Ultimately, removing containers from the circular economy by retrofitting them into usable spaces could put a strain on the industry and result in the need to use more iron ore, causing even more harm to the environment.
Even as the tiny house movement continues to gain popularity and shipping containers are beloved both for their aesthetic appeal and supposed sustainability, it’s worth asking if they’re the right material for this purpose.
— Fast Company
While shipping containers do generally keep project costs down owing to labor hours saved, the fit-out of their interiors can add between $20,000 and $150,000 to each construction. Materials such as spray-on foam insulation used in making a container design habitable are rarely among the market’s most sustainable options. The lead-based paint coating typically applied for their seafaring protection against salt water only adds to the toxins produced while the insulation is applied.
University of Edinburgh professor Richard J. Williams said their prevalence was emblematic of “hipster modernity” in a popular 2019 essay, adding “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."
Nevertheless, as FastCompany reported, the market for container homes is expected to grow to $67.96 billion by the year 2026.
4 Comments
What to say on this topic that hasn't already been stated? Container based solutions are both poetic and brutally cruel, they are a perfect example of the infrastructure based thinking that they are so intrinsically tied into. They are beautiful in much the same way as robotic parking or a highway cloverleaf, they are pure engineering and in that way are a tabula rasa approach, while also nodding by their use to notions of a circular economy. But is this circular economy economical (either in cost or material)? I feel like we are in many ways witnessing the writing of a foreward for a book that is still being written, reconsidering the architectural product as an "object" and instead attempting to have fruitful discussions on the "process" of architecture-ing. So maybe a good question is to ask, what is the best use cases for the "architecture-ing" of a shipping container? Areas where other materials are not available or attainable, program types that need to "house" objects or services rather than people those are a few that come to mind Maybe there is a discussion about the means by which this steel is melted down for reuse into more standard application architectural shapes or systems? What is the sustainability of these approaches versus the drastic cutting, welding and manipulation of the shipping container itself for architectural purposes? And I do love the idea of living in a piece of infrastructure, but most people start to reconsider it when they realize this infrastructure can barely fit a queen size bed with no access to 3 sides.
I always find this to be a particularly insidious idea - doesn't help that it makes for social media friendly renders and grabs likes/clicks. Magic bullets are frequently bandied around by disingenuous designers trying to make their name in saturated media - everything from fantastical inflatable houses to buildings that supposedly sucks up entire blocks worth of pollution. Rarely is there any science or engineering involved - why bother with all that work if all you need is a render to post on IG and then get reposted by media outlets hungry for content.
So I guess it’s safe to assume that you don’t want to see my concept for a shipping container factory made out of shipping containers?
Here' s your ironic container factory.
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.