On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, volunteers put the finishing touches on small houses with the kind of basic amenities you don't see in Seattle homeless camps.
"The difference is you have electricity and a lock on the door," said Steve Tucker, a member of the Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd, which is hosting what organizers are calling Seattle's first tiny house village.
— Kiro TV
Seattle joins several other pioneering cities and states across the U.S. that have chosen to provide housing for the chronically homeless. These programs have shown that the housing actually saves governments money and eventually reduces the overall rate of transient recidivism. Here's a sampling of our coverage:
55 Comments
This represents everything that is great about our industry in America and exposes everything that is wrong with it as well. Great that disparate groups can come together and support a great cause. Altruism, design, shelter... i think i have a thesis! But if this is good enough for the homeless, why isn't it good enough for me? No, I have to deal with zoning, building codes, government inspection, seismic zones, hoa's, energy models, water tap fees, blah, blah, blah... bullshit.
^ Interesting point
If sweat shop conditions are OK for the Chinese, why do I have to deal with minimum wages, health insurance, worker's compensation, reasonable limits on hours, workplace safety, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, but the Chinese didn't build these houses... don't see your point.
If you don't see the point of regulations and governmental protection, I suggest you go build in a place that has none.
That is my point.
Get the point?
I suggest you wear boxers Pete... it will make you less cranky. These houses were built under complete goverment supervision. So I ask you again, if it's good enough for the homeless, why isn't good enough for me? Do you not believe that government regulation can go to far and that the individual has a responsibility to protect themselves?
I don't see how "government regulation can go to far" (SIC) and "the individual has a responsibility to protect themselves" has anything to do with the issue at hand.
If you would like to trade places with the homeless to free yourself from the troublesome government regulation, I would fully support your efforts. Let me know when we're renting the truck to get your stuff to Goodwill.
zoning, building codes, government inspection, seismic zones, hoa's, energy models, water tap fees, blah, blah, blah... bullshit.
Is somebody holding a gun to your head?
it's called SOCIETY and it has rules, besides, how can you tell from the article these units are not compliant?
I think that this is a great way to deal with homelessness. Certainly more humane than shelters.
Absolutely. And there's precedent for the removal of governmental red tape. Homelessness is on the level of a national emergency, and during other types of emergencies the typical rules and regulations are suspended.
I see that parallel in this situation, not a soapbox for tea party-esque ax grinding.
if you are sane and homeless its essentially your fault, barring major disasters that render you physically homeless? i.e. a hurricane...........homelessnesss is more a result of mental issues, which is a healthcare issue, so its not the best idea to use Architecture to essentially prolong the problem and avoid fixing the healthcare problem..........so either lower standards for living are good enough for us all or address the problem - which is a better healthcare system to essentially take "custody" (custodial care) of the homeless. yes this is a shelter, but improve the shelter within the rules that apply to us all.......this of course takes funding, which probably doesnt exist.............on my way to work every morning, groups of homeless leave their shelter. they all look the same - strung out from heavy drug usage and all sound the same as well, they just look burnt, but drug addiction is not a bad of a disease as cancer and therefore equal healthcare (which is shit anyway) wont't cover them.........so based on this news report, lowering Architrctural standards is better than raising healthcare standards - its cheaper for our government.
to simplify - it may be cheaper for the government to solve the homeless problem with architecture than with healthcare.
what other healthcare problems can architecture solve more affordably?
I might be wrong, but what I think wurdan is referring to is that the average person could not build something like this on their own property for say their elderly mother…or for yourself for that matter (i.e. tiny homes)…there are 1,200 SF minimums in my area and zoning that prohibits more than one dwelling unit on a plot or lot…don’t think it’s an argument about “homeless”.
Olaf, people are homeless for lots of reasons, but first and foremost is economics. No job, no money, no housing (among other things). We've had jobless recoveries for the last several economic crashes, a large segment of the population is without meaningful work or any work at all. Blanket classification of homelessness as a mental disorder is absolutely false.
On the other hand, homelessness as a cause of mental disorders ...
The average person shouldn't be ABLE to put this up, just as the average person couldn't do many of the other things that are allowed during emergencies.
I stand by my statement that homelessness is an emergency situation which, in my opinion, is why my panties are not in a bunch (contrary to the above suggestion) about the lack of regulation.
it says "chronic", which is not economics, it's a condition, a health condition
I get what Wurden is suggesting, that's what got me going
SneakyPete is suggesting it's an emergency, but I'm pretty sure "chronic" is not an emergency, rather a continuing condition.
so in short, the government is breaking it's own housing and zoning regulations to save on healthcare costs.
In Seattle, I think these help give homeless people a voice, a presence and and a more stable environment. Though you are right to say that this does not solve everything, this is a good foundation. Maybe health services can better access and meet people now? I was really happy to see these go up in Seattle. Last time I checked, the settlements also were only allowed to be in one location for a limited amount of time, but I don't know what the time frame is.
Well intentioned non-solution to endemic structural political and economic policies that perpetuate and accelerate concentration of wealth and resulting consequences.
^ what carrera said.... I could build one of these in a month.... I could rent it out for $500. Maybe thats the difference between making my mortgage and not. Or maybe by building one in my backyard I can keep my mom out of an old folks home. The government has no interest in helping the average joe who's paying for all these nice shelters and struggling just as much. Dot the i's, cross the t's or we fuck you up.... sure makes for a nice story though... madafaga.
wait, wurden, are saying the government is two faced and enjoys screwing the working class!...........so you give the rich tax breaks and you feel better about yourself by giving the homeless shelter?..............................................i propose - Architecure in lieau of Healthcare Act - If a homeowner chooses to take a person in need of custodial care in lieau of asking the government to perform a civil service to those in need, the homeowner may install a shack as a residence on said property. All zoning and code exclusions apply.
you can build one of these in your backyard just as you can build a treehouse or a storage shed or a gazebo. you're not thinking obama is going to take your lumber while he's at your house taking your guns are you?
what regulations are being violated with these? it's multi-family housing on a lot that's probably zoned for residential, but there are a lot of residential areas that allow multi-family. carerra says his neighborhood has a 1200sf minimum area, but my house is less than that and i live in what i would consider a pretty normal area, so it seems to me he's just out of touch with how real-life works in most areas. duplexes are common in residential areas, so having more than one dwelling unit on a lot is pretty normal. i don't know about the regulations that say there has to be a common party wall though.
i think what's more important is if renter's rights laws are going to be enforced. more than anything they need access to adequate water, sanitation, heat, etc. the individual units don't have that; it says there will be a common facility with hot/cold water and a toilet. showers will come some day. the laws exist because there is a minimum standard of living we expect, and slumlords are bad for the community.
this gets me to thinking why wurdan wants to build one of these and rent it out for $500 (they are charging $90 for these). i get that it's not something you literally want to do, but just for perspective, if you think you need to become a slumlord and build an environment for people to live in sub-standard conditions because you can't make your mortgage payment, shouldn't your first inclination be that your mortgage payment is too high and it's time to move somewhere more affordable? or are you essentially saying that you think other people should live in sub-standard conditions so you don't have to? it sounds like you're on the wrong side of growing wealth inequality like the rest of us. trying to tear down other people isn't the way to fix that.
You'll never build enough homeless sheds when the richest 1% have more wealth than the rest of the world combined.
^ I get that but this certainly helps people in immediate need. Soup drives may not solve hunger but that doesn't mean that it is not necessary.
Zoning/regs certainly create a min class for ownership/entrepreneurship. For instance, let's say the smallest lot one can buy in a given area is 1/4 acre. Assume that lot costs 100k. If you were to subdivide it into 8 section, each being 1400 sf and costing 12k, it could be possible for people of a modest income to actually save and build a small house and live debt free, start a small business, etc.
You can build a shed on your property, but you cant fucking live in it... You cant even use it as a home office unless you get permission and pay the tax man. And thats a 50/50 proposition. And look at those fucking foundations no way is that multifamily... its a fucking favela! HUD standards at best... try getting any property zoned to manufactured housing good luck... step in line.. disagree with the populace and you're a tea baggin' radical... while we're at it, lets drive around the neighborhood and call the AHJ on every homeowner in code violation... its for the common good! Besides, they're probably plotting terrorist activities... I'm probably a terrorist just for questioning the government policy... Its ok.. they can take everything I have without a trial and then I can move into one of these lovely homes as I fight to find out where they placed my children.
I'm all for shelter for the homeless, but what I can't stand is the gobmint persecuting it's citizens who are trying to survive. Homelessness is an extremity. Dont you think there are people who are not homeless who are struggling just as much who could benefit from the "leniency" of codes, permitting, process or even simply goodwill from the AHJ who helped push this through. And who decides who is and who isn't struggling. Why don't we just make it available to everyone. Gobmint says its good you get seattle. Gobmint says its bad you get denver http://denverhomelessoutloud.org/2015/10/25/tiny-homes-destroyed-by-city-10-arrested/
wurdan, you're not poor. the lengths you have to go to and things you have to do to 'survive' are different than what a homeless person has to do. it is not comparable. if you feel like you're struggling to meet your mortgage, move into a smaller house that is more in line with what you can afford. there's nothing wrong with that. anybody that thinks less of you for living within your means isn't going to be your friend anyway. to be clear, you are not being persecuted by government regulations that set minimum property standards or renter's rights. you might not be making as much money as you want, or the stuff you buy might cost more than you like, but that doesn't mean the government is persecuting you.
i think the sheds proposed, at least in the top picture here, are below the standard set for adequate housing. i agree that they should not allow these to be built, and instead should focus on the underlying causes of homelessness, which probably includes a range of things from mental health to lack of opportunity. aside from that, if you wanted to live in the shed in your back yard, you could do that. it's your shed. if you want to pitch a tent in the backyard and never go into your house, you can do that. if you were living in your shed though, you would still have access to the plumbing and sanitation and heat that your house offers.
if you shit all over your yard and let your trash pile up because you didn't want to live in your house, then you would be creating a sanitation problem and a public nuisance, and that is not legal. likewise if you had a tenant living in your backyard and you didn't provide the minimum required standards of a landlord-tenant relationship, then that's not ok.
nobody is going to arrest your kids for having a lemonade stand in your front yard either, despite the horror stories on youtube. at some point a little common sense has to be applied. please don't become a tea partier because you're afraid of government regulations that aren't really there. instead of seeing a political dichotomy: "step in line.. disagree with the populace and you're a tea baggin' radical" try to see it as a regulation for minimum standards of living. obviously in carrera's neighborhood they have a standard of living where the bottom is probably far above my life. that's ok. there's no need for me to be upset that the government isn't going to step in and give me enough money to be carerra's neighbor. on the other hand, i still have a house with a yard, so there's a lot less density in my neighborhood than somewhere with apartment blocks.
the denver article you linked is about people building property on land they don't own, which is obviously not allowable anywhere.
For the record: It’s a big country but I tried to build a 640SF cottage and searched 3 states and couldn’t find a single place that would allow it…while these places were full of grandfathered shacks…was advised to remodel one of the existing shacks…it’s ok for my neighbor to live in a 640SF home, built in the 50’s, but I can’t build the same thing new….it’s the hierocracy of it that attracts my attention.
The cottage was also going be off-grid; you can’t believe the bullshit I heard about that.
The last thing the govt and their banker overlords wants is for people to be able to own property free and clear. Small houses is a means to do that.
Now imagine such spaces available to the regular joe...commercially and residentially...perhaps a way to start that restaurant without taking a 500k loan...or a way regular people could actually afford to own quality design....or a way to survive like a human on a Walmart salary....
So yeah, I fully support it being available to the homeless, and will gladly pay taxes for such a program, but why can't we expand this to help the working poor...
^ Goes beyond the working poor, has to do with having the freedom to be debt free.
^ agree , should have said to help everyone
curt, What you are supporting leads to ghettos and nimbyism
no it doesn't.
obviously in carrera's neighborhood they have a standard of living where the bottom is probably far above my life. that's ok. there's no need for me to be upset that the government isn't going to step in and give me enough money to be carerra's neighbor. on the other hand, i still have a house with a yard, so there's a lot less density in my neighborhood than somewhere with apartment blocks.
Some regulations create a built environment that is organized by class. You acknowledged that yourself. Obviously a system that "protects" high end neighborhoods and middle neighborhoods will result in poor neighborhoods and ghettos. class stratification creates concentrations of poverty and crime. Without such "protections" the country would tend to be more of an averaged condition...with a more evenly spread demographic. Why is this good? Because poor people would have social access to rich people which would promote social and economic mobility and prevent the marginalization of certain classes of people and geographic areas. We wouldn't have Beverly hills, but we also wouldn't have Flint.
To add, it would also limit ones ownership to the property they own...I never understood these people who think that they own the neighborhood. Fuck them
i don't live in carerra's neighborhood. if you have a problem with carerra's neighborhood, it might be more helpful to address your concerns with him.
carerra lives in whatever sort of gated community has a restriction on houses under 1200sf. he probably lives there because he wants to live in a community where his neighbors can't build houses under 1200sf, and he wants to make sure he can tell his neighbors what they can't do. unfortunately this has the drawback where he is not allowed to build his own house less than 1200sf. while protecting his right to tell other people what to do, he doesn't want other people telling him what to do. i'm sure you can see the dilemma.
^The township I live in probably has a median income of $40k and it has a township wide SF restriction, it has nothing to do with my neighborhood. I was involved with developing our neighborhood and I deleted the SF restriction from our bylaws, but they still exist in the township.
Big fan of Lake-Flato’s Porch House, wanted to do a similar pocket development but cant. Can’t have separate living structures and of course restricted by township SF requirement. Our township is full of shacks but people can’t afford to get out of them for the lack of new alternatives. It is a "dilemma".
BTW – I don’t have a gate, but thanks for the idea.
which township is that carrera?
^My psychiatrist cured me of committing suicide.
Zoning here in Paradise has been turned upside down. Minimum exclusionary lots sizes and square footage requirements turned into limits on house size (calculated on lot size) because people were maxing out the lots. Now people are buying multiple adjoining lots and combining them to increase buildable area.
curtkram its pretty standard zoning to limit minimal sizes of lot SF, lengths and widths, and house sizes. the good intention is to limit potential favellas and over crowding, the bad intention would be there to limit who can own........but its pretty much a planning thing which may or may not be politically motivated
another example: occasionally I get a client who asks, "can we do a mother-daughter addition?"........in short two entrances to two seperate units in same detached (single) family dwelling. the answer usually is, based on the zoning - Technically you can not. There are obviously a zillion ways around this. But, you could view this as the government saying - "no you cant live like the old country, your family values are not legal here".
Heavily involved with zoning years ago, Many, many areas of the county didn't have zoning or had patch together attempts, then computers came along and everybody started passing around copies of good versions and copying them, problem is everybody has the same version... in my 3 state search they were all the same which ignores the specific demographic needs of the different communities... hard to find a prototypical "cottage" on my cottage quest.... lakes surrounded with McMansion's with 2 car garages... what about fishing camps, multigenerational cottages etc.?
They seek quality with numbers when quality comes from values and since we don't have values we get numbers.
Zoning regs are about creating "economic growth" Aka bringing the cost of RE/living up....
The value system is numerical: $
And that is a chronic condition. When the patient expires we can start over.
Rinse and repeat, it's the human condition.
here is a 14'x14' house designed by an architect who was able to quit bitching about how the government is out to get him and instead just did his job.
http://architizer.com/blog/jim-olson-residence/
What began as a 14-foot-square bunk house built in 1959 has morphed through subsequent remodels in 1981, 1997, 2003 and 2014 into a modest yet highly liveable weekend retreat. Each successive addition and remodel has reused and integrated the previous structure rather than erasing it to reveal the cabin's architectural history.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.