[Cont.]

These 25,000 homeless people in Victoria...
They'd each be getting $137.20 fortnight in rent assistance if they had homes to go to right?
25,000 x $137.20 = $3,430,000 per fortnight the federal government SAVES in rent assistance by these people BEING homeless...

That money that the government would otherwise be spending should be set aside towards a permanent solution.

Let's say we have a competition for all the aspiring engineering students.
$100,000 for the best individual or team who design the best low cost homeless housing solution.

Here's what I envisage:
Max cost $1000 unit.

Metal frame base with a timber floor
Sandwich panel sides, lockable door with small window.
Size: around 2000 to 2400 x 2400 to 2800

Layout: Door opens inwards against right-hand wall.
In front of you stretching the entire wall is a single bed with storage drawers in the base.
Above the single bed is a second (bunk type) bed.
To your left, is a small desk and chair and a small flat-panel tv mounted on the wall.
Above it a second storage compartment.
There are 2 solar panels on the roof, enabling USB charging capability and led lighting.

I want the best design and assembly plan for this.
I'll get work for the dole people to assemble them.

I also want to design a small portable soup kitchen, amenities block, and security office for each site, and the best way to arrange and set up the units.

For the housing units, at $1000 each - we can build 1715 units per week on the cost of the unused rent assistance and solve your problem in about 3 months...

(Use second hand solar panels that are replaced or upgraded from other government buildings rather than buy new)

The problem isn't that there's a homelessness problem.
The problem is no-ones smart enough to figure out solutions...

Problems are nothing more than opportunities to find solutions.

[Con't]
So now all you've got to do is introduce a bill that decree's that unspent rent assistance for people deemed homeless be diverted to a new department or fund responsible for implementing this housing unit plan.

Not only that you create a housing solution for these people spending no-more than what you would if they had somewhere to live;

- And so long as you can maintain those housing units and they stay in them; you won't ever have to pay them rent assistance, so it's a win-win solution for everybody.

Armchair Critic takes his dirty old fountain pen;
Signs his scribble on some recycled toilet paper;
- And your problem is solved -

I want the same kind on solution for larger housing too.
- Straight off the factory production line...

PAUL1405 said something very true in my opinion. '...My point is, a lot of homeless people are incapable for all sorts of reasons...'

Many of the old fella's I've dealt with, were in that category. Some were even incapable of basic toilet hygiene, so much so, just handling them was a difficult job, we weren't issued with latex gloves in those days.

Beneath, all the grime, the stink, the aggressive behaviour, and grumbling, was a human being, discarded by family, friends, and I guess society.

Interestingly, around Easter and Christmas, many of these homeless old fellas pleaded to be arrested because they would get some semblance of Easter and Christmas fare out at Long Bay. These poor old buggers were placed in a particular yard, where I understand they had a couple of 'heavy' sweepers looking after them.

They ensured they bathed under very close supervision, and were not 'stood-over' for their meager tobacco rations. Those who dug their heels in, and refused, would be threatened with the bass broom treatment, though I never heard whether any of them were subjected to such treatment? In any case, it would probably kill them in the process.

As a uniformed policeman, I found working the 'truck' patrolling, inner Sydney's parks and laneways in the middle of the night, quite gratifying in some measure. I felt we were doing something positive trying to look after, those who didn't want to be looked after, nor did they welcome our attention. However, 'there but for the grace of God go I.'

Hi there ARMCHAIR CRITIC...

Your altruism is very apparent, with the amount of care & time you've spent calculating how cheap and affordable housing can be mfg'd and erected ready for purpose. While your idea is meritorious on so many levels, there are those (more than you might think) who have no intention of moving into such a housing arrangement, however suitable it might prove to be. However, your plan might well work for the younger homeless groups.

You mentioned in your outline inter alia - '...a security office for each site...' which suggests there's some degree of supervision, some rules for such an enterprise.

Unfortunately, many of these people are homeless because they reject outright, any monitoring or auditory processes, in any part of their lives, even on a cold night, on a park bench. I can only hope my thinking is out of date, even redundant?

However, I can't help thinking; many of them resent rules and regulations per se, albeit for their overall benefit. None more so than many of these older, indigent men & women, who I'd describe as being intractably homeless, especially as far as observing a set of housing rules and regulations, no matter how good & economic the accommodation might prove to be.

As I said A.C., you wear your human kindness on your sleeve, despite your protestations to the contrary. '...people creating their own problems...'?

o sung wo yes aware of that and it hurts to know it is true
You will be aware of the Calan park center and how it and other such places once housed those now on the streets
Seems the costs over rule so very much now, maybe how we treat people over rides the bottom line, or should
My young self saw, even met, swagmen, on the Hume Highway walking the same trip, even stopping to fill their water bag up and get a half loaf of bread both mother and grandmother kept for them for decades
In my roadworker days we saw the same three one pushing a pram, for twenty years one wearing ear muffs, determined not to even say hello

Seeing as my history as Industrial Designer was to solve problems, one very big part of creating a new product/issue was not looking at what it would/could do, but the negatives. In the case of AC's idea, I have also, in the past given thought to this matter, and in my scenario I was
mindful of the cost, which has been the foundation of my design ethos.
My version entailed using sea containers.
It had all the benefits and very few of the other.
Some of the dis-benefits probably could not be rectified, those would still not denigrate the concept enough to reject it.
Over the years we have seen the rise of the "small house" phenomenon, well in my view it's just another re-labelling job.
They used to be called "caravans".
Anyway the negatives:
Where to place these containers.
How far from services will this "village" be.
What are the on-going expenses, such as water, electricity, rates, taxes, the list goes on.
Then there is the question of maintenance.
The container idea I like because the "village" can be moved in one day with any and all forms of vehicles, they are not restricted to "container trailers, or trucks" only.
With containers you have a further benefit in regards to vandals and miscreants.
A long time ago I discussed this concept with a govt rep, (can't remember anything else) as an answer to the disgraceful behaviour of our coloured friends and the costly destruction of housing they were given; to my knowledge nothing came of it.
If ever there was a need for leveling the playing field, this was it.
The blacks came from a life of living in the bush, the white fella came from a life of living in a house.
The answer to me is very clear, set up seatainers for the blacks, and give the houses to the whites.
At the very least they won't be raping the house of wood to make a fire, then sleep out side, yes this is based on factual reports.
Racist, me?
No just some pragmatic, objective, practical thinking.