Swimming pools have become a suburban status symbol. Not only are they glamorized in movies and tv shows, but youtube channels such as Architectural Digest showcase envy inducing swimming pools in the backyards of celebrities signifying luxury, leisure and glamor. To the rest of us, they are a symbol of prosperity and an escape from the daily grid.
Traditional pool construction, however, can be disruptive, laborious, and expensive. In this context, the allure of shipping container pools as an all-in-one solution has gained popularity. These pools, delivered in a box and set up within a day, seem like an appealing alternative.
One Australian-based shipping container pool company repurposes 20′ and 40′ containers by cutting them in half and reinforcing them with steel. The pool equipment, including the heater, pump, sand filter, and salt chlorinator, is neatly tucked away on one side. The inside features a smooth, nonporous, molded fiberglass shell, which can be customized with various colors. The company offers options for standard chlorine, salt, or mineral pools and claims that their pools are fully portable for those planning to move houses.
Advantages
The primary advantage of shipping container pools lies in their ease of installation. Ready-to-use and less disruptive than traditional pools, they eliminate the need for extensive excavation and retaining walls. Additionally, they offer the flexibility of relocation, should the need arise, with the help of a crane and trailer.
Disadvantages
However, it is essential to consider the downsides of these pools. The primary concern is reinforcement. The walls of shipping containers are made of 3/16″ sheet metal, incapable of withstanding the pressure of water. Cutting containers in half can cause the corrugated walls to flex, necessitating additional reinforcement at the top rim.
Waterproofing is another issue. Shipping containers are designed to keep water out, not hold water inside. To make them waterproof, either a fiberglass insert or a costly conversion process involving additional welded steel layers and PVC or cement plaster lining is required. This added weight demands a sturdy foundation slab.
Furthermore, insulation is lacking around the fiberglass insert, leading to significant heat loss from the side walls. Unlike inground pools, which benefit from the insulation provided by the earth, shipping container pools may struggle to maintain optimal water temperature, leading to higher operational costs. While they are best suited for above-ground placement to avoid steel corrosion, underground installation demands retaining walls and slabs to reinforce the walls, making them less practical.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the decision to choose a shipping container pool depends on individual preferences and priorities. While they offer quick installation and portability, potential buyers must consider the reinforcement, waterproofing, and insulation challenges, especially when compared to traditional inground pools. Careful consideration of the intended location and the long-term use of the pool will help determine if a shipping container pool is the right choice for each unique situation.
Sources
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0nqq90AlSw
