It seems strange that there is so much focus on 3D printing structures. Any close look at where the costs go in home construction can easily verify that foundations and services (power, water, sewage) are where the majority of the costs are. It always makes sense to pinch pennies, but starting with one of the smallest line items limits potential improvement. What we really need are ongoing improvements to modular service installations.
This is also a complex cultural problem here as well because even though there are obvious ways of making even comparisons such as time and money spent before receiving a use permit the culture of construction likes to focus on a single innovation while leaving the rest out. There is a modular apartment building near me that took only hours to assemble from the component modules. However, doing that took many months of site preparation and module delivery and after the several hours construction it has still been months to get finishing done, construct sidewalks, and the rest. Without some general agreement about how to measure construction costs and time it is easy to present innovations that are either minor improvements or actually steps backward.
It seems like installing electrical and plumbing could be a lot easier if a 3D printed building was constructed with all the necessary channels for utilities already there in the walls, and all you have to do is feed wires and pipes through the routes and connect everything. Similarly, finish work is simpler if you don't have to put sheet rock up, and can just use the existing wall texture.
I think the bigger advantage to 3D printed architecture, though, is that you can make drastic changes to the design of a building without having to consider whether a contractor with the necessary skills is available to do the work or spend any effort trying to communicate the design to another human. For example, if I'm an architect and my client wants their living room to look like a gothic cathedral, I could design their living room to look like a gothic cathedral without having to worry about whether I can find a builder who knows how to construct a vaulted arch ceiling. I'd just have to make sure it's within the capabilities of the construction machine and conforms to structural requirements. That opens up a lot of possibilities, especially when it comes to organic shapes, curves, and non-right-angles.
Something like this already exists; you can construct a house from concrete elements with premade channels/cavities for the wires and pipes. However, they need to be finished up, I think with drywall usually.
I'm not aware this method has any real cost savings though compared to wood frame construction.
if I'm an architect and my client wants their living room to look like a gothic cathedral
If you were an architect with those kinds of clients you would have a list of potential builders with track records of successfully completing similar work. It’s among the kinds of expertise architects have.
And you would look at this with the jaded cynicism that an architect’s experience inevitably produces...for you will have seen simple concrete pumps break down...seen concrete mixed with extra slump to make it easier to work...and endless product presentations that sounded too good to be true.
And most importantly you would know that right angles are almost always the right answer...
> If you were an architect with those kinds of clients you would have a list of potential builders with track records of successfully completing similar work.
My point is that you don't have to have this knowledge, and you don't have to hire expert craftspeople and pay them expert wages if you can have a machine do the difficult work.
> And most importantly you would know that right angles are almost always the right answer...
Not necessarily. Box-shaped rooms work nicely, but the most important thing is to not have acute angles between walls. (IIRC Christopher Alexander goes into this in A Pattern Language in defense of right-angle walls, but for some reason neglects to consider rooms with more than 4 sides as an option.) Greater than 90 degrees is fine as long as it doesn't present a problem for the intended use (i.e. client expects furniture to fit at right angles). Also, if you're printing a whole house you can design benches, shelves, desks, and so forth into the design. Or maybe contract out to some service that will make the furniture based on a 3D model.
A big part of why walls are straight and meet at right angles is that building materials are generally straight and expect to be joined at right angles. Anything else turns into a complicated geometry problem that takes a lot longer to build. With a 3D printer, though, that's not a limitation. It doesn't matter how simple or complicated a design is, it takes about the same amount of time to print and uses about the same amount of material. The main constraints then just become what's strongest, nicest-looking, and most functional. Most people will probably prefer box-shaped rooms, but the point is that they'll have options if a box-shaped room isn't optimal.
One could imagine if house-design software becomes sufficiently advanced, you could dispense with the architect as well. Someone who wants a house could just log onto a website, identify the site where the house is to be built, and specify a bunch of constraints and preferences, and then the backend software generates a bunch of house plans. The customer choses the one they like and pay the money, then a building permit is applied for and a printing machine and work crew show up on site and assemble a house that's unique and exactly suited to its site.
“Not using an architect” can have benefits. Among them not having to deal with an architect. However, improved aesthetics is often not among them. Same for functionality.
The advantage of an architect is that you won’t get what you think you want.
In the comment you're replying to, I was thinking of the "architect" being basically replaced by a software package that designs the whole house based on the required criteria. Any aesthetic judgments are encoded in the software's heuristics, and the range of available styles are basically part of the brand of the company responsible for this house-designing-and-building service.
Allowing people to directly design their own house using CAD software is also an option. I think on average it would turn out okay most of the time. People have a pretty good incentive to design the spaces they live in well for they way they intend to use them.
This is as misguided as every iteration of no-code through programming history. All such tools promised to allow people without coding knowledge to create software. The result is the tools are used by disgruntled programmers who are now faced with a tool that is not friendly to other tools like version control. It has happened several times before and it is happening again now.
You can not automate problem solving until someone creates GAI.
Thinking that all a programmer does is write code or all an architect does is draw walls is an insult to each profession. The primary attribution of both is to decipher what the client actually wants from limited descriptions and to problem solve.
Leaning on the culture part, I am sure we would find some great cost savings by improving human waste removed. Contaminating drinkable water is such a bad use for this and sewage is a huge part of the services part mentioned.
I’m very fearful of the incentives that come with making infrastructure easier and cheaper to install. We already have issues around sprawl, which is a gigantic waste of resources. Making it easier for people to extend their last miles puts an undue strain on the system and the environment.
Maybe centering such infrastructure around self containment would prevent some of that but in itself seems wasteful (everyone needs their own water pump, sewage system and electrical generation management equipment?)
This is also a complex cultural problem here as well because even though there are obvious ways of making even comparisons such as time and money spent before receiving a use permit the culture of construction likes to focus on a single innovation while leaving the rest out. There is a modular apartment building near me that took only hours to assemble from the component modules. However, doing that took many months of site preparation and module delivery and after the several hours construction it has still been months to get finishing done, construct sidewalks, and the rest. Without some general agreement about how to measure construction costs and time it is easy to present innovations that are either minor improvements or actually steps backward.