New Habitat for Humanity Homes on St. Luke near Seminole
Fema Trailers awaiting assignment in New Orleans
Not to knock the global efforts of a truly great organization but the latest Habitat for Humanity build in Windsor looks very questionable. Unlike previous builds these homes are starkley minimalist and don't seem to even fit the agenda of Habitat. That is, "to eliminate poverty housing".
Habitat is famous for providing simple, decent and affordable housing but these ones seem to miss the mark on "decent". It is questionable if equity could ever rise in such a home. Who, in five, ten or twenty years would seek to purchase such a home? What kind of residents are likely going to be attracted to it? Even war time homes which were purposefully built after WWII are more dignified. As a long-term solution it is difficult to fathom that these homes will contribute to breaking the poverty cycle. In fact, they may do just the opposite. Imagine a whole sub-division of such buildings. The only images which come to mind are tent city and internment camp. If this is an experiment in eco-minimalism it seems dangerously out of context. Habitat's local Board and Advisory Council must keep in mind that Skinners Box was a dismal failure.
19 comments:
No...
Regarding Habitat homes look like HEMA........you or whoever wrote that is certainly entitled to their opinion...but come'on.......if somebody had given me that home for free or a deal when I had nothing, I wouldn't have complained....actually I would have kissed their feet.
Whatever happened to the concept of 'stepping stone' or simply being appreciative. Being a bit humble goes a long way.
Sincerely,
Anna.
How dare you deprive someone the opportunity of home ownership. How dare you spread FUD by asking us to "imagine a whole sub-division of such buildings". Habitat for Humanity does not build whole subdivisions. Who is to say that these houses will not be enhanced over the next 10, 20, or 40 years?
Those war homes you talk about were nothing more than boxes. It was the people who owned them over the past 50 years that fixed them up and added value to them.
Not everyone can afford to live on the sacred Monmouth. I'm with Anna on this one.
Too easy to get righteous here. Go easy. I think the point is that in this day and age we can obviously offer better. The intent is noble for sure but even HFH has done better in the past. The bar should always be set higher.
"Not to knock the efforts...but..."
Come on. I'm usually a fan of your postings -- you've helped inform the neighbourhood and city and even incited some action to make a positive difference to the streetscape in Walkerville. But this time I think you've overstepped.
Sure, many more forward thinking cities (and there are many!) have low-income housing that is lots more attractive than these recent Habitat homes built in Windsor, you fail to note the alternative to having these houses built in (or near) your "hood". Which would be more unappealing I wonder -- these three new homes to give those less fortunate a fighting chance, or three sets of homeless families living on the streets of Windsor, or in shelters with no chance of rising above and making a better life for themselves? Everyone needs a start and these homes offer that.
I would invite you to take a trip to the corner of Monmouth and Cataraqui to read the historical marker that describes the original purpose of the row housing on Monmouth: It was built to house low-income distillery workers while at the same time (and perhaps more importantly to those footing the construction costs who lived just off to the west) to buffer the noise coming from the industry along Walker Road from reaching the houses of the wealthy to the west
so they could enjoy THEIR neighborhood without hearing the din of industry. In 1896, Monmouth Road wasn't "the gotta be there place to live" in Windsor. It was a noise barrier, masked as housing.
Monmouth's roots aren't so much different than those of the Habitat homes. It's only time, lots of love and care by the owners, neighbourhood action and strong investment of time and capital that slowly change a neighbourhood.
I hope those families that received these homes will hear more words of encouragement and support from their "neighbours" (be they neighbours on their own street or those from Monmouth Road or those from the City of Windsor as a whole) than they do such negative, unhelpful and shallow comments about the aesthetic appeal of their new homes.
Never forget that positive energy will do more for this city than negative comments ever will.
To "Usually a Fan but":
Be careful. You sound like you wouldn't want these homes in your neighbourhood.
1) These are not meant to be low income housing but rather an alternative to it.
2) They are supposed to be integrated into existing neighbourhoods. Segregating them is wrong and old school.
3) Monmouth Row terraces were built as rental units for the workers, not for ownership. Don't forget that it was a planned corporate town.
4) The only reason they are attractive now is because they have withstood the test of time structurally, architecturally and historically. Also much more to work with.
5) Habitat homes should be embraced and welcomed into any community but they should match and respect the style of homes surrounding them.
6) We should never confuse positive energy with sticking our heads in the sand.
I tend to agree with the author on this one. Its not an attack on HFH or its purpose. But a concern that design can effect the standard or outcome of your living conditions. We can't argue what Monmouth Road use to be or what it has been turned into. The struggles have been great to get to this point. (others can elaborate more). So why subject these families to those struggles. I understand the economics involved and I understand the charity aspect. And it seems it can be agreed that HFH is trying to give these families a head start.
So is the question ... can the design effect the lifestyle? Is the design sufficient or a cop out for affordable housing. See the attached link for further explanation.
not to sound self righteous here, but i can kind of see both sides of this argument.
i do however think that the architectural integrity argument falls short if it keeps one family out in the cold.
there may be a stigma to owning this house in an otherwise established and uniform neighbourhood, but a stigma is one thing and having a roof over your head is another.
I fully support Habitat for Humanity and I trust that their judgement implicitly.
By architechtural integrity I think they mean the structure is sound and has staying power. All previous Habitat builds in this city are good looking homes with staying power. This batch doesn't even come close. Blind trust? Never. After all it is only people who make these decisions. Everyone here seems to agree that people need roofs over their heads but lets face the fact that it should have some dignity. I am willing to bet that the City wouldn't give me a building permit if I wanted to build such a home.
Wow. What a heated debacle!
With respect to all involved, IF we were to remove the FEMA references from this and the Monmouth Road references from this, which seem to me from reading through this to be the sparks behind most of the heat in this kitchen, then I think we get down to only two issues...both of which I think we can all reach a cordial agreement on:
Issue One
From the photo (I haven't seen the actual street in person) it looks that at least three families will have solid, sturdy roofs over their heads and be out of the cold this winter. So that's good, yay Habitat for Humanity. Job well done in that respect.
Grade: Pass.
Issue Two
From the photo (again, I haven't seen the actual street in person) the design isn't.. top notch and doesn't fit with existing structural styles in the neighborhood. Habitat planners and designers didn't do their homework and research on this part, or didn't feel it necessary to study their notes. Many other cities do have not only more aesthetically pleasing HFH homes, but have ones that also fit better into their surrounds. (Do keep in mind, tho, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder!!1) Habitat and Windsor approval committees, unfortunately, your grade on this part: Fail.
One pass, one fail. Final grade on this chapter. "Oops, do over!" isn't an option - we can't knock down the houses and start over with better blueprints. Not liking the houses at this point just amounts to nary more than an opinion. And everyone is entitled to have an option (and to change their opinon, too!).
Lesson learned (at least for me): Be more active with the city, write to the city to politely express your opinion of the current development and express your expectations as a taxpayer of future such developments, attend meetings of city leadership and keep pushing to raise the bar.
Write also to Habitat for Humanity and urge them to do their homework, too. Remind them to visit the neighborhood they're planning to build in. Urge them to plan their designs accordingly. Remind them of the importance for long term growth.
Other thoughts: Were there public postings of the plans for these buildings anywhere that our opinions would have had the opportunity to be heard at before the build? (City Hall, HFH offices, online?) Was there a perhaps missed opportunity by Windsorites to chime in on the design of the homes?
And yes, yes, yes - positive energy wherever and whenever possible. =)
i'm guessing that HFH had several concerns with this project. I'm guessing that some of them were
a) design of the home
b) cost of building the home (seemingly building two small homes on one lot)
c) finished or full basements for more potential living space within the home
d) low cost of ownership (with regards energy and property taxes) for those that do occupy the home.
design is important, but i would guess that it wasn't the single defining factor when HFH made their decisions.
blind trust ..... blind trust would be me (anonmyous) trusting you (anonymous) that you have what it takes to design and build homes for the less fortunate. i don't have blind trust.
trust is what i have for an organization such as Habitat for Humanity.
i would hope that the people who need these homes the most would be thankful for the opportunity, and take steps in the future to get the home that they really want, leaving the home in good shape for those that come after them.
I agree... these places do look like a subset of a trailer park. I know, trailer parks have their role in society but HFH should be ashamed of themselves for building such hideous looking places. Charity or not, they could have come up with a much better design and still kept costs down. You'd never see Ty Pennington sign his name to such deplorable looking buildings!!
This battle has already been hashed out between FEMA and the hurricane victims. See the solution. Do a search on the Katrina Cottage. Buy the way FEMA has rejected the cottages in favor of trailers.
Did a driveby tosee what all the commotion is about. I will say one thing. These places do blend with their surroundings. 2 factories immediately south, two factories immediately north and the Hearn Industrial Complex loading docks across the street. Yea. No thanks.
Personally I see no wrong it stating what it looks like.
You can call them Taj Mahal's but they are still what they are, and that is ugly housing. They could look much better than they do.
I don't think anyone is complaining about what HFH does but making them look a tad better wouldn't cost that much more.
Googled Katrina Cottage per anonymous. Interesting. Similar, neo-traditionalist flavour but much more thought out. These homes have much more detail and are similar to surroundings. They are designed so that one can add to them in the future. Sadly, the ones here in Windsor are plain boxes with no detail and cannot be expanded because the properties are narrow and short. They aren't thought out.
Small Home Design
http://www.designadvisor.org/
Looking back this is funny. It is now 2012 and Habitat is having big trouble with these units. No one wants to live in them. Anyone who gets one want to upgrade right away. They keys are coming back to Habitat all the time. Habitat will no longer build any of these and they are looking for a way to off the ones they have. How dare you Mayor. L.O.L.
As the designer of this set of homes, I am happy to see the debate. Many, many restrictions went into the ability to do what the designer wanted to do. Some have been identified by writers here and many have not. What is interesting are the comments on context relative to having never seen the site. I would suggest there are many comments from similar writers. Perhaps a lesson in building for $60.00 per square foot is indeed required - especially when including land costs. St. Luke offered an opportunity to change what HFH Canada considered to be Mc Mansions relative their mission. I lived on Kildare in Windsor in an 1888 Albert Kahn designed home myself, and truly appreciated its style and call to days gone by, however those days of mastercraft building are long since past - particularly when built by volunteers. I will not mention the changes that also occur during the build. Architecture is subjective, context even more so. HFH has a great mission, this was a return to simplicity that had been lost over time in Windsor. Can they be more fitting - yes, can they be more fitting and built on 20 foot lots and meet the requirements of the zoning officials and the needs of 4 bedrooms and 1100 square feet? Context is so important in these discussions. Best wishes for future contextual developments within Olde Walkerville, a place that will always be near to my heart.
Post a Comment