Thanks. A new source of information for me to look at. I'm extremely interested in prefab housing because so many of the design elements are beautiful and efficient (particularly if you're a minimalist).

Some countries are doing remarkable things with used shipping containers, and Australia is on the cutting edge with prefab in general. I never considered them in connection with "low income" housing before.

I hope these dwellings will not be considered temporary though.  I would love to live in one--even at market price--but with our archaic building codes, will probably never have the opportunity.

I think the concept of this sort of housing is interesting. I don't think the "band aid" method is exactly what is needed, but I suppose even the temporary housing could help in some way. Again, an interesting idea. I wish squatting was more socially and legally acceptable in the United States because I think abandoned buildings could be put to better use.

Why do the units in the proposal costs over $30,000 when the tiny houses cost $1500 per unit? That's a twenty to one ratio.

I'm with Andrew. That's one big profit they're making off of tiny houses. This "temporary band-aid" should be used for homeless people capable of getting on their 2 feet and finding a job, that way when they're thrown out of the house at least they'll have some money in their pockets, and hopefully can afford an apartment of their own.

Thanks for the support, Dina. I was only asking because it occurs to me that perhaps the prefab houses include a lot of facilities that are not in the tiny houses. As it says in the blog, some may object to the many "permanent features".

I hope Vancouver has looked into what is essential, and what are not. Let's not repeat the same fiasco that happened with the Olympic Village, and ended up way over budget, and over schedule. I believe the philosophy "keep it simple" is best. The many suggestions from the tiny house blog are very useful, so I hope they have considered the implementations of the plan, not only in terms of the physical structures, but also how to organize a community. That's is the key to helping the homeless achieve independence, not prefabricating boxes. The physical structures are the easy part. Heck, for temporarily housing the 5000 homeless in Vancouver for the 2010 Winter Olympics, they can use the hexayurt at $150 a piece. Or, better still, since it will be winter, rent the storage lockers for a month at $80.

If these prefabricated boxes are going to be semi-permanent features in the city, there has to be a more thought-out plan of how they are integrated into the community and how the homeless is transition from one stage of homelessness onto the next.

Shannon, would you know where we can access the plan in its entirety? Thanks.

I am not a fan of the prefab solution. Simply having a shelter is not the main problem though it is better than nothing. At http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/2009/04/08/9047716.html there are ten solutions for homelessness. One of those solutions is from a homeless person. His idea doesn't make much apparent sense:

Take Notice!

It’s a pressure-filled world and I am a homeless human being. I suppose I will always be homeless.

For over thirty years I’ve been homeless and I know what the answer to homelessness is!

The answer is make the feel better about life.

Impossible you say? How do we do that?

I say that you simply take notice, that’s all! TAKE NOTICE and the rest will fall into place.

====
The rant of a long term homeless person, easily ignored. "Make me feel better about life." Yet that is the crux of the matter and an idea that is only hinted at in any of the other nine proposals. It's also not an easy concept to quantify. Community living is a step towards that. Homeless people seek out community on the streets and that is one reason there are so many problems with substance abuse. They do find community but what they do find has no constructive purpose beyond the necessity of camaraderie.

I propose creating multiple communities that enable residents to develop constructive purposes.

The homeless population consists of natives, hippies, youth, women, families, and children. The population could also be categorized by experience, those with work experience and etc... And of course by mental capacity and health. Each subset requires an additional solution beyond shelter. In many cases the additional solution could be packaged with the shelter.

Natives need a community with traditional elders. Hippies need the organic gardening paradise. The youth probably need greater educational opportunities. The formerly employed might do well with a business incubation facility.

Each of these facilities would be geared towards homeless people with higher functioning abilities and would focus on developing a core structure for self government and sufficiency. In most cases the homeless men and women would run their own facilities. Each facility would take in lower functioning homeless people and provide for their care.

I am not talking about a temporary solution for people who are transitioning back into "normal" society, although it would function as such for some people, but rather facilities that allow for at least some permanent situations. Villages.

Temporary solutions are great for people who can be motivated by the fact that their time is running out. Unfortunately, that is a small subset of the homeless. In fact, when homeless people near the end of their stay limits without a solution in sight, they increase their use of substances and even develop animosities towards the shelter providers. What good did we really do them by simply providing a roof and meals for two weeks? Very little good.

Those are really good points, Dale. I like your idea of graduating from one level of funcioning community to the next. I also like some staggering so that the new comers can get the benefits of those who are moving to the next level. 

I also agree with the time limits issue. I never felt comfortable with it. I like the idea of having the community meeting periodically to decide if someone is not progressing, and must either do more or return to a previous level. Those who have progressed sufficiently can apply to the next level, and receive approval in a similar format.

I can see the issue about taking notice and simply acknowledging the homeless person has worth and dignity. That has to be at the root of all the services.

For prefab housing, $37,000-$46,000 per unit is too much. We have better products with competitive prices. For example, a three bedrooms villa (116.2 sqm) only costs US$20509.30.

from   aosheng08@sina.com