The conceptual 3d printed type homes are interesting but they are limited in scope in that seismic and load issues require materials and configurations that are not per say printable. (In other words you would likely not want to live in a 3d printed home in SF).
That's simply not true. The kind of high-intensity housing he is talking about is built by arranging large pre-fab pieces on steel frame. In modern tower buildings, the pre-fab pieces are built on an assembly line and actually finished and furnished before bringing them on site and placing them on buildings. It's a much more efficient industry than concrete jet printers ever could be.
Whether we're talking about one and two story constructions, or tall towers, I still feel that there must be room for "more, better, faster, cheaper" through technology here. I won't be satisfied until everyone can afford (but not necessarily chooses to purchase) their own mansion-sized living space, cheaply.
I don't get why Americans pay top dollars for "houses" made of wood, plastic, etc, and with crappy construction (I've lived in several all around the US).
I'd take EU-style bricks, concrete, stones, etc any day of the week.
Most people that died in the Christchurch earthquake a couple of years ago were killed by falling bricks and stone, and a couple of collapsed concrete block buildings.
Think of it as a lego type snap-together system
We have fantastic technology in many aspects of life, but housing seems practically unchanged. I mean, buildings are constructed by teams of men placing pieces of wood by hand. Is that really the best we can do?
Dear VCs, you think a billion dollars is cool? How about a trillion dollars? Housing is that big.
For instance: http://gizmodo.com/5045863/concrete+jet-printer-gets-caterpi...
If Caterpillar, a hyper-conservative, risk-averse organization can fund this kind of stuff, surely VCs can.