The Life and Death of the Original Micro-Apartments (newyorker.com) 105
Earlier this month, demolition began on the Nakagin Capsule Tower, an iconic building designed by Kisho Kurokawa. Still, in many ways, Kurokawa's dynamic vision is woven into the fabric of our architectural present. From a report: The building at the time was in a conspicuous state of disrepair. Its concrete surface was pockmarked; many of the circular windows were papered over. Last year, after more than a decade of back-and-forth over the building's fate, the owners' association agreed to sell the towers to a consortium of real-estate firms, and earlier this month news came that demolition of the structure had finally begun. Recent photos posted by a preservationist initiative on Facebook show that its base now half gone; the hundred and forty-four capsules float above the construction, bereft and doomed. The future that Kurokawa and the Metabolism movement imagined didn't come to pass, yet in many ways their dynamic vision is woven into the fabric of our architectural present.
Metabolism officially launched with a manifesto, in 1960, as Japanese cities were being reconceptualized after the destruction of the Second World War. Part of a new postwar generation of architects, Metabolism's founders -- among them Kurokawa, Kiyonori Kikutake, and Fumihiko Maki -- were driven, as Kurokawa wrote in his 1977 book, "Metabolism in Architecture," by "traumatic images of events that took place when we were in our formative childhood years." Born in 1934, in Aichi Prefecture, Kurokawa was the son of an architect whose style he described as "ultra-nationalistic." In his own studies, he was drawn first to Kyoto University, for its sociological approach to architecture, then to Tokyo University, where he studied under the modernist architect Kenzo Tange, who worked after the war on the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. But Kurokawa was more interested in looking forward. "I felt that it was important to let the destroyed be and to create a new Japan," he wrote.
[...] The Nakagin capsules suggest a kind of utopian urban life style. Their paucity of space and equipment meant that activities typically done at home, like eating and socializing, would instead be conducted out on the street. The Nakagin capsules were not full-time residences but pieds-a-terre for suburban businessmen or miniature studios for artists and designers. The individual capsules were pre-assembled, then transported to the site and plugged in to the towers' central cores. Each unit -- two and a half metres by four metres by two and a half metres, dimensions that, Kurokawa noted, are the same as those of a traditional teahouse -- contained a corner bathroom fit for an airplane, a fold-down desk, integrated lamps, and a bed stretching from wall to wall. Televisions, stereos, and tape decks could also be included at the buyer's discretion. [...] In some ways, Kurokawa's vision of a domestic architecture that prioritized mobility and flexibility proved prophetic. The capsules were the original micro-apartments, an ancestor to today's capsule hotels, and a forebear of the shared, temporary spaces of Airbnb.
Metabolism officially launched with a manifesto, in 1960, as Japanese cities were being reconceptualized after the destruction of the Second World War. Part of a new postwar generation of architects, Metabolism's founders -- among them Kurokawa, Kiyonori Kikutake, and Fumihiko Maki -- were driven, as Kurokawa wrote in his 1977 book, "Metabolism in Architecture," by "traumatic images of events that took place when we were in our formative childhood years." Born in 1934, in Aichi Prefecture, Kurokawa was the son of an architect whose style he described as "ultra-nationalistic." In his own studies, he was drawn first to Kyoto University, for its sociological approach to architecture, then to Tokyo University, where he studied under the modernist architect Kenzo Tange, who worked after the war on the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. But Kurokawa was more interested in looking forward. "I felt that it was important to let the destroyed be and to create a new Japan," he wrote.
[...] The Nakagin capsules suggest a kind of utopian urban life style. Their paucity of space and equipment meant that activities typically done at home, like eating and socializing, would instead be conducted out on the street. The Nakagin capsules were not full-time residences but pieds-a-terre for suburban businessmen or miniature studios for artists and designers. The individual capsules were pre-assembled, then transported to the site and plugged in to the towers' central cores. Each unit -- two and a half metres by four metres by two and a half metres, dimensions that, Kurokawa noted, are the same as those of a traditional teahouse -- contained a corner bathroom fit for an airplane, a fold-down desk, integrated lamps, and a bed stretching from wall to wall. Televisions, stereos, and tape decks could also be included at the buyer's discretion. [...] In some ways, Kurokawa's vision of a domestic architecture that prioritized mobility and flexibility proved prophetic. The capsules were the original micro-apartments, an ancestor to today's capsule hotels, and a forebear of the shared, temporary spaces of Airbnb.
This is the problem with architecture (Score:3)
Too much introspection, there's inspiration, design, and functionality; not in that order. We pre-suppose that building architects are artists but at the end of the day, form follows function. In reality, there are very few commissions available for architects to be creative and most of them are government-funded projects with the intent to inspire people as well as serve their functional purpose. I'm reminded of the Gugenheim in NYC [guggenheim.org], it's still classic but it was privately funded and it's more of a piece of art than the exhibitions it shows, even decades later.
Now we have architects who cookie-cutter stamp out bland 5 over 1 buildings [mtcopeland.com] that all look the same. The original architectural concept was bland, built to a formula, and will soon be the model of tenements for decades to come. Welcome to your bland existence everyone.
It's sad that a new form of architecture was torn down but since it was made as a temporary space, I guess its existence too was temporary.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Those are not what he is calling "5x1" buildings, which means the very common style of apartment buildings being built now. Though I am confused by the "5", it seems in LA the building code only allows 4 floors made of wood as all the ones I see are that tall, and the image in the linked article show a building with 6 floors. IMHO podium parking (that is the term I have heard for having the bottom floors be parking) should be disallowed, it looks ugly and completely isolates the units from the city. Parking
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the insidious thing of 5 over 1s is that there are builders with property management firm clients building these damn things everywhere. To your point most don't consider parking or other concerns, the future building owners want small retail spaces to rent on the bottom floors. They have pre-built designs that incorporate 4 over 1 to 6 over 1 variations depending on what the local zoning and planning will let them get away with. It's all about maximizing the per square foot rental space. These have a
Re: (Score:1)
Austin has been inundated with those ugly buildings, which are done that way because they are cheap to make, have no aesthetic value, pass code (barely), and as the parent said, allow the most space to rent of any building type. Even more common is that there is no parking made available, which means neighborhoods around the buildings are inundated with people parking in the street. Traffic also becomes a nightmare because the little residential roads are just not cut out to handle the volume from those b
Re: (Score:2)
Retail spaces are on the bottom only because the builder is forced to include it to get it built. It does help some, mostly by hiding the parking. Except for restaurants I have rarely seen anything that is actually useful to a local resident occupy these spaces.
I'm pretty certain without any requirements the builders would expand the parking to fill the entire ground floor. Retail spaces, or not allowing parking to touch any outside wall, are useful regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for restaurants I have rarely seen anything that is actually useful to a local resident occupy these spaces.
I presume that, like me, you are male-gendered. I need a grocery store, a hardware store, and nothing else.
My spouse, a female-gendered person, has credit accounts at more than a dozen shops and frequents many more.
Re: (Score:3)
Though I am confused by the "5", it seems in LA the building code only allows 4 floors made of wood
Most building codes allow up to 4 floors made of combustible material, such as wood.
"5x1" buildings use concrete for the ground floor, then 4 more above using wood construction.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay then here in LA they are building 5x1, consisting of one floor of garage and four floors of apartments. The image in the article seems to show a 7x1 which is what confused me.
Re: (Score:2)
https://mtcopeland.com/blog/wh... [mtcopeland.com]
Actually, no, the article clearly states they are talking about 5 stories atop a 1-story parking garage and calls it "5 over 1".
There must be parts of the country where 5 stories of wood are allowed. Here in LA only 4 are allowed (or I assume that is the reason they never build the buildings talller than that). All taller buildings I have seen are all-concrete except sometimes the top floor is wood.
Re: (Score:2)
5x1 does not refer to the number of floors. Rather [wikipedia.org], it refers to "Type 5" construction (wood frame) over a "Type 1" (concrete) base. Coincidentally, there are often 5 stories of Type 5 and 1 story of Type 1, but this is not always the case.
Re: (Score:2)
...and completely isolates the units from the city
That's the whole point because people want that. I'm not even sure if I understand what there is to not like about such a set up aside from the tenants having to walk up stairs.
Re:This is the problem with architecture (Score:4, Informative)
111 W 57th looks like shit. I'll take the Chrysler Building over that any day.
The Aqua Tower isn't bad but you're putting lipstick on a pig, it would have been nice to see an organic flow of the floors with the curves but underneath it's a rectangular prism. Compare that with Casa Batllo [tripadvisor.com] or Casa Mila [nyt.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course but his work, like that of Frank Lloyd-Wright stands the test of time. It inspires and is functional.
Re: (Score:2)
Falling Water pretty much started falling apart while they were building it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what engineers are for. ;-)
"Uh frank, we're going to need to put more steel in this damn thing."
Re: (Score:2)
You're never going to build anything like those as high-rise apartments in Chicago because they'd drop lethal ice chunks in the winter.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: This is the problem with architecture (Score:2)
Curves are nice, but it often becomes awkward when using it. It gets worse when you have to evacuate the building.
Most houses and other buildings past and present are squares and rectangles inside for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
I could see external walls being irregular but there's no rule on the interior layout. Again, I think it's just lazy architecture driven by profit motivation. That's why there are few commissions for anything avant-garde. I mean the Dali Museum in St. Petersburg [duckduckgo.com] is an example of something very cool and modern.
Re: (Score:2)
Curves are nice, but it often becomes awkward when using it. It gets worse when you have to evacuate the building.
Those poor, poor hobbits!
Re: (Score:2)
"This isn't as nice as Gaudi's masterpieces" is a pretty weak criticism.
Re: This is the problem with architecture (Score:2)
It looks like a serrated blade.
I guess it's appropriate, given the status of Chicago at the moment.
Re: This is the problem with architecture (Score:2)
If only someone could find a way to make an apartment not so bland. Maybe hang some pictures on the wall, get some awesome looking furniture, maybe some cool lighting. Maybe even potted plants! Now that's borderline batshit crazy! Who ever heard of plants INdoors?
Scince this was never done before AFAIK, I'll do this myself and report back on my findings of this radical new experiment I'm about to embark on.
Re: This is the problem with architecture (Score:2)
Architects aren't supposed to be artists. They offer a service, and are supposed to serve their customers.
We built a house just 2 years ago. Initially, we went to a local architect. He didn't much care what we wanted or what we had to say. Our house would be *his* canvas.
Fsck that. It's our house and our money, and we have to live their. We went elsewhere.
Re: This is the problem with architecture (Score:4, Insightful)
It is civic incompetence to think that YOUR ignorance is better than the next guy's actual knowledge.
Today, you're either living in a brick OR your second architect was enough of a smooth talker to just dupe you out of your bad ideas. There's the off chance that your first architect was indeed bad, but rhetoric like "They offer a service, and are supposed to serve their customers," (fa-fa-fa) doesn't really help with believing in that
Re: (Score:2)
Most architects want to be artists, I'll agree. But that's not the main part of the job. The job is to provide functional buildings. Yes, aesthetics is part of that function, but just as important are programming (in the space planning sense), budgeting, layout, material selections, detailing, coordinating trades, and other practical functions.
Re: This is the problem with architecture (Score:2)
Honestly, I don't see the problem with how a building exterior looks as long as it does not look downright ugly on the outside, which was a big problem in the late 40s through the 70s (some of those styles that were popular then really didn't age well and look too institutional).
Anyway, who sits around all day staring at the outside of a building?
Re: (Score:2)
Some people love their bricks! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I thought for sure you would be linking to this video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: This is the problem with architecture (Score:2)
I have to disagree. We - as people wanting a house - have requirements that need to be met. It's no different from creating software, really: first thing you do, is understand what your customer needs. Then you, as the professional, design the solution to meet your customer's needs *and* be a quality product.
Sure, the architect has knowledge the customer doesn't - just as in software. However, we were literally told that his artistic concepts were more important than whatever we might want. That's totally
Re: (Score:2)
We - as people wanting a house - have requirements that need to be met. It's no different from creating software, really: first thing you do, is understand what your customer needs. Then you, as the professional, design the solution to meet your customer's needs *and* be a quality product.
I think there is not enough information to know whether you were an unreasonable client or the architect was unprofessional, but an architect isn't just there to follow their client's needs to the letter. They have knowledge about the usability and functionality of a home that many clients won't have. Building a kitchen which doesn't have enough storage, or doesn't follow the triangle rule, may be analogous to a customer asking a developer to create a secure website with no password requirements.
Like I said
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with some architects is that they're all about the grand gesture and things like 'functional and liveable' are beneath them, so you get unusable monstrosities. And they're subject to trends like everyone else so if one unusable building creates a fad, soon you'll have a hundred copies, all unusable.
History is littered with such grand failures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We built a house just 2 years ago. Initially, we went to a local architect. He didn't much care what we wanted or what we had to say. Our house would be *his* canvas.
They're more like tattoo artists. Some folks are happy with Taz on their ankle (rectangle in the burbs) and others want something special. You're gonna have to live with it for a while, so be sure it's what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
This is very Japanese, as was pointed out in an earlier topic this week. Once a building is build and people move in, it is often forgotten about, it doesn't rise in value, and so the focus remains on creating something new. In particular, maintenance of this building and others starts to lag. There's not a sort of Home Owner's Association to collect dues to pay for upkeep.
Re: This is the problem with architecture (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Now we have architects who cookie-cutter stamp out bland 5 over 1 buildings [mtcopeland.com] that all look the same.
Errr what? The fact that you think this is some kind of recent development is quite telling. We've literally been doing this kind of architectural design for over 2 centuries. No seriously you can look to old villages in Europe built in the 1700s setup by rich architects / builders, all cookie cutter approach where each house on the street has identical layouts.
Basically the CTRL+C CTRL+V approach was used anytime an architect was ever responsible for more than one building at a time. That's not new, that's
Re: This is the problem with architecture (Score:2)
"Europe built in the 1700s setup by rich architects / builders, all cookie cutter approach where each house on the street has identical layouts."
A lot of these houses were row houses designed for workers of nearby factories during the Industrial Revolution. They usually look very plain and all the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Being all the same has nothing to do with who they are for, again it has to do with a common architecture of a "designed" suburb.
If you give two different architects a building each opposite the road from each other, they will be different. If you give the same architect two buildings they will be the same. That's basic design consistency.
In other news I have a blue desktop theme on both my laptop and desktop computer. Shocking right?
Re: This is the problem with architecture (Score:2)
In the case of rowhouses built for workers during the Industrial Revolution, these were mass built homes built on the cheap. So there wasn't much in the budget for anything beyond the most basic requirements for it to be liveable.
So you can have 2 or more architects designing batches of rowhouses but in the end the budget and space constraints for each unit will have them look pretty much the same with only some superficial differences.
Re: (Score:2)
Most humans donâ(TM)t want super high density living. The engineering is strained at these densities, both physical and social. To achieve these densities we need architecture. And we have to experiment, which this was. I live in both high density and low density. No one with mone
Re: (Score:2)
432 park avenue was about building billionaire penthouses on every floor on a postage stamp-sized lot.
It's a vertical spaghetti warehouse and my 2yo grandson designs better things with Duplos.
Re: This is the problem with architecture (Score:2)
I've seen some of those "vertical spaghetti" apartment buildings while I was in NYC, and I wondered if they were safe.
I wouldn't want to test this out during a major hurricane.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with "micro apartments" is that they do not serve a purpose for anyone other than temporary accommodation. Students going to a college and businessmen staying overnight kitty corner from their office are what these and other under-500sq ft apartments are intended for. Not seniors (who have assistive needs) and not long-term rentals (which is often what they end up being, SRO's for homeless/nearly-homeless people)
The reality is that people need housing they can actually live in, not line some ren
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny you mention price appreciation. I've been contemplating selling my house. Two homes down the street just sold for over $220/sq foot. While that seems abstract to a lot of people that's over triple the per square foot price of this neighborhood 20 years ago. My property taxes dutifully go up every year as well. So I'm still wondering if I sell now, am I on the uphill part of the curve, the top before the bubble bursts. I have lakefront property so I'd just plop a modular on it and work from there
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is, will the bubble ever actually pop? Really?
We might get small corrections, but real estate cost has been on the rise for 25 years now across most of the developed world, with some minor blips here and there. In 1997 my parents bought their house for £45,000. They sold that house in 2014 for £220,000. It just went on the market again for £250,000.
We bought a new build in 2015 for £240,000, its now valued at £350,000.
Moved to NZ, bought a house here for $7
Re: (Score:2)
In 1950 there was about 2.5 billion people in the world. Today, we are about 7.9 billion. Thing is, the world is not getting any bigger and new awesome places people want to live just don't exist.
You can't just move to uninhabited land and setup like you could 120 years ago. Even then most land was owned by someone.
So naturally affordable housing is not an option. It's worse that we treat housing as a way to make money instead of an essential like food and clothing.
Of course there isn't affordable housing w
Re: (Score:2)
Its a little more complex than "they aren't making land any more"... And its definitely more complex than "the rich are being typical rich and buying up everything".
In the city I left in the UK, the local shitty 1960s shopping area, dubbed the cities "second city centre" at the time, is up for redevelopment - the only way the developers could make it financially viable was to propose a 25 floor residential tower as part of it.
Got shot down, because "it wasn't in keeping with the area".
So the developers gav
Re: This is the problem with architecture (Score:2)
"The problem with "micro apartments" is that they do not serve a purpose for anyone other than temporary accommodation. "
Except that they often have to. Especially in an insane housing market and a teetering economy.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't help that in many places, proposals for buildings that actually do something different to the norm end up being the focus of local opposition (often because those buildings would require variances to the planning code in order for them to be allowed)
Re:This is the problem with architecture (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to me what we have here isn't some kind of would-be Howard Rourke making a grand artistic statement that the philistines just couldn't understand. It's more like a failed tech startup. The architect came up with a creative way to solve a problem for a particular market. That idea showed initial promise, but in the long run it wasn't sustainable because of maintenance costs. In tech at least, it's a pretty common story.
This tower went up in an astounding 30 days, thanks to off-site capsule fabrication. The capsules are replaceable, and were supposed to last 25 years. The problem is that removing, renovating and replacing the capsule would cost $50,000. That doesn't sound like a lot until you realize it has less than 1/5 the floor area of an average American studio apartment.
Re: (Score:2)
Those non-functional requirements will kill you every time.
I think the summary highlighted the actual problem (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like the micro apartments were intended to basically be a place to sleep in between doing things not-at-home. That only works if there's enough of an ecosystem to support it, and it definitely doesn't sound like there is.
Back in 2019, I went on a cruise. Norwegian has a specific section for singles, where the rooms are 99 square feet. A communal space exists for everyone, and it has a place for snacks and coffee and a wine dispenser. The 99-square-foot room wasn't a problem at all, because most of one's time was spent somewhere else on the ship doing something. Whether it was the dozens of activities on the day's roster or just swimming in the pool or...pretty much whatever you wanted to do, there was an entire ship full things to do, so pretty much the only three things one did in the stateroom was sleep, shower, and use the bathroom. 99 square feet (9.2 square meters) wasn't a problem at all when "the rest of the ship" was as good as being a home.
I thought about this for a while, and realized that living in such a small space quickly becomes a problem without an ecosystem around it. My room didn't have any sort of kitchen capabilities. This makes perfect sense on a cruise ship because there are a dozen restaurants available, but at home, I might want to cook. In a micro apartment, it would be like that all the time. Leaving my clothes in my suitcase was easy enough for a week, but even the most minimalist individual is probably going to want more than a suitcase-worth of clothing. The only two places to sit were the bed, and a small desk area that barely fit my laptop. Essentially, if I wanted to have a conversation with another person, it was either going to be outside my stateroom, or in bed.
A micro-apartment building seems like something that could work if the building owners also included more of the "on the street" things. On-premises storage units, laundromats, communal meeting spaces, and perhaps some sort of WeWork office area might provide some of the core needs of tenants. It's a different style of living, I get that...but signing a lease where the bathroom at work is more comfortable than my apartment isn't exactly a selling point, and neither is the dependence on third parties for basically everything. It works for a week when you're on a cruise ship, it doesn't work when you're signing a lease and there is no 'rest of the cruise ship'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like the micro apartments were intended to basically be a place to sleep in between doing things not-at-home. That only works if there's enough of an ecosystem to support it, and it definitely doesn't sound like there is.
In Japan there is a demand judging by the number of micro-capsule hotels. Japanese businessmen will use them if they cannot make it home for the night. The issue with this building is that it was hard to upgrade/fix these units where as the manufactured capsule pods are easier to fix and replace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My room didn't have any sort of kitchen capabilities. This makes perfect sense on a cruise ship because there are a dozen restaurants available, but at home, I might want to cook.
On holiday in Italy I remember looking at village bread ovens. Most individual houses didn't have their own bread ovens -- instead the village had one big bank of ovens, and someone centrally maintained the temperature I guess, and everyone would come along and bake their bread.
It feels conceptually odd that every single family in my city has a small industrial facility inside their home (a kitchen) and every single one of us does a little bit of light industrial work each morning and evening. If I were try
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There have been similar efforts to change housing permitting rules to allow for smaller, cheaper, apartment units. As well as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) which are typically renovations to turn garages, or parts of them, into small apartments. As well as backyard cottages, etc. While seemingly sound in principle (small, cheap place, better than no place) I think it disregards a quality of life factor. I lived in the dorms in college, and while they were nice enough, communal spaces, etc. It would
Re: (Score:2)
"People cannot thrive in tiny, solitary, cells for homes."
Those "small buildings" are usually presented as accessories for living in beautiful nature. Or at least that's what I remember from the TV shows that presented them.
Re: I think the summary highlighted the actual pro (Score:2)
" 'rest of the cruise ship'."
Depending on where you are in the city, it could be the biggest cruise ship in the world.
Of course, if it's located in a "food desert", and there is nothing good for miles around, yeah it's going to suck major ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Until I started a family, I would have loved it if dorm-like housing was more common in the US. Just give me 100 sq ft for a bed, 100 sq ft for an office, and perhaps 100 sq ft for some private hobby space, and the rest could be communal. Perhaps an upgrade for a private bathroom too. Then you can have shared kitchen space and gathering space, and some of that could always be open and some could be rented out.
You could easily go from 10 people taking up 10,000 sq ft in apartments to 10 people having 3000
Re: (Score:1)
It sounds like the micro apartments were intended to basically be a place to sleep in between doing things not-at-home. That only works if there's enough of an ecosystem to support it, and it definitely doesn't sound like there is.
This describes the typical Japanese salaryman life almost verbatim. Some office workers commute in at the beginning of the week, work and sleep in the city at capsule hotels and the like, and then commute back home for the weekend. Some just stay at those places after working late or drinking with the office crew. It's incredibly common to need one-person one-night accommodations especially in Tokyo and other larger cities.
Who knew? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is Japan though, and that size of an apartment is not unheard of. Some there are renting those units just to have meetins spaces for drinking, small offices, etc. Especially as it's in Tokyo and you can use it as the weekday house before you head to the real home and family on weekends. It also had plenty of amenties, it was a clever design for 1970's. The snag is that it froze in time, which happens in Japan, because it's no longer new and the value is depreciating rapidly and no one is spending to
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, student housing in Tokyo is especially creative.
Tiny Homes (Score:2)
I'm imagining custom-made tiny homes with standard exterior and mating connections for a central hub. Rather than only being free-standing in someone's backyard they could be docked with others to a central hub. The central hub could be a tower like Nakagin or something shorter or e
Re: (Score:2)
There is a building in Mountain View I think, also from the 70s, intended for office use. The first tall concrete structure there, and it was built top down! That is, the central core was built then floors were built on the ground and then hoisted up. So very modular as well, and vvery 70s.
https://www.mv-voice.com/news/... [mv-voice.com]
Re: (Score:2)
RVs are largely standardized that way. 30 or 50 amp electrical, standard black and grey water connections, standard gas connections, standard water connections, Etc.
Take a trip to a dealer and see trailers in the 24 ft range, it wouldn't be hard to use that as a base for your design.
On a larger scale development keeping black and gray water separate would simplify waste water treatment and reuse.
This is what should be used for homeless housing (Score:5, Insightful)
This looks exactly like what should be built for housing the homeless. The article says that each unit costs about $70,000 which is pretty sensible.
The place only has to be marginally better than living in a tent on the street (which means a lockable room with solid walls that you can store crap in, and not have a curfew) and the homeless will stay in it. Conversely it does not have to be better than crashing on a friend's couch, since a homeless person deciding to do that would reduce the amount of this housing needed.
Unfortunately there are a lot of forces preventing such stuff from being built.
There are "advocates" who insist anything that does not look like a luxury apartment with a living room and kitchen and spare bedroom, is "temporary housing" and does not count. Hotel rooms are permanent housing, and many poor people did live in them for their entire lives (until AirBnB conversions threw them out). Build the structure and if it is good enough that the homeless does not walk out on their own, they can stay there until they die, there is absolutely no reason to claim it is "temporary".
There are NIMBYs who insist that every unit have parking and a minimum footprint, knowing full well that they are making sure the thing is too expensive to build (and then have the gall to complain on the local news about how expensive they are when a few manage to get built). These people are even worse than the "advocates" because their motives are fake, at least the advocates are honest (deluded, but honest).
Then there is a people who think a shelter full of cots is the solution, when it has less security and privacy than the rip-stop nylon structure the homeless is using now. Or that they should actively punish the homeless by putting them in a jail (ie with a curfew). And then they get to complain when the homeless "escape" and return to the street and can say the government is not doing anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you define someone as "homeless" when they move in (children and all) with grandma, yeah, you get 20% numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
No. 20% does not mean you will find a child in every 5th tent. It means more like you will find 4 children in every 20th tent. And don't forget RVs and cars which are much more likely to be used by families.
Re: (Score:2)
The number of children among the unsheltered homeless is not zero, but it's a small percentage. You get to "20%" when you start counting couch surfers or living with relatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? If you counted people living with relatives the number of "homeless" would be in the tens of millions.
Re: (Score:2)
Got it. You don't understand how they get the numbers. They get the numbers they get via the McKinney-Vento Act aid requests.
You're 10. Living with Grandma and ma? Claim it's just a night-time residence and POOF. You qualify for extra aid. AND two more tic-marks in the homeless category. Most folks living in this situation don't game the system. Quite a few do.
The stats that should be focused on are unsheltered homeless. Across the country, it's mostly managed. Even NYC manages to shelter virtuall
Re: (Score:2)
So is there an age cutoff for when "living with a relative" counts as homeless?
Again I just don't see this, if every kid living with a relative counted as homeless there would be tens of millions of homeless, not hundreds of thousands. I think you are saying only some fraction of people in this situation claim it, is that right?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there needs to be some larger units, but not all that many.
I think the homeless should be able to choose whether the building they move to allows drug use, smoking, and pets (they may have to weight their choice against the location). These larger units are probably in the no-drug, yes-pets buildings, and a larger group of people are required to move into it. A large group is free to try to live in a tiny unit, if this does not work a few will be kicked out and are thus homeless and can get another unit
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.krqe.com/news/albu... [krqe.com]
Re: (Score:2)
People are slowly coming around to the idea that the source of a great deal of the homeless on the streets is due to drug addiction. I won't even say mental illness, because I think that too muddles the issue. I'm not making a "go get a job you addict" but rather making the point that intensive rehab is the only real path here.
People like to trot out the 'housing first' model that successful in Europe, but the US is very different culturally than Europe. That will not work here, the same way that the Du
Re:This is what should be used for homeless housin (Score:4, Informative)
The chronically homeless, on the other hand, are a subset of the homeless population that is often the most vulnerable. These are people who have been living on the streets for more than a year, or four times in the past three years, and who have a "disabling condition" that might include serious mental illness, an addiction or a physical disability or illness.
According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that represents about 20 percent of the national homeless population.
By implementing a model known as Housing First, Utah has reduced that number from nearly 2,000 people in 2005, to fewer than 200 now.
https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Drug use would be allowed with the exact same level of enforcement as for somebody living in a tent on the street. It is an absolute requirement that there be no disadvantage of living in these structures. This is far more important than making them any better, there must be absolutely ZERO reasons for living outside the structure to be superior. Otherwise, as you point out, they will leave, defeating the entire purpose of it.
Though as part of "make it marginally better than living on the street" it is prob
Re: (Score:2)
We are not here to make being homelessness less difficult. Drug use that inhibits your ability to function is not acceptable. I don't care if you use drugs but I shouldn't have to support you or your habit. No different then alcoholism.
Allowing camping anywhere people want is a terrible idea. The public parks are for everyone. They are not meant to be homeless tent cities. Cities need to designate area for camping that also include bathrooms and laundry. If homeless refuse to use the resources being provide
Re: (Score:2)
So you are basically saying there needs to be a guarded jail built to house the homeless. That unfortunatly is by far the most expensive solution. You are one demonstrating one of the many ways people are guaranteeing homeless shelters don't work.
It is really really simple: if the guy does not have incentive to leave the building, he will stay in it. That should be absolutely 100% of the purpose of any design decisions. If it is worse than living on the street to him, then it is wrong. If it is already bett
Re: (Score:2)
So your solution is to, what exactly? House them forever providing them with food, shelter, laundry and bathrooms, for nothing? Force them to go to counseling sessions about their drug use, but don't stop them from bringing drugs in or selling drugs (they will). Force them to get a job maybe?
I could see them just saying, fuck you I'm not working and I'm not stopping my drugs. Then they leave or you just tolerate the behavior.
The much smaller amount really do need to be institutionalized because they are una
Re: (Score:2)
No food is necessary (though it does seem this has been used to try to bribe the homeless to stay when there are other rules). There is a huge homeless camp near me and it is obvious that they are able to buy meals (two lunch trucks are there continuously). You are again suggesting unnecessary things, the building must provide something that living on the street does not (and I think a lockable room that they can store possessions is enough, as it will make a huge huge difference in their life as they will
Re: This is what should be used for homeless housi (Score:3)
"Then there is a people who think a shelter full of cots is the solution, when it has less security and privacy than the rip-stop nylon structure the homeless is using now"
This is not only NOT a solution, but it perpetuates violence and causes people to not want to enter for good reason. It's also dehumanising, in some ways even more than prison. They are probally thinking "if it works for the military.." NO. Two completely different sets of demographics, and these kinds of shelters do not seperate
Re: (Score:2)
Fully agree, I was trying to say this is exactly what is wrong with current shelters.
Basically the shelter has to not be worse than living in a tent on the street. A whole lot of people who think this is easy to solve just ignore this fact, or assume that it will be a jail with armed guards, which is far more expensive than the most elaborate "woke" proposals.
Re: This is what should be used for homeless hous (Score:2)
"Basically the shelter has to not be worse than living in a tent on the street"
Living in a tent also makes a person feel far more normal than the warehouse shelters do. Nobody wants to feel "special" or abnormal, but that's what the cot shelters do.
Re: This is what should be used for homeless housi (Score:2)
"Every low income housing project and commie block started off adequate enough for the homeless too...but people just destroy shit."
Ironically, the block housing in actual communist countries were not nearly as dangrous as American housing projects, even though they were just as bland and depressing.
What happens in America is because of racism, oppression, and that the housing projects were often built to keep people segregated.
This isn't some "Woke" dribble, it's something that has
Re: (Score:2)
Individual rooms that are locked (so it is difficult to switch rooms) helps. I also think it is vital that the homeless person be able to leave at any time they want for any reason.
Shared indoor public areas do get trashed, that is a big problem. Primary reason I think the units have to have their own bathrooms. But this is not worse than tent encampments which are also trashed.
Huh (Score:4, Insightful)
Humans want to live in something more substantial than a glorified burrow?
Who'd have possibly imagined it?
"utopian urban life style" ?
Fuck that.
There are still a large number of people who INSIST that the 'right way for people to live' mimics their own childless, urban, coastal, expensive, peripatetic lifestyle. Who needs cars? I always uber to where I'm going or use public transport! Who needs a yard? Or open space? I don't need a kitchen, I can get $7 gourmet coffee only 100' from the door of my rowhouse! I just love people around so I have a micro apartment and spend all my time socializing! Who wants to live in the same place forever? I lease an apartment so I can pick up and go somewhere else on an adventure!
Fuck them too.
MOST people on this earth want a stable, safe place to raise their kids, decent schools nearby, and a minimum of comfort after a hard day's work. A car is nice, so we can go where we want to, when we want to without having to hew to some ride schedule.
Fuck utopians.
Re: Huh (Score:2)
Whenever the word "utopia" comes up, my bullshit alarm blares at 1,000 decibels.
There is no "utopian urban lifestyle" or "utopian" anything.
I suspect people who are braying that they live a utopian urban life style is seriously in denial, or they are experiencing "first time" euphoria that will pretty soon wear off.
The western "dream" has coloured this for many... (Score:3)
The thought of having so little space, of the idea of a lack of freedom in that space, appals me now - I just shiver with fear over living like this.
Hear me out though, as ultimately, my mindset has been formed by modern western living...
When I was in my 20's, I really didn't care too much where I slept and really where I lived looked like.
I spent close on a decade in 'shared housing' - in some countries, referred to as 'communes' - which in reality, were just friends sharing a big house.
It was an amazing time, I loved it.
I also spent, in total, a year travelling.
I did the kibbutz thing and I also did the "labourer in the city" thing, spending the better part of 3 months living in a hostel in Tel-Aviv.
I can't imagine doing that now. For those 3 months, my personal "living space" was pretty much a single bed.
I learned pretty quick, that the top bunk was a bad choice. I acquired enough cloth to seal off my lower bunk for privacy.
You can't do that on a top bunk.
The point is, for many years, I very easily coped with communal living - with having people around me _all_ of the time, at least in terms of living space.
If I wanted some "me" time, I just went on long walks.
I'm rambling now, I'll try and get to the point...
For the bulk of human civilisation, living in _very_ close quarters to others, has been the norm.
For many millions, if not billions, it still is.
Living with exceptionally few personal possessions has been the norm.
About as much as you can carry.
Everything else, is shared, communal, after a fashion.
It was the human way, it's how we evolved - and sure, what marked our "leaders" or "privileged few" out from these norms, were that they got a special status, in terms of more living space - but they were _still_ surrounded by others in those living quarters. (servants mostly)
I guess this concept could really be considered 'micro apartments' in the modern sense - you may get a somewhat private space to sleep, but everything else - all other aspects of living, are communal.
What happened to humanity - at least, in terms of wealthier societies - that we decided this was just ... horrible?
Is the "dream" ultimately a completely unsustainable one - we all want to be privileged, rich?
To be able to isolate ourselves from others?
It would seem so.
The very thought of having to share everything with others, now, is a nightmare for me.
This is despite the fact, that I never really had a problem with it when younger - I didn't really even consider it.
Sure, it was an initial fear when I first started travelling, but that lasted, at most, two or three nights.
How odd.
Re: The western "dream" has coloured this for many (Score:2)
"The very thought of having to share everything with others, now, is a nightmare for me"
Nothing odd about it as this stuff gets broken, or hoarded denying other people use of it, or it's not available when you really need it, and you might need it right now, or someone else and not you is dictating how/when it can be used.
This can wear on you rather quickly and this is why there will always be the desire for personal posessions no matter how communistic a society becomes.
Video tour of a unit (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a 12min video tour of a few units if you're as curious as I was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXRJE2caPNY [youtube.com].
See also the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakagin_Capsule_Tower [wikipedia.org]