Comments on: ROBO-BUILDER LAUNCHING IN CALIFORNIA

By: Per Corell

Per Corell — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:41:46 +0000

With small volumes the concrets weight will not be a problem — but with bigger scale mashines there be huge problems ,concrete are cheap as the contains are rough not refined smooth and very controlled as with the inviroments.
But my doubt acturly lay in another aspect of this — I see this as a limited perception of the building structure. The house as just the outher limits, where the walls in fact are the least thing about it, A revolution in architecture and our perception of the build works simply must cover more than the outher wallsm it has to cover the structure as a whole, not continue like this concept, emagining the house as hundreds of parts all asking their own production line . A new architecture must dover the house as it’s structure , — please check my homepage where this is described in detail, the chinese buy this , so your time spend are not wasted.

By: anothersimpson

anothersimpson — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:47:45 +0000

Think it could be fantastic.
A little more work needed though – there was no insulation shown on the animation on their website for instance.
No point saving CO2 in production to let it all leak out of the walls.

By: milan

milan — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:12:34 +0000

possible application for construction right there

http://www.new-territories.com/I‘veheardabout.htm

in july 2005 by François Roche

your 2 years late guys ….

By: tynan

tynan — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:31:29 +0000

hmmmmm, I think a lot of you are missing the point. I assume this will primarily aid in the quick rebuilding of temporary housing, due to disasters etc. I doubt the aim for this machine is to break into mainstream building and architecture.

By: alternative party » There but for the tax go I

alternative party » There but for the tax go I — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:23:14 +0000

[...] worst effects of the inevitable disruptive technologies. The latter almost certainly will include Robo-Builders, the very notion of which should bring on a cold sweat in any Irish [...]

By: barrett

barrett — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:45:29 +0000

what about rebar…seems like it would start to crumble like wrights houses are now without rebar?

By: Billy

Billy — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 08:52:47 +0000

I think this is a great idea, if they can make it work. However, I think it is still a little far off and this is the test phase. When the trial run is complete they will study the stresses on the house and see where the kinks need to be worked out. I’m thinking this is not only going to be used for cheap housing. People usually make robots to do things that are to dangerous for people to do. This system could not only be used on Earth, but could be sent to the moon or Mars to set up bases that would take very little time for crews to finish once they arrived. I do not think this will replace the builders of the world, but it might asist them in the future of space exploration. First, lets just wait to see this thing do what they say it can do. I’ll be waiting for the Dicovery channel to keep me updated.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:43:37 +0000

This is inspiring to see, but like most developing ideas, much remains to be worked out before the final product is market ready. I see a number of positives and negatives to comment on, some of which have been already mentioned, some not.
Positive:
- Forming concrete in this way will certainly save tons of formwork material- a costly, time consuming, and environmentally wasteful practice.
- Building with concrete is durable, which may begin a trend away from “disposable” architecture that is so common.
- Concrete provides great thermal mass, which if used well, provides excellent passive climate benefits.
- Potentially very quick way to build.
- Decrease costs by labor savings.
- Material and method makes complex forms easy to create.
- For openings, the machine can be programmed to leave gaps in the walls, and then a steel angle lintel could be laid in place by workers as the machine returns across the top of the opening to form the wall above.

Negatives:
- Concrete placed by this machine is not reinforced, which excludes it from use just about anywhere the States. Non-reinforced masonry is common in Australia and non-seismic zones, so there is likely still an application internationally.
- Concrete as a material has a relatively high embodied energy cost (mining, processing, transportation) – unless the buildings built of solid concrete remain for a very long time, it’s eco cost is likely higher than if built with a renewable resource.
- Weight of structure may not be suitable for some locations with poor bearing capacities.
- Insulation required for most climates means that framing and wall linings are still necessary.
- Solid walls do not accommodate concealed services; see note above.
- Setting up a solid and accurate framework to support the machine on site so that it can build accurately will be difficult and will likely require large clearances beyond the building perimeter, and likely foundations of its own. Must be a pretty beefy framework to support not just the machinery, but the heavy wet material being placed, and must be able to handle the rapid changes in direction that the machine makes without distortion.
- Same concerns stated by others about material in lower courses compressing from weight of courses above.
- Same concerns about keeping the machine working properly during use, and the potentially huge cost of having it break when a couple dozen full concrete trucks are standing by.
- Concrete is more expensive (initially) than most alternative building materials. Though this may be offset substantially by elimination of the formwork cost and labor.
- Placing furniture in a curved room is difficult. Ok I’m just kidding.

Well that’s what comes to mind right off.
Regardless, I love to see people pushing the boundaries of building technology.

By: zac

zac — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 04:02:26 +0000

this brings

TEARS TO MY EYES

i saw this technology a couple of years ago, when i was wanting to build a [modernist] SIP house, and it’s been haunting my imagination ever since. we couldn’t afford to build, and i kick myself at least every week for not going into massive debt to build that dream house. i’ve got a lot of years left (i’m 27) to build that dream, and if this thing pans out, i might just be able to do it, WITHIN MY MEANS. where are the people who are talking about the POSSIBILITIES if this does work?

i’ve messed around with a cnc router before, and once you see the possibilities of machines like that, it’s hard to contain the imagination.

Your favorite graphic designer could dream up some beautiful [3D] shapes, you could ponder those shapes with a gifted space architect, followed by a phenom space planner, and any other design professional (HUMAN TOUCH) you want, not to mention you throwing in those hidden hallways and secret rooms with schematics and such. A dream house, that’s actually cheaper than any of the [cheap labor used the wrong nails in my bathroom ceiling and now they're rusting through the plaster] MAN-made 30′x40′ boxes i live in.

for people like me, who had to settle, but still think they’re into residential architecture, and that the space you live in could greatly affect quality of life, this idea is potentially life-changing (if it works).

By: Nick Simpson

Nick Simpson — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:50:10 +0000

Totally agree. As an architecture student in the UK you tear your hair out at the state of architecture in this country (and arguably the USA). A great number of talented architects, with a overly cautious public/government that won’t let them create buildings that are genuinely of their time. But I guess you can’t expect too many people to spend so much money on something experimental…

Good point about cars too – if you’ve got 20k pounds (40k dollars) to spend on a car, they’ll keep stuffing in more features until there’s 20k’s worth instead of offering you what you need for 10k!

By: Paul Morra

Paul Morra — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:37:40 +0000

I do agree Nick that technological advancements should be allowed to flourish. I would be the first to welcome any improvements in the building industry that would allow for a less expensive home to be built and have the savings passed on to consumers. Realistically though, technological improvements don’t always translate to consumer svaings. The average car is a perfect example. They haven’t gotten cheaper, but have become much safer and somewhat more efficient.
I’m amazed at the improvements in building effeciency and sustainabilty that where proposed by the likes of Mies, Frank Lloyd Wright and Bucky Fuller that never truly saw their way into the average residential archetype that we see littered across the suburbs. To this day many of those ideas still seem outlandish to the average home buyer.
Unfortunately the construction industry is a very slow moving machine, especially the residential sector. Change comes very, very slowly and ultimately only when the consumers demand it.
I look forward to a more systemized form of building and would hope that technology brings us closer to the process of building rather than farther away. That doesn’t neccesarily mean ignoring the positves of mechanized labor but more the involvement of a deeper sense of craft in the building as a whole. I see many skilled laborers each day that are only going through the motions of building without much care or interest in the final building itself, even though the building will stand long after we are all gone. That seems important to me in that a culture is often judged historically, by their architecture.

By: Nick Simpson

Nick Simpson — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:26:29 +0000

Definitely agree with you that tastes seem to stick to the traditional (or a pastiche of the traditional). In a way you can’t blame people for this, unlike anything else you buy (a car for example) you’re not looking to buy a house, you’re looking to buy a home – our perception of which is formed years ago in our childhood. Knowing that standards of housing could be so much better is frustrating, but there we go.

I still think that we shouldn’t hold back technological advancement though. The whole point of it is not to leave us redundant, but to free us to work on the next step in improving our standard of living. If on your building site you could free up some bricklayers they could, if they had the skills, be working on getting the plumbing/plastering/electrics in quicker. In the same way, by reducing the amount of labour needed to build a house/car/washing machine/TV/PC, costs drop, giving the average individual more money to buy other things – built by the people who would otherwise have been making the house/car/etc. We must always keep in mind what we’re trying to produce, homes not boxes to put people into, but assuming we can still create this we have to always seek to improve efficiency if we want to make our lives better.

I do see your point of view though and if nothing else I’m glad there are builders that really care about what they do – all too many I’ve met here really don’t seem to…

By: Paul Morra

Paul Morra — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:42:39 +0000

Ron asked how many of us are in the construction industry? I am, I’m a builder.
Conceptually I believe that any experimentation into bringing greater efficiencies into the building industry is a positive. There is a great deal of redundency and waste in the average building project.
The real world application for this robo-builder seems limited, but with further exploration a more practical version will be sure to surface.
Basic building components like exterior windows and doors would need a steel lintel of some sort prior to cutting a hole in the final structure to accomodate those buidling elements. This is just one of the many different assembly components that would have to take this idea from a machine that pores continuous walls to an actual fabricator of building assemblies.
I agree that prefab panels, shipped to site, seems to be a much more realistic way to build efficiently and quickly.
Especially when considering the many building componets required to make up a usable living environment.
Weather alone would be a factor in the workings of this machine on site.
I also agree with the statement that builders and developers in general would be quick to embrace any new technology that helped their bottom line, but only in cicumstances that proved the final purchaser actually wanted it. There’s a reason why the typical house design has not changed in over a hundred years. Consumers associate a certain aesthic to the average home. It’s nostalgic and inefficient but it’s a reality.
Developers will only build houses they can pretty much guarantee will be sold. The general populace has yet to embrace a modern aesthetic that has been in existance for almost a century. Real chnage will come when a 3000 unit subdivision is built in a manner indicicative of our times, technolgy and advancemnts. Car design progresses endlessly but the average North American house stays the same, aside from some minor advances such as engineered wood and steel studs used in everday applications, but it’s still basically stick framing.

Ultimately I feel that a truly sustainable architectural movement will be about involving human beings as opposed to removing them from the process.
The construction industry is one of North America’s largest employers. Skilled workers are indeed hard to find, but the removal of all trades from building takes away a relationship between man and the construction of shelter, that has exsitied since the beginning of civilazation.
What is the final point of technological advancements, is it to give us nothing to do? Will we just end up sitting in a corner while technology creates around us.

Sorry for the long reply. Just sayin’.

By: Nick Simpson

Nick Simpson — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:26:05 +0000

Joe – it creates flat walls, how on earth is that ugly, cold or featureless compared to the flat walls of existing houses?! And on top of that, as you can see from the video (did you watch it?) it can create curving walls, sloping walls, domes etc… I’m pretty certain it could easily create a huge range of organic shapes and volumes, unlike the majority of bricklayers and builders.

I don’t mean to be rude, but I’ve got no idea where your comment comes from..?

By: Joetheknight

Joetheknight — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:22:58 +0000

Interesting idea, but…this prototype is not even to the “proof of concept” stage – it simply demonstrates that a CNC Machine can be built to pour concrete. Aside from huge development, logistical, and financial challenges people are not going to want houses built this way because they are ugly, cold and featureless.
I’d say: don’t waste your time and energies and create something else.