|
Re: container homes and modernism
|
glow-@netscape.net
|
Jan 13, 2007 18:41 PST
|
sorta been paying attention to this list.
notions to add...sorry they dig into present conversation a bit, there are many positive things but felt this was being overlooked
1. container insulation while efficient for refridge purpose isn't safe for living around. One container I workrd with had a polyvinyl foam that was epoxied down and it seemed that there was enough off gasing alone to kill ya.
2. plywood used especially if from China can contain amazingly high levels of formaldehyde holding it together. Many containers had been treated with a noxious waterproofing agent. That's for a new container, who knows what goes on in a used one...mold, contamination, etc. Not good at all for living purposes. It should be understood even if you are low in income you shouldn't build shelter that could do yourself harm. Used containers could be very dangerous!! Toxins get transported and stored in ways that are in and of themselves toxic, how are you gonna know what was shipped in a ten year old container??
3. Why live in a box??
4. Use container as structural embankments and the space inside as storage only. Stiill means you've got a lot to build, but you can begin to move away from types of work that require a lot of equipment and perhaps with planning getaway from a conventional foundation. Wonderous things could come about with four containers and strawbales.
5. Complete relocation notion, if you need to really relocate yourself and many things the containers could be filled with belongins and building supplies so that everything arrived at site at the same time. Then you would only need to figure out placement method for the containers. So the containers would need to be packed with placement in mind.
-----Original Message-----
From: eric.p-@undp.org
To: Dymaxi-@topica.com
Sent: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 9:07 AM
Subject: container homes and modernism
Hi Eric Some interesting thoughts and I think basically valid, though I think the last paragraph is overly optimistic. One thing that stuck me in Ottawa during the high tech boom was that, contrary to general expectations, this young, technophile, possibly eccentric dotcom millionaire market did not go for the loft look downtown but overwhelmingly bought large, traditional houses in the old, established prestigious neighbourhoods. What does this indicate? That they see their home as an investment and feel these areas are a safer bet? That as a status symbol one has to buy in these neighbourhoods, where its too expensive to tear down and build? I suspect its mainly psychological; unlike a car, which is an ‘accessory’ and a public one, and something which is ultimately disposable, that people strongly internalize an aesthetic they associate with a home (as opposed to a house), ie nostalgic, secure, private; basically something they grew up in. Of course in many big cities one has a downtown market for modernism with YUPPIE purchasers, but I wonder if this is not due to physical constraints; ie conversion of industrial buildings etc, which could never be made to look like the suburbs. Basically, the North American home owner has a very conservative, traditional aesthetic. This, in my opinion, is why we don’t see more use of containers for modern, funky developments, though of course could also be by-law issues or, in some places, weather Eric From: eric meinert [mailto:ericme-@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 1:22 AM
To: Dymaxi-@topica.com
Subject: RE: Testing, please ignore I imagine that a high cube container will not be affected by insulation enought to reduce the ceiling below eight feet, even with an insulated floor. The walls may be another matter. The way I envisage a container habitat being efficient and livable is through the ability to extend the width by modular add ons, bringing the total width to about twelve, or at least ten feet. Expansive glass will also go a long way towards eliminating the claustrophobic limits of an eight foot width module. I think that the real benefits of container habitation are in the cost savings of factory installation of all mechanical systems, including fit up options like flooring materials. Visualise automobile or bus assembly lines. The scale and repetition allows for economical subassemblies and precision installation. Ironically, the most suitable people for designing the ecologically sustainable container home are people with experience in the assembly of automobiles. If people think that the results of this level of standardization will produce sterile, unexciting, and monotonous housing, they are mistaken. Look at the choice of automobiles on the market today. There is a car to express the personality of every driver, from Hummers to Smart Cars. And within each brand and model there are color and finish options as well. Imagine a home designed by the people at Mercedes Benz. This approach is the solution to the planet's housing needs, not more 'Modern' custom homes as seen in DWELL magazine and other such sources of 'inspiration'. Modernism was inspired by the efficiencies of mass production, to benefit the masses. Unfortunately, it became a vehicle of an elite need to separate itself from the 'tasteless' masses. The result was an architecture which I call Potempkin Modernism. Modern only on the surface, with an intention to impress. The furnishings are similarly elitist, with simple designer 'functional' pieces fetching outrageous prices that leave the ordinarly shopper with no recourse but IKEA for anything modern and affordable. Part of the problem with the lack of acceptance by the public for Modernist architecture (including Container dwellings) is this ironic lack of affordability of modern design offerings. The second major obstacle is the inchoate quality of many modern designs. Again the comparision with automobiles is instructive. The public has no issue whatsoever with the modern and forward looking products of the automobile industry. Even the most ordinarly car features sleek aerodynamic lines, machine esthetic colors, and complex instrument panels. You do not find people demanding that cars look like horse drawn buggies. Yet in architecture, people want houses that look like they are from the horse and buggy age, with ornamental flourishes and traditional materials. Why? Because the alternative offerings are so often sterile or eccentric. Compare a forward looking automobile design, such as a Mercedes Benz, with a modern home, such as a DWELL home. The Mercedes is symmetrical in design, and its overall esthetic expresses what it is, a machine designed to move. Now look at a 'modern' home. Typically there is a deliberate lack of symmetry, and the choice of materials is mixed, such as currogated metal combined with natural wood. Can you imagine a Mercedes with three doors on one side, and one on the other? With a flat roof and wooden door panels? The inconsistency and asymmetry is unattractive. Container homes offer the benefit that they tightly constrain the designer, due to their strict modular availability. This, ironically, can result in an architecture with the ageless appeal of vernacular architecture. That is, an architecture where the houses are fundamentally similar, with minor variations constrained, and all designs expressing with honesty and charm their fundmental contruction and material. From: Eric Patrick <eric.p-@undp.org>
Reply-To: Dymaxi-@topica.com
To: Dymaxi-@topica.com
Subject: RE: Testing, please ignore
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:42:14 +0300 Hi Deb Good point; but does this not significantly reduce the living space? Also, are they not considerably more expensive Eric From: deborah drew [mailto:dtd-@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:13 PM
To: Dymaxi-@topica.com
Subject: Re: Testing, please ignore Eric, Regarding heat. Refrigerated containers are well insulated, works both ways. A fellow Canadian. Deb Drew ________________________________________________To subscribe: Dymaxion200-@topica.comTo unsubscribe: Dymaxion2000-@topica.comTo view list archives on the Web: http://www.topica.com/lists/Dymaxion2000/readList admin questions: dyma-@nextage.net________________________________________________To subscribe: Dymaxion200-@topica.comTo unsubscribe: Dymaxion2000-@topica.comTo view list archives on the Web: http://www.topica.com/lists/Dymaxion2000/readList admin questions: dyma-@nextage.net
Your opinion matters. Please tell us what you think and be entered into a draw for a grand prize of $500 or one of 20 $50 cash prizes. ________________________________________________To subscribe: Dymaxion200-@topica.comTo unsubscribe: Dymaxion2000-@topica.comTo view list archives on the Web: http://www.topica.com/lists/Dymaxion2000/readList admin questions: dyma-@nextage.net________________________________________________
To subscribe: Dymaxion200-@topica.com
To unsubscribe: Dymaxion2000-@topica.com
To view list archives on the Web: http://www.topica.com/lists/Dymaxion2000/read
List admin questions: dyma-@nextage.net
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
|
|
 |
|
