Light composite materials “non code conform” building


#1

@ellmer

Yes that is the point. The things you can do are more or less limitless and only restricted by the power of imagination of the builder.

imagen

Here in Colombia for example we have a material called Guadua . In your country they call it Bamboo.

People make rafts out of it - imagine it in combination whith sprayed polyurea sheets and the light rock material in the video above - it is quite obvious that you can do a lot of interesting things with that, when it comes to working on the watersurface, and make a first construction layer on it.
Althogh these natural segmented tubes have at least the toughness and strength of a similar sized aluminium tube - they are obviously not “code conform”. Do i now suggest to make a seastead out of bamboo ? Not really - but what the example does is showing that your selection and cost of materials you can consider to use in your composite structures also widley depends on your local supply situation . ( Guadua costs next to nothing here ) While you would consider a ice sheet as first construction layer in Canada (Habakkuk ice ship), you will consider a bamboo composite in the tropics.

In the “poor man´s floating island - project” we took a somewhat different approach of combining materials to a floating island of “lowest possible cost”, to give poor people floating homes in the floodplaines of the Magdalena river (Government investigation project). This approach depends on a form of “material supply” that is “non code conform” in your country, but very doable in other parts of the world from India to South America.


Pacific Ring Weave
#2

yes, and guess what, i found lots of automachine which could do the programming part job

like this tu

only for 1k+ USD.


#3

imagine weave technology combined with matrix print technology creating advanced cement composite structures in building size…


#4

Unfettered capitalism “can solve the housing crisis” says Patrik Schumacher
Marcus Fairs | 1 May 2018 161 comments

Height restrictions, space standards and rent controls should be scrapped in order to solve the housing crisis, according to Zaha Hadid Architects’ principal Patrik Schumacher.

Instead, market forces should be allowed to determine where and what type of housing is built, the architect argues.

Schumacher sets out his thinking in an essay written for free-market think-tank the Adam Smith Institute, titled “Only capitalism can solve the housing crisis”.

Housing provision is “quasi-socialist”

Housing provision suffers from too much rather than too little state control, the architect claims, arguing that housing provision operates under “quasi-socialist” rules, which prevent market-driven solutions from emerging.

“Why are we suffering a housing shortage while nobody has to worry about a banana shortage, a bicycle crisis, or an automobile shortage?” he asks, adding that socialist countries suffer from all these maladies.

“The explanation is that the housing market, in contrast to the bicycle market, is highly politicised.”

He adds: “Since urban development is currently operating under the impositions of a quasi-socialist regime, a decisive shift towards an unencumbered free market system would indeed be revolutionary.”

The essay marks the latest provocative intervention in the housing debate by Schumacher following his infamous 2016 lecture, in which he called for the scrapping of social housing and the abolition of public space.

In his latest article, Schumacher argues that density, height and zoning restrictions should all be swept away in order to free up the supply of housing. “The housing affordability crisis is due to supply restrictions,” he writes. “There are far too many restrictions on land use.”

Space standards should be scrapped

The restrictive and reactionary planning system should be replaced with a self-regulation, overseen by property owners, he argues: “I suggest that an organised association of property owners should set regulations.”

Space standards should likewise be abolished and replaced with market-driven solutions. “Currently studio flats below 38 square meters are not permitted,” he argues. "Yet, units half that size, built at an earlier time, are rare and thus at the moment overpriced, hotly desired commodities, for rent or for sale.

“Lifting this prohibition would allow a whole new (lower) income group, which is now excluded, to enter the market.”

Affordable housing “keeps workers’ salaries low”

Initiatives to boost “affordable” housing provision on developments in cities like London have a detrimental effect, Schumacher claims.

He attacks London mayor Sadiq Khan’s desire to increase the number of subsidised units in large developments, arguing that this “creates a vicious interventionist spiral” and artificially keeps key workers’ salaries low, while making the market-rate homes that have to subsidise the affordable quota even more expensive.

Patrik Schumacher at World Architecture Festival
Related story
"We need more Schumachers prepared to shake up consensus thinking"

“By subsidising the residences of privately employed ‘key workers’ we only allow their salaries to be lowered, thus benefiting those who use their services,” Schumacher writes. “This might often be people who could, would and should pay more for these services.”

Schumacher is principal at Zaha Hadid Architects, and has led the firm since the death of founder Zaha Hadid in 2016. The practice was placed at number seven on the latest Dezeen Hot List of the most newsworthy forces in world design.


#5

#6

@MatiasVolco | Mati, wonderful write up of the dark side of building codes…needless to say that as you studied at Zaha Hadids Class in London - you are also heir to her vision…


#7

All of Zaha’s ideas are a product of total reinterpretation, she fought and won against pre-conceived notions as a foundation for physical civilization. This may sound pretentious but it’s not, it’s as Shumacher says Industrial Design has not been held back by esclerotic traditions the way “housing design” has.
All of her projects are either constained by

  • Plot of land , size and hsape,
  • Cost of (non traditional) construction

This gives the false impresion that our projects are meant to be expensive, when they are only so if built within pre existing systems which are beyond reform.


#8

I think we are already on the point where oceanic real estate square meters are more economic to build than land based real estate…this is mostly because the “interference factors” drive the prices for land based real estate higher and higher.

Ocean based real estate has a “free choice of building codes” that transforms in “better bang for the buck”…

We are now on the point where “traditional real estate developers” start to see that very clearly…