importing a solution: new york institute of … · 22/12/2009 · the shipping industry is a vital...

Because the United States economy generally depends on imports rather than exports, there is an ever increasing surplus of cargo containers building up in United States ports.

This problem is explored as a proposed solution to another pressing United States problem: disaster relief temporary housing.

IMPORTING A SOLUTION:Solving the United States disaster relief housing problem

NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 1

Natural disasters can strike anywhere, however, there are places more susceptible than others. As seen on these maps, the darker areas represent an increased threat of a disaster.

The fi rst map - Global Earthquake Disaster-Prone Areas - shows those areas around the world that are most susceptible to an earthquake. The West coast of the United States and South America, central Asia and southern Europe are the most frequently and typically hardest hit regions.

The second map - Global Hydrological Disaster-Prone Areas - shows those areas around the world that have an increased potential of a hydrological disaster (tsunami, hurricane, fl ood, etc.). Typically the most effected areas are on a coast, however, as the map shows, the damage from one of these disasters can be felt for many miles inland.

Hydrological disasters are more frequent than other natural disasters (earthquake, drought, tornadoes, etc.). Therefore these are the case studies focused on as examples. GLOBAL EARTHQUAKE DISASTER-PRONE AREAS

GLOBAL HYDROLOGICAL DISASTER-PRONE AREAS


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 2

Over the past 20 years many hydrological disasters have occurred. Globally, 3 of the most severe are summarized below and a more in-depth look at 2 major hydrological disasters in the United States are on the pages that follow. The sheer destruction of one of these disasters is astounding.

The Eastern China fl ood; 1991: 8.3 million people were affected by this disaster.• 54,300 schools and/or daycare facilities were either damaged or • destroyed.32,480 hospitals/clinics/medical facilities were damaged.•

The Mozambique fl ood; 2000: 250,000 people were displaced.• 630 schools and/or daycare facilities were either damaged or • destroyed.42 hospitals/clinics/medical facilities were damaged.•

Indian Ocean tsunami; 2004: 1 million people were affected.• 929 schools and/or daycare facilities were either damaged or • destroyed.406 hospitals/clinics/medical facilities were damaged.•

Even if only 250,000 people are affected in a single incident, one can only imagine the amount of homes that were lost. Not to mention countless businesses, community facilities, and infrastructural damage that is sustained due to a natural disaster.

EASTERN CHINA FLOODS - 1991

MOZAMBIQUE FLOODS - 2000

INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI - INDONESIA, 2004


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 3

HURRICANE KATRINA -NEW ORLEANS, LA; 2005

HURRICANE IKE - GALVESTON, TX; 2008

Over the past 10 years, the United States has sustained many natural disasters ranging from hurricanes to wild fi res to severe hot and cold temperatures. The following are two case studies in which many people were affected and had to rely on FEMA along with other agencies for shelter, food, search and rescue efforts, clean-up, and help with the rebuilding process.

Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, LA; 2005:$81.2 billion in damages.• $200 billion estimated total economic impact (lost revenue, small • businesses, etc.)Upwards of 1.1 million people were displaced.• 1836 deaths.• 850,791 housing units destroyed and/or damaged.• 43,000 rental units destroyed and/or damaged.• 83% of schools and/or daycare facilities were either damaged or • destroyed.50% of hospitals/clinics/medical facilities were damaged.• 50% of physicians and 1000 nurses left the city.• 34% of children in FEMA-subsidized communites have at least one • chronic health condition requiring treatment.

Hurricane Ike, Galveston, TX; 2008:$32 billion in damages.• 195 deaths.• Largest evacuation of Texans in state‘s history.• Largest search and rescue operation in United States history.• Caused damage in 7 countries including the United States, • Canada, Haiti, Cuba and the Dominican Republic.Galveston was declared uninhabitable.• 100,000 homes destroyed and/or damaged.• At least 3 million people were left without power for many days after • the disaster occured.


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 4

A typical timeline of events after a disaster may look something like this:

A disaster occurs – whether natural or man-made.1.

First responders (police, fi re, and medical personnel) are 2. immediately on scene once it is safe to do so - usually within the fi rst 24 hours - along with the beginnings of a clean-up crew and thoughts about shelter for the fi rst night.

Days 2-4 usually see a massive infl ux of volunteers to aid 3. in search and rescue efforts, clean up, and food and water distribution.

Depending on the damage, Day 5 is when a more permanent 4. but still temporary shelter arrives. If the damage is so severe however, it could take longer for this housing to arrive. As in the case of Hurricane Katrina, due to political and logistical factors, temporary trailers did not arrive until Day 7. This time also includes efforts to sort through damaged property and search for anything salvageable. Rebuilding begins as well.

There is typically no standard timeframe as to how long these temporary homes will be used, but they need to be suffi cient to last until the rebuilding process is complete. This can be anywhere from 2 months to a few years. Many Hurricane Katrina victims are still living in their FEMA trailer over 4 years later.

This is why Day 5-?? is where my thesis proposal is concentrated. I will look at the problems associated with the current FEMA disaster relief housing program and explore options to help resolve these problems. My goal is to provide superior housing in which displaced residents can live until the rebuilding process is complete as compared to what is now offered.

Fully rebuilt community.5.

Day 5 -??: Temporary

shelter arrives; an inventory of damage is

done

Fully rebuilt community

Day 2-4: Volunteers

arrive

Within the fi rst 24 hours:

First responders on scene


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 5

When FEMA was contracted to supply disaster relief housing for both Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Ike, over 150,000 travel trailers were manufactured and delivered to the affected sites. However, the current disaster relief temporary housing is substandard compared to typical United States living conditions. The trailers provided by FEMA have no sewer connections and limited electricity making daily activities much more diffi cult.

Quality-of-life concerns also arise from living in the FEMA trailers. With only 240 SF per trailer that is typically occupied by 2 or more family members, residents are forced to live in very cramped quarters. The residents have no sense of ownership when all of their belongings are lost and they have to move into a FEMA trailer. Depression rates rise due to such a radical change in living conditions. Instead of living on a piece of property that the family owned they are now forced to live in a camp-like setting with little outdoor space; none of which they can call their own.

Even though FEMA provides these trailers as temporary shelter for natural disaster victims, there are usually not enough trailers provided to satisfy the need. Only half of the number requested for the Hurricane Katrina disaster were provided and many displaced residents of Hurricane Ike were forced to wait several weeks until their trailer arrived. These victims lived in hotels, with relatives several miles away, or in their own homes with no electricity or running water. Some residents had almost fi nished repairing their homes when their trailer arrived making it useless to them.


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 6

The long wait for a trailer to arrive, substandard living conditions and the quality of life issues discussed earlier are just a few of the problems with the current disaster relief housing solution. Formaldehyde poisoning, however, is potentially the most serious problem of all.

Numerous reports of formaldehyde poisoning have been documented from people living in FEMA trailers. Formaldehyde is found in products such as new carpets, latex paints, nail polish, glues and adhesives, particle board and plywood, and most plastics to name a few.

Typically plywood and particle board materials are “cooked“ in a 130 degree oven before being assembled. This bakes off any formaldehyde in the glues and/or resins. Other materials such as carpets and paints are allowed to air-out suffi ciently after installation but before the trailers are ready for delivery. These procedures reduce the formaldehyde emissions that the trailer residents inhale.

Some experts believe that because the FEMA trailers needed to be manufactured so quickly after the disasters the proper processes for curing the building materials was not followed. This is especially believed to be true of the curing of the particle board, plywood, glues and adhesives.

This rushed manufacturing combined with the high heat and humidity of the South increased the speed of the formaldehyde gas emissions leading to more people experiencing symptoms of formaldehyde poisoning - especially children and the elderly. They experienced symptoms such as eye irritation, breathing problems, bloody nose, headache, and nausea.

FEMA‘s response to the complaints of formaldehyde poisoning was to provide a new trailer to those residents that complained of the above mentioned symptoms. However, FEMA would not guarantee that the new trailer would not have the same problems. If the resident did not want to take the chance of more poisoning from a new trailer, they were instructed to ventilate their existing trailer by opening the windows and doors while they ran the air conditioner to eliminate any formaldehyde gas. FEMA was unwilling to acknowledge a better solution was needed.


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 7


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 9

As can be seen from the examples on the previous pages there are many concerns with the current disaster relief temporary housing situation. The FEMA trailer program is not working therefore I am proposing to turn an ever increasing problem from an unrelated industry into a viable solution.

The shipping industry is a vital part of worldwide economic development. Millions of tons of goods are shipped around the globe each day. However, as the shipping industry grows, a greater trade imbalance of cargo containers also grows within the Western world and more specifi cally within the United States. This is where I believe an opportunity is created to put the surplus of cargo containers to good use:

I propose to design a new type of United States disaster relief temporary housing by using the surplus of cargo containers in United States ports as a building module. I will also show why using a cargo container module is a superior solution to the current FEMA trailer program.

Compared to other global superpowers, the United States is mainly an importer. This causes a huge imbalance of cargo containers in U.S. ports. In 2007 for example, the Port of LA/Long Beach in California exported 5.4 million TEU’s* of cargo containers, and imported 8.2 million TEU’s* of containers, therefore the Port of LA/Long Beach experienced a surplus of approximately 3 million TEU’s* of cargo containers.

On the other hand, the Port of Shanghai, China exported 13.3 million TEU’s* of cargo containers and imported 12.7 million TEU’s* of containers. This means China needed to produce just under one million TEU’s* of cargo containers to accommodate their export demand and they had no surplus of cargo containers.

*TEU stands for one Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit – one 8’ high x 8’ wide x 20’ long unit; some containers are 40’ long and thus equal 2 TEU’s.

UNITED STATES IMPORTS VS. EXPORTS IN MAJOR PORTS - 2007

NY / NJ

MIAMI

LOS ANGELES

LONG BEACH

1.5 MIL2.6 MIL

5.3 MIL6.3 MIL

3.9 MIL4.5 MIL

1.6 MIL3.7 MIL

GLOBAL IMPORTS VS. EXPORTS IN MAJOR PORTS - 2007

IMPORTS

EXPORTS

ROTTERDAM, NETHERLANDSDUBAI, UAE

HONG KONG, CHINA

SHANGHAI, CHINA

NY / NJ

MIAMI, FL

LONG BEACH, CA

LOS ANGELES, CA


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 10

A cargo container will typically last forever. Once a container is produced, it makes many trips around the world. Many shipping fl eets have contracts to deliver to almost any country that has a port.

A cargo container will continue to be in service until it is deemed no longer seaworthy. This can be anywhere from 5 to 20 years, but on average a container will continue to ship for 11 years. During that time it will make numerous trips around the world and will visit countless port cities.

An interesting experiment done by the BBC followed a cargo container over the course of a year. “The Box” experiment as it was called watched a container as it traveled from Scotland to Japan, China, Brazil, the United States and many more ports in between carrying a variety of consumer goods such as whisky and tinned cat food. In the 421 days of the experiment, the cargo container traveled 2.08 laps around the earth, 47,076 miles by ship, 1,349 miles by road, and 3,229 miles by train.

Seeing the many different ways a container must travel, it must be built to withstand many different climates but mostly it must be protected against the damaging effects of salty seawater.

Because the cargo containers are built so well to suit their purpose, there is currently no popular “afterlife” or “second life” of a cargo container. Once a container is no longer seaworthy the majority of them are either stored empty in the port in which they last docked or are dismantled and the steel is melted if it is usable (not too rusted) to make new containers.

However, on rare occasions, the container is purchased for use outside of the shipping industry. For example, the container from the BBC box experiment was donated for use as a soup kitchen in Africa. The container will be refi tted and modifi ed to accommodate the needs of those most affected by the global recession.


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 11

If cargo containers are not dismantled and melted for use as raw material for new containers or purchased for use outside of the shipping industry as described on the previous page, the majority of unseaworthy cargo containers sit empty in their fi nal port destination. It is not economically feasible to ship empty containers back to their port of origin. For example it costs China approximately $900 per TEU to ship an empty container back to Shanghai and only about $2300 for China to produce, load and ship a full container to the United States. Therefore it does not pay to return the containers empty.

On average the Port of LA / Long Beach in California gathers approximately 785 empty TEU’s of containers daily as outlined below:

PORTS OF LOS ANGELES / LONG BEACH- 2007*

Total imported: 8,189,179 TEUs8,189,179 / 365 days = 22,436 TEUs arrive daily

Assume 3.5% of daily imported containers stay in port empty22,436 TEUs x 3.5% = 785 TEUs empty in port daily

Since it is not economically feasible to ship empty containers back to their port of origin ($900 x 785 TEUs = $706,500 for one load of empties to return to China), approximately 785 empty TEUs accumulate in the Port of LA / Long Beach on a daily basis.

It is only a matter of time before the Port of LA / Long Beach and many other major United States ports begin to run out of land to store these empty containers.

*Note that the import fi gures for the port are accurate, however liberty was taken to show the breakdown of calculations and the daily accumulation of containers is a hypothetical example.

EMPTY CARGO CONTAINERS AFTER 1 DAY EMPTY CARGO CONTAINERS AFTER 1 WEEK

EMPTY CARGO CONTAINERS AFTER 1 MONTH EMPTY CARGO CONTAINERS AFTER 1 YEAR

THE PORT OF LA / LONG BEACH IN CALIFORNIA


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 12

LOT-EK MOBILE DWELLING UNIT

LOT-EK PUMA CITY

Even if it is a rare occurrence and not widely popular throughout the industry yet, the idea of using cargo containers for architecture is nothing new. There are countless examples of the cargo container being used for single family, multi-family, and commercial construction. Lot-ek, a New York-based design fi rm, is one of the leaders in container architecture. They have used the cargo container to construct many types of spaces. Two examples are the Mobile Dwelling Unit, a single family space, and the Puma City retail facility.

Mobile Dwelling UnitLot-ek designed the Mobile Dwelling Unit (MDU) as an experiment in 1999. The MDU is based on a 40‘ cargo container that is able to travel almost anywhere.

Once it is situated at its destination, panels are pushed out of the sides of the container creating space for basic necessities. This all-in-one unit includes a kitchen, bath, dining, and living space built into the interior of the container and accessed by expanding the panels and thus creating a more interesting interior.

Puma CityLot-ek incorporated 24 recycled shipping containers into the design of an 11,000 SF three story traveling retail facility called Puma City. The store also has a full bar and sun deck with dance fl oor on the top level. The staggered containers not only create shading overhangs to protect the windows from the sun and help keep the building cool, but they also create exciting exterior spaces and allow for natural light to penetrate into the center of the assembly.

The space does not feel stuffy or boxed-in due to strategically cutting out the bottoms, tops, and sides of some containers. This gives views of adjoining fl oors or to the exterior.

Puma City is fully dismantle-able for transportation to many locations around the world and assembles quickly once at the site.


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 13

BED BY NIGHT, REFUGE FOR HOMELESS CHILDREN

Other relevant examples of cargo container architecture include Qubic Student Housing in Amsterdam, Netherlands and Bed By Night, Refuge for Homeless Children in Hanover, Germany. These two examples show how cargo containers can be arranged to accommodate multiple families or many single residents.

Qubic Student HousingQubic Student Housing was designed by HVDN Architecten and is located in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The student housing was constructed in 2005 using 715 cargo containers. It was designed and constructed in 12 months showing that housing can be created from scratch reletively quickly. The units are re-usable and the construction was done relatively cheaply.

Qubic Student Housing incorporated 6 different facade designs for visual variety. Each of the individual units contain a private kitchen, bathroom facilities (shower, sink and toilet), and living space. The building is basically a double loaded corridor with a 20‘ x 8‘ cargo container on either side for an infi nite distance. Vertical circulation is inserted approximately every 9 units. The units are stacked 3 high with one container excluded on each side of the corridor and at varying fl oors for use as a communal terrace.

Bed By Night, Refuge for Homeless ChildrenThis was a pilot program launched in 1996 in Hanover, Germany. The 19 cargo containers are located in a park near a former army bunker. This project was refurbished in 2002 by repairing the existing containers and also adding new containers to make the complex 2 stories - the second story is dedicated to sleeping quarters and the fi rst story is used as daily meeting facilities.

Visitors to the facility have an opportunity to sleep, shower, wash their clothes and eat. The 2-story container structure also has a free-standing timber frame structure with a fl at roof and skylights to enclose the 19 containers.

QUBIC STUDENT HOUSING


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 14

Using the 4 precedents on the previous pages as examples, the following study is an exploration in how the cargo container can be used for disaster relief temporary housing. The study looks at three scenarios and how a cargo container can be used to accommodate:

A single family• Multiple families or multiple single residents• Commercial or community services and facilities •

(Laundry, banking, daycare, post offi ce, etc.)

The single family scenario will assume that the resident’s lot is usable and that the cargo container temporary housing will be able to be placed on the family’s property. They will live in the temporary housing while rebuilding their home on site.

Since the family is able to rebuild on their land, the minimum requirements for the cargo container temporary home are relatively simple: a “utility space” (kitchen and bath) and a living/sleeping space. The base module - suitable for one or two residents - isn’t that different from the current FEMA trailer; both the utility space and the living/sleeping spaces are included within one container. However, this base module can be expanded upon depending on the number of residents and the space they require - anywhere from one to three containers can be added allowing for larger families to be accommodated.

Containers may also be added to the base module for a live/work situation as well.

1/3 Living/Sleeping Space

2/3 Utility Space

Openings (windows/doors)

BASE MODULE


LIVE / SLEEP ADDITION


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 15

ITERATION 1

SCENARIO 1: SINGLE FAMILY

Houses 2 people max (typcal all 3 iterations)



ITERATION 2 ITERATION 3


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 16

After a disaster, many residents are not as lucky to be able to salvage even the lot on which their home was located. Many other residents already lived in multi-resident housing before the disaster. Therefore the second scenario explores how the single family base module and subsequent containers can be arranged to create a multi-resident temporary housing community.

Similar to the FEMA trailer “parks” that are the current standard for United States disaster relief temporary housing, this multi-resident temporary housing community would also be placed on a large area of land such as a football fi eld or parking lot. However, the biggest difference and possibly the greatest advantage of the cargo container temporary housing over FEMA trailer parks is the cargo container’s stack-ability. This allows for many more residents to be housed in the same amount of land that is currently used.

Conversely, if a large area is not available, multiple smaller “pods” of multi-resident temporary housing modules can be located as needed and as site accommodations allow.

Since the “utility” spaces (kitchen and bath) are contained in one cargo container, these containers are able to be stacked allowing for utility connections if available. It also allows for the amount of space required for the static utility elements to be kept to a minimum. The other areas (living and sleeping) are dynamic and are simply spaces that can be somewhat customized to adapt to the site.

SCENARIO 2: MULTI-FAMILY

ITERATION 1 ITERATION 2 ITERATION 3


NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 17

SCENARIO 2: MULTI-FAMILYIteration 1 - Expanded

107 Units TotalUp to 439 people housed on

a typical football fi eld

59 Units: 5 peopleUp to 295 People




NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 18

The third and fi nal scenario focuses on the community services and facilities that are affected by a natural disaster. The need for these facilities is not always immediately realized since the need for housing, food, and search and recovery efforts are typically the most important and most focused on aspects of a disaster relief mission.

However, once those immediate needs are met and the reality of the disruption of one’s daily life sets in, people need a place to fi ll out insurance forms, get information, send their children to school or daycare while they look for a job, buy food, wash their clothes, etc.

The cargo container temporary housing can be a great resource for these needs. Similar to the Puma City retail facility, the cargo container temporary infrastructure can be designed to transform into whatever service or facility is required.

Often the residents do not have access to personal vehicles and public transportation is limited if offered at all, therefore having the facilities and services within walking distance is critical. If the site allows, more containers can be incorporated into the multi-resident temporary housing development to offer these services much closer to the resident’s home.

The community services and facility containers would be “plugged-in” as allowed by the multi-resident community development. Most service containers would be located on the ground fl oor around the community to allow for more resident access, however some service containers may be located on the upper fl oors as well.


COMMNUNITY SERVICES / FACILITIES

ITERATION 1 ITERATION 2 ITERATION 3

SCENARIO 3: COMMUNITY SERVICES / FACILITIESIMPORTING A SOLUTION:Solving the United States disaster relief housing problem

NE

W Y

OR

K IN

STI

TUTE

OF

TEC

HN

OLO

GY:

TH

ES

IS P

RO

JEC

T 20

10 I

M

ICH

ELL

E M

CC

AR

TY

page 19

importing a solution: new york institute of … · 22/12/2009 · the shipping industry is a vital...

Documents