Snoozebox is a Portable Container Hotel

Snoozebox is poised to take advantage of an alignment of circumstances with the Olympics in London.  The company provides temporary lodging in the form of portable, stackable, scalable hotel rooms made with shipping containers.  Snoozebox is currently providing about 320 rooms for security personnel at Hainault Forest Country Park from July 14 – August 15, 2012, according to The Financial Times.  The portable hotel can be ready within 48 hours of arriving at almost any event or location in the world, and rooms have internet, TV, a personal safe, attached bathrooms, etc.

[+] More about portable temporary hotels from Snoozebox.

Credits: Snoozebox. 


Article tags: , , ,
  • Terry Beever

    I love these Preston!

  • Terry Beever

    I love these Preston!

  • Terry Beever

    I love these Preston!

  • Terry Beever

    I love these Preston!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000402813798 D.j. Euphoria

    This strikes me as a brilliant and affordable solution to housing the homeless. Now if we could just find an architect, builder, and shipping company to donate the their time and effort.

  • http://www.facebook.com/wyattsface Wyatt Brown

    I have designed several container buildings. There are a few KEY problems that effect cost and utility: 1. Insulating a steel box is very difficult and expensive. You end up framing in studs to create cavities for the insulation and wall sheathing, which adds cost and negates the whole point of having a steel frame already in-place. No insulation = a hot-box from hell. 2. The moment that you modify/cut into a container, in ANY manner, it no longer has it’s bomb-proof structural integrity. The heavy steel + the corrugate steel together act as a dynamic structural system. So, adding windows, doors and joining containers requires the addition of large amounts of reinforcing steel = expensive fabrication. 3. Container MFGs and leasing companies did not make containers for this use. They want to keep their containers “in system” for as long as possible, making money doing what they were designed to do. By the time they need to be retired, they are often too beat-up to be used effectively for structural building. Storage boxes yes. Homes, no way. 4. Finally, despite the ISO standardization of containers, each container MFGs is unique in its structural steel design, using different kinds of steel members, making it a nightmare to design and engineer for use in building. Just try and go get 10, identical containers from the same MFG, all in good enough shape to use. Even in the Port of Long Beach, you will be hard pressed to get 10 “A grade” Triton high-cubes simultaneously.

    I LOVE container design/cargotecture and building, but it is simply NOT practical. It’s just “cool” architecture. Steel component building systems are way more flexible and cost-efficient, and this is what we need in the market. Not more cool, expensive test-projects.

  • http://www.facebook.com/wyattsface Wyatt Brown

    I have designed several container buildings. There are a few KEY problems that effect cost and utility: 1. Insulating a steel box is very difficult and expensive. You end up framing in studs to create cavities for the insulation and wall sheathing, which adds cost and negates the whole point of having a steel frame already in-place. No insulation = a hot-box from hell. 2. The moment that you modify/cut into a container, in ANY manner, it no longer has it’s bomb-proof structural integrity. The heavy steel + the corrugate steel together act as a dynamic structural system. So, adding windows, doors and joining containers requires the addition of large amounts of reinforcing steel = expensive fabrication. 3. Container MFGs and leasing companies did not make containers for this use. They want to keep their containers “in system” for as long as possible, making money doing what they were designed to do. By the time they need to be retired, they are often too beat-up to be used effectively for structural building. Storage boxes yes. Homes, no way. 4. Finally, despite the ISO standardization of containers, each container MFGs is unique in its structural steel design, using different kinds of steel members, making it a nightmare to design and engineer for use in building. Just try and go get 10, identical containers from the same MFG, all in good enough shape to use. Even in the Port of Long Beach, you will be hard pressed to get 10 “A grade” Triton high-cubes simultaneously.

    I LOVE container design/cargotecture and building, but it is simply NOT practical. It’s just “cool” architecture. Steel component building systems are way more flexible and cost-efficient, and this is what we need in the market. Not more cool, expensive test-projects.

  • http://www.facebook.com/wyattsface Wyatt Brown

    I have designed several container buildings. There are a few KEY problems that effect cost and utility: 1. Insulating a steel box is very difficult and expensive. You end up framing in studs to create cavities for the insulation and wall sheathing, which adds cost and negates the whole point of having a steel frame already in-place. No insulation = a hot-box from hell. 2. The moment that you modify/cut into a container, in ANY manner, it no longer has it’s bomb-proof structural integrity. The heavy steel + the corrugate steel together act as a dynamic structural system. So, adding windows, doors and joining containers requires the addition of large amounts of reinforcing steel = expensive fabrication. 3. Container MFGs and leasing companies did not make containers for this use. They want to keep their containers “in system” for as long as possible, making money doing what they were designed to do. By the time they need to be retired, they are often too beat-up to be used effectively for structural building. Storage boxes yes. Homes, no way. 4. Finally, despite the ISO standardization of containers, each container MFGs is unique in its structural steel design, using different kinds of steel members, making it a nightmare to design and engineer for use in building. Just try and go get 10, identical containers from the same MFG, all in good enough shape to use. Even in the Port of Long Beach, you will be hard pressed to get 10 “A grade” Triton high-cubes simultaneously.

    I LOVE container design/cargotecture and building, but it is simply NOT practical. It’s just “cool” architecture. Steel component building systems are way more flexible and cost-efficient, and this is what we need in the market. Not more cool, expensive test-projects.

  • http://www.facebook.com/wyattsface Wyatt Brown

    I have designed several container buildings. There are a few KEY problems that effect cost and utility: 1. Insulating a steel box is very difficult and expensive. You end up framing in studs to create cavities for the insulation and wall sheathing, which adds cost and negates the whole point of having a steel frame already in-place. No insulation = a hot-box from hell. 2. The moment that you modify/cut into a container, in ANY manner, it no longer has it’s bomb-proof structural integrity. The heavy steel + the corrugate steel together act as a dynamic structural system. So, adding windows, doors and joining containers requires the addition of large amounts of reinforcing steel = expensive fabrication. 3. Container MFGs and leasing companies did not make containers for this use. They want to keep their containers “in system” for as long as possible, making money doing what they were designed to do. By the time they need to be retired, they are often too beat-up to be used effectively for structural building. Storage boxes yes. Homes, no way. 4. Finally, despite the ISO standardization of containers, each container MFGs is unique in its structural steel design, using different kinds of steel members, making it a nightmare to design and engineer for use in building. Just try and go get 10, identical containers from the same MFG, all in good enough shape to use. Even in the Port of Long Beach, you will be hard pressed to get 10 “A grade” Triton high-cubes simultaneously.

    I LOVE container design/cargotecture and building, but it is simply NOT practical. It’s just “cool” architecture. Steel component building systems are way more flexible and cost-efficient, and this is what we need in the market. Not more cool, expensive test-projects.

  • http://www.clubvillamar.com/ spain villas

    Well that’s great to read…Really a nice post, The facilities that are in Hotels are extraordinary but I am just confused that what about cost. Can you elaborate..?

  • Pingback: Portable Snoozebox Shipping Container Hotel Can Be Set Up in Just 48 Hours | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Popular Topics on Jetson Green