Anti Homeless Architecture

And what else will I complain about when I go downtown? I want to be able to complain about how we need to clean the riffraff of the streets, but it gives me no joy if we're actually getting them off the streets! I need something to fucking whinge about!

The bourgeoisie requires a risk of destitution to prevent the proletariat from rising up.

If you were to start giving houses to the homeless, at least 50% of those houses would be uninhabitable within a year.

G-give....away? N-n-no money for me?? But money me, now. Money now. Money! House = money! Empty house, no money is ok, full house no money NOT OK!

CoMmUnIsM!!!

-Landleeches

Land of the free. Free to sleep under any bridge that isn't spiked.

Throw in unaddressed mental health and drug crises.

Not only that - they’re dying in the street immediately adjacent to vacant luxury condos.

if you give houses to homeless people indiscrimately, many of those houses will be uninhabitable in 2 years. What do you do then? Give them another house to wreck?

According to the Census there are a lot more empty houses than homeless people. Let that sink in and you start to realize all is not what it seems.

This particular statistic needs to be handled carefully. There are problems with both its definition and its nature. Empty housing has a fairly broad definition that includes housing that is unfinished, in the middle of repairs, or unfit for habitation.

The nature of housing with relationship to homelessness depends a lot on where the homeless people are and where the housing is. Empty housing in towns and cities that are depopulating is unlikely to be all that useful. Simply taking people from cities with high levels of homelessness, ripping them out of their communities, and plopping them down into communities that other people are leaving is not a favor.

Also, you shouldn't just warehouse unhoused people in whatever housing is available. Many of them have mental illnesses that need good access to mental health services, transit, and jobs. Just because they're under a roof doesn't mean the job is done. The housing should be tailored to the various populations that it will be serving.

Ah, another “He Gets Us” moment.

“Jesus was homeless for a time (supposedly), so it’s fine for them to be homeless!” ☺️

Sledgehammer time. Looks like fun.

Acupuncture bed.

That's fucking shocking

A thicc soft mattress can easily fix that

(sees username)

Housing + universal healthcare

And police exist to keep them suppressed, disorganized and desperate

Not exactly doable since living spaces legally must have egress windows, and shopping malls... Don't really have many outer walls for that compared to the amount of space internally they have

Houses should not be investments. They break down and should depreciate like any other physical asset. If you built your retirement solely on your house then that's nobody's fault but your own.

Well I don't think we should judge all homeless people based solely off your close proximity to them.

Your position sort of assumes that anybody who disagrees with you only holds their beliefs because they themselves have never had your close proximity.

I

Downvote cuz youre over generalizing, maybe you get those type of people if youre working in a homeless camp with addicts, then youll encounter the people who have been down in their luck and when theyre addicted they dont see a way out.

People outside of the homeless camp could be completely different cause they havent reached the point of being an addict and homeless where they need that service.

I mean we can just look at historical precedent. Back when the drug crisis started and Nixon decided to start the War on Drugs Switzerland took a completely different approach and started what they called care centers. Somewhere you could go to get heroin of high quality administered by doctors for free, you would also then get somewhere to sleep somewhere to shower and keep your things. Access to social workers and mental Care Professionals to help you get your life back on track.

They saw a 85% success rate within the first year. 85% of people that went into those facilities had a stable job on their own household of some variety within the first year and a follow-up study of how they were doing 5 years later showed that they had stayed employed and housed and not regressed.

But that would require people in the US to be willing to look at them as people and not just criminals who did it to themselves. These people are literally broken, you can't treat their actions as you would a normal person because they are not mentally stable.

Wow, you are an awful person, lmao. You require people to remain in destitution because you anecdotally dealt with rude people? Perhaps they were rude because you're an awful person?

Half of your opinion is your own personal aggrievement for being morally reprimanded.

Would you just stop working?

This argument is always brought up when it comes to universal basic income or free housing. It was disproven every time it was tested, but people still believe that everyone else will just stop working if they weren't punished for being alive anymore.

So giving money/homes increases employment in every study of the homeless I've read.

Having a job while homeless is really hard. Getting one without a home is even harder.

If you know of a study that shows otherwise I would love to read it.

People work to improve their material conditions. Material conditions drive society, after all. Do you do household chores at all, or do you let everyone else do them for you?

Communal ownership of property is the only way to truly aim at fulfilling needs and desires, rather than the profit motive.

You already work to give it to someone else.