[HN Gopher] 3D-printed neighborhood nears completion in Texas
___________________________________________________________________
3D-printed neighborhood nears completion in Texas
Author : whoisstan
Score : 68 points
Date : 2024-12-28 14:24 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.yahoo.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.yahoo.com)
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| _"...range in price from around $450,000 to close to $600,000. "_
|
| In other words, there is little economic incentive to recommend
| this construction method. Not much in the way of aesthetics
| either --- unless you want a ranch box.
| brudgers wrote:
| 3D printing doesn't relieve any important construction
| constraints and probably raises costs because unfamiliarity
| increases risks and increased risk increases price.
|
| Superstructure is about the easiest and fastest part of
| residential construction. Sitework, finishes, and MEP systems
| are harder, tend to take longer, and cost more.
|
| Anyway, market rate housing sells at market rates no matter how
| it is built.
| liontwist wrote:
| > market rate housing sells at market rates no matter how it
| is built.
|
| This is true. Do you see any opportunity for efficiencies in
| rebuilds?
| brudgers wrote:
| What do you mean by "efficiencies?"
| liontwist wrote:
| Like you mentioned the market for housing is more about
| where people want to live, and the actual building on it
| is less important (up to first order quality and space),
| so that optimizing construction costs doesn't really save
| money on housing.
|
| But suppose we have a country of aging housing. Could
| prefabrication techniques result in lower costs when
| replacing existing buildings without a land transfer?
| brudgers wrote:
| 1. In successful businesses, lower costs usually
| correlate to greater profits not lower prices. This is
| particularly the case with the narrow section of the
| real-estate market that is single family housing (single
| family housing is about the lowest and worst use of real-
| estate (i.e. the opposite of highest and best use)).
|
| 2. Single family home construction in the US is highly
| prefabricated. You can go into any Home Depot and get
| lumber, fasteners, fixtures, appliances, and anything
| else you need to build a house. All of it movable and
| installable without much mechanization beyond a truck
| (and Home Depot will rent you one of those).
|
| 3. Tearing down existing houses for replacement only
| makes economic sense in two cases. The first is when the
| value of the land justifies more expensive construction
| (e.g. MacMansions). The second is when redevelopment is
| not for the market (e.g. Habitat for Humanity).
|
| 4. It is a mistake to look at construction as
| inefficient. Construction is just one component of real-
| estate markets.
|
| 5. We have very efficient prefabricated housing. It tends
| to look like mobile homes.
|
| 6. Wealth preservation is the primary function of the
| real-estate industry. Buying and selling for profit is
| the low end. The real money in real-estate resides in
| income producing property not single family houses.
| eightysixfour wrote:
| > 3. Tearing down existing houses for replacement only
| makes economic sense in two cases. The first is when the
| value of the land justifies more expensive construction
| (e.g. MacMansions). The second is when redevelopment is
| not for the market (e.g. Habitat for Humanity).
|
| Interesting you chose "MacMansions" as the example
| instead of increased density. In my (very) urban area
| they tear down single family homes and replace them with
| 6-9 town homes.
| brudgers wrote:
| I chose MacMansions because it was clear and ordinary and
| uncomplicated.
|
| Building a six pack is driven by the same basic economic
| condition, the existing building is economically
| obsolescent.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > This is true. Do you see any opportunity for efficiencies
| in rebuilds?
|
| When this technology has become much more established, the
| "risk premium" can be decreased by a lot. _Then_ one can
| start to find methods to make the process more economic.
| And I see quite some potential there, because 3D printing
| can potentially be done in a much more "automatic" way
| than other existing house building processes.
| pxmpxm wrote:
| >Superstructure is about the easiest and fastest part of
| residential construction.
|
| I'm perpetually confused on that front - interior, especially
| drywall, is stupid labor and time intensive (have to wait for
| taped joints to dry). There should be huge econmomies of
| scale for prefab walls with electric and ducting built in,
| yet all we see is this sort of 3d printing stuff.
| brudgers wrote:
| How do you finish the joints between sections of
| prefabricated walls?
|
| Where do you store hundreds of running feet of
| prefabricated wall during construction delays?
|
| How do you move sections of prefabricated wall into and
| within a dryed-in building?
|
| How do you trim a section to fit and extend another when
| construction is not ideal?
|
| Who is responsible when something is not right?
|
| And of course there's getting UL listings for any
| proprietary electrical connections and issues of inspection
| for code compliance.
|
| Prefabricated walls are common and are suitable for cubical
| farms. They tend to cost more psf than regular construction
| but can be depreciated as furniture and reconfigured more
| easily than site built walls and fixtures.
| wombatpm wrote:
| Standardized wall sections, JIT inventory management,
| dedicated install teams?
| dhosek wrote:
| My parents' home, built in the 1950s was built from pre-
| fabricated components. From what my dad says (his mother
| was the original owner of the home), the fit of walls was
| _very_ poor and they had to do a lot of patching to fill
| in gaps between the walls and the ceilings. There have
| been numerous attempts at prefabricated building but all
| have failed to gain any traction.
| teruakohatu wrote:
| A lot of homes in New Zealand were sent over 150 years
| ago from Australia and Europe as prefabricated kits.
| Apart from the abysmal lack of insulation, they are still
| going strong.
|
| Right now most new houses have the wood framing CNC
| manufactured based on plans, shipped to the building site
| and assembled, then modified as needed by the builder.
|
| Our roofs are almost exclusively steel, which are also
| CNC cut and shipped to the site and installed by roofers.
| brudgers wrote:
| We have standardized components delivered just in time by
| ordinary vendors and installed by subcontractors
| specializing in that work.
|
| It is all commoditized and builders and trades people
| have choices about who they work with and long standing
| business relationships.
|
| The inherent complexity of construction is a job shop
| scheduling problem which is not just in NP it is NP hard.
|
| With a whole additional dimension of human social
| relationships and woven in. Everyone is trying to solve
| their own NP hard problem across a different set of
| projects and under a different set of constraints.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| I feel like you're telling ford how the Model T
| production line can't work because someone wants a
| different color.
|
| Yet, it's ironic that we still end up with cookie cutter
| houses, but they are all built as if they are bespoke.
| brudgers wrote:
| You cannot build an airplane out of bricks.
| ben_w wrote:
| I don't understand the metaphor and how it would apply to
| this.
|
| (But also, this feels like a Mythbusters episode
| challenge, and they managed to get a lead balloon
| flying).
| brudgers wrote:
| Yet successful balloon building businesses don't build
| balloons from lead because of the fundamental nature of
| the balloon building problem.
| ben_w wrote:
| Again, I really don't understand how this metaphor fits
| with housing getting more or less customisation with more
| or less 3D printing vs. prefab vs. whatever the other
| option(s) is/are called at higher or lower costs.
| brudgers wrote:
| The article describes nearly 100 houses printed at 2-3
| weeks per house and 25 sold. That is very poor economics
| for single family development. Working capital tied up,
| carrying costs for the land, interest on construction
| loans, etc. are all coming out of the developer's pocket.
| [1]
|
| There's also the capital cost of the printer, the
| inherent complexity of pumping concrete, and the material
| cost of concreter per unit volume.
|
| My opinion is based on my bullshit detector. I worked in
| a precast plant with its own concrete plant, for a very
| large home builder, and for and with residential
| developers as an architect. Sure I might be wrong, but my
| opinion is formed from directly related experience with
| the materials and with the industries.
|
| But even on the face the article is talking about
| moonbases as future projects not suburban Atlanta.
|
| [1] Most likely this project is subsidized with non-
| commercial resources.
| bilsbie wrote:
| You're not wrong. That is confusing.
|
| I think of it like the satellite industry. Crazy high
| launch costs and weight penalties make satellites expensive
| to build. Maybe there's some rule that the cost of the
| satellite has to equal to the launch cost?
|
| I think the same things happens to building prices when the
| land cost and available land is super limited. Construction
| kind of rises to take a piece of that?
|
| I'm not sure if I'm explaining the idea well.
| toast0 wrote:
| I think you would end up with a lot of onsite finish work
| with prefabbed walls that won't end up saving much time.
| And it makes transportation a lot more difficult.
|
| That said, searching for prefab walls brings up a lot of
| things, from whole wall panels, to just prefabed wall
| framing, and of course, prefabed whole houses. So, it's out
| there, it's probably a matter of what a builder is familiar
| with and what's cost efficient for a particular job.
| CalRobert wrote:
| You can, a random example of someone doing this is
| https://prefabhome.eu/en
| bluGill wrote:
| Houses are mostly prefad - everthing is a standard
| dimension before it arrives on site.
| explorigin wrote:
| SIP walls are basically this. It's a foam-core panel board
| with chases built in for electrical.
| cbames89 wrote:
| It's ~21% the cost of a home, it's actually the single most
| costly and labor intense category. That being said it does
| only take 14-21 days to frame a home.
| brudgers wrote:
| At scale it takes significantly less time because the
| designs are familiar and there are not mobilizations and
| demobilizations. The next framing job is on the next lot.
| janalsncm wrote:
| So if a technology could cut that cost in half it would
| be desirable even if it took twice as long because in
| real terms your final cost drops 10% and only takes 2
| more weeks.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| _Anyway, market rate housing sells at market rates no matter
| how it is built._
|
| This is a demonstration project.
|
| If there were any economic advantage, I would expect them to
| be eager to demonstrate it.
|
| But such does not appear to be the case. $450-600K for a
| simple, single story ranch 30 miles outside of Austin is not
| exactly awe inspiring.
| torginus wrote:
| I never understood how 3D printing buildings even come about.
| Desktop 3D printers work by melting thermoplastics that
| solidify when cooled down and is ready for the next layer.
|
| With concrete, you have to wait for it to set before you can
| print on top of it. D
| ben_w wrote:
| I think it happened because a nerd like us wanted to make a
| castle for their kid to play in, and that became an effective
| concrete printer, and that got in the news and inspired...
| mostly buildings that would have been easier with
| prefabricated concrete slabs, and which almost completely
| fail to take advantage of the opportunities that 3D printing
| can offer.
| dhosek wrote:
| This page from Cemex might answer some of your questions
|
| https://www.cemexventures.com/3d-printing-in-construction/
| dhosek wrote:
| Tt's worth noting that this article makes it sound like
| ICON invented everything from scratch, but the technology
| is much older than the company.
| 9cb14c1ec0 wrote:
| That's the selling price. It doesn't say anything at all about
| construction costs, but more about the housing market in
| general.
| janalsncm wrote:
| I disagree. I checked Georgetown, TX for comparable homes in
| the area (3b/2ba, ~1500 sqft) and it seems many houses are
| going for under $400k. But "Dyce" sells for $470k.
|
| https://www.lennar.com/new-homes/texas/austin-central-
| texas/...
|
| Just as a random example, this is a comparable house (bigger
| in fact) and selling for $365k.
|
| https://www.redfin.com/TX/Georgetown/346-White-River-
| Dr-7862...
|
| I think this is a really cool technology but it's not
| competitive yet.
| tantalor wrote:
| You misunderstood. If I can build a house for half the
| cost, that goes to my profit margin, not a discount for the
| buyer.
| janalsncm wrote:
| As Jeff Bezos says, your margin is my opportunity. So
| yes, it would drive costs down. But we aren't even there
| yet because the houses aren't being sold because they're
| too expensive.
|
| Another way to pad your profit margins would be to raise
| the asking price of the $360k home by $100k. There is a
| reason people aren't doing that.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| That's not how real estate works.
|
| Amazon deals in commodity goods that are easily
| substituteable.
|
| Housing is different because every single one is unique
| (by virtue of location) and also incredibly scarce
| (again, location).
|
| Housing markets tend to strongly fight any tendency
| towards underpricing. When a house is underpriced, buyers
| will get into a bidding war and push the price back into
| the fair market price.
| nyclounge wrote:
| That is what I was thinking. I mean what is nice about those
| prefab housings like the ones you see on Amazon and Walmart is
| that they are really cheap!
| egypturnash wrote:
| Oh look, a suburb printer. Thirty minutes from Austin? I wonder
| if there's any grocery stores or places to gather any closer. So
| what if it's printed? Still looks like a miserable place designed
| more for cars to live in than humans.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| Seems a little defeatist and missing the forest for the trees.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| you don't have to wonder. 8 minutes by bike:
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Lennar+at+Wolf+Ranch/wolf+ra...
| anonym29 wrote:
| Transportation from point A to point B isn't the _only_
| function of most cars on the road these days.
|
| Relevant to central Texas in the summmer: 115deg bike rides
| do not sound fun.
| jdbernard wrote:
| Lol, Georgetown isn't really a suburb of Austin. It's a
| separate city that is almost as old as Austin, home to the
| oldest college in Texas, and is the seat of an entirely
| different county. So yeah, there are a few places to gather and
| get groceries. ;)
| nullc wrote:
| No one is going to make you live there. Other people have
| preferences that are different from yours and are not less
| valid.
| iamleppert wrote:
| Why would someone want one of these ugly homes for $400k when for
| that price you can buy something much nicer?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Texas is McMansion country, and these seem to be a notable
| upgrade over those at least. Kind of a throw back to ranch or
| shotgun houses.
| silisili wrote:
| I'm usually neutral on suburban hellscape buyers, but it's
| getting ridiculous. It made more sense to me I guess when 1/4
| acre lots were standard. But these...man. The houses appear to
| be just a few feet from each other, and the yards are utterly
| pointless.
|
| I can't believe I find myself saying this, but it would have
| been much nicer to just build nice condos in the middle, and
| use the rest as shared greenspace.
| mwambua wrote:
| I wonder if 3d-printer lines will someday become a desirable
| aesthetic - like film grain.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| Tornado-proofing, if actually so, is enough reason to prefer it,
| although I'm quite skeptical that it is protective as such.
| xnx wrote:
| Glad to see new building techniques being attempted in real world
| scenarios. 3d printed structures will be most compelling when
| they do more things that are difficult or impractical with
| traditional techniques: curved walls, built inside,
| ornamentation, patterns, etc.
| lnsru wrote:
| There is nothing you can't do with classical drywall. Curved
| walls, ornamentation, patterns, integrated furniture... you
| name it. 3d printing has a huge limitation here - you need
| support to print over empty area. I am sure it's not fun
| removing concrete support pieces from huge concrete structure
| without cracks.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| > There is nothing you can't do with classical drywall.
| Curved walls, ornamentation, patterns, integrated
| furniture... you name it
|
| Okay, I name compound curves. Can I do that with drywall?
| lnsru wrote:
| Yes you can. It's the frame behind drywall then. Probably
| CNC cut plywood construction. And it's more art than
| anything you might get from standard construction company.
| And crazy decorative art can be made from gypsum and
| integrated into drywall.
| kouru225 wrote:
| Can we please 3D print a city block next time?
| beretguy wrote:
| Good thing is it provides better insulation than wood.
| ternnoburn wrote:
| A lot more CO2 though, and less repairable.
| AngryData wrote:
| Maybe if you compared it to the cheapest 2x4 construction that
| would cost 1/4 the amount. If you spent even just half of the
| structural cost on a better wood design you can have offset
| 2x6s 12 inch spaced stud walls for an 8 inch thick wall space.
| I don't see how any masonry work no matter how low density
| could have better insulation values.
| userbinator wrote:
| 3D printed concrete, to be exact; and the cost benefits over
| traditional cast concrete seem unclear to me.
| nullc wrote:
| There is a huge amount of time and materials-- for the forms--
| that go into building a cast concrete structure. Those are the
| bulk of the cost. Additionally, shapes with voids or curves are
| even more expensive to form via traditional means while the
| printing technique can do them naturally.
| ternnoburn wrote:
| If you have the ability to pump concrete, and a gantry across the
| whole site, why wouldn't you pick and place concrete blocks or
| other materials rather than concrete the whole thing on site?
|
| Also, aren't these walls significantly more CO2 unfriendly than
| lumber, and more difficult to renovate? What if I need to get a
| builder in to do repairs, is there a concrete wall guy who knows
| how to repair them?
|
| Can it print multi family housing?
|
| It takes four weeks to print, which seems long to frame a single
| story three bedroom house. If the home buyer isn't feeling
| savings, what's the draw here.
| tmountain wrote:
| It's a gimmick. There is no point other than marketing.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| "It's a gimmick"
|
| Early attempts always look gimmicki.
|
| Putting a camera in a phone, crazy, who needs it, just a
| gimmick. I use my phone to dial numbers and make calls.
|
| This looks like it has a lot of room to grow and adapt.
| Materials change.
|
| Just look at how 3d printers have changed in 10 years.
| ibash wrote:
| 3d printers haven't changed that much... they've gotten
| easier to use, sure, but the materials and quality we're
| printing is about the same as 10 years ago.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Maybe it was 20? I just remember they took expense
| fluids, hard to keep, fragile. Then month ago I was in a
| Micro Center, and there were dozens of very fancy
| printers that could take dozens of types of line feeds.
| 6SixTy wrote:
| Feels like 3D printers have changed. A slicer from 10
| years ago is not going to generate as good a print as one
| from today. And it feels like the variety of filaments
| from 10 years ago has greatly changed.
| bhhaskin wrote:
| 3d printers have changed significantly. They used to be
| very finicky and hard to get a decent print. Lots of
| tweaking and it was different for every printer.
|
| They have evolved into true click and forget machines.
| postalrat wrote:
| I tear apart medical and other machines to recycle parts.
| I do often see 3d printed parts inside commercial
| machines, probably because they are making so few of them
| and it's more economical to just print a couple
| specialized parts.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Survivor bias helps a lot here. For every thing that sticks
| you have thousands of absolute flops that we all forget
| very quickly
| Retric wrote:
| It's mechanically less complex than using existing materials
| and allows for a new range of possible shapes. Moving a printer
| head around a gantry vs highly precise manipulation of objects.
|
| 3D printing homes is currently a terrible option, but the
| result is visually distinct which should help sell the homes.
| It doesn't need to be good to make someone money.
| xrd wrote:
| Is it purely that this robot never takes vacation and never
| asks for a raise? Feels a lot like this permits building a home
| largely without human labor, which I'm sure the VC class would
| be very excited about.
| mastax wrote:
| This only helps with the framing and cladding. You still need
| all the labor for interior finishings, plumbing, electrical,
| HVAC, roofing, foundation, and site prep. That's 80%+ of the
| cost. Assuming the 3D printed walls are even cheaper than
| wood frame, which is doubtful.
| Dig1t wrote:
| Not only that but also quality is consistent, more so than
| with human builders.
|
| The quality of timber framed houses can vary considerably
| depending on who built them.
| amelius wrote:
| Because you can just run the electrical wiring and plumbing and
| cover it all in concrete (?)
| rescripting wrote:
| That seems like a huge drawback? Running new electrical and
| plumbing and doing repairs becomes much more difficult.
| amelius wrote:
| Yes, plan in advance ...
| lm28469 wrote:
| Every home builder is planing in advance, the problem is
| that down the line you'll realize mistakes you didn't
| think about, 100% of the time. You also can't plan
| failures in advance that good, and if you do care about
| that you certainly won't encase all your utilities in
| concrete
| amelius wrote:
| Well, I guess the idea is that if anything fails you just
| print yourself a new home ;)
| rescripting wrote:
| Blessed be the developer who has never had to refactor
| anything.
| obscurette wrote:
| Things change. Sometimes a lot and radically. I happen to
| live in the house I renovated 30 years ago. I had to
| change a lot of things during these years since then.
| kleiba wrote:
| Welcome to Germany.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| If you happen to live in a flood plain, concrete is much less
| susceptible to water damage than a traditional timber frame
| building.
|
| I would also imagine that a home with a concrete exterior (with
| appropriate roofing) would be more likely to survive a
| wildfire, in areas susceptible to those.
| dhosek wrote:
| When I was working at USC-ISI back in 2009-10, there was a
| project about doing 3D printing for construction taking place
| there back then. I was a bit surprised to learn that not only was
| this company not derived from those efforts, but according to
| their website, "In 2018, we told people we were going to 3D print
| a house and unveil it during SXSW in Austin, TX before we knew
| how to do it." I wonder what ever happened with that ISI research
| work.
| magic_smoke_ee wrote:
| Seems pointless and expensive, and it's concrete that doesn't
| lend itself to modification or repair. 3D printing in this case
| appears to be used as a tech gimmick rather than an actually-
| scalable process, or it would already be in-use everywhere.
|
| The most inherently sensible home would be protected from wind
| (derecho, hurricane, and the uncommon tornado), fire, flooding,
| and severe heat and cold (and associated climate control costs)
| by building mostly underground on flat, stable, high ground.
| Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
| > The most inherently sensible home would be protected from
| wind (derecho, hurricane, and the uncommon tornado), fire,
| flooding, and severe heat and cold (and associated climate
| control costs) by building mostly underground on flat, stable,
| high ground.
|
| If I had the luxury of time and money that's the kind of home
| I'd build out, probably with a few Maginot line type turrets
| peeking out from the "roof".
| RobGR wrote:
| I have toured the Icon houses at Wolf Ranch. I went through
| their show house, but I also went to some of the houses under
| construction and examined them and talked to the workers a bit.
| You couldn't approach them them while the printer was running
| -- note also, they have a next-gen printer that looks more like
| a cement pumper crane arm, these were the previous ones.
|
| Anyway the modification of them is addressed in some of the
| videos in the show house. Essentially you use a circular saw
| with masonry teeth to cut new holes, they provide shade-
| matching grout to fill in an old hole. It's less flexible than
| sheetrock but about what modifying a cinder block wall would
| be. Unlike most cinder block commercial buildings, the wiring
| is inside the wall and not in an exposed conduit, there might
| have been one exception in a bathroom or something.
|
| Over all, to my non-professional opinion, it seemed more
| expensive than traditional "stick built" but also higher
| quality, probably worth it if you wanted a high quality
| structure.
|
| I have also visited their site in South Austin on St. Elmo, and
| the small "tiny houses" they built in the Community First
| village for the ex-homeless, but I wasn't able to go inside
| those.
|
| My overall impression is that it's a great technology that will
| be used for more and more structures. Thus far I think they
| have been too traditional in their floor plans, they have been
| focusing on showing that they can build real up-to-code houses
| that banks will accept as collateral. Hopefully with their new
| cheaper printer, maybe in some area outside of HOAs and zoning,
| they can starting making some more interesting houses -- like
| round towers Victorian style, for example.
| jiveturkey wrote:
| I think everyone is missing the real reason for this. From TFA:
|
| > requires fewer workers
|
| what TFA didn't say, and which I'm sure is also true, is that the
| workers can also be less skilled.
|
| I found it fascinating that interior walls are also concrete, and
| wifi signals are blocked. I betcha cellular doesn't fare too well
| either, and not easily fixed with multiple access points.
| janalsncm wrote:
| I don't care how many workers it takes if the result still
| costs $600k.
|
| Unless the houses can sell for half of traditional housing
| costs their main market will be building houses on the moon.
| jiveturkey wrote:
| The builder cares. The buyer doesn't care too much either way
| what the construction technique is. They will be sold on the
| high insulation value, tornado resistance and so on. Not the
| fact that it costs less to build which is opaque anyway.
| mikebelanger wrote:
| How would plumbing and wiring work? The article states that the
| wall is a semi-hollow, corduroy pattern, so do the printers leave
| openings in the walls so pipes/wiring get shoved into them after?
| RobGR wrote:
| Yes. I visited that site and examined some of the partially
| constructed buildings, and talked to a couple of the workers.
|
| They have videos discussing how you would add a light switch or
| remove one -- basically a mansonry hole saw, and matching grout
| to fill in.
|
| It seemed slightly more trouble to do modifications than a
| cinder block wall, but the quality and strength was much
| higher. I went with low expectations but I was impressed.
|
| I didn't see any walls at the stage of construction where I
| could see what the insulation was, whether is was expanding
| foam or fiberglass.
| wstrom wrote:
| for more detailed info watch
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video...
| SapporoChris wrote:
| Why not a direct link?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPTps7e9SqY
| binary_slinger wrote:
| Lots of cynical takes here. Its cool. Time will tell if this
| method makes sense. One concern I have is in Texas the extreme
| weather and clay soil causes foundations to move. Lots of houses
| have foundation problems. Foundation shifts will likely translate
| into cracks.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-01 23:01 UTC)