5 ms·

Some people at my local makerspace decided to build some of these "conestoga huts" to aid local homeless, which is basically a tiny house https://www.community

Some people at my local makerspace decided to build some of these "conestoga huts" to aid local homeless, which is basically a tiny house https://www.communitysupportedshelters.org/conestoga-huts https://www.communitysupportedshelters.org/conestoga-huts as a shelter I would much prefer it over being homeless I guess, but there were issues - Being made primarily out of wood it was cheap and easy to build, but it was HEAVY. I guess this is a good thing once its placed somewhere but it took 6 men to get it onto a trailer and because everyone is a volunteer its not easy finding a time when that many people can show up just to move a house (the building was the fun part) - Where to put it? The city was more annoyed by our efforts (the actual organizers really since I just put in labor) than grateful because they started showing the houses off to people and saying "just as soon as the city tells us where to put it youll get a house" - security on these was decent, I found out that primarily people wanted security from other homeless rather than even shelter - without power or plumbing its not clear to me how actually livable these things would be. Although it had 2 windows it was extremely dark inside Overall I think these types of houses are not solving the root issues - if the city decided to do it and found the land, it would be way better to just tack-weld some metal boxes together and weigh it down with concrete blocks. Then it takes specialists to build though and that sucks the spirit out of volunteers who want to spend a Sunday physically building something, not throw in $200 for a contractor to build 50 of them, even though that would obviously be of more help

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ibejoeb 2y ago
It is certainly not solving the problem. It is probably perpetuating it. Without the other complementary life-critical facilities, nothing changes. These are useful for solving one particular facet: people die from exposure in Toronto. If this did anything to address the actual problem, then there would be no homelessness problem in LA. Quite a few cities have actually solved this problem. They provide housing and all of the additional services, like hygiene facilities, food, and security. Granted, they only solve it for certain cohorts, but it demonstrates that it is rather trivially solvable. That's going to lead to hot political quarreling, so it's a good place to stop. There is no chance that these can provide the full spectrum of services required for a person to thrive. We absolutely can't handle the upkeep on 100,000 one-person boxes. We need to make the shelters better. Many are terrible, but there are better ones, and a lot of that comes down to who is working there. Everyone who is able should make time to volunteer, even just a few shifts, to see what it is and how it can be improved. (It's also a good way to meet people in your city.)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mmooss 2y ago
  While I agree with your general points, > These are useful for solving one particular facet: people die from exposure in Toronto. They are also useful because human beings need shelter, whether or not the exposure is life-threatening. They can't wait for your more ideal solutions.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    You're a sitting duck for people who want to attack you when you're inside one of these.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Has someone said that's a risk or an issue for the people who use them? They probably also are bad in a flood, but is that a real risk? Isn't that true of most shelter?
      - carlosjobim 2y ago
        Yes, I said it in the comment right above yours. In a conventional homeless shelter there are more people around and staff, meaning you're at least not alone with an attacker. Homeless people do get attacked by other homeless and street thugs.
        knowitnone 2y ago
        I have a solution for that. No shelter.
        mmooss 2y ago
        I mean, is there evidence that this is a concern - your comment isn't evidence. > In a conventional homeless shelter there are more people around and staff, meaning you're at least not alone with an attacker. I don't know if it really works out that way - plenty of homeless people say the shelters aren't safe - but regardless, it isn't working.
starkparker 2y ago
cf. Portland's Safe Rest camps composed of one-room tiny shelters with similar accommodations as the article's tiny houses (locks, bed, power, storage, water, in some cases mini-split heat/AC) but not built to be as mobile, as they're clustered in camps with centralized shower/toilet bathrooms and laundry, and also built with ADA-compliant ramps. $17-24k each per city/county documents: https://www.portland.gov/shelter-services/city-shelter-village-price-agreements https://www.portland.gov/shelter-services/city-shelter-villa...
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  The price sounds about right. The Oakland mayor was recently investigated for paying 800k each for a similar solution from a campaign donor. People try to tell me that it was a good deal because houses are over a million, but those include the land
jklinger410 2y ago
Of course they're not solving the root of the problem. The issue of homelessness is not caused by a lack of homes.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  It sure seems like the places with the most homeless have the most expensive housing markets.
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    Because those are the most desirable places to live. Homeless people move too. Granted, there are homeless people who have a stable life but work a job that just doesn't pay enough to afford a home, or people who are between jobs and are temporarily homeless. But those people generally sleep in a car, cause few problems, are largely invisible, have most of their needs met in some way, and are generally not the people we are concerned about when talking about "the homeless". The Homeless™ usually have more complex issues like untreated psychological issues, drug problems, etc. And while the previous group would rejoice about small cheap housing, it does little to solve the issues of The Homeless™.
  - jeffalyanak 2y ago
    Most expensive homes yes, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of livable homes and apartments that are _empty_ at any given time. Canada has a lot of vacant houses.
    - Maxatar 2y ago
      Canada has one of the lowest home vacancy rates among the OECD countries and currently at the lowest rate it's been in 40 years: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affordable-housing-database/hm1-1-housing-stock-and-construction.pdf https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affor...
      - jeffalyanak 2y ago
no_wizard 2y ago
For point one, it being so heavy, why not build each on the trailer so it doesn’t have to be moved on to it? Then when it’s ready it can simply be driven to its destination. It may be impractical I realize but since the trailer has to fit it anyway, perhaps not
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Not a bad idea if you have a flatbed trailer laying around unused
- buckle8017 2y ago
  Trailers are useful and thus expensive.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    General assumption maybe I shouldn’t be making, is that the trailers are already owned by the organization responsible for this and would already only be used for this purpose. Perhaps the fact that you could build these theoretically faster than doing on a trailer makes it a moot point, then again if trailers are your bottleneck maybe it’s possible to schedule building around that to keep delivery smooth
- mindslight 2y ago
  Trailers generally require vehicle registration to be towed on the road, and tow vehicles are relatively expensive. Despite already being on wheels, individual residents would still be unable to move their shelter themselves in response to being told to move on. And any organization that helps out with tow vehicles creates a centralized target to attack. The solution in the OP of building this as part of a dedicated tricycle is pretty damn slick. "Yes of course officer I am moving along, as fast as I can"
diggan 2y ago
> Being made primarily out of wood it was cheap and easy to build, but it was HEAVY. I'm not overly knowledgeable about the weather in Toronto, but heavy snow and heavy windows typically require things to be heavy so they don't get pushed by snow or wind. Maybe this is actually a feature of these type of huts. Also, the huts in the article seem easier to move if what it states is accurate, that you can transport them in the bicycle lane legally and with bikes. > without power or plumbing its not clear to me how actually livable these things would be. What I've seen in my country (Spain) is that homeless tends to resolve to using tents, so if it's at least the same liveability but a little more protective against the elements, it sounds like an improvement. The root issue of course isn't just that these people cannot find housing, but something about the reason why they aren't able to use the existing empty housing and how they became homeless in the first place. Be it because of costs, health, housing requirements or whatever.
hinkley 2y ago
You need some sort of light shelf or clerestory for those but I’m at a loss as to how to incorporate one cheaply. The clearance wouldn’t be good enough to bring the ceiling down and keeping the whole envelope water tight would be tricky.
owenpalmer 2y ago
> Overall I think these types of houses are not solving the root issues I don't think anyone has a solution to the root issues. At this point, the fastest way to fix homelessness is to let the currently homeless people die out, while trying our best to prevent people from becoming homeless.
crooked-v 2y ago
> I found out that primarily people wanted security from other homeless rather than even shelter This is one of the main reasons that many homeless people refuse shelter beds unless the weather makes it absolutely necessary. Phones and other important personal items get stolen constantly.
nothercastle 2y ago
It’s because the hard “problem” isn’t the shelter piece. The hard problem is how do you house a lot of mentally unstable people who can often be a danger to themselves and others at the same density as the rest of the city and at an affordable cost. I don’t think it’s generally possible because as soon as you hit any kind of density with these you get problems, but you need a minimum density to provide bathrooms showers and services. The best solution that I’ve seen is forcing builders to incorporate 1-2 subsidized units into every new building, as that distributes the problem around in a manageable way. Still that likely will not yield a quick solution and may never hit the required number of units.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ibejoeb 2y ago

It is certainly not solving the problem. It is probably perpetuating it. Without the other complementary life-critical facilities, nothing changes. These are useful for solving one particular facet: people die from exposure in Toronto. If this did anything to address the actual problem, then there would be no homelessness problem in LA. Quite a few cities have actually solved this problem. They provide housing and all of the additional services, like hygiene facilities, food, and security. Granted, they only solve it for certain cohorts, but it demonstrates that it is rather trivially solvable. That's going to lead to hot political quarreling, so it's a good place to stop. There is no chance that these can provide the full spectrum of services required for a person to thrive. We absolutely can't handle the upkeep on 100,000 one-person boxes. We need to make the shelters better. Many are terrible, but there are better ones, and a lot of that comes down to who is working there. Everyone who is able should make time to volunteer, even just a few shifts, to see what it is and how it can be improved. (It's also a good way to meet people in your city.)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mmooss 2y ago
While I agree with your general points, > These are useful for solving one particular facet: people die from exposure in Toronto. They are also useful because human beings need shelter, whether or not the exposure is life-threatening. They can't wait for your more ideal solutions.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  You're a sitting duck for people who want to attack you when you're inside one of these.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Has someone said that's a risk or an issue for the people who use them? They probably also are bad in a flood, but is that a real risk? Isn't that true of most shelter?
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      Yes, I said it in the comment right above yours. In a conventional homeless shelter there are more people around and staff, meaning you're at least not alone with an attacker. Homeless people do get attacked by other homeless and street thugs.
      - knowitnone 2y ago
        I have a solution for that. No shelter.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        I mean, is there evidence that this is a concern - your comment isn't evidence. > In a conventional homeless shelter there are more people around and staff, meaning you're at least not alone with an attacker. I don't know if it really works out that way - plenty of homeless people say the shelters aren't safe - but regardless, it isn't working.

starkparker 2y ago

cf. Portland's Safe Rest camps composed of one-room tiny shelters with similar accommodations as the article's tiny houses (locks, bed, power, storage, water, in some cases mini-split heat/AC) but not built to be as mobile, as they're clustered in camps with centralized shower/toilet bathrooms and laundry, and also built with ADA-compliant ramps. $17-24k each per city/county documents: https://www.portland.gov/shelter-services/city-shelter-village-price-agreements https://www.portland.gov/shelter-services/city-shelter-villa...

s1artibartfast 2y ago
The price sounds about right. The Oakland mayor was recently investigated for paying 800k each for a similar solution from a campaign donor. People try to tell me that it was a good deal because houses are over a million, but those include the land

jklinger410 2y ago

Of course they're not solving the root of the problem. The issue of homelessness is not caused by a lack of homes.

zeroonetwothree 2y ago
It sure seems like the places with the most homeless have the most expensive housing markets.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  Because those are the most desirable places to live. Homeless people move too. Granted, there are homeless people who have a stable life but work a job that just doesn't pay enough to afford a home, or people who are between jobs and are temporarily homeless. But those people generally sleep in a car, cause few problems, are largely invisible, have most of their needs met in some way, and are generally not the people we are concerned about when talking about "the homeless". The Homeless™ usually have more complex issues like untreated psychological issues, drug problems, etc. And while the previous group would rejoice about small cheap housing, it does little to solve the issues of The Homeless™.
- jeffalyanak 2y ago
  Most expensive homes yes, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of livable homes and apartments that are _empty_ at any given time. Canada has a lot of vacant houses.
  - Maxatar 2y ago
    Canada has one of the lowest home vacancy rates among the OECD countries and currently at the lowest rate it's been in 40 years: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affordable-housing-database/hm1-1-housing-stock-and-construction.pdf https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affor...
    - jeffalyanak 2y ago

no_wizard 2y ago

For point one, it being so heavy, why not build each on the trailer so it doesn’t have to be moved on to it? Then when it’s ready it can simply be driven to its destination. It may be impractical I realize but since the trailer has to fit it anyway, perhaps not

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Not a bad idea if you have a flatbed trailer laying around unused
buckle8017 2y ago
Trailers are useful and thus expensive.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  General assumption maybe I shouldn’t be making, is that the trailers are already owned by the organization responsible for this and would already only be used for this purpose. Perhaps the fact that you could build these theoretically faster than doing on a trailer makes it a moot point, then again if trailers are your bottleneck maybe it’s possible to schedule building around that to keep delivery smooth
mindslight 2y ago
Trailers generally require vehicle registration to be towed on the road, and tow vehicles are relatively expensive. Despite already being on wheels, individual residents would still be unable to move their shelter themselves in response to being told to move on. And any organization that helps out with tow vehicles creates a centralized target to attack. The solution in the OP of building this as part of a dedicated tricycle is pretty damn slick. "Yes of course officer I am moving along, as fast as I can"

diggan 2y ago

> Being made primarily out of wood it was cheap and easy to build, but it was HEAVY. I'm not overly knowledgeable about the weather in Toronto, but heavy snow and heavy windows typically require things to be heavy so they don't get pushed by snow or wind. Maybe this is actually a feature of these type of huts. Also, the huts in the article seem easier to move if what it states is accurate, that you can transport them in the bicycle lane legally and with bikes. > without power or plumbing its not clear to me how actually livable these things would be. What I've seen in my country (Spain) is that homeless tends to resolve to using tents, so if it's at least the same liveability but a little more protective against the elements, it sounds like an improvement. The root issue of course isn't just that these people cannot find housing, but something about the reason why they aren't able to use the existing empty housing and how they became homeless in the first place. Be it because of costs, health, housing requirements or whatever.

hinkley 2y ago

You need some sort of light shelf or clerestory for those but I’m at a loss as to how to incorporate one cheaply. The clearance wouldn’t be good enough to bring the ceiling down and keeping the whole envelope water tight would be tricky.

owenpalmer 2y ago

> Overall I think these types of houses are not solving the root issues I don't think anyone has a solution to the root issues. At this point, the fastest way to fix homelessness is to let the currently homeless people die out, while trying our best to prevent people from becoming homeless.

crooked-v 2y ago

> I found out that primarily people wanted security from other homeless rather than even shelter This is one of the main reasons that many homeless people refuse shelter beds unless the weather makes it absolutely necessary. Phones and other important personal items get stolen constantly.

nothercastle 2y ago

It’s because the hard “problem” isn’t the shelter piece. The hard problem is how do you house a lot of mentally unstable people who can often be a danger to themselves and others at the same density as the rest of the city and at an affordable cost. I don’t think it’s generally possible because as soon as you hit any kind of density with these you get problems, but you need a minimum density to provide bathrooms showers and services. The best solution that I’ve seen is forcing builders to incorporate 1-2 subsidized units into every new building, as that distributes the problem around in a manageable way. Still that likely will not yield a quick solution and may never hit the required number of units.