Intro

I mentioned before that I’m passionate about informal architecture, which means self-built without the architect’s involvement. I grew up in such a place in Russia, so it became a life-long passion.

Informal solutions appear where formal solutions fail or don’t appear. Therefore, a homeless camp is an informal response to an inadequate homeless shelter typology. The existence of camps shows the shortcomings of the government, the market, and us as architects. Also, we can see the symptoms of the failing shelter typology in its many informal uses, which I will cover in detail below.

While it is our first instinct to fight informality, we are better off embracing and learning from it (see image nearby). This approach became the primary design and research tool in my homelessness project.

Scope

In 2022, I started studying US homeless camps and homeless shelters. A year and a half later, I present you my findings. The scope of this study is 5 homeless camps and 5 homeless shelters that I volunteered at, all in the Twin Cities metro area. The scope is limited, but it is self-funded research that I did in my spare time.

I broke up the research into four parts. Part one (this article) will focus on the negatives of shelters and how the camps respond to them. Part two will do the opposite - it will cover the positives of shelters and the negatives of camps and conclude the deconstruction of the existing shelter typology. Finally, I will present my take on the new shelter typology for your judgment in parts three and four.

Sentiments

"A homeless camp is better than a homeless shelter." - homeless.

This is a surprising and counterintuitive sentiment among the homeless. We need to treat it seriously, as it is direct client feedback. This article will try to answer a simple question - why do the homeless feel that way? While answering, we should avoid a typical knee-jerk reaction to this:

"There are rules in the shelters, and the homeless don't like to follow these rules." - housed.

Even if it is true, why don’t they? And what are these rules?

Problem: Segregations

The traditional shelter segregates the clients "to keep peace and avoid drama." Firstly, the homeless are divided into individuals and families.

Shelters for Individuals

Individuals are further divided into age groups: youth (18y.o. or less) and others. Then, they are divided by sex: male, female, transgender. If you have pets, you must give them to an animal shelter. After your admission, you might be further referred to more specialized shelters.

Therefore, if you had a community before, it ends up scattered across the city.

Shelters for Families

Families are ONLY parents or legal guardians with underage children in their care. No other groups will be recognized. For example, if you are taking care of your underage nephew while not being his legal guardian, you will go to a male shelter, and your nephew will enter the foster system, gaining the worst risk factor one could have.

Informal Solution

The solution offered by camps is straightforward. You get to maintain your social ties and even create new ones. You get to keep your beloved pet, too. For many, it is enough reason to remain on the street and avoid shelters. Segregation was the first most-cited reason for not going to shelters.

Problem: Accommodations

I bet you that you will choose the street over the shelter by the time you finish reading this section. Remember the hypothetical young lady who fled her abusive boyfriend in Homelessness: Overcoming the Bias article? Let’s see where she and people like her are greeted.

• Feel. Shelters feel like prisons: hostile. Shelter typology is unaware of the book Defensible Spaces (Oscar Newman, 1972). Shelters do everything this book warned against, creating rugged, oppressive, controlling spaces, with correctional aspirations. Value engineering as the sole design intent: we end up with a core and shell, with some nice façade to keep the neighborhood happy. People conquer the hostile space with informal uses, each indicating a design issue.

• Personalization. Now, let’s take a closer look at a bunk. Shelters will resist any attempts to customize bunks and make them your own: stickers, graffiti, posters, etc. I tried both blank and vandalized bunks. A vandalized bunk feels better and more humane.

• Privacy. Zero (a brave thing to try in the US). You are in everyone’s view. Only a perforated metal screen separates you from the next bunk, so you sleep next to someone you don't know. You can try to put up some posters for privacy, but they will be removed. I think a perforated screen was added to allow a breeze. In addition to the breeze, you will tolerate your neighbor's sounds, smells, and… activities. All are real complaints. This is where I drew the line for myself. If you are willing to endure someone’s activities through the night - you are braver than me. The shelter staff says that zero privacy is for the client's safety.

• Trash. Shelters are messy. There isn’t much we can do about messy and mentally ill people. But we can do something about the following:

  1. Excessive density,

  2. No trashcans (there is a central container for a room of over 100 people),

  3. No sense of ownership (do you ever clean your hotel room, especially if the staff was not kind to you?).

• Regimen. Shelters adhere to a strict regimen. Namely, you are expected to check in and out every day at a specific time, or you will lose your spot the next cycle. Keeping a bed open for you, even for one night, is to deny this bed to someone on the street. If you are late because you looked for a job, sought help from a friend, or frivolously - you forfeit your bunk and end up on the street at the back of the line.

• Theft. Items outside of lockers are prohibited because "they lead to theft, and theft leads to drama." Nonetheless, people will take the risk of theft over throwing items out at the entrance. Theft is the second most-sited reason for not going to shelters.

• Storage. You are provided with one or two lockers that don't fit standard bags. Combined with the harsh regimen, you will load and unload your bags forever. It leads to misplaced items, suspected theft, and drama out of nothing. Let’s think about what happens when you get evicted. When the police knock on your door - you pack your bags. Homelessness is like a trip with a destination unknown. Therefore, at a minimum, shelters should provide enough space for luggage, a travel bag, and personal items to fit unpacked (imagine if you had to fully unload your luggage upon boarding a plane).

Informal Solution

• Your Tent. We think that any roof is better than no roof. This attitude makes our core and shell lose to a leaking tent. The tent is yours and unoppressive. You can customize it. You use the items you saved in eviction to subdivide and organize the space. You end up with an architectural fabric knitted from the memories of better times, as opposed to the cold and indifferent core and shell. You can claim as much space as you need. You can permanently store as many items as you need. You choose your neighbors. You keep your pets. At the end of the day, some people prefer the exposure challenges of the street over the social challenges of the shelter.

• Storage variety. Homeless people have devised many innovative ways to store and transport their items. While shelters limit what you can keep, the street will let you keep as much as you need. Also, camps are communities while shelters are comprised of strangers. Therefore, the risk of theft in camps is dramatically reduced.

Problem: Preconditions

• Sacrifice. Even Housing-First shelters (standard in MN) expect you to sacrifice most of your possessions at the entrance, sever your social ties, and give up your pets, as shown above.

• Drugs. "Homeless don't want to go do shelters because they can't do drugs there." A false statement that grossly underestimates their creativity. Even the prison typology, famously the most oppressive and restrictive topology, is full of drugs.

  Beyond that, MN shelters admit people with unresolved substance use issues. Studies show working on your addiction issues indoors yields better outcomes. People who enter recovery are then referred to specialized rehab shelters that have no drugs (or rather have fewer drugs). Overall, nothing will stop people from using drugs except themselves.

• Faith. Religion-based shelters at churches often require the clients to attend a mass as a precondition for staying. If your confession aligns with the mandatory mass - there is no issue. However, the mass becomes a ritual of forced conversion to another religion for all others. There are things to say about encouraging all churches to serve as emergency shelters to ensure a safety net for all denominations and beliefs.

Informal Solution

• Come in! The general precondition is, as in any other social group, “Be nice to others and don’t cause trouble.” You and your community make the rules. Some camps enforced no open drug use. Some enforced cleanliness. Others were anarchy. However, no matter the situation, the camps were more inclusive and accepting than shelters, which is a huge indictment of the shelter typology.

Problem: Location

• Location. All general shelters I visited are centrally located close to jobs and hassles, which is mandatory for making an effective shelter. Well done, MN! However, specialized shelters are on the outskirts that are hard to reach. It happens because of NIMBY.

• NIMBY. NIMBY stands for “not in my backyard.” Finding a spot for a shelter is always an issue. Nobody wants a shelter nearby, fearing it would drive property values down. Therefore, the shelters are pushed to the outskirts, to someone else’s less reluctant (less affluent) backyard.

Informal Solution

• The informal solution is in alignment with the general shelters in MN. See the map nearby of all the camps I visited. The critical location requirement is access to jobs and transport, so all the camps were clustered along the greenways and light rail stations.

• The sketches below will show the layout of the visited camps and their stories.

Problem: Conflicts.

• Homelessness as punishment. The hard-set high density of shelters creates conflicts. Density and drama was the third most-sited reason for not going to shelters. Homeless who disrupt the order at the shelter could forfeit their bunk. As such, homelessness is used as punishment. However, if you let the disruptors stay and carry on with activities, all other clients are left to suffer from it. It is a lose-lose situation.

Informal Solution

• Managing and tolerating.  The flexible density of camps allows you to create the necessary spacing to manage conflicts and not get in each other’s way. If you don't want to be a part of drama, you move. If you vibe with others, you cluster with them.

***

As promised, we now play the Uno-reverse card and talk about the positives of shelters and the negatives of camps. Continue to Part 2…