Housing and Community Development

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Committee on Design and Residential Knowledge Community .
-------------------------------------------
HOUSING VOUCHERS

Want to jump-start the residential building market?  I suggest that the government begin "back to work" programs similar to the WPA during the great depression in the 30's.  We are experiencing a loss, even destruction of available housing in the face of an ever-increasing population and need for more housing.  I suggest that Fanny and Freddie be re-worked to provide relief for the stagnant housing market - in the form of housing vouchers.

You've all heard about education vouchers - where individual families are given the choice to select the type of school that best fits their child's (and families) needs.  This would be a similar idea, but would give qualified individuals and families the opportunity to design and build an affordable, but still custom home that fits their individual requirements.  Repayment would be scaled and subsidized based on income, and adjusted as the economy improved or continued to lag.  

What are the biggest challenges to any sort of public housing?  (1) Scale:  By consolidating public housing into "efficient" mass units, public housing has no place for individual expression and therefor no soul.  (2) Emotional investment by the tenants.  The residents have no emotional investment in common public housing projects, so they mistreat the property and it falls into disrepair. (3) The designs have often been repetitive and lacking inspiration for the designers, builders and tenants.

SCALE: This proposal would not fund large developments, but rather individual infill and remodels of vacant and foreclosed property.  It would not fund large-scale corporate architecture or construction firms, but rather small individual architects and contractors working out of their trucks.  This idea would not promote economy of scale, but rather economy of careful design and quality execution.

INVESTMENT BY THE OCCUPANTS:  Since the projects would be the individual expression of the residents, and they would participate in the process, an emotional investment would be possible.  The new homeowners could contribute skills and choices to the project, and be able to sell and relocate when completed.  Each project could become a nest-egg for future projects or a contribution toward retirement.

INSPIRED DESIGN AND BUILDING: The individual architects and contractors working on these projects would be encouraged to create new and unique solutions to affordable housing, energy efficiency and reuse of materials.  Each home would have it's unique personality to match the home owner, architect and builder.

I propose that housing vouchers could be a way to rebuild our housing stock by using a grass-roots, bottom-up method of funding rather than the common top-down methods of the past.  Let's begin to redesign our systems for funding and building housing to reflect the contribution of the 99%, rather than continuing to lie the pockets of the 1%.

-------------------------------------------
David Ludwig
Sausalito CA
-------------------------------------------

Concerning Housing Vouchers:
Interesting idea, Mr. Ludwig, but didn't you ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room ?   That is, who should pay for the voucher ?  Last time I checked, the government has no money (especially in California).  A voucher worth $10,000 isn't much use for poor people who need another $100,000 (make that $200,000 for California).  Of course, the voucher would be indexed to individual income ... right ?  So, does it make sense to give more money to people who earn less (and might work less) as compared to the guy who is working 2 jobs and earning more ?  That isn't much incentive for productivity.

I think vouchers are not the answer (if the answer was so easy, we would have done it by now).
-------------------------------------------
Roger Morgan AIA
-------------------------------------------

We've participated in a CBDG housing programs at the local level with mixed results.  The program provided $100,000 towards the renovation of an Owner's property and allowed families with limited incomes to remain in their homes.  It permitted quite a bit of discretionary use of the money towards very individual design interventions and encouraged ADA renovations for kitchens and bathrooms.  The design fees were also paid from the CBDG money and were not included in the $100k construction money. 

A few remarks on that program.  We, along with 5 other A/E firms,  participated in the program for 10 years.  The entitlement mentality is still very much alive with almost every applicant to the program.  The local City attorney had to defend the A/Es and the City constantly.  The positive impact of the program (at $100k per home) on the City's well being was not dramatic.
-------------------------------------------
Gabriel Romero AIA
Principal
The RKtects Studio Inc.
Bethesda MD
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 01-05-2012 08:40
From: Roger Morgan
Subject: Housing Vouchers


Concerning Housing Vouchers:
Interesting idea, Mr. Ludwig, but didn't you ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room ?   That is, who should pay for the voucher ?  Last time I checked, the government has no money (especially in California).  A voucher worth $10,000 isn't much use for poor people who need another $100,000 (make that $200,000 for California).  Of course, the voucher would be indexed to individual income ... right ?  So, does it make sense to give more money to people who earn less (and might work less) as compared to the guy who is working 2 jobs and earning more ?  That isn't much incentive for productivity.

I think vouchers are not the answer (if the answer was so easy, we would have done it by now).
-------------------------------------------
Roger Morgan AIA
-------------------------------------------

I believe that housing vouchers have their place in helping low income individuals make rent each month. Using them to provide home ownership is a much bigger issue.  Home ownership is a privilege to which those who are both interested and financially responsible are entitled - not each and every person.

 Having had experience as a landlord who rented to folks on the HUD Section 8 (now Housing Voucher) program, it is clear that the majority of those folks are neither interested nor fiscally responsible enough to own a home. The programs I am familiar provide instruction and counseling to "main stream" the low income. It helps but home ownership is a huge leap for most of those who are on the program. From there, groups like Habitat For Humanity actually provide a pretty decent mechanism to enable those who are interested and capable to get into home ownership.

-------------------------------------------
William Sell AIA
Corona CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 01-05-2012 08:40
From: Roger Morgan
Subject: Housing Vouchers


Concerning Housing Vouchers:
Interesting idea, Mr. Ludwig, but didn't you ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room ?   That is, who should pay for the voucher ?  Last time I checked, the government has no money (especially in California).  A voucher worth $10,000 isn't much use for poor people who need another $100,000 (make that $200,000 for California).  Of course, the voucher would be indexed to individual income ... right ?  So, does it make sense to give more money to people who earn less (and might work less) as compared to the guy who is working 2 jobs and earning more ?  That isn't much incentive for productivity.

I think vouchers are not the answer (if the answer was so easy, we would have done it by now).
-------------------------------------------
Roger Morgan AIA
-------------------------------------------

David -- Thanks for this -- I think this is great !  Can you be a bit more specific on the funding and design ?  Would all funds go thru Fannie and Freddie, and would they be provided from them for both design and construction ? 

Thanks for your thoughts,

-------------------------------------------
Eugene Aleci AIA
Architect / President
Community Heritage Partners
Lancaster PA
-------------------------------------------

The only obstacle to this idea is that the 99% have left an tremendous volume of homes in the shadow market and our government is broke. ------------------------------------------- Ricardo Ramos Assoc. AIA, LEED® AP, CSI Alpha Analysis, Inc. Arcadia CA -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 01-04-2012 20:23 From: David Ludwig Subject: RADICAL IDEA #2? HOUSING VOUCHERS This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Committee on Design and Residential Knowledge Community . ------------------------------------------- HOUSING VOUCHERS Want to jump-start the residential building market? I suggest that the government begin "back to work" programs similar to the WPA during the great depression in the 30's. We are experiencing a loss, even destruction of available housing in the face of an ever-increasing population and need for more housing. I suggest that Fanny and Freddie be re-worked to provide relief for the stagnant housing market - in the form of housing vouchers. You've all heard about education vouchers - where individual families are given the choice to select the type of school that best fits their child's (and families) needs. This would be a similar idea, but would give qualified individuals and families the opportunity to design and build an affordable, but still custom home that fits their individual requirements. Repayment would be scaled and subsidized based on income, and adjusted as the economy improved or continued to lag. What are the biggest challenges to any sort of public housing? (1) Scale: By consolidating public housing into "efficient" mass units, public housing has no place for individual expression and therefor no soul. (2) Emotional investment by the tenants. The residents have no emotional investment in common public housing projects, so they mistreat the property and it falls into disrepair. (3) The designs have often been repetitive and lacking inspiration for the designers, builders and tenants. SCALE: This proposal would not fund large developments, but rather individual infill and remodels of vacant and foreclosed property. It would not fund large-scale corporate architecture or construction firms, but rather small individual architects and contractors working out of their trucks. This idea would not promote economy of scale, but rather economy of careful design and quality execution. INVESTMENT BY THE OCCUPANTS: Since the projects would be the individual expression of the residents, and they would participate in the process, an emotional investment would be possible. The new homeowners could contribute skills and choices to the project, and be able to sell and relocate when completed. Each project could become a nest-egg for future projects or a contribution toward retirement. INSPIRED DESIGN AND BUILDING: The individual architects and contractors working on these projects would be encouraged to create new and unique solutions to affordable housing, energy efficiency and reuse of materials. Each home would have it's unique personality to match the home owner, architect and builder. I propose that housing vouchers could be a way to rebuild our housing stock by using a grass-roots, bottom-up method of funding rather than the common top-down methods of the past. Let's begin to redesign our systems for funding and building housing to reflect the contribution of the 99%, rather than continuing to lie the pockets of the 1%. ------------------------------------------- David Ludwig Sausalito CA -------------------------------------------