
Are Tiny Houses the Key to Fighting Homelessness? - yiedyie
http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/24/are-tiny-houses-the-key-to-fighting-homelessness/
======
Mz
Upvoted and I hope it gets read but I don't think any one thing is THE
solution to homelessness.

In previous life, I wanted to be an urban planner. As part of that, I took a
class on _Homelessness and Public Policy_ at SFSU. I am currently homeless and
have been for over two years.

So, some thoughts in brief:

Current housing stock, financing, and policies in the U.S. is very skewed
towards housing for "the nuclear family" and is rooted in things that happened
when our soldiers came home from WWII. In the decades since, our demographic
has diversified thus this type of housing stock, financing infrastructure and
policies no longer fit our needs. Ironically, the result is we no longer have
a lot of the options that were once fairly common here, like SRO's and
boarding houses, which were better suited to single people with limited
incomes. You increasingly see things like 3 (or more) roommates sharing a
three bedroom apartment designed with the nuclear family in mind.

Yes, smaller houses would be nice. Post WWII, the average new home was around
1200sf. In 2000, the average new home was over 2000sf and housed fewer people
and had more amenities. This is driven in part by tax policies that encourage
those who can afford a house at all to buy the largest house they can afford.
Meanwhile, homelessness is on the rise because it is increasingly hard to
afford housing at all.

I have commented on this in various places over the years. I could probably
write a good blog post on it. But most people seem to think this entrenched
history is irrelevant. So I see little reason at this time to put much effort
into laying it all out.

~~~
lotharbot
My family has lived in the same neighborhood since 1951, and I work in one of
our local schools. I often tell visitors about the history of the area to
explain the struggles we have in our student body. Most of the houses were
built right after the end of WWII by veterans who were starting their own
families. They're what was considered starter houses even back then -- right
around a thousand square feet, 3 small bedrooms, 1 small bathroom, a combined
kitchen-dining area, and no dedicated laundry space (my grandparents' house
originally had these characteristics; they eventually expanded and still live
there.) By a decade later, many of those families were ready to move up, and
they moved into the bigger houses being built farther away from the city (I
grew up a mile west, where the average house was built a decade later and is
more like 2000 square feet, 4+ bedrooms, 3+ bathrooms, with dedicated laundry
rooms and rec rooms and fireplaces.)

Over time, the old and small homes in my grandparents' area became the bottom
of the barrel for family living, which means they attract the poorest segments
of society -- 90% of students in my school are native speakers of other
languages (primarily Spanish), whose parents came to the area to make a living
mostly as unskilled laborers who haven't moved up the ladder very far since
arriving. At their income levels, many of them can't even afford this low-end
housing -- so they end up with multiple parts of an extended family sharing a
single house. This creates problems of various kinds for my students.

I have no doubt that some of these families would benefit from very small,
truly affordable housing -- housing that fits their circumstances (low income,
limited job prospects, sometimes no support network), instead of the
circumstances my grandparents grew up under (the GI bill, family support, a
manufacturing and export economy whose primary competitors were ravaged by the
war.)

~~~
Mz
I lived in a duplex in Richland Washington that was built in the 1950s. It was
in a very walkable neighborhood. I was a homemaker and we had two kids and one
car. I found that a two bedroom, 1950's style home worked quite well for my
1950's style lifestyle at the time, much better than a lot of more 'modern'
housing where you can't get anywhere without having two cars, etc. My sons
hate the suburbs. My oldest refers to most suburbs as "suburban hell" because
we live without a car and you just can't walk to anything in most American
suburbs, especially those built relatively recently.

I also lived in Europe for a time, where homes tend to be smaller than than in
the U.S. But the problem I have with articles like this one is that it is a
poverty mentality solution, which helps keep poverty alive. It is not
proposing policies which remove the incentives that are causing new housing to
be 2000 sf or more. It is not making it more feasible for "normal" people to
get a small place. It proposing tiny houses specifically for very poor people
who are currently homeless. This is not a good way to solve the problem. That
approach is basically how welfare began -- by defining the needy population as
"poor, single moms" \-- and it actively grew the population of poor single
moms. This makes problems more entrenched. It is not a "solution."

Thanks for your great comment.

~~~
iamwithnail
That's a great comment, except for the last bit. The evidence does not support
that welfare grows the welfare population. Concur on the other issues, though.
London, where we live, is similar.

~~~
Mz
I no longer recall the title of the book but I read the history of this in the
U.S. I did not say welfare grows the welfare class. It grows the number of
single mothers who, thus, live in poverty. When welfare was designed in the
U.S., "poor, single moms" were mostly widows and considered "deserving poor."
They did everything right -- got married, had kids within the bonds of
marriage, etc -- and had something unfortunate happen.

In Europe, a lot of "welfare" type programs are designed to help women or
pregnant women or children or families regardless of income level or marital
status. In the U.S., such aid is almost always tied to some criteria proving
you "need" it. So you can't get help until a) you already screwed up and b)
you are willing to fill out forms testifying that you are a screw up. This has
substantial negative psychological impacts that I don't think you see in
Europe (yes, I lived in Europe for a time and have read books and articles
comparing European policies to American ones in this area).

~~~
Mz
Oh, geez, I did not really finish my point:

In the U.S., welfare -- which requires a woman to be both a mother and
unmarried to qualify -- actively discourages "shotgun weddings" and changed
the social contract so that having babies out of wedlock is now much more
acceptable than it was when the system was conceived. At the time, it was
inconceivable that women would choose to intentionally have babies out of
wedlock. This is no longer true in the U.S.

So, that is how welfare in the U.S. grew the population of "poor, single moms"
\-- by actively encouraging out-of-wedlock births. Single moms are typically
poor. Families with two parents are usually better off.

------
heydenberk
Utah is on its way to eradicating chronic homelessness[0]. Quoting [0] here:

>> In 2005, one state defied "political feasibility" and began handing out
free apartments to the homeless. These were neither temporary accommodations
or shelters for the night. They were not welfare-to-work, or only if you're
married, or just-take-this-drug-test: just free apartments, no strings
attached. Nine years later, they've reduced long-term homelessness by 74% and
are on track to eradicate it completely by 2015.

It actually saves money, due to decreased costs of law enforcement and
emergency medical services. Homelessness is a problem of distribution, not
supply. Since the housing crisis at the end of last decade, homeless and home
vacancy have both been well-above average.

[0][http://www.policymic.com/articles/81507/the-most-unlikely-
st...](http://www.policymic.com/articles/81507/the-most-unlikely-state-in-
america-is-on-track-to-eradicate-homelessness-by-2015)

~~~
iandanforth
Those articles don't have proof of savings. I _want_ to believe it worked, but
I'd like to see a report from the state of Utah charting ER visit costs and
jail-time costs declining over the last 10 years.

~~~
jonah
Savings or not, it's humane.

~~~
iandanforth
Of course, no argument from me, but there are a whole lot of people who care
more about money than suffering, so it'd be nice if it worked from a purely
greed-is-good perspective as well.

~~~
heydenberk
Besides the pure cost savings of public services, I'd love to know about the
second-order economics effects: the growth of the tax base, the founding of
more small businesses and the increase in economic activity due to people
(rightly or wrongly) feeling safer on the streets. One can imagine startups
run by former homeless who have a unique perspective due to their experiences,
or who have discovered inexpensive solutions to problems, or who simply would
be the type to start a company if they hadn't hit some bad luck at some point.

~~~
jonah
Or even the (previously) homeless people contributing directly by being able
to get jobs and pay taxes.

I've talked with more than a few folks who not having a place to shower, keep
clean un-wrinkled clothes, and receive mail is holding them back from getting
anything more than the most menial job if any.

~~~
Mz
Yes, getting mail is a big deal on the street. I have a list of options here:

[http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/2013/04/ma...](http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/2013/04/mail-
and-mailing-address-options.html) Some are specific to San Diego and are
homeless service centers that offer a mailing address as one of their
services. But some are not. If you have state ID and a voter registration
card, you can get a paid mailbox from a place like _Mailboxes, Etc._

Since you know this is an issue, you could try putting together a listing of
local resources (and borrow ideas from that page) and give out "business
cards" with the info. Getting info on the street can be very challenging,
especially when you first hit the street. (Just thinking out loud. No
pressure. Honest.)

(I cannot really help with the other issues. I am pursuing freelance work and
other options and I am often mistaken for middle class. So a) I kind of
"blend" somewhat and b) I am not applying for a job.)

~~~
jonah
Good points.

Another issue which I hadn't considered until talking with a 50-ish homeless
guy recently was language. His first (and only) language is English and while
he was picking up work at a temp agency (and sleeping on their front doorstep)
not being able to speak Spanish and communicate with co-workers in the class
of work he was going for (hotel cleaning, dishwashing, landscaping,
demolition, etc.) prevented him from getting/keeping a lot of jobs...

------
sadbrother
I see this question come up on here from time to time. I don't know much about
homelessness in general, but I do have a brother who is a little mentally ill.
Among other problems, he is incapable of keeping a place to live habitable. He
utterly ruins a place over 2-3 years, gets evicted, and finds someone else who
will rent to him (which is hard, he is blacklisted).

Something in him just won't train his dog, won't put food away, won't not get
just angry enough to break things. Yet he appears like a reasonable person on
the street. He spends most of his time at home too, so his life is pretty
miserable surrounded by these miserable conditions.

We've tried hundreds of things to help him over the years, since I was a pre-
teen, and it seems so intractable to help even just him, even with what should
be enough money to support one person. It's hard to imagine how to solve the
problem of all the world's homeless.

~~~
benched
I think it's important in the context of this topic not to try to solve
everything, or make the perfect the enemy of the good. Like, getting people
indoors and off of the streets is a great, high-priority goal, and if the will
can be mustered to give them homes, I'm all for it. Figuring out how to train
them to live more like Martha Stewart than they do could be a separate
problem.

------
mixmax
I live on a boat, which has quite a lot of similarities to this. I have even
less livingspace than these houses, but I've managed to fit everything I need
and more into it. The marina I live in has a clubhouse which is the social
hub, much like the common space that's talked about in the article.

Although the circumstances are very different (I live where I do entirely by
choice, and don't suffer any of the other problems that I presume homeless
people might) the physical living space is comparable, so I'll offer an
opinion:

\- Living in a small space is much less of a problem than people think. You
quickly get used to it. You tend to be outside more though (which I think is a
good thing)

\- If you do live in a small space light is important. Small spaces without
natural light don't work. I suspect that's one of the architectural reasons
why the houses are seperate. The same goes for having a semi-private outdoor
area.

\- A common space is great because you meet other people. Again, the
circumstances are very different but I've really enjoyed meeting people I can
now call friends in our clubhouse.

\- When living in a small space you have less belongings for obvious reasons.
This is a good thing, which surprised me. Tyler Durden from Fight Club is spot
on when he says _" The things you own end up owning you"_

This is a great project, and I hope it succeeds and spreads.

~~~
Crito
How is that style of living, expense wise? Would you estimate the cost of
boat/maintenance/marina fees to be roughly comparable to renting, or does it
cost much more?

That is the sort of thing that appeals to me, but I haven't really looked into
it because it seems out of reach.

~~~
mixmax
It's incredibly cheap, but you need to spend some time doing boat-things like
painting fixing rust, etc. Timewise it's probably comparable to a house.

I bought the boat in Holland for around $50.000 in cash and spent around
$10.000 fixing it up with insulation, heating, toilet etc. So basically all I
pay now is marina rent ($100 a month) and diesel for heating and electricity.

This is in Copenhagen btw.

~~~
Crito
Oh wow, that is extremely reasonable. I'll have to spend some more time
researching this.

~~~
mixmax
send me a mail if you have any questions - it's in my profile.

------
buro9
I've been homeless and a street-sleeper. In my experience this is a great
thing to do, but it is one of many things that needs doing.

On pure housing, a small space is a great shelter, can provide security. But
it can also be a trap. It should be viewed as temporary housing only, for a
transition period between the streets and the stability and security of a
"normal" living space.

It's a trap as it will be used against you, perceived by others as a weakness
or reason to treat you differently, to discriminate.

It's a trap as it will impair ones ability to have the essential social
mobility to at least get a firm hold on the lower rungs of society.

But it is needed.

And needed in addition to starter-homes, is a supportive community, mental
health advice. It isn't enough to give a room with a roof and walk away, by
the time someone reaches this point they are dysfunctional and need help
figuring out how to function within the society of others. The entire time
homeless is a trauma, and a trauma probably preceded it.

A room with a roof is something essential, but the person is likely suffering
PTSD and has various other issues.

There is no magic cure to homelessness, but this is one of many small things
that can help.

And when I first came off the street, I didn't know what to do. I put a
mattress on the floor of the living room, next to a camping stove. The bedroom
was a cavern I never visited, the kitchen just a place where there was a tap,
and I didn't understand how there could be so much cupboard space. I basically
backed into a corner of one room, I couldn't comprehend the space or what I
was supposed to do with it. I didn't even have a carpet, and the only seat was
ripped from a car. A roof isn't enough unfortunately.

------
MiguelHudnandez
Doesn't it seem wasteful to have four walls a few feet away from another four
walls?

I'm open to the idea that it's more dignified to live in a unique, isolated
dwelling, but it seems terribly inefficient to have 10 tiny houses versus a
single-building condo with 10 dwellings of identical square footage.

~~~
Crito
Having lived in several row-homes, those air-gaps have several benefits. They
act as firebreaks for pests and rot, actual fires, and significantly reduce
cross-unit noise. They also allow (perhaps minimal) natural light in through
the side.

~~~
cc439
I can't express how much I wish my apartment had just 1 window on the shared
interior wall. It would turn a lightless cave into perfection.

I wonder what the energy trade off would be. I would think proper insulation
(and heat from natural sunlight in winter) could work out to be more efficient
than having the lights on in the middle of the day.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Does your apartment not have any windows at all?

At least in New York, I believe that a bedroom is required to have a window.

~~~
cpwright
A bedroom may be required to have a window (and a closet), but an office,
dining room, or "bonus" room doesn't. Thus you have apartments or houses,
where people sleep in offices, dining rooms, etc. Legislating this just causes
people to work around it.

~~~
mindslight
The window requirement for a bedroom mainly stems from fire code - it's a
second exit.

------
droithomme
Smaller houses are not a bad trend, but smaller houses are often much less
energy efficient due to thinner walls, lighter weight, less thermal mass.

If one does not live in a very temperate area such as Hawaii, this has
consequences regarding the cost of heating and cooling that should be
considered.

Many poor people for example live in single wide trailers. It is not uncommon
for them to have winter heating bills in the range of $500-$1000, completely
destroying their income budget and keeping them mired in poverty.

Another factor with small portable homes in particular is that they depreciate
and one is almost never able to use them as collateral for a business loan to
help their kids or nephews or other family members get started in a self owned
business, which is something that is not a problem for those with full size
houses. This inability to convert housing investment into investable liquid
assets is another problem with small portable housing which keeps the poor
poor.

For small houses to lift people from poverty, they would need to be much more
energy efficient than they are typically made, unless the owners plan to try
to get through the winter without heat.

~~~
ChiperSoft
I don't think the goal here is to lift them from poverty, I think it's just to
give them a place to live.

There's no particular reason why a _small_ home would be less energy
efficient. I built a 120sqft studio apartment for about $10,000 that was so
well insulated that it was actually cold inside during 85° heat.

------
krallja
> seven acres of land donated by Carmen Guidi

Yeah, good luck with that in major cities.

What if we took all the tiny houses and put them all in a shared building,
with shared infrastructure and a tinier combined footprint?

We could call it... an apartment building.

~~~
protomyth
I have wondered if you could build a building with plugable apartment modules
that could be moved to other building when you wanted to move. Shipping crate
apartments with standard utility hookups.

~~~
dasmoth
This gets proposed from time to time (was Buckminster Fuller's Dynaxion Home
the first?), but I can never see how you'd move them without crating up all
your possessions. And isn't that the worst aspect of moving home in a
traditional manner...?

~~~
saraid216
If the home is deliberately designed for this possibility, it might be easier
than that. For instance, perhaps a grid of plugs to bolt your furniture into
so that you only have to crate up looser items like books and vases? And you
might be able to hide _those_ under floorboard panels.

------
Crito
Somewhat tautologically, yes. Building and giving away homes is a solution to
_" involuntary lack of a home"_.

Of course the effective reality is not so simple. Done naively you are going
to end up with little more than a tent city with a greater sense of
permanence. Tent cities "solve 'homelessness'" in the strictest sense, but of
course a satisfactory solution is more than that. They need to be accompanied
by social programs designed to help people with a wide variety of problems
(mostly having to do with joblessness and health (mental or otherwise)).

~~~
pessimizer
A shower and a roof solve an awful lot of problems, though.

~~~
Crito
Well, a standard shelter can provide a shower and a roof. Providing a _safe,
secure, and sanitary_ shower and roof is the tricky part. I think it is likely
that this sort of setup could do that. Definitely worth pursuing.

------
patrickg_zill
Many municipalities adopt restrictive housing codes.

For instance, you cannot build a house less than X square feet in size.

You must have a lot size of X square feet (or this may be expressed in acres).

The international residential building code, which has some good things in it,
but may be overkill for a smaller structure (like the ones mentioned, which
are 320sf or less), must be followed.

These sorts of thing force compliance on 2000sf, multi-story dwellings with
all kinds of complex systems; but is it needed for a well built but small,
glorified storage shed? I would argue, "no".

------
stretchwithme
Its absurd to buy a limited number of people regular houses when you could buy
tiny houses for many more people.

To have a secure place to rest one's head and a place where you can take a
shower and prepare food is enormously valuable.

If we redirected the resources granted to the middle and upper middle class
through the mortgage tax deduction into tiny houses for those at the very
bottom, we'd accomplish a lot more good.

------
sliverstorm
This article doesn't seem to tackle the very question it posed- is inexpensive
housing actually the fix to the problem? From what I recall of past
discussions, past experiments have suggested affordable housing is simply not
the problem for many of the chronically homeless, and it is not clear that
providing inexpensive (or even free) housing will be successful.

~~~
tommu
I get the impression that there is another benefit here. Each tenant has their
own space to be responsible for. It's small enough to manage but maybe brings
a sense of ownership that would be lacking in a regular municipal type shelter
or shared apartment block.

~~~
baddox
> Each tenant has their own space to be responsible for.

At the risk of sounding insensitive, which is not my intent, in what way would
they be _responsible_ for them? If access to the homes is truly unconditional,
why keep them in good shape? Or are you just suggesting that by giving people
self-contained, separated dwellings, they will think of it more as "their
home" and tend to take better care of it?

------
drcode
The big question left unanswered is: Do these houses have indoor plumbing, or
is there a separate communal kitchen & bathroom?

------
schultkl
I did some (very rough) math on how much it would cost to do this nationwide--
in a nutshell, _for the materials only_ , it would cost the 25%-50% of
Americans who likely care enough to pay between _$220-$441_ as a one-time
expense plus $2-$4 annual upkeep:
[http://schultkl.blogspot.com/2014/02/homeless-no-more-how-
mu...](http://schultkl.blogspot.com/2014/02/homeless-no-more-how-much-would-
it.html) . A thought experiment I did for my own benefit, mostly...like the
article points out, there are architectural and design costs, labor costs,
zoning and community buy-in issues, and so forth, and so forth.

------
bayesianhorse
The big key to fighting homelessness in the US would be bringing mental health
care up to international standards.

And maybe take at least some care for returning veterans who often suffer from
PTSD and end up on the streets...

------
jmspring
The biggest local issue will be one of land and infrastructure. I've
considered a tiny house as an option for infill granny unit, the
"infrastructure" costs were more than the unit itself.

On a wider scale, land and infrastructure really are the keys. A colony of
small houses is comparable to an RV/trailer park. Hookups are needed and some
will prejudices and stigmas attached.

Curious to see where the movement goes. Locally here in Santa Cruz, some
groups are pushing for "sanctuary camps" with no real plan on the land aspect.

------
higherpurpose
I believe so, and it's a small price to pay to eliminate the homeless problem.
I imagine the prices will only come down once we can "3D print" those homes.

~~~
yiedyie
I guess you mean to print the key components as bricks I think are easier
handwritten.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
Maybe not yet but something like this[1][2] is probably coming in the near
future.

[1][http://innovation.uk.msn.com/design/the-3d-printer-that-
can-...](http://innovation.uk.msn.com/design/the-3d-printer-that-can-build-a-
house-in-24-hours)
[2][http://www.contourcrafting.org/](http://www.contourcrafting.org/)

------
manicdee
Manna - Two Visions of Humanity's Future:
[http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm](http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm)

------
jackgavigan
The YMCA is already looking at pre-fab'd homes for homeless people:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7258801](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7258801)

------
sien
Why not just use caravans?

Second ones can surely be bought for about $5K each.

------
rdl
They recreated the trailer park?

------
kimonos
Hmmmm, I don't think so...

------
avn2109
Now seems like as good a time as any to get on my soapbox and proclaim the
glories of Betteridge's law [0]. It has tremendous predictive power.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

~~~
saraid216
And, in this case, it's wrong. But contributing to the conversation would have
been unsurmountably challenging, yeah?

