At the city’s first tiny home village, scheduled to open in January, each of the 39 closet-sized homes is costing $130,000, about 10 times what some other cities are spending. Five more villages are planned to open later. — Los Angeles Times
LA Times Senior Writer Doug Smith reports on the progress, and higher-than-usual costs, of erecting tiny home villages in a City of Los Angeles effort to take on its ballooning homelessness crisis.
"Mayor Eric Garcetti announced the program in March," writes Smith, "signaling that the concept of sheltering people in tiny homes, long neglected in Los Angeles, had emerged as a leading strategy in the city’s response to a federal lawsuit alleging it has done too little to get homeless people off the streets."
24 Comments
Its a good start but there really needs to be coordination between state governments - there's only so much CA can do if other states continue to send homeless folks over.
Even if states are not "send[ing] homeless folks over" (can you provide anything that indicates this is a real phenomenon?) they would find their way here due to the benefits available in comparison to other states, including a climate that won't kill them in the winter.
The Grapes of Wrath 2.0
Are they suggesting someone out there is spending about 13k for a tiny home solution? If so I'd really like to know who, and how they pulled it off.
If we think its bad now, wait until 2021, when the economic bottom falls off. A few tiny homes is nice, but neither this nor yimbyism is going to fix 40 years of socioeconomic neglect, migration, mental health, stagnation, etc. The best thing to do would be a new deal scale (CWA) construction training program that would relocate homeless in surrounding rural areas where they could train and build their own homes and communities away from the city. We are going to need more skilled construction, electricians, solar, geothermal installers, etc and these communities can be the first. Then, after building their homes, they can choose whether to stay there or return to the city to work there.
You are forgetting one big problem, most homeless people have mental illness or drug addiction.
"most"
citation needed.
the only way to treat mental illness or drug addiction is purpose and opportunity. as opposed to deblaz spending 1B to "treat mental illness" by talking to people then sending them back into the streets with no self or societal value or tangible skills.
"the only way" <<citation needed>>
Architects: the experts on mental illness and drug addiction.
I’m always amazed here at the thinly veiled sanctimony covering bad people who don’t give a fuck about anything other than conspicuous wokeness
Pete I've got a little firsthand experience with both, because of Architecture.
I’m always amazed here at the thickly applied assumptions covering bad people who don’t give a fuck about anything other than their own mossy navels.
Watch ‘Wild Wild Country’. The tried importing homeless to a countryside commune/cult. Didn’t work out too good.
I dunno if I'd blame that outcome entirely on the homeless...
Ah, so your solution is to send them off to the hinterlands and see if they will come back. This is not only stupid but also has been tried many times and never works. People move where there's opportunity, not nothingness.
That said, I dont think they tiny homes idea will work either, as there needs to be a comprehensive socio-economic solution to this, not just some Garcetti patchwork bullshit idea.
I also wonder how many city officials making 140k per year "worked" on these shelter village ideas..
130k is truly ridiculous and Trifling, the closet homes anywhere else would be 35k especially taking into consideration how many or being built , what no discount lol, The people purposing this must be doing a reach around and hooked up with the builders and contractors
Awesome combination of gross and groundless. lol.
He's at least partly right on the pricing part. Their is a huge labor premium in LA, and also a huge design premium based on requirements due to earthquakes. Whatever is being bought would be 1/3 somewhere else.
And 130 for an oversized Porta Potty... wtf. Even here that is just stupid.
Wasteful spending, someone should investigate and follow the money
here’s an idea. Rather than charging arch students 100k for a degree, redirect some of that loot so that they can design and build a shelter or remodel a distressed property for a homeless person. Like Taliesin meets Skidrow
They will get experience hands on, help someone,
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.