Is this for academic research or professional practice? I have some experience in the latter.

I want to check out both published works and hear about experiences in practice. I am a (planning) student, however, this is a topic I want to look into on my own time because it's something that interests me (i.e. designing safe havens/designing for marginalized people).

At this point, it's not for a class or term paper.. but who knows, if I am intrigued enough with what I find I may want to develop something more formal from that.

I am actually doing some similar research right now and just finished a book that has lots of information in regards to various temporary living situations...it analyzes them all as types of camps.

The book is called Camps - A Guide to 21st Century Space

http://www.amazon.com/Camps-Guide-21st-Century-Charlie-Hailey/dp/0262512874/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244122550&sr=8-1

I've worked on a couple of transitional housing projects professionally, so here's my take on a few nuts-and-bolts issues. These observations may or may not apply to your research.

In the US, these projects are usually funded by the state or local government, a non-profit group (usually with some government funding), or some sort of non-profit/government partnership. The good side to this is that the client generally has sincere motives and really wants to do things the right way, and that these types of projects tend to remain steady even during an economic downtown. The bad news is, funding is always tight, and every design decision needs to be made with an eye toward the bottom line. You won’t be specifying granite countertops or Lacava bath fixtures.

Also, as with any government project, there tends to be a lot more red tape involved and many more hoops to jump through. On private developments, you're often dealing with one guy (who may or may not have his last name on the door) whose word is final, and decisions tend to be quick and decisive regardless of whether you agree with those decisions or not. On a government job, your "client" may consist of twenty civil service workers in a conference room, each with his/her own focus and priorities, and they probably won't all agree with each other. This isn't to say they aren't good at what they do or that they don't mean well, but decision-making can be a long and tedious process, and decisions made months ago may be second-guessed at any time.

As for the facility itself, on my projects the idea has been to take in people who have problems with chronic homelessness and give them a safe place to live, while providing necessary support and life skills training so that they can eventually transition to the regular workforce and support themselves in the community. Many of the clients have problems with mental illness and substance abuse issues that need to be dealt with, and many will have criminal records. This will have an impact on the architectural design of the facility.

In general, the idea is for the facility to function much like a normal apartment building, and have a real sense of “home” that blends in with the surrounding community. The idea is to integrate the residents into society, not further isolate them. As such, iconic “look at me” starchitecture would be inappropriate. That doesn’t mean the design shouldn’t be of high quality and well thought out, but IMO, these projects aren’t the place for Ghery or Zaha-inspired gymnastics. The building wants to be a quiet and well-behaved neighbor, not a drama queen. Most importantly, the facility should look and feel like home, not a police station or mental hospital. This may require some restraint on the part of the ambitious young architect, and you may have to grit your teeth while putting high-tech modernism on the back burner in favor of ornamental brickwork and traditional light fixtures. (You might be able to tell I speak from some personal experience here.)

That said, the program will often involve many functions not found in your typical neighborhood apartment building. Security is always an issue, and there will probably be a front desk that’s staffed 24 hours. This front desk needs to have a clear view of the main building entrance and elevators (if applicable) at all times. Universal design is also a big issue, as many of the residents may have physical disabilities and/or use wheelchairs. There’s a good chance you’ll end up designing above and beyond the minimum standards set forth by ADA or the local accessibility code. Also, there will need to be spaces set aside for staff offices, caseworker offices, a clinic (with medications kept under lock and key), conference room, community room, laundry, classrooms, computer room, exercise room, etc. The client will usually have pretty specific ideas about how they want these spaces to be arranged and how they will function.

The apartments themselves will usually be furnished studio apartments with private bathrooms, and they may or may not each have their own private kitchens (there may be a communal kitchen and dining room instead of, or in addition to, private kitchens). Nothing fancy, but again, they usually need to be made wheelchair-accessible, and should look and feel like real apartments instead of prison cells or hospital rooms.

The building type may not easily lend itself to the glossy pages of Dwell or Architectural Record, but it’s a challenging design problem and there’s always the potential of doing something really special. The best part is, you feel like your work will really make a positive difference for its end users and the larger community, rather than just being another piece of portfolio fodder.

*...economic downturn

BAM.

They just finished a study this year-- in Seattle-- I believe that proves mroe and more that housing first is the best option to treating homelessness.

There's been objections to the housing first method before on the basis of costs... but the hidden costs of keeping homeless people in shelters, halfway houses and transitional housing ranges between 3 to 7 thousand dollars a month.

Housing first is between 500 to 2000 a month and uses current-- non-specific-- housing stock.

One of the problems I've read in another housing study is that people-- ^^ above -- essentially destroy the chance of homeless people trying to recover through project specific and action specific solutions to homelessness.

Homelessness isn't a design problem... it's a lack of humanity problem. Designing specific solutions to cure "homelessness" dehumanizes the person, outcasts them through design and intent and reminds that that everything they are around is about homelessness.

It works the same way for "project housing." Ultimately, this is why Section 8 housing tends to work slightly better because Section 8 housing utilizes existing everyday housing stock that has no social stigma attached to it.

BAM yourself. The OP specifically asked about transitional housing, so I talked about transitional housing. That's different than what you're talking about.

Housing First may or may not be as great as you say it is. The Wikipedia article reads more like a press release than a balanced view, and you "read something in another housing study"? Fine, let's see it so we can judge its methodology.

My client has over 10,000 residents in NYC, and once they leave transitional housing and get their own jobs and apartments, 85% of them still have those jobs and apartments after six months. I think that's a pretty good track record.

Thanks for the input so far everyone!

chupacabra: The research about camps sounds awesome. With temporary living situations, I'm very curious about place/time. Especially with homeless shelters, I wonder how the transitional nature impacts a homeless personal psychologically. Viewing it from an old school sense (and I hope this doesn't sound demeaning because that's not my intent), the homeless are nomadic, even if not by choice. Supposing it is what they desire, how can a sense of belonging and stability be established for a homeless person living in transitional housing?

LiG: I've though about your points on the design of these spaces as being well designed/high quality without a starchitect's flashiness. I agree that type of design is inappropriate in transitional housing. To the other extreme, I also agree that many housing projects of the past have a prison like feel. That's my main issue here probably. I'm really interested in how to create anonymity while still offering a great deal of comfort for residents, not a place that is impersonal and clinical. I work at a public agency with extremely rigid design guidelines. While I feel they are making an effort towards better design, a lot of it still comes off as way too homogeneous. I understand a lot of this is a way to navigate the overwhelming amount of bureaucracy... create a format and stick to it so things run more smoothly. The idealist in me sees this as detrimental to the people these places are created for. Each location has a different type of user with very specific needs and I feel that gets lost in the planning.

Aside from all that, any thoughts about shelters for women?

The book camps actually offers a new perspective to the situations that have been framed in this thread - that is sort of the point of the book, to venture beyond the traditional framing within the 'transitional' housing framework. It goes on to look as Camping as an largely autonomous activity and one that allows for a flexible engagement - both temporally and spatially. This opens up many conflicting points within the supportive housing dialogue; such as the legal definition of temporary place such as katrina trailor camps which have now recently been given extended stay - blurring what the definition of temporary is.

It also goes further by looking at refugee camps which become large urban centers within very short periods of time...All of these differences allow for a critical view of a wide variety of elements ranging from material, need, identity, etc.

I found it quite liberating in that it creates a wider umbrella in which to discuss the shared issues within a larger context thus subverting the tradtional dialectic traps contained within the issue of 'supportive or transitional' housing.

best of luck.