Homelessness and Socially Responsible Design

HOMELESSNESS AND SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE DESIGN

A thesis submitted to the Kent State University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for General Honors.

by Bridget Adams May, 2010

Thesis written by Bridget Adams

Approved by , ,

Advisor

Director, School of Interior Design

Accepted by ,

ii

Dean, Honors College

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

II.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Causes of Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Effects of Homelessness on a Family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Place, Home, Dwelling & Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 The Process of Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 The Importance of the Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

III.

COMPARATIVE CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Case One: Miller Community House; Kent, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Case Two: Haven of Rest; Akron, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Case Three: Laura’s Home; Cleveland, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

IV.

ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

V.

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Proposed Typical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

WORKS CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

iii

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

iv

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.

Case Study Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS An abundant and heartfelt thank you is owed first to my parents and grandparents who have made my college education possible. Thanks to my sisters’ hearty laughter when I have needed it most. I appreciate your unwavering love and support. I would like to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Pamela Evans for all of her perfectly timed and measured encouragement and critique. Thank you, Dr. Terrance Uber, Dr. Susan Roxburgh, and Dr. David Purcell for serving on my Oral Defense Committee. I appreciate your time, support, and enthusiasm for my work.

Thanks to my loving and steadfast community of friends who urge me to grapple with this holy discontent. I would like to acknowledge the kind staff at Miller Community House, Haven of Rest Ministries, and Laura’s Home whose time and knowledge greatly enriched my research. A delighted thank you is owed to Scribbles Coffee Co. for serving delicious and motivating bottomless mugs of fairly traded coffee.

Lastly, thanks to anyone who believes that there’s got to be a better way.

This research would not have been possible if any of the people mentioned had been missing; my sincerest thanks to each of you.

vi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Humans have a fundamental need to have a place to call home. People without a building to live in are not called ‘shelterless’ they are called homeless. There is a significant difference between being without shelter and being without a home. As an interior designer there is a particular interest in the lack of such a fundamental space.

With that interest comes the recognition of a responsibility to create a new solution for the homeless. People who have power, education, and money should share in the responsibility of meeting the needs of others. Designers have a significant opportunity to impact the world in the way that they create. Socially responsible design should not be a particular trend or avenue, but should seamlessly be integrated into the design process.

Social responsibility is observational and it is active. It is refusing to ignore the people who have slipped through the cracks of prosperity. Understanding and more fully utilizing the power of design can lead to a revolutionized approach to social responsibility. The Design Policy Partnership and Wootton Davey have developed a model which identifies The Eight Tenets of Socially Responsible Design. These eight facets of life are areas that can be impacted significantly by design. Harnessing some of the potential for a more responsible design of government, economic policy, fair trade, ecology, social inclusion, healthcare, education, and crime can and should have a lasting positive effect on society (Davey 2004).

1

2

A house is often times described as a shelter. A home serves far more purpose than merely shelter. A home is more than an address on a street. According to Christian Norberg-Schulz, dwelling implies more than shelter. It implies that the spaces where life occurs are places with a distinct character.

Whether people live in interior environments or areas under bridges people define their space. Personal places add to one’s identity. Although it might be less defined, people who experience homelessness still make a place their own. The need for an identity within the world transcends physical structure. Creating an identity of place is important for someone who is transitioning out of homelessness.

While place, causes of homelessness, and identity have received much attention from sociologists and other researchers, few connections have been integrated among these concepts to provide a functional design solution to aid in the problem of homelessness. An appropriate and lasting solution to homelessness rests, in part, in the causes of homelessness. It is without a doubt that it will take a community of people with depth of related information and a variety of skills, in addition to the design professions, to effectively address these complex causes.

Problem Statement According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, 600,000 families with 1.35 million children experience homelessness each year (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2007). This is about 50 percent of the overall homeless population.

Therefore, the focus of this study will be centered on homeless families with children.

3

The effects of being without a central sense of place will be especially evident by looking at this group. By studying this unique section within the larger body of people experiencing homelessness, the value and importance of the family unit will be evident.

Homelessness is a design problem. The previous research about home, identity, and causes of homelessness are critical tools in informing designers working to create meaningful and restorative homes for the homeless. With this research and a design education in hand this question begs an answer: How can socially responsible design strive to meet the needs of the homeless to provide a home instead of mere shelter?

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE “The ache for home lives in all of us, the safe place where we can go as we are and not be questioned.”

Maya Angelou What does homelessness mean? ‘Homeless’ can refer to people without shelter in which to sleep. The definition can be extended to include those who wander without a sense of belonging to a group of people or a particular place. Thus, homeless refers to a wide breath of people and circumstances (Baumohl, 1996, Chapter 1, p. 4). Usually, people who are actively living on the streets or who sleep in shelters are agreeably homeless.

However, there are a number of circumstances that people are in that are not consistently considered ‘homeless’ by scholars and policy makers. Burt names the following circumstances as examples that are considered in some estimates, but not all.

“Children who have been separated from their homeless parents and are in foster care or are living with relatives” (Baumohl, 1996, Chapter 2, p. 16) have adequate shelter, but can still be considered within the definition of homeless. Also, “a teenager and her baby who remain in her mother’s house, with the expectation that they can stay as long as they need” (HIA, 1996, Chapter 2, p. 16) to name just a few of the complicated situations.

The United States Code provides the official federal definition of homeless as follows:

4

5

“An individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence or an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is (a) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations, (b) an institution that provides temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized, or (c) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.” (Title 42, Chapter 119, Subchapter I) Due to the unpredictable and unstable nature of homelessness that so defines it, sound statistics are difficult to collect. The 2008 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress includes two types of estimates; One-Night, Point-in-Time (PIT) counts and counts of the sheltered homeless population over a full year. The PIT estimates both the sheltered and unsheltered homeless population. The estimate reflects the number of homeless persons during the last week in January; however the final report is not issued until July of that same year. The PIT is divided to not only distinguish between sheltered and unsheltered people, but also those who are experiencing homelessness as individuals or as part of a family (U.S. Department of HUD, 2009, p. 7). Subpopulations such as the chronically homeless; people with severe mental illness and/or substance abuse issues; veterans; unaccompanied youth; and people living with HIV/AIDS are presented as part of the PIT estimate (U.S. Department of HUD, 2009, pp. 7-8) The second type of estimate counts the “people who used emergency shelter or transitional housing programs at some point during the course of the year” (U.S. Department of HUD, 2009, p. 7). The full year estimate also distinguishes between individuals and families. Since this estimate

6

is from a full year total, the July 2009 report will provide estimates from the prior full year, in this case, 2008.

The PIT estimate for January of 2008 revealed that 664,414 people were homeless. Of that total 415,202 people were homeless individuals and 249, 212 individuals were homeless as part of a family. Of those who were part of a family, 27.2% were unsheltered while 51% of individuals were unsheltered (U.S. Department of HUD, 2009, p. 8).

Statistics are not always what they seem. For example, in the U.S. Conference of Mayors 2009 Status Report on Hunger & Homelessness, Charleston reported a 41% increase in homeless families. The city explained that it “may be the result of capturing more comprehensive data on homeless shelter use rather than an actual increase in the number of homeless families” (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2009, p. 11). This simply indicates one of the many complications in gaining an accurate estimate of the number of homeless people. Even when they find more accurate ways of counting the new estimate shows an inaccurate increase.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors 2009 Status Report on Hunger & Homelessness reported that 74% of the cities surveyed named lack of affordable housing as the number one cause of homelessness for families. 52% of cities named poverty the primary cause of homelessness in families. 44% named domestic violence or unemployment as the leading cause (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2009, p. 11).

The face of the American homeless is no longer adequately represented by the “grizzled middle-aged alcoholic male who just want[s] to be left alone” (Davis, 2004, p.

7

15). In fact, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors 2009 Status Report on Hunger & Homelessness, a surprising 20% of the overall adult population of the people surveyed was employed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2009, p. 86). This change in the portrait of the homeless is significant to consider when designing spaces or organizations to support the homeless. “People who become homeless as individuals have different needs and experiences from parents who become homeless together with their children� (U.S. Department of HUD, 2009, p. 8).

Additionally, Bouma-Prediger and Walsh (2008) name nine general categories of displacement. The more obvious categories of displacement are refugees, exiles, migrants, and the homeless on the street. These groups have little to no choice in the stability or location of their home. Immigrants, perpetual tourists, and the postmodern nomad have some level of choice in their circumstances of displacement. The well housed homeless and the inadequately housed are rarely looked at as displaced individuals because they have shelter. However, the people in these two categories experience the same profound displacement as all the rest.

The well housed homeless and the inadequately housed are seemingly provided for (Bouma-Prediger & Walsh, 2008, pp. 41-45). The well housed homeless can be represented by someone who is fairly wealthy, often having two or more houses across the country or globe. They are well housed but have no real sense of home, of belonging.

These people will in no way come up in a homeless estimation. However, they are some of the most profoundly homeless individuals. Burt also names “people living in stable but physically inadequate housing (having no plumbing, no heating, or major structural

8

damage, for example” (Baumohl, 1996, Chapter 2, p. 16) as homeless. These unexpected and often overlooked categories of displacement call an important distinction to attention.

Shelter, no matter the quality, does not equate to a home.

Each of the aforementioned brands of displacement lend insight to what home is.

The people in each category are removed from home in a critical way. The connection to home is severed. In the wake of the variety of displacement, the importance of home is emphasized.

Causes of Homelessness Since the 1980s when homelessness became more widespread there have been two predominant schools of thought as to how people become homeless. Authors Koegel, Burnman, and Baumohl describe one perspective as those who are homeless due to personal mental illness or extreme substance abuse. These are the people who are homeless “because something is wrong with them” (Baumohl, 1996, Chapter 3, p. 25).

They have not been able to maintain supportive relationships of family and friends who would be able to help in a time of desperate need. This is also the perspective that suggests that “they rejected conventional responsibilities and had chosen homelessness” (Baumohl, 1996, Chapter 3, p. 25). This perspective emphasizes the ability of the homeless to choose their circumstances.

The second perspective is labeled more liberal and more sympathetic. Koegel, Burnman, and Baumohl continue that homeless people are “victims of circumstances over which they had little control” (Baumohl, 1996, Chapter 3, p. 25). This perspective, the structuralists, tends to lay blame on insufficient networks of care for people who

9

suffer from lack of mental health and substance abuse treatment. Structural inadequacies are highlighted, such as the distribution and organization of society’s resources. The structuralists claim that homelessness is fundamentally an economic problem. This perspective emphasizes the lack of choice on the part of the individual (Baumohl, 1996, Chapter 3). However, the perspective of each extreme does not account for the legitimate arguments of the other in explaining homelessness.

From either perspective it is clear that homelessness is caused by a vast number of complex issues. The debate continues as to whether those issues are structural or self inflicted. However complicated, peoples’ lives must be untangled from their circumstances so that a nourishing home can be created. The causes discussed below do not represent an inclusive list of factors that can contribute to one’s homelessness, but they are some of the most prevalent causes. Socially responsible design can do little for people who are unwilling to accept assistance; therefore, most explained causes will fall under the structural argument. However, some causes are legitimately due to individual limitations and will also be discussed.

The six most often documented causes of homelessness according to Koegel, Burnam, and Haumohl are: the decline in low-cost housing, a growing pool of the vulnerable poor, increasing rent burden and its consequences, the prevalence of disorder, the contribution of long-standing misery, and individual choice (Baumohl,1996, Chapter 3).

The decline in low-cost housing has significantly limited the apartments and houses that individuals with a low-income have access to. The decrease in housing is due

10

to several reasons, but demolition, redevelopment, gentrification, and abandonment are a few of these reasons. This is a structural problem that design can have an impact on. The pool of vulnerable poor in need of low-income housing has increased just as housing available to them has decreased. Increasing rent burden and its consequences contributes to homelessness simply because people cannot afford the places they are living. “Several studies have shown that homeless adults experienced very high rates of out-of-home placement as children (in foster care, juvenile hall, orphanages, and treatment facilities) – rates that average approximately 20% but reach as high as 40% in some samples” (Baumohl, 1996, Chapter 3, p. 32). Therefore, the contribution of long-standing misery must be considered among the leading causes of homelessness.

The prevalence of disorder has been widely documented in the homeless. It is common knowledge that there is a high rate of mental illness and substance abuse among the homeless. It should be noted that this cause is just one of the six leading causes (Baumohl, 1996, Chapter, 3, pp. 26-31). Koegel, Burnam, and Baumohl do not discuss the role of individual choice as one of the causes of homelessness, however it should be mentioned that it is likely a cause for some.

Effects of Homelessness on a Family “One-fourth of homeless people are children in homeless families. These children are much more likely than housed children to experience serious difficulties, including physical, cognitive, emotional, and mental problems. Further, childhood homelessness translates into a greater risk of homelessness in adulthood” (Burt, 2001, p. 3). Burt

11

(2001) explains the lasting effects of homelessness on children. “A period in foster care is a strong predictor of future homelessness” (p. 3). Berry Del Buono comments that children withdraw. “They stop playing and become unsure of themselves as the family structure deteriorates and parents lose hope” (Thorman, 1988, p. 25).

Living in unstable and small living quarters found in shelters effects the whole family, not just children. “The cramped living space makes privacy impossible and denies family members a sense of dignity and modesty” (Thorman, 1988, p.24). This is certainly a concern that can significantly impact the quality of life through thoughtful space planning and design.

Historically, when the economy takes a turn downward, the marginal income families are hit hard (Thorman, 1988, p. 28). This research comes at a critical time in contemporary history where the face of the homeless is changing yet again. Not only have the marginalized been effected by current economic situations, those with skills and some level of education are not exempt.

Thorman (1988) writes that “women and children probably suffer most from homelessness” (p. 34). Doctor Bassuk continues to say that children “need stability and nurturance from their caretakers, but their mothers are often so distressed they really can’t provide it” (Thorman, 1988, p. 35). The homeless family is a special case that needs and deserves a creative solution to providing appropriate care.

A poignant statement reveals the desperate need of all homeless, not limited to the mentally ill. “Although shelters help these persons survive and often save their lives, the

12

mentally ill need more than a meal and protection from the elements” (Thorman, 1988, p.

36). The author does not continue by naming what it is these people need, however.

Place, Home, Dwelling, & Identity Home, identity, sense of place, and the concept of dwelling are so intertwined that it is difficult to discuss one without any of the others. First, the characteristics of the home are discussed. Within the characteristics of home, dwelling, identity and sense of place are explored. Rightly, the process of appropriation will also be discussed.

In the most simplistic form, “‘sense of place’ is the ability to recognize different places and different identities of a place” (Relph, 1976, p. 63). However, sense of place has a far more profound and complex meaning. Narin states that: It seems a common place that almost everyone is born with the need for identification with his surroundings and a relationship to them-with the need to be in a recognizable place. So sense of place is not a fine art extra, it is something we cannot afford to do without. (1965, p. 6) There is a continuum of awareness and reliance on sense of place. Relph (1976) comments that awareness can range from “simple recognition for orientation, through the capacity to respond empathetically to the identities of different places, to a profound association with places as cornerstones of human existence and individual identity” (Relph, 1976, p. 63). “Existential or lived-space is the inner structure of space as it appears to us in our concrete experiences of the world as members of a cultural group”

13

(Relph, 1976, p. 12). It makes sense then that those without a place of their own can lose a sense of self and wander as outcasts of society.

“To be human is to live in a world that is filled with significant places: to be human is to have and know your place” (Relph, 1976, p. 1). Homelessness is a kind of “placelessness” as the weakening of distinct and diverse experiences and identities of places (Relph, 1976, p. 6). People with no boundaries to space will not have a strong identification with a specific place. “It will then be of no small importance to know what are the distinctive and essential features of place and of our experiences of places, for without such knowledge it will not be possible to create and preserve the places that are the significant contexts of our lives” (Relph, 1976, p. 6). “To turn space into place is to establish normative boundaries that bring a certain kind of order to the life lived within those boundaries” (Bouma-Prediger and Walsh, 2008, p. 53).

“Existential space is not merely a passive space waiting to be experienced, but is constantly being created and remade by human activities” (Relph, 1976, p. 12). Such is the experience of home making. According to Bouma-Prediger and Walsh (2008) home is first a place of permanence. Homes are distinct from transient shelters like hotels and motels. No matter the length of stay, people will always be guests at hotels. In the present society of faster and more continuous mobility, homes that have at least some level of permanence and familiarity become all the more significant.

Secondly, home is a place of hospitality. Home is constructed of boundaries which ensure protection and welcome, not exclusion. Homelessness, then, is the stripping away of these boundaries. “They [the homeless] have no stabilizing walls

14

against which they can lean for the identity and security so critical for personal and family dignity” (Westerhoff, 1999, p. 15). Boundaries that are constructed on the desires of separation of the powerful from the poor “are violently exclusionary, especially for the most vulnerable, those who do not have the resources to erect their own boundaries and to overcome the boundaries of domination that oppress them” (Bouma-Prediger and Walsh, 2008, p. 50). However, the boundaries for the home do not need to be constructed in such a way. “Boundaries are not there so much to stop something from coming in (though that remains part of the safety-producing function of boundaries) as they are to provide a context for a certain kind of unfolding or opening up that happens within those boundaries” (Bouma-Prediger and Walsh, 2008, p. 54).

The task of the home is “achieved in two complementary ways: by opening up to the surrounding world and by offering a retreat from the same world (Norberg-Schulz, 1985, p. 89). “Home, as a bounded space, must have windows and doors that can be closed, but they are not sealed doors and windows. They can and must be opened. An open door is a threshold both for those entering and those departing; it is the place between places” (Bouma-Prediger and Walsh, 2008, p. 55).

Third, home is a safe resting place. Different places and buildings provide different levels of safety and protection. In this era where the boundaries of human efficiency and productivity are constantly being extended it becomes all the more important for people to find rest. A home is a place that is safe enough that one can let their defenses down to enter one of human’s most vulnerable states; sleeping. “As an

15

architectural figure standing forth in the environment, the house confirms our identification and offers security” (Norberg-Schulz, 1985, p. 91).

The fourth characteristic of home is to be a place of embodied inhabitation. A permanent inhabitant exists in contrast to a temporary occupant. An embodied inhabitation is marked by deep roots growing in intimate knowledge and care for the place. As the inhabitant dwells in a place both the person and the environment are mutually benefited and shaped as a result (Orr, 1992, p. 102).

Fifth, home is a storied place. Perhaps this is one of the most difficult characteristics to quantify, but it is one of the most important in defining a home. The home is a place where people make meaning. Many traditions take place in the home and these practices are story generating activities. Holidays, birthdays and even deaths are events that create memories that are remembered through stories. “Houses become homes when they embody the stories of the people who have made these spaces into places of significance, meaning, and memory” (Bouma-Prediger et al., 2008, p. 59).

When families move to new houses, the place called home transfers then too because the people with the memories and stories have moved.

Sixth, home is a dwelling place. Houses are constructed from a variety of materials from wood and drywall mud and thatch. However homes cannot be built solely from tangible materials. As one affordable housing organization states, homes “provide more than bricks and mortar” (Who we are, 2005). A home is a place that is built up over time through memories, relationships and stories. Kimberly Dovey explains that “The house is a tool for the achievement of the experience of the home.” (Bouma-Prediger &

16

Walsh, 2008, p. 58) Home as a dwelling place encompasses the notion that home is more than shelter. “While shelter may be necessary for the experience of home, shelter is not sufficient” (Bouma-Prediger & Walsh, p. 57).

To dwell implies the establishment of a meaningful relationship between man and a given environment (Norberg-Schulz, 1985, p. 13). “When dwelling is accomplished, our wish for belonging and participation is fulfilled” (Norberg-Schulz, 1985, p. 7). “We have to know where we are and how we are, to experience existence as meaningful.

Orientation and identification are satisfied by organized space and built form, which together constitute the concrete place” (Norberg-Schulz, 1985, p. 7). And so, the link between identity and home as a place is dwelling.

Dwelling occurs in four modes, according to Norberg-Schulz (1985). Each mode makes the next possible. Settlement, as a place of dwelling, creates the space for natural dwelling. Once settlement has been completed, deeper forms of human “togetherness” can happen (Norberg-Schulz, 1985, p. 13). Urban space allows diversity of ideas and people to come together to create collective dwelling. In urban space people gather so that they might “dwell in the sense of experiencing the richness of a world” (NorbergSchulz, 1985, p. 13). Institutions are the third place in which dwelling occurs. An institution is marked by a deeper relationship and agreement with the people gathering there than in the urban space. Institutions bring about public dwelling. Finally, private dwelling occurs in the home. This mode of dwelling is so significant that NorbergSchulz characterizes home as a “refuge” (Norberg-Schulz, 1985, p. 13). He continues saying that home is, “where people gather and express those memories which make up

17

their personal world” (Norberg-Schulz, 1985, p. 13). It is within private dwelling that one develops an identity.

Home is seventh, a place of orientation. “Home is the axis of the world, the point of orientation, around which all else makes sense” (Bouma-Prediger & Walsh, 2008, p.

63). Home is the unmoving, unchanging place on which one can stand with stability while so much is changing. Simone Weil (1952) profoundly states that “To be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul” (p. 41). The dependency of humans on being rooted or place of orientation is so fundamental that it is often overlooked.

The eighth characteristic of home is to be a place of affiliation and belonging.

“We then create an ‘inside’ amidst the surrounding ‘outside’ … In this way we gain a foothold, and in this way identification becomes possible” (Norberg-Schulz, 1978, pp.

87-88). “By means of the house we become friends with a world, and gain the foothold we need to act in it (Norberg-Schulz, 1985, p. 91).

The Process of Appropriation Appropriation means to make something one’s own. It is the process by which something that has already been made is taken and remade into something personal.

Appropriation is a critically important part of the conversion of a house to a home. This process becomes even more important for people who have so little. Specifically, it is important in establishing a place of belonging. Nylander (2002) writes that “In the relationship between resident, site, and home, appropriation is the process – the human

18

action – by which the social consequences of architecture are generated. Appropriation is how residents incorporate space and architecture into the patters and projects of their lives” (p. 21).

Nylander (2002) argues that the home is a product comprised of both measurable and non-measurable aspects. Measurable qualities are those that are functional and practical. Physically, they can be separated and quantified. Non-measurable qualities are just the opposite. The non-measurable attributes, specifically of residential architecture, are qualitative in nature. They are reflected in the aesthetic and symbolic aspects of the design. The seven non-measurable fields of attributes that are significant to how residents perceive their home have been identified as; “materials and detailing, axiality, enclosure, movement, spatial figure, daylight, and organization of spaces” (p. 11). All of these fields of attributes are important to how home is perceived, however materials and detailing, axiality, enclosure, and organization of spaces are especially important to the design of housing for the homeless and formerly homeless.

One of the most tangible ways that a tenant encounters a designed space is through materials and detailing. “If high-quality materials and detailing can be interpreted by residents as signs of consideration for their well being, then they can initiate the process of appropriation” (Nylander, 2002, p. 20). The authenticity of materials is important for them to be perceived as being high-quality. Nylander (2002) continues that one must have some understanding of how the material is produced, how it is worked, and a sense of time and history in how it is used for it to be perceived as authentic or high-quality (p. 20). This is almost too simple of a solution to the cold,

19

institutional shelters of today. It makes sense that quality materials will communicate care.

Axiality, along with centralization and gridiron planning, help to achieve “the aim of giving man the sense of arrival in a place where a world is explained” (NorbergSchulz, 1985, p. 79). Having a rigid or central axis of basis is precisely what people without a home are lacking. This axis is important for stability. “The perception of axiality in the home begins when we find ourselves at the starting point of an axis” (Nylander, 2002, p. 25). The axis suggests relationships between spaces and will start to develop patterns that aid in the process of appropriation.

On the attribute of enclosure, Nylander (2002) writes “For many people, the closed space symbolizes security and safety – it is something positive. At the same time, open space can symbolize freedom and expansion – a symbol of opportunity” (p. 29).

Openings in the building help to determine the level of enclosure and help to “establish the character of the relationship between inner private space and the public space outside” (Nylander, 2002, p. 28). In a building that will serve many purposes, different levels of enclosure will be appropriate in different areas.

Organization of spaces is important because it gives the “residents an opportunity to stake out territory within the public space adjoining the home” (Nylander, 2002, p. 47).

For someone with very little possessions or property, this process of claiming becomes even more significant. “Territory is a way for us to create identity, orient ourselves within a place, and feel at home” (Nylander, 2002, p. 47).

20

For residents, the perception of care is intimately connected with how they identify with their homes.

Signs of care can heighten a resident’s sense of self and are interpreted as indications that the resident is important to someone. Architecture can thus fulfil our need for personal dignity if it is interpreted as confirming the resident’s value in society. (Nylander, 2002, p. 21) This idea illustrates the importance of interior design to the creation of spaces for the homeless. The selection of finishes is directly connected to signs of care and thus, sense of self, for the resident.

The Importance of the Home “Home, whether a house, a village, a region, or a nation, is a central point of existence and individual identity from which you look out on the rest of the world” (Relph, 1976, p. 83). However, the significance of home has been diminished due to the rapid pace with which people move (Relph, 1976, p. 83).

Long ago home became commercialized. “Home has indeed become a marketable, exchangeable, and sentimentalized good” (Relph, 1976, p. 83).

“Placelessness, that is, a weakening of the identity of places to the point where they not only look alike but feel alike and offer the same bland possibilities for experience” (p.

90). In designing for the homeless it becomes all the more important to trade commercialism and careless design for authentically created spaces.

“The house is the place where daily life takes place. Daily life represents what is continuous in our existence, and therefore supports us like a familiar ground” (Norberg-

21

Schulz, 1985, p. 89). “And this is the task of the house: to reveal the world, not as essence but as presence, that is, as material and color, topography and vegetation, seasons, weather and light” (Norberg-Schulz, 1985, p. 89). The home is the place of safe keeping for possessions. “We have brought them with us from the outside, and live with them because they represent ‘our world’” (Norberg-Schulz, 1985, p. 91).

“Boundaries are an important part of making a place physically and psychologically safe. Many needy strangers (eg., refugees, homeless people, and abused women and children) come from living in chronic states of fear. A safe place gives them a chance to relax, heal, and reconstruct their lives” (Pohl, 1999, p. 140).

Dwelling allows one to inhabit a space in such a way as to construct an identity.

The only place that provides the protection and security for such a vulnerable task is the home. Because of the restorative nature of dwelling richly in a place it is essential to ensure the quality of life. Home is the critical framework for this delicate practice to occur.

CHAPTER 3 CASE STUDIES

Information was collected to compare three shelters in Northeast Ohio that provide a variety of services in three different sized cities. The shelters observed were Miller Community House in Kent, OH, Haven of Rest Ministries in Akron, OH, and Laura’s Home in Cleveland, OH. Brief backgrounds are outlined below to provide a context for comparison. The quality of each shelter was assessed on a Likert scale in five areas; overall cleanliness, furnishings, style, way finding, and finishes. These assessments were used to inform the proposed solution.

Case One: Miller Community House Kent, OH Miller Community House is located at 1211 Anita Drive, Kent, OH. This building and service is classified as an emergency homeless shelter. The shelter is open to single men, single women, or children with both or either parent. It is unique that one building offers services to all the above-mentioned groups. Also, the shelter can not take children without a parent. People wanting to stay in the shelter must be residents of Portage County as well as be sober and drug free at the time of the assessment. Miller House can provide shelter for up to twenty-two individuals in any combination of single people or parents with children. The staff includes two full-time social workers, seven

22

23

part-time shift workers, and one volunteer. The shelter also provides clothes donations, as they become available. This shelter is funded through government money and grants.

Often times, shelters are adapted to buildings that were constructed with another purpose in mind, however, this building was designed to be a shelter. In interior design, the program for a building is a summary of the spaces, functions, and relationships between rooms. The program of Miller House includes a general office, two full-time staff offices, laundry room, pantry, kitchen, dining room, living room, children’s playroom, two bathrooms, and sleeping rooms. There are three family sleeping rooms, one room for five females, and one room for five males. Additionally, there is an exterior patio and play space.

Although this building was designed to be a shelter it lacks at least one key element. There is no lobby to act as a transitional buffer between the exterior and interior. There is no physical place to allow the first small foothold of stability during the uneasy transition. Because of this, the general office fulfills purposes usually attributed to a lobby. The general office is forced to function beyond its intended purposes. This results in inconvenience, awkward transition into the shelter, and lack of privacy.

Case Two: Haven of Rest Ministries Akron, OH The Christian based Haven of Rest Ministries is located at 175 East Market Street, Akron, OH. Haven of Rest Ministries is comprised of three separate buildings: the Rescue Mission, Client Services Center, and Harvest Home for Women and Children.

24

The services at the shelter are maintained by 85 full and part-time employees, approximately 600 volunteers, and a nineteen member Board of Trustees.

The Rescue Mission, completed in 1974, is the main building. It houses all of the administration for the organization. It also includes the Learning Center with the Education Department and the Career Development Department. The thirty private sleeping rooms and amenities for the men’s long term Resident Program are also in the Rescue Mission. The lobby, reception, commercial-sized kitchen, group dining area, and chapel are located here as well.

The Marjorie Ruth Thomas Harvest Home for Women and Children was completed in 1979. This building is only for women and children. It is not a domestic violence shelter, but many of the residents have violence in their past. This shelter serves as the next step after a crisis shelter. This building includes a few offices, a small kitchen and dining room, dormitories for fifteen single women (women without children), family rooms to accommodate a maximum combination of thirty-seven mothers and children, community lounges, classrooms, and Nurture Center for the children. The Nurture Center provides childcare services while the mothers are attending classes in Harvest Home. The children are not permitted to stay in the Nurture Center if the mother is not in the building. This building also has a fenced in outdoor swing set and jungle gym for the children.

The Client Services Center was completed in 1994 and this building added 37,000 square feet to Haven of Rest Ministries. This building includes separate women’s and men’s day rooms for the clients to use on days with dangerous or uncomfortable weather.

25

There are 100 beds in the Client Services Center for emergency shelter for males. The are arranged in three dormitory style rooms with thirty beds each. An additional ten beds are in a separate room to sleep during the day for those who have a secured job that requires them to work a third shift. The Clothing Distribution Center collects about 50,000 pounds of donated new and used clothes each month. Anyone, except employees of Haven of Rest Ministries, is eligible to shop in the clothing distribution store once a month with no cost to them. The only exchange is that those who shop must attend a fifteen minute chapel service in the month that they shop.

Haven of Rest Ministries as a collective organization does not seem to have any shortcomings in terms of building program. However, since Harvest Home is in its own building, some of the amenities and necessities are spread out over all three buildings.

This is especially inconvenient for women with small or multiple children. Also, bad weather makes it undesirable to have to travel between the Rescue Mission building and Harvest Home multiple times a day for meals.

Case Three: Laura’s Home Cleveland, OH Laura’s Home is located at 18120 Puritas Avenue, Cleveland, OH. The women and children’s shelter is a division of The City Mission, a Christian based organization.

There are 136 beds divided among fifty one rooms. The staff person giving the tour noted that the rooms almost always fill before the 136 beds are filled. The operations of the shelter are overseen by twenty-two staff members.

26

The part of the building that predominantly houses the sleeping areas was originally Glenbeigh Hospital, which was adapted to accommodate the program for Laura’s Home. This portion of the building includes fifty-one sleeping rooms for the women and children, community lounge spaces, craft room, salon, library, birthday room, laundry, private restrooms, classrooms, clothing distribution room, and computer lab.

The sleeping rooms come in four configurations: single women, mother with an infant, mother with two to four children, and mother with four to eight children. There are also three intern suites that are set up like a studio apartment with a small kitchenette.

The other half of the building was an addition built specifically for Laura’s Home and it includes a front security desk, chapel, kitchen, dining room, gymnasium, visiting rooms, and an entry.

Laura’s Home has some creative spaces in terms of programming, however it has the same shortcoming as Miller House: it lacks a transitional lobby.

Methodology The three shelters have been observed and assessed in five areas on a five point ranking scale. Again, the five areas were: overall cleanliness, furnishings, finishes, way finding, and style. These five areas were chosen because they are observable indicators of quality in the shelter. Overall cleanliness is assessed with: one being filthy; two is more than normal wear and tear; three is normal wear and tear; four is well kept; and five is overly clean to the point of having a chemical smell. The results of the ranking can be seen in Table 1.

27

Shelter Miller Community House Haven of Rest Laura’s Home

Overall Cleanliness

Quality of Furnishings

Finishes

Way Finding

Style

3

2

3

5

4

5 4

4 4

4 4

1 2

2 2

Table 1. Case Study Results The scale for furnishings is as follows: one represents dilapidated and almost unusable furniture; two is below average furnishings that have more than normal wear and tear; three is normal wear and tear to average quality furnishings; four represents well kept furnishings that are comfortable and are recently new; five represents new, high quality furniture.

Finishes have been assessed according to the following scale: one represents outdated and dilapidated finishes; two is below average finishes with more than normal wear and tear; three represents appropriate finishes with normal wear and tear; four represents well kept and seemingly recently new finishes; five represents new and current finishes.

Way finding is assessed according to the following scale: one being extremely difficult to navigate the building without aid from staff; two represents some difficulty in navigating the building without aid; three represents a normal level of difficulty associated with navigating an unfamiliar building; four represents relative ease in navigating the building; five represents no trouble navigating the building.

The assessment of style is used to indicate whether the building has more characteristics of being residential or institutional. One is completely institutional and

28

has no comforts of home; two represents a building that has predominately institutional characteristics; three represents having equal amounts of institutional and residential characteristics; four represents a building that has predominately residential characteristics; and five is a space that is completely residential.

Typically, number five represents the side of the scale that is more desirable and number one represents conditions that should be avoided in shelter design. However, if a shelter is assessed with a five in an area, it does not necessarily represent the most ideal conditions. For example, Haven of Rest was given a five in overall cleanliness, however, this means that it is overly clean and the spaces are left with a chemical smell, which is not an ideal condition. The ideal condition would be a space that is clean, but not at the expense of clean air quality. The size of each shelter also determines what number on the scale would represent the highest functioning of the organization. Shelters that have more beds, thus have more clients, will have a greater need for more spaces. The increase in spaces increases the size of the building and typically complicates way finding.

The purpose for each shelter as well as the people they serve will help to determine the most ideal number on the scale. For example, Laura’s Home is a crisis center for women, many of whom are victims of domestic violence and have high security requirements. Laura’s Home was assessed at a two in the style area showing that it is mostly institutional. Laura’s Home probably would not be able to offer the same level of security if it had more characteristics of a residential style, which is typically a

29

less controlled environment than institutional buildings. With the exceptions in mind, the above matrix reflects that none of the shelters have a consistent balance in all five areas.

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS

As anecdotal evidence, the staff person conducting the tour at Miller Community House lent some intimate insight into the workings of the shelter. She commented on the use of the two bathrooms. They are not designated for specifically males or females.

One is mostly white and the other is painted green. The staff person shared that she always uses the green bathroom. She added that it is usually cleaner and better kept than the white bathroom. Observation verified that the green bathroom was cleaner and better cared for than the white bathroom. Additionally, the green bathroom is also the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant one. Typically, ADA accommodations, such as grab bars, are considered to be unsightly. It is interesting how a color of paint can change the way people use and care for a space. This observation is consistent with Nylander's (2002) writing on appropriation. Materials and detail can and will impact how residents feel cared for and, as observed indicates, will care in return.

What is successfully designed in this shelter is how easily the building can be navigated. One main hallway creates a central axis from which all the rooms branch off.

Both Laura’s Home and Haven of Rest had a far more complicated and confusing building structure. The program in each building had more spaces and so, naturally, it was more complicated. However, the spaces should be arranged in such a way as to reduce confusion, stress, and chaos, not add to it by making the building hard to navigate.

30

31

The building has a distinctly residential influence. The dining room and kitchen are designed for comfort and familiarity. The kitchen is not very different from the typical kitchen in a home. There are additional refrigerators to accommodate the potential twenty-two residents, for example. The dining room has three traditional wood tables where everyone in the house can eat together if they chose to. This configuration helps to create a familiar setting, not one that is institutionalized and foreign.

The size of the shelter and the small number of residents allows a more personal and deliberate care than a larger shelter can.

The program of Miller House tends to enable the clients to continue in the cycle of homelessness more than the program of either Harvest Home or Laura’s Home. Miller Community House lacked classrooms that held promise for change and a different future.

Laura’s Home and Haven of Rest both had a building program that reflected the organizational structure of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The classrooms taught skills from GED preparation and job readiness to parenting classes.

The services offered do depend on the number of clients being served as well as the shelter’s purpose.

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS

“To build a new house or to settle in a new territory is a fundamental project, equivalent perhaps to a repetition of the founding of the world.”

Place and Placelessness, E. Relph, 1976

The study of place, dwelling, and identity are not new ideas, however it is critical that they be applied in new ways to the study and designing of the home. The importance of the home, especially to those without one, is evident in how difficult it is to construct.

Proposed Typicals The following section has been created to illustrate some informed solutions that can be applied generically to different types of housing designed for the homeless. This is the beginning of applying place, dwelling and identity to the home. The proposed typicals are for three different areas. The private division includes the sleeping area and bathroom. The operational division will include functional spaces such as the lobby and classrooms. The public spaces include the kitchen, dining room, community lounge spaces and a children’s space. The typicals will not prescribe exactly what the spaces will look like, but rather qualities and characteristics that should be present. This allows

32

33

the research to be applied to any variety of buildings and organizational structures. The qualities of home and the human need for it are universal.

Private Sleeping rooms should have several considerations particular to shelter design.

Sound insulation for comfort and privacy. Although probably an obvious quality, each family or individual will have a threshold to help to control the people permitted into or out of their personal space. The space will also be in some way customizable. The process of ordering or reordering the space will help the resident to being the process of appropriation which will help to transform the space into a home for the resident. For example, the shelves, drawers, and closet could be on a movable grid system that can be combined in a number of different configurations. Enclosure will also be important here.

There should be variety in the level of enclosure in the sleeping area. Small, secure spaces and open, free areas are perceived as positive, so they should both be included in some way (Nylander, 2002, p. 29). Some form of secure storage should also be in or near the sleeping area to protect personal possessions.

Operational The lobby is one of the most critical spaces. There is such an opportunity to delight the users in the midst of a process that is far from delightful. The lobby is the transitional space from the outside instability to a place with walls on which to lean. The lobby should include “an iron clad way of keeping one’s place in line that does not

34

necessarily require physically standing in it” (Pable p. 4). Also, the furniture can be arranged in a way that is sensitive to the unique needs of the people who will be in the building. For example, seating arrangements should not expose their backs.

Additionally, seating should be oriented so that “users are facing out from sheltering walls” (Pable, p. 4).

The lobby functions as an open, transition space as well as a static one. “In an open space, our attention is directed outward, beyond the room’s borders” (Nylander, 2002, p. 31). The lobby serves as a reminder of the world of opportunity that exists beyond the walls of the shelter. The lobby is the threshold from which the residents can depart in new, restored ways.

The classrooms are an important space to be present because they create the environment for change. It is by learning something new in a collaborative environment that will set the path for social reintegration. This room will need to be well lit and allow for flexibility in table and chair arrangement. Technological requirements will include computers with internet access and projectors. The functions of the room require boards and storage. All materials are to be chosen in a way that will communicate care and worth to the people using the space according to Nylander’s (2002) research.

Public The kitchen and dining room will depend largely on the size of the shelter. In general, the furniture must withstand regular and rigorous cleaning. The community lounges are spaces where cleanliness and comfort will be equally important. This

35

combination is difficult to achieve in shared relaxation spaces. Fabrics are more comfortable on furniture than hard materials, such as plastics, but most times they are not easier to clean. This area should as well as the children’s space should be equipped with multiple forms of entertainment to combat the widespread boredom found in shelters.

The children’s space will need to be sensitive to children’s needs. Children in homeless families are like children in a more normal living situation, but they need space to run and play all the more.

A report from HUD concludes its report by saying “If we were to set as our objectives the reintegration into the social mainstream of as many homeless as possible and, better still, the prevention of homelessness whenever possible, the present emergency shelter-based system of care would not be judged an adequate response” (Thorman, 1988, p. 29). The remainder of the program consists of spaces that serve their purpose merely by being included in the building layout and do not necessarily have prescribed design qualities. They are: offices both for management and counseling, laundry, clinic, social services, public and private bathrooms, and a birthday room.

Homelessness is a powerful cyclical force causing destruction in people’s lives.

However, this situation is rich in opportunity for designers to rise to the occasion of providing new and creative solutions to support the health, safety and welfare of people.

It is through dwelling and appropriation that a space is transformed from an impersonal interior environment to a home, which can support an identity and provide stability. By creating informed designs sensitive to the importance of providing a place of stability that satisfies the fundamental need for home, the problem of homelessness can

36

be changed significantly. A more complete welfare of people can become the focus so that health and safety can be promoted. Interior design can have a new face of social responsibility.

WORKS CITED

Baumohl, J. (Ed.). (1996). Homelessness in america. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Bouma-Prediger, S, & Walsh, B. J. (2008). Beyond homelessness: Christian faith in a culture of displacement. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Burt, M. (2001). What will it Take to end homelessness?. Urban Institute.

Davey, Wootton et al (2004) "Design of the Surreal World", submitted to the European Academy of Design (EAD) 2005 conference, 29–31 March 2005 : University of the Arts, Bremen, Germany

Davis, S. (2004). Designing for the homeless. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

National alliance to end homelessness. (2007). Family homelessness [fact sheet].

Retrieved from http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/1525

Norberg-Schulz, C. (1978). Mellom jord og himmel [Between heaven and earth, in Norwegian only], Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

37

38

Norberg-Schulz, C. (1985). The Concept of dwelling: on the way to figurative architecture. New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc.

Nylander, O. (2002). Architecture of the home. Great Britain: Wiley-Academy.

Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literarcy: education and the transition to a postmodern world.

Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Pable, J. Design response to homelessness. Implications, 04(07)

Pohl, C. (1999). Making room: recovering hospitality as a christian tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London, Great Britain: Pion Limited.

Thorman, G. (1988). Homeless families. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, Publisher.

U.S. Conference of Mayors. (2009). Status Report on Hunger & Homelessness. Retrieved from http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/documents/hungerhomelessness report_121208.pdf

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development. (2009). The 2008 annual homeless assessment report to

39

congress. Retrieved from http://www.hudhre.info/documents/4thHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf

U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The United States Code. Federal definition of homelessness (Title 42, Chapter 119, Subchapter I) Retrieved from http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/topics/homelessness/definition

Weil, S. (1952). The Need for roots: prelude to a declaration of duties toward mankind.

Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited.

Westerhoff, C. (1999). Good fences: the boundaries of hospitality. Boston: Cowley Press.

Who we are. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.rainbowhousing.org/

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altman, I, & Werner, C. (1985). Home environments. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Amelar, S. (2008, October). Kanner architects’ 26th street housing provides modern comforts to low-income tenants. Architectural Record, Retrieved from http://archrecord.construction.com/residential/quarterly/0810_26th_sthousing1.asp

Architecture for Humanity, (2006). Design like you give a damn: Architectural responses to humanitarian crises. New York, NY: Metropolis Books.

Bachelard, G. (1958). The poetics of space (extract). In N. Leach (Ed.), Rethinking architecture: a reader in cultural theory (pp. 85-97). New York, NY: Routledge.

Baumohl, J. (Ed.). (1996). Homelessness in america. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Benyus, J. M. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Bouma-Prediger, S, & Walsh, B. J. (2008). Beyond homelessness: Christian faith in a culture of displacement. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

40

41

Brown, D. (Ed.). (2004). The Home house project: the future of affordable housing.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Burt, M. (2001). What will it Take to end homelessness?. Urban Institute.

Corporation for supportive housing. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.csh.org/index.cfm?nodeid=81

Davey, Wootton et al (2004) "Design of the Surreal World", submitted to the European Academy of Design (EAD) 2005 conference, 29–31 March 2005 : University of the Arts, Bremen, Germany

Davis, S. (1995). The Architecture of affordable housing. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Davis, S. (2004). Designing for the homeless. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Dovey, K. (1999). Framing places: mediating power in built form. New York, NY: Routledge.

Feireiss, K. & L. F. (2008). Architecture of change: sustainability and humanity in the built environment. Berlin, Germany: Gestalten.

42

Gausa, M. (1998). Housing: new alternatives, new systems. Boston, MA: Birkhauser Publishers.

Heidegger, M. (1977). Basic writings from being and time (1927) to the task of thinking (1964). San Franciso, CA: HarperCollins Publishers.

National alliance to end homelessness. (2007). Family homelessness [fact sheet].

Retrieved from http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/1525

Norberg-Schulz, C. (1978). Mellom jord og himmel [Between heaven and earth, in Norwegian only], Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius loci: towards a phenomenology of architecture. Great Britain: Academy Editions.

Norberg-Schulz, C. (1985). The Concept of dwelling: on the way to figurative architecture. New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc.

Nylander, O. (2002). Architecture of the home. Great Britain: Wiley-Academy.

Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literarcy: education and the transition to a postmodern world.

Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

43

Pohl, C. (1999). Making room: recovering hospitality as a christian tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Rapoport, A. (Ed.). (1969). House form and culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London, Great Britain: Pion Limited.

Slavid, R. (2007). Micro: very small buildings. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd.

Survival rule of threes. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.survivaltopics.com/survival/survival-rule-of-threes/

Thorman, G. (1988). Homeless families. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, Publisher.

U. N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, CESCR. (1991). The Right To Adequete Housing: General Comments 4 (Art. 11 (1) of the covenant). Retrieved from UNHCHR website: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/469f4d91a9378221c12563ed0053547e?Open document

44

U.S. Conference of Mayors. (2009). Status Report on Hunger & Homelessness. Retrieved from http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/documents/hungerhomelessnessreport_12 1208.pdf

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development. (2009). The 2008 annual homeless assessment report to congress. Retrieved from http://www.hudhre.info/documents/4thHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf

U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The United States Code. Federal Definition of Homelessness (Title 42, Chapter 119, Subchapter I) Retrieved from http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/topics/homelessness/definition Weil, S. (1952). The Need for roots: prelude to a declaration of duties toward mankind.

Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited.

Westerhoff, C. (1999). Good fences: the boundaries of hospitality. Boston: Cowley Press.

What is Supportive housing?. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.shnny.org/what_is.html

Who we are. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.rainbowhousing.org/