One Virginia family received the keys to their new 3D-printed home in time for Christmas. The home is Habitat for Humanity's first 3D-printed home in the nation, according to a Habitat news release. Janet V. Green, CEO of Habitat for Humanity Peninsula and Greater Williamsburg, told CNN it partnered with Alquist, a 3D printing company, earlier this year to begin the process. Alquist's crew printed the house. — CNN
The milestone was marked by a ribbon-cutting ceremony on December 21st. The 1,200-square-foot house has three bedrooms, two full baths, and the concrete portion of the structure was printed in 12 hours. The home was built for April Stringfield, who purchased the home through Habitat for Humanity’s homeownership program. The home also includes a personal 3D printer that will allow her and her 13-year-old son to reprint anything they may need, from electrical outlets to cabinet knobs.
This project joins Habitat for Humanity’s 3D-printed residential project in Tempe, Arizona, as part of their initiative to understand the potential for 3D-printing to deliver affordable housing across the country. You can read Archinect's exclusive interview with the architects and builders of the Tempe house, and their impressions of the process, here.
10 Comments
This is certainly regressive for the applied technology promises.
Affordability is the excuse for automation that takes away jobs. Go figure.
I'm never in favor of these technologies simply supporting mediocracy. The Williamsburg House is an an example of a dreaded future where artsitic beauty will be sacrificed in the name of affordability. We need to infuse design exploitation as mass customization or 3D printing will further support the method of "stamping out" housing developments with numbing sameness.
If these examples weren't completely subsidized by the printing machines companies, it wouldn't be affordable at all.
Hmm, I'm reminded of how Aravena's much-acclaimed model for affordable housing was effectively subsidized by the Chilean national oil company - which contributed more to its success than the design itself.
Life is PR now.
The first one looks like a 1940s bungalow; the second like some industrial building you order from a catalog. The dystopia vibes fit right in with the manifold disasters the country is undergoing right now.
Man, did they load up the lipstick on this pig of a home.
Can't those machines squeeze out anything that doesn't look like dinosaur poop?
The method satisfies two itches. It promotes a trendy technology and it allows an industry to centralize large scale production, minimize expenses, notably labor, and maximize profit—at great social and esthetic cost. You can be certain if 3D construction ramps up, most of the lipstick will go.
One way to improve affordable housing is to give more people meaningful jobs in their communities so they can afford better homes. Design and construction are meaningful work. Whatever the obstacles, no one appears to be thinking that way, and such priorities aren't in the culture or our systems.
In theory, a 3D printer can print literally anything. Why should we think that it should be used only to print objects that adhere to a particular aesthetic philosophy and language, and not others? Why is a language originating in, say, 1900 considered “regressive”, but a language from, say, 1930 is fine and dandy?
You don't have to call it regressive, some mandates called it beautiful...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.