Date   

Re: Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal

Skip Trantow
 

Sampath,

Thanks for sharing your work – it’s very inspirational!   Enabling people to get into their own houses, no matter how small and modest, is, I think, a key aspect.  Our own house is something we take pride in, maintain and personalize, and this is what creates a safe caring neighborhood.  And thanks for the info on the ‘Dexion’ house.  A ‘kit of parts’ that the owner can self-assemble with simple tools.  Very cool!  

/Skip


On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:10 PM Sampath Reddy <sampath.althur@...> wrote:
Skip,

Great thoughts. Loved the innovative thinking.
I'm thinking of a tree house , this would be like a a gigantic tree house experiment types. Would be fun though.
The challenge could be sourcing services like water, plumbing et al.. solveable though.

I think we need more tiny experiments and showcase successes.

I'm from Bangalore India and almost all houses here have flat rooftops. Incremental self build housing is a norm.

Most people partly use the flat terraces for drying cloths, chillies et al. Houses here don't have backyards because of the high population density here. But have flat rooftops. Rooftops are akin to backyards in the US.

I liked the terms you used. Creating 'Artificial Land', 'Space Harvesting' and Urban Development Innovation.

I've been eying rooftops to add distributed micro housing units to provide affordable rental housing to migrants and providing livelihood to small house owners in the sub urbs where permitting is relatively easy compared to core urban areas and incremental housing is a norm.

Also liked and had thought of the idea before of creating a raised platform deck above slum huts to add additional housing using the vertical space above.

I use modular industrial shelving frames aka slotted angle iron frames to build modular structures.

Check out some inspiration for my work from Dexion founder of slotted angles and some of my projects below.


My Projects :

My Social  handle:

Thank you for the continued inspiration.

Best
Sampath Reddy





On Mon, 3 May, 2021, 10:06 Keith Wilson, <keithwilson@...> wrote:
Skip, I applaud you. I certainly have my ideas but the scale is so vast and our neighbors are passing away at our feet that we simply need all of the above. There is no wrong door. Thanks.

Keith Wilson

TITAN Freight Systems
503-849-0713


From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> on behalf of Skip Trantow via groups.io <skiptrantow=gmail.com@groups.io>
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 2021 6:16:47 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io>
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal
 

Hello All,

I have been closely following the progression of the homeless situation in Portland for some time. I understand this is a complex and difficult situation and do not fault anyone at the Joint Office of Homeless Services or other housing agencies.  There is certainly good work being done, yet I also think there is room for evolving the approach to finding solutions.  

As a retired software engineer, as a hands-on person who has built and/or remodeled several of my own homes and understands all aspects of construction (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing), and as a life-long student of Geometry (per http://omnigarten.org), it is painful to see Portland devote huge sums of money to large capital low-income apartment projects that seem to house a relatively small number of people for the level of investment.  The problem is outpacing that approach. The recent adoption of the S2HC package that allows more modes of housing is progress. Yet, we ultimately need to get to where permanent tiny-home villages are normal and abundant throughout the urban area. That is the gist of my proposal, Low-Cost Spaceframe Housing Concept, found at http://spaceframe.housing.wiki/ , I hope this forum can discuss.  I would like to see Portland’s JOHS do a feasibility study on this concept, and ideally, fund a small proof-of-concept project.  If that works out, go full-steam ahead and fund full-scale projects.  

The proposal builds on the work of architect Peter Pearce whom I met several years ago when he talked about the design of his Spaceframe EcoHouse. I have since devoured his books on design.  Peter is an immense talent who brings a different way of thinking about physical structure and how the theoretical can be formed into practical solutions.  I believe Portland would be wise to harness Peter’s thinking.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein who stated: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. 

As I see it: We cannot solve our housing problem relying solely on the same construction methodologies that contributed to the dearth of truly affordable housing in the first place.

Regards,

Skip Trantow

Portland

 

 

 





ANOTHER event today, 5-6:30pm "We The Unhoused" Theo Henderson @ UCLC

Tim McCormick
 

You are invited (but need to contact organizer for Zoom link to attend), 
"A Conversation between Theo Henderson, podcast host of We The Unhoused, and activist; 
and, Lexis-Olivier Rey, reporter at L.A. TACO, organizer of event. 

E0P4f9hVUAQTg6Y.jpg
Theo is the creator and host of We The Unhoused, a podcast series from the streets of LA by and about and for the houseless. It's up to 44 episodes now, they seem to drop about every 2-3 weeks on average.

He's steadily gained quite of a lot of recognition in wider media, is probably the forefront of houseless-produced personal media: the much bigger operation Invisible People run by Mark Horvath centers on houseless people, but Mark was houseless a few decades back -- still, a quite impressive and interesting media channel. The other comparable thing is street newspapers, but these vary a lot in how directly houseless people are involved in running, editing, or writing for them, and it can be hard to tell how much.
By comparison, I really appreciate the DIY power of Theo's work. 

We The Unhoused is on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/user-369990655
Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheoHen95302259

I'd note, it is really from the street, i.e. every episode I've listened to has been most recorded right on street with simple equipment, and full of street and cross-cutting sound. It can be kind of jarring or at times hard to hear, but on the other hand it feels very real, and kind of puts you directly into the context in a way radio/video usually doesn't.

Organizer web contact form http://www.lexisolivierray.com/new-page

Check it out!!
Tim

Bcc: Graham Pruss - fyi noting this event and mailing list/group to you. 
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


today 5-6pm! "Understanding Homeless" webinar, with Dr. Marisa Zapata @PSU

Naida Mosley
 

5-6pm PST, "Understanding Homelessness" webinar. 

with Dr. Marisa Zapata, Director of the Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative (HRAC), at Portland State. Event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/2546434368998935/

Virtual Webinar with Q&A
- Join the Webinar to participate in the Q&A: https://pdx.zoom.us/j/87220790126
(apparently no advance registration or password needed). - Watch the live-stream on PSU's YouTube Channel: https://youtu.be/aAFFBkUq98I. NOTE, I am not an organizer of this event, if you have any issues/Q you could try emailing homelessness@..., or perhaps posting a message on the Facebook event page.

Screen Shot 2021-05-04 at 2.42.58 PM.png


Re: Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal

Sampath Reddy
 

Skip,

Great thoughts. Loved the innovative thinking.
I'm thinking of a tree house , this would be like a a gigantic tree house experiment types. Would be fun though.
The challenge could be sourcing services like water, plumbing et al.. solveable though.

I think we need more tiny experiments and showcase successes.

I'm from Bangalore India and almost all houses here have flat rooftops. Incremental self build housing is a norm.

Most people partly use the flat terraces for drying cloths, chillies et al. Houses here don't have backyards because of the high population density here. But have flat rooftops. Rooftops are akin to backyards in the US.

I liked the terms you used. Creating 'Artificial Land', 'Space Harvesting' and Urban Development Innovation.

I've been eying rooftops to add distributed micro housing units to provide affordable rental housing to migrants and providing livelihood to small house owners in the sub urbs where permitting is relatively easy compared to core urban areas and incremental housing is a norm.

Also liked and had thought of the idea before of creating a raised platform deck above slum huts to add additional housing using the vertical space above.

I use modular industrial shelving frames aka slotted angle iron frames to build modular structures.

Check out some inspiration for my work from Dexion founder of slotted angles and some of my projects below.


My Projects :

My Social  handle:

Thank you for the continued inspiration.

Best
Sampath Reddy





On Mon, 3 May, 2021, 10:06 Keith Wilson, <keithwilson@...> wrote:
Skip, I applaud you. I certainly have my ideas but the scale is so vast and our neighbors are passing away at our feet that we simply need all of the above. There is no wrong door. Thanks.

Keith Wilson

TITAN Freight Systems
503-849-0713


From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> on behalf of Skip Trantow via groups.io <skiptrantow=gmail.com@groups.io>
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 2021 6:16:47 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io>
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal
 

Hello All,

I have been closely following the progression of the homeless situation in Portland for some time. I understand this is a complex and difficult situation and do not fault anyone at the Joint Office of Homeless Services or other housing agencies.  There is certainly good work being done, yet I also think there is room for evolving the approach to finding solutions.  

As a retired software engineer, as a hands-on person who has built and/or remodeled several of my own homes and understands all aspects of construction (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing), and as a life-long student of Geometry (per http://omnigarten.org), it is painful to see Portland devote huge sums of money to large capital low-income apartment projects that seem to house a relatively small number of people for the level of investment.  The problem is outpacing that approach. The recent adoption of the S2HC package that allows more modes of housing is progress. Yet, we ultimately need to get to where permanent tiny-home villages are normal and abundant throughout the urban area. That is the gist of my proposal, Low-Cost Spaceframe Housing Concept, found at http://spaceframe.housing.wiki/ , I hope this forum can discuss.  I would like to see Portland’s JOHS do a feasibility study on this concept, and ideally, fund a small proof-of-concept project.  If that works out, go full-steam ahead and fund full-scale projects.  

The proposal builds on the work of architect Peter Pearce whom I met several years ago when he talked about the design of his Spaceframe EcoHouse. I have since devoured his books on design.  Peter is an immense talent who brings a different way of thinking about physical structure and how the theoretical can be formed into practical solutions.  I believe Portland would be wise to harness Peter’s thinking.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein who stated: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. 

As I see it: We cannot solve our housing problem relying solely on the same construction methodologies that contributed to the dearth of truly affordable housing in the first place.

Regards,

Skip Trantow

Portland

 

 

 





Re: Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal

Tom Hickey <hickeyt@...>
 

What seems missing from this conversation is that the cost of land does not seem to be deciding obstacle for government participation in alternative shelter, but the cost of liability. Every discussion we have about government support for projects grinds to a halt over insurance costs. That’s why city projects are so expensive.  

Tom Hickey

On May 3, 2021, at 2:34 PM, Skip Trantow <skiptrantow@...> wrote:


I should have not been so loose with my adjectives.  I was describing from the perspective of construction, where a flat level lot is the easiest and least expensive to build on, and will command a premium price. The gist here is that JOHS (or other concerns) need to broaden their construction options to be able to construct 'villages' on more types of terrain, not just the flat and level.  There are likely many 'difficult to build on' locations that are not unhealthy or dangerous, some may even offer nice views.  Site selection is separate from construction methodology.



On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 1:09 PM Aisha Musa <draymusa@...> wrote:
//utilize the 'un-nice' 'junky' spaces//

Yes. This is why affordable housing is so often built near such things as sewage treatment plants, railroad tracks, and toxic waste repositories. God forbid that undesirables like the poor have housing in "nice" spaces. Beggars, after all, dare not be choosers.


Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC









On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:46 AM Skip Trantow <skiptrantow@...> wrote:
Emerson,
I think you've stated the exact problem. Trying to site a tiny village on a nice flat urban lot will face two pressures: 1) Developers will pay a premium price for it and build market-rate housing on it for a decent profit.  A tiny-village can't compete with that investment return. 2) The nice flat urban lot will likely also have many nearby households who may not want a tiny-village there, as it risks decreasing the house values in the neighborhood, i.e., the NIMBY pressure.

That said, I think the flexibility of spaceframe solutions allows us to utilize the 'un-nice' 'junky' spaces that would be cheap to procure, no developer using conventional building methods could pencil out a project on it, and would probably be less prone to NIMBY pressure.

That's my 2c anyway.
/Skip

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 8:09 PM Emerson This <emersonthis@...> wrote:
@Skip This is my understanding of the idea: build tiny home villages on top of space-truss platforms. I hear a lot of people advocate for the idea of tiny homes as an interim solution. But it's already been very difficult to get those established on empty lots and sites that already exist. How would these ever get done if someone has to build a space-truss first?
—Emerson

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 7:28 PM Skip Trantow <skiptrantow@...> wrote:

Hello All,

I have been closely following the progression of the homeless situation in Portland for some time. I understand this is a complex and difficult situation and do not fault anyone at the Joint Office of Homeless Services or other housing agencies.  There is certainly good work being done, yet I also think there is room for evolving the approach to finding solutions.  

As a retired software engineer, as a hands-on person who has built and/or remodeled several of my own homes and understands all aspects of construction (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing), and as a life-long student of Geometry (per http://omnigarten.org), it is painful to see Portland devote huge sums of money to large capital low-income apartment projects that seem to house a relatively small number of people for the level of investment.  The problem is outpacing that approach. The recent adoption of the S2HC package that allows more modes of housing is progress. Yet, we ultimately need to get to where permanent tiny-home villages are normal and abundant throughout the urban area. That is the gist of my proposal, Low-Cost Spaceframe Housing Concept, found at http://spaceframe.housing.wiki/ , I hope this forum can discuss.  I would like to see Portland’s JOHS do a feasibility study on this concept, and ideally, fund a small proof-of-concept project.  If that works out, go full-steam ahead and fund full-scale projects.  

The proposal builds on the work of architect Peter Pearce whom I met several years ago when he talked about the design of his Spaceframe EcoHouse. I have since devoured his books on design.  Peter is an immense talent who brings a different way of thinking about physical structure and how the theoretical can be formed into practical solutions.  I believe Portland would be wise to harness Peter’s thinking.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein who stated: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. 

As I see it: We cannot solve our housing problem relying solely on the same construction methodologies that contributed to the dearth of truly affordable housing in the first place.

Regards,

Skip Trantow

Portland

 

 

 





Re: Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal

Skip Trantow
 

I should have not been so loose with my adjectives.  I was describing from the perspective of construction, where a flat level lot is the easiest and least expensive to build on, and will command a premium price. The gist here is that JOHS (or other concerns) need to broaden their construction options to be able to construct 'villages' on more types of terrain, not just the flat and level.  There are likely many 'difficult to build on' locations that are not unhealthy or dangerous, some may even offer nice views.  Site selection is separate from construction methodology.



On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 1:09 PM Aisha Musa <draymusa@...> wrote:
//utilize the 'un-nice' 'junky' spaces//

Yes. This is why affordable housing is so often built near such things as sewage treatment plants, railroad tracks, and toxic waste repositories. God forbid that undesirables like the poor have housing in "nice" spaces. Beggars, after all, dare not be choosers.


Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC









On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:46 AM Skip Trantow <skiptrantow@...> wrote:
Emerson,
I think you've stated the exact problem. Trying to site a tiny village on a nice flat urban lot will face two pressures: 1) Developers will pay a premium price for it and build market-rate housing on it for a decent profit.  A tiny-village can't compete with that investment return. 2) The nice flat urban lot will likely also have many nearby households who may not want a tiny-village there, as it risks decreasing the house values in the neighborhood, i.e., the NIMBY pressure.

That said, I think the flexibility of spaceframe solutions allows us to utilize the 'un-nice' 'junky' spaces that would be cheap to procure, no developer using conventional building methods could pencil out a project on it, and would probably be less prone to NIMBY pressure.

That's my 2c anyway.
/Skip

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 8:09 PM Emerson This <emersonthis@...> wrote:
@Skip This is my understanding of the idea: build tiny home villages on top of space-truss platforms. I hear a lot of people advocate for the idea of tiny homes as an interim solution. But it's already been very difficult to get those established on empty lots and sites that already exist. How would these ever get done if someone has to build a space-truss first?
—Emerson

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 7:28 PM Skip Trantow <skiptrantow@...> wrote:

Hello All,

I have been closely following the progression of the homeless situation in Portland for some time. I understand this is a complex and difficult situation and do not fault anyone at the Joint Office of Homeless Services or other housing agencies.  There is certainly good work being done, yet I also think there is room for evolving the approach to finding solutions.  

As a retired software engineer, as a hands-on person who has built and/or remodeled several of my own homes and understands all aspects of construction (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing), and as a life-long student of Geometry (per http://omnigarten.org), it is painful to see Portland devote huge sums of money to large capital low-income apartment projects that seem to house a relatively small number of people for the level of investment.  The problem is outpacing that approach. The recent adoption of the S2HC package that allows more modes of housing is progress. Yet, we ultimately need to get to where permanent tiny-home villages are normal and abundant throughout the urban area. That is the gist of my proposal, Low-Cost Spaceframe Housing Concept, found at http://spaceframe.housing.wiki/ , I hope this forum can discuss.  I would like to see Portland’s JOHS do a feasibility study on this concept, and ideally, fund a small proof-of-concept project.  If that works out, go full-steam ahead and fund full-scale projects.  

The proposal builds on the work of architect Peter Pearce whom I met several years ago when he talked about the design of his Spaceframe EcoHouse. I have since devoured his books on design.  Peter is an immense talent who brings a different way of thinking about physical structure and how the theoretical can be formed into practical solutions.  I believe Portland would be wise to harness Peter’s thinking.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein who stated: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. 

As I see it: We cannot solve our housing problem relying solely on the same construction methodologies that contributed to the dearth of truly affordable housing in the first place.

Regards,

Skip Trantow

Portland

 

 

 





Re: Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal

Aisha Musa
 

//utilize the 'un-nice' 'junky' spaces//

Yes. This is why affordable housing is so often built near such things as sewage treatment plants, railroad tracks, and toxic waste repositories. God forbid that undesirables like the poor have housing in "nice" spaces. Beggars, after all, dare not be choosers.


Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC









On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:46 AM Skip Trantow <skiptrantow@...> wrote:
Emerson,
I think you've stated the exact problem. Trying to site a tiny village on a nice flat urban lot will face two pressures: 1) Developers will pay a premium price for it and build market-rate housing on it for a decent profit.  A tiny-village can't compete with that investment return. 2) The nice flat urban lot will likely also have many nearby households who may not want a tiny-village there, as it risks decreasing the house values in the neighborhood, i.e., the NIMBY pressure.

That said, I think the flexibility of spaceframe solutions allows us to utilize the 'un-nice' 'junky' spaces that would be cheap to procure, no developer using conventional building methods could pencil out a project on it, and would probably be less prone to NIMBY pressure.

That's my 2c anyway.
/Skip

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 8:09 PM Emerson This <emersonthis@...> wrote:
@Skip This is my understanding of the idea: build tiny home villages on top of space-truss platforms. I hear a lot of people advocate for the idea of tiny homes as an interim solution. But it's already been very difficult to get those established on empty lots and sites that already exist. How would these ever get done if someone has to build a space-truss first?
—Emerson

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 7:28 PM Skip Trantow <skiptrantow@...> wrote:

Hello All,

I have been closely following the progression of the homeless situation in Portland for some time. I understand this is a complex and difficult situation and do not fault anyone at the Joint Office of Homeless Services or other housing agencies.  There is certainly good work being done, yet I also think there is room for evolving the approach to finding solutions.  

As a retired software engineer, as a hands-on person who has built and/or remodeled several of my own homes and understands all aspects of construction (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing), and as a life-long student of Geometry (per http://omnigarten.org), it is painful to see Portland devote huge sums of money to large capital low-income apartment projects that seem to house a relatively small number of people for the level of investment.  The problem is outpacing that approach. The recent adoption of the S2HC package that allows more modes of housing is progress. Yet, we ultimately need to get to where permanent tiny-home villages are normal and abundant throughout the urban area. That is the gist of my proposal, Low-Cost Spaceframe Housing Concept, found at http://spaceframe.housing.wiki/ , I hope this forum can discuss.  I would like to see Portland’s JOHS do a feasibility study on this concept, and ideally, fund a small proof-of-concept project.  If that works out, go full-steam ahead and fund full-scale projects.  

The proposal builds on the work of architect Peter Pearce whom I met several years ago when he talked about the design of his Spaceframe EcoHouse. I have since devoured his books on design.  Peter is an immense talent who brings a different way of thinking about physical structure and how the theoretical can be formed into practical solutions.  I believe Portland would be wise to harness Peter’s thinking.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein who stated: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. 

As I see it: We cannot solve our housing problem relying solely on the same construction methodologies that contributed to the dearth of truly affordable housing in the first place.

Regards,

Skip Trantow

Portland

 

 

 





Re: Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal

Skip Trantow
 

Emerson,
I think you've stated the exact problem. Trying to site a tiny village on a nice flat urban lot will face two pressures: 1) Developers will pay a premium price for it and build market-rate housing on it for a decent profit.  A tiny-village can't compete with that investment return. 2) The nice flat urban lot will likely also have many nearby households who may not want a tiny-village there, as it risks decreasing the house values in the neighborhood, i.e., the NIMBY pressure.

That said, I think the flexibility of spaceframe solutions allows us to utilize the 'un-nice' 'junky' spaces that would be cheap to procure, no developer using conventional building methods could pencil out a project on it, and would probably be less prone to NIMBY pressure.

That's my 2c anyway.
/Skip


On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 8:09 PM Emerson This <emersonthis@...> wrote:
@Skip This is my understanding of the idea: build tiny home villages on top of space-truss platforms. I hear a lot of people advocate for the idea of tiny homes as an interim solution. But it's already been very difficult to get those established on empty lots and sites that already exist. How would these ever get done if someone has to build a space-truss first?
—Emerson

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 7:28 PM Skip Trantow <skiptrantow@...> wrote:

Hello All,

I have been closely following the progression of the homeless situation in Portland for some time. I understand this is a complex and difficult situation and do not fault anyone at the Joint Office of Homeless Services or other housing agencies.  There is certainly good work being done, yet I also think there is room for evolving the approach to finding solutions.  

As a retired software engineer, as a hands-on person who has built and/or remodeled several of my own homes and understands all aspects of construction (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing), and as a life-long student of Geometry (per http://omnigarten.org), it is painful to see Portland devote huge sums of money to large capital low-income apartment projects that seem to house a relatively small number of people for the level of investment.  The problem is outpacing that approach. The recent adoption of the S2HC package that allows more modes of housing is progress. Yet, we ultimately need to get to where permanent tiny-home villages are normal and abundant throughout the urban area. That is the gist of my proposal, Low-Cost Spaceframe Housing Concept, found at http://spaceframe.housing.wiki/ , I hope this forum can discuss.  I would like to see Portland’s JOHS do a feasibility study on this concept, and ideally, fund a small proof-of-concept project.  If that works out, go full-steam ahead and fund full-scale projects.  

The proposal builds on the work of architect Peter Pearce whom I met several years ago when he talked about the design of his Spaceframe EcoHouse. I have since devoured his books on design.  Peter is an immense talent who brings a different way of thinking about physical structure and how the theoretical can be formed into practical solutions.  I believe Portland would be wise to harness Peter’s thinking.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein who stated: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. 

As I see it: We cannot solve our housing problem relying solely on the same construction methodologies that contributed to the dearth of truly affordable housing in the first place.

Regards,

Skip Trantow

Portland

 

 

 





Re: Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal

Skip Trantow
 

Hi Aisha,
Yes, if we look at 'raised' platforms, then there is an ADA accessibility problem as these would need a stairway.  However, I think the sweet spot for siting platforms would be over sloped property that is near a road or pedestrian pathway.  In this case you basically protrude a platform out from the road and connect the two with a flat walkway, similar to what is shown in the Pearce Ecohouse design.  Here, you would thus have flat access all the way to the living hut.
/Skip


On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 7:40 PM Aisha Musa <draymusa@...> wrote:
Dear Skip,
Thank you for sharing this. However, I see that you are missing what is ALWAYS missing from these kinds of plans and that is any consideration of disabled people. There are wheelchair users living in tents on the sidewalks who cannot move to safer alternatives because the alternatives were constructed WITHOUT ANY thought given to accessibility. The ADA was passed more than 30 years ago (after decades of protests by the disabled community) and planning still excludes any consideration of accessibility ALL. THE. TIME.


Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC









On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 7:28 PM Skip Trantow <skiptrantow@...> wrote:

Hello All,

I have been closely following the progression of the homeless situation in Portland for some time. I understand this is a complex and difficult situation and do not fault anyone at the Joint Office of Homeless Services or other housing agencies.  There is certainly good work being done, yet I also think there is room for evolving the approach to finding solutions.  

As a retired software engineer, as a hands-on person who has built and/or remodeled several of my own homes and understands all aspects of construction (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing), and as a life-long student of Geometry (per http://omnigarten.org), it is painful to see Portland devote huge sums of money to large capital low-income apartment projects that seem to house a relatively small number of people for the level of investment.  The problem is outpacing that approach. The recent adoption of the S2HC package that allows more modes of housing is progress. Yet, we ultimately need to get to where permanent tiny-home villages are normal and abundant throughout the urban area. That is the gist of my proposal, Low-Cost Spaceframe Housing Concept, found at http://spaceframe.housing.wiki/ , I hope this forum can discuss.  I would like to see Portland’s JOHS do a feasibility study on this concept, and ideally, fund a small proof-of-concept project.  If that works out, go full-steam ahead and fund full-scale projects.  

The proposal builds on the work of architect Peter Pearce whom I met several years ago when he talked about the design of his Spaceframe EcoHouse. I have since devoured his books on design.  Peter is an immense talent who brings a different way of thinking about physical structure and how the theoretical can be formed into practical solutions.  I believe Portland would be wise to harness Peter’s thinking.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein who stated: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. 

As I see it: We cannot solve our housing problem relying solely on the same construction methodologies that contributed to the dearth of truly affordable housing in the first place.

Regards,

Skip Trantow

Portland

 

 

 





Re: Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal

Keith Wilson
 

Skip, I applaud you. I certainly have my ideas but the scale is so vast and our neighbors are passing away at our feet that we simply need all of the above. There is no wrong door. Thanks.

Keith Wilson

TITAN Freight Systems
503-849-0713


From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> on behalf of Skip Trantow via groups.io <skiptrantow@...>
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 2021 6:16:47 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io>
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal
 

Hello All,

I have been closely following the progression of the homeless situation in Portland for some time. I understand this is a complex and difficult situation and do not fault anyone at the Joint Office of Homeless Services or other housing agencies.  There is certainly good work being done, yet I also think there is room for evolving the approach to finding solutions.  

As a retired software engineer, as a hands-on person who has built and/or remodeled several of my own homes and understands all aspects of construction (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing), and as a life-long student of Geometry (per http://omnigarten.org), it is painful to see Portland devote huge sums of money to large capital low-income apartment projects that seem to house a relatively small number of people for the level of investment.  The problem is outpacing that approach. The recent adoption of the S2HC package that allows more modes of housing is progress. Yet, we ultimately need to get to where permanent tiny-home villages are normal and abundant throughout the urban area. That is the gist of my proposal, Low-Cost Spaceframe Housing Concept, found at http://spaceframe.housing.wiki/ , I hope this forum can discuss.  I would like to see Portland’s JOHS do a feasibility study on this concept, and ideally, fund a small proof-of-concept project.  If that works out, go full-steam ahead and fund full-scale projects.  

The proposal builds on the work of architect Peter Pearce whom I met several years ago when he talked about the design of his Spaceframe EcoHouse. I have since devoured his books on design.  Peter is an immense talent who brings a different way of thinking about physical structure and how the theoretical can be formed into practical solutions.  I believe Portland would be wise to harness Peter’s thinking.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein who stated: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. 

As I see it: We cannot solve our housing problem relying solely on the same construction methodologies that contributed to the dearth of truly affordable housing in the first place.

Regards,

Skip Trantow

Portland

 

 

 





Re: Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal

Emerson This
 

@Skip This is my understanding of the idea: build tiny home villages on top of space-truss platforms. I hear a lot of people advocate for the idea of tiny homes as an interim solution. But it's already been very difficult to get those established on empty lots and sites that already exist. How would these ever get done if someone has to build a space-truss first?
—Emerson


On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 7:28 PM Skip Trantow <skiptrantow@...> wrote:

Hello All,

I have been closely following the progression of the homeless situation in Portland for some time. I understand this is a complex and difficult situation and do not fault anyone at the Joint Office of Homeless Services or other housing agencies.  There is certainly good work being done, yet I also think there is room for evolving the approach to finding solutions.  

As a retired software engineer, as a hands-on person who has built and/or remodeled several of my own homes and understands all aspects of construction (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing), and as a life-long student of Geometry (per http://omnigarten.org), it is painful to see Portland devote huge sums of money to large capital low-income apartment projects that seem to house a relatively small number of people for the level of investment.  The problem is outpacing that approach. The recent adoption of the S2HC package that allows more modes of housing is progress. Yet, we ultimately need to get to where permanent tiny-home villages are normal and abundant throughout the urban area. That is the gist of my proposal, Low-Cost Spaceframe Housing Concept, found at http://spaceframe.housing.wiki/ , I hope this forum can discuss.  I would like to see Portland’s JOHS do a feasibility study on this concept, and ideally, fund a small proof-of-concept project.  If that works out, go full-steam ahead and fund full-scale projects.  

The proposal builds on the work of architect Peter Pearce whom I met several years ago when he talked about the design of his Spaceframe EcoHouse. I have since devoured his books on design.  Peter is an immense talent who brings a different way of thinking about physical structure and how the theoretical can be formed into practical solutions.  I believe Portland would be wise to harness Peter’s thinking.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein who stated: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. 

As I see it: We cannot solve our housing problem relying solely on the same construction methodologies that contributed to the dearth of truly affordable housing in the first place.

Regards,

Skip Trantow

Portland

 

 

 





Re: Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal

Aisha Musa
 

Dear Skip,
Thank you for sharing this. However, I see that you are missing what is ALWAYS missing from these kinds of plans and that is any consideration of disabled people. There are wheelchair users living in tents on the sidewalks who cannot move to safer alternatives because the alternatives were constructed WITHOUT ANY thought given to accessibility. The ADA was passed more than 30 years ago (after decades of protests by the disabled community) and planning still excludes any consideration of accessibility ALL. THE. TIME.


Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC









On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 7:28 PM Skip Trantow <skiptrantow@...> wrote:

Hello All,

I have been closely following the progression of the homeless situation in Portland for some time. I understand this is a complex and difficult situation and do not fault anyone at the Joint Office of Homeless Services or other housing agencies.  There is certainly good work being done, yet I also think there is room for evolving the approach to finding solutions.  

As a retired software engineer, as a hands-on person who has built and/or remodeled several of my own homes and understands all aspects of construction (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing), and as a life-long student of Geometry (per http://omnigarten.org), it is painful to see Portland devote huge sums of money to large capital low-income apartment projects that seem to house a relatively small number of people for the level of investment.  The problem is outpacing that approach. The recent adoption of the S2HC package that allows more modes of housing is progress. Yet, we ultimately need to get to where permanent tiny-home villages are normal and abundant throughout the urban area. That is the gist of my proposal, Low-Cost Spaceframe Housing Concept, found at http://spaceframe.housing.wiki/ , I hope this forum can discuss.  I would like to see Portland’s JOHS do a feasibility study on this concept, and ideally, fund a small proof-of-concept project.  If that works out, go full-steam ahead and fund full-scale projects.  

The proposal builds on the work of architect Peter Pearce whom I met several years ago when he talked about the design of his Spaceframe EcoHouse. I have since devoured his books on design.  Peter is an immense talent who brings a different way of thinking about physical structure and how the theoretical can be formed into practical solutions.  I believe Portland would be wise to harness Peter’s thinking.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein who stated: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. 

As I see it: We cannot solve our housing problem relying solely on the same construction methodologies that contributed to the dearth of truly affordable housing in the first place.

Regards,

Skip Trantow

Portland

 

 

 





Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal

Skip Trantow
 

Hello All,

I have been closely following the progression of the homeless situation in Portland for some time. I understand this is a complex and difficult situation and do not fault anyone at the Joint Office of Homeless Services or other housing agencies.  There is certainly good work being done, yet I also think there is room for evolving the approach to finding solutions.  

As a retired software engineer, as a hands-on person who has built and/or remodeled several of my own homes and understands all aspects of construction (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing), and as a life-long student of Geometry (per http://omnigarten.org), it is painful to see Portland devote huge sums of money to large capital low-income apartment projects that seem to house a relatively small number of people for the level of investment.  The problem is outpacing that approach. The recent adoption of the S2HC package that allows more modes of housing is progress. Yet, we ultimately need to get to where permanent tiny-home villages are normal and abundant throughout the urban area. That is the gist of my proposal, Low-Cost Spaceframe Housing Concept, found at http://spaceframe.housing.wiki/ , I hope this forum can discuss.  I would like to see Portland’s JOHS do a feasibility study on this concept, and ideally, fund a small proof-of-concept project.  If that works out, go full-steam ahead and fund full-scale projects.  

The proposal builds on the work of architect Peter Pearce whom I met several years ago when he talked about the design of his Spaceframe EcoHouse. I have since devoured his books on design.  Peter is an immense talent who brings a different way of thinking about physical structure and how the theoretical can be formed into practical solutions.  I believe Portland would be wise to harness Peter’s thinking.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein who stated: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. 

As I see it: We cannot solve our housing problem relying solely on the same construction methodologies that contributed to the dearth of truly affordable housing in the first place.

Regards,

Skip Trantow

Portland

 

 

 





County Commissioner Meieran Wants More Aggressive Plan to Shelter Homeless

Tim McCormick
 

Multnomah County Commissioner Sharon Meieran Wants More Aggressive Plan to Shelter Homeless People

by Sophie Peelwweek.com

"In an interview with WW, Multnomah County Commissioner Sharon Meieran pointedly criticized Portland-area leaders for inaction on homelessness, saying “we don’t have a plan or even a kernel of a plan” for spending billions of taxpayer dollars to get unhoused people into stable shelter."

"Last week, Meieran asked the city and county to coordinate an expedited plan to address homelessness, and get people into temporary shelters within the next six months."..



--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: villages envisioned on large scale by developer Homer Williams, & not by County budget

Elise Aymer
 

Thanks for sharing this KOIN piece, Tim. 

It was hopeful and exciting if something definite comes of it. I am wondering if anyone knows how much purchase Williams' ideas have really gotten with the City and County. There was a lot of mention in the segment of him talking with them -- which is a bit (and maybe understandably vague). 

Does anyone else know how far those talks have gone?

Also, thoughts on his village concept? On the other components of his four part plan? I remember checking out Home Share before and wondering why it wasn't more talked about.

Was neat to see the anchors and reporter so enthusiastic about housing.

Elise

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:37 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
"Williams wants to open villages across [Portland] to accommodate as many as 20,000 people....[He] is talking with the city about using a publicly-owned piece of property to open the first managed community by the end of June.
https://www.koin.com/news/special-reports/a-developers-4-part-plan-to-solve-portlands-homeless-crisis/. story by Dan Tilkin at KOIN -- thanks Dan. Awesome work, visioning, and action, Homer.
Bcc: Dan Tilkin, Homer Williams. Screen Shot 2021-04-23 at 10.25.40 AM.png
This is from Homer Williams, with whom I've had a few conversations over the last few months, and whom I often suggest might lead Portland's 'village' initiatives to much greater scale and success and innovation than the official, somewhat minimal & grudging moves.
The contrast is stark: the county chair released her proposal yesterday (https://multco.us/budget/fy-2022-chairs-proposed-budget) for all city/county annual spending on homelessness, $150M. It contains only $350k for "alternative shelter", zero for additional housing.
So far, official Portland in regard to funding has weighed in very heavily on the side of services funding and traditional congregate shelter. County Chair Deborah Kafoury is seen as (and mentioned in this news piece) as a longtime skeptic/opponent of alternative shelter and housing options, whom Williams has long battled with over various projects. Having followed it closely in last 2 years, I'd say that the City/County position is quite at odds with public opinion and citizen advocacy, which is widely supportive of "alternative shelter" / village approaches, challenging the prevailing system.

--
Tim McCormick
+1 503 334 1894
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 



--
Elise Aymer
Co-founder, Critical Diversity Solutions
Pronouns: She/her

Thanks for your message!


villages envisioned on large scale by developer Homer Williams, & not by County budget

Tim McCormick
 

"Williams wants to open villages across [Portland] to accommodate as many as 20,000 people....[He] is talking with the city about using a publicly-owned piece of property to open the first managed community by the end of June.
https://www.koin.com/news/special-reports/a-developers-4-part-plan-to-solve-portlands-homeless-crisis/. story by Dan Tilkin at KOIN -- thanks Dan. Awesome work, visioning, and action, Homer.
Bcc: Dan Tilkin, Homer Williams. Screen Shot 2021-04-23 at 10.25.40 AM.png
This is from Homer Williams, with whom I've had a few conversations over the last few months, and whom I often suggest might lead Portland's 'village' initiatives to much greater scale and success and innovation than the official, somewhat minimal & grudging moves.
The contrast is stark: the county chair released her proposal yesterday (https://multco.us/budget/fy-2022-chairs-proposed-budget) for all city/county annual spending on homelessness, $150M. It contains only $350k for "alternative shelter", zero for additional housing.
So far, official Portland in regard to funding has weighed in very heavily on the side of services funding and traditional congregate shelter. County Chair Deborah Kafoury is seen as (and mentioned in this news piece) as a longtime skeptic/opponent of alternative shelter and housing options, whom Williams has long battled with over various projects. Having followed it closely in last 2 years, I'd say that the City/County position is quite at odds with public opinion and citizen advocacy, which is widely supportive of "alternative shelter" / village approaches, challenging the prevailing system.

--
Tim McCormick
+1 503 334 1894
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Here’s the Cascadia Clusters proposal

Elise Aymer
 

Thanks for sharing this, Matthew.

Elise

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021, 12:07 PM Matthew Lembo, <matt.lembo@...> wrote:
Here is what Sunnyside submitted.


On Mar 28, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Andrew Olshin <Andrew.Olshin@...> wrote:




Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Mar 28, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Matthew Lembo <matt.lembo@...> wrote:

Hi all,

I am part of the team that submitted proposals from the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association and Beacon Village and would be happy to participate in this discussion.

-Matt Lembo


On Mar 27, 2021, at 11:10 PM, Elise Aymer <elise@...> wrote:


Andy's idea of hosting an alternate space for the group proposals sounds like a great idea. 

Which of the groups on the list do you need contact info for? 

Some of the names seem like ones for which PDX Shelter Forum would already have connections.

If you have a shortlist of those for which you'd need contact info that would be a good starting point.

Elise

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 2:28 AM Tim McCormick, <tmccormick@...> wrote:
great idea Andy, and thanks so much for pulling that list of RFPQ respondents. I didn't realize this was possible from the procurement site, I was waiting for more from procurement analyst, Kathi Braeme-Burr.

we've been discussing ways to gather and cross-support proposers (and new collaborators) since before the last forum, this good movement forward.

Here's an open doc for this on the PDX Shelter Forum site (an unfolding experiment in open, collaborative, decentralized 'site' form using GDocs / Google Drive, by the way):
I've added to it the list of proposers from Andy.

If anyone here knows more about the proposals, or whom/how to contact the proposers, please share or add to document. We should be able to get a project listing, whats-needed, how-can-i-help, and discussion going here!
thanks, Tim. 



On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:05 PM Andrew Olshin <Andrew.Olshin@...> wrote:
How about hosting a call asking all applicants to share their proposals and see what the community can do to come together around this important work

Proposals Received: 
Event Number RFPQ-76-2021 
Event Name: Alternative Shelter (Reissue)

ALL GOOD NORTHWEST 
BEACON VILLAGE 
Bridges to Change, Inc. 
CASCADIA CLUSTERS 
CATHOLIC CHARITIES 
CITY REPAIR PROJECT 
Courtesy inn motel 
Cultivate Initiatives 
Dignity Village, Inc. 
ECUMENICAL MINISTRIES OF OREGON 
EQUITABLE GIVING CIRCLE 
FAMILY PROMISE OF METRO EAST 
GRAVES CHERYL 
GREATER GOOD NORTHWEST 
HELPING HANDS REENTRY OUTREACH 
CENTERS 
Holistic Healing Behavioral Healthcare 
LEE KYLE 
Matthew Suplee LLC 
MISHEEL LLC 
N/A (Hazelnut Grove) 
Operation Nightwatch 
Oregon Trail of Hope 
Pause for the Cause Creating Change 
POD the People 
Portland New Generations Rotary Club 
RIGHT 2 DREAM TOO 
RISING PHOENIX HOMES LLC 
SELF ENHANCEMENT, INC. 
STRAIGHTWAY SERVICES 
SUNNYSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 
TULBERG JOSHUA 
Volunteers of America Oregon, Inc.

Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Mar 26, 2021, at 1:32 PM, Stanley Penkin <stanleypenkin@...> wrote:



I also received negative knee jerk reactions from people who only saw the word parks, but I do think the initial narrative could have been better defined.

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barb Rainish
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 4:01 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Oregonian article followup on Shelter to Housing at City Council meeting Weds

 

I wish people would educate themselves and watch the city council meetings to get a better understanding.

 

This is frustrating because neighbors don't understand that the willy nilly camping they see and complain about can't be stopped unless there are acceptable and available (sanctioned) for them to go.

 

Thanks for all the advocacy!

 

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 3:57 PM David Groff via groups.io <dgroff45=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Earlier this week I posted on Nextdoor Woodstock the OPB article on S2HC and almost immediately received a bunch of negative replies.  My neighbors who posted, with one or two exceptions, are all convinced that the central idea is to put camps in parks.  I argued with them to no avail, which was discouraging to say the least.

 

David Groff

Interfaith Alliance on Poverty

 

On Friday, March 26, 2021, 03:33:52 PM PDT, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

 

 

To: PDX Shelter Forum

Bcc: Nicole Hayden, reporter, The Oregonian

Laura Gunderson, public editor, The Oregonian

followup article after Weds City Council meeting on Shelter to Housing Continuum: "Portland City Council assures residents that homeless quarters will not be allowed in parks"

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2021/03/portland-city-council-assures-residents-that-homeless-quarters-will-not-be-allowed-in-parks.html.

Accompanied, like our Op-ed, by one of the most dismal-looking pictures I have ever seen of a permitted camp for the unhoused. It's also completely out of date, taken in November before these tents and pallets were fully replaced by Pallet Shelter units. 


My comments posted on it: 

1. the headline, opening, and tweet are misleading to inaccurate. Council is upholding use of parks Community Centers, parking lots, paved areas, this is not "not allowed in parks." 1/n

2. the reporter has repeatedly characterized proposals as for "semi-permanent structures". But tiny houses on wheels are permanent structures, also the @PDXshelterforum coalition in testimony over past year & Op-ed yesterday has called for allowing permanent structures & housing in
#S2HC 2/n. 

3. the reporter say "a handful of residents" opposed RV hookup reqs. But that opposition includes the Planning & Sustainability Commission & very wide community support including @PNWelcome, @catoregon, @SunrisePDX,
@PDXshelterforum etc. Why are *only* officials/staff's views presented? 3/3

Once again, as has been generally true of local news coverage of S2HC and related issues organized community/citizen advocacy has been largely erased from the story. 

--

Tim McCormick

Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative

Portland, Oregon 




--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


<We Shine Communities RFPQ Submittal 4-1.pdf>


Re: Here’s the Cascadia Clusters proposal

Matthew Lembo
 

Here is what Sunnyside submitted.


On Mar 28, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Andrew Olshin <Andrew.Olshin@...> wrote:




Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Mar 28, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Matthew Lembo <matt.lembo@...> wrote:

Hi all,

I am part of the team that submitted proposals from the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association and Beacon Village and would be happy to participate in this discussion.

-Matt Lembo


On Mar 27, 2021, at 11:10 PM, Elise Aymer <elise@...> wrote:


Andy's idea of hosting an alternate space for the group proposals sounds like a great idea. 

Which of the groups on the list do you need contact info for? 

Some of the names seem like ones for which PDX Shelter Forum would already have connections.

If you have a shortlist of those for which you'd need contact info that would be a good starting point.

Elise

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 2:28 AM Tim McCormick, <tmccormick@...> wrote:
great idea Andy, and thanks so much for pulling that list of RFPQ respondents. I didn't realize this was possible from the procurement site, I was waiting for more from procurement analyst, Kathi Braeme-Burr.

we've been discussing ways to gather and cross-support proposers (and new collaborators) since before the last forum, this good movement forward.

Here's an open doc for this on the PDX Shelter Forum site (an unfolding experiment in open, collaborative, decentralized 'site' form using GDocs / Google Drive, by the way):
I've added to it the list of proposers from Andy.

If anyone here knows more about the proposals, or whom/how to contact the proposers, please share or add to document. We should be able to get a project listing, whats-needed, how-can-i-help, and discussion going here!
thanks, Tim. 



On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:05 PM Andrew Olshin <Andrew.Olshin@...> wrote:
How about hosting a call asking all applicants to share their proposals and see what the community can do to come together around this important work

Proposals Received: 
Event Number RFPQ-76-2021 
Event Name: Alternative Shelter (Reissue)

ALL GOOD NORTHWEST 
BEACON VILLAGE 
Bridges to Change, Inc. 
CASCADIA CLUSTERS 
CATHOLIC CHARITIES 
CITY REPAIR PROJECT 
Courtesy inn motel 
Cultivate Initiatives 
Dignity Village, Inc. 
ECUMENICAL MINISTRIES OF OREGON 
EQUITABLE GIVING CIRCLE 
FAMILY PROMISE OF METRO EAST 
GRAVES CHERYL 
GREATER GOOD NORTHWEST 
HELPING HANDS REENTRY OUTREACH 
CENTERS 
Holistic Healing Behavioral Healthcare 
LEE KYLE 
Matthew Suplee LLC 
MISHEEL LLC 
N/A (Hazelnut Grove) 
Operation Nightwatch 
Oregon Trail of Hope 
Pause for the Cause Creating Change 
POD the People 
Portland New Generations Rotary Club 
RIGHT 2 DREAM TOO 
RISING PHOENIX HOMES LLC 
SELF ENHANCEMENT, INC. 
STRAIGHTWAY SERVICES 
SUNNYSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 
TULBERG JOSHUA 
Volunteers of America Oregon, Inc.

Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Mar 26, 2021, at 1:32 PM, Stanley Penkin <stanleypenkin@...> wrote:



I also received negative knee jerk reactions from people who only saw the word parks, but I do think the initial narrative could have been better defined.

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barb Rainish
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 4:01 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Oregonian article followup on Shelter to Housing at City Council meeting Weds

 

I wish people would educate themselves and watch the city council meetings to get a better understanding.

 

This is frustrating because neighbors don't understand that the willy nilly camping they see and complain about can't be stopped unless there are acceptable and available (sanctioned) for them to go.

 

Thanks for all the advocacy!

 

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 3:57 PM David Groff via groups.io <dgroff45=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Earlier this week I posted on Nextdoor Woodstock the OPB article on S2HC and almost immediately received a bunch of negative replies.  My neighbors who posted, with one or two exceptions, are all convinced that the central idea is to put camps in parks.  I argued with them to no avail, which was discouraging to say the least.

 

David Groff

Interfaith Alliance on Poverty

 

On Friday, March 26, 2021, 03:33:52 PM PDT, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

 

 

To: PDX Shelter Forum

Bcc: Nicole Hayden, reporter, The Oregonian

Laura Gunderson, public editor, The Oregonian

followup article after Weds City Council meeting on Shelter to Housing Continuum: "Portland City Council assures residents that homeless quarters will not be allowed in parks"

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2021/03/portland-city-council-assures-residents-that-homeless-quarters-will-not-be-allowed-in-parks.html.

Accompanied, like our Op-ed, by one of the most dismal-looking pictures I have ever seen of a permitted camp for the unhoused. It's also completely out of date, taken in November before these tents and pallets were fully replaced by Pallet Shelter units. 


My comments posted on it: 

1. the headline, opening, and tweet are misleading to inaccurate. Council is upholding use of parks Community Centers, parking lots, paved areas, this is not "not allowed in parks." 1/n

2. the reporter has repeatedly characterized proposals as for "semi-permanent structures". But tiny houses on wheels are permanent structures, also the @PDXshelterforum coalition in testimony over past year & Op-ed yesterday has called for allowing permanent structures & housing in
#S2HC 2/n. 

3. the reporter say "a handful of residents" opposed RV hookup reqs. But that opposition includes the Planning & Sustainability Commission & very wide community support including @PNWelcome, @catoregon, @SunrisePDX,
@PDXshelterforum etc. Why are *only* officials/staff's views presented? 3/3

Once again, as has been generally true of local news coverage of S2HC and related issues organized community/citizen advocacy has been largely erased from the story. 

--

Tim McCormick

Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative

Portland, Oregon 




--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


<We Shine Communities RFPQ Submittal 4-1.pdf>


Re: our Oregonian op-ed supporting *permenent* options in Shelter to Housing Continuum,

Peter Finley Fry
 

Our housing and zoning codes are developed after years of one crisis after another that have resulted in plaques; horrible living conditions; and specific efforts to force people to live in horrible substandard conditions or worse.  

 

As we all are previlage to live in a country with paved streets and sewer and water; we find it hard to understand or remember where we have come from and why the laws that we have are important.  It is unfortunate that the vast majority of humans who live in the states have no idea what it is like to live in poverty or oppression. 

 

So we as entitled humans demand special privileged to do what we like without concern for the consequences of our actions and the “fantasy” village falls into the typical human reality of the strong preying on the weak and disabled.

 

This is why there is a need for transparent self governance of villages that are actually settlements not camps.  A settlement (village, town, city) is not the same as low barrier camps (emergency rooms) where people be in a safe enough environment to open up and receive help to allow them to move out of the relationship impoverished situation that they have found themselves in cast out form their very families.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Finley Fry   AICP PhD MUP

303 NW Uptown Terrace; Unit 1B

Portland, Oregon 97210

503 703-8033

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Tim McCormick via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 11:14 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io; Jeff Liddicoat
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] our Oregonian op-ed supporting *permenent* options in Shelter to Housing Continuum,

 

I'm not seeing the op ed piece you refer to here - could you please forward it to me.


print version: 
"Open new paths from the streets to permanent housing." 

Laquida Landford, Tim McCormick, and Les Wardenaar. The Oregonian, March 24, 2021.
Landford is the leader of the AfroVillage PDX Project. McCormick is co-founder of PDX Shelter Forum and lead organizer of Village Collaborative. Wardenaar is chair of the Interfaith Alliance on Poverty and co-founder of Shelter Now.


I prefer the way it was presented in print (see image below), compared to the online version (further below), because the print headline has "permanent housing" vs online just "housing", which emphasizes the key points I wanted to make, highlighted in the image. Those mention two amendment points which we advocated over the entire last year, about which I'd say City staff & officials at no point ever considered, responded to, appeared to comprehend the motivation for, or gave any rationale for their opposing position.  

 

As I long attempted to argue, the (to me) puzzling and unusual provision to prohibit actual housing structures in "Outdoor Shelters", and the very conception of this shelter type, for which they originally use term 'villages', very much cut off possibilities for a continuum or or transition from shelter to permanent housing. I have found, over nearly many years of related advocacy work, that in Portland (and many cities), most officials & professionals in the US can rarely conceive or accept an idea of a site or structure evolving from a 'temporary' or 'shelter' classification to a 'housing' or 'permanent' classification. Even though, this is a quite normal process historically and globally, an obvious and self-determining way to accomplish a continuum or transition between the two, and is even implicit in provisions allowing a Tiny House on Wheels to be in an Outdoor Shelter or also sited on a private residential property. 

I find that, very ironically, the housing/homelessness field and the Shelter to Housing Continuum process leaders talk continually about how "housing is the answer", housing is what solves homelessness, etc., yet in practice often work relentlessly against some of the easiest, most low-cost and scaleable ways to achieve it. It's, housing.. but not like that! 

 

 

 

The online version dropped 'permanent' from headline, and added an "Editor's note" which I think misrepresents both Shelter to Housing Continuum and what we were trying to say. 

 

Online version: 

"Opinion: Open new paths from streets to housing". Mar 24, 2021

https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2021/03/opinion-open-new-paths-from-streets-to-housing.html.

By Guest Columnist
Editor’s note: This op-ed is one of two commentary pieces today addressing a proposal to allow temporary homeless shelters in land zoned as open space, including parks and natural areas. You can find the other op-ed arguing the opposing position at oregonlive.com/opinion.

--

Tim McCormick

Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative

Portland, Oregon 

 

 

On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:43 PM Jeff Liddicoat <outsideartsale@...> wrote:

Elise,

I'm not seeing the op ed piece you refer to here - could you please forward it to me.

 

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 9:33 PM Elise Aymer <elise@...> wrote:

Yes, good to see this Op-Ed!

 

--

 

 


Re: our Oregonian op-ed supporting *permenent* options in Shelter to Housing Continuum,

Tim McCormick
 

I'm not seeing the op ed piece you refer to here - could you please forward it to me.

print version: 
"Open new paths from the streets to permanent housing." 
Laquida Landford, Tim McCormick, and Les Wardenaar. The Oregonian, March 24, 2021.
Landford is the leader of the AfroVillage PDX Project. McCormick is co-founder of PDX Shelter Forum and lead organizer of Village Collaborative. Wardenaar is chair of the Interfaith Alliance on Poverty and co-founder of Shelter Now.

I prefer the way it was presented in print (see image below), compared to the online version (further below), because the print headline has "permanent housing" vs online just "housing", which emphasizes the key points I wanted to make, highlighted in the image. Those mention two amendment points which we advocated over the entire last year, about which I'd say City staff & officials at no point ever considered, responded to, appeared to comprehend the motivation for, or gave any rationale for their opposing position.  

As I long attempted to argue, the (to me) puzzling and unusual provision to prohibit actual housing structures in "Outdoor Shelters", and the very conception of this shelter type, for which they originally use term 'villages', very much cut off possibilities for a continuum or or transition from shelter to permanent housing. I have found, over nearly many years of related advocacy work, that in Portland (and many cities), most officials & professionals in the US can rarely conceive or accept an idea of a site or structure evolving from a 'temporary' or 'shelter' classification to a 'housing' or 'permanent' classification. Even though, this is a quite normal process historically and globally, an obvious and self-determining way to accomplish a continuum or transition between the two, and is even implicit in provisions allowing a Tiny House on Wheels to be in an Outdoor Shelter or also sited on a private residential property. 

I find that, very ironically, the housing/homelessness field and the Shelter to Housing Continuum process leaders talk continually about how "housing is the answer", housing is what solves homelessness, etc., yet in practice often work relentlessly against some of the easiest, most low-cost and scaleable ways to achieve it. It's, housing.. but not like that! 
 

IMG_1168.JPG

The online version dropped 'permanent' from headline, and added an "Editor's note" which I think misrepresents both Shelter to Housing Continuum and what we were trying to say. 

Online version: 
"Opinion: Open new paths from streets to housing". Mar 24, 2021
https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2021/03/opinion-open-new-paths-from-streets-to-housing.html.

By Guest Columnist
Editor’s note: This op-ed is one of two commentary pieces today addressing a proposal to allow temporary homeless shelters in land zoned as open space, including parks and natural areas. You can find the other op-ed arguing the opposing position at oregonlive.com/opinion.

--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:43 PM Jeff Liddicoat <outsideartsale@...> wrote:
Elise,
I'm not seeing the op ed piece you refer to here - could you please forward it to me.

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 9:33 PM Elise Aymer <elise@...> wrote:
Yes, good to see this Op-Ed!

--

201 - 220 of 679