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.)
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."
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.
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).
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.
It could not be solution because homelessness is not a structural problem but a facet of a deeper one. From what I have read the US has 2 huge social problems right now - the unemployment and the war on drugs. Until the employment moves of the death spiral it is in right now you will always have fresh supply of homeless people.
Having both studied it and lived it, my best understanding is that homelessness is generally rooted in having too many intractable problems combined with too few resources to meet them. No one thing causes it but, certainly, structural issues can change the tipping point at which available resources fail to be sufficient to one's needs. So while changing the housing stock won't solve it, it can help reduce the problem.
I am not sure that I got understood - I meant that you should not give the homeless a house. You should give the homeless a house and a job if you want the issue solved (or better access to healthcare, or whatever was the stuff that put him in the downward spiral). I absolutely support providing roofs above the heads on the vulnerable people. I just think it don't goes nearly far enough.
No, it does not go nearly far enough. Most homeless people have either medical or mental health issues which are barriers to making their lives work conventionally. Supportive housing sometimes works where just access to housing per se may not. This is a much more complicated problem than just 'jobs and housing' (availability) but those things both help.
My family of 3 live in a basically unrenovated 1950s house. It has some inconveniences (combined small kitchen dinning, tiny bathroom) but some of the features turn out to be mostly good. The separate living room makes it more relaxing (can't see the dishes!) easier to heat and cool and quieter. Its layout, while old, is quite clever. The arrangement is such that all plumbing is close together, making maintenance easy. It is mostly efficient to heat at 90 square metres (970 square feet), although the brick walls lack insulation. And the house has character which is very important to me.
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.)