A month ago, Dr. Richard J. Williams of the University of Edinburgh expressed his views of the over-hyped shipping container design fad in The New York Times. Describing the fatal flaw in logic widely used to promote the use of shipping containers in recent architectural proposals, Williams writes, "They’re great for doing what they were designed to do, which is transporting stuff. A simple technology, they have helped facilitate global trade like no other. But they’re designed for things, not people."
Throughout the article, Williams, who is a professor of contemporary visual cultures, art, and history, expressed his dislike for the containers and the effort it takes to turn these large transport boxes into habitable structures suitable for human occupation.
Without missing a beat, Williams also dives into the underlying brutality these containers evoke when he writes, "They’re not even particularly cheap. It is often said that they are sustainable, as they adapt an abundant, readily available form. But you have to do an awful lot to them to make them habitable; insulation is just the start. To use them for architecture is rarely the convenience their proponents make it out to be. So let’s call it what it is: a matter of aesthetics."
I always appreciate an anti-shipping container screed.
— Karrie Jacobs (@KarrieUrbanist) August 14, 2019
(But the real problem is that container chic is an end run around our refusal to mass produce inexpensive housing. Containers are a symptom, not a cause.)
https://t.co/VCjYQuTNU2
As you might expect, heated debate on Twitter followed the article’s publication. Many agreed with Williams’s perspective, and went as far as to provide their own assessments to this trend. Will the rest of the world catch up with William's perspective? Or will this mark of "hipster modernity," as William's calls it, continue to prevail?
1 Comment
i am concerned the writer of article is just ranting.
So i am so glad for him for being an expert. But outside cost he gives no real reason, no structural problems..
Take me, and millions upon millions of persons like me who are really poor. Some fully furnished 2 bedroom homes can be as low as 2,500. Compared to a traditional home which will cost at least 100,000.
The good thing about critics is they force product manufacturers to raise their game. And this drives competition which brings down costs. Yay consumers!!
I am strictly against following fads. But dear author, thank you for your bbc effort but I suspect you may find another cause because here is the truth..THE FACES OF HOUSING HAVE CHANGED RADICALLY AND WILL ONLY CONTINUE TO DO SO.
Nothing brings out humanity's creative ideas than necessity. Have you seen old sheds and garages turned into the most adorable homes?
Finally, humanity forgot, but we are remembering.The fancy new hip word today is " RE-purposing, and I am the queen of reusing things for multiple purposes. But, I humbly remind us all about our training about Jesus's teachings about being good stewards. Hmm? In other words make very good use of what you have by valuing it.
Why, are you seriously not intrigued and tickled seeing these cute tiny homes?
Anyway, and to sum, criticisms hold the collective feet of manufacturers to the fire , so to speak . Further, all of this attention will arouse competition, which in turn will drive the costs downward. So thank you for sharing your thoughts and unintentional 2 positives results.
R
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.