This rule was created, and I am not making this up, because it was decided that higher stacks were not sufficiently aesthetically pleasing.
So unless I’m missing something, the only source for this I can see here is the Washington Post article,
It turned out that the main problem wasn’t an absolute space constraint but a local zoning regulation. Long Beach prohibits companies from stacking off-loaded containers more than two high. The law is not a safety regulation but an aesthetic one. City officials decided that stacks of containers more than eight feet high were too ugly to tolerate.
and that’s all it says about that. And, it wouldn’t particularly surprise me if this was uncomplicatedly true, but it also wouldn’t surprise me if a journalist is confused or simplifying the narrative.[1]
The Maritime Executive (which I’ve never heard of, name sounds like they’d know what they’re talking about but that doesn’t mean they’re trustworthy) agrees:
In an effort to help relieve the pressure, the City of Long Beach has decided to relax enforcement of a longstanding ban on high-stacked containers on private property. For years, it has forbidden stacks of more than two boxes high, an aesthetic measure intended to preserve visual sightlines in the neighborhood. That rule will not be enforced for at least the next three months, and city lots that are zoned for container storage may now stack up to four boxes high (or even five, if they get approval from the fire department).
The zoning restrictions were added to the city code years ago to minimize the visual impact of industrial equipment in neighborhoods. The temporary rule change only applies to properties that are currently zoned to store containers.
(Oh, hang on—does “industrial equipment” here mean the shipping containers themselves? I suppose there’s no literal reason it couldn’t refer to those. But to me that word suggests, like, cranes and other things that would be moving the containers, which would be a different motivation. Speaking of which… if a storage yard has been operating for years on the assumption it won’t get to stack containers more than two high, will it have / be easily able to acquire whatever it needs to handle more than that?)
These provisions, which have been in effect for many years, were established to address the visual impact to surrounding areas of sites with excessive storage.
That’s… probably more reliable than the others? But it also doesn’t cite a source, and I’d guess the person writing it wasn’t there for the enactment? So like, there’s still ways it could be wrong.
Still, upgraded from “sure, plausible” to “seems likely basically true”.
ETA: In fact, it is simplified and wrong. WaPo says the limit is two containers because above eight feet is too ugly. Maritime Executive and Freightwaves both say it’s two containers. The press report says “either two stacked containers or eight feet in height” depending on zoning.
Take a quick guess how high a shipping container is? WaPo would implicitly suggest 4′. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container says the standard heights are 8′6“ or 9′6”—presumably it’s easier to vary them in height than other dimensions, but 4′ would seem very short. A stack of two containers is already more than twice the eight feet that’s supposedly “too ugly to tolerate”.
So unless I’m missing something, the only source for this I can see here is the Washington Post article,
and that’s all it says about that. And, it wouldn’t particularly surprise me if this was uncomplicatedly true, but it also wouldn’t surprise me if a journalist is confused or simplifying the narrative.[1]
Googling “long beach shipping container stacking zoning” quickly...
The Maritime Executive (which I’ve never heard of, name sounds like they’d know what they’re talking about but that doesn’t mean they’re trustworthy) agrees:
Also, Freightwaves (same comment):
(Oh, hang on—does “industrial equipment” here mean the shipping containers themselves? I suppose there’s no literal reason it couldn’t refer to those. But to me that word suggests, like, cranes and other things that would be moving the containers, which would be a different motivation. Speaking of which… if a storage yard has been operating for years on the assumption it won’t get to stack containers more than two high, will it have / be easily able to acquire whatever it needs to handle more than that?)
Ah! The official press release agrees too:
That’s… probably more reliable than the others? But it also doesn’t cite a source, and I’d guess the person writing it wasn’t there for the enactment? So like, there’s still ways it could be wrong.
Still, upgraded from “sure, plausible” to “seems likely basically true”.
ETA: In fact, it is simplified and wrong. WaPo says the limit is two containers because above eight feet is too ugly. Maritime Executive and Freightwaves both say it’s two containers. The press report says “either two stacked containers or eight feet in height” depending on zoning.
Take a quick guess how high a shipping container is? WaPo would implicitly suggest 4′. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container says the standard heights are 8′6“ or 9′6”—presumably it’s easier to vary them in height than other dimensions, but 4′ would seem very short. A stack of two containers is already more than twice the eight feet that’s supposedly “too ugly to tolerate”.