Shipping container homes, good resources?

z31maniac wrote: I knew one/some of you would have looked into this before. The girlfriend and I are considering buying a small piece of land and building a house on it. Catches are we can't afford nor do we want to build a traditional house, we're both closet greenies. The idea of a shipping container house is very appealing after some of the desings I've seen. My only real concern is insulating the thing. Oklahoma can see anywhere from 110° in the summer to 15° in the winter, so I can imagine in July/August the house turning into a giant oven. Any thoughts? Good places to look around for more info?

I do want to ask a tough question.

When you say "green" what do you really mean?

Trying to recycle and build with the lowest impact, or actually saving energy by not expending anymore?

While I see that you want to buy a piece of land, by a rather wide margin, buying an existing home is WAY greener than building one. Even refurbisihng it with a lot of new components is better.

I'm still interested in seeing the conainer home results if you go that way, but you should understand that there's no way you can expend less energy than just using a home that's already in place. In this economic market, there are a lot of small homes on the market that use little energy- since they are small...

Just sayin.

Eric

There's a local company that builds modular homes, costs are low because they have the jigs and tools to make it inside of a warehouse. Bring it to the site and assemble two or three large parts, connect pre-run wiring and plumbing and you have a house.

The same company is selling homes to Japan. They are made to "traditional" Japanese style, a foyer for shoes etc. They fit inside of a shipping container. The cost of lumber in Japan must be high enough to justify building it here and then tacking on the costs of shipping it overseas.

Dan

alfadriver wrote:

z31maniac wrote: I knew one/some of you would have looked into this before. The girlfriend and I are considering buying a small piece of land and building a house on it. Catches are we can't afford nor do we want to build a traditional house, we're both closet greenies. The idea of a shipping container house is very appealing after some of the desings I've seen. My only real concern is insulating the thing. Oklahoma can see anywhere from 110° in the summer to 15° in the winter, so I can imagine in July/August the house turning into a giant oven. Any thoughts? Good places to look around for more info?

I do want to ask a tough question. When you say "green" what do you really mean? Trying to recycle and build with the lowest impact, or actually saving energy by not expending anymore? While I see that you want to buy a piece of land, by a rather wide margin, buying an existing home is WAY greener than building one. Even refurbisihng it with a lot of new components is better. I'm still interested in seeing the conainer home results if you go that way, but you should understand that there's no way you can expend less energy than just using a home that's already in place. In this economic market, there are a lot of small homes on the market that use little energy- since they are small... Just sayin. Eric

By all means, that's why I posted here! I knew I would get good honest opinions and not just a bunch of "Sounds like a great idea, go for it!" @ss grabbing type posts.

Initally are thought was to build a house, that would be as energy efficient as possible in regards to energy/water usage and impact on the land from new building materials, by using as much recycled material and our own labor as possible.

You do make a good point though. One thing we are worried about with the fixing up the family house is "out-building" the neighborhood so to speak. Many of the houses in our neighborhood our being fixed up and restored, but the house doesn't really leave us many options as far as adding space, it's on a relatively small lot, and no garage is absolutely killing me. To build a two car garage in the backyard would take up maybe 1/6-1/5 of the backyard? Now that I think about it, probably more like 1/4.

Another thought we've considered is to buy the current house we're renting, do the bare minimum to fix it up, pay it off (which I think we could do in about 6 years), then turn it in to a rental property and build a home.

Keep the questions, suggestions coming.

SvRex, would you mind going into some more detail with your experience on green home building and common pitfalls people fall into and such?

914Driver wrote: There's a local company that builds modular homes, costs are low because they have the jigs and tools to make it inside of a warehouse. Bring it to the site and assemble two or three large parts, connect pre-run wiring and plumbing and you have a house. The same company is selling homes to Japan. They are made to "traditional" Japanese style, a foyer for shoes etc. They fit inside of a shipping container. The cost of lumber in Japan must be high enough to justify building it here and then tacking on the costs of shipping it overseas. Dan

That's another thing, I'm having a hard time finding what a modular home actually costs. As companies, like realtors, don't want to post prices (or locations in Realtors cases) because they want you to call and sell you.

Like the land I called about yesterday, they said it was sold, and immediately launched into a sales pitch for a couple of $200K+ homes.

To get a modular home price find a builder. My wife and I looked into it a few years ago and took a tour of a local company http://www.westchestermodular.com/home.htm They said they don't sell direct to the public, but rather to a group of approved builders who coordinate clearing of the property, setting up the foundation, assembly and finish of the house. The builders can usually give you a pretty good idea of the price, minus the land, and some had land available as well. You do have to watch out adding options though. Every house they show you will be fairly loaded, but when you add them on to your house the price goes up quick.

Around here, 'modular' means 'mobile home'. Homes built on site from factory produced wall components are called 'panelized' and that's what Wally's link goes to. It's surprising how inexpensive it can be, for instance one company offers a 'dried out' 2000 square foot home for $45,000.00. http://www.octagonhomes.com/2000sqft/ That does not include the land, foundation, interior walls or mechanical (electrical or plumbing). But it does include all the windows, doors, 1st and 2nd story floors (carpet grade, no final flooring) exterior walls, etc. and that is an assembled price.

The modular homes we looked at left the factory with the inerior walls finished, with the electric and plumbing already run. We watched the put on together and the just had to tie the modules together as they assembled it.

z31maniac wrote:You do make a good point though. One thing we are worried about with the fixing up the family house is "out-building" the neighborhood so to speak. Many of the houses in our neighborhood our being fixed up and restored, but the house doesn't really leave us many options as far as adding space, it's on a relatively small lot, and no garage is absolutely killing me. To build a two car garage in the backyard would take up maybe 1/6-1/5 of the backyard? Now that I think about it, probably more like 1/4.

At least you thought about it.

But I did want to make a comment about the above- filling your back yard with an out building.

I did it- filled up most of my back yard with a 1000 sq ft garage. I had a panic attack when they dug the holes for the foundation, and realized that it was HUGE (I also added 11x11 room as well as the 22x44 garage). But it turned out really good, and I have very little lawn to mow. Thankfully, there are a couple of other 1000 ft2 garages in my neighborhood, so I'm not out of place (and that's the max size inside the city limits).

It basically took about 3/4 of by back yard, if you include the driveway. And I'm still ok with it.

Anyway, it's good to really think out your goals- I have an architect friend who fired some clients who wanted a brand new "green" 3500 ft2 home. They were a little delusional. We got talking about what "green" meant, and as I see it, if people are taking global warming seriously, the goal should be minimum energy required to achieve X, and for homes, that basically means buy used.

Not to say you can't be creative with new builds. But gotta really soul search in what you really want. AND incorporate what you really NEED- most people seem to WAY over buy needs (me included).

For stick homes, factory built is generally better than site built, since they usually minimize waste. I still think one can be more energy efficient building a leggo home of containers, though. That's just a guess, no actual research.

Eric

Filling up your backyard with a garage is a good reason to trade the gas lawn mower for a battery powered one.

I've looked at all different kinds of stuff over the years and I am sorta torn between SIP panelized and a dome house. There are a couple of manufacturers of SIP panelized domes which would combine the best of both, but the big problem is that banks do not like 'non traditional' designs for mortgages (or at least not around here). So getting a loan can be difficult, if not impossible. Too bad, because I really like the dome idea.

Jensenman wrote: I've looked at all different kinds of stuff over the years and I am sorta torn between SIP panelized and a dome house. There are a couple of manufacturers of SIP panelized domes which would combine the best of both, but the big problem is that banks do not like 'non traditional' designs for mortgages (or at least not around here). So getting a loan can be difficult, if not impossible. Too bad, because I really like the dome idea.

SIP? Is that the panels used in modern timber frame homes?

Eric

I'm going to have to do some more reading here. If the strength of containers is in their edges, then cutting out the sides should be less of a problem.

I did come across this one a while back - seems as if the containers were the best solution for the area: http://earthsci.org/education/fieldsk/container/container.html

Back to the questions at hand...is there any reason that the house on the property couldn't be expanded? My first house was originally built in the 1910's. Over the years, a kitchen had been added on the back, and then a porch covered in to make a nice dining/sun room. On the second floor, a bedroom was on top of the new kitchen/sun room. A coworker's single-story house went through the same expansion on the ground floor. The end result has the charm of the old design but you're only expanding the physical plant, not creating one from scratch.

alfadriver wrote:

Jensenman wrote: I've looked at all different kinds of stuff over the years and I am sorta torn between SIP panelized and a dome house. There are a couple of manufacturers of SIP panelized domes which would combine the best of both, but the big problem is that banks do not like 'non traditional' designs for mortgages (or at least not around here). So getting a loan can be difficult, if not impossible. Too bad, because I really like the dome idea.

SIP? Is that the panels used in modern timber frame homes? Eric

Yes. Structural Insulated Panel.

Jensenman, that is a really cool setup! I really dig everything about that. That may warrant some more investigation.

alfadriver, good stuff. Thankfully we don't have to make a rushed decision.

Keith, I agree. And if one knows how to weld, I would think adding reinforcements where necessary would be really easy. The main reason the house can't be expanded is the current layout and cost. My mother told me that when I was first born and my parents were living there, they had someone come out and inspect the property and basically it was deemed that the foundation on the house would not safely suport the weight of adding a 2nd story.

Going forward on the first level would ruin the aethestics and push the house closer to the street, one of things I like now is that it sits farther back than most in the neighborhood. Going backward would require removing a MASSIVE oak tree, it would be a travesty to remove it. It's probably 50ft tall and 5-6 ft across at the base.

We think we'd basically have to tear the back of the house completely off (basically leaving the dining room, living room and one bedroom), build a modern foundation on the back half of the house and add an extra bedroom and bathroom upstairs while completely redoing the back bedroom, bathroom and kitchen on the first floor. We would then have a 3bed/2bath approx 1600-1700 ft house, but at what cost? At that point I think we would have so much money in the house we would never get it back out.

z31maniac wrote:

alfadriver wrote: I do want to ask a tough question. When you say "green" what do you really mean? Trying to recycle and build with the lowest impact, or actually saving energy by not expending anymore? While I see that you want to buy a piece of land, by a rather wide margin, buying an existing home is WAY greener than building one. Even refurbisihng it with a lot of new components is better. I'm still interested in seeing the conainer home results if you go that way, but you should understand that there's no way you can expend less energy than just using a home that's already in place. In this economic market, there are a lot of small homes on the market that use little energy- since they are small... Just sayin. Eric

Keep the questions, suggestions coming. SvRex, would you mind going into some more detail with your experience on green home building and common pitfalls people fall into and such?

I worked with the Appropriate Technologies department of Habitat for Humanity for a number of years. Our job was to research locally available resources, methods, and technologies around the world to help reduce costs, reduce environmental impact, and make houses more accessible to more people.

There where VERY FEW crazy ideas that didn't cross my desk (bamboo? thatch? twigs?)

Alfadriver nailed it with his question, and it is going to be VERY difficult to offer you much more advice unless you answer his question about what you mean when you say "green".

Truthfully, most "green" ideas out there are not very environmentally friendly (in the big scheme of things), they just sound cool.

For example, how about using used tires as a construction material? The concept is you stack them in a woven pattern, fill them with insulation, and stucco over the inside and the outside, leaving you with a super-insulated structure with 3' thick walls that puts to use a large quantity of waste that is difficult to get rid of (tires). It's a good idea.

Problem is, tires have no structural integrity of their own, so engineers are going to have to calculate methods to hold the structural loads. The vast amounts of cement for the stucco is costly and environmentally unfriendly, the roof spans still need structural members which will be oversized (costly more money and wasting more trees), and the 3' thick walls make an ENORMOUS footprint for the house, gobbling up land resources and increasing roof area, etc.

Houses built this way are usually in excess of $1 million.

So, work on a response to Alfadriver's question, and we'll see what suggestions we can give you that meet your needs.

z31maniac wrote: Keith, I agree. And if one knows how to weld, I would think adding reinforcements where necessary would be really easy.

I mean no disrespect, but are you qualified to figure out where those reinforcements would be necessary? A building inspector would expect that person to be a qualified structural engineer.

Probably the most important to me would be recycling good materials and reducing energy usage.

I don't buy into the whole global warming from the same guys who used to push global cooling and the same guys that ignore the amount of CO2 made by Mother Earth, but that is EXACTLY what I DO NOT want to turn this thread into.

However, I think trying to do what you can for the environment is important.

It's probably going to be in our best interests both greenwise and financially to buy the house we are living in and update it accordingly. It's just sometimes I wonder if it would be easier to start new because the house needs SO MUCH work!

SVreX wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Keith, I agree. And if one knows how to weld, I would think adding reinforcements where necessary would be really easy.

I mean no disrespect, but are you qualified to figure out where those reinforcements would be necessary? A building inspector would expect that person to be a qualified structural engineer.

None taken. I do have access to ME's and Architect's though.

BTW- I think you are probably right about not expanding your current house. Now is a great time to buy another one, but that one may not meet your needs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Sy6zTwL5Y

Yeah, I watch HGTV. Don't judge me.

z31maniac wrote: None taken. I do have access to ME's and Architect's though.

Excellent.

However, that will usually push the project out of the realm of what most people consider reasonable from a cost perspective (and increase environmetal impact, as they include more and more resources for various reasons).

Jensenman wrote: I've looked at all different kinds of stuff over the years and I am sorta torn between SIP panelized and a dome house. There are a couple of manufacturers of SIP panelized domes which would combine the best of both, but the big problem is that banks do not like 'non traditional' designs for mortgages (or at least not around here). So getting a loan can be difficult, if not impossible. Too bad, because I really like the dome idea.

I've built domes too, and worked with SIPS.

From an environmental standpoint, they are typically incredibly wasteful (in the construction process), because they are made of a bunch of triangles, and building materials are simply not manufactured that way. When you cut triangles from rectangles, there's gotta be some waste and innefficiency.

I did build one dome house out of old glass bottles mortared together like bricks. That was a little weird (but gave a fascinating final product, with the sun shining through thousands of bottle bottoms of all different colors).

SVreX wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Keith, I agree. And if one knows how to weld, I would think adding reinforcements where necessary would be really easy.

I mean no disrespect, but are you qualified to figure out where those reinforcements would be necessary? A building inspector would expect that person to be a qualified structural engineer.

Since this thread is taking some very interesting tangets, I have a question for you, SVreX. Are there areas in the country where there ARE building codes in place for alternate plans?

For instance, I live in Ann Arbor- a pretty liberal leaning, "green" city. I would expect that systems that are capable of surviving winters would have some kind of codes in this area just because they should be open to alternate ideas that may recycle "stuff". I don't know if they do, or not, but would not be surprised if they do. Knowing how strong these containers are, and how "tight" they are, I would think that shipping container homes here would be accepted as reduced wood usage.

But are you aware of areas in the country that is more open to alternate ideas?

I've been fascinated by buildings using containers- they announced a 3 or 4 story apartment in Detroit that was going to do it- I'll look up the article and get back with you. The iron of that is the number of unused homes in the area...

This is one of the more interesting off topic discussions....

Eric

Here's an example of what "eco-friendly" can cost. I've got 2 quotes sitting on my desk for a project we are working on. Closed cell polyurethane spray foam vs. fiberglass in the walls of a structure.

The foam is essentially a large scale version of "Great Stuff".

Same thickness. The foam will offer better thermal efficiency, lower heat bills, less fuel consumed for energy, and much better resistance to air infiltration.

Fiberglass- $2877. Foam- $8000.

Here's the note from treehugger- http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/container-condo-detroit.php I'd link you to the Free Press article, but it requires a subscription.