用集装箱做建筑材料的优点和缺点

随着全球出现日益增多的绿色建筑,越来越多的人开始注意用船运集装箱可以作为一个很好的绿色的替代品。各地无数未用的空集装箱在各个港口占据着空间。其中一个原因是由于昂贵的将空集装箱运回到出发地的费用,大多数情况下取而代之的是从亚洲购买新的集装箱会更加便宜。因此所带来的严重后果是过多剩余的空集装箱,它们可作为住宅、办公室、公寓、学校、宿舍、工作室、应急避难所,或者其他等等。

船运集装箱建筑有许多优势,其中包括:强度、耐久性、实用性和低廉的价格。由于十年间北美工业产品的稀缺,来自亚洲和欧洲的工业产品运送到北美后,带来的问题是高额的将集装箱运回的花费,使得廉价的集装箱剩余过多。然而,人们希望找到一个新的应用方式使得集装箱得到新的完全的利用。

1987年11月23日,Phillip C. Clark从法律上提出了一个专利——一种将一个或多个钢制船运集装箱改造为建筑的方式。这个专利于1989年8月8日通过(专利号4854094)。

2006年,南加州建筑师Peter DeMaria设计出美国首个两层的船运集装箱住宅,并且该建筑结构通过了严格的国家认证建筑规范。更令人印象深刻的是Lot-Tek的Puma City。该建筑运用了丰富且价格低廉的材料,且拥有高质量的设计。同样地,世界上有许多不错的改装船运集装箱为建筑的例子。

船运集装箱建筑的实例相对于传统建筑材料相比,促进了更为注重绿色时髦概念建筑的设计,也似乎给予环保主义者更明智的选择。然而,交货集装箱的利用也处于下降趋势。例如,为了利于海洋运输,在集装箱表皮常常被涂上很多有害化学材料,例如铬酸盐、含磷涂料或铅涂料。此外,木地板等材料为了避免生虫也利用含砷和铬的化学品。

集装箱再利用似乎是一个低能量低消耗的替代品,然而仍需要许多精力将集装箱改造成为可居住性的建筑。所有的结构需要用喷砂方式将其裸露,地板需要被替换,窗口和门需要用火焰去切割。平均每个集装箱在结构可被利用之前,会产生数以千磅的废料。除此之外,还需要重型机械去运输,这些都是对环保理念有着强烈影响和深远意义的。

另一个不利因素在于尺寸上,一个单独的集装箱要创造包含生活和工作同时的空间。考虑到独立的因素,你将会有一个狭长的不到8英尺(2.44米)高的盒子。为了能有足够大的空间,几个盒子会被连接在一起。

在许多地方,可以用木头去制作相同比例的结构会更加便宜和节省能源。尽管船运集装箱建筑并不是一个最好的设计和建造的方式,但在那些资源稀缺、集装箱剩余量大,且人们需要以最直接的方式入住,比如发展中国家或者受灾地区时,会更加有意义。

摄影: Flickr user: Håkan Dahlström, Flick user: wendyfairy, Flickr user: SlapBcn, Flick user: RO/LU, Flickr user: pakitt, Flickr user: OneGoodEye, Flickr user: mr.push, Flickr user: Mr. Kimberly, Flickr user: Matt Brock, Flickr user: mark.hogan, Flick user: macguys, Flickr user: lorigami, Flickr user: john.duffell, Flickr user: JaviC, Flick user: Dom Dada, Flickr user: Ari Herzog

参考: firmitas


With the green premise growing in popularity across the globe, more and more people are turning to cargo container structures for green alternatives. There are countless numbers of empty, unused shipping containers around the world just sitting on shipping docks taking up space. The reason for this is that it’s too expensive for a country to ship empty containers back to their origin. In most cases, it’s just cheaper to buy new containers from Asia. The result is an extremely high surplus of empty shipping containers that are just waiting to become a home, office, apartment, school, dormitory, studio, emergency shelter, and everything else. More information after the break.

There are copious benefits to the so-called shipping container architecture model. A few of these advantages include: strength, durability, availability, and cost. The abundance and relative cheapness (some sell for as little as $900) of these containers during the last decade comes from the deficit in manufactured goods coming from North America. These manufactured goods come to North America, from Asia and Europe, in containers that often have to be shipped back empty at a considerable expense. Therefore, new applications are sought for the used containers that have reached their final destination.

On November 23, 1987, Phillip C. Clark file for a United States patent describe as a “Method for converting one or more steel shipping containers into a habitable building at a building site and the product thereof.” This patent was granted on August 8, 1989 as patent 4854094. The diagrams and information contained within the documentation of the patent appear to lay the groundwork for many current shipping container architectural ideas.

In 2006, Southern California architect Peter DeMaria, designed the first two-story shipping container home in the U.S. as an approved structural system under the strict guidelines of the nationally recognized Uniform Building Code. Even more impressive is Lot-Tek’s Puma City, which was built with abundant material at a low price, without substituting design quality. As such, there are many great examples of shipping container architecture in the world.

Shipping container architecture gets a lot of encouraging coverage in the design world as a trendy green alternative to traditional building materials, and seems like a smart choice for people looking for eco-consciousness. However, there are a lot of downsides to building with cargo containers. For instance, the coatings used to make the containers durable for ocean transport also happen to contain a number of harmful chemicals, such as chromate, phosphorous, and lead-based paints. Moreover, wood floors that line the majority of shipping container buildings are infused with hazardous chemical pesticides like arsenic and chromium to keep pests away.

Reusing containers seems to be a low energy alternative, however, few people factor in the amount of energy required to make the box habitable. The entire structure needs to be sandblasted bare, floors need to be replaced, and openings need to be cut with a torch or fireman’s saw. The average container eventually produces nearly a thousand pounds of hazardous waste before it can be used as a structure. All of this, coupled with the fossil fuels required to move the container into place with heavy machinery, contribute significantly to its ecological footprint.

Another downside is that dimensionally, an individual container creates awkward living/working spaces. Taking into account added insulation, you have a long narrow box with less than eight foot ceiling. To make an adequate sized space, multiple boxes need to be combined, which again, requires energy.

In many areas, it is cheaper and less energy to build a similarly scaled structure using wood framing. Shipping container homes makes sense where resources are scarce, containers are in abundance, and where people are in need of immediate shelter such as, developing nations and disaster relief. While there are certainly striking and innovative examples of architecture using cargo containers, it is typically not the best method of design and construction.

Photos: Flickr user: Håkan Dahlström, Flick user: wendyfairy, Flickr user: SlapBcn, Flick user: RO/LU, Flickr user: pakitt, Flickr user: OneGoodEye, Flickr user: mr.push, Flickr user: Mr. Kimberly, Flickr user: Matt Brock, Flickr user: mark.hogan, Flick user: macguys, Flickr user: lorigami, Flickr user: john.duffell, Flickr user: JaviC, Flick user: Dom Dada, Flickr user: Ari Herzog

References: firmitas