Intro

IMPORTANT NOTE: make sure you read the previous articles:

• Homelessness: Overcoming the Bias,

• Homelessness: - Shelters + Camps,

Not everything in the existing shelter typology deserves to be discarded. There is a bright side to shelters and a dark side to camps. Both are fairly obvious, but there are nuances.

Positives of Shelters: Services and Staff

The highest-rated homeless facility in MN has no housing on site - it only provides services. The homeless highly regard homeless services and the staff carrying them out. It shows us that accommodation is the key issue with shelter typology.

Below, I gathered the list of the highest-rated services across all shelters where I volunteered. The list is in order of importance, and the order will surprise you.

#1. ADVOCACY. Help in managing your risk factors - a path out of homelessness.

• Specific help. Help often involves battling the unyielding bureaucracy of government offices (benefits, ADA, veteran services, section 8 and section 42 housing assistance) and private companies (employment, AA, severance, medical insurance, homeowner's insurance, did I mention insurance?).

• Limited resources. Sadly, the staff is not numerous, underpaid, and has limited resources, which hinders their ability to help.

#2. INVISIBILITY.  Invisibility services allow you to hide your homelessness status and regain harassment-free access to architecture and public spaces. Architecture hates you when you are homeless, puts up spikes, and all but hisses at you like an angry cat. To avoid architecture’s attitude, you need to look and smell nice.

• Hygiene. Showers, bathrooms, laundry, haircuts (almost impossible to get while homeless, even with money), etc. Interestingly, the most under-donated items are tampons and pads.

• Clothing exchange. A big pile of donated clothing (homeless and housed donate items they don't need) from which you can pull something newer and socially acceptable.

• Address. An address is a must-have to do anything, like finding a job. Therefore, shelters will provide you with a mailbox so you can receive your rejection letters.

#3. RELIEF. Relief includes all services easing the harsh realities of homeless life:

• Child Care. It's priority one. Even housed individuals can rarely afford it.

• Secure storage. Losing your home should not mean losing everything in it. Preservation of whatever material assets you have left is priority two.

• Foot care. Something I did not know was important. As a homeless, you will walk many miles in worn-out shoes. It will destroy your feet and hinder your ability to do anything. Poor foot health is the reason why the homeless often tie towels to the metal steps of their bunk ladders.

• Library. A single Ikea shelf in the corner filled with old books. Nonetheless, it is a widely used entertainment commodity. Formal libraries often donate books to fill the shelves.

• Tech Resources. AKA charger and wifi - not computers. Many households today don’t have personal computers, but nearly all have cell phones. When you get evicted, you’ll likely keep your phone. Computer labs in shelters are a last resort and are only used when your phone dies or gets lost.

• Classes, meetings. A mixed bag. Some swear by them, and some call them preachy, bootstrapy, and tone-deaf (“Just don't be homeless!”). Financial classes, parenting classes, alcoholics/ addicts anonymous (for those who need it, this is the top of the list).

• Food. It is the last, and it is not an error. I cooked food at shelters and fumes alone made it a bit nauseous. Food in shelters is whatever is about to expire in the grocery’s frozen aisle. Eat that for a month, and you’ll probably declare medical bankruptcy. Homeless prefer to hunt for food on the streets and at restaurants.

Camps are not the solution to homelessness, at least not in their default state. As is, they have numerous issues.

• Exposure. Cold, heat, snow, rain, winds, etc. Homeless are excellent at managing exposure, but it can still result in health issues, health emergencies, and even death.

• Hazard. Self-built structures are not code-compliant. The primary hazard is the propane burner as a heat source. It could be solved by providing electricity and electric heaters.

• Hygiene. Hygiene in camps is always a struggle. The city might provide toilets and trash disposal services, but not showers.

• Lack of supervision. People in camps look after each other. However, some prefer privacy more. Privacy is a double-edged sword. If you overdose or suffer from hypothermia inside your tent, nobody will even know until it is too late. Also, camps lacking supervision lean towards anarchy.

• Conflicts with housed residents:

• Aesthetic. Camp close to your property will reduce its value. Great for tax assessments. Less so if you are trying to sell.

• Begging. Awkward social interaction for all involved.

• Drama. Camp communities are not immune to drama and conflicts. While shelters have more drama inside - this drama remains inside. The camp drama is in the public domain, making it more annoying and dangerous as bystanders might get looped in.

• Drugs. Once again, the issue is that it's done publicly. Otherwise, the housed residents don't care. Out of sight, out of mind.

• Crime. Homeless are not career criminals. If they were, they wouldn't be homeless. Homeless mostly commit crimes of loitering and petty theft. I once tracked my stolen wallet to a homeless person's pocket with an airtag. It took 4 hours, and it was very annoying.

• Displacement. The risk of impending displacement is a part of life in a camp. Below we have a drone photo of an actual displacement in Minneapolis. We see nine people moving three homeless residents, which is the way it is done - the process requires an overwhelming show of force to keep it civil. Pushing people from street to street, to shelter, back to street rack up the bills. On average, we spend $30,000-50,000 per homeless person per year on displacement. Many argue that this money is better spent on housing the homeless, and I agree. For example, my below-market rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $15,000 per year.

The shelter typology is broken. It shares a lot of DNA with prison typology and tries to fix people instead of helping them.

Let's think about it. What are the differences between shelter and prison typologies? A prison is easier to get in but harder to get out of. A prison feels more like home because you are not forced to relocate daily into a different cell with all your possessions. Shelters have murals sometimes. I struggle to think of anything else.

Now, similarities. Both seek to correct behavior but only end up punishing it instead. Both are dense, overcrowded, rugged, and oppressive. Both aren't accommodating and expect you to accommodate. Both sever communal, social, economic, and family ties on purpose. Both are deeply resented by most of the residents. Both have the only positive - services that help you to get out of them.

Let’s re-examine the sentiments.

“A homeless camp is better PROGRAMMING than a homeless shelter.”

The homeless never spelled “programming” out because they don’t know what it is. Meanwhile, we missed the silent part because of our bias. When “lazy crazy addict” says it, our response is: “Naturally, you like the AESTHETICS of your tent better - you are nuts.” When an orphan says it, we PAUSE, think, and go: “Oh, you mean programming? Tell me more.” This is why bias among architects is so incredibly dangerous. It dooms our design before we even pick up a pencil. Bias is a shortcut in our brain, and the pause is the roadblock across this shortcut.

I fully agree that homeless camps have better programming than shelters.

"There are rules in the shelters PATCHING THE DESIGN, and the homeless don't like to follow these rules."

Once again, we missed the silent part. When typology imposes an ever-growing list of “don’ts” on the clients, it is simply disconnected from their needs. This disconnect is the bias against the homeless solidified in the typology. The homeless have a right to resent the bias against them and the rules born from it.

***

What can we do? How can we correct shelter typology? We must re-program the shelter typology from scratch. We must pull it away from prisons and create a typology that helps people instead of trying to fix them. We need to forgo value engineering as design intent. We must reconnect with the clients by learning from the informal uses and typologies. Informality is what the client feedback looks like when we don’t listen.

The new shelter typology will be both cheaper and more effective. It will be a place to be for all, not just people with no other place to go.

A shelter should be a place WE wouldn’t mind living in because we might one day.

With AI entering the architectural profession, the economy will adjust, which might not be in our profession’s favor.

What does this shelter look like? The ideas will be explored in Parts 3 and 4. Continue reading…