4 ms·

Agreed that homelessness has complex underlying issues, but homelessness can ALSO be a temporary condition triggered by any number of problems (loss of a job, i

by angdis 12y ago

Agreed that homelessness has complex underlying issues, but homelessness can ALSO be a temporary condition triggered by any number of problems (loss of a job, insurmountable debt, etc). The people are still technically "homeless" though rarely classified as such. Anything that provides more options for housing will help people who are homeless or on the verge of becoming homeless.

cauterized 12y ago
But moving them to the area 3 hours drive away from the city where there's actually space to build some of these things doesn't help them deal with joblessness (or needing a second job to pay down debt, when you lose 6 hours/day to your commute) since employment is generally easier to find in a city. In most of these cases, what's needed is not to expand low-density areas with marginally higher density, but to increase density in higher density areas so that housing there becomes affordable, or to offer temporary free/subsidized housing in those high-density areas until people are back on their feet.
- WalterSear 12y ago
  Which is essentially the underlying plot of City of God. And which was based on a true story in the Brazilian favelas. It's just hipster hubris. If someone suggested building apartment blocks with the same square footage as those twee little houses, they would be accused of trying to warehouse the homeless, but it's actually a much better idea.
  - adekok 12y ago
    Don't underestimate the power of green space. Having small homes in the middle of lawn, trees, and plants is much better than having small apartments in a dense apartment building. There's still the problem of services / jobs, of course. But that's a bit separate.
    - normloman 12y ago
      What preserves greenspace more: 1000 people living in a tower block, or 1000 people, each with their own homes and lawns, sprawling across an entire suburban neighborhood? Of course, it's not as simple as that. Greenspace is important, which is why cities have parks.
    - nilkn 12y ago
      A lot of suburban neighborhoods are surprisingly not actually all that green: small yards, no trees (because they were all bulldozed and the residents, having exhausted themselves to buy the McMansion, can't really afford to re-do the landscaping from scratch), small backyards, houses crammed next to each other. And don't forget the very large paved roads to accommodate lines of parked vehicles on the side of the road (because naturally once you have a garage you just hoard crap in it and then park your three cars on the street) and all the armored tank SUVs passing between them.
    - WalterSear 12y ago
      I recommend you check out City of God to see what happens when people are housed away from economic centers - a necessity for suburban lawns, trees and plants. Moreover, these things take time to care for, and money - something that is missing, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's ridiculous to suggest that services/jobs don't hinge on high population densities and efficient use of space.
  - ams6110 12y ago
    Warehousing people you don't want to deal with doesn't work either. See Cabrini Green, or other public housing disasters.
    - fr0sty 12y ago
      I'm pretty sure there is at least one stopping place between 35 residents (one of the 'villages' from the article' and the 16,000 of Cabrini-Green.
    - WalterSear 12y ago
      That wasn't my point. My point was that this was a worse idea than that.
- Retric 12y ago
  Small houses can have fairly high populations density's. Let reserve 30'x30' plot per house. A parking space is 9 foot wide and 18 feet long call it 10'x20'. So you can go 3 deep with hosses and give them 30'x30' plots + 10'x20' parking space each. That's 120' for 3 houses, 20' for parking spaces then 30' of road and then parking + 3 more houses on the other side = 6 houses per 30' of road. Per acre that's 6* 43560 / ((30 * 3 * 2 + 2 * 20 + 30) * 30) ~= 34 houses per acre and 640 * 34 ~= 22,000 houses per square mile. For comparision DC has a total population density of 9,800 people per square mile. PS: Granted that's exluding work, shopping etc, but only 10 cit's in the US beat 22,000 people per square mile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by...
  - aetherson 12y ago
    And San Francisco has a population density of 17,867/sq mi. DC is a city with draconian height limits and a relentlessly suburban feel.
    - Retric 12y ago
      Sure, and San Franciso includes shops etc. So, there clearly not going to compete with 30 story apartment buildings. However, it's still fairly high population density so you can support things like good public transport links. IMO low cost housing is about more than just poor people. Condos are expensive for young professionals, so a cheaper option with a reasonable commute could be very useful financially.

by angdis 12y ago

cauterized 12y ago

But moving them to the area 3 hours drive away from the city where there's actually space to build some of these things doesn't help them deal with joblessness (or needing a second job to pay down debt, when you lose 6 hours/day to your commute) since employment is generally easier to find in a city. In most of these cases, what's needed is not to expand low-density areas with marginally higher density, but to increase density in higher density areas so that housing there becomes affordable, or to offer temporary free/subsidized housing in those high-density areas until people are back on their feet.

WalterSear 12y ago
Which is essentially the underlying plot of City of God. And which was based on a true story in the Brazilian favelas. It's just hipster hubris. If someone suggested building apartment blocks with the same square footage as those twee little houses, they would be accused of trying to warehouse the homeless, but it's actually a much better idea.
- adekok 12y ago
  Don't underestimate the power of green space. Having small homes in the middle of lawn, trees, and plants is much better than having small apartments in a dense apartment building. There's still the problem of services / jobs, of course. But that's a bit separate.
  - normloman 12y ago
    What preserves greenspace more: 1000 people living in a tower block, or 1000 people, each with their own homes and lawns, sprawling across an entire suburban neighborhood? Of course, it's not as simple as that. Greenspace is important, which is why cities have parks.
  - nilkn 12y ago
    A lot of suburban neighborhoods are surprisingly not actually all that green: small yards, no trees (because they were all bulldozed and the residents, having exhausted themselves to buy the McMansion, can't really afford to re-do the landscaping from scratch), small backyards, houses crammed next to each other. And don't forget the very large paved roads to accommodate lines of parked vehicles on the side of the road (because naturally once you have a garage you just hoard crap in it and then park your three cars on the street) and all the armored tank SUVs passing between them.
  - WalterSear 12y ago
    I recommend you check out City of God to see what happens when people are housed away from economic centers - a necessity for suburban lawns, trees and plants. Moreover, these things take time to care for, and money - something that is missing, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's ridiculous to suggest that services/jobs don't hinge on high population densities and efficient use of space.
- ams6110 12y ago
  Warehousing people you don't want to deal with doesn't work either. See Cabrini Green, or other public housing disasters.
  - fr0sty 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure there is at least one stopping place between 35 residents (one of the 'villages' from the article' and the 16,000 of Cabrini-Green.
  - WalterSear 12y ago
    That wasn't my point. My point was that this was a worse idea than that.
Retric 12y ago
Small houses can have fairly high populations density's. Let reserve 30'x30' plot per house. A parking space is 9 foot wide and 18 feet long call it 10'x20'. So you can go 3 deep with hosses and give them 30'x30' plots + 10'x20' parking space each. That's 120' for 3 houses, 20' for parking spaces then 30' of road and then parking + 3 more houses on the other side = 6 houses per 30' of road. Per acre that's 6* 43560 / ((30 * 3 * 2 + 2 * 20 + 30) * 30) ~= 34 houses per acre and 640 * 34 ~= 22,000 houses per square mile. For comparision DC has a total population density of 9,800 people per square mile. PS: Granted that's exluding work, shopping etc, but only 10 cit's in the US beat 22,000 people per square mile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by...
- aetherson 12y ago
  And San Francisco has a population density of 17,867/sq mi. DC is a city with draconian height limits and a relentlessly suburban feel.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Sure, and San Franciso includes shops etc. So, there clearly not going to compete with 30 story apartment buildings. However, it's still fairly high population density so you can support things like good public transport links. IMO low cost housing is about more than just poor people. Condos are expensive for young professionals, so a cheaper option with a reasonable commute could be very useful financially.