|
Re: container homes and modernism
|
nonconformist
|
Jan 14, 2007 10:37 PST
|
Ah, there you go. As soon as I decide to mention straw bales, somebody
else beat me to it. Way to go, Glowbawl!
I should know better than to think I can think up must of anything that
no one else has already thought of.
John.
--- glow-@netscape.net wrote:
| | 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      Â
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.
________________________________________________
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
|
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
|
 |
|
