The housing non-profit Atira built a three-storey building out of shipping containers a couple of years ago. Now Atira is launching an even more ambitious effort, a seven-storey building composed out of 80 to 90 shipping containers.
My Globe story is here, with a render. You can also look at the rezoning proposal on the city’s website here.
Lots of reaction to this project. More than one person, besides Michael Geller quoted in the story, raised questions about whether building with shipping containers is any cheaper than conventional construction.
I didn’t get into it in the story, since that was focused on construction trends, but there is some dismay from some in the neighbourhood about the added stress and demand for more social services this will bring in a community that already has high demand for childcare, community-centre services and more. Then others think this is just a bad area to be permanently housing women and children. And there have been some concerns about the height of this building, which will be backing onto an alley that has much lower houses on the other side.
All valid issues, but I know one of the ongoing problems with trying to create social housing is simply the cost of land. So where a city or a non-profit has land already available (which Atira does in the remainder of the lot behind the Rice Block that this project is planned for), that seems to trump all the other factors.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Bill_McCreery // Dec 27, 2014 at 6:07 pm
In addition to the yet another variation of ad hoc spot rezoning and the less than subtle aesthetic, scale and social neighbourhood integration, I’d be curious to know what has to be done to hold these containers up with a sufficient fire resistance rating? That will certainly add to the cost.
When the 3 storey project was proposed 3 years ago I did a brief review of the numbers and they were not saving anything over traditional housing then. The compromises that are required in design, liveability and neighbourhood fit, as well as the potential for the residents to be stigmatized as living in the even more obvious ‘tin box’ social housing make one wonder whether this is a gimmick that needs a serious re-evaluation.
It did get Cllr Jang a lot of press though.
2 Internet made me obsolete // Dec 30, 2014 at 10:21 am
People as cargo. Creepy. What’s next, Japanese coffin hotels with 3 cubic metres of space per unit on racks in a warehouse?
They can be coin-op and made of materials you can hose down between occupants. Pay-per-view on the screen in the ceiling, food and beverages from the vending machines on Level 5. OK, so you have to kind of crawl in and out and you can’s sit up, let alone stand in one of them, but density-wise nothing else comes close.
And after, all it’s not like I’d ever live in a container so who really cares what they’re like as habitation. Good enough for government work.
3 jolson // Dec 30, 2014 at 3:41 pm
I do hope that the project is well grounded (electrically speaking).
4 Gerald Dobronov // Dec 31, 2014 at 9:31 am
City Hall would level Stanley Park and build addict housing if it meant fulfilling their ridiculous promise to end homelessness. As some people warned, the DTES is slowly spreading into Strathcona and the residents be damned as far as Vision is concerned.
5 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 2, 2015 at 5:36 pm
Smaller units are half the price per sq’? How come, no kitchen?
It’s a trendy gimmick. How about the wood trades, what do they think?
You don’t want to be leaning against the wall if lightning strikes. For guidance we turn to the Hindu.com:
“When lightning strikes a structure, the very high current searches for the easiest path like metal pipes, power and communication wiring, metal railings — all of which are not designed to carry high currents. This generates heating, melting, fire and smoke.
The safety of a structure and its occupants exposed to lightning is dependent on a correctly designed and installed lightning protection system. In spite of national and international standards, damage to property and human beings by lightning still occurs due to lack of understanding or disregard of the principles of lightning protection. The four basic parts of lightning protection system are
1. Air terminals
2. Down conductors
3. Earth connection and
4. Surge protection.
The function of a lightning protection system is to convey the very high lightning discharge currents safely to earth through a low resistance path. Air terminals are also called lightning rods. These are made of copper and fixed on top of the structure. Typically, these are spaced six meters apart on the edge of the building and 15 meters on the interior of the roof. Cross connection of air terminals is also done. These air terminals attract lightning, drawing high voltage currents into the protection system and away from the structure and its contents. The air terminals are connected to down conductors of sufficient thickness and low resistance. There should be one down conductor for every 20 meters of the building perimeter. If the building is above 20 meters high, the spacing should be reduced to 10 meters. The function of a down conductor is to conduct the lightning strike to earth. These down conductors need to be direct and vertical with minimum bends and joints. Each down conductor must have a separate earth connection. The connection is obtained by a copper-clad steel rod of about 10 ft length and 1/2 inch diameter driven deep into earth pits. The resistance to earth should be low enough to discharge a large lightning current safely into the earth.
The failure to provide low resistance earthing will cause the lightning protection system to be ineffective and result in property damage and risk to human life. All components in a lightning protection system need to be corrosion-proof, large-sized and rigidly installed.
Lightning can cause surge voltages in power and phone lines, computers, TVs etc., despite a lightning protection system. Surge protectors should be used to protect them. Surge protectors are connected to electrically live parts and to the earth and have non-linear resistances that offer high resistance when there is no surge and low resistance in case of surge. ”
The writer is an electrical engineer and can be mailed at [email protected]
6 TessaGarnet // Jan 3, 2015 at 1:35 pm
Did you read the article?
The housing provider had a report done that showed they did save a small chunk of change – though not a lot. I understand you did a “brief review of the numbers” and all but I’d put a little more stock in the report myself.
It would be nice if we could use the facts in the news as a starting point for discussion or, if there is reasonable grounds to doubt those facts, could you give us something a little more to go on?
7 TessaGarnet // Jan 3, 2015 at 1:40 pm
I actually stayed a few nights in a container suite in Amsterdam and while it was obviously a container housing project on the outside, I was surprised by how much it felt like a perfectly normal apartment. Inside, there really was no trace of it being a shipping container.
I certainly didn’t get struck by lightning.
If this saves money, let’s go for it. Look at some examples worldwide and we’ll see it doesn’t have to look shabby. I don’t think this building method will have a future regardless of whatever hype it has now unless it delivers on the cost savings, so any arguments in these forums are a little silly. So why not?
8 Guest // Jan 7, 2015 at 2:41 am
http://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/51st+Annual+Grammy+Awards+Arrivals+Invq44DsubZl.jpg