This entry was adapted from an email I wrote to a friend. For my part, I bring to bear about twenty years of experience in construction, admittedly mostly in commercial/institutional practice. I apologize if this ends up being sounding kind of negative. I appreciate the notion of thinking 'outside of the box', but then once you evaluate these ideas against conventional building practice and experience, the problems become readily apparent.
Home Construction with ISBU's is unfortunately a fad or small niche market. The biggest single reason to use shipping containers for construction, in my opinion at least, is NOT because it might lend itself to cheaper construction method, but because there are literally millions of these cans lying around our ports and others ports in the world, rusting away, and if we can make a workable profitable business plan to using shipping containers that is on PAR with standard construction, we doing a tremendous service to the world. If you say on the other hand, let’s use NEW containers -in lieu of used containers - you’ve basically voided the best reason to go this route, I think, and it is better IMHO to consider other methods of (sustainable and economical) construction. I suspect the secret fact of the hazmat risk is the one of the biggest reasons that all these containers are still sitting around.
Home Construction with ISBU's is unfortunately a fad or small niche market. The biggest single reason to use shipping containers for construction, in my opinion at least, is NOT because it might lend itself to cheaper construction method, but because there are literally millions of these cans lying around our ports and others ports in the world, rusting away, and if we can make a workable profitable business plan to using shipping containers that is on PAR with standard construction, we doing a tremendous service to the world. If you say on the other hand, let’s use NEW containers -in lieu of used containers - you’ve basically voided the best reason to go this route, I think, and it is better IMHO to consider other methods of (sustainable and economical) construction. I suspect the secret fact of the hazmat risk is the one of the biggest reasons that all these containers are still sitting around.
Shipping containers in their current form are a highly ‘evolved’ product. They are basically perfect at what they do. There is absolutely nothing on a container that isn’t essential to its structural integrity so it can do what it is strictly designed to do. Firstly and foremost, they are designed to stack in one way only - that is directly on top of each other, and, only identical sized boxes (in plan anyway) can stack (I am not sure if a HiQ can stack on Standard even). Any other desired configuration requires re-engineering (if its to get permitted by the jurisdiction in which it will be installed).
Since ISBU’s for most jurisdictions in America are still a relatively uncommon, a constructor/owner can expect difficulty or erratic experience and delays with building departments as they try evaluate whether the ISBU meets code as well as any other local regulations (including zoning and historical, as the case may be). A possible dirty little secret in the ISBU industry, that I continue to investigate, is the problem a making sure these predominantly Chinese-made containers are free of hazmats. In particular, of lead-based paint, the wood floor preservative, and any previous transported chemical spills. ISBU's need to be tested and the Reseller or Constructor needs to certify that these containers are free of hazmats, or, that they completely strip or sandblast their units using EPA approved hazmat abatement procedures and that they have been similarly power-washed to remove any hazmat residues left by the materials once possibly transported within. This needs to be done BEFORE even the Constructor's own people or subcontractors work on the container (or else expose workers to to these hazmats). An intelligent building inspector could/and would send the Constructor and/or the Owner through that jurisdiction's environmental department (for a few months of review). I deal with hazmats frequently, but only peripherally in my job, because professionally, it’s an grenade, and the AIA and our attorneys steer us clear of it. It is always completely and directly handled by the Owner/Client without any advice from us except to go hire a hazmat abatement contractor. It's one the biggest money holes our unfortunate afflicted clients have to deal with.
Note that so far I found almost no reference to this issue online at least, officially, via comment, blog, or articles. I have communicated with a few people either purportedly in the industry who circumvented answering the questions. I did notice that at least one hip design company into ISBU home construction seems to acknowledge implicitly on their site the risks and may be certifying that their containers are either hazmat free or encapsulated. I would be curious to know the source/supplier of their ISBU's. Hopefully there are dealers that are set up already that have either sell ‘clean’ containers, or are equipped to ‘clean’ then in an approved and responsible way (at least by measure of the EPA - which is a very low measure frankly).
Aside from hazmats: ISBU's tend to need to be structurally modified to feature what most people would consider conventional features of home living. For example, sizes of rooms; given the 8 foot dimension of ISBU's, this is generally considered too narrow a width for the important living areas such as the bedroom, or living room or living/dining or living/dining/kitchen, however one wants to parse it. One would typically want to join two containers together (and remove internal walls) to achieve these 'normal' sizes of spaces. This mean's additional columns, beams, and possibly bracing. That said, I know some of these hipper design companies may be proposing smaller foot prints; but I think that will only be popular in a small niche market.
Otherwise, modifications significantly add cost and tend to negate the financial viability of using ISBU's over conventional/traditional building methods. Many installations propose or even have utilized ISBU's in ways that were totally undesigned for. For example, some 'Preppers' have dropped them underground (without proper reinforcement) as fallout shelters not realizing that the walls are relatively thin against the tons of force of the earth bearing on them.
Travis Price Architect in DC has been lauded this past year or so for having constructed new (quite nice I think) ISBU student apartments over on 7th street. He’s got some more planned for the Rosedale neighbohood. The revealing part is that he’s also using new containers. I think that’s kind of cheating frankly, given his stated motivations; but I can imagine his sponsors don’t want the liability of hazmats and constructibility issues of used containers. I think there is even a disturbing move away from used containers by some constructors, as container homes gain perhaps a little more popularity, to circumvent the problems I just described above.
In northern climate and frankly in hot southern climates, the ISBU needs to be insulated (to code-mandated levels) and should be waterproofed either from the inside, (which also impacts clear space), or the outside. Hipper firms are proposing that the bare metal boxes look cool. I think this is only true as long as these are exceptions in their environments. Otherwise I truly doubt a large segment of people will accept this aesthetic with more broad use of ISBUs. Therefore exterior cladding is required. Again added costs against the viability of the ISBU.
For people who have heard about ceramic insulative paint, here' is my take: Supertherm’s claim of conductive or passive insular properties appear to be misleading. The product is not Third Party tested, nor approved, let alone UL listed (specifically for this claimed property), because, frankly, I doubt it can be (or it would have been by now). It and one its competitors, Nanotherm were tested by the Cold Climate Housing Research Center and debunked back in 2009. It continues to sell apparently, but I would say based on my own construction knowledge and experience, as well a on the independent testing results that I have read, this material should be avoided as an insulative paint.
Another important consideration with used containers is that, once cut, they are liable to 'pop' out of true due to the stresses that the boxes have built-up over their lifetime in transport. This often necessitate the welding on of all sorts braces to help force back/keep the pieces true while they weld them into their new configuration. Studying some of the ISBU builders out there doing prefab ISBU’s (such as MEKA out of Toronto - pretty nice modern designs), suggests to me that they circumvented these problems by one, pre-fabricating in China, and two, using new boxes.
Otherwise, modifications significantly add cost and tend to negate the financial viability of using ISBU's over conventional/traditional building methods. Many installations propose or even have utilized ISBU's in ways that were totally undesigned for. For example, some 'Preppers' have dropped them underground (without proper reinforcement) as fallout shelters not realizing that the walls are relatively thin against the tons of force of the earth bearing on them.
Travis Price Architect in DC has been lauded this past year or so for having constructed new (quite nice I think) ISBU student apartments over on 7th street. He’s got some more planned for the Rosedale neighbohood. The revealing part is that he’s also using new containers. I think that’s kind of cheating frankly, given his stated motivations; but I can imagine his sponsors don’t want the liability of hazmats and constructibility issues of used containers. I think there is even a disturbing move away from used containers by some constructors, as container homes gain perhaps a little more popularity, to circumvent the problems I just described above.
In northern climate and frankly in hot southern climates, the ISBU needs to be insulated (to code-mandated levels) and should be waterproofed either from the inside, (which also impacts clear space), or the outside. Hipper firms are proposing that the bare metal boxes look cool. I think this is only true as long as these are exceptions in their environments. Otherwise I truly doubt a large segment of people will accept this aesthetic with more broad use of ISBUs. Therefore exterior cladding is required. Again added costs against the viability of the ISBU.
For people who have heard about ceramic insulative paint, here' is my take: Supertherm’s claim of conductive or passive insular properties appear to be misleading. The product is not Third Party tested, nor approved, let alone UL listed (specifically for this claimed property), because, frankly, I doubt it can be (or it would have been by now). It and one its competitors, Nanotherm were tested by the Cold Climate Housing Research Center and debunked back in 2009. It continues to sell apparently, but I would say based on my own construction knowledge and experience, as well a on the independent testing results that I have read, this material should be avoided as an insulative paint.
No comments:
Post a Comment