
Hands Off Our Houses (follow up on the $300 house idea) - ph0rque
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/opinion/01srivastava.html?ref=opinion
======
felipe
> "While businessmen and professors applaud the $300 house, the urban poor are
> silent, busy building a future for themselves."

That's for me the most telling sentence of the article. As someone familiar
with the realities of developing countries, I am frankly tired of seeing those
kind of "feel-good" type of projects that helps only the ego of those who are
"giving".

What is fundamentally missing in those kinds of projects is the SACRIFICE
aspect of it. The willingness to get out of your bubble, put your career (or
life) on the line and go live the harsh reality of those who you (supposedly)
want to help.

* _Lack of understanding_ : Poverty is a deep, complex social, historic and economical problem, and very often the solution is not technical at all (example: OLPC, and the project mentioned in the article). Unfortunately people think they can learn remotely, or with a simple two-week slum tour (more like a vacation).

* _Lack of commitment_ (again connected to sacrifice): "Good-heart" people come, work on the "world-changing" thing for 3 months, get some international awards and then leave. As a result, the community is left feeling manipulated and tired, and that ruins for any other serious projects in the future.

* _Lack of respect_ : Often people approach these projects from a stance of privilege (like Dr. Cornel West likes to say). What I mean by that is that they may demonstrate humbleness with their choice of words, but the general attitude is actually very elitist. Something like: "oh, poor them, they don't know any better". Getting the community buy-in is VERY HARD, and it involves you first showing that you are 100% committed to them (i. e.: sacrifice).

Interestingly, the willingness to sacrifice is also true for start-ups.

------
pewpewlasergun
I feel like this article is an example of how a lot of charity and social
businesses are half-baked at best.

First is the idea, mostly held by people at places like Dartmouth, that
because these problems exist it must mean that nobody is trying to solve them.
In reality, plenty of people are trying to solve them, its just difficult.
This leads people to start their own charities that end up competing with each
other for donations and thus it is difficult to develop the economies of scale
that makes this stuff efficient.

The article mostly talks about the lack of market research. Its not difficult
to ask someone 'What do you need' or 'Why don't you have running water' or 'Do
you need your house to double as a workshop' and this would have helped guide
the designs. A simple walk through and critical thinking would have shown
designers that many people lived in apartments, and perhaps a 3000 dollar
apartment building would get more use.

The article brings up putting local laborers out of business. I'm not sure I
buy this argument against charity. The authors had spent previous paragraphs
explaining the need for customization. The builders would not automatically be
out of work if people bought prefab houses.

I guess in conclusion I think a lot of people who go into charity have the
'saving the world' attitude that makes them arrogant. This leads to people
trying the same thing over and over again, and while competition is great in a
market economy, when non-profits are competing for donations it leads to the
non-profits viewing the donators as their customers and the most important
people to please rather than the people they claim to help.

~~~
skybrian
Yes, many plans to do charity work are half-baked. But I'm actually pretty
pleased with this story since they're publishing their failures rather than
sweeping it under the rug.

Market incentives aren't really there to reward charities for being really
effective; most charities raise money by telling a good story. Few people dig
deeper because digging deeper is hard.

As far as I know, <http://givewell.org/> is the best thing out there when it
comes to evaluating charities. Also, I highly recommend reading _Poor
Economics_ , a book that just came out that describes some more solid research
using randomized trials.

~~~
lotharbot
You might also appreciate <http://charitynavigator.org/>

~~~
lurker19
Particularly, the CEO pay reports. Why should I donate money to pay someone
richer than me?

Lead by example, charity CEO.

------
russell
The article mentions that land is scarce. It is often the case that the high
cost item is not the obvious one, but the scarce one. California had very high
housing costs, not so much because construction costs were high, but because
land costs were. I would surmise that, in the case the article mentioned, a
$300 house would not help much, because the cost of acquiring the land to put
it on is so much higher.

My town is a bizarre case of scarcity pricing. Just before the crash, larger
houses were going for well over a million and more modest houses were over
$500K. Land was cheap. A lot could be had for $15K-$30K. The scarce item was
water hookup. A Chevron station with leaking tanks had contaminated the water
source and there has been a decade long moratorium on new hookups. To build a
new house you needed a cheap lot and a $350,000 water meter. One man had
actually accumulated 15 of them.

~~~
aidenn0
I looked into building a house in my town. Estimates for getting a permit were
2 years and $50k-$100k in costs. I bought a condo.

------
GBond
TL;DR - Shack designers who submitted for the competition failed at "customer
development". They didn't ask how the customers use cheap dwellings now (store
tools, build stuff, & upgrade).

~~~
bandushrew
Those who like their current homes will stay in them. Those who think the 300$
house is a good idea will use them.

Whats the problem? name any product and I can find an argument on the side of
nobody choosing to use it.

I, for one, have a use for a 300$ house. I have a piece of land on which I
would love to be able to place a few smaller cabins. Currently doing so would
run me around 15-50k per building.

~~~
hessenwolf
I understood from the article that the concern is that the house will be
purchased by local government and forced on the poor.

------
delackner
This is a difficult and really deep problem with no clear answers. Sure the
local population are doing their best "building a future for themselves", but
they are also driven to build structures that are totally unsafe in a serious
earthquake. This is the main difference between one country's 7.0 quake
killing tens or hundreds, yet another country's 7.0 (or even 6.0) killing tens
or hundreds of thousands.

The solution is definitely not just marching in and offering a new cheap
design for a single family house. The solution has to include an answer to the
question: how do you get the local government to see the real equation.
(economic cost of reduced economic output from early death from early
mortality) MUCH GREATER THAN (cost of making sure everyone has a safe and
secure home).

------
noelchurchill
Often times customers use your product in a way you didn't intend. A $300
house may have value, just maybe not the way the builders envision it.

~~~
hugh3
Sure! I'd buy a $300 house and use it as a garden shed.

~~~
neworbit
...go to Home Depot and buy one then? They make nice, even potentially livable
drop-in outbuildings.

No solar panel for tablet computer charging, but really now.

~~~
fr0sty
Not for $300 they don't...

~~~
mixmastamyk
Well, not a luxurious one, but: [http://www.homedepot.com/Storage-
Organization-Sheds-Garages-...](http://www.homedepot.com/Storage-Organization-
Sheds-Garages-Outdoor-Storage-
Sheds/h_d1/N-5yc1vZbtz2/R-100211354/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053)

------
yaix
Good article about always the same problem in development politics.

Simple ground rule: If it does not create business for local companies, its
usually not a good idea in the long run.

