12 ms·

Are Tiny Houses the Key to Fighting Homelessness?

136 points by yiedyie 13y ago

higherpurpose 13y ago
I believe so, and it's a small price to pay to eliminate the homeless problem. I imagine the prices will only come down once we can "3D print" those homes.
- yiedyie 13y ago
  I guess you mean to print the key components as bricks I think are easier handwritten.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    Maybe not yet but something like this[1][2] is probably coming in the near future. [1]http://innovation.uk.msn.com/design/the-3d-printer-that-can-build-a-house-in-24-hours http://innovation.uk.msn.com/design/the-3d-printer-that-can-... [2]http://www.contourcrafting.org/ http://www.contourcrafting.org/
krallja 13y ago
> seven acres of land donated by Carmen Guidi Yeah, good luck with that in major cities. What if we took all the tiny houses and put them all in a shared building, with shared infrastructure and a tinier combined footprint? We could call it... an apartment building.
- protomyth 13y ago
  I have wondered if you could build a building with plugable apartment modules that could be moved to other building when you wanted to move. Shipping crate apartments with standard utility hookups.
  - dasmoth 13y ago
    This gets proposed from time to time (was Buckminster Fuller's Dynaxion Home the first?), but I can never see how you'd move them without crating up all your possessions. And isn't that the worst aspect of moving home in a traditional manner...?
    - saraid216 13y ago
      If the home is deliberately designed for this possibility, it might be easier than that. For instance, perhaps a grid of plugs to bolt your furniture into so that you only have to crate up looser items like books and vases? And you might be able to hide those under floorboard panels.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      I've had a couple of relatives move mobile homes[1] and mostly it can down to boxing the dishes, taking the knick knacks off the wall, and tying the furniture together[2]. I'm more interested in the mass production aspect. 1) mostly eastern ND 2) lay big screen tv flat on bed
  - iamwithnail 13y ago
    http://www.mac-containers.co.uk/temporary-container-housing.htm?gclid=CPH1_bOS57wCFSEHwwodzxAAlw http://www.mac-containers.co.uk/temporary-container-housing....
- Crito 13y ago
  Without careful management, you stand a chance of creating a "Hotel Carter"-esque situation where it is too easy for residents to adversely effect the lives of other residents. Some minimal amount of separation (even if it is only a few feet between each unit) and keeping things out in the air to aid in policing should be well-worth it. The issue of land wouldn't be so bad if we had decent transportation around our cities. It shouldn't be necessary to own a car if you don't live downtown somewhere, although unfortunately it typically is.
  - willyt 13y ago
    You need at least 4 story tenements to make rail based public transport viable. You can go a bit less dense with buses but not much. Refer to 'Cities for a Small Planet'. Ricky Burdet at the LSE has done quite a bit of research into this.
- benched 13y ago
  I love how, despite the lessons of the inner-city projects, there's still this automatic urge to try to reduce the quality of life of the imaginary occupants as much as possible, right out of the gate.
  - twic 13y ago
    Some of the most desirable and expensive homes in the world are in apartment blocks (eg the infamous One Hyde Park here in London). And on the other hand, some of the most despised and squalid homes in the world are detatched units (eg trailer parks). It's not the layout of a home that governs the quality of life of its occupants. It's how well built it it, how well maintained it is, how well connected to work, infrastructure, amenities, and the larger community it is, how mixed its occupants are in income and occupation, how well cared for by police, fire, and health services it is, dozens of factors. But not whether it shares a wall with its neighbouring homes.
    - _delirium 13y ago
      Large parts of Manhattan are another example. Small apartments, in huge apartment blocks producing deep urban canyons that let little light reach the windows... and yet some of the most expensive real estate in the country.
- joeframbach 13y ago
  You should read more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe
  - krallja 13y ago
    You should read more. http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14435.html http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14435.html
- noonespecial 13y ago
  No, I'm afraid they'd call it... a ghetto. Something special does happen when its "your" house. Is it special enough to avoid ghetto-ization? Its worth a try IMHO.
Mz 13y ago
Upvoted and I hope it gets read but I don't think any one thing is THE solution to homelessness. In previous life, I wanted to be an urban planner. As part of that, I took a class on Homelessness and Public Policy at SFSU. I am currently homeless and have been for over two years. So, some thoughts in brief: Current housing stock, financing, and policies in the U.S. is very skewed towards housing for "the nuclear family" and is rooted in things that happened when our soldiers came home from WWII. In the decades since, our demographic has diversified thus this type of housing stock, financing infrastructure and policies no longer fit our needs. Ironically, the result is we no longer have a lot of the options that were once fairly common here, like SRO's and boarding houses, which were better suited to single people with limited incomes. You increasingly see things like 3 (or more) roommates sharing a three bedroom apartment designed with the nuclear family in mind. Yes, smaller houses would be nice. Post WWII, the average new home was around 1200sf. In 2000, the average new home was over 2000sf and housed fewer people and had more amenities. This is driven in part by tax policies that encourage those who can afford a house at all to buy the largest house they can afford. Meanwhile, homelessness is on the rise because it is increasingly hard to afford housing at all. I have commented on this in various places over the years. I could probably write a good blog post on it. But most people seem to think this entrenched history is irrelevant. So I see little reason at this time to put much effort into laying it all out.
- nickstinemates 13y ago
  Sorry for the personal question, but, are you homeless by choice? It seems you can talk well in this area and appear to be eloquent enough to describe complex situations, so it begs the question.
  - Mz 13y ago
    As with all things, it is part choice, part happenstance. I have a serious medical condition, as does my oldest son. I have been advised that people like me do not get well. I have figured out how to get us well, but it all came out of my pocket, leading to a lot of debt. I had a job with a Fortune 500 company. At some point, I was evicted from my apartment, not due to inability to pay but because I had done things like removed carpeting without permission because that made more sense than staying ill. After getting a notice of eviction, I chose to not look for another apartment because it was clear to us that the apartment was part of why we were still ill. After three days sleeping in a tent amidst trees, I woke up feeling better than I had in years. I submitted my notice that I was quitting my job and I left on foot to cross the country and return to a climate I knew I would do better in. Since then, I have focused on getting well and trying to develop an income that does not keep me sick. I have made good headway on getting well and I am beginning to make headway on an income that does not keep me ill. I would like to get off the street soon. I am nearly well enough that I think more conventional housing would no longer be an automatic health disaster for me and my sons. I don't yet know how to solve that problem, either financially or logistically. I really need to go straight from homeless to homeowner. Renting leaves me too little control over my home life to keep myself well given my medical situation.
sliverstorm 13y ago
This article doesn't seem to tackle the very question it posed- is inexpensive housing actually the fix to the problem? From what I recall of past discussions, past experiments have suggested affordable housing is simply not the problem for many of the chronically homeless, and it is not clear that providing inexpensive (or even free) housing will be successful.
- tommu 13y ago
  I get the impression that there is another benefit here. Each tenant has their own space to be responsible for. It's small enough to manage but maybe brings a sense of ownership that would be lacking in a regular municipal type shelter or shared apartment block.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > Each tenant has their own space to be responsible for. At the risk of sounding insensitive, which is not my intent, in what way would they be responsible for them? If access to the homes is truly unconditional, why keep them in good shape? Or are you just suggesting that by giving people self-contained, separated dwellings, they will think of it more as "their home" and tend to take better care of it?
MiguelHudnandez 13y ago
Doesn't it seem wasteful to have four walls a few feet away from another four walls? I'm open to the idea that it's more dignified to live in a unique, isolated dwelling, but it seems terribly inefficient to have 10 tiny houses versus a single-building condo with 10 dwellings of identical square footage.
- thejteam 13y ago
  I'm not familiar with the floorplan but it might be necessary to have an extra window or two to let more light in. At least one of the designs in the article power was limited to 80W of solar panels. Can't afford to waste anything on artificial light with those constraints.
  - MiguelHudnandez 13y ago
    You could save nearly 40% building costs by having 10 adjacent units versus ten free-standing structures nearby. That money could go into more solar or to build more units. You go from 40 exterior walls (10 units x 4 walls) to 4 exterior walls at about 60% of the area. I can't tackle the math mentally to figure out how the roofing situation changes, but I imagine it is drastically cheaper as well. The roof would be two very long sides instead of 20 small sides. The more I think about it, the more I am coming around on the "dignity" argument and I think having a space that is completely "yours," including a porch, some steps, and some garden area, will increase the amount of ownership felt. Want pink flamingos? You've got a hundred square feet of lawn that's yours.
    - jonlucc 13y ago
      I think you can have the best of both worlds with alternating doors. A big long structure where every other door is on the same side of the building, such that each person gets a small porch, small "yard" and their own door. This still limits the natural light.
      - Crito 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- tommu 13y ago
  Do you have any evidence to support your begging theory? I would guess that the homeless go where they can get shelter without being arrested. But I haven't checked the research.
  - cadlin 13y ago
    Homeless people congregate where there are services that are available to them. Predominantly, this means shelter and food. So homeless people will know when they can get food, from where, and this generally means places with high population density (it's much easier to walk from place to place in the city than in the suburbs!). In response to this, cities have passed a lot of NIMBY homeless shelter laws in their urban centers. In Atlanta, there is a homeless shelter that is being closed down (it's currently in court) and the shelter can't relocate within the city because of laws on the size of homeless shelters. They were grandfathered in when the law was passed. Source: I've spent a significant amount of time working with homeless shelters and on homeless policy.
  - username223 13y ago
    Having done the "voluntarily homeless" thing, I can say that getting a full night's sleep without being harassed by cops with a hard-on for authority, and keeping clean enough to participate in society, are the common issues.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > I'm not sure how Japan does it, but last I saw, they don't have any homeless people wandering the streets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Japan Guessing you just visited the wrong areas? Before I googled, I had assumed it was because the homeless were pushed out to the suburbs, based on my understanding of Japanese city-tiering.
Crito 13y ago
Somewhat tautologically, yes. Building and giving away homes is a solution to "involuntary lack of a home". Of course the effective reality is not so simple. Done naively you are going to end up with little more than a tent city with a greater sense of permanence. Tent cities "solve 'homelessness'" in the strictest sense, but of course a satisfactory solution is more than that. They need to be accompanied by social programs designed to help people with a wide variety of problems (mostly having to do with joblessness and health (mental or otherwise)).
- pessimizer 13y ago
  A shower and a roof solve an awful lot of problems, though.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Well, a standard shelter can provide a shower and a roof. Providing a safe, secure, and sanitary shower and roof is the tricky part. I think it is likely that this sort of setup could do that. Definitely worth pursuing.
sadbrother 13y ago
I see this question come up on here from time to time. I don't know much about homelessness in general, but I do have a brother who is a little mentally ill. Among other problems, he is incapable of keeping a place to live habitable. He utterly ruins a place over 2-3 years, gets evicted, and finds someone else who will rent to him (which is hard, he is blacklisted). Something in him just won't train his dog, won't put food away, won't not get just angry enough to break things. Yet he appears like a reasonable person on the street. He spends most of his time at home too, so his life is pretty miserable surrounded by these miserable conditions. We've tried hundreds of things to help him over the years, since I was a pre-teen, and it seems so intractable to help even just him, even with what should be enough money to support one person. It's hard to imagine how to solve the problem of all the world's homeless.
- benched 13y ago
  I think it's important in the context of this topic not to try to solve everything, or make the perfect the enemy of the good. Like, getting people indoors and off of the streets is a great, high-priority goal, and if the will can be mustered to give them homes, I'm all for it. Figuring out how to train them to live more like Martha Stewart than they do could be a separate problem.
heydenberk 13y ago
Utah is on its way to eradicating chronic homelessness[0]. Quoting [0] here: >> In 2005, one state defied "political feasibility" and began handing out free apartments to the homeless. These were neither temporary accommodations or shelters for the night. They were not welfare-to-work, or only if you're married, or just-take-this-drug-test: just free apartments, no strings attached. Nine years later, they've reduced long-term homelessness by 74% and are on track to eradicate it completely by 2015. It actually saves money, due to decreased costs of law enforcement and emergency medical services. Homelessness is a problem of distribution, not supply. Since the housing crisis at the end of last decade, homeless and home vacancy have both been well-above average. [0]http://www.policymic.com/articles/81507/the-most-unlikely-state-in-america-is-on-track-to-eradicate-homelessness-by-2015 http://www.policymic.com/articles/81507/the-most-unlikely-st...
- iandanforth 13y ago
  Those articles don't have proof of savings. I want to believe it worked, but I'd like to see a report from the state of Utah charting ER visit costs and jail-time costs declining over the last 10 years.
  - jonah 13y ago
    Savings or not, it's humane.
    - iandanforth 13y ago
      Of course, no argument from me, but there are a whole lot of people who care more about money than suffering, so it'd be nice if it worked from a purely greed-is-good perspective as well.
      - heydenberk 13y ago
        Besides the pure cost savings of public services, I'd love to know about the second-order economics effects: the growth of the tax base, the founding of more small businesses and the increase in economic activity due to people (rightly or wrongly) feeling safer on the streets. One can imagine startups run by former homeless who have a unique perspective due to their experiences, or who have discovered inexpensive solutions to problems, or who simply would be the type to start a company if they hadn't hit some bad luck at some point.
jackgavigan 13y ago
The YMCA is already looking at pre-fab'd homes for homeless people: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7258801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7258801
mixmax 13y ago
I live on a boat, which has quite a lot of similarities to this. I have even less livingspace than these houses, but I've managed to fit everything I need and more into it. The marina I live in has a clubhouse which is the social hub, much like the common space that's talked about in the article. Although the circumstances are very different (I live where I do entirely by choice, and don't suffer any of the other problems that I presume homeless people might) the physical living space is comparable, so I'll offer an opinion: - Living in a small space is much less of a problem than people think. You quickly get used to it. You tend to be outside more though (which I think is a good thing) - If you do live in a small space light is important. Small spaces without natural light don't work. I suspect that's one of the architectural reasons why the houses are seperate. The same goes for having a semi-private outdoor area. - A common space is great because you meet other people. Again, the circumstances are very different but I've really enjoyed meeting people I can now call friends in our clubhouse. - When living in a small space you have less belongings for obvious reasons. This is a good thing, which surprised me. Tyler Durden from Fight Club is spot on when he says "The things you own end up owning you" This is a great project, and I hope it succeeds and spreads.
- Crito 13y ago
  How is that style of living, expense wise? Would you estimate the cost of boat/maintenance/marina fees to be roughly comparable to renting, or does it cost much more? That is the sort of thing that appeals to me, but I haven't really looked into it because it seems out of reach.
  - mixmax 13y ago
    It's incredibly cheap, but you need to spend some time doing boat-things like painting fixing rust, etc. Timewise it's probably comparable to a house. I bought the boat in Holland for around $50.000 in cash and spent around $10.000 fixing it up with insulation, heating, toilet etc. So basically all I pay now is marina rent ($100 a month) and diesel for heating and electricity. This is in Copenhagen btw.
    - 13y ago
drcode 13y ago
The big question left unanswered is: Do these houses have indoor plumbing, or is there a separate communal kitchen & bathroom?
kimonos 13y ago
Hmmmm, I don't think so...
manicdee 13y ago
Manna - Two Visions of Humanity's Future: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
im_a_lawyer 13y ago
Yeah let's stick the poor people with the cost of house maintenance and car ownership... urban planners are fucking retarded in this country.
avn2109 13y ago
Now seems like as good a time as any to get on my soapbox and proclaim the glories of Betteridge's law [0]. It has tremendous predictive power. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
- saraid216 13y ago
  And, in this case, it's wrong. But contributing to the conversation would have been unsurmountably challenging, yeah?
schultkl 13y ago
I did some (very rough) math on how much it would cost to do this nationwide--in a nutshell, for the materials only, it would cost the 25%-50% of Americans who likely care enough to pay between $220-$441 as a one-time expense plus $2-$4 annual upkeep: http://schultkl.blogspot.com/2014/02/homeless-no-more-how-much-would-it.html http://schultkl.blogspot.com/2014/02/homeless-no-more-how-mu... . A thought experiment I did for my own benefit, mostly...like the article points out, there are architectural and design costs, labor costs, zoning and community buy-in issues, and so forth, and so forth.
sien 13y ago
Why not just use caravans? Second ones can surely be bought for about $5K each.
stretchwithme 13y ago
Its absurd to buy a limited number of people regular houses when you could buy tiny houses for many more people. To have a secure place to rest one's head and a place where you can take a shower and prepare food is enormously valuable. If we redirected the resources granted to the middle and upper middle class through the mortgage tax deduction into tiny houses for those at the very bottom, we'd accomplish a lot more good.
bayesianhorse 13y ago
The big key to fighting homelessness in the US would be bringing mental health care up to international standards. And maybe take at least some care for returning veterans who often suffer from PTSD and end up on the streets...
droithomme 13y ago
Smaller houses are not a bad trend, but smaller houses are often much less energy efficient due to thinner walls, lighter weight, less thermal mass. If one does not live in a very temperate area such as Hawaii, this has consequences regarding the cost of heating and cooling that should be considered. Many poor people for example live in single wide trailers. It is not uncommon for them to have winter heating bills in the range of $500-$1000, completely destroying their income budget and keeping them mired in poverty. Another factor with small portable homes in particular is that they depreciate and one is almost never able to use them as collateral for a business loan to help their kids or nephews or other family members get started in a self owned business, which is something that is not a problem for those with full size houses. This inability to convert housing investment into investable liquid assets is another problem with small portable housing which keeps the poor poor. For small houses to lift people from poverty, they would need to be much more energy efficient than they are typically made, unless the owners plan to try to get through the winter without heat.
- ChiperSoft 13y ago
  I don't think the goal here is to lift them from poverty, I think it's just to give them a place to live. There's no particular reason why a small home would be less energy efficient. I built a 120sqft studio apartment for about $10,000 that was so well insulated that it was actually cold inside during 85° heat.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jmspring 13y ago
The biggest local issue will be one of land and infrastructure. I've considered a tiny house as an option for infill granny unit, the "infrastructure" costs were more than the unit itself. On a wider scale, land and infrastructure really are the keys. A colony of small houses is comparable to an RV/trailer park. Hookups are needed and some will prejudices and stigmas attached. Curious to see where the movement goes. Locally here in Santa Cruz, some groups are pushing for "sanctuary camps" with no real plan on the land aspect.
rdl 13y ago
They recreated the trailer park?
buro9 13y ago
I've been homeless and a street-sleeper. In my experience this is a great thing to do, but it is one of many things that needs doing. On pure housing, a small space is a great shelter, can provide security. But it can also be a trap. It should be viewed as temporary housing only, for a transition period between the streets and the stability and security of a "normal" living space. It's a trap as it will be used against you, perceived by others as a weakness or reason to treat you differently, to discriminate. It's a trap as it will impair ones ability to have the essential social mobility to at least get a firm hold on the lower rungs of society. But it is needed. And needed in addition to starter-homes, is a supportive community, mental health advice. It isn't enough to give a room with a roof and walk away, by the time someone reaches this point they are dysfunctional and need help figuring out how to function within the society of others. The entire time homeless is a trauma, and a trauma probably preceded it. A room with a roof is something essential, but the person is likely suffering PTSD and has various other issues. There is no magic cure to homelessness, but this is one of many small things that can help. And when I first came off the street, I didn't know what to do. I put a mattress on the floor of the living room, next to a camping stove. The bedroom was a cavern I never visited, the kitchen just a place where there was a tap, and I didn't understand how there could be so much cupboard space. I basically backed into a corner of one room, I couldn't comprehend the space or what I was supposed to do with it. I didn't even have a carpet, and the only seat was ripped from a car. A roof isn't enough unfortunately.
patrickg_zill 13y ago
Many municipalities adopt restrictive housing codes. For instance, you cannot build a house less than X square feet in size. You must have a lot size of X square feet (or this may be expressed in acres). The international residential building code, which has some good things in it, but may be overkill for a smaller structure (like the ones mentioned, which are 320sf or less), must be followed. These sorts of thing force compliance on 2000sf, multi-story dwellings with all kinds of complex systems; but is it needed for a well built but small, glorified storage shed? I would argue, "no".

136 points by yiedyie 13y ago

I believe so, and it's a small price to pay to eliminate the homeless problem. I imagine the prices will only come down once we can "3D print" those homes.

yiedyie 13y ago
I guess you mean to print the key components as bricks I think are easier handwritten.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  Maybe not yet but something like this[1][2] is probably coming in the near future. [1]http://innovation.uk.msn.com/design/the-3d-printer-that-can-build-a-house-in-24-hours http://innovation.uk.msn.com/design/the-3d-printer-that-can-... [2]http://www.contourcrafting.org/ http://www.contourcrafting.org/

krallja 13y ago

> seven acres of land donated by Carmen Guidi Yeah, good luck with that in major cities. What if we took all the tiny houses and put them all in a shared building, with shared infrastructure and a tinier combined footprint? We could call it... an apartment building.

protomyth 13y ago
I have wondered if you could build a building with plugable apartment modules that could be moved to other building when you wanted to move. Shipping crate apartments with standard utility hookups.
- dasmoth 13y ago
  This gets proposed from time to time (was Buckminster Fuller's Dynaxion Home the first?), but I can never see how you'd move them without crating up all your possessions. And isn't that the worst aspect of moving home in a traditional manner...?
  - saraid216 13y ago
    If the home is deliberately designed for this possibility, it might be easier than that. For instance, perhaps a grid of plugs to bolt your furniture into so that you only have to crate up looser items like books and vases? And you might be able to hide those under floorboard panels.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    I've had a couple of relatives move mobile homes[1] and mostly it can down to boxing the dishes, taking the knick knacks off the wall, and tying the furniture together[2]. I'm more interested in the mass production aspect. 1) mostly eastern ND 2) lay big screen tv flat on bed
- iamwithnail 13y ago
  http://www.mac-containers.co.uk/temporary-container-housing.htm?gclid=CPH1_bOS57wCFSEHwwodzxAAlw http://www.mac-containers.co.uk/temporary-container-housing....
Crito 13y ago
Without careful management, you stand a chance of creating a "Hotel Carter"-esque situation where it is too easy for residents to adversely effect the lives of other residents. Some minimal amount of separation (even if it is only a few feet between each unit) and keeping things out in the air to aid in policing should be well-worth it. The issue of land wouldn't be so bad if we had decent transportation around our cities. It shouldn't be necessary to own a car if you don't live downtown somewhere, although unfortunately it typically is.
- willyt 13y ago
  You need at least 4 story tenements to make rail based public transport viable. You can go a bit less dense with buses but not much. Refer to 'Cities for a Small Planet'. Ricky Burdet at the LSE has done quite a bit of research into this.
benched 13y ago
I love how, despite the lessons of the inner-city projects, there's still this automatic urge to try to reduce the quality of life of the imaginary occupants as much as possible, right out of the gate.
- twic 13y ago
  Some of the most desirable and expensive homes in the world are in apartment blocks (eg the infamous One Hyde Park here in London). And on the other hand, some of the most despised and squalid homes in the world are detatched units (eg trailer parks). It's not the layout of a home that governs the quality of life of its occupants. It's how well built it it, how well maintained it is, how well connected to work, infrastructure, amenities, and the larger community it is, how mixed its occupants are in income and occupation, how well cared for by police, fire, and health services it is, dozens of factors. But not whether it shares a wall with its neighbouring homes.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Large parts of Manhattan are another example. Small apartments, in huge apartment blocks producing deep urban canyons that let little light reach the windows... and yet some of the most expensive real estate in the country.
joeframbach 13y ago
You should read more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe
- krallja 13y ago
  You should read more. http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14435.html http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14435.html
noonespecial 13y ago
No, I'm afraid they'd call it... a ghetto. Something special does happen when its "your" house. Is it special enough to avoid ghetto-ization? Its worth a try IMHO.

Mz 13y ago

Upvoted and I hope it gets read but I don't think any one thing is THE solution to homelessness. In previous life, I wanted to be an urban planner. As part of that, I took a class on Homelessness and Public Policy at SFSU. I am currently homeless and have been for over two years. So, some thoughts in brief: Current housing stock, financing, and policies in the U.S. is very skewed towards housing for "the nuclear family" and is rooted in things that happened when our soldiers came home from WWII. In the decades since, our demographic has diversified thus this type of housing stock, financing infrastructure and policies no longer fit our needs. Ironically, the result is we no longer have a lot of the options that were once fairly common here, like SRO's and boarding houses, which were better suited to single people with limited incomes. You increasingly see things like 3 (or more) roommates sharing a three bedroom apartment designed with the nuclear family in mind. Yes, smaller houses would be nice. Post WWII, the average new home was around 1200sf. In 2000, the average new home was over 2000sf and housed fewer people and had more amenities. This is driven in part by tax policies that encourage those who can afford a house at all to buy the largest house they can afford. Meanwhile, homelessness is on the rise because it is increasingly hard to afford housing at all. I have commented on this in various places over the years. I could probably write a good blog post on it. But most people seem to think this entrenched history is irrelevant. So I see little reason at this time to put much effort into laying it all out.

nickstinemates 13y ago
Sorry for the personal question, but, are you homeless by choice? It seems you can talk well in this area and appear to be eloquent enough to describe complex situations, so it begs the question.
- Mz 13y ago
  As with all things, it is part choice, part happenstance. I have a serious medical condition, as does my oldest son. I have been advised that people like me do not get well. I have figured out how to get us well, but it all came out of my pocket, leading to a lot of debt. I had a job with a Fortune 500 company. At some point, I was evicted from my apartment, not due to inability to pay but because I had done things like removed carpeting without permission because that made more sense than staying ill. After getting a notice of eviction, I chose to not look for another apartment because it was clear to us that the apartment was part of why we were still ill. After three days sleeping in a tent amidst trees, I woke up feeling better than I had in years. I submitted my notice that I was quitting my job and I left on foot to cross the country and return to a climate I knew I would do better in. Since then, I have focused on getting well and trying to develop an income that does not keep me sick. I have made good headway on getting well and I am beginning to make headway on an income that does not keep me ill. I would like to get off the street soon. I am nearly well enough that I think more conventional housing would no longer be an automatic health disaster for me and my sons. I don't yet know how to solve that problem, either financially or logistically. I really need to go straight from homeless to homeowner. Renting leaves me too little control over my home life to keep myself well given my medical situation.

sliverstorm 13y ago

This article doesn't seem to tackle the very question it posed- is inexpensive housing actually the fix to the problem? From what I recall of past discussions, past experiments have suggested affordable housing is simply not the problem for many of the chronically homeless, and it is not clear that providing inexpensive (or even free) housing will be successful.

tommu 13y ago
I get the impression that there is another benefit here. Each tenant has their own space to be responsible for. It's small enough to manage but maybe brings a sense of ownership that would be lacking in a regular municipal type shelter or shared apartment block.
- baddox 13y ago
  > Each tenant has their own space to be responsible for. At the risk of sounding insensitive, which is not my intent, in what way would they be responsible for them? If access to the homes is truly unconditional, why keep them in good shape? Or are you just suggesting that by giving people self-contained, separated dwellings, they will think of it more as "their home" and tend to take better care of it?

MiguelHudnandez 13y ago

Doesn't it seem wasteful to have four walls a few feet away from another four walls? I'm open to the idea that it's more dignified to live in a unique, isolated dwelling, but it seems terribly inefficient to have 10 tiny houses versus a single-building condo with 10 dwellings of identical square footage.

thejteam 13y ago
I'm not familiar with the floorplan but it might be necessary to have an extra window or two to let more light in. At least one of the designs in the article power was limited to 80W of solar panels. Can't afford to waste anything on artificial light with those constraints.
- MiguelHudnandez 13y ago
  You could save nearly 40% building costs by having 10 adjacent units versus ten free-standing structures nearby. That money could go into more solar or to build more units. You go from 40 exterior walls (10 units x 4 walls) to 4 exterior walls at about 60% of the area. I can't tackle the math mentally to figure out how the roofing situation changes, but I imagine it is drastically cheaper as well. The roof would be two very long sides instead of 20 small sides. The more I think about it, the more I am coming around on the "dignity" argument and I think having a space that is completely "yours," including a porch, some steps, and some garden area, will increase the amount of ownership felt. Want pink flamingos? You've got a hundred square feet of lawn that's yours.
  - jonlucc 13y ago
    I think you can have the best of both worlds with alternating doors. A big long structure where every other door is on the same side of the building, such that each person gets a small porch, small "yard" and their own door. This still limits the natural light.
    - Crito 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

tommu 13y ago
Do you have any evidence to support your begging theory? I would guess that the homeless go where they can get shelter without being arrested. But I haven't checked the research.
- cadlin 13y ago
  Homeless people congregate where there are services that are available to them. Predominantly, this means shelter and food. So homeless people will know when they can get food, from where, and this generally means places with high population density (it's much easier to walk from place to place in the city than in the suburbs!). In response to this, cities have passed a lot of NIMBY homeless shelter laws in their urban centers. In Atlanta, there is a homeless shelter that is being closed down (it's currently in court) and the shelter can't relocate within the city because of laws on the size of homeless shelters. They were grandfathered in when the law was passed. Source: I've spent a significant amount of time working with homeless shelters and on homeless policy.
- username223 13y ago
  Having done the "voluntarily homeless" thing, I can say that getting a full night's sleep without being harassed by cops with a hard-on for authority, and keeping clean enough to participate in society, are the common issues.
saraid216 13y ago
> I'm not sure how Japan does it, but last I saw, they don't have any homeless people wandering the streets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Japan Guessing you just visited the wrong areas? Before I googled, I had assumed it was because the homeless were pushed out to the suburbs, based on my understanding of Japanese city-tiering.

Crito 13y ago

Somewhat tautologically, yes. Building and giving away homes is a solution to "involuntary lack of a home". Of course the effective reality is not so simple. Done naively you are going to end up with little more than a tent city with a greater sense of permanence. Tent cities "solve 'homelessness'" in the strictest sense, but of course a satisfactory solution is more than that. They need to be accompanied by social programs designed to help people with a wide variety of problems (mostly having to do with joblessness and health (mental or otherwise)).

pessimizer 13y ago
A shower and a roof solve an awful lot of problems, though.
- Crito 13y ago
  Well, a standard shelter can provide a shower and a roof. Providing a safe, secure, and sanitary shower and roof is the tricky part. I think it is likely that this sort of setup could do that. Definitely worth pursuing.

sadbrother 13y ago

I see this question come up on here from time to time. I don't know much about homelessness in general, but I do have a brother who is a little mentally ill. Among other problems, he is incapable of keeping a place to live habitable. He utterly ruins a place over 2-3 years, gets evicted, and finds someone else who will rent to him (which is hard, he is blacklisted). Something in him just won't train his dog, won't put food away, won't not get just angry enough to break things. Yet he appears like a reasonable person on the street. He spends most of his time at home too, so his life is pretty miserable surrounded by these miserable conditions. We've tried hundreds of things to help him over the years, since I was a pre-teen, and it seems so intractable to help even just him, even with what should be enough money to support one person. It's hard to imagine how to solve the problem of all the world's homeless.

benched 13y ago
I think it's important in the context of this topic not to try to solve everything, or make the perfect the enemy of the good. Like, getting people indoors and off of the streets is a great, high-priority goal, and if the will can be mustered to give them homes, I'm all for it. Figuring out how to train them to live more like Martha Stewart than they do could be a separate problem.

heydenberk 13y ago

Utah is on its way to eradicating chronic homelessness[0]. Quoting [0] here: >> In 2005, one state defied "political feasibility" and began handing out free apartments to the homeless. These were neither temporary accommodations or shelters for the night. They were not welfare-to-work, or only if you're married, or just-take-this-drug-test: just free apartments, no strings attached. Nine years later, they've reduced long-term homelessness by 74% and are on track to eradicate it completely by 2015. It actually saves money, due to decreased costs of law enforcement and emergency medical services. Homelessness is a problem of distribution, not supply. Since the housing crisis at the end of last decade, homeless and home vacancy have both been well-above average. [0]http://www.policymic.com/articles/81507/the-most-unlikely-state-in-america-is-on-track-to-eradicate-homelessness-by-2015 http://www.policymic.com/articles/81507/the-most-unlikely-st...

iandanforth 13y ago
Those articles don't have proof of savings. I want to believe it worked, but I'd like to see a report from the state of Utah charting ER visit costs and jail-time costs declining over the last 10 years.
- jonah 13y ago
  Savings or not, it's humane.
  - iandanforth 13y ago
    Of course, no argument from me, but there are a whole lot of people who care more about money than suffering, so it'd be nice if it worked from a purely greed-is-good perspective as well.
    - heydenberk 13y ago
      Besides the pure cost savings of public services, I'd love to know about the second-order economics effects: the growth of the tax base, the founding of more small businesses and the increase in economic activity due to people (rightly or wrongly) feeling safer on the streets. One can imagine startups run by former homeless who have a unique perspective due to their experiences, or who have discovered inexpensive solutions to problems, or who simply would be the type to start a company if they hadn't hit some bad luck at some point.

jackgavigan 13y ago

The YMCA is already looking at pre-fab'd homes for homeless people: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7258801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7258801

mixmax 13y ago

I live on a boat, which has quite a lot of similarities to this. I have even less livingspace than these houses, but I've managed to fit everything I need and more into it. The marina I live in has a clubhouse which is the social hub, much like the common space that's talked about in the article. Although the circumstances are very different (I live where I do entirely by choice, and don't suffer any of the other problems that I presume homeless people might) the physical living space is comparable, so I'll offer an opinion: - Living in a small space is much less of a problem than people think. You quickly get used to it. You tend to be outside more though (which I think is a good thing) - If you do live in a small space light is important. Small spaces without natural light don't work. I suspect that's one of the architectural reasons why the houses are seperate. The same goes for having a semi-private outdoor area. - A common space is great because you meet other people. Again, the circumstances are very different but I've really enjoyed meeting people I can now call friends in our clubhouse. - When living in a small space you have less belongings for obvious reasons. This is a good thing, which surprised me. Tyler Durden from Fight Club is spot on when he says "The things you own end up owning you" This is a great project, and I hope it succeeds and spreads.

Crito 13y ago
How is that style of living, expense wise? Would you estimate the cost of boat/maintenance/marina fees to be roughly comparable to renting, or does it cost much more? That is the sort of thing that appeals to me, but I haven't really looked into it because it seems out of reach.
- mixmax 13y ago
  It's incredibly cheap, but you need to spend some time doing boat-things like painting fixing rust, etc. Timewise it's probably comparable to a house. I bought the boat in Holland for around $50.000 in cash and spent around $10.000 fixing it up with insulation, heating, toilet etc. So basically all I pay now is marina rent ($100 a month) and diesel for heating and electricity. This is in Copenhagen btw.
  - 13y ago

drcode 13y ago

The big question left unanswered is: Do these houses have indoor plumbing, or is there a separate communal kitchen & bathroom?

kimonos 13y ago

Hmmmm, I don't think so...

manicdee 13y ago

Manna - Two Visions of Humanity's Future: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

im_a_lawyer 13y ago

Yeah let's stick the poor people with the cost of house maintenance and car ownership... urban planners are fucking retarded in this country.

avn2109 13y ago

Now seems like as good a time as any to get on my soapbox and proclaim the glories of Betteridge's law [0]. It has tremendous predictive power. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

saraid216 13y ago
And, in this case, it's wrong. But contributing to the conversation would have been unsurmountably challenging, yeah?

schultkl 13y ago

I did some (very rough) math on how much it would cost to do this nationwide--in a nutshell, for the materials only, it would cost the 25%-50% of Americans who likely care enough to pay between $220-$441 as a one-time expense plus $2-$4 annual upkeep: http://schultkl.blogspot.com/2014/02/homeless-no-more-how-much-would-it.html http://schultkl.blogspot.com/2014/02/homeless-no-more-how-mu... . A thought experiment I did for my own benefit, mostly...like the article points out, there are architectural and design costs, labor costs, zoning and community buy-in issues, and so forth, and so forth.

sien 13y ago

Why not just use caravans? Second ones can surely be bought for about $5K each.

stretchwithme 13y ago

Its absurd to buy a limited number of people regular houses when you could buy tiny houses for many more people. To have a secure place to rest one's head and a place where you can take a shower and prepare food is enormously valuable. If we redirected the resources granted to the middle and upper middle class through the mortgage tax deduction into tiny houses for those at the very bottom, we'd accomplish a lot more good.

bayesianhorse 13y ago

The big key to fighting homelessness in the US would be bringing mental health care up to international standards. And maybe take at least some care for returning veterans who often suffer from PTSD and end up on the streets...

droithomme 13y ago

Smaller houses are not a bad trend, but smaller houses are often much less energy efficient due to thinner walls, lighter weight, less thermal mass. If one does not live in a very temperate area such as Hawaii, this has consequences regarding the cost of heating and cooling that should be considered. Many poor people for example live in single wide trailers. It is not uncommon for them to have winter heating bills in the range of $500-$1000, completely destroying their income budget and keeping them mired in poverty. Another factor with small portable homes in particular is that they depreciate and one is almost never able to use them as collateral for a business loan to help their kids or nephews or other family members get started in a self owned business, which is something that is not a problem for those with full size houses. This inability to convert housing investment into investable liquid assets is another problem with small portable housing which keeps the poor poor. For small houses to lift people from poverty, they would need to be much more energy efficient than they are typically made, unless the owners plan to try to get through the winter without heat.

ChiperSoft 13y ago
I don't think the goal here is to lift them from poverty, I think it's just to give them a place to live. There's no particular reason why a small home would be less energy efficient. I built a 120sqft studio apartment for about $10,000 that was so well insulated that it was actually cold inside during 85° heat.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

jmspring 13y ago

The biggest local issue will be one of land and infrastructure. I've considered a tiny house as an option for infill granny unit, the "infrastructure" costs were more than the unit itself. On a wider scale, land and infrastructure really are the keys. A colony of small houses is comparable to an RV/trailer park. Hookups are needed and some will prejudices and stigmas attached. Curious to see where the movement goes. Locally here in Santa Cruz, some groups are pushing for "sanctuary camps" with no real plan on the land aspect.

rdl 13y ago

They recreated the trailer park?

buro9 13y ago

I've been homeless and a street-sleeper. In my experience this is a great thing to do, but it is one of many things that needs doing. On pure housing, a small space is a great shelter, can provide security. But it can also be a trap. It should be viewed as temporary housing only, for a transition period between the streets and the stability and security of a "normal" living space. It's a trap as it will be used against you, perceived by others as a weakness or reason to treat you differently, to discriminate. It's a trap as it will impair ones ability to have the essential social mobility to at least get a firm hold on the lower rungs of society. But it is needed. And needed in addition to starter-homes, is a supportive community, mental health advice. It isn't enough to give a room with a roof and walk away, by the time someone reaches this point they are dysfunctional and need help figuring out how to function within the society of others. The entire time homeless is a trauma, and a trauma probably preceded it. A room with a roof is something essential, but the person is likely suffering PTSD and has various other issues. There is no magic cure to homelessness, but this is one of many small things that can help. And when I first came off the street, I didn't know what to do. I put a mattress on the floor of the living room, next to a camping stove. The bedroom was a cavern I never visited, the kitchen just a place where there was a tap, and I didn't understand how there could be so much cupboard space. I basically backed into a corner of one room, I couldn't comprehend the space or what I was supposed to do with it. I didn't even have a carpet, and the only seat was ripped from a car. A roof isn't enough unfortunately.

patrickg_zill 13y ago

Many municipalities adopt restrictive housing codes. For instance, you cannot build a house less than X square feet in size. You must have a lot size of X square feet (or this may be expressed in acres). The international residential building code, which has some good things in it, but may be overkill for a smaller structure (like the ones mentioned, which are 320sf or less), must be followed. These sorts of thing force compliance on 2000sf, multi-story dwellings with all kinds of complex systems; but is it needed for a well built but small, glorified storage shed? I would argue, "no".