L.A. turns to tiny homes to deal with its big homeless problem

[sopas ej]

From The Eastsider:

L.A. turns to tiny homes to deal with its big homeless problem

The tiny-house movement has been expanded to homeless shelters

By Gregory Stevens and Tom Fassbender | Nov 23, 2021


Photo by Tom Fassbender

In Los Angeles, the nation’s homelessness epidemic is playing out in broad relief. Criticized for an inability to stem the crisis, city officials have responded by thinking small — or in this case tiny — and creating villages or clusters of tiny homes for people experiencing homelessness.

The recently opened Arroyo Seco Tiny Home Village in Highland Park is the seventh to open in L.A. County and the largest in the United States. The City of L.A. built the 114-unit facility using city funds at an estimated cost of $55,000 per bed. Like five other such sites across L.A., this village is operated by Hope of The Valley Rescue Mission, a non-profit homeless services organization.

These Tiny Homes are, in fact, quite tiny. Most of the buildings measure just eight feet by eight feet square with a nine-foot ceiling. Each home features a locking front door, screened windows, heater and air conditioner.

As part of a “housing first” strategy, the creation of tiny homes is not novel. However, they represent a new County-legitimized way of sheltering the community — and doing so visibly.

Tiny Homes Aren’t New, But in Los Angeles They’re Now Legal

Photo by Tom Fassbender

Historically, small utilitarian spaces like caves, igloos, yurts, and even early frontier houses have all served to shelter people from the elements.

Henry David Thoreau famously promoted the benefits of living in a small space in "Walden; or Life in the Woods" from 1854. Today, thanks to tiny home pioneers Lloyd Khan and Bob Easton, who published "Shelter" in 1973, the tiny home movement is as robust as ever.

So it only makes sense that the tiny home concept has been applied to help address the growing problem of homelessness. In fact, Los Angeles isn't the only city experimenting with such homes for homeless residents. Similar programs have popped up in Minneapolis, Seattle, Albuquerque, and London.

This isn't the first time tiny homes have been made available to the city's homeless population. In 2016, Elvis Summers started building small, solar-powered structures and placing them near homeless encampments on overpasses above the 110 Freeway and in South Los Angeles.

Although embraced by the homeless community, others didn't share Summers's zeal. Residents saw the homes as eyesores and dens for illegal activity. City officials declared the small buildings safety hazards and had them flagged for confiscation. Summers built nearly 40 of his homes, at the cost of about $1,200 each, before the city shut his efforts down.

The goal of the Highland Park village is to serve people where they are at, focusing on people within a 3-mile radius of the site. This keeps communities together. It is also a fundamental misunderstanding of critics that these shelters will necessarily bring more homeless people into the community.

Still, naysayers abound. A petition to stop a local project, for example, had nearly 800 signatures. But efforts to welcome and introduce the neighborhood into its design, function (through wraparound services), and the village itself, continue to generate local support.


Photo by Tom Fassbender

Gregory Stevens is a professor of public health at Cal State LA, and author of the book Vulnerable Populations in the United States. Tom Fassbender is a writer for the Los Angeles Explorers' Guild and long-time resident of Highland Park

Link:https://www.theeastsiderla.com/neigh...65780dc33.html

[dchan]

This solution might work in climate with fairly good weather all year-round like in Southern CA, but it won't work everywhere.

As popular as the tiny house movement is given the high cost of real estate in popular areas, tiny houses intrinsically offer the worst thermal performance of any building. Why? Simple: they have the highest outside surface area vs indoor volume ratio. Every wall (and often the floor as well) is exposed the outside elements. Which, again, might be fine in sunny & mostly mild L.A. weather, but is horrendous anywhere else with a real winter and/or a scorching summer. For low-income housing providers, one of the few costs that they can control while providing acceptable accommodations for tenants is heating & cooling costs. Tiny houses are horrible in this respect.

With COVID still a lingering issue, I get why homeless advocates and developers have embraced this solution. But from an operations-cost standpoint, it would have been far better to build a dormitory-style building with excellent modern ventilation systems.

[Obadno]

Again, the issue with Homelessness is not lack of homes, its people that are either too mentally ill, too on drugs, or just unwilling to seek the available help that already exists for them.

The number of people homeless purely due to economic factors is a tiny fraction of the homeless population, and those people generally speaking take advantage of the help available and are much more likely to get out of homelessness.

The chronic wallow in the street or tent on skid row homeless are a drug and mental health problem NOT an housing problem.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by dchan

With COVID still a lingering issue, I get why homeless advocates and developers have embraced this solution. But from an operations-cost standpoint, it would have been far better to build a dormitory-style building with excellent modern ventilation systems.

How is that better from an operations-cost standpoint? This project is exactly the reaction to the absurd costs of providing homeless housing, which has been an epic failure. These were never the first choice, but a plan of last-resort in response to the slow, bureaucratic failures in the long process of dormitory-style housing from inception to completion. Often upon completion providing a miniscule amount of housing and costing $700K-1M per homeless person. This is not a replacement for real housing. This country is too incompetent to achieve that. This is a realistic and comparatively immediate alternative to the reality of living in a cardboard box or makeshift tent or on a sidewalk, which is a better option in any city regardless of climate.

[homebucket]

Every city has its own unique set of circumstances that result in homelessness. What works for LA may not work elsewhere. This is a good start to solving part of the solution. They can also convert old hotels and renovate old buildings downtown into residential dormitory style housing as well, but that obviously takes more time and money. The drug and mental health aspect... is another issue altogether, but obviously closely related.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by ocman

How is that better from an operations-cost standpoint? This project is exactly the reaction to the absurd costs of providing homeless housing, which has been an epic failure. These were never the first choice, but a plan of last-resort in response to the slow, bureaucratic failures in the long process of dormitory-style housing from inception to completion. Often upon completion providing a miniscule amount of housing and costing $700K-1M per homeless person. This is not a replacement for real housing. This country is too incompetent to achieve that. This is an practical alternative to the reality of living in a cardboard box or makeshift tent or on a sidewalk, which is a better option in every city in America regardless of climate.

Initial cost = the cost of developing and building the unit
Operations cost = the cost of maintaining the unit in reasonably comfortable conditions for the occupant

I'm only speaking from an operations cost standpoint. I get that this is a plan of last resort in an area whose mild geographic climate can support such housing. But in terms of scaling, especially in areas with more extreme climates, the tiny house movement doesn't work on a grand scale.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Again, the issue with Homelessness is not lack of homes, its people that are either too mentally ill, too on drugs, or just unwilling to seek the available help that already exists for them.

The number of people homeless purely due to economic factors is a tiny fraction of the homeless population, and those people generally speaking take advantage of the help available and are much more likely to get out of homelessness.

The chronic wallow in the street or tent on skid row homeless are a drug and mental health problem NOT an housing problem.

*puts on flame retardant suit*

At some point, we all need to simply own up to the fact that there are many folks who simply cannot or choose not to lead self-sustaining, self-supporting lives. To me, as time goes on, the issue of "Housing First" is a pragmatism issue. It's better to give the homeless housing than let them wallow in the streets and subways, which becomes a quality of life issue that drags down the cause of urban living, regardless of wither or not an individual has the willingness or wherewithal to improve their lives.

[mhays]

These have been very successful in Seattle. The various tiny-house communities are limited in size and need a couple staff, but we have several and they're very effective. The sites are temporary (often at a church for example) and each house is limited to <120 sf of roof area so they're regulated as sheds and not residences. Food and sanicans are centralized. I don't think they're heated, but they're out of the weather vs. tents. Residents can lock them, and actually own stuff.

All eight villages in Seattle and four others elsewhere in the region are all managed by LIHI.

[The North One]

Yeah that youtube doc about the homeless in LA changed my view on these. IDK how other tiny home places are run but these ones in LA are basically just prisons for the homeless, they don't help at all.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by The North One

Yeah that youtube doc about the homeless in LA changed my view on these. IDK how other tiny home places are run but these ones in LA are basically just prisons for the homeless, they don't help at all.

These tiny homes are way better than shelters, especially for families. Much more secure and private.

[jd3189]

I mean, it's either housing the homeless or not housing them. When we don't house them, we can tents scattered around the urban landscape with certain areas having a higher concentration.

For many of the homeless who are addicted to drugs and/or have a mental illness, a tiny house, dormitory, or some basic housing could be the first step towards helping them. Supplying these places with psychiatric clinics and rehab would also work.

This whole topic is related to my thread on alternative housing. In most areas of the country, there is low supply of cheap housing. Projects are not perfect, but they do their primary function very well.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by mhays

These have been very successful in Seattle. The various tiny-house communities are limited in size and need a couple staff, but we have several and they're very effective. The sites are temporary (often at a church for example) and each house is limited to <120 sf of roof area so they're regulated as sheds and not residences. Food and sanicans are centralized. I don't think they're heated, but they're out of the weather vs. tents.

[...]

I would imagine in Seattle they would at least have heaters. It can get chilly and damp there, no?

According to the article I posted, each of these little houses in LA "features a locking front door, screened windows, heater and air conditioner."

I know in other parts of the country, people say we're a bunch of wimps here when it comes to the cold, but this time of year, when your body is climatized to our weather, 40-degree nighttime/early morning temps Fahrenheit can feel downright cold. I feel really bad for the homeless during this time of the year. Thats how fires get started in homeless camps, and over the years on the local news, there'd be stories of whole families dying in low-income neighborhoods because they used a little charcoal bbq grill to heat their apartment or whatever and they either started a fire or suffocated.

[SFBruin]

I feel like these are a good idea.

Do they solve every problem related to the housing crisis? No. Do they solve some problems? Yeah. I think that it's hard to argue that this doesn't help.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I feel like these are a good idea.

Do they solve every problem related to the housing crisis? No. Do they solve some problems? Yeah. I think that it's hard to argue that this doesn't help.

Agreed. This seems like a step in the right direction. My only lingering concern would be long-term durability and maintenance.

[Pedestrian]

S.F. is finally building tiny cabins for homeless people. One reason: it may be cheaper than tents
Kevin Fagan
Sep. 20, 2021
Updated: Sep. 22, 2021 11:44 a.m.

After years of resistance, San Francisco is finally jumping onto the trend of sheltering homeless people in tiny homes, with plans to install them on two parking lots about nine blocks away from City Hall.

The lots at 33 Gough St., between Market and Mission streets, have been used since December as a city-sanctioned “safe sleeping village,” holding 44 tents for unhoused people while they get counseling aimed at routing them into permanent homes. Those tents will be replaced by late fall with 70 tiny homes, dubbed cabins, similar to those already in use for years in Oakland, the Peninsula and San Jose.

Each 64-square-foot cabin will have a steel frame, 2-inch-thick walls, heat, a desk, a bed and a window. The revamped village will get improved bathrooms, storage spaces and a dining area.

The cost of up to $1.7 million for building and installing the cabins, along with the dining and other facilities, will be paid for by the nonprofits DignityMoves and Tipping Point Community. The cabins will remain for 18 months, when the lease the city signed for using the parking lots as outdoor shelter spaces runs out.

The cabins are a pilot program, and this test is just the latest technique the city is trying in light of the spike in homelessness during the pandemic. Bolstered by new tax, state and federal funding that will bring San Francisco’s homelessness funding to about $800 million for each of the next two years, officials are considering buying more properties for homeless housing, placing people in vacant apartments around the city, and opening a safe RV site for 150 vehicles . . . .

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/artic...e-16474517.php

[saybanana]

I have family that live in the neighborhood. I'm not sure if this is true, but homeless tents in the area especially the encampment around the flagpole parking area have disappeared suddenly soon after these tiny arrived. Not sure if they were housed in them if offered or whether like many encampments in LA like Venice, echo park, Westchester, etc take the offer or leave. I noticed it today visiting for Thanksgiving week. But I'll drive around daytime to see if they just made tents elsewhere.

This tiny homes park along the freeway are really underused. Likely why it was chosen among the half dozen parks in the neighborhood area that have more use. But I read it's temporary while the city and county build more shelter beds and permanent affordable homes. I think the city bans tents within 500ft from shelters like these,

[Manitopiaaa]

Well, this should help with the 5% of homeless who are victims of economic misfortune. But this does nothing to deal with the 95% who are mentally ill and should be in sanatoriums or drug addicts who should be in rehab.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Well, this should help with the 5% of homeless who are victims of economic misfortune. But this does nothing to deal with the 95% who are mentally ill and should be in sanatoriums or drug addicts who should be in rehab.

Your statistics are wayyyy off.

There's at least 63,706 people experiencing homelessness in LA County. It's estimated that 51% of these people are affected by serious mental health issues. That part can be traced to the deinstitutionalization of mental health care that began, in part, after outcry about the inhumane conditions of state mental hospitals that were previously seen as the model of public mental health up until the mid-20th Century.

That leaves 49%, or about 31,215 that might actually benefit from free temporary housing in a tiny home or a rehabilitated hotel/motel while they get back on their feet.

And not only is there a demand for affordable housing for people experiencing homelessness, but also for low-income people on the verge of losing their housing because they can’t afford the rent.

Like SFBruin said, it's not going to solve every problem related to the housing crisis, but it does solve some problems. Definitely way more than your estimate of 5%.

https://laist.com/news/housing-homel...ty-los-angeles

[destroycreate]

I am all for this. I do not want to see tent cities around my streets anymore. It's disgusting.

[downtownpdx]

Portland is in the midst of setting up several of these, dubbed "safe rest villages"; each of the 30-60 units is like a garden shed size that sleeps 2 people and a pet. Heating, a/c, laundry and shower onsite, and social services onsite. That's what really matters - having the support system there. These aren't just villages to house people but meant as a transition to an apartment etc.