I know nothing about "Hotel Paradise" other than the movie still showing a highrise apartment building in squalid condition. But I do know that the American exp

I know nothing about "Hotel Paradise" other than the movie still showing a highrise apartment building in squalid condition. But I do know that the American experience says such things are not as simple as saying "give the homeless a home - they will not always take good care of it". The usual example is Chicago's Cabrini–Green. http://whitecenternow.com/2008/11/28/greenbridge-the-failure-of-the-cabrini-green-model-of-public-housing-and-the-rise-of-the-new-urbanism/ http://whitecenternow.com/2008/11/28/greenbridge-the-failure... gives a summary of one description of the failure. I'll pull out two quotes: > "Sprawling high-rise projects housing exclusively poor families with many children amounted to a tragic, terrible mistake." > "... it was one thing to build apartment towers for the upper-middle-class, as Mies did, and quite another to adopt them as solutions for housing the poor. The well-off have doormen, janitors, repairmen, and baby-sitters; the poor have none of these things. Without restricted access, the lobbies and corridors were vandalized; without proper maintenance, elevators broke down, staircases became garbage dumps, roofs leaked, and broken windows remained unreplaced; without baby-sitters, single mothers were stranded in their apartments, and children roamed unsupervised sixteen floors below." Now quoting from https://westnorth.com/2003/01/02/short-history-of-cabrini-green/ https://westnorth.com/2003/01/02/short-history-of-cabrini-gr... > The rapid decline of industry and general flight from the city – Chicago lost a million residents between 1970 and 1990 – led to widespread abandonment throughout the city, but particularly in its poorer quarters. The blocks immediately surrounding housing projects like Cabrini-Green went vacant as residents and businesses left. City government, reacting to political and fiscal pressures, cut services to many housing projects. Train stations serving projects were shuttered, police patrols ceased, and schools were written off. The CHA effectively stopped maintaining units: lawns were paved to reduce maintenance costs, light bulbs blinked off, vacant units were left unlocked, water and fire damage went unrepaired. Deferred maintenance rendered thousands of units uninhabitable. The result was a near total isolation of the housing projects from the life of the city. The lawlessness of the projects in many ways was a logical outcome of their isolation from legal forms of social organization. The type of housing and the large social situation therefore also play a role, making it hard to single out the residents as the primary reason for a housing failure. The tiny homes project is a different organizational scheme than a highrise. Also, is it really fair to say that gypsies are homeless? As a nomadic/itinerant culture, I thought the gypsies placed little value in a fixed place to live. We don't tend to call full-time RV'ers, or global/digital nomads homeless, even though they have no fixed residence. While the people we're talking about in L.A. want a fixed place to call home.