There's a new dimension to this problem. Azure Homes is 3D printing tiny homes/ADUs from recycled/waste plastic—arguably a good use of an abundant waste material to meet an urgent need. One of their principal markets is California ADUs. While I can certainly see a great argument for preferring hemp-lime or strawbale or cobb construction in fire-prone regions (like much of CA), I wonder if there's a way to meet the soaring demand for housing with this reclaimed material without excluding it due to its potential drawbacks. Perhaps there could be an end-of-life "toxicity rating" for materials used in long-term/permanent items like housing, such that biocomposites would pay a lower tax (property tax? sales tax on materials? build-permit rider? not sure how to apply it) compared with 3D printed plastic homes, but both would be encouraged to meet demand. A worthy discussion to have.
Unknown member
Mar 07
Replying to
You bring up a valid point, Ben. Finding ways to repurpose waste plastic for housing could help address supply shortages, but I worry about the long-term implications—particularly in fire-prone areas like California. Even if the initial use of recycled plastic in construction is beneficial, what happens at the end of a structure’s life? Will it degrade safely, or will we be creating future environmental hazards?
I like the idea of a ‘toxicity rating’ tied to permitting or taxation, similar to embodied carbon scoring in sustainable building policies. Could such a system also account for fire resistance and emissions from combustion? It would be interesting to explore how incentives could push for safer, longer-lasting solutions while still addressing urgent housing needs.
Another major issue is indoor air quality. We rarely see widespread IAQ testing in buildings, yet we continue constructing with materials known to off-gas toxins. Without shifting our mentality away from building with inherently hazardous materials, proper IAQ monitoring won’t become a priority. Hemp-lime, for example, not only avoids toxic emissions when exposed to fire but actively improves indoor air quality and sequesters carbon.
At the core of this conversation is the fact that systemic change isn’t optional, it’s mandatory if we want both our planet and people to survive. Should we be pushing for policies that categorize materials based on their full lifecycle impact, rather than just their immediate availability or affordability? And how can we make IAQ testing a standard part of building safety assessments?”
There's a new dimension to this problem. Azure Homes is 3D printing tiny homes/ADUs from recycled/waste plastic—arguably a good use of an abundant waste material to meet an urgent need. One of their principal markets is California ADUs. While I can certainly see a great argument for preferring hemp-lime or strawbale or cobb construction in fire-prone regions (like much of CA), I wonder if there's a way to meet the soaring demand for housing with this reclaimed material without excluding it due to its potential drawbacks. Perhaps there could be an end-of-life "toxicity rating" for materials used in long-term/permanent items like housing, such that biocomposites would pay a lower tax (property tax? sales tax on materials? build-permit rider? not sure how to apply it) compared with 3D printed plastic homes, but both would be encouraged to meet demand. A worthy discussion to have.