed earthbag fieldstone shipping containers dug into BIG WIDE HOLES and feast on imitation crab meat tendies while the conventional housing hebrew dilates?
Because you can't 3d print a home, yet. The 3d printers don't print pipes for water and sewage, cables and conduit for electrical, doors and door hinges, windows, roof, foundations, insulation. The only thing they do is form some walls more or less quickly. Calling that a 3d printed home is like taking a bare foam mattress and calling it a bed.
Because they are only walls, and walls are butt fricking simple and cheap to make on site already. The expensive parts of buildings are all the fittings, like electrical and plumbing, foundations, room's and finishings (cabinetry, trim etc...). Walls are the only thing 3d printers can really do at the moment, and it's no cheaper or faster than a stick built wall.
Because people too full of themselves won't admit it's the same $2 technology in an Ender 3, so they charge $800,000 for the service, only making it profitable for very large, expensive projects.
Pour and casting aircrete 1 foot at a time over a week is much faster and uses basic technology. Of course, it's even cheaper and possible with hand tools so it's MORE illegal!
We don't really do strand board construction here in NZ but I think a CNC that spits out the parts to assemble on site would be a fast way to build. Crew turns up with a pallet of board. Have a couple of crew members looking at a TV assembling the parts as they come out and another crew putting the parts together. I think our weather is too harsh to use OBS here though.
there's a cool construction method called ICF which is essentially foam molds that they place and fill with rebar and concrete to form the walls of a house.
Foam is a major fire hazard no matter what they tell you about moronants and whatnot. They only give you a few minutes to run outside with no pants and not torch the whole house instantly at best. Don't mind the meme tests where they try to burn a small piece of foam, it still contributes in a big enough fire and also melts, helping the spread of fire both through the burning melt and forming essentially chimneys inside the walls. I hear there are types of urethane foam that only carbonize but don't melt, but as you can guess they're expensive and hard to find so unless you build the house by yourself and personally test all the materials you can be 99.9% sure it will have the cheapest junkiest styrofoam that will also blast you with styrene fumes on hot days.
Oh and also rodents absolutely love foam
Craned homes are a thing (foundation is poured, main floor is placed, then second floor is dropped on top by a crane, then trusses).
They get built pretty quick by home builder companies that employ immigrant mechanical trades workers internally, cutting corners and saving the builder costs anywhere they can.
Majority of these homes are townhouses or lane homes with detached garages, they don't have any difference in price to a conventionally built property however and are squeezed into new neighborhood developments into 'zero lot line' properties where the side of your house is literally the boundary of your property.
Would not recommend unless you want a shitshack built within a year from ungraded ground to possession.
>why aren't 3d printed or prefabed homes a thing?
Durr suuurrrch enginnnee durrrr
Great, I want a swastika house.
Prefabbed homes have promise but 3d printed homes aren't worth the cost yet. You still need to have a trained crew always nearby to monitor, maintain, and refill the printer. And moving and setting up the printer requires a lot of work plus you still need to manually lay the foundation. And you still need to do all the actual work for the rest of the house, all the printer does is set some walls.
The only time it makes sense is when producing tons of cheap housing side by side (like in rural African countries). But it still costs too much to move the few machines on existence to Africa and set up training and resupply lines. Its easier and cheaper to just manually build houses still.
Prefabbed houses have promise in efficiency, but why would you pay 50k+ for a motel room that still needs you to buy land, transport it, pay to run city hookups and has no room for growing a family/guests? It only has appeal because of how fricked the housing market is right now and people are desperate. Once the market crashes people will buy their mcMansions with 4 empty rooms like usual.
Once there is the model x of prefabbed homes it will be cheap
I dont think its a good idea for africa, since it just shifts a bunch of relatively simple jobs (building concrete brick houses to african standards) into a small number of trained jobs. The one thing africa really has is numerous laborers, I dont think man-hour-efficiency is the bottleneck.
Its a bottleneck as long as you have to pay your workers. Having lots of workers doing inefficient work is great when they're slave labor - ultimately you can fix every problem just by throwing additional labor at it, even if it takes longer. When you have to pay your workers, having more of them means you pay more wages, and having less efficient labor means you pay more wages for the same amount of work.
First world standard kinda screwed you on this one.
Manufactured and modular homes are already a thing, have been for years.
Spics are cheaper than engineers
basically this. you can buy 10000 cinderblocks and a few laborers, or rent a 20,000,000 dollar machine that needs to earn its cost through you.
there's the happy middle where the walls are built in a factory, shipped and craned into place
>prefabed homes a thing?
These have been a thing since the 60s.
60's? You could order a prefabbed house out of the Sears and Roebuck catalogue in the 1920's, possibly earlier than that.
The major issue with 3d printing is lack of suitable building material that is strong, resistant to environment and heat, ideally non-flammable, setting in under an hour with sufficiently strong bonding between layers, while being cheap and easily available in large volumes at the same time. Concrete sets for days unless you pack it full of additives that destroy its low cost advantage and/or mechanical properties, polymers are expensive and have a lot of other problems, and the rest is somewhere inbetween with none being really adequate.
This, and there's also little reason to print buildings in the first place. It's pretty much limited to walls only which amount to like 10% or less of the overall cost and labor, and even of those you aren't saving much compared to traditional methods. Even the ability to freeform walls is largely a meme because any wall or angle that isn't straight is a pain in the ass in the long run if we're talking about actual livable house and not an art piece.
What are the most affordable and effective modular homes?
Singlewide trailers. Anything built after '78(I think) is built to a uniform code, they then changed names from mobile homes to Manufactured homes. Just get a cheap one, rehab it with better siding and maybe build a self-supported roof and you'd be good to go. Trailers always seem to have roofing issues. Cities HATE the trailerminded individual, so good luck finding any land where they are able to be located if you are wanting something near a city. I just recently got some land in a small town near my work and plan to do this.
>Cities HATE the trailerminded individual, so good luck finding any land where they are able to be located if you are wanting something near a city.
Because trailer parks swiftly become nigslum shitholes. Trailers are fine outside civilization as short-term homes while building something better, but one can also build a workshop then live in that while building a superior home of whatever style. I fricking hate trailer repair which is why I refuse to own one. If I had to I'd get a commercial office trailer as those are intended for abuse then I'd mod that for comfort.
All this shit sounds like something manufactured to discourage affordable budget housing. Why is it so troublesome for people to be able to afford a house rather than becoming eternal renters?
> rather than becoming eternal renters?
You DO realize that people in trailerparks RENT their lots right?
Frick trailer parks. I'm talking owning a cheap lot of land and putting an affordable (compared to regular houses at least) mobile home on it and living there, something that's discouraged because popular opinion and media portrayal is "living in a trailer of any type is for poor white trash drug addicts and you should feel bad".
no, not all of them. A lot of properties are slab with hookups and you own the land. It completely depends on the park. Sometimes there is only a communal HOA and taxes are separate. This isn't to say that a lot of trailerparks are not this way, but to broadly say they are all landlease is far too broad.
Because they're not strong, a sledge hammer would crumple that wall
just like any other american building then
Because almost every house is different so have to build on a case by case basis
Except things like the toilets
lol no
it is a thing
but construction is a beast of an industry so its not very popular presently - mostly just some hip architects and randos
because they are stupid and moronic
concrete in insanely expensive
concrete blocks are bulked with gravel which makes them relatively cheap
you can't pump that kind of mix through a nozzle like that and expect it to "print"
they always show you round or curved shaped houses as an incentive to use this technology in reality nobody wants a round house to live in because you can't put anything against a wall or hang a picture or tv.
Cant you just cast prefabricated wall segment from the same concrete you make blocks from? that seems easier than printing on site.
I think they made our "commieblocks" that way, just standardized segments that fit together. Take that idea, make it more flexible (to appeal to the consumer who wants an "individual" home) and you got low man hour, individual housing.
Sure. Ronan Point was made that way.
It works well when it's done well. If you do it wrong, it doesn't work so well.
That seems to be the case with most things.
Right, so the question becomes do you trust that it will be done well?
you could do but the second reason is that solid concrete isn't a good enough insulator, timber frame uses insulation sheets, brick houses are two skins with an air gap for insulation. a solid pour would only work in a stable temporate climate.
on that note, you could absolutely pour into a framework but you have to be clever about how you form a cavity insulation layer because the framework needs ssupport against tonnes of concrete which is difficult to get in a 6ft high wall 2 inch gap, or just glue insulation on the outside and kill hundreds of immigrants like what they did at grenfell tower block in london
The same reason(s) everything not popular in shell construction is not popular in shell construction. When you learn that shell cost isn't everything and why some methods are more limiting than empowering you'll be ready to make informed choices. Niche oddball moronic shell questions abound on PrepHole because noobs aren't serious and want spoonfeeding instead of using google as advised.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all live in 3D printed rammed earthbag fieldstone shipping containers dug into BIG WIDE HOLES and feast on imitation crab meat tendies while the conventional housing hebrew dilates?
Because you can't 3d print a home, yet. The 3d printers don't print pipes for water and sewage, cables and conduit for electrical, doors and door hinges, windows, roof, foundations, insulation. The only thing they do is form some walls more or less quickly. Calling that a 3d printed home is like taking a bare foam mattress and calling it a bed.
>3d printed
not efficient
>prefabed homes
Inertia, they are becoming more common.
Because they are only walls, and walls are butt fricking simple and cheap to make on site already. The expensive parts of buildings are all the fittings, like electrical and plumbing, foundations, room's and finishings (cabinetry, trim etc...). Walls are the only thing 3d printers can really do at the moment, and it's no cheaper or faster than a stick built wall.
It's Yet Another Techbro Scam, basically.
go to a subdivision, it's all prefab shit stuck together with glue and deck screws.
Because people too full of themselves won't admit it's the same $2 technology in an Ender 3, so they charge $800,000 for the service, only making it profitable for very large, expensive projects.
Pour and casting aircrete 1 foot at a time over a week is much faster and uses basic technology. Of course, it's even cheaper and possible with hand tools so it's MORE illegal!
the machine is expensive and you need to hire educated white people to run it instead of a bunch of hispanics "from" texas
Ideally with a perfected machine you only need a few armed guys to keep hispanics and nigs away from it while it's doing its job all by itself
We don't really do strand board construction here in NZ but I think a CNC that spits out the parts to assemble on site would be a fast way to build. Crew turns up with a pallet of board. Have a couple of crew members looking at a TV assembling the parts as they come out and another crew putting the parts together. I think our weather is too harsh to use OBS here though.
there's a cool construction method called ICF which is essentially foam molds that they place and fill with rebar and concrete to form the walls of a house.
Foam is a major fire hazard no matter what they tell you about moronants and whatnot. They only give you a few minutes to run outside with no pants and not torch the whole house instantly at best. Don't mind the meme tests where they try to burn a small piece of foam, it still contributes in a big enough fire and also melts, helping the spread of fire both through the burning melt and forming essentially chimneys inside the walls. I hear there are types of urethane foam that only carbonize but don't melt, but as you can guess they're expensive and hard to find so unless you build the house by yourself and personally test all the materials you can be 99.9% sure it will have the cheapest junkiest styrofoam that will also blast you with styrene fumes on hot days.
Oh and also rodents absolutely love foam
Because you touch yourself at night.
Craned homes are a thing (foundation is poured, main floor is placed, then second floor is dropped on top by a crane, then trusses).
They get built pretty quick by home builder companies that employ immigrant mechanical trades workers internally, cutting corners and saving the builder costs anywhere they can.
Majority of these homes are townhouses or lane homes with detached garages, they don't have any difference in price to a conventionally built property however and are squeezed into new neighborhood developments into 'zero lot line' properties where the side of your house is literally the boundary of your property.
Would not recommend unless you want a shitshack built within a year from ungraded ground to possession.
>Because absolutely all of the soil and ground water needs to be contaminated with microplastics leeching out of that thing every rainstorm
Also have fun with your house that's either a carcinogenic cesspit or a disaster that's begging to turn into an inextinguishable fire