Where does one get validated equivalents for thermal insulation, fire spread, and wind resistance?

To answer your question about the R-Value of shipping containers. Simple answer is that Shipping containers use a ceramic spray on application called SuperTherm, which with one coat used on the interior and exterior has the equivelent R-Value of 28.5 compared to 6 inches of Fiberglass with R-19.

A more complex answer which can be found by googling Bob Vila + Shipping Container reveals that. Unlike fiberglass whose R-value rating assumes heat loading by a building and simply measures the rate at which that heat is transferred—ceramic coatings are not given an R-value rating. Instead, they are measured by their emissivity. Emissivity measures both the ability to reflect heat and the amount of heat that is loaded onto a surface. The concept is simple: Why use fiberglass insulation to slow the transfer of heat into a building when you can just prevent that heat from ever loading onto the building in the first place? If heat is kept off the structure to begin with, that fiberglass insulation becomes unnecessary.

Some ceramic coatings feature additional properties, like preventing moisture migration. Some structures see up to 25 percent of HVAC costs coming from dehumidification needs, but a ceramic coating can also bring savings through moisture management. Additional features can include mold and mildew control, sound attenuation properties, and fire resistance.

Another aspect I need to comment on is the cost of the high-end materials that went into this house. Nanawall is not cheap my friends. I was told those two segments of Nanawall cost $30,000+ and the Marvin windows were around $25k-$30k; so you’re talking about $50k-$60k just in windows. This showhouse was designed with all the bells and whistles, that’s typically what showhouses are for. The house can and will be built for less and have a simlar of not the same look. In comparison, Michelle Kaufmann’s house from last year cost roughly $350/s.f. to build. So this house is considerably cheaper to build from comparision to last year.

One other aspect to this house with regards to saving money is that you save in labor time. When you build a house on a site, the contractor has site managment costs and bills the owner for his/her time building the house. Since SG Blocks can be pre-fabed, it takes considerably less time on site to finish (around 15% less time). This show house was assembled in just under 5 hours and took 4 weeks to build from the time they got the raw containers to the time is was finsihed at the show.

So, before we continue this discussion about the priorities of architects and builders, just keep these few points in mind. Plus, one person’s definition of affordable may be compeltely different than another’s. Look at the comapny call “Design Within Reach”…perfect example. The Harbinger is not a house for Habitat for Humanity nor is it it a HUD house. It is a house that could very easily be affordable to a low to moderate income family.

We must, and certainly can, dramatically lower these prices below stick-built or we\’re just playing at prefab, running through a fad of which your successful clientele will soon tire.

Prefab architects: is your goal to make a lot of money off a few models sold or to truly change the residential landscape through a mass infusion of great, sustainable design? Is there anyone left with higher ideals?