At a time when permanent supportive housing takes years to build and the average cost per unit has climbed to nearly $600,000, the cost of these tiny homes came to about $68,000 each, or roughly $35,000 per bed, according to De León’s office.
In his speeches, De León likes to ask, “in what parallel universe” is it better to leave people on the street than move them into various forms of temporary housing while awaiting more permanent housing?
— LA Times
LA Times columnist Steve Lopez visited the second-newest in a string of tiny home developments opened in November in a space that had previously been sparsely used as a parking lot for the Eagle Rock Recreation Center and co-owned and operated by the city, county, and utilities giant SoCal Edison. At 224 beds, it is reported to be the largest of its kind anywhere in the United States and was proceeded by four similar Lehrer-designed projects across northern Los Angeles, all of which are run by a local charity called Hope in the Valley.
A frequent criticism lobbed at the mayoral frontrunner Kevin de León echoes a debate within the architectural community as to whether or not such a confined (each cabin is only 64 square feet) and, in the case of the Arroyo Seco Tiny Homes, shared space truly aligns with a humane vision of housing justice championed by de León and others. The critique has placed the councilmember and his supporters in the unenviable position of having to defend their progressive bonafides in relation to their support for cost-efficient housing that one vocal protestor equated to tool sheds.
“Throughout history,” a proponent of de León’s pointed out to Lopez, “people on the right are criticized by people who are further to the right, and people on the left are criticized by people further to the left. That’s what this is, and the people doing the criticizing haven’t housed one person.”
12 Comments
The way I see it, these are imperfect temporary solutions - but still better than nothing. There's a tendency in some circles to lambaste any proposals that do not deal with fundamental, societal roots of the problem, thus leaving no solutions on the table at all. There is one danger to temporary solutions - that they detract from efforts to deal with the root of the problem, or give policymakers the impression that the problem has been dealt with. This is something to look out for.
In his speeches, De León likes to ask, “in what parallel universe” is it better to leave people on the street than move them into various forms of temporary housing while awaiting more permanent housing?
The wrong question.
Give the homeless existing housing.
Considering the average age of a homeless person is 11 why don't they build a bunch of treehouses?
“ Give the homeless existing housing”. Can you explain how that would work?
Take it. Expropriate.
What existing housing? There’s a huge shortage of housing nationally, as well as in LA. We need actual solutions, not slogans or flippant commentary to solve this crisis.
Matter of perspective. LA actually has by some degree more unoccupied housing units than it has homeless people. The problem is that they are market rate or luxury units. Many of which are empty, many of which are just not occupied such as second apartments, etc. I can't easily explain how this could be used legally or cost effectively, but the reality is that space for people isn't the problem
Architects do a real disservice to society with projects like this.
No one wants to live in projects like this.
No one can get a job without a fixed address.
“Housing First” philosophy, whose advocates say that providing permanent housing is the first priority in solving the crisis. As a result, shelters were converted into comfortable permanent homes, with staff on hand to support those with addictions, or in need of life skills and training and work placement.
Housing First advocates say that research has shown stable housing for all people has proven to be the most effective remedy, both for improving lives and saving money.
One such study from 2009, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, saw costs to Seattle’s public-health system drop by 60 per cent after the first six months, when chronically homeless people with severe alcoholism obtained stable homes.
But, one thing I would wonder, is why can we not combine the ideas. A sort of planned community approach. Work with the USPS to assign each of these tiny homes in the development a PO box as a permeant address. And they are built in the parking lot of a community center right? Then have job training, addiction services, clothes rental (for interviews) and other services through the community center. Then have a system where, once people are employed, they pay a bare bottom rent, like $100 a month, as a donation to keep the services running while they build their financial stability and eventually leave for better housing once they hit a certain income threshold. Now we have cheap housing for the homeless, services to fix the underlying problems, money coming in to help offset city costs and most of all a path toward regular permeant housing
*Citation Globe and Mail* I believe
We need to stop letting Perfect act as the enemy of Good.
I think that’s right. I also think tiny homes for the homeless could be integrated into existing parks. This was an idea I had some years ago. The park provides the social and diverse environment so that the homeless population isn’t all centralized somewhere….and the security is often already in place to some degree. For access to the homes, and a sense of purpose, the occupants can take on some work caring for the park. There has to be rules and whatnot to stay in the homes, but it could work I think.
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.