[huetius]

The responses here are critical —- some useful, some not so useful.

I’m happy to see this project and would like to see more like it, even if this is not quite ready for show time. The possibility of using advances in technology and open source methods to allow people to make more stuff for themselves and their communities in a way that is efficient and feasible is exciting to me.

[dagw]

I guess the real question is does this actually solve a real problem people are having? An acquaintance of mine recently built a house, and constructing the outer 'shell' was by far the quickest and easiest part of the whole process.

[huetius]

Depends what you mean by “this.” This exact project is, I think, not ready for prime time, as I said in my post. If by “this” you mean “ways to make more of our own stuff on a smaller scale,” I am currently in my fourth month of waiting for a proprietary part for my tractor, when if I had an economical and legal way to either machine the part myself, or have it machined by a competent neighbor, then I wouldn’t have this problem. In a time when we are experiencing the consequences of over-specialized, over-connected, over-optimized supply chains, I think that a more fractal, scale-invariant, redundant approach to production has real value.

(It also, in general, makes humans feel good to make and then use something).

[falcolas]

> does this actually solve a real problem people are having?

And does it solve it at a price point that makes it practical in comparison to other high efficiency house building technologies?

[forgetfreeman]

Are construction methods the bottleneck though? Habitat For Humanity is an excellent example of communities building things for themselves and others. What problem do you see systems like this solving?

[cuttysnark]

> Are construction methods the bottleneck though?

Perhaps when compared to this CAD/CNC approach. In the traditional stick-built house you need wood and other materials, tools of all sorts, and specialized workers who know the steps in order. If some critical material hasn't been delivered yet, workers have to pivot to a different task or simply stop working.

With this other method, 100% of the material is cut/delivered to the site, and the workers need only to follow the instructions. Their tools are fewer, too—hammers, nails, hand-crank lift.

In the future, anyone who likes putting together IKEA furniture may consider an exciting new career in home construction. I say that half in jest, half in hope.

[forgetfreeman]

I see how the material presented on the website could lead someone who is unfamiliar with construction to the impression that this system simplifies the process but that is not the case in any meaningful way.

Framing, cladding, and insulating a structure, which is all that is represented here, are the simplest, least tool-intensive tasks involved. Additionally this style of construction can seamlessly cope when a foundation is poured a couple inches out of dimension or a few degrees off square. By comparison I shudder to think what flavor of chaos would kick off on a DIY Ikea house project when the assembly team has to cope with similar issues with only pre-fab components to draw from.

Standard building methods expect all of the material for each phase of construction to be trucked in in one bundle, identical to a pre-fabbed system, but with the added benefit that if any material is found to be sub-standard, or if there are errors with the delivery materials to make up the difference can be trivially sourced from any lumber yard or big box home improvement store.

Long story short, framing a house isn't particularly complicated. Folks that are intimidated by the process don't have enough experience in the industry to know first-hand that there isn't a single task involved that isn't routinely completed by individuals who have little prior experience, are high out of their mind, or both.