From Shelter to Keys  

The next rung of the ladder moves the solutions into the residential community developments. Two examples of possible approaches to affordable housing are illustrated. In each case the housing units are based on modular (factory-fabricated) construction, but beyond that, each approach is quite different. The first case is the more traditional one  in which multi-family housing units are built as rental properties, typically subsidized by State-sponsored housing authorities. The units are sized and equipped for different family sizes and member types.   

In the second instance the homes and the lots they are located on are for purchase. The overall development is established as a condominium with the State-sponsored housing authority owning the majority share. This second route has important restrictions, but for the owners, unlike 

renters, it allows them to build equity in their homes. These homes are very modest in size initially, smaller than most studio apartments, and planned for expansion to a still small two-bedroom house.

Given that State and possibly Municipal Government funds are being used to create these developments, there must be a focus on retained value. Poor quality investments will quickly lose value. As the saying goes, you can’t afford to buy cheap. Long-term value is critical to community acceptance. Quality materials, quality construction, and handsome, well-landscaped developments are necessary.

Factory fabrication is a critical aspect of these ideas. This is discussed in the final section of this document.

Unit A 

Purely as a representative example, if the cost per square foot for construction of the initial unit were $225, the unit cost would be $33,500. If the home were financed at 4.5% for a 15 year term, property taxes were $2,400/year, and homeowner’s insurance premiums were $120/year, the mortgage payments would be $478. None of these numbers are appropriate to plan with, but they do suggest that even low wage individuals  ($10.00/hour net take home pay from which 30% is allocated to a home mortgage) could become home owners given developments of this type. Additionally, it can be presumed that one of the drivers of homelessness in the first place could be averted if housing developments of this type were common.

Unit B

When two additional modular units are added to Unit B, the combined unit can accommodate two adults and two children. The two additions would add 247 square feet. The cost of the initial unit ($44,550) plus the two additions ($36,975) would be $81,525. This assumes that the initial unit’s cost is $225/sq. ft. and the additions are $150/sq. ft.

Using the assumptions of unit size A for financing, purchasing the initial module would require a full-time position that yielded a net take-home pay of $11.85/hour. To purchase the three modules would require a net take home pay of $18.20/hour or two incomes yielding $9.10/hour net take home pay each.

Unit C

With a cost of $225/sq. ft. the home would cost $68,850. Using the assumptions of unit size A for financing, this option would require a full-time job with a net take-home pay of $16.00/hour. 

Unit C-H/C

The cost would be roughly the same as Unit C.

In all these cases, some condominium fees of the residents may be required to limit the State's long term costs.

A few key assumptions inform this document. More truly affordable housing helps the homeless and many others. Large quantities of such housing are needed. The private sector is not meeting this need, nor are there signs that indicate that this will be changing soon. Quite the contrary, large investors are rapaciously targeting one of the last bastions of affordable housing, mobile home parks. Unable to pay the dramatic increases in site rental fees, unable to afford the cost associated with moving their mobile homes, and unable to find new affordable parks, many are facing homelessness. These and other housing price pressures will likely swell the ranks of the current half a million people that are without stable housing or are already counted as homeless. Climate-driven catastrophes and displacements only add to these pressures.

The solution presented here relies on States, in some cases banding together, to address the issue. Therefore the method of construction of the apartments, but most especially the individual homes, is integral to the concepts and financial assumptions presented here. If it is agreed that the responsibilities fall to the States, then a number of other conclusions follow. Critically, States will have an interest in spending their funds wisely. Choosing high quality and efficient constructors is essential. Unfortunately the for-profit marketplace has little incentive to meet the needs of the unhoused. It is reasonable to assume therefore 

that a State-owned manufacturing facility would provide the most perfect alignment with the State’s  goals. Such a facility, run without profit incentive but with efficiency incentives, could fill a need and direct for-profit component suppliers toward the State’s agenda. The risks for a for-profit entity to build such a facility, uncertain of a long term contract, would necessarily need to be offset with high profits. 

Countering the political challenges that a State-owned facility would raise, the private sector would be providing all the raw and pre-assembled components used in the manufacture of these housing units. With multiple suppliers of each of the component materials, the State would be in an efficient contractual environment. Given the cost of such a facility, multiple States could pool resources for such an endeavor. 

This plant is envisioned as strictly an assembly facility with no fabrication capability. The private sector would provide ready-to-assemble components. A conceptual organization diagram for an assembly facility along with a programmatic spreadsheet are below. Additionally, a very high level spreadsheet of estimates, or perhaps more accurately, guesstimates of the financial viability of such an enterprise is included. Given the assumptions utilized, the concept appears reasonable and, at the scale illustrated, potentially capable of assembling 1000 homes/year.

Factory built housing units offer several advantages regardless of whether the constructor’s factory is State-owned or for-profit. The units can be constructed on an assembly line at a predictable rate all year long and enjoy economies of scale and a defined and maintainable level of quality. 

Given the relative simplicity of the product (when compared with automobile assembly, for instance), a factory for this purpose would support mentoring programs that utilize union or contractor association personnel for supervision and training.

The housing units are designed for inexpensive shipping on either road or rail, as well as straightforward placement on their site-built foundations. At 8’-6” wide, the units do not trigger wide load restrictions nor require lead or follow vehicles for truck delivery. Given the units’ sizes and weights, placement of the units on their foundations will not require a crane. A forklift rated for the unit’s weight can be used. 

The exterior walls of the modular units are proposed to be 6” (nominal width) structural insulated panels (SIPs). These panels have  nearly continuous insulation, are light weight, and perform better than their R-value rating would suggest. Their performance is greatly enhanced by their dimensional stability, whole wall R-value, and extremely low infiltration characteristics. In most applications, these panels are expensive because they are built to custom sizes, but as in this case, costs can be significantly reduced due to the repetitive sizes of the panels and the large quantity orders. Noncombustible MGO board is recommended for the interior side of the panels.

The roof  panels would be manufactured in a similar manner. The floor 

construction would require perimeter structural members to span the distances between the pier foundations. These would be incorporated into the SIP floor panels. None of the modular units are designed to span more than 20’-0” unsupported.  Skirting panels are planned to keep uplift forces to a minimum. Insulation would be required to surround the incoming water service and the waste piping below the units. Lastly, given the low outside air infiltration of the units, air-to-air heat exchangers will be required to control humidity on the bathroom fan duct, and make-up air may be needed for the stovetop hood.

The units would be served by electrical power, telecommunications, and domestic cold water. Storm water control and sewer disposal would be required for the developments. Domestic hot water would be supplied by electric on-demand water heaters with heat pump capability, if available, and conditioned air would be provided by a ductless split system. This system would need to be charged by an HVAC professional after delivery of the units. 

Exterior windows are presumed to be fiberglass framed casement or in some cases awning windows with double-pane glazing. Where a sliding door is used for the bathroom, the door should be solid core with a bottom sweep, and the cased opening fitted with gaskets for odor and noise control.

The exterior walls are assumed to utilize a durable siding over battens per rainscreen design, and the roof is standing seam metal for longevity. Interior finishes should be chosen with the same focus on low maintenance durability for the State promoted investments to retain value.

As discussed above, a means of rapidly, efficiently, and economically creating affordable housing will require the manufacturing approach utilized by virtually all businesses creating products today: an assembly line facility. Below is an organizational diagram illustrating a four assembly line factory with 10 workstations each line. Further below is a preliminary conceptual program mapping out the tasks associated with each workstation. Given that all of the components are manufactured elsewhere and merely assembled here, it can be assumed that each 

assembly line can produce one house per day. That would mean that over the course of a typical 250-work-day year, the assembly factory would produce 1,000 homes. For the purposes of this high level view, the factory would require 120 employees, many in the administrative office area and assigned to the departments listed in the preliminary conceptual program. To test the viability of such an enterprise, a very preliminary estimate of revenue and expenses concludes this section.

A major limitation of this document is its lack of focus on urban area solutions. The reason for that is the existence of an excellent solution for those areas. MicroPADs as constructed by Panoramic Interests of San Francisco are thoughtfully designed for cities. Excellent work is also being done by Hope of the Valley in Los Angeles. The concepts put forth here are most useful for less dense populations.

A second limitation is inherent in any largely architectural solutions document: it doesn’t address the myriad political, policy, regulatory, and 

social issues that would thwart the implementation of common sense ideas. Government solutions rarely follow the most practical route, but setting aside the human toll of homelessness for the sake of argument, it is simply and unequivocally practical to raise people up to become engaged in society.  I would challenge the most empathetically-stunted bean counter to prove otherwise. Therefore, for this limitation I would recommend the Roadmap Home 2030 document, readily available online.

As the previous section demonstrates, many of the ideas included in this brief document are not unique. This topic is currently being explored and acted upon by many committed people on numerous fronts. Collecting some of these ideas in this way, while a modest aim, hopefully will be of some value. 

There should be no illusion that the construction of micro-homes to house the homeless is high on society’s agenda, and even if it were, the clever design by itself of carts, shelters, apartments and houses is not the solution. The resolve to build a more just, equitable, and caring society is the predicate to solving the crisis.

Housing approaches that begin with and hold at their center an esteem for those they seek to help can take many forms. A few are suggested in this document. These examples hopefully demonstrate that a comprehensive progression of options for housing the homeless, a progression which can take the them from crisis to home ownership, is possible and valuable.

The ethical stature of our society is defined by how we treat those with the least. Let’s resolve to raise that stature and assist those in indisputable need.