Everything, according to Mark Hogan, whose analysis is reprinted in ArchDaily. He has a whole bunch of reasons why using shipping containers as a trendy housing solution is not really viable, especially if people are under the illusion that it would be low cost.
.
For instance:
Structure. You’ve seen the proposals with cantilevers everywhere. Containers stacked like Lego building blocks, or with one layer perpendicular to the next. Architects love stuff like this, just like they throw around usually misleading/meaningless phrases like “kit of parts.”
Guess what – the second you don’t stack the containers on their corners, the structure that is built into the containers needs to be duplicated with heavy steel reinforcing. The rails at the top and the roof of the container are not structural at all (the roof of a container is light gauge steel, and will dent easily if you step on it). If you cut openings in the container walls, the entire structure starts to deflect and needs to be reinforced because the corrugated sides act like the flange of beam and once big pieces are removed, the beam stops working.
All of this steel reinforcing is very expensive, and it’s the only way you can build a “double-wide.”
Full article here.
I simply can’t support your callous assertion that architects (architects?!) of all people would enthusiastically support a building concept that is structurally and financially unsupportable just because it’s aesthetically appealing – or novel. It’s too far-fetched. Bonkers. Clearly it is the author’s reasoning that requires heavy steel reinforcing, because if there’s one thing that binds the architectural profession together, it’s an almost-religious adherence to practicality.
Put a call into any structural engineering company and ask. Then call a plumbing company and ask them, remembering the required sprinkler system. Don’t forget to contact an electrical contractor and a HVAC company too. Is it a stairway or elevator you are thinking of?