A Progessive Solution to Family Homelessness and Childhood Development
Executive Summary Homelessness has been growing exponentially over the past decades. Relentlessly providing shelter and rental aid to compensate landlords & developers for the very low-income families will further expand the income gap, as well as the population of the very low-income family; ultimately increasing the cases of family homelessness. Capsule provides a sustainable solution to this growing phenomenon. This operation will add a unique identity to belonging communities, tiny houses installation and other programs allow different approaches to creating interaction between different stakeholders. We look forward to providing a new experiences to all community members from enriching a psychological sense of place.
Capsule desires to create tiny houses for the homeless or very low-income families. As an alternative affordable housing option, our approach begins from personal development. We envision the potential in advanced self-sufficiency during this transitional period can progressively increases the families’ social mobility. Tiny houses installation is prompted to micro community development as well. Associate with civic engagement events and depend on community feedback, Capsule will gradually escalate our effort on local businesses promotion is a give back to these neighborhoods. The primary objective of this document comprehensively demonstrates the process required to bring this operation alive. Homelessness population data analysis, extensive research on environmental impact towards childhood and career development and site selection process are the major components.
• • •
3 Phases Site Selection Process allow us to identify the most desirable location. These locations are feasible to create diverse community interaction. Eliminated the area of lower and middle median income (by census tract), these potential sites are set to architect a resilience to gentrification. There are 4 major objectives, serving different purposes at different stages of Capsule’s operation. Followed by the achievable’s develop from each objective, they will present the wholesome of Capsule as the freshening city input. Environmental Impact on Childhood and Career Development, backed by research, proving the direct connection between physical environment and children upbringing. It assists our team to identify the appropriate components to include while developing the Capsule.
Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction
Background Purpose of Project Missions & Goals
Project Objectives
3 4 6
Tiny House Installation Tiny House Design
Healthy Indoor Building Performances
Site Location
Phase 1 - Census Tract & Neighborhood Tabulation Area Phase 2 - City Council District Phase 3 - City Parks
Impacts and Cost
Sustainability & Social Impact Environment Impact to Childhood & Career Development
13 16
29 31
Introduction • Background • Purpose of Project • Missions and Goals
Background: New York City homelessness peaked its all-time high in May 2016. According to the Coalition for the Homeless, over 60 thousand homeless people, including 14 thousand homeless families with 23 thousand children are supported by the NYC shelter system. Yet, thousands of unsheltered homeless people are still living off the streets and regardless of employment status. The geographic boundaries of our current research extend as far as Manhattan borough covers. The Map A.1 visually demonstrate the exact boundaries of this development planning proposal cover. The four major districts: Uptown, Midtown, Downtown and Lower Manhattan, neighborhood tabulation area and City Council District to be presented later in this proposal will help to present specific planning objectives. Current approaches to homelessness are generally providing rental assistance or a temporary shelter. Recovery programs are also targeting to assist adults only. Therefore Capsule is thrilled to provide alternative options to assist these adults, as well as their children. Capsule ambitiously projects a vision to progressively control or maybe revert the family homelessness growth.
Uptown
Midtown
Downtown
Lower Manhattan
Homelessness in New York City
Homelessness in New York City
Purpose of project:
Updated July 2016 Chart 2
Updated July 2016 Chart 1
Affordable housing has limited availability, associate with the polarizing median household income are the utmost causes of growing homeless
Homelessness in New York City
Homelessness in New York City
Updated July 2016 Chart 3
Updated July 2016 Chart 4
population (homeless adults and homeless families). The homeless population has peaked an all-time high in 2014, given by the Coalition for The Homeless. The number of homeless people on streets remains at 60 thousand in May 2016. Coalition for The Homeless also reports, within Tables extracted from Coalition For The Homeless
shelter system, 23 thousand of children are housed with roughly 14 thousand adults in families. Given by NYC Department of Homeless Services, filed cases of homeless families with children increased 67% from the financial year 2009 to 2017. Although growth rate does not appear as drastic as Adult Families 103% and Single Adults’ 105%, the continual growth of homeless families with children is breeding the development of other issues.
Financial Year (Sep) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Family with Children 7784 8776 8024 8277 9616 10413 11613 11914 13007
Annual Growth Rate 13% -9% 3% 16% 8% 12% 3% 9%
Family w/ children Homelessness Pop. Trend (09-17) 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0
Table. B1
FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Graph. B1
Table and Graph B1, B2, B3 show the continuous growth of cases filed at NYC Department of Homeless Services per year. 68% of the total reported population are coming from Families with Children, 57% of the 41768 are children. NYC Department of Homeless Services Daily Stats reports, there are roughly 61 thousands individuals on the system daily. While homeless children population occupies a staggering 40%.
Financial Year (Sep) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Adult Family 1227 1374 1323 1341 1680 1824 2067 2140 2495
Annual Growth Rate 12% -4% 1% 25% 9% 13% 4% 17%
Adult Family Homelessness Pop. Trend (09-17) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Table. B2
Financial Year (Sep) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018
Financial Year (Sep) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Single Adults 6381 6793 8046 8421 9281 9928 10759 12247 13083
Annual Growth Rate 6% 18% 5% 10% 7% 8% 14% 7%
Graph. B2
Family With Children 7784 8776 8024 8277 9616 10413 11613 11914 13007
Adult Family Homelessness Pop. Trend (0917) 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0
FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Table. B3
2 Years Weighted Moving Average
8379.2 8324.8 8175.8 9080.4 10094.2 11133 11793.6 12569.8
Error
|Error|
-355.2 -47.8 1440.2 1332.6 1518.8 781 1213.4
355.20 47.80 1440.20 1332.60 1518.80 781.00 1213.40
MFE 840.43
MAD 955.57
Error^2
126167.04 2284.84 2074176.04 1775822.76 2306753.44 609961.00 1472339.56
Graph. B3
% Error
4.24% 0.57% 17.62% 14.68% 15.05% 7.02% 10.29%
MAPE MSE 9.92% 1195357.81
Table. B1
Both of the 3 years moving average and 3 years weighted moving average resulted in a Mean Absolute Deviation over 1300 units. However, the 2 years weighted moving average (0.6 and 0.4) produced a more logical and accurate projection for FY 2018. The Mean Forecast Error (MFE): 840.43, it identifies the projection: 12570 in FY 2018 is under-forecasted. Supplemented by the MAD and Mean Absolute Percentage of Error, we can foresee approximately 500-700 counts of assistances to be filed additionally in FY 2018. The Capsule strive to create an alternative transitional housing option for the city. We are also fascinated to create and provide different opportunities for the families, ultimately increases their social mobility. Economically unstable families are often suffering from the pressure carried by housing affordability and family issues. Evictions and inability to secure a dwelling that satisfies basic needs are the primary challenges these families face. Thus, our mission on childhood and career development foster our investigation on the impact from environment setting. We are exploring different approaches to endorse sustainable personal growth that is set to improve a family’s social mobility. The installation of tiny-house within the city is also a step towards micro community development. We are proposing to create these micro communities as a park or within the blighted community parks in Manhattan Borough. What’s more, we are prompted to introduce community engagement events simultaneously, to create a dynamic market that supports the local small businesses.
Mission and Goals
Micro-Community development
CAPSULE community consists of dwelling units, new market dynamic, and other park amenities. Collaboration with local business and public entities within CAPSULE community will lubricate residents and residing communities.
CAPSULE aims to create opportunities
Capsule operation and development planning oriented from families’ social mobility enhancement. The program creates opportunities to advance personal growth for parents, hence children and adolescent upbringing from an improved primary environment.
Targets the abandoned
Regardless of spaces or people, Capsule seizes everything as a resource. Redeveloping deteriorated or blighted areas, vacant lots, and providing second chances are our primary goal.
CAPSULE as the stepping stone
Parents are the primary environment in early childhood development. However, the dependency to learn and imitate divert to the physical environment when children are growing up. Capsule aims to remove the typical setbacks from an undesirable environment. Endorse these families to explore the height of children’s potentials to its fullest.
Collaborate communities, Collaborate with communities
Providing park service is a direct recompense to the communities. The site(s) are the hub of community recreation events and civic engagement. We welcome community member to engage with our operation and community events. Simultaneously, providing alternate influences to family developments in different aspects.
A Brief timeline
Project Objectives
Micro Community Development Create Opportunities Avoid Nuisance and Improving Social Mobility ordable Intensify Person to Create Aff Environment interaction using ho
The tiny houses we will provide to the very low-income or homeless families are in a compact dimension. Yet, they preserve the components that meet the neccessities to support a prosperous family development. The major objectives in our development are :
1. Avoiding Nuisance 2. Creating Affordable Housing 3. Create Opportunities 4. Create Positive Impact from an enhanced Housing Environment The 4 objectives aim to enhance the social mobility of the residing families and stimulate micro-community development at our sites in the long run. However, the purposes of tiny houses installation in the very vibrant and dynamic Manhattan will create nuisance caused by the conflict of interest against stakeholders. Therefore, as a responsible member of society, Capsule guarantees our persistent effort on fighting nuisance since the beginning of our planning process. Capsule installation will be a significant addition to the already congested city, minimizing the nuisance to reduce conflict will simultaneously encourage this movement, hence expand the Capsule services and mission to benefit much more families urging for the helping hand. The timeline above best explain the duties and obligations Capsules intend to achieve in the upcoming years.
Demonstrations in enlisted communities, record feedback and observe popularity of tiny house
Installation and reside location foster family development, career development and academic performance, etc. differently. The first 2 years of installation allow us to observe and improve our operation from the impact between the differing environment attributes.
Redefine locations base on record, and experiment feasibility from launching pilot program. Examine different variations of tiny house installation, approach the most efficient method for NYC, record pros and cons from environment alteration.
Explore feasibility in off grid tiny houses production, create as tiny house technology platform.
2 Years
Expect report of nuisances to complete a systematic operation up to maturity that minimize nuisance.
Explore the feasibility to expand Capsule operation in the other 4 boroughs. Sustaining service efficiency and progressively increase services provision in different locations.
Controlled the provision of Capsule installation in Manhattan Borough.
Site rotations within Manhattan Borough and identify characteristic to exert into tiny house design to enrich neighborhood character.
10 Years
5 Years
Tiny house Design and Installation • Tiny House Design • Proposing Installation Sites
Capsule Tiny House Design
The plug and play design that was first introduced as innovative residential options for temporary living into NYC by German Architect Werner Aisslinger. His Loft Cube inducted to NYC as temporary installation on rooftops. However, transportation acquire long container, cargo ship and the price tag along is as well extraordinary as the design. It failed to evolve as a common practice for the general public. Ordinary Tiny House design bases on a minimalistic fashion. Practicality is highly prioritized, which is also positively engaging with the economic efficiency. Tiny house movement have been evolving over the past couple years; different design applications are developed specifically for tiny houses’ floor plan, dimensions, appliances and furnitures. This chapter will provide different methodology to advances our development objectives. Provide specific input to further support our insights.
Healthy Indoor:
Different design elements can contribute to a healthier indoor environment. Our team consider the followings as the dominant attributes to maximize the positive psychological sense of place: 1. Thermal Comfort 2. Visual Comfort 3. Indoor Air Quality
Thermal Comfort /Air Temperature/ Temperature Control
Begins with thermal comfort, smaller building envelop can achieve a higher energy efficiency from lessened air leaking into and out of the house. On the other hand, the volume of air flow within tiny house directly lowered the energy demand for air conditioning.
Visual Comfort/ Room Areas/ Artificial Light/ Day Light/ Ceiling Heights
Habitable room area is the FAQ to general public. Foremost task for tiny house designer/builder to achieve is sustaining 7 feet in any dimension for room areas and minimum clearances within bathroom to completely cover the accessibility for all users (tenants). Ceiling heights is significant to the spatial awareness. However, limited by the legal dimensional regulation and physical ratio (W:L:H) as tiny house on wheels. The ceiling heights can only achieve at the barrier requirements. [insert R305 Ceiling Height] Tiny houses' size benefits the dwellings to easily achieve over 8% of floor aggregated glazed area. As well as opening to outdoors, tiny house can easily supply readily access to over 4% of floor area to outdoors openable for ventilation purpose.
Indoor Air Quality/ventilation/ pollutants/ Humidity
Becomes the most important variable to tenants' health. Therefore, ventilation system is critical to ensure the indoor environment is maintaining at optimal temperature as well as humidity and pollutants' density. [Source R303.4] Opening to indoor spaces ration allow high air changes per hour, lower manufacture cost hence alleviate cost efficiency simultaneously.
Building Performances:
Insulation/Window Type and Quality/ Waste Water and Heat Recovery/ Natural Ventilation/ Building Envelop/ Thermal Storage Area/ Indoor Airflow
Major attributions to building performances are related to air temperature and quality. Remaining note worthy factor is wast water and heat recovery. it ensures the efficiency of energy consumed. Manufactured Tiny Houses' performances are affected by their design dimension, and installation orientation. Further examinations on site are required to record the passive solar gains, daylight exposure, local wind patterns, topography, depth of winter frost and shadow cast. Tiny house installation within city park land can create a revert provision from harvesting grey water for secondary uses. Extend to potential on sustainability planning: active solar power, water efficiency (composting toilet /taps/ shower head) Potential collaboration with skysource and tesla -> sustainable resource provision within city supplies... Addons: Contemporary practices, light, multifunctional furniture
Straus Park - Morningside Park - W124th St Community Garden - Walter Miller III Memorial Garden - St. Nicholas Park - Marcus Garvey Park - Eugene McCabe Field - Park Avenue Malls - Riverside Park - Boardway Malls - Hancock Park - 14 Honey Locusts Park - Andrew Haswell Green Park - Asphalt Green - Bloomingdale Playground - Broadway Malls - Carl Schurz Park - Central Park - Damrosch Park - East River Esplanade - East River Walk - Frederick Douglass Playground - Gertrude Ederle Recreation Center - Hallers Cove Playground - Happy Warrior Playground - Joan of Arc Park - John Jay Park - La Perla Garden - Lincoln Center Plaza - Matthew P. Sapolin Playground - Mill Rock Park - Park Avenue Malls - Playground 89 LXXXIX - Queensboro Oval - Richard Tucker Square - Riverside Park - Ruppert Park - Samuel Seabury Playground - Septuagesimo UNO - Sherman Square - Sol Bloom PLayground - St. Catherine;s Park - St Gregory’s Playground - Stanley Isaacs Playground - Tecumesh Playground - Theodore Roosevelt Park - Tramway Plaza - Twenty-Four Sycamores Park - Verdi Square - W 104th Street Garden - W 87th Street Garden - WhitneyFord Field - Clement Clarke Moore Park - Murphy’s Brother’s Playground - Bushwick Inlet Park Peter Detmold Park - MacArthur Park - Madison Square Park - Worth Square - WNYC Transmitter Park - Asser Levy Playground - Newton Barge Playground - Augustus St. gaudens Playground - Peter’s Field - Vincent F. Albano Jr. Playground Greeley Square Park - St. Vartan Park - Bryant Park - West 20th Street Park Ralph Bunche Park - Trygve Lie Plaza - Mary O’C onnor Playground Tudor Grove Playground Dag Hammarskjold Plaza - Penn South Playground - Chelsea Recreation Center - Recreation Center 54 - The High Line Hunter’s Point South Park Robert Moses Playground - East River Esokanade - Herald SquarePark Avenue Malls - Union Square Park - Father Duffy Square - Bellevue South ParkGrand Army Plaza - Park Avenue Malls - Sutton Place - Sutton Parks - Andrew Haswell Green Park - Hudson Park - Abe Lebewohi Park -Abe Lebewohi Triangle - Abingdon Sqaure -Ahearn Park - Albert Capsouto Park -Le Petit Versailles - Battery Park City Park - Bleecker Playground - Bowling Green - Brooklyn Bridge Park - Canal Park - Charlton Plaza - Christopher Park - City Hall Park- Collect Pond Park - Cooper Triangle - Coporal John A. Seravalli Playground - Downing Street Playground - Duane Park - Duarte Square - Father Demo Square - Father Fagan Park - Fiorello La Guardia Park - Grand Canal Court - Gustave Hartman Square - Imagination Playground - Jackson Square - James J Walker Park - Jane Street Garden Jefferson Market Garden - Kenkeleba House - McCarthy Square - Mercer Playground - Merchant’s House Museum - Minetta Green - Minetta Playground - Minetta Triangle - Peachtree Garden - Pestrosino Square - Playground of the Americas - Seward Park - Sheridan Square Viewing Garden - The Highline - Queen Elizabeth Garden - Thomas Paine Park - Tony Dapolito Recreation Center - Tribeca Park - Vesuvio Playground - Vietnam Veterans Plaza - Washington Market Park - Washington Square Park - West 4th Street Courts - William F. Passannante Ballifield
Site Location
Phase 3: Focusing areas contracted the numbers of potential sites throughout Manhattan Borough. Site visits are performed to identify the feasibility and physical limitations of all focusing area within Manhattan Borough.
Site Selection Process: The 3 phases selection process allow us to identify the most desirable location. These location fulfills different factors that can positively influence the beneficiaries.
Phase 2: In phase 2, we narrow down the number of potential sites in Manhattan borough utilizing Institute for Children Poverty and Homelessness’(ICPH) report on family homelessness data and shelter performances. ICPH ranked the city council district by the number of Family Shelter Provider and shelter performances. Also given the % of poverty population, household spending over half of their income on rent & unemployment and serving families per shelter. We analyzed the demographic characteristics and correlation to the number of shelter and shelter performance. 6 out of 10 City Council Districts backed by different factors remain as our final studying areas.
Phase 1: First, identify the median household income by census tract within defined neighborhood tabulation area. We eliminate middle-income class, to prevent excessive conflict provoked by neighborhood intrusion. Associate with our goal to foster childhood and career development from differing the environmental settings, lower median household income area are omitted from consideration as well. We are able to locate our probable Capsule installation sites oblige by crowdsourcing data; Map The Homeless NYC provides the closest illustration to homelessness density throughout Manhattan Borough. The given data demonstrates that higher median household income tracts are more appealing to homelessness crowding.
26830
34336 56053 32326 35967 51362 66837 72212 33710 18931 32069 4481024054 2540976026 84500 91504 112250 51217 34475 16971 16417 50125 71417 57275 60439 26830 37317 33139 43454 33885 16051 66837 72212 25380 16417 64931 33710 20963 18931 44810 23446 76026 29648 84500 91504 51217 44766 16417 16971 16417 60439 57275 23916 27079 24577 43454 35197 33885 16051 25380 16417 20963 27079 23446 26600 29648 34528 44766 16417 35706 23916 25710 91048 27079 24577 34267 35197 96250 27079 44643 26600 34528 64931
35706 91048 96250
33139 66837 18931
76026
51217
60439
16971
57275
43454
33885
25380 23446
20963
44766
26600
16417
16051 16417 29648
The process required to find out the standard deviation of Uptown Me-
16417
23916 35197
24577
27079 27079
34528
dian Household per census tract income allowed us to analyze both geo-
35706 91048 96250
34267
25710
44643
graphically and statistically. The first sigma ranges between $20068.42 to
25710
44643
Potential Site Selection Phase I - Uptown (!
84500
91504
37317 33710
44810
25710
25710
34267
71417
72212
64931
(!
25710
66441.70. The average median household income is $43255.06 and the
(!
Standard Deviation is $23186.64, both significantly lower than the other
-
16818
39167 34336
56053
32326
24054
112250
26830 50125 71417 64931 91504
72212 84500 33885
18931 16971
57275
43454
(54%). CV is comparatively higher than the other 3 locations. Statistical-
66837 76026
51217
3 study areas. Which, led us to examine the Coefficient of Variation: 0.54
32069 34475 33139
37317 33710
44810
60439
51362
35967
25409
20963
25380 23446
44766
ly, lower standard deviation defines data is closely clustering around the
16417 29648 16417
23916 35197 26600
16417
16051
24577
27079
mean and less of polarized income. However, the coefficient of variation
27079
34528
35706 91048 96250
34267
25710
pointed out a high variation of median household income that is con-
44643 25710
(!
Legend
Legend centrated only of the low-income household. While the upper class in
Potential Site Selection Phase I - Uptown Omitted Tracts (Uptown)
Omitted Tracts (Uptown)
Legend
Uptown Potential Sites the first sigma is just above the Median Household Income of NYC, we
Uptown Potential Sites Omitted Tracts (Uptown) Parks -
16818
39167
34336
56053
32326
24054
Parks
51362
35967
32069
25409
Uptown Potential Sites 112250
decidedFrom to setHigh the upper Density to Lowclass as the breaking point to tracts elimination
34475 33139
Density From High to Low 26830 50125 71417 72212
37317
66837
Parks High (~35 count per Census Tract) 64931
84500
91504
33885
33710
44810
60439
18931
76026
51217
16971
57275
43454
High (~35 count per Census Tract)
16417
for the following study areas. Due to the low median household income,
16051
Density From High to Low 20963
25380 23446
44766
16417
29648
16417
23916 35197
High (~35 count per Census Tract) 26600
24577
27079
we omitted over 80% of the tracts in Uptown. We eliminated all census
27079
34528
35706 91048 96250
34267
25710
44643
tracts having median household income below the upper class in first
25710
(!
sigma ($66441.70). Remaining census tracts suggested the parks with-
Low (<2 count per Census Tract) 0
0.5
1
Low (<2 count per Census Tract)
2 Miles
0 in
Legend Low (<2 count per Census Tract) 0
0.5 Tracts 1 (Uptown) Omitted
2 Miles
0.5 1 Heights and 2 Miles Morningside between Central Harlem and East Harlem
North as the potential site in Phase 1.
Uptown Potential Sites Parks
Density From High to Low High (~35 count per Census Tract)
Legend Omitted Tracts (Uptown) Uptown Potential Sites Parks
Density From High to Low High (~35 count per Census Tract)
The first sigma ranges between $76218.94 to $153262.10. The average median household income is $114740.52 and the Standard Deviation
(!
221176 126507
120037
63545
250,000+ 170250
137794
108036
106264 95208
73546
95402
73546
112525
123019 175475 132500 71113 108672 116250
71618 95052
179722 162192 138258
97412 110583
95052
99897
71618
112525 71113
116250
116250
90711 97083
88287
30417
(!
117398
108173
108539
108036
171681 117457 89375 151684 107795 81963 131484 71618 145083 90805
123834
(!
111431 63545
57477
96528
116111 103250
94297 67742
126901
household income and the lower CV also help explains the drastically
(!
118250
109953
120037 137794
221176 126507 250,000+ 170250
106264 95208
99897
162192 138258
71618 95052
73546
95402
73546
112525
123019 175475 132500 71113 108672 116250
71618
97412 110583
95052
179722
Geographically, the location of eliminated tracts beyond the boundaries
118250
109953
Potential Site Selection Phase I - Midtown
of the higer mean median household income. Higher first sigma median
found in midtown.
(!
108539 111431
123019 116250 112525 175475 132500 71113 108672 71113 116250
88897
ceed $70,000, a lower CV presents the a less assorted range of income is
171681 117457 89375 151684 107795 81963 131484 71618 145083 90805
123834
132500 71113 73546 162192 108672 95402 71113 73546 138258 116250 112525
higer standard deviation in comparison to Uptown (Harlem) because
class of midtown median household income first sigma has already ex-
103250
(! (! (!
is $38521.59. The Coefficient of Variation is 0.34 (34%). The number
lower number of eliminated site. Compare to uptownâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s data, the lower
108173 96528
116111
(!(!
179722
of eliminated tracts does not increase corresponding to the relatively
(!
117398
67742 171681 96528 117457 57477 89375 151684 123834 117398 108173 107795 81963 71618 131484 118250 71618 108539 171681 90805 145083 96528 116111 117457 111431 109953 221176 106264 89375 103250 97412 151684 123834 126507 95208 81963 110583 120037 107795 63545 71618 131484 118250 71618 71618 108539 250,000+ 145083 9080595052 137794 111431 170250 99897 108036 95052 109953 221176 106264 179722 97412 73546 126507 110583 95402 95208 120037 162192 63545 73546 138258 71618 112525 95052 250,000+ 137794 123019 99897 112525 95052 170250 108036 175475 116111 126901
103250
112525 71113
116250
Legend
Potential Omitted Site Selection Phase I - Uptown Tracts (Midtown) Legend
Midtown Potential Sites Omitted Parks Tracts (Midtown) Midtown Potential Sites -
16818
39167
of their NTA and packed with other eliminated tracts located within up-
34336
56053
32326
24054
26830 50125 71417
town and downtown. 3 tracts are being eliminated in Upper West Side
51362
35967
32069
25409
Density From High to Low 112250
34475 33139
37317
Parks High (~35 count per Census Tract) 72212
64931
84500
91504
66837
33710
44810
60439
18931
76026
51217
16971
Density From High to Low 33885
43454
57275
25380 20963 23446 44766
16417
16051
16417
29648
High (~35 count per Census Tract)
and Lincoln Square.
16417
23916 35197
26600
24577
27079
27079
34528
35706 91048 96250
34267
25710
44643 25710
(! Low (<2 count per Census Tract) 0
0.5 1 2 Miles Low (<2 count per Census Tract)
Legend 0
0.5 1 2 Miles Omitted Tracts (Midtown) Midtown Potential Sites Parks
Density From High to Low High (~35 count per Census Tract)
Legend
Omitted Tracts (Uptown) Uptown Potential Sites Parks
Density From High to Lo
87222 72402
167596 123435 11981 99444 150125 97303 64962 104198 123435 41250 90188 124605 98438 148060 118875 139615 61786 160729 107448 112903 131250 125243 90879 148060 132462 86156 123435 11981 99057 72402 99444 142167 46023 104198 92581 123435 109276 41250 124605 92446 148060 88333 118875 144444 90819 112903 119475 143000 140242 131250 90879 148060 132462 125243 102117 107241 85678 99057 142167 46023 122661 93028 109276 92581 108154 54975 120547 143000 88333 144444 90819 101411 77254 119475 140242 104647 143000 93750 122798 102117 107241 85678 174286 90798 93028 122661 92760 108154 54975 120547 143000 103824 101411 77254 104549 104647 93750 122798 93750 92173 174286 90798 92760 103824 103824 104549
106423
(!
(!
The first sigma ranges between $73229.40 to $134600.23. The average median household income is $103914.80 and the Standard
131250
90879
132462
(!
90819
123435
112903
92581
148060 -
93028 122661 108154 120547 101411 77254 104647 93750 122798
54975
(!
(!
174286 92760
-
143000
90798 103824
104549
92173
(! Potential Site Selection Phase I - Downtown
93750 103824
93750
92173
123435
148060
119475 143000
(!
(!
107241
85678
(!
118875
88333 140242 102117
144444
107448
104198
125243 99057 109276
142167
46023
160729 86156
99444 41250
124605
92446
(!
(!
11981
72402
(!
(!
139615
61786
92446 106423
103824
Deviation is $30685.42. The Coefficient of Variation is 0.30 (30%).
56026 80896
Downtown carries the similar characteristics in all attributes in
106423
124605
neighborhood tabulation area, less significant in Turtle Bay - East
131250
90879
(!
85678 54975
144444 107241
118875
125243 99057 109276
142167
46023 90819
of homeless population is seemingly condensed in almost every
11981
72402
132462
139615
61786
92446
167596 150125 90188 98438 160729 107448 86156 123435 99444 104198 123435 41250
97303
64962
Midtown data set. A larger pool of data entries also result in a slight rate of increase in tracts elimination. However, the density
112685
77619
87222
88333 140242 102117
(!
(!
148060 -
119475 143000
(!
174286 92760
-
143000
90798
104549
Midtown.
92581
93028 122661 120547 101411 77254 104647 93750 122798 108154
148060
112903
103824 92173
93750 103824
Legend
Potential Site Selection Phase I - Uptown Omitted Tracts (Downtown)
Lege
Legend
Downtown Potential Sites Omitted Tracts (Downtown) Parks Downtown Potential Sites -
16818
39167
34336
56053
32326
24054
51362
35967
32069
25409
Density From High to Low 112250
26830 50125 71417
34475 33139
37317
Densi
Parks High (~35 count per Census Tract) 64931
91504
72212
84500
66837
33710
44810
18931
76026
51217
60439
16971
Density From High to Low 33885
57275
43454
20963
25380 23446
44766
16417
16051
16417
29648
High (~35 count per Census Tract) 16417
23916 35197
26600
24577
27079
27079
34528
35706 91048 96250
34267
25710
44643 25710
(! Low (<2 count per Census Tract) 0
0.5
1
2 Miles 0
Low (<2 count per Census Tract)
Legend 0 0.5
1
2 Miles
Omitted Tracts (Downtown) Downtown Potential Sites Parks
Density From High to Low High (~35 count per Census Tract)
Legend Omitted Tracts (Uptown) Uptown Potential Sites Parks
86563 81389
160642
(! (!
156500 66623 139000 111058 84713 119853 86563 81389 61404 32129 156500 114643 66623 64789 98047 119853 62667 61404 54938 32129 25833 89762 68483 114643 53047 64789 52773 7720598047 40433 62667 54938 83309 102115 25833 67700 25833 13475068483 17506 53047 52773 77205 40433 41458 38981 45500 202153 83309 102115 67700 25833 134750 35455 17506 17506 18270 41458 35021 38981 45500 202153 46750 176406 160811 87426 35455 18270 215745 17506 35774 84130 18270 35021 46750 176406 160811 50893 87426 26355 19333 18270 215745 24965 19643 35774 84130 84130 120861 160642 89762
(! (!
(! (!
(! (!
150489
64335 113646
120861
(! (!
64335 122648 113646
150489 -
165313 122648
(! (!(! (!
(! (!
15652 50893
15652
98047
(!
134750 41458
202153 176406
(!
53047
40433
38981
45500
24965
87426
(!
98047
68483
77205
102115
202153
215745
134750 41458
(!
19333
64335 113646
(!
median household income is $85208.31 and the Standard Deviation
(!
of income inequality in lower manhattan. The Coefficient of Varia(! (!
66623 61404
(!
64789 53047
40433
67700
38981
(!
24965
87426
25833
set. Fairly 50% of the tracts are eliminated. Geographically, West
25833
17506 18270
17506
46750
19643 19333
84130
18270
Village, Soho - Tribeca and Battery Park City has concentrated the
26355
15652
(!
tion: 0.57 (57%) is as well demonstrating the diversity in this data
32129
54938
52773 83309
45500 35021
84130
wealth of Lower Manhattan; the number of potential site associates
19333
122648 165313
The first sigma ranges between $36353.28 to 234063.34. The average
122648
139000 84713
(!
62667
50893
-
18270
84130
is 48855.03. The highest Standard Deviation presented the severity
35455
160811 35774
120861 150489
84130 26355
(!
156500
119853 114643
89762
176406
46750
101685
111058
86563 81389
160642
17506
100125 127017 109321 104857
100208
25833
17506
113646
122648
128571
25833
18270
19643 19333
(!
165313
19333
(!
32129
54938
52773 83309
67700
122648 -
64789
15652
64335 113646
150489
19333
113646
(!
35021
(!
120861
84130
(! (!
66623 61404
62667
50893
122648 113646
165313
(!
35455
160811 35774
215745
Potential Site Selection(! Phase I - Lower Manhattan (! -
68483
77205
102115
26355
19643 19333
24965
119853 114643
89762
113646 122648
(!(! (! (! (! (!
with the equally distributed homeless population density, we are Legend
Legend Potential Site Selection Phase I -(! Uptown (! Legend Omitted Tracts (Lower Manhattan)
Omitted Tracts (Lower Manhattan)
foreseeing a great development opportunity in Lower Manhattan. Lower Manhattan Potential Sites
Omitted Tracts (Lower Manhattan) Lower Manhattan Potential Sites -
16818
39167
34336
56053
32326
Parks
51362
35967
Lower Manhattan Potential Sites Parks 24054
112250
32069
25409
26830 50125 71417
Parks Density From
34475 33139
37317
Density From High to Low
High to Low Density From Highper to Census Low Tract) High (~35 count 64931
91504
72212
84500
33710
44810
60439
33885
66837
18931
76026
51217
16971
57275
43454
20963
25380 23446
High (~35 count per Census Tract)
16417
16051
16417
High (~35 count per Census Tract) 44766
16417
23916 35197
26600
29648
24577
27079
27079
34528
35706 91048 96250
34267
25710
44643 25710
(! Low (<2 count per Census Tract)
Low (<2 count per Census Tract)
(!
(! (! (! (! (!
Low (<2 count per Census Tract) 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Legend 0
0.5 1 2 Miles (! Omitted Tracts (Lower Manhattan)
0
(!
Lower Manhattan Potential Sites Parks
Density From High to Low High (~35 count per Census Tract)
Legend Omitted Tracts (Uptown) Uptown Potential Sites Parks
Density From High to Low
0.5
1
2 Miles
Phase 2 will continue identifying the focusing areas to initiate capsule installation in New York City. Regarding
Potential Sites Selection Phase 2 - City Council Districts
to the current status of Familu Homeless Shelter system, Institute for Children Poverty and Homelessness has constructed a report on Family Shelter Performances; which divided Manhattan Borough by City Council District. The Perforrmances are presented as ranks within the 10 districts of Manhattan Borough, attribute to the following components: • • • • •
0
0.75
Legend Parks District 1 District 3 District 4 District 6 District 8 District 9
1.5
3 Miles
% of people lice below federal poverty level % of Households spending over 50% income on rent % of unemployed residents Number of shelters and serving family Education Attainment
District 7
District 9
District 6
District 4
Legend
District 3
District 1 Park Selections District 3 Park Selections District 4 Park Selections District 6 Park Selections District 7 Park Selections District 9 Park Selections
District 1
District 1
City Council District 1
Data
% of People Live below Federal Poverty Level
19%
% of Households Spend over 50% Income on Rent
27%
% of unemployed Residents Number of shelters Serving Homeless Families
7% 2 108
The percentages of poverty, household spending over 50% on rent and unemployment are not statistically significant. As well as the spread of education attainment and density of existing shelter providers are statistically unsignificant. Which endorses City Council District 1 as one of the best location to initiate Capsule installation. Under such controlled environment, the 2 years of residency will allow our team to observe the differences in environmental impact to family development. Especially the impact on children academic performances.
District 3 Like District 1, the percentages of poverty, household spending over 50% on rent and unemployment are not statistically significant. However, the density
Disrict 3
Disrict 4
Disrict 6
% of People Live below Federal Poverty Level
11%
8%
9%
% of Households Spend over 50% Income on Rent
20%
22%
20%
family shelter provision in City Council District 3.
% of unemployed Residents
8%
5%
6%
Unlike District 1, the composition within demographics has apparent differ-
Number of shelters
2
0
2
235
0
254
of shelters are significantly higher, 2 shelters for 235 families, surges to increase
ences on education attainment. Over 70% of accounted population has ac-
City Council District
Serving Homeless Families
quired bachelor degree or higher attainment. In contrary, City Council District 4â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance is at the last place out of 10 districts in Manhattan Borough. District 4 has no shelter to serve homeless families. Yet, accounted Neighborhood Tabulation: Midtown South, East Midtown, Mrray Hill-Kips-Cooper Village, Upper East Side and Lexon Hill carry almost 80% of population with education attainment of bachelor level or above. City Council Distrct 6 has 2 shelters for 254 families, ranked as 5th within 10 districts within Manhattan Borough. Similarto City Council District 4, Lincoln Square and Upper West Side also populated with almost 80% of residents possessing Bachelor degree or higher attainment. The 3 districts are slightly differ from the poverty rate or having drastic differences between family homeless shelter provision. However, the accounted population education attainments are significantly higher than the other City
District 4
Council Districts. Which endorse our hypothesis on environmental impact towards personal, career, educational and family development. Backed by researches previously done by sociologists, psychologists; we anticipate the environmental impact on childhood and career development to our potential tenants.
District 6
District 7 & 9
City Council District
District 7
District 9
% of People Live below Federal Poverty Level
27%
28%
% of Households Spend over 50% Income on Rent
30%
25%
% of unemployed Residents
10%
13%
7
15
587
739
Number of shelters Serving Homeless Families
Apparently, the given information are significantly different from the previously discussed districts. High poverty rate, over 25% of families are spending over 50% income on rent; family homeless shelter performances are solely fostering by the demand of the community, reflected by the SEP. The highest poverty rate and unemployment rates are held by District 7 and 9 respectively. Therefore, Capsule is amuse to establish our progressive solution to not only family homelessness. Which also seed the root to micro community development for the area in larger context. We look forward to create employments from encouraging small businesses development opportunities and social programmes that ultimately contributes to the improvement of SEP of surrounding area within District 7, 8 and 9.
Impacts and Cost • Impact to Childhood and CareerDevelopment • Sustainability • Social Impact • Cost Analysis
Sustainability & Social Impact The current location that homeless families or very low-income families reside carry natural disadvantages that constrain opportunities. Eliminate social experiences, which also diminish the sense of security, hence the sense of place and self-esteem. Such barriers for cognitive development will disturb the evolve of career awareness,
??
interest, adaptability and vocational behavior. Primary care givers get distanced from since the shift of reliance. Therefore, the capsule can foster neighborhood as resources. Open installation of tiny houses allow transparency to safety monitors, benefits increase exposure to social interaction, activities and encountering key individuals that will create alternative influences. Sustainable family development is one of our primary goals, Capsule intends to provide and assists our families to live in a stable environment, not only during the time with us. Within their residency, individuals and family development programs will exert to endorse the establishment of better-defined family values. From delineating their specific goals, Capsule is pledged to devote ourselves to achieve the goals together. From creating a more desirable environment to enhance family development, from parental influences to creating opportunities for alternative social interaction, and ultimately endorsing individual achievements, career exploration to sustainable family development at a progressively growing social mobility. Capsule is eager to provide and accompany the parents and their precious ones throughout the journey.
Economic Efficiency
Cost to house homeless families / 72 units
Capsule economic efficiency can easily be proven; the cost of operation has a radical difference compare to traditional shelter and
At Boutique Hotel
At Capsule Tiny House
uprising temporary solution at boutique hotel occupancies. As reported by New York Post, our city is paying $165 per room per night OR $3900 per month to house the homeless at hotels. The journal also projected an assumption, Mave hotel, the reported site sitting on Madison Avenue, if city contracted all 72 units for a year, it would cost $4.3 million annually. Regardless of the possibility to complete 72 Capsule units installations, the cost to construct these brand new and humane living dwellings with appropriate appliances and spaces for a family is just ~45% ($1.8 million) of the annual cost to house these families inside a hotel room. The operative transparency and mobility of these tiny houses also benefit the durability of these tiny dwellings from speculation and status report. Therefore, maintenance or refurbishment are the only costs to sustain these units as a functional remedy to family homelessness.
+ *
A Clustered Living Environment Insufficient Connection to Society Incomplete Household Set-up
1 Year
= $4.3
million
+ *
Open & Welcoming Environment Sense of Place High Transparency Service
2 Years
= $1.9
million
72 UNITS 72 FAMILIES OVER 250 TENANTS HOUSING OVER 150 CHILDREN
Infiltrating Capsuleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s families into the proposing locations contribute to creating
Micro Community Development
a mixed-income community. Revert displacement of the poorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s caused by gentrification, which also constructs a foundation to smart growth. Consisted of programs associated with small businesses development, we are looking forward to intensifying community engagement between different stakeholders. Creating accessible community events, stimulate interactions between community members, we believe such events will allow increases of opportunities. Consistently, we foresee communities will be able to develop their very unique identity. The tiny house is a growing trend and vital element to minimalism living style. Smaller space granted the advantages of energy efficiency in common family appliances usages, thus the limitation of space would hinder the overall purchasing power of modern household. The project focuses the necessities provisions, the dynamic uses of space and resources will encourage future innovations and technology that favor microenvironment development.
If we weigh in the economic efficiency, land acquisition or real estate investment forces traditional shelter provider or subsidy housing to maximize provision. However the more units available, the greater impact it brings to these located communities. The changes of demographic rarely associate with community rehabilitation program at the same pace. We need a change, we need to carefully analyze an alternative method that progressively improve the preliminary effort that lead the families to develop self-sufficiency. Homeless housing program should equip with follow-up programs, which might eventually retard or even revert the homeless population growth through out the past decades. The scarcity of developable space in New York City and many metropolitans pushes the demand of this experimental housing. Capsule Tiny House can provide a humane living environment just as regular dwellings. Thus, small scale and scattered installation provide diversity in every court district and neighborhood tabulation areas; we believe our addition to the city will simultaneously provide another hope for small businesses to sustain. Capsule humbly invite you to join this movement, we need a change in our perspective to housing and use of space. We need to adapt with the evolve of the cityscape while cherishing the legacies and history that founded the city. Progressively develop a new norm to live big in a smaller space is the 21st century approach to a sustainable solution that cope with the actual demand and supply of space. Everybody wants a bite of the big apple. Lets share a vision that create and multiply opportunities for every stakeholders within our community.
Cr: By Sapunkele Via Shutterstock