Comment by Matth3wMarshall | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Matth3wMarshall | Hacker News Reader

Matth3wMarshall

Hi, this is Matthew, one of the cofounders at New Story (YC S15). We're the nonprofit developing this 3D printed home. I'd like to share why we decided to invest in an innovation like this and where we're headed. For context, in 3 years, we've built over 1,000 homes in 11 communities around the world through local partners.

The challenge we face is monumental; there are more than a billion people across the globe living without safe shelter. To make a dent in that number, our ability to scale up has to change.

Steady, linear improvements will never reach the total addressable market of families in need.

We believe R&D and product innovation is essential with a problem of this magnitude. We have to take big swings with forward-thinking technology to achieve a quantum leap in speed, affordability, and quality.

Our goal is to help power anyone building homes for the poor — governments and non-profits alike — to do their best work. As we make these strides, it means more families around the world will have safe shelter and can better actualize their potential.

We’re looking at a one billion person deficit of a basic human need. We believe maintaining the status quo is irresponsible — it’s terrifying to us — as it’ll never tackle this deficit. Our hypothesis today is that this breakthrough to reach more families can be achieved through robotics and 3D home printing.

A year ago, the technology we needed didn’t exist. That’s when we began working with ICON to create a solution to a seemingly unsolvable problem. The exciting result is “the Vulcan,” a 3D Home Printer designed to print a home for less than $4,000 in less than 24 hours. This robotic breakthrough delivers:

* Cost decrease (from $6,500/home to ~$4,000 and even lower future cost) * Speed increase (from ~15 days to 12–24hrs to build one home) * Improved quality and customization of the home unit for families

More here -> newstorycharity.org/3d-home

We'd love to answer any and all questions.

With all due respect for your work and intentions, please explain to me (hairy reasoner) two things:

1) How would the hypothetical 15 days/home reduced to 24h/home be relevant [1]

2) How the new machine is compatible with the statement on your site:

https://newstorycharity.org/sponsor/

>Built By Locals

>By training local labor and buying locally sourced construction materials your donation not only builds a home, but it stimulates local economies and teaches skills in the process.

[1] Please consider also how the 24h are per home is also per machine/robot, if you assemble 15 teams of local builders you have exactly the same production

I am similarly cynical. Can you explain why it is not better to use something simple, like cinder blocks, and put people to work in low wage/low employment/low skill environment? My only guess is because there is no place for your tech in that equation but, it seems better if you are really trying to make this a social mission.

First of all, I really genuinely hope that you succeed. You're attacking a Hard Problem, and one that very much needs to be solved. That said: I'm fairly skeptical that your approach will work. Maybe you've seen an angle that I've haven't, so I ask this in a hopeful and constructive spirit: what differentiates you from other initiatives that I've seen fail to transform the world?

Two points of comparison.

First, the Hexayurt[1]. The inventor of the Hexayurt system is a good friend of mine. He created it to provide higher-quality shelter for the bottom billion, particularly in refugee camps. It is actually cheaper than a tent, not much harder to set up, and provides a far more durable and climate-controlled experience. Unfortunately, although it's made a fair impact at Burning Man, it has failed to take root in the context it was designed for. The gatekeepers at refugee camps don't want to provide housing which conveys a sense of permanence; therefore the tents have stayed even hough they're worse in every possible metric.

Second, the CalEarth Foundation's "superAdobe" technique[2]. I also have personal experience with this, having built a dome with its founder Nader Khalili over 20 years ago. This system allows the construction of spectacularly beautiful high-quality homes using nothing more than dirt, barbed wire, sandbags, plaster, and quite a lot of low-skill labour. Although there have been pilots around the world, it has notably failed to make any large-scale changes in housing the poor. (The reasons for its lack of broad adoption are complex, and I'm not actually sure I have a good diagnosis. But it's a good point of comparison nonetheless).

Compared to Hexayurts, you're undoubtedly higher-quality -- but also two orders of magnitude slower and more expensive.

Compared to CalEarth, you need much less manual labour -- but that's the one resource that the developing world is rich in. After accounting for a larger workforce (paid at local wages), you're easily an order of magnitude more expensive, as well as less customisable and maintainable by the local populace. I don't see any compelling advantages offhand.

So what's your edge? I've been interested in 3D printed buildings since making that a major focus of my architecture degree in the 1990s, but I've always seen it as becoming competitive in places where the cost or availability of human labour was a limiting factor for construction. In the developing world, that just isn't the case. So how is this a solution to the developing world's problem?

1: http://hexayurt.com/

2: http://www.calearth.org/

+1 for the Calearth approach.

Really glad to hear you are working with local partners. As stated elsewhere in this discussion, I am skeptical. One of my concerns is lack of localization, basically, though I imagine that is not really the correct term in this case. Vernacular architecture tends to be suited to local climate and culture. This type of approach tends to be not.

Here is my other concern:

Our goal is to help power anyone building homes for the poor

Every time I hear people talking about designing housing for the poor, I hear them floating ideas that will essentially help them remain poor. Student housing, senior housing and other housing aimed at demographics that are perceived as having a full life, but not much money, tends to be designed very differently from housing for the poor. Housing for the poor often has poor access to transportation, education, jobs, etc. This can help people trapped in poverty.

Best of luck and I hope you succeed beyond your wildest dreams.

I’m curious about how the concrete is reinforced and how using reinforcing materials interacts with the printing process.

Definitely impressive. I think the challenge once the construction is completed is who will handle the ongoing maintenance for the homes. Without the proper HOA type agreements in place, once the newness wears off, it could become like an suburban version of an SRO.

Also if the houses are built where land is affordable, then they will by definition be built where there are not many options for nearby employment. Fortunately, I do feel like technology (i.e. remote work technologies such as always-on video conferencing at a we-work type setup for the community and/or employment at fulfillment centers outside the urban cores) could play a key role in resolving this paradox.

Are local regulations / building codes congruent with this type of building? Any constraints? (e.g. would you build them in earthquake / hurricane / tornado prone zones)

Your project is great! When will they be ready for consumers? Will they be available in the US?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com