HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2021, 5:03 PM
James Bond Agent 007's Avatar
James Bond Agent 007 James Bond Agent 007 is offline
Posh
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
Posts: 21,128
These look a helluva lot better than tents.
__________________
"There's two kinds of men in the world. Those who have a crush on Linda Ronstadt, and those who never heard of her." - Willie Nelson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2021, 6:50 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,700
Actually recognizing the homeless as a problem, that's a step many cities haven't even taken yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2021, 8:40 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
It's been done before: 1906 (post earthquake)


https://sf.curbed.com/2017/4/18/1533...k-houses-camps
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2021, 6:24 PM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles/ Tahoe
Posts: 5,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by destroycreate View Post
I am all for this. I do not want to see tent cities around my streets anymore. It's disgusting.
Yeah, not sure why anybody would say these aren't better than people living on city streets in tents with all their trash in front of businesses and residences pissing and crapping on the sidewalks. This is a substantially better option for all. Nobody is saying it does anything to solve the underlying causes for mental illness, drub addiction and homelessness.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2021, 2:58 PM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is offline
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: all over
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007 View Post
These look a helluva lot better than tents.
exactly! huge progress. now build hundreds of thousands of them all over the country and outlaw sleeping outside
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2021, 7:09 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eightball View Post
exactly! huge progress. now build hundreds of thousands of them all over the country and outlaw sleeping outside
Except progressive politicians won’t do that. We actually already have the laws against sleeping on or obstructing sidewalks. San Francisco had a “sit/lie” law saying you can’t do either on sidewalks and I’m not aware it’s been repealed. These laws just aren’t enforced like so many others (including the ones that say you can’t fill shopping bags with every tube of toothpaste in the nearest Walgreen’s and walk out withput paying).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2021, 5:49 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,687
Segueing into efforts to address the homeless crisis in LA, the one effort that I’m optimistic about is the statewide Project Homekey. Buying motels and converting them into housing with actual tangible results.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/1...la-sros-518602

Quote:
Between July and December 2020, the rebranded “Project Homekey“ would use $846 million — $700 million of it from federal coronavirus relief funds — to create more than 6,000 housing units, 5,000 of them permanent, in 94 properties throughout the state, mostly hotels. The average cost per unit came in at about $148,000. Normally the state spends years and about $500,000 per unit to develop new affordable housing.
LA’s $1.2B Proposition HHH on the other hand....

Quote:
. Halfway through that timeline, nearly all the money is committed, yet only about 1,000 HHH-funded units have opened, at an average cost of more than $500,000 each, according to LA Mayor Eric Garcetti’s office. Still, city officials project that before another five years passes, HHH will meet its goals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2021, 6:45 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is online now
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
For those suggesting this only works in warm climates, this is the solution for housing people that don't fit in the berthing mod during the summer at Summit Station in Greenland (72 N, 3200 m altitude, mean temperature in summer of 0-10 F):



I slept in one of the two larger boxes (which are heated, but are shared spaces with bunks), but the people in the fishing huts got their own space (albeit, mostly unheated, except for some solar-powered heaters that didn't really work). It's not a huge amount of space but still better than a tent

Before a polar bear visited a few years back (https://geo-summit.org/news/summit-s...es-summer-2018 ), this is was what we slept in:


But understandably, they wanted something hard-sided after that.



If a fishing hut works in a polar environment, it should work almost anywhere in the US. Looks like you can buy them for less than $10k (some closer to $5k) (e.g. https://duluthdock.com/df-data/files...heet-21-22.pdf ). Seems like this would be more cost effective than the project quoted (although you still need bathroom facilities).
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2021, 7:34 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
For those suggesting this only works in warm climates, this is the solution for housing people that don't fit in the berthing mod during the summer at Summit Station in Greenland (72 N, 3200 m altitude, mean temperature in summer of 0-10 F):

I slept in one of the two larger boxes (which are heated, but are shared spaces with bunks), but the people in the fishing huts got their own space (albeit, mostly unheated, except for some solar-powered heaters that didn't really work). It's not a huge amount of space but still better than a tent

But understandably, they wanted something hard-sided after that.

If a fishing hut works in a polar environment, it should work almost anywhere in the US. Looks like you can buy them for less than $10k (some closer to $5k) (e.g. https://duluthdock.com/df-data/files...heet-21-22.pdf ). Seems like this would be more cost effective than the project quoted (although you still need bathroom facilities).
I'm sure there are bureaucratic things like building codes that would prevent anything like that. In SF you need a "certificate of occupancy" for people to move into a dwelling and I don't know what the criteria are but I'd bet a dollar to a donut (donuts now costing more than $1) no fishing shack would get one (and no supervisor would butt the professional "homeless advocates" to change the law to allow it).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2021, 8:56 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is online now
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
I'm sure there are bureaucratic things like building codes that would prevent anything like that. In SF you need a "certificate of occupancy" for people to move into a dwelling and I don't know what the criteria are but I'd bet a dollar to a donut (donuts now costing more than $1) no fishing shack would get one (and no supervisor would butt the professional "homeless advocates" to change the law to allow it).
Yeah, fair point, you certainly couldn't rent one out to someone legally, but special rules for as temporary emergency housing (while we wait 50 years for the city to build the "real" housing) probably makes sense. It's not like an emergency shelter where people sleep on cots in a large room is really better.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2021, 9:41 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
In my city, these aren't regulated as "homes." If they were over 120 sf of roof area they would be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2021, 1:45 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Meanwhile a little further to the east…

Quote:
Baldwin Park celebrates opening of Esperanza Villa, a village of tiny dwellings for homeless


Photo Credit: Trevor Stamp, SGVT Contributing Photographer

Community members and officials were on hand Saturday, Nov. 20, to celebrate the opening of a village of 25 tiny homes in the city of Baldwin Park.

Esperanza Villa is the first tiny home village of its kind in the San Gabriel Valley, and unsheltered residents are scheduled to move into their tiny homes during Thanksgiving week.

“Baldwin Park is proud to spearhead this unique effort to combat homelessness in the San Gabriel Valley,” said Emmanuel J. Estrada, Mayor of Baldwin Park. “Tiny homes provide the safety and privacy that is lacking in more traditional congregate shelters while helping residents’ transition to permanent housing.
Source: https://www.sgvtribune.com/2021/11/2...-for-homeless/
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2021, 2:23 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
It's not like an emergency shelter where people sleep on cots in a large room is really better.
The CDC told San Francisco that shelters like that were dangerous in the covid era and tents were safer so the city closed down most of the shelters and handed out tents and designated some places--but not enough--for erecting those tents. ONE of those places will now be the site of these small dwellings.

This is the largest one of those tent encampments in a parking lot between the Main Library and the Asian Art Museum:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2021, 2:28 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is online now
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
The CDC told San Francisco that shelters like that were dangerous in the covid era and tents were safer so the city closed down most of the shelters and handed out tents and designated some places--but not enough--for erecting those tents. ONE of those places will now be the site of these small dwellings.

This is the largest one of those tent encampments in a parking lot between the Main Library and the Asian Art Museum:

Does the city realize how bad the optics are here?
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2021, 2:39 AM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles/ Tahoe
Posts: 5,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
Does the city realize how bad the optics are here?
Yeah, this has to be one of the most bone headed things I have ever seen. We need 4K of these small dwelling in our city. There are some huge parking lots in mission bay for starters.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2021, 4:33 AM
dchan's Avatar
dchan dchan is offline
No grabbing my banana!
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 10021
Posts: 2,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
For those suggesting this only works in warm climates, this is the solution for housing people that don't fit in the berthing mod during the summer at Summit Station in Greenland (72 N, 3200 m altitude, mean temperature in summer of 0-10 F):

I slept in one of the two larger boxes (which are heated, but are shared spaces with bunks), but the people in the fishing huts got their own space (albeit, mostly unheated, except for some solar-powered heaters that didn't really work). It's not a huge amount of space but still better than a tent

Before a polar bear visited a few years back (https://geo-summit.org/news/summit-s...es-summer-2018 ), this is was what we slept in:

But understandably, they wanted something hard-sided after that.


If a fishing hut works in a polar environment, it should work almost anywhere in the US. Looks like you can buy them for less than $10k (some closer to $5k) (e.g. https://duluthdock.com/df-data/files...heet-21-22.pdf ). Seems like this would be more cost effective than the project quoted (although you still need bathroom facilities).
Thanks for sharing!

Yes, in theory, it should work everywhere if it works in a polar environment. But in practice and through a legal standpoint, does it actually work?

The issue here is that the local government is providing temporary sheds that may not provide adequate indoor living temperatures to its occupants. It's one thing to look the other way as the homeless live in the streets or in subway stations. After all, they chose to live where they are. But by providing actual housing conditions in a government-sanctioned and funded shed, the government often needs to guarantee certain living conditions for the occupants, including indoor temperature.

Judging by a quick browse of how these fish houses are constructed, I would say that the structure itself would not provide adequate indoor temperature. It might if it had a strong-enough electric heater, but that would open up questions of how to safely heat these structures.

In essence, these fishing houses work for research scientists because they are generally functioning members of society who have the mental capacity of take care of themselves. That includes sleeping in warm sleeping bags (which I'd imagine you all did, especially in the unheated houses). But for the homeless, a large number of whom have metal issues and/or drug problems, I don't know if these would work as a solution.

Basically, my take is that "better than what they have now" doesn't work for government-provided solutions because they have to adhere to certain standards (though they often don't - see NYCHA housing).

And from a thermal-engineering perspective, having a bunch of aluminum-skinned individual free-standing houses is a disaster in terms of heating bills in the wintertime. In the low-income and no-income housing market, reducing operational expense is one of the biggest ways to save money.

My solution would be to attach two rows of houses together. That way, for most houses, 3 out of 6 walls are not exposed to the outside. Then drastically increase the roof insulation first (because heat travels up, plus whatever stack effect happens in such a short building). Then insulate the floor (I'd imagine the houses are elevated to provide site rainwater drainage) and exterior-facing walls. Soundproof the interior walls a bit to prevent neighbors from annoying each other.
__________________
I take the high road because it's the only route on my GPS nowadays. #selfsatisfied
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2021, 5:43 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is online now
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan View Post
Thanks for sharing!

Yes, in theory, it should work everywhere if it works in a polar environment. But in practice and through a legal standpoint, does it actually work?

The issue here is that the local government is providing temporary sheds that may not provide adequate indoor living temperatures to its occupants. It's one thing to look the other way as the homeless live in the streets or in subway stations. After all, they chose to live where they are. But by providing actual housing conditions in a government-sanctioned and funded shed, the government often needs to guarantee certain living conditions for the occupants, including indoor temperature.

Judging by a quick browse of how these fish houses are constructed, I would say that the structure itself would not provide adequate indoor temperature. It might if it had a strong-enough electric heater, but that would open up questions of how to safely heat these structures.

In essence, these fishing houses work for research scientists because they are generally functioning members of society who have the mental capacity of take care of themselves. That includes sleeping in warm sleeping bags (which I'd imagine you all did, especially in the unheated houses). But for the homeless, a large number of whom have metal issues and/or drug problems, I don't know if these would work as a solution.

Basically, my take is that "better than what they have now" doesn't work for government-provided solutions because they have to adhere to certain standards (though they often don't - see NYCHA housing).

And from a thermal-engineering perspective, having a bunch of aluminum-skinned individual free-standing houses is a disaster in terms of heating bills in the wintertime. In the low-income and no-income housing market, reducing operational expense is one of the biggest ways to save money.

My solution would be to attach two rows of houses together. That way, for most houses, 3 out of 6 walls are not exposed to the outside. Then drastically increase the roof insulation first (because heat travels up, plus whatever stack effect happens in such a short building). Then insulate the floor (I'd imagine the houses are elevated to provide site rainwater drainage) and exterior-facing walls. Soundproof the interior walls a bit to prevent neighbors from annoying each other.
Yeah, you'd certainly want to heat it if you don't have infrastructure constraints (which you won't). Heating with an electric radiator would probably require about a kW heater (which does add up!). Propane is probably more commonly used but that's a bit more complex infrastructure wise (and then you need CO monitors, etc.). It certainly would help to put them side-by-side (and even back to back so most only have one exposed side).

I'm actually more concerned about cooling in hot climates than heating in cold climates.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2021, 7:14 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
Does the city realize how bad the optics are here?
To a progressive SF politician, I suspect it looks like they are caring and compassionate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2021, 2:32 PM
dchan's Avatar
dchan dchan is offline
No grabbing my banana!
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 10021
Posts: 2,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
Yeah, you'd certainly want to heat it if you don't have infrastructure constraints (which you won't). Heating with an electric radiator would probably require about a kW heater (which does add up!). Propane is probably more commonly used but that's a bit more complex infrastructure wise (and then you need CO monitors, etc.). It certainly would help to put them side-by-side (and even back to back so most only have one exposed side).

I'm actually more concerned about cooling in hot climates than heating in cold climates.
Yup, it's not as simple as just providing the shelter in cold/hot climates due to indoor temperature requirements, and you just know that some bleeding-heart gadflies WILL make a big issue of the government providing underheated or undercooled shelters. A housing solution "better than tents" does not mean the government can actually sanction and provide such solutions (except as temporary FEMA-type emergency situations).

As for cooling in hot climates, it appears that the L.A. sheds have air conditioners (see photos from the first post).

My concern is maintenance and operational costs. My preferences for the sheds are as follows:
- Make them as air-tight as possible to reduce drafts in the winter, and reduce heat & humidity issues in the summer.
- Cool roofs with substantial insulation (R30-50+) to reduce heat loss in the winter, and reduce excess solar & other heat in the summer.
- Insulation under the floor
- Insulation on the walls, though it's not as necessary as substantial roof insulation. It can be around R20.
- Reduce or eliminate all thermal bridges that would provide a "short circuit" for heat to travel from inside to outside or vice versa
- Heat recovery ventilation systems to provide constant fresh air while exhausting stale air

This way, these sheds won't rely as much on mechanical heating and cooling to provide adequate indoor temperatures. Therefore, their theoretical maintenance & operational costs will be much lower.

And yes, they would need to build them back-to-back in rows reduce the number of exterior walls directly exposed to outside air. It would be even better if they could stack these sheds 2-3 stories (to reduce the amount of exposed walls to just 1 in some cases), but that would bring up questions of structural engineering and egress issues (more complexity & cost).

The prefab housing industry would be a great way to build such structures to reduce on-site construction costs and unpredictability.
__________________
I take the high road because it's the only route on my GPS nowadays. #selfsatisfied
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2021, 5:28 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Do all that and you have to follow building codes. A big part of the point is keeping below that threshhold.

Building codes have all sorts of good things in them, but they also result in very high prices.

The goal is to get a LOT of people out of tents, not create a few units of permanent housing for the same dollar.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:29 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.