. . . Cargo Container Housing?
Remember, just a few years ago the future was containerized housing, so cheap that homelessness would be a thing of the past?
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
What ever happened to . . .
- Thread starter EddMarkStarr
- Start date
. . . Cargo Container Housing?
Remember, just a few years ago the future was containerized housing, so cheap that homelessness would be a thing of the past?
Latimer
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Posts
- 6,581
- Reaction score
- 486
- Points
- 83
I know an architect/developer and contractor who are doing container housing, but all of them are single-family similar to the pic you've posted.
Regarding housing for homeless people: The guys--perhaps best referred to as "self-perpetuating homeless establishment"--in charge have revealed that homeless housing planned for Los Angeles is projected to cost approximately $750,000 per unit. Lucky LA! The projection for a new homeless project in San Francisco is projected at $950,000. God knows what homeless housing will end up costing in Seattle, what with the endless largesse of the tech community there.
Unfortunately, due to a notorious decision a few years ago that came out of the Ninth Circuit Federal Appeals Court--that none of these cities chose to appeal--cities within its jurisdiction are not allowed to move people off of the street until they have provided housing for them IN RELATIVE PROXIMITY to where they want to live.
What these cities will discover is that "If you build it they will come." And they will keep coming, much to the delight of the Homeless Establishment. Too bad the courts won't allow workhouses.
Regarding housing for homeless people: The guys--perhaps best referred to as "self-perpetuating homeless establishment"--in charge have revealed that homeless housing planned for Los Angeles is projected to cost approximately $750,000 per unit. Lucky LA! The projection for a new homeless project in San Francisco is projected at $950,000. God knows what homeless housing will end up costing in Seattle, what with the endless largesse of the tech community there.
Unfortunately, due to a notorious decision a few years ago that came out of the Ninth Circuit Federal Appeals Court--that none of these cities chose to appeal--cities within its jurisdiction are not allowed to move people off of the street until they have provided housing for them IN RELATIVE PROXIMITY to where they want to live.
What these cities will discover is that "If you build it they will come." And they will keep coming, much to the delight of the Homeless Establishment. Too bad the courts won't allow workhouses.
Just before I left Dallas, someone built a cargo container house in a very high-end opulent part of town.
The neighbors tried to block it and even went to court. But the house got built.
They tried to go the modern route, but I didn't think they succeeded. I thought it was an eyesore.
The neighbors tried to block it and even went to court. But the house got built.
They tried to go the modern route, but I didn't think they succeeded. I thought it was an eyesore.
NotHardUp1
What? Me? Really?
That is the problem. They look like shipping containers. Boxcars have been around for a lot longer, and no one found them appealing.
It also has the unwanted impression of literally warehousing people in not-so-rolling stock.
There seems to be some myth that shipping containers are cheap and somehow virtuous to recycle as housing. They obviously require heavy cranes so are not affordable for any single family home due to construction costs. Add to that the limitations of shape and configuration, and the adaptation costs, it doesn't seem so wonderful.
As for the homeless, there will never be a "solution" for a problem that doesn't want to be fixed. Subtract the fraction that is mentally ill and will not be made to conform, subtract the dopers and drifters who have no desire to be anything but free (including free from work), and you're not really left with very many people who must be homeless. Most people have families they can live with until they get on their feet, but they choose not to. They burn their bridges behind them, and literally leave themselves with nowhere to turn.
Some are transitional, like battered wives with children, and our communities are doing pretty well with churches and women's shelters springing up and addressing the problem of how to restart your life.
And, a bit of the problem is political. People are included in the homeless population when they are not actually homeless, but are housed in friends' homes or even family's houses. They may be on hard times and not able to afford their own place, but that has always been true. That's what "extended family" housing was all about. Grandma moved in with her son when her husband died and she couldn't afford a house. Young singles lived at home until they saved up enough to get a place. Young couples lived in the basement of their parents' home until they could get on their feet. Today, it's politically expedient to claim they are all homeless, much like the "food insecure" label. Record obesity, even higher among the poor, yet food insecure. Uff da.
It also has the unwanted impression of literally warehousing people in not-so-rolling stock.
There seems to be some myth that shipping containers are cheap and somehow virtuous to recycle as housing. They obviously require heavy cranes so are not affordable for any single family home due to construction costs. Add to that the limitations of shape and configuration, and the adaptation costs, it doesn't seem so wonderful.
As for the homeless, there will never be a "solution" for a problem that doesn't want to be fixed. Subtract the fraction that is mentally ill and will not be made to conform, subtract the dopers and drifters who have no desire to be anything but free (including free from work), and you're not really left with very many people who must be homeless. Most people have families they can live with until they get on their feet, but they choose not to. They burn their bridges behind them, and literally leave themselves with nowhere to turn.
Some are transitional, like battered wives with children, and our communities are doing pretty well with churches and women's shelters springing up and addressing the problem of how to restart your life.
And, a bit of the problem is political. People are included in the homeless population when they are not actually homeless, but are housed in friends' homes or even family's houses. They may be on hard times and not able to afford their own place, but that has always been true. That's what "extended family" housing was all about. Grandma moved in with her son when her husband died and she couldn't afford a house. Young singles lived at home until they saved up enough to get a place. Young couples lived in the basement of their parents' home until they could get on their feet. Today, it's politically expedient to claim they are all homeless, much like the "food insecure" label. Record obesity, even higher among the poor, yet food insecure. Uff da.
LeicsDom
JUB Addict
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49412835
There was uproar earlier in the year when they were used in UK
There was uproar earlier in the year when they were used in UK
NotHardUp1
What? Me? Really?
They're really flimsy. Talk about tornado bait . . .
Seems to me that everything you do to make them not look like cargo containers ends up making them too expensive.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Posts
- 118,217
- Reaction score
- 27,969
- Points
- 113
It isn't even about how they look.
In most climates, you have to insulate and of course, there is all the work to cut openings and reinforce the steel. etc....all the while having to provide foundations for an inherently heavy building once you go multi-storey.
I'm all for their re-use, but they just haven't proven to be the low cost alternative in most markets as much as a hobby house. I do like the three storey apartment project shown here though as a 'green' re-use project....but let's be honest....by the time the project was finished, they look like the dreariest 1970's cheap apartment buildings.
In most climates, you have to insulate and of course, there is all the work to cut openings and reinforce the steel. etc....all the while having to provide foundations for an inherently heavy building once you go multi-storey.
I'm all for their re-use, but they just haven't proven to be the low cost alternative in most markets as much as a hobby house. I do like the three storey apartment project shown here though as a 'green' re-use project....but let's be honest....by the time the project was finished, they look like the dreariest 1970's cheap apartment buildings.
As I said earlier the one I saw was in Dallas. Consider that for the last week it's been at 100°F or more there every day... that's a hot metal box out in the sun, and it's going to require a lot more insulation than other materials to make it livable inside. That means a lot more electricity use.
There's a product called E-Crete that is sort of like concrete blocks, but they're much better insulated than concrete and more environmentally friendly.
Shipping containers as housing for humans is just not really a viable thing in my opinion.
There's a product called E-Crete that is sort of like concrete blocks, but they're much better insulated than concrete and more environmentally friendly.
Shipping containers as housing for humans is just not really a viable thing in my opinion.
NotHardUp1
What? Me? Really?
My guess is that they have more potential for other re-use, like mushroom farming, or barns in cold climates when shelter is more important.
I imagine up north, cattle need indoor shelter most of the winter so providing some sky lights and nominal heat would be minimal modification. And storage, of course. Lots of people want remote barns (er, mini-storage) these days, so they could surely be huddled up to provide that, but still, you have to own land.
I imagine up north, cattle need indoor shelter most of the winter so providing some sky lights and nominal heat would be minimal modification. And storage, of course. Lots of people want remote barns (er, mini-storage) these days, so they could surely be huddled up to provide that, but still, you have to own land.
Vannie
Stuffer
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2014
- Posts
- 16,497
- Reaction score
- 4,280
- Points
- 113
NotHardUp1
What? Me? Really?
Pallets are a lot more versatile. Unfortunately, they are made to be disposed of, and the lumber is crap. They probably could fuel the making of energy via steam, etc.