Construction is notoriously traditional. Any new tech is a massive risk especially when it comes to the superstructure which often has up to 50 years guarantee period. So if anything goes wrong, whoever used that printer will go bankrupt.

But there is far more wrong with 3d printers how it's often commercially used. To begin it really contributes nothing, you get an inner wall that's not smooth so you need to spend a lot more on making it acceptable. And in the end all you got is an inner wall, you got no insulation, you got no plumbing you got no exterior wall, you got just a shell. And there are already alternatives for it. These days speed is everything and factory assembled housing becomes more common for repeated housing projects. They erect a whole street in a week. Working off site is the future not a wobbly 3d printed wall.

Now that being said, it doesn't mean 3d printing has no place in construction but in very specific projects. I've seen for example some complex spans as well bridge elements being printed.

But anyone promoting 3d printing as mentioned in the article fails to understand construction (which is baffling because even professors from TU Delft are big on this).