Hacker News Reader

It quite literally does solve the problem of people being unsheltered. It doesn’t solve the problem of people being effectively unable to care for themselves, but that’s a separate (and intertwined) problem from homelessness itself. You don't need to solve those problems at a shelter per se, and from what I recall only about 1/3 of homeless people are too addicted/mentally ill to care for themselves (these are just the most visibly homeless and the most likely to sleep rough), in which case this actually seems like a preferable arrangement compared to a group shelter for the 2/3 of homeless who literally just need a place to live.

> We can’t handle the upkeep

The main benefit of these is that they are effectively disposable, and they’re dispersed enough that you don’t have to deal with one person starting a flood or fire and wrecking a whole building.

If I were ever to become homeless I would much rather live in a tiny home than in a shelter, even if I had to go to a shelter or gym or something to take showers and interact with social workers. I feel like I’d never feel a sense of safety, privacy or autonomy in a shelter.

You can’t separate the services problem from the housing problem. These tiny houses need additional services for bathrooms showers and food nearby and for that you be viable you need 25-50 units near each other.

>Quite a few cities have actually solved this problem. They provide housing and all of the additional services, like hygiene facilities, food, and security. Granted, they only solve it for certain cohorts, but it demonstrates that it is rather trivially solvable. That's going to lead to hot political quarreling, so it's a good place to stop.

Most of those services are available AFAIK, there's charities in most major Canadian cities that provide those basics. Without them the homeless population would probably be triple what you can see, and from what I've heard the majority just need it short term to get back on their feet.

But they can only offer those to people without substance abuse problems (drugs and alcohol are banned in those shelters), and those are the folks you'll mostly see out and about. You'd need some sort of institution with far greater resources to handle those, like an asylum. North America just seems to have a sordid history with the like.

> You'd need some sort of institution with far greater resources to handle those, like an asylum. North America just seems to have a sordid history with the like.

Does anywhere not have a sordid history with asylums? I'm genuinely asking as it seems like such facilities always devolve into pseudo-prison for the undesirable no matter what.

The thing about asylums is that they're always going to be terrible, but the standard isn't good, it's better.

Is a terrible asylum better or worse than living on the streets?

Worse for the inmates, better for the general public.

Shelters in Toronto are full and unable to house everyone in need on a daily basis

> Granted, they only solve it for certain cohorts, but it demonstrates that it is rather trivially solvable.

Those cohorts being women and children.

Much starts from shelter, food, and safety.

You have a very good point that further supports are needed, however living in an urban area, I don't know if I can watch another 20 years waiting for the entire chain of everything to be setup before starting.

THese types of solutions from the private/volunteer sector do things that can't be unseen and often initiate conversations about what progress looks like.

The new types of shelter buildings with integrated services right in them, like other things are postive beacons.

If something cna improve the day to day, it's hard to say I'm against it when I'm sitting inside and someone who I might be saying it about isn't sitting inside.

While I agree with your general points,

> These are useful for solving one particular facet: people die from exposure in Toronto.

They are also useful because human beings need shelter, whether or not the exposure is life-threatening. They can't wait for your more ideal solutions.

You're a sitting duck for people who want to attack you when you're inside one of these.

Has someone said that's a risk or an issue for the people who use them? They probably also are bad in a flood, but is that a real risk? Isn't that true of most shelter?

Yes, I said it in the comment right above yours. In a conventional homeless shelter there are more people around and staff, meaning you're at least not alone with an attacker. Homeless people do get attacked by other homeless and street thugs.

I have a solution for that. No shelter.

I mean, is there evidence that this is a concern - your comment isn't evidence.

> In a conventional homeless shelter there are more people around and staff, meaning you're at least not alone with an attacker.

I don't know if it really works out that way - plenty of homeless people say the shelters aren't safe - but regardless, it isn't working.

As opposed to a tent?!

Clearly much better than a tent.