Ikea Foundation Introduces Better Refugee Shelter

Lasrick writes "This is truly brilliant: Ikea has joined with the UN Refugee Agency to design a longer lasting flatpack shelter that includes a solar panel and UV reflecting material." From the article: "Ikea's design, a cross between a giant garden shed and a khaki canvas marquee, is formed from lightweight laminated panels that clip on to a simple frame, providing UV protection and thermal insulation. Like an Ikea product, the polymer panels come packed in a box, along with a bag of pipes, connectors and wires – and no doubt a cartoon construction manual." And they last for around three years.

Re:So, are they giving it to the UN, or selling?

[icebike]

According to http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA [wikipedia.org] Ike does indeed have a none profit foundation, like Microsoft, Google and Ford.
But ikea itself is very much a For Profit Dutch Corporation.

Re:Ok....

[Joce640k]

The British have been making them since the 18th century for export all over their empire. Quite a few are still in use.

http://miniatures.about.com/od/scaleminiatures/ig/Corrugated-Iron-House/Moody-Gosset-House-Front-View.htm [about.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_tabernacle [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefabricated_building [wikipedia.org]

It's about cost

[Dyne09]

I have worked in disaster response operations as a logistics and procurement person for six years, including rapid onset refugee settlements. Though I haven't worked directly in camp management, I have worked with purchasing, transporting and setting up these types of tents before. It doesn't say in this article, but other sources point out that even at mass production, the IKEA shelter will cost about twice as much as a canvas tent. At the end of the day, if you're setting up a tent city for 20,000 displaced refugees, that's a difference between 10 and 20 million dollars. Any large aid organization or donor simply isn't going to be able to justify doubling its operation costs. I should also add that one of the selling points of the IKEA structure is that tents only last six months, while these will last years. I don't know how long the UNHCR tents were designed for, but I think it's safe to say that in virtually every settlement I have been to, those tents tend to last longer than six months...alot longer. Usually, the tents are up for multiple years at a time, sometimes reused. This is not a justification for their crappy construction or poor amenities, but I have seen canvas tents that have been one place for six years, so the argument that the IKEA shelters is more economical in the long run isn't grounded in reality. Link to outside info: http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/06/27/196356373/new-kind-of-ikea-hack-flat-packs-head-to-refugee-camps?ft=1&f=1004 [npr.org]

Re:Why not the Hexayurt?

[drinkypoo]

Hexayurts/hexadomes are put together out of plywood, not canvas and sticks. If painted, they should last substantially more than ten years. And they are made out of materials available pretty much anywhere in the USA, we have a lot of plywood. It doesn't even matter too much what kind of plywood you use.

I just have to wonder how this project compares to erecting hexayurts costwise. We are talking about Ikea, masters of charging a lot for crap.