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

[dchan]

Originally Posted by mhays

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.

Doing all this won't trigger building code requirements. They are completely separate. Building codes are only followed if the government and local Department of Buildings/Construction consider these structures as buildings which need to follow code when constructed, and not as temporary sheds.

I'm just showing what can be done to reduce as much maintenance and operations costs, all while providing occupants with tolerable indoor temperatures. Adding air-sealing, white roofs, and substantial insulation has nothing to do with triggering building code and the resulting excessive construction costs.

[mhays]

Some of it of course. But in my area, a roof over 120 sf is a building. And certainly anything multi-story.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by mhays

Some of it of course. But in my area, a roof over 120 sf is a building. And certainly anything multi-story.

What do you mean by roof then? These sheds all have roofs.

Yes I agree, multi-story would most likely trigger building code, mainly due to structural and fire code egress issues.

[mhays]

A roof that is over 120 sf.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by mhays

A roof that is over 120 sf.

Gotcha, so anything smaller would not trigger building code requirements?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

In my city, these aren't regulated as "homes." If they were over 120 sf of roof area they would be.

Even if they lacked a permanent foundation and were movable? That would max these things at around 10'x10' but the ones in LA look even smaller.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by dchan

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).

Just realized this is a good-in-theory idea, but probably dumb-in-execution because of the enormous risk of fire spread in sheds built back-to-back.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by dchan

Just realized this is a good-in-theory idea, but probably dumb-in-execution because of the enormous risk of fire spread in sheds built back-to-back.

If you are hard on your luck and of sound mind, homelessness can be dealt with. For example, a homeless person of sound mind who can’t afford shelter in Los Angeles will, before long, relocate to a place where their income can afford them shelter that can be sustained through emergencies. Los Angeles is not offering that here. This is the bridge between lawless tent encampments on public right-of-way and lawless shantytowns as seen in places like South Africa. It’s just going to turn into another alternative living option for the hopelessly addicted or mentally ill- and before long their offspring - who will be the ultimate victims of the tiny house scheme. It’s the same way that every violent slum came to be. And it could all be prevented by making the harder choice to arrest and intervene. But the city will be able to use it as an excuse to pad the budget and salaries for their programs so I guess the “right” people get to benefit.

[jd3189]

Even if you arrest these people, they haven’t committed any crime that would keep them permanently in jail. Many homeless folks probably have been to prison before and were let go after serving justified sentences.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

If you are hard on your luck and of sound mind, homelessness can be dealt with. For example, a homeless person of sound mind who can’t afford shelter in Los Angeles will, before long, relocate to a place where their income can afford them shelter that can be sustained through emergencies. Los Angeles is not offering that here. This is the bridge between lawless tent encampments on public right-of-way and lawless shantytowns as seen in places like South Africa. It’s just going to turn into another alternative living option for the hopelessly addicted or mentally ill- and before long their offspring - who will be the ultimate victims of the tiny house scheme. It’s the same way that every violent slum came to be. And it could all be prevented by making the harder choice to arrest and intervene. But the city will be able to use it as an excuse to pad the budget and salaries for their programs so I guess the “right” people get to benefit.

None of this is true.

Seattle's tiny-house villages aren't known for crime. They also shift locations periodically. A staff and rules do maatter.

A sound mind can't necessarily just leave town. In my city, most homeless are locals, and they probably have local connections. Some have jobs. Others might have a family they rarely see, a few friends, jobs they want to go back to, etc. -- the sound-mind type of homeless often think of their status as temporary until they things out. And even homeless have actual active friends, which is one reason they cluster sometimes. Moving cities is a leap of faith that isn't necessarily a good call mathematically and can be a much harder one psycologically, even for normal people.

We need to enforce laws, starting with keeping the god damn sidewalks unblocked. But we still need to actually understand the situation.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

If you are hard on your luck and of sound mind, homelessness can be dealt with. For example, a homeless person of sound mind who can’t afford shelter in Los Angeles will, before long, relocate to a place where their income can afford them shelter that can be sustained through emergencies. Los Angeles is not offering that here. This is the bridge between lawless tent encampments on public right-of-way and lawless shantytowns as seen in places like South Africa. It’s just going to turn into another alternative living option for the hopelessly addicted or mentally ill- and before long their offspring - who will be the ultimate victims of the tiny house scheme. It’s the same way that every violent slum came to be. And it could all be prevented by making the harder choice to arrest and intervene. But the city will be able to use it as an excuse to pad the budget and salaries for their programs so I guess the “right” people get to benefit.

Ah, another person out of state trying to stop California.
They have these homes under 980 in Oakland next to the VA, although I don't know how healthy that is.