Bunkhouse's were historically used on cattle ranches to accomodate working cowboys [1], and they still exist in some hills today. The idea is to introduce large scale bunkhouses into cities and legitimize this kind of infrastructure on the free monthly rental market. It differs from hostels in the sense that it is larger and beds are stacked (not all hostels do these things). More importantly however is that it is available on the free rental market for local residents and travelers alike. Were hostels not reserved as some esoteric experience for out of state travelers paying by the night then they'd likely not get away with charging over half of a motel price while making you share that space with multiple people. Granted hostels have staff to pay for, but running it as a monthly rental with secured access and making people visually exposed allows one to drastially reduce staffing costs and increase efficiency. See business section for more specifics.
Physically, yes, this is similar to a mission albeit cleaner and with a day room equivalent in size to the sleeping quarters. But have you ever considered why is that people will pay $30-$60 in many towns to stay in a hostel, but would never go to a mission? Something is off here. What exactly it is that makes missions so shameful and undesireable needs to be considered, because it is not just the infrastructural style. It is unlike missions in the following ways:
The basic premise is that three to as many as eight broke people can be housed in the same amount of space as would one well off person [and still make the same amount of money] by recognizing that privacy is actually a non-essential thing for many people at some point in their life, even if only during a temporary transition.
Physically, yes, this is similar to a mission albeit cleaner and with a day room equivalent in size to the sleeping quarters. But have you ever considered why is that people will pay $30-$60 in many towns to stay in a hostel, but would never go to a mission? Something is off here. What exactly it is that makes missions so shameful and undesireable needs to be considered, because it is not just the infrastructural style. It is unlike missions in the following ways:
- Pre-screening of violent offenders
- It is for profit [evictions included] and it is not just for "homeless people", rather it is just for people. It asks two questions; do you have rent and can you follow the rules?
- Equivalent day room to dormitory space so that all can be accommodated at all hours during the day (few missions have this).
- The autonomy to come and go as they please, store and access bags at their own discretion, and to take showers when needed.
- No all-day lines (out in the cold) and/ or 5, 6, or 7 p.m. curfews, or mandatory hour long chapel services for grown adults who have done nothing wrong.
The basic premise is that three to as many as eight broke people can be housed in the same amount of space as would one well off person [and still make the same amount of money] by recognizing that privacy is actually a non-essential thing for many people at some point in their life, even if only during a temporary transition.
Dollars and sense: autonomy and accountability
Shelters can be akin to prisons depending on how they are ran. By their very nature they almost have to be. Many are unaware that the severely restricted access/ autonomy and lack of leverage found in these places is in fact what makes them shameful, it is not the infrastructural style.
Why do you pay rent? Is it just needing a roof over your head? Is it not also the fact that autonomy and 24/7 access are ensured by the act of paying money? More to the point though, it also means you have responsibility and accountability not to damage the property, come in intoxicated and keep everyone up at night, or cause complaints by the neighbors.
There no insurmountable reason that this infrastructure style cannot be used on the free rental market. Many homeless just need options more than they need help. Keeping this style of infrastructure exclusively in the form of missions or esoteric and costly hostels in some ways actually favors the few bad apples when it comes to homelessness. When a mission lets any random stranger in and they damage the property or sneak out at night to trade drugs then (rather than being evicted) suddenly no one is allowed to be there during the day or leave at night once they are in. Consequently everyone else’s options are to be in a prison like charities, be criminalized outside, or to pay what they obviously cannot afford for their very own privacy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunkhouse
Why do you pay rent? Is it just needing a roof over your head? Is it not also the fact that autonomy and 24/7 access are ensured by the act of paying money? More to the point though, it also means you have responsibility and accountability not to damage the property, come in intoxicated and keep everyone up at night, or cause complaints by the neighbors.
There no insurmountable reason that this infrastructure style cannot be used on the free rental market. Many homeless just need options more than they need help. Keeping this style of infrastructure exclusively in the form of missions or esoteric and costly hostels in some ways actually favors the few bad apples when it comes to homelessness. When a mission lets any random stranger in and they damage the property or sneak out at night to trade drugs then (rather than being evicted) suddenly no one is allowed to be there during the day or leave at night once they are in. Consequently everyone else’s options are to be in a prison like charities, be criminalized outside, or to pay what they obviously cannot afford for their very own privacy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunkhouse
