using an old, abandoned bridge for this project could be interesting, making it a habitable bridge--the water-spanning habitat.

I agree with your professor. Homelessness is an economic problem. Architecture can't solve it. There are other things you can design related to social care. Hospital, Hospice Center, Elderly home, etc. Don't get stuck on the concept of 'social care=poor people'.

You may be over-romanticizing the homeless. The ones that are truly 'on the streets' often suffer from health and mental problems, and self enabling them becomes an impossible task. Build their own shelters? Seems like a stretch. These people need compassionate social programs.

More interesting topic (in my opinion) is the whole transient culture. People barely not homeless. Here is an article from today that talks about long-term- stay motels. People that are barely scraping by, who may have a credit rating too poor to rent an apartment, are increasingly turning to motels. Since the onset of recession there is an alarming increase of such people. The architecture typology that goes with this is a run down motel. Perhaps there is an opportunity there to suggest a new building type. Could be an interesting architectural discussion.

Good luck! 

"architecture can't solve social problems"

"homelessness is an economic problem"

Architecture is an economic problem. Economics are a social problem. Your professor is an idiot.

Thank you folks for you great comments! :) 

I am really excited to hear different opinions! This is exciting!!!

@rusty! - I like your idea! :) and I spent the last 2 days thinking about it in that way too.. I got some insight from people not in architecture.. just to see where I can take this instead of having to start with something completely different... :) And thanks for the article!!.. that would be a great start.!

thanks again everyone! :D

mfoo: Glad you like the idea. Things to consider: there has always been a flophouse (boardinghouse) typology in most cities since before the industrial revolution. Funny thing happened in the US though. Beginning in the '80's, a lot of municipalities passed laws practically banning such places.  It was done through subtle bylaws, such as "each unit must have a washroom and a kitchen" virtually eliminating dorm-style shared living accommodations. Noone wants these types of places in their own background. 

Also worth considering is the line between short and long term stay - as legally defined. I know in California they have strong tentant protection laws. They can't just kick you out for missing a rent check. To qualify you need to sign at least a one month lease. Thus, most long-term motels only do month less a day types of contracts. And they make you completely move out and move back in each month.

Your thesis will have a heavy political slant. All good architecture is political in nature, so don't be afraid. I'm glad you are enthusiastic to tackle such impossible issue. As you continue to explore this topic, it will change you as a person. For the better.

If you want to be hardcore about it, I highly recommend seeking out the closest long-term motel to you and spending a month living there. As long as they are not already booked up in advance for years.

Rusty makes a good point. Ideas like this end up being much more about politics, policy-making, community awareness, NIMBY-ism, etc. that actual design.
 

I did my master's thesis on portable housing for migrant farm workers coming in from Mexico.  My original idea was to design a sort of living pod that could be carted from job to job, but my thesis ended up being a long paper defending the idea in the first place due to the criticisms I received halfway through the project.

Check out the documentary "Motel Kids"  its a really good one.  It was on HBO a few months ago, and is about this issue of homeless kids growing up in motels in CA. 

It may be interesting to look at some hybrid typology between a motel and a community.  Most of these kids as you will see in the film, spend their day playing in the parking lot.

In response to Junior's idea, I couldn't help but think of Richard Dorsey.  He was a homeless person in Chicago that created a shelter underneath a drawbridge.  Not only did the shelter move whenever the bridge was raised, it also tapped into the bridges power supply, so that he could watch TV.  It's kind of a fascinating example of a homeless person creating a home within the excess spaces of infrastructure.  It's obviously not a viable solution to homelessness, but it's an interesting example.

http://archidose.blogspot.com/2004/12/file-under-amazing.html

I think your professor might be trying to steer you away from the topic because it opens you up to a lot of criticism that can become a huge distraction away from anything you make.  If you want your project to tackle homelessness than you really need to frame it in economic and social terms.  What is currently done to address these problems in society?  How would your project be better than the current methods? 

Always remember that building anything is an expensive proposition and it needs to be justified especially when you are dealing with homelessness, affordable housing and social programs. You need to zero in on a specific set of problems.  I think the long term motel is an interesting angle that could lead you in some interesting directions.

When I did my thesis project, I tried to come up with some sort of a sustainable idea where the people living in the site were part of the design process too. I loved the DIY aspect, but my professor haaaaated it...Long story short, after some trial and error, I ended up going a different route.

The sustainable approach came from reusing buildings, but since that isn't enough, I added to them in a way that corresponded with their architectural style. One building was a romanesque revival, built some time in the late 1880's, and it got a romanesque inspired addition. The other building was more modern, having been built in the 60's, and recieved a more modern alteration (lots of big windows and a funky angled roof). I used the influences of these buildings to come up with a design for a brand new building across from the site.

This all worked out because I proposed an architectural problem (to come up with a hybrid of architectural styles that reflected the "indigenous" architecture of the neighborhood I was working with) which I solved by looking in the neighborhood for inspiration, instead of just designing 'whatever I wanted and if you don't like it, tough'. It also worked because I added a little sustainability into it (reusing existing buildings, adding green space to a formerly industrial cooridor, Green roofs ect.) I focused on a social problem (retaining artists and other creative types in a rapidly changing neighborhood)  and I paid attention to scale (focusing first on the individual buildings, than the site they were on, then adjacent sites, then the neighborhood as a whole.)

I think that as long as you're exposing a problem and coming up with a solution, then you'll have a successful thesis. The thing is, it has to be a problem that you feel strongly about, but can detatch yourself from simultaneously. If you're too attatched to the problem you're trying to solve, then it becomes a personal matter, and it gets harder to accecpt criticism. Also, it can't be solely a social problem, there needs to be an architectural problem/solution involved, otherwise its just a dissertation on a social issue, not an architectural thesis.

http://www.commonground.org/?page_id=24

Not sure if this is what you were asking for, but I find the best thesis topics emerge from in-depth research, about your site or larger issues. I'd agree with some of the others and say that your professor is an idiot! If you are really interested in this topic, you need to make more of a case for the why. Just do not jump to a conclusion about what the final design should be at the moment, do some research about issues regarding homelessness and choose a site that exemplifies those issues. Then go from there!!! :-)

I think it sounds like a wonderful, but challenging, concept.

Check out Dignity Village in Portland, OR. It is an interesting example of transitional housing, i.e. the formerly homeless that are making a conscious and vested effort to come back into the 'socio-economic' fabric of an urban area. Also it involves your idea of the person putting their own labor into their new 'home', thus hopefully giving them a sense of dignity and accountability for realizing their re-integration into the economically productive part of society...

I do agree with other posts though, I tried to do my undergraduate thesis related to design and refugee housing with references also to disaster-induced refugees, but ended with a diagram set and a research paper that was a review of refugee law and a case for the ability of 'design' to offer better living conditions with limited resources.. there are so many issues regarding the homeless, and so many efforts by so many cities that it could be difficult for your design focused thesis to garner validation in areas of both theory/academics and practice. Good luck.

find an adaptive re-useable site/building. re-visit with your professor how it is relative to your theme - homelessness/sustainability/socially relevant - and how you intend to realize implementation - then go for it!

Might want to check out the documentary Dark Days (2000)  "A cinematic portrait of the homeless population who live permanently in the underground tunnels of New York City."
They built their own homes and everything. Worth checking out..

mfoo

First of all i would like to agree with everyone that says your professor is an idiot.  If you need proof look to the work of any of these guys…
 

Bryan Bell, Sam Mockbee, Sergio Palleroni, Wes Janz, Hector LaSala, Craig Wilkins, Scott Shaw, and the list goes on.  (If you want a more complete list, I can give it to you)
 

My thesis topic started in a similar position as yours, looking to the homeless and trying to think about how they could engage in the design process and ultimately build for themselves.  I strayed a little bit from the original idea but I think what was most interesting for me was the multitude of different issues that each and every person in poverty faces.  Yes its true rusty!, that many of the homeless deal with serious addition and metal health issues.  But in an economy that is in the toilet, more and more people have fallen victim to homelessness.  I think the best way for you to address your topic is to expand your scope and think more holistically about the entire process.  My thesis was titled Design2Empower and, through my research I found that that’s the only way to lift people from poverty.  Not only do they need the skills to succeed but they also need to believe in themselves and have the support structure to do so. 
http://onesmallproject.com/
http://invisiblepeople.tv/blog/
http://apps.cadc.auburn.edu/rural-studio/Default.aspx
http://www.nwsatterfield.com/design-2-empower#!__design-2-empower
http://www.bryanbell.org/
http://www.acadianaoutreach.org/
 

Red Feather Development Group (not an architecture firm per say, but food for thought) in Montana: https://www.redfeather.org/

i wouldnt call your professor an idiot. he/she is partly correct.

architecture alone cannot solve social problems, and homelessness is a multi-faceted concern of which architecture is only a part of the solution to.

as the reference above uses sambos work as an example, mockbee himself had specifically stated that the attempt was not to change the way people live, but to simply make their lives much better by providing access to well-designed housing. that architecture can help alleviate poverty is a topic which includes those who have a tremendous understanding of real-estate, finance, and politics(among others). and maybe that is why your adviser suggested you choose a different topic.

if you are extremely passionate about the your choice above, fight it; you should go live on the street for a while before you really decide whether or not you can 'bring order' to 'the life of a homeless person.' but you can help increase their quality of life tremendously! potable water and clean air goes a long way. the way you describe your idea, it sounds like a place id really like to live. off the grid, sharing ideas, developing skills to help me ::cough:: earn a living.

anyway, i really do like your initial idea and think you should really think out what is a personal fetish or realistic expectation.

whatever you choose, rusty is spot on with his recommendation. wasnt it mockbee who made williams quote famous? 'the best architect is the one "with the most profound insight into the lives of the community."

it may be your prof simply wanted you to be more careful and rigorous about the topic.  it comes up a lot and often is poorly executed by students who realise it isn't so much a design problem after all and get trapped writing a policy paper.  which is not a bad thing, and could arguably be called the best kind of architecture even, but is difficult to grade and to critique.

if you really want to pursue this topic you need to set very strict parameters.  it is also very important to do the research to show that your design works and is substantial enough to earn you the grade to graduate with the degree.  this is especially important because unlike other projects yours will be one in which the design is only the tip of the iceberg and all the real work will be invisible if you don't take the time to make it clear and obvious.

if you were my student i would require you to actually build it and use it with actual homeless people and prove the concept.  otherwise it's just a short assignment in design and not close to deep enough. let's be honest,  it is easy to design a shelter.  there are all kinds of options already out there (check AFH website just to start) and what you are bringing to the table needs to be something new.  the research is about interacting with real people with real issues and not a superficial design project, so unless you make it real all you are doing is pretending to have solved something without actually facing the real problems involved.

if your professor is not an idiot (i will give you the credit of assuming you are not going to a school so shitty that it is populated by morons, and also that you didn't choose a brain-challenged instructor to be your advisor to begin with), he may have already thought of all this and decided it wasn't going to happen so is not so supportive.  or maybe he just doesn't see any way around it.  if you really want to do it then why not bring a real proposal back to him and explain exactly what you will do and what the expected outcome will be in real and clear terms.

Research: precedents, current discourse on topics (DIY construction, sheltering for transient people, etc), parameters (what, why, etc)

Then provide why your thesis is relevant in design discourse (if it ends up being a policy paper, chances are there are others who are far more knowledgeable and articulate in that field) now and what it brings to the table.  Architecture as a means of social change has been debunked in most people's minds after the spectacular failure of Pruitt-Igoe (and all it's related social housing projects), so responding to that would probably be a key component to respond to.  Ditto for the liability and post-construction responsibility on the part of designers (long list of great built projects that failed shortly after the magazine photos were taken...)

I recall meeting a man who was trained as an architect (MArch) that I met at a soup kitchen in college, he was explaining to me that an opportunity was missed in many urban areas to provide for a longer term shelter where residents could use as an address to find jobs. Most shelters don't allow them to use the address for correspondence or job applications, forcing folks to scrounge up change to travel to relatives' homes to find work.  This is, of course, not a design problem.

If your insisting on focusing on the homeless, why not focus on getting them off the street. In most cities, there are homeless shelters that serve the homeless, carrer centers that help the jobless and community centers that offer a variety of functions from swimming pools to gyms to classes that teach skills. Maybe the three could be brought together....I'll leave it at that, you're going to need to figure the rest out yourself, since it's your project.

So glad to read architects admitting homelessness is an economic problem and not a design problem.

There is currently a big competition here in Melbourne: designing for the homeless. Butterpaper (as always) has put this in an interesting light http://www.butterpaper.com/cms/news/2002/designing-for-the-homeless (read the criticism of this type of thing coming from people whose jobs actually deal with the homeless)