Thursday, May 22, 2008
Emails
Below are a selection of emails during the first semester of the Thesis. These emails have provoded information, insight and direction. As I progress further towards ccompletion I am sure the following emails will push me along, refocus my efforts and really rethink homeless living.
Ken,
I'll forward your email to earthquake shack expert Jane Cryan. She's retired from the business, having dedicated a couple of decades to researching and saving refugee shacks, but you might get lucky and she'll feel inspired to find some numbers for you.
Type A shacks were 10 x 14, and I think Jane said only about 500 were built.
Type B shacks were the most prevalent and I think they were about 14 x 18.
Type C's measured 18 x 24, I think? Just a couple of them survive today.
The fourth size I think were more in the style of barracks, but Jane would be better able to tell you on that.
Overall, 5,610 refugee cottages were constructed. A couple of hundred were burned or broken up, but the rest were hauled off to be new homes when the camps closed.
Good luck with your thesis!
Woody LaBounty
Western Neighborhoods Project
www.outsidelands.org
______________________________________________________________________________
Hi Ken,
Thank you very much for your email. I visited your blog and was quite impressed. You have undertaken a monumental, very important project!
Was the Fact Sheet I sent enough info about the Shacks? In 1999 I gave all my research papers and realia to the History Center at San Francisco's Main Library so I have nothing with me except the Fact Sheet and the books I wrote on disk. I gave copies of the books, which have not been published but have been and continue to be widely quoted, to the History Center. Most SF historians self-publish and I was just not into that. If you thought it would be helpful to you, I could email you a copy of the main book.
The Library (sfpl.org I think) has written and placed a summary of my donation on the web. If you Google "1906 Earthquake Refugee Shacks" the library site will pop up and you can view the contents and the librarian's comments about the collection.
You may be interested in knowing that in 1988 I was contacted by an architecture student from U.C. Berkeley -- Sergio Amunategui -- who did his Master of Architecture thesis on the subject of the Shacks. He engaged me as his imaginary client and designed a residence for me (using an actual vacant lot in SF) composed of 22 refugee shacks. The name of Sergio's thesis is: Shelter, Dwellings, and Metamorphosis: Adaptations of the 1906 Earthquake Refugee Shelter in A Single Family Dwelling. The thesis is dated May 23, 1989. Sergio is now a famous architect in his native Santiago, Chile. He is Googleable and I believe you can get an email address for him in one of the many blurbs that pop up with his name or his work mentioned.
Do let me know if there is anything else I can share with you.
Regards, Jane C.
______________________________________________________________________________
Ken,
Thanks for contacting me.
It looks like you're attempting a very interesting project, an important project. I'm happy to make some quick comments, based on a quick review of your boards and a skimming of some of your writing. In this spirit, I might say something not appropriate or off the mark. If so, please, take no offense, and/or understand that this is a quick response.
First, and most important, I want to say it is so great that you're engaging in these topics and questions. I get so much inspiration and energy from the great questions and passions of many of my students these days. And I very much want to say THANK YOU for bringing me into your curiosities. It's a real privilege to engage someone so determined to ask some difficult questions of our society, and of himself.
I'll make a few critical comments -- don't take these as being personal, please. Rather, you're touching on, or maybe you're not touching on, some ideas and approaches that seem important to me these days. So, in a sense, with your own work I have a chance to be more critical of my own ideas and perspectives.
I can appreciate your analysis of Fathy and Newman . . . that's fine, their principles, all that. I guess, as you say, it's both dated and timeless, and I understand this.
Still, who else today is thinking about the architectures of squatters or informal settlers or streetpeople? Robert Neuwirth in Shadow Cities. Urban Think Tank in Informal City. The book World Changing. David Adjaye in Making Public Buildings. Marjetica Potrc's Urgent Architecture. The book Portable Architecture. Zero Yen Houses by Kyohei Sakaguchi. Micro Architecture by Kiyoko Semba and Kesaharu Imai. Bryan Bell's Good Deeds, Good Design. Tadashi Kawamata's Dwellings project. The first few chapters of Howard Davis's Culture of Building. Teddy Cruz's work in the Border Zone at Chula Vista/Tijuana. Sidewalk by Duneier.
There's quite a bit out there these days, and it's important because it is both timeless and NOW, in that it is looking at our cities and the difficult lives some people live in cities today, their unique qualities and energies and potentials. This is very different than rural Egypt, a World's Fair site in 1967, New York circa 1970.
I value history, believe me. Still, in this area, what you call the homeless, or the poor, I think we especially need to be current. Now. Today. There's just no denying this need.
And it's interesting to me that your review of Fathy and Newman includes diagrams, plans, sections, etc., this is architecture that you know how to analyze. But nothing of the sort when talking about Dignity Village. Why no site plan? No building plans? No building sections? I understand if you say, well Wes, they don't exist. Still, if you really are trying to understand Dignity Village, you might at least try to create a similar line of analysis -- maybe you create a kind of conditional set of architectural drawings for a few of the buildings, for which there are photographs. I haven't GoogleEarthed Dignity Village; does anything exist? Again, why do Fathy and Newman and Safdie get to have "principles" and the squatters don't? Why no comparable analysis of the cities, neighborhoods, and dwellings of self-builders? I assure you, they too design and build defensible space, they too have local construction knowledge, they too understand the heat of the Sun, they too share urban space and design accordingly.
In my work, I'm arguing that we have much to learn from the self-planners and self-builders. A challenge becomes how to see and share such "principles." Plans? Sections? Maybe what a "principle" is needs to be rethought. Or, maybe you figure out how to analyze Dignity Village first and use that methodology or line of questioning to analyze works by Fathy and Newman. I mean, why do we always always privilege designers even as we talk about the need to create "self-built/self-governed/self-sustained" communities and architectures? Just this week I've started thinking about how almost everything we do is "designer-centered design" even as we talk about populations and people who obviously know what they're doing as they create their own home and neighborhood and community every day. Every day. I'm not saying your wrong, more I'm trying genuinely to understand this phenomena.
In a similar way, your site analysis, also, is reliant on such known tools. Wind, sun angles, views, site history, and the like. Again, I understand this, I appreciate these tools. Still, I wonder if your particular project cries out for something else? Again, I don't have the answer for you, can't name a set of drawings for you to do, but I do wonder what else might be considered.
"Design for the poor" . . . I don't know about such an approach. I think this use of the word "for" is problematic . . . why not "by" or "with," just for example? Why are we so interested in providing something for someone we think needs our help? We can ask the same question of Habitat for Humanity, or Architecture for Humanity, or the "Design for the other 90%" show at the Cooper Hewitt last summer. Fundamentally, this suggests to me that whatever it is we do is still ours, and not theirs. We'll still wonder, in the future, why what it is we did for them is unappreciated, maybe even unused.
And as long as we keep saying "the poor," well, immediately this is a category filled with preconceptions, our own values, and more. "Homeless" too, by its very nature, points out a deficiency in a group or a person. I mean, why do we do this? Why do we create a category for a group of our fellow citizens and give it and them a name that points out what they don't have? How would you like this if it was done to you over and over and over and over. And of course, all "homeless" people do have homes -- they live in shelters, in assisted-living apartments, in a car, under a bridge, etc., etc. I'm not saying this casually . . . these are realities. Again, the point is, they do have "homes." So why do we, why do you, call them "homeless"? Saying it's easy, or everybody does it, or everybody understands what you mean, isn't a good answer. Such a title keeps you from actually understanding who a person is or who people are.
These days, I'm referring to an article written by Margaret Crawford about twelve years ago: "Can Architects be Socially Responsible?" in the book Out of Site, as edited by Diane Ghirardo. After a long analysis of the profession and several historical case studies, Crawford says no, architects can not be socially responsible. First, practitioners are too concerned with economics -- deadlines, budgets, marketing, clients, all of that -- what she calls compromised action. Second, professors are too comfortable in the classroom talking about social responsibility, but doing nothing else, what Crawford terms esoteric inaction.
However, she makes two suggests: biography and available materials. That is, get to know real, local people in-need. Spend some time with people in a retirement community, a soup kitchen, a residential facility for persons recently released from prison, with illegal immigrants, in a disaster-relief setting. Get to know somebody. And work with what you have at hand, don't wait for some utopian scheme or proposal or material (see Safdie's Habitat, just for example).
In this . . . I'd say I very much appreciate your intentions and as it is, you're doing good work. Still, you're keeping the subjects at a distance (too much reliance on old guys in your analysis, too much reliance on conventional tools in your analysis), when really you need to get to know any one or two people. Talk to one guy on five different days. One single mother for two hours. Work at a soup kitchen one day a week for the entire semester. I absolutely absolutely guarantee you, no doubt, that this will change your thinking and your project. And your life.
Your project is about real people, right? Living difficult lives, right? Who, I argue, have much more to teach us than we have to offer them. As Crawford says, these are "ideal clients." So . . . tell me about him, her, or them.
To put this differently, you're doing a great job. Really, you are. You've analyzed some well known precedents and positions (Fathy and Newman), you're a good writer, you have a very strong skill set when it comes to visual communication, and you've done a very good job with your site analysis. In a sense, no one can argue with any of this -- you're good.
So . . . I say to talented and committed people like yourself . . . we need help as we shift our attention to the billion or so informal settlers and squatters and streetpeople of the world. We architects are so used to designing for the middle and upper classes, so used to designing important buildings, so used to the "we need to educate the clients to appreciate our design" rhetoric of architectural schools and offices, that we need brave, probably young people to show us some new ways, some new lives, some new knowledge, some new approaches.
This is you. We need you.
Be confident and proud of your abilities and talents. Now . . . set that aside, go out and talk to somebody real, look around to find what you can build with now, and then use your talents, then rekindle your professional responsibility on their behalf, and yours.
Yes?
Let me know if I can be of further assistance, or if I can clarify any of these thoughts.
Here's two relevant blogs:
http://view-sidewalk.blogspot.com/
http://thehomelessguy.blogspot.com/
And thanks again for asking. It's great to know about your work. Keep me posted.
Wes.
I'll forward your email to earthquake shack expert Jane Cryan. She's retired from the business, having dedicated a couple of decades to researching and saving refugee shacks, but you might get lucky and she'll feel inspired to find some numbers for you.
Type A shacks were 10 x 14, and I think Jane said only about 500 were built.
Type B shacks were the most prevalent and I think they were about 14 x 18.
Type C's measured 18 x 24, I think? Just a couple of them survive today.
The fourth size I think were more in the style of barracks, but Jane would be better able to tell you on that.
Overall, 5,610 refugee cottages were constructed. A couple of hundred were burned or broken up, but the rest were hauled off to be new homes when the camps closed.
Good luck with your thesis!
Woody LaBounty
Western Neighborhoods Project
www.outsidelands.org
______________________________________________________________________________
Hi Ken,
Thank you very much for your email. I visited your blog and was quite impressed. You have undertaken a monumental, very important project!
Was the Fact Sheet I sent enough info about the Shacks? In 1999 I gave all my research papers and realia to the History Center at San Francisco's Main Library so I have nothing with me except the Fact Sheet and the books I wrote on disk. I gave copies of the books, which have not been published but have been and continue to be widely quoted, to the History Center. Most SF historians self-publish and I was just not into that. If you thought it would be helpful to you, I could email you a copy of the main book.
The Library (sfpl.org I think) has written and placed a summary of my donation on the web. If you Google "1906 Earthquake Refugee Shacks" the library site will pop up and you can view the contents and the librarian's comments about the collection.
You may be interested in knowing that in 1988 I was contacted by an architecture student from U.C. Berkeley -- Sergio Amunategui -- who did his Master of Architecture thesis on the subject of the Shacks. He engaged me as his imaginary client and designed a residence for me (using an actual vacant lot in SF) composed of 22 refugee shacks. The name of Sergio's thesis is: Shelter, Dwellings, and Metamorphosis: Adaptations of the 1906 Earthquake Refugee Shelter in A Single Family Dwelling. The thesis is dated May 23, 1989. Sergio is now a famous architect in his native Santiago, Chile. He is Googleable and I believe you can get an email address for him in one of the many blurbs that pop up with his name or his work mentioned.
Do let me know if there is anything else I can share with you.
Regards, Jane C.
______________________________________________________________________________
Ken,
Thanks for contacting me.
It looks like you're attempting a very interesting project, an important project. I'm happy to make some quick comments, based on a quick review of your boards and a skimming of some of your writing. In this spirit, I might say something not appropriate or off the mark. If so, please, take no offense, and/or understand that this is a quick response.
First, and most important, I want to say it is so great that you're engaging in these topics and questions. I get so much inspiration and energy from the great questions and passions of many of my students these days. And I very much want to say THANK YOU for bringing me into your curiosities. It's a real privilege to engage someone so determined to ask some difficult questions of our society, and of himself.
I'll make a few critical comments -- don't take these as being personal, please. Rather, you're touching on, or maybe you're not touching on, some ideas and approaches that seem important to me these days. So, in a sense, with your own work I have a chance to be more critical of my own ideas and perspectives.
I can appreciate your analysis of Fathy and Newman . . . that's fine, their principles, all that. I guess, as you say, it's both dated and timeless, and I understand this.
Still, who else today is thinking about the architectures of squatters or informal settlers or streetpeople? Robert Neuwirth in Shadow Cities. Urban Think Tank in Informal City. The book World Changing. David Adjaye in Making Public Buildings. Marjetica Potrc's Urgent Architecture. The book Portable Architecture. Zero Yen Houses by Kyohei Sakaguchi. Micro Architecture by Kiyoko Semba and Kesaharu Imai. Bryan Bell's Good Deeds, Good Design. Tadashi Kawamata's Dwellings project. The first few chapters of Howard Davis's Culture of Building. Teddy Cruz's work in the Border Zone at Chula Vista/Tijuana. Sidewalk by Duneier.
There's quite a bit out there these days, and it's important because it is both timeless and NOW, in that it is looking at our cities and the difficult lives some people live in cities today, their unique qualities and energies and potentials. This is very different than rural Egypt, a World's Fair site in 1967, New York circa 1970.
I value history, believe me. Still, in this area, what you call the homeless, or the poor, I think we especially need to be current. Now. Today. There's just no denying this need.
And it's interesting to me that your review of Fathy and Newman includes diagrams, plans, sections, etc., this is architecture that you know how to analyze. But nothing of the sort when talking about Dignity Village. Why no site plan? No building plans? No building sections? I understand if you say, well Wes, they don't exist. Still, if you really are trying to understand Dignity Village, you might at least try to create a similar line of analysis -- maybe you create a kind of conditional set of architectural drawings for a few of the buildings, for which there are photographs. I haven't GoogleEarthed Dignity Village; does anything exist? Again, why do Fathy and Newman and Safdie get to have "principles" and the squatters don't? Why no comparable analysis of the cities, neighborhoods, and dwellings of self-builders? I assure you, they too design and build defensible space, they too have local construction knowledge, they too understand the heat of the Sun, they too share urban space and design accordingly.
In my work, I'm arguing that we have much to learn from the self-planners and self-builders. A challenge becomes how to see and share such "principles." Plans? Sections? Maybe what a "principle" is needs to be rethought. Or, maybe you figure out how to analyze Dignity Village first and use that methodology or line of questioning to analyze works by Fathy and Newman. I mean, why do we always always privilege designers even as we talk about the need to create "self-built/self-governed/self-sustained" communities and architectures? Just this week I've started thinking about how almost everything we do is "designer-centered design" even as we talk about populations and people who obviously know what they're doing as they create their own home and neighborhood and community every day. Every day. I'm not saying your wrong, more I'm trying genuinely to understand this phenomena.
In a similar way, your site analysis, also, is reliant on such known tools. Wind, sun angles, views, site history, and the like. Again, I understand this, I appreciate these tools. Still, I wonder if your particular project cries out for something else? Again, I don't have the answer for you, can't name a set of drawings for you to do, but I do wonder what else might be considered.
"Design for the poor" . . . I don't know about such an approach. I think this use of the word "for" is problematic . . . why not "by" or "with," just for example? Why are we so interested in providing something for someone we think needs our help? We can ask the same question of Habitat for Humanity, or Architecture for Humanity, or the "Design for the other 90%" show at the Cooper Hewitt last summer. Fundamentally, this suggests to me that whatever it is we do is still ours, and not theirs. We'll still wonder, in the future, why what it is we did for them is unappreciated, maybe even unused.
And as long as we keep saying "the poor," well, immediately this is a category filled with preconceptions, our own values, and more. "Homeless" too, by its very nature, points out a deficiency in a group or a person. I mean, why do we do this? Why do we create a category for a group of our fellow citizens and give it and them a name that points out what they don't have? How would you like this if it was done to you over and over and over and over. And of course, all "homeless" people do have homes -- they live in shelters, in assisted-living apartments, in a car, under a bridge, etc., etc. I'm not saying this casually . . . these are realities. Again, the point is, they do have "homes." So why do we, why do you, call them "homeless"? Saying it's easy, or everybody does it, or everybody understands what you mean, isn't a good answer. Such a title keeps you from actually understanding who a person is or who people are.
These days, I'm referring to an article written by Margaret Crawford about twelve years ago: "Can Architects be Socially Responsible?" in the book Out of Site, as edited by Diane Ghirardo. After a long analysis of the profession and several historical case studies, Crawford says no, architects can not be socially responsible. First, practitioners are too concerned with economics -- deadlines, budgets, marketing, clients, all of that -- what she calls compromised action. Second, professors are too comfortable in the classroom talking about social responsibility, but doing nothing else, what Crawford terms esoteric inaction.
However, she makes two suggests: biography and available materials. That is, get to know real, local people in-need. Spend some time with people in a retirement community, a soup kitchen, a residential facility for persons recently released from prison, with illegal immigrants, in a disaster-relief setting. Get to know somebody. And work with what you have at hand, don't wait for some utopian scheme or proposal or material (see Safdie's Habitat, just for example).
In this . . . I'd say I very much appreciate your intentions and as it is, you're doing good work. Still, you're keeping the subjects at a distance (too much reliance on old guys in your analysis, too much reliance on conventional tools in your analysis), when really you need to get to know any one or two people. Talk to one guy on five different days. One single mother for two hours. Work at a soup kitchen one day a week for the entire semester. I absolutely absolutely guarantee you, no doubt, that this will change your thinking and your project. And your life.
Your project is about real people, right? Living difficult lives, right? Who, I argue, have much more to teach us than we have to offer them. As Crawford says, these are "ideal clients." So . . . tell me about him, her, or them.
To put this differently, you're doing a great job. Really, you are. You've analyzed some well known precedents and positions (Fathy and Newman), you're a good writer, you have a very strong skill set when it comes to visual communication, and you've done a very good job with your site analysis. In a sense, no one can argue with any of this -- you're good.
So . . . I say to talented and committed people like yourself . . . we need help as we shift our attention to the billion or so informal settlers and squatters and streetpeople of the world. We architects are so used to designing for the middle and upper classes, so used to designing important buildings, so used to the "we need to educate the clients to appreciate our design" rhetoric of architectural schools and offices, that we need brave, probably young people to show us some new ways, some new lives, some new knowledge, some new approaches.
This is you. We need you.
Be confident and proud of your abilities and talents. Now . . . set that aside, go out and talk to somebody real, look around to find what you can build with now, and then use your talents, then rekindle your professional responsibility on their behalf, and yours.
Yes?
Let me know if I can be of further assistance, or if I can clarify any of these thoughts.
Here's two relevant blogs:
http://view-sidewalk.blogspot.com/
http://thehomelessguy.blogspot.com/
And thanks again for asking. It's great to know about your work. Keep me posted.
Wes.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Homes For Homless Nevadans 10 Year Plan to Reduce Homelessness
1. Promote Interagency Coordination of Human Service Delivery Programs
2. Increase the Availability of Stable and Sustainable Housing
3. Enhance Coordination between Non-Profit Organizations and Government
4. Prevent Individuals and Families from Becoming Homeless
5. Provide Seamless Client Services through Effective Partnerships
6. Foster Self-Sufficiency Through access to Education, Training, and Employment
Opportunities
7. Facilitate the Transition from Homelessness through Intensive Case Management
8. Increase Access to Medical, Dental and Vision Care Services
9. Ensure the Availability of Basic Needs Services
10. Improve Availability of Mental Health Services
11. Improve Availability of Substance Abuse Treatment Programs
http://www.endhomelessness.org/files/647_file_LasVegas_NV.pdf
2. Increase the Availability of Stable and Sustainable Housing
3. Enhance Coordination between Non-Profit Organizations and Government
4. Prevent Individuals and Families from Becoming Homeless
5. Provide Seamless Client Services through Effective Partnerships
6. Foster Self-Sufficiency Through access to Education, Training, and Employment
Opportunities
7. Facilitate the Transition from Homelessness through Intensive Case Management
8. Increase Access to Medical, Dental and Vision Care Services
9. Ensure the Availability of Basic Needs Services
10. Improve Availability of Mental Health Services
11. Improve Availability of Substance Abuse Treatment Programs
http://www.endhomelessness.org/files/647_file_LasVegas_NV.pdf
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Research Topic #1
Kenneth A. Ballard
Thesis Instructor Ian Taberner
Thesis HT7295/TS7610
31 May 2008
How can Las Vegas, a city of constant change and endless possibilities, provide an architectural language that will be as dynamic as the Las Vegas nightlife with regards to dwellings for the homeless?... The concept of a self-built self-owned community is not a new concept, in the 1940's, Hassan Fathy studied the culture and lifestyles as well as the local economy of the residents of Gourna while commissioned to design a new city for a peasant class population. In his studies, Hassan Fathy explored many concepts that speak directly to the potential success of a self-built, self-owned homeless community.
Fathy knew that it was crucial that a good understanding of the climate, material selection, protection from the sun, site orientation, human scale, life-style, and hands-on participation would result a better community. Leading to a better, more satisfying life while teaching a skill that would benefit the resident's social and economical status. In the book, Architecture for the Poor, Fathy sets out to establish a tone that supports the process in which decisions are made and will ultimately define the solutions used in designing New Gourna. Fathy believed that more than architecture alone would be needed to achieve the greatest impact in the lives of the people of Gourna. I believe that in order to design, be it a retail store, school, house, public building that there must be a clear understanding of what and how things are designed for particular groups of people. In this case, designing a community/village for a certain population of the homeless community within Las Vegas, it is crucial to allow their lifestyle to inform the building materials and architectural character. I feel it is safe to say that it is commonly accepted that 'great' architecture has evolved into 'architecture' for the architects; however, principles used by Hassan Fathy encourages architects to bridge the gap between 'folk' architecture and the architect's 'architecture'.
In terms of vernacular architecture Fathy provides examples that can be translated into driving principles that I will use to develop the site and the sitting of the dwellings as well as help inform the architectural character of the dwellings.
The Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World defines "vernacular architecture" as:
"As yet there is no clearly defined and specialized discipline for the study of dwellings or the larger compass of vernacular architecture. If such a discipline were to emerge it would probably be one that combines some of the elements of both architecture and anthropology with aspects of history and geography"
Fathy's design principles that were incorporated in the design of New Gourna include:
- the Mashrabiya (a wood lattice or trellis used to control the air flow, reduce the air temperature, increase the humidity of the air current, as well as provide privacy
The concept of the Mashrabiya works well in the absence of windows, windows are not extremely available as construction waste (local materials). A lattice type covering will offer privacy as well as allow air into the space for cooling purposes while blocking the majority of the direct sun light.
- the Malqaf (a device used to capture wind at a high point of the dwelling)
Conventional HVAC will not be an option for this community and using natural energy techniques to cool the dwelling works well with the economical constraints while also providing solutions to cooling with green strategies in practice.
- the Loggia (an arcade on the side of a building used to provide comfortable breezes)
Most likely the best way to make outdoor spaces more comfortable in hot arid climates, the techniques used can not only be applied to the walls of the dwellings but the sitting ob buildings can great the same affect for common outdoor gathering areas rendering these spaces more susceptible to greater, more productive use.
- Orienting the dwelling based on wind patterns and sun angles
The wind patterns noted on the site study along with the angle of altitude of ~58 degrees will allow me to develop and test plans, sections, and site orientation that will provide the optimal orientation for each dwelling. This will also intact help provide a more acceptable climate without the aid of mechanical assistance.
- The angle of the roof to control heat gain
Materials and surfaces in conjunction with the angle of the roof will complement the climate advantages I will be able to gain with the sitting of the dwellings, as well help shape the malqaf for optimal wind capture.
- The use of local and available materials
The local construction industry is always on the go, construction sites pop of all over town from on the strip to old residential neighborhoods to brand new ones and everywhere else in-between. In the last quarter of 2007 construction waste amounted to over 1200 tons, nearly 400 tons of construction a month that was collected and sorted for recycling.
- Designing for the user
Designing for the end user is also another concept that is as old as the ages that sometimes is overlooked. The shelters today that are the providing shelter for the homeless have turned into more than can be handled. The programs and square footages of the facilities are large and wide spreading yet only helping a small numbers, this can be reversed if the focus shifts to providing targeted areas of support. Instead of providing a shopping list of amenities, shelter should focus on individual items; in the area there are several places, yet to small to really help. By providing a village for the homeless community to live in will free up the shelters to focus on supply medical care, job placement, skill workshops and no how many they have room for tonight, why people cannot bring in with them their possessions, etc.
- Teaching/providing the residents the skill needed to build and also provide a useful trade
Teaching and providing shills to take out into Las Vegas can help several groups of people… first and foremost the homeless, by potentially learning new skills they could quickly become part of the construction force that is part of our valleys economy. Employers can have a community outreach program where time can be donated to assist in the success of the Rethink Village. Lastly the shelters will start to see some relief on their already overburdened resources.
It is important to note that while these two cultures are very different, thousands of miles apart, building materials may differ, technology surges, and decades apart there is a common link... designing for the poor. Designing dwellings for the homeless should incorporate letting them build their own shelters; with the right skills and materials I suggest that a better solution will appear; better than any social program can provide. Incorporating these architectural principles, a superior living arrangement can be afforded to those with little to no stable income.
Bibliography
Fathy, Hassan. Architecture for the Poor : An Experiment in Raul Eqypy. 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1976.
—. Natural energy and vernacular architecture : principles and examples with reference to hot arid climates. Edited by Walter Shearer and Abd-el-rahman Ahmed Sultan. Chicago: Published for the United Nations University by the University of Chicago Press, 1986.
Oliver, Paul. Encyclopedia of vernacular architecture of the world. Edited by Paul Oliver. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Research Topic #2
Kenneth A. Ballard
Thesis Instructor Ian Taberner
Thesis HT7295/TS7610
31 May 2008
Interpreting Defensible Spaces
The concept of 'Defensible Spaces' has been around since the beginning of time, yet as technologies advance the simple understandings of how and why human beings interact and socially unit with each other and the built environment have been set aside to play second fiddle to the new brand of architecture: architecture for the architects. These principles are basic good design strategies that Oscar Newman wrote about over three decades ago are just as much pertinent today as they were thirty years ago just as they were one hundred, five hundred, a thousand years ago. Unfortunately it took the request of a government body and a staggering increase of residential robberies to release these basic and simple strategies back to the architectural community. The efforts to decrease crime in the inner city and suburbs alike was a blanket approach of providing more policing, altering the scheduled routes, improving the response time, etc... The results left a bitter taste in the mouth of law enforcement around the United States. Irregularly beats and faster response times did little to stifle crime patterns and even less in the changing the eventual outcome of crimes.
Although the principles described and diagramed are mainly focused on strategies to help reduce crime in and around multi-family projects there are practical design, social and statistical approaches that cross the development gap that may exist. When designing retail, office, residential for the masses or a homeless village, the human factor exists. Its existence has primal tendencies, these tendencies, if not properly developed will in fact be developed at such vigor and pace as to disrupt the normal activities. As finely balanced as the economy and social affairs can be, it is pertinent to empower all resources available to the architect to combat behaviors or at the least influence the behaviors of people when engaged with the built environment. This type of suggestive influence can have long lasting effects while reinforcing acceptable behavior. Through a series of reports and handbooks well conceived concepts have been once again brought to the forefront of Design 101.
Intentionally designing a site plan for a community of homeless people affords itself to resolving common issues, such as location of the houses, public spaces, private spaces, activity spaces around existing criteria... location of potential power, water and sewer connections. Yet at the end of the day, I will still be pleased to see the community to take a life of its own. These constraints will inform the location of the program elements as well as site selection and sitting. Traditional strategies and improvised solutions will yield a productive product in terms of site planning and building materials and methods. Although many techniques and strategies are presented, I have narrowed my focus to site planning and spatial relationships between public and private outdoor spaces. This focus will inform how to provide comfortable living spaces that the residents of Rethink Village will be able to enjoy and feel safe in contrast to the current environment that for so many reason affords no personal space, ownership or pride, where they resort to refuge in makeshift second rate fabrics and papers tents on the sidewalks, underpasses railway lines in downtown Las Vegas. The concepts from Oscar Newman's studies have allowed me to identified five rules that will demonstrate defensible spaces in the site layout and spatial relations in both density and activity spaces in conjunction with the principles and strategies established by Hassan Fathy for the 'poor' in hot arid climates as well as defining the architectural character in terms of vernacular architecture.
"...buildings [dwellings] should be positioned and grounds be subdivided and allocated so that residents perceived particular areas of the project as being under their specific sphere of influence."
Five rules for designing defensible spaces:
- Site dwellings as to create small subdivided/allocated areas of land so that the residents perceive particular areas under their control
- These areas should be on the direct path to the front door and include an area for small children play (buffer area between public and private areas)
- Numbers... Quantity vs. Grouping - common areas for central/communal activities should be spread throughout the site
- Define areas of influence - appropriate use and location of physical and symbolic barriers
- Proper locations of transition areas to define public areas from private areas
These five rules center on how people behave in their surroundings and how simple change in material, level and surfaces can produce acceptable behavior for their environment. These rules have goals and results, each one building upon the previous rule, designing in only a few of these principles progressively hampers the success rate. To obtain the most from defensible spaces and design a comfortable productive space I believe that all the rules should be implemented.
Goals and Results
Rule #1 - Site dwellings as to create small subdivided/allocated areas of land so that the residents perceive particular areas under their control
Rule #2 - These areas should be on the direct path to the front door and include an area for small children play (buffer area between public and private areas)
[Insert sketch]
Goal for #1 &2 - to influence the residents to exert their territorial prerogatives
Result for #1 & 2 - these areas should expect to experience more and intensive use and care/pride
Rule #3 - Numbers... Quantity vs. Grouping - common areas for central/communal activities should be spread throughout the site
[Insert sketch]
Goal for #3 - simply... spread the wealth
Result for #3 - these areas will sustain better/productive activities as well require less maintenance
Rule #4 - Define areas of influence - appropriate use and location of physical and symbolic barriers
[Insert sketch]
Goals for #4 - Physical boundaries - to indicate a legitimate right to enter
Symbolic boundaries - to interrelate/define areas to particular spaces
Results for #4 - politely and unquestionably defined comfortable and territorial boundaries the enjoyment, security and beauty of the space
Rule #5 - Proper locations of transition areas to define public areas from private areas
[Insert sketch]
Goal for #5 - to stimulate a type of inculpable behavior appropriate to the level of activity or area
Result for #5 - outsiders and residents alike will act and react to symbolic transitions in ways productive to the area...acceptable behavior
Observation of territorial prerogatives among the homeless community
Territorial behaviors already exist among all sorts of people groups including the homeless community. However, this type of behavior is deemed not appropriate for the certain areas. This non-positive behavior that the homeless have become accustomed to has created reverse boundaries. Boundaries that spill out into sidewalks and door stoops that render these areas, transition zones, unusable or used outside the intended design. The long term fallout for areas of this type of behavior (although these behaviors do not stem from maliciousness intents) is disrupting the sociality and economical interests of others. I gather that much of the stigma and housing solutions stem from these behaviors. I suggest that in order to reverse these ill affects that a community devoted to the re-integration of the homeless populous is supported by the local community in part to develop a village designed to re-teach independent living in a secure, comfortable enjoyable space.
If the current trend continues downtown business will continue to see less and less customers, and closing up shop is and will continue to be the answer. This process leads to continued growth of the homeless community in these areas where negative territorial behaviors have taken root. The intent of creating defensible space is to foster community and influence acceptable behavior. The type of territorial behavior being displayed in certain parts of downtown Las Vegas is just the opposite of proper acceptable behavior. It was observed that public/private spaces that have been abandoned for whatever reasons have been perceived by the homeless community as "theirs". This must be a result of watching others discard these spaces that are viewed as a resource and be recycled back to a useful function in their life. By providing an area and opportunity for the willing homeless, outside the constraints of traditional shelters, a place to develop these same territorial prerogatives described by Oscar Newman and following the rules outlined above the results can be two fold.
A certain number of the homeless community would be willing to take advantage of opportunities in order to start the process and re-integrate into mainstream society, or at the very least be able to live in a community of their peers without the fear of being abused, to be able to properly secure their few belongings with confidence and have a home they built. On the flip side... this type of village will provide a place for the homeless to live and allow the sidewalks and door stoops be again reclaimed and used for the designed purpose. This in turn provides economical growth back to these downtown areas that have been lost. In Las Vegas, there figures be a homeless population for many reasons. Rethink Village offers Las Vegas a unique opportunity to address the homeless community in a positive way that incorporates techniques that have gone ignored in shelters/group home settings.
Bibliography
Clare Cooper Marcus and Wendy Sarkissian. Housing as if people mattered : site design guidelines for medium-density family housing. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.
Davis, Sam. Designing for the homeless : architecture that works. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.
Fathy, Hassan. Architecture for the Poor : An Experiment in Raul Eqypy. 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1976.
Newman, Oscar. Design guidelines for creating defensible space. Washington: [Washington] : National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Dept. of Justice : For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., [1976] c1975, 1975.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
