A case for agile, self-build and bottom-up options to unlock housing choice . by many means necessary.
Governments rule and fund from the center, and markets typically build for the top down. How, then, do those on unserved fringes adapt and house themselves? To find out, look around. As Cascadians scramble for solutions to our housing crises, we could all gain some new ideas by observing the innovations of those already on the edges.
For the last decade I have taken a deep interest in - and it has taken me into - researching and living on the housing periphery. I've lived in warehouses, across a wide archipelago of house-sits and couch-surfs, and on rural sojourns off grid. I've lived in backyards, houseless villages, parking spaces, and prototype structures and vehicles. Living on these ever-shifting social shorelines, I am increasingly convinced that if we are all to survive and thrive, we must let the edges teach us.
Living in more "makeshift" housing has taught me to make and shift my own ways of living. It's about playing the cards in hand, deftly. Surprisingly often, I discover unexpected ways it sharpens my game: I've learned that sleeping under a cloth roof gives me soft illumination in the morning and an energetic wake-up. I've learned that hot water bottles aren't merely more efficient than hot air; they're also cozier. Cascadian housing policy can sharpen its game, too. Drawn from my experiences and research, I'll discuss here three related housing approaches for radical agility and affordability.
1. Create evolvable housing, not temporary shelter: "New Starter Homes"
2. Facilitate self-building: Let people define, design for, and build for their own needs
3. Roll out the ultimate scalable infill: The "Wheeler House" vehicle dwelling
1) CREATE EVOLVABLE HOUSING, NOT TEMPORARY SHELTER: "NEW STARTER HOMES"
In recent years, US governments have invested a lot of money and focus in "pods" (temporary, free-standing, typically pre-fab structures) for unhoused people. In many cases, I believe, a better response would be quickly available housing that can evolve into permanent housing. A recurring priority in disaster and homelessness response is reconnecting people with a regular, sustainable life as soon as possible, minimizing limbo. That sense of living in suspension, including the use of temporary housing forms, can inhibit recovery and redevelopment.
Ian Davis's 1978 classic, Shelter After Disaster, argued this point, and it's a key part of the "Housing First" homelessness response philosophy. A "sustainable life," however, is not the same as getting to a permanent situation, conventional housing, or restoring the former state of someone's affairs. Placement into something termed "permanent" might not be someone's goal, could prove a dead end, or could soon become unsuited to a person's or family's evolving needs.
Instead, to rebuild lives, people need to see they are on a sustainable path, one on which they can step forward and self-determine rather than dwell in stasis or feel themselves as just a service recipient. People also generally want options to stay in, design, build, adapt, expand, and control or own their own homes. By contrast, pods and leased motel rooms don't offer long-term and self-determined paths, nor is it sustainable to "reintegrate" people into conventional housing they can't see a path towards affording.
So, what exactly are pod shelter sites usually missing? A direct, self-determining path to sustainable housing. Pod structures are typically temporary and non-durable, and residents aren't allowed to stay on. Even the site itself is usually only temporarily permitted and planned for its location, even as subsequent housing options are by no means assured. Sites are also typically run by organizations that don't themselves provide long-term housing. Likewise, as recently reported by The Oregonian, other common approaches such as rent assistance and hotel or motel stays often come with looming...