Hacker News Reader

Comment by dpark | Hacker News Reader

Shipping containers are terrible to use for homes for so many reasons. By the time you stick multiple together to create enough space and cut windows and doors (and then reinforce them to fix the damage you caused to the structure) to make them acceptable and livable, you end up spending more than you would with typical light frame construction to end up with a cramped space a low ceilings and poor insulation.

It really is a fetish. There's no sensible reason for containerized homes (absent maybe disaster zones, but even then no one's really building completed container homes and shipping them; it's still done on-site).

View on HN

As I've pointed out before, if you want a metal box building, there are good components for that. Butler Buildings and their competitors make them in the US, and they're everywhere in rural America. You can get insulated walls, windows, and doors. They're not pretty, but they're weathertight and strong.

One of the companies in that industry, General Steel, now offers house kits.[1] The main problem is that many municipalities don't like houses that look like industrial buildings.

[1] https://gensteel.com/steel-building-kits/houses

I lived as a student in one of these things [0] for 3 years. It had a small shower with toilet room, a kitchenette, electrical ariconditioning 9with heating), a large window on the head side and totaling ~21 square meter. For a student, this was just perfect. I only missed an indoor/safe bicycle storage solution.

[0]: http://www.ndsm.nl/en/location/tijdelijke-containerwoningen/

The link you cite shows them stacked. If that was your circumstance, how did you find the noise level?

My long-standing issue with any living space: I don't need a lot of space nor luxury, but I do (desperately) need peace and quiet, when I am not deliberately socializing.

The noise levels were great. I'm generally not very sensitive to it, but from what I remember is that I don't remember any noise leaks. Quite a difference from the 60's apartment complex I live in now, which has single-pour-concrete floors.

Thanks! Not what I would have expected -- so, useful.

I wonder how those actually compare to something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%B8njordskollegiet#/media... in terms of lifetime costs and comfort?

There's a sort of fallacy that repetitively grabs ahold of people, when it comes to housing. Common sense tells us that walls and a ceiling held together with structural integrity is much of the way to a house.

It;s not. There are plenty of building techniques and materials that produce "shells" for cheap. Going from those shells to acceptable housing is a lot more expensive than the shell.

Commercial container homes are just another type of prefab, and they share many of the advantages of that style, including typically being cheaper in both materials and construction costs and having easy assembly (days instead of months). Being made of steel, they are also more durable and rot/mold resistant than the typical wood-framed houses found throughout much of the US. Many prefab container homes are double-height meaning they actually feel less cramped than a framed home with standard ceiling height.

There are pros and cons to all types of building, but I don't think shipping containers are "terrible to use for homes for so many reasons".

I've always wanted to build a home out of shipping containers (ideally a micro-house from one 40ft one), but I fully appreciate that it's more from a romanticised dream of it than from a purely functional perspective.

In much the same way there's no sensible reason for thatched cottages, tipis, wattle and daub, or other different ways of building in 2017, it doesn't have to be for a logical reason.

There are of course good use cases for them, especially in regards to temporary accommodation (such as SnoozeBox). Part of the appeal is also in their iterative nature - you can get to weather proof quickly and they can be made secure for starting internal fit out faster, but concede the benefits rapidly decrease in other ways.

Not everything when it comes to personalised construction of a home will be rational.

> In much the same way there's no sensible reason for thatched cottages, tipis, wattle and daub, or other different ways of building in 2017, it doesn't have to be for a logical reason.

Of course, and if someone wants to build a house out of shipping containers, I don't care. I do care that it is presented as some sort of sustainable, affordable, smart option when wealthy people graft 15 shipping containers together into a McMansion made of steel. If you want to build a home out of shipping containers, or VW vans welded together, or whatever, totally fine by me. But don't do it and then write articles about sustainable design or tell me this is how we should be building homes.

I've watched a lot of shipping container home builds on Youtube (everyone ranging from amateurs, to professional housing contractors doing their first shipping container builds). The people who spend a lot of money seem to be the ones who want to make a shipping container feel like a traditional house. The people who build them affordably respect that they're living in a shipping container, and integrate the container aesthetic in to their home.

I'm wondering where the building regulations are so relaxed that a shipping container can legally be converted to an apartment. Definitely not in the parts of Europe I'm familiar with, but then again the weather conditions in most of Europe probably wouldn't allow for it anyway.

At least in the U.S. when dealing with building inspectors you describe your house as a "prefab steel-frame building." I've seen container houses in the E.U. also, so certaintly they have some kind of regulatory framework for dealing with these too.

From what I can tell these things can pass building codes if constructed correctly, and also when communicating with the government clearly. The bigger problem is them passing zoning / architectural review that many local governments requires to keep a certain aesthetic in the neighborhood.

Wattle and daub is still a 'thing', especially for sustainable building. Wattle is usually hazel sticks, produced from coppices (hazel grows fast!); and daub is simply locally sourced clay.

Ben Law's house (http://ben-law.co.uk/portfolio/the-woodland-house/) is an excellent example of old and new technologies working together.

I have no real interest in ever trying to live in one, but as an outside observer, I find the question of turning one of these into a cheap habitat to be a fascinating question. Kinda like the whole Tiny House thing ("How are they going to fit a bed, dining room, computer desk and composting toilet in the same 6x5x6 space?"), except the shell of it is cheap enough that when one falls off of a container ship no one cares and now you have the question losing x inches of wall to insulation. It's a total ship-in-a-bottle kind of thing.

So yeah, it's the ultra esoteric functional programming language of housing solutions. Not as useful in the real world as you'd like and it may only have worth as an academic question, but it gets the creative juices flowing.

I think it started as an affordable alternative to stick frame construction in a few instances where the containers were readily available, but I agree it's become something people want to do even when its not cost efficient in their area. On the other hand, why shouldn't building a house be as simple as joining two or three prefabricated, easily transported, container-sized modules together? It just needs the right price point.

[edit] There's a company called Bone Structure that has a modular steel building system that's almost a hybrid between pre-fab and on-site custom. Still expensive though.

Quite a lot of Finnish houses are build from prefabricated elements. One would typically just build a foundation and trucks would bring in the wall structures (not sure about roofs) and raise them. After that it's only about hvac, outer walls and interior.

Also, Finnish construction standards are quite high, not only because of climate :)

>On the other hand, why shouldn't building a house be as simple as joining two or three prefabricated, easily transported, container-sized modules together? It just needs the right price point.

That actually exists already. Here is just one example.[1]

[1]https://www.ritz-craft.com/floor-plans-and-options/floor-pla...

I suspect that modern prefab are far cheaper, greener and more flexible then containers, even when packaged 4 to the size of one container.

There is a certain kind of trash to house narrative that's incredible popular among a usually fairly well of segment of the population that make the whole container housing as the future of sustainability story too good to fact check for most news outlets.

The potential that containers aren't actually trash and might serve much better purposes in the trade or re-smelted then as hard to isolate houses. is one of those things you better not actually mention when writing about container housing.

I'm aware of one and only one shipping container residence that makes sense: the container can still be shipped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPgjndFqqwY

I think I agree for permanent homes, but given recent disaster events, shipping containers would definitely seem much more interesting as inputs to rapidly build disaster shelters... they're already built to ship, and transport on the road, you can fill them with disaster supplies, so as long as you can offload and place them it would seem like a nice modular unit for disaster logistics (extending it's original intent for cargo).

Not to mention, depending on what they were shipping they're lined with pest/fungicides that need to be removed.

Nothing a good sandblaster can't remove, most of it is in the floor anyways (https://www.containerhomeplans.org/2016/10/should-you-remove...). Rip out and replace the floor (which you'll want to do anyway as it looks ugly and damaged in most cases), sandblast the walls until clean, repaint them, done.

You can also leave the walls alone and only do the floor, or epoxy/concrete the floor to cover the toxins, depending on your budget.

You cannot leave the walls alone, typically the paints are not something you'd want in your home. I believe the solution is typically spray-foam insulation to prevent off-gassing instead of sandblasting.

Some choose to cover the floor instead of removing it, however this makes the low (8.5') ceiling even lower.

These processes increase the expense and waste involved in conversion.

In fact, there is an important difference between "container homes" and "container-sized" homes.

And nothing really new about the idea either at least not if we look to more dense cities instead of the suburban American experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakagin_Capsule_Tower

I think this article goes into it in more detail: http://markasaurus.com/2015/09/01/whats-wrong-with-shipping-...

I'm not an expert, and don't have an opinion on container homes being a good idea or not. But the linked article seems more focused on why containers are not a good idea for multi-family apartments, affordable housing or hotels. It doesn't speak much to why they're not a good idea for single family home and non-stacked residences.

>> There's no sensible reason for containerized homes

What about trailer parks?

Built from scratch trailer homes make more sense.

>you end up spending more than you would with typical light frame construction to end up with a cramped space a low ceilings and poor insulation.

And what is that amount?

That depends entirely on what you want to build. The less cramped and shitty you want your container home to feel, the more it will cost relative to traditional construction.

I'm trying to understand the estimates that you based your comment on.

The article mentions one particular build as costing around $3000 to purchase and install.

$3000 to plop a container on her property, paint it, and redo the floors. It's not a livable space. No windows, no insulation, no plumbing, no electricity, no heating or cooling. She calls it a "glorified tent".

But yes, if that's what you want and you can get a good price on the raw shipping container and don't mind doing all the labor yourself, the final price isn't too bad.

Edit: Actually, they have a lamp, so they must have some sort of electricity supply.

How is closed cell foam poor insulation? It has an R-Value of approx 6-7 R per inch of thickness. 3 inches would provide an R-Value of approx 21 and would also seal the container. At 3 inches of thickness it provides a barrier to moisture. There is no other insulation that even comes close. It also increases the structural integrity of the container by 200%. Containers are incredibly strong and some of the best insulated structures on the planet.

Here is a good link for you to educate yourself about insulation.

http://www.demilec.com/

And another useful link for containers and all the different ways they can be utilized.

http://www.gtgroupinc.com/container-sales/gallery/modified-c...

You realize shipping containers don't typically have closed cell foam in them, right? Obviously you can add it. But you can add closed cell foam to any structure, and you can do it more cost effectively in a structure designed for insulation (and habitation). R-21 is also pretty low for the ceiling/roof in many climates.

Also there's no way closed cell foam increases the strength of the container by 200% unless you're just talking about dent resistance.

Adding foam as a moisture barrier is pretty amusing since moisture resistance is one thing shipping containers do have by default.

Refrigerated ones do generally have foam in them, of some sort.

Shipping containers are not typically refrigerated, though. At that point you need an electricity supply and you're getting away from the primary point of shipping containers, which is essentially "stack them and stick them on a boat for a month". Obviously refrigerated containers exist, but I think they're a pretty small minority and I don't think they are typically chosen for container home construction.

As someone who used to drive trucks, they're actually quite common, and similarly proportional in numbers to refer trailers vs dry vans, which I want to say is 5-20% of the industry.

Interesting. I wonder what percentage of shipping containers actually reaches trucks though. A lot probably go to trains or get unloaded at the shipping yard.

Basically 100%

You need a way to convey the can from the port (or railhead) to the receiver, and that is 100% by road, as you cant unload a can while its on the rail - cans are made to be put into a truck dock like a trailer.

Also, everything I've read about building one advises against using a refrigerated container - something about the lining that could lead to respiratory issues. Can't find a source at present, but was a big no-no when I was looking a few years back.

I don't think you understand that shipping containers are not moisture proof unless they are refers. There is a large percentage of containers that are already insulated.

Like I said take some time to educate yourself about the container industry.

I didn't say shipping containers were "moisture proof". I said that they are moisture resistant. Shipping containers are designed to preserve cargo during shipping. While many shipping containers might not be 100% weathertight, they will be pretty close. Steel walls are absolutely water-impermeable, so the only areas needing a moisture barrier would be the doors and any incompletely-welded joints. The biggest concern is probably with condensation [1], not exterior air infiltration.

I kind of get the impression you're trying to present yourself as an expert but don't have any meaningful knowledge in this area. The "educate yourself" condescension is a telltale sign. People who actually have knowledge and take the time to comment generally use the opportunity to actually share knowledge.

I'd really like it if you could point me to some supporting info for your impressive claim that 3 inches of closed-cell foam will increase the structural integrity of a shipping container by 200%. Here's a chance to share your expertise.

[1] http://pentalvercontainersales.com/waterproof.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com