Housing the rock bottom poor

Sandy Grant | Monday May 12, 2014 16:59

In one house, the windows were without glass, the toilet and shower were blocked, and the water supply had been cut off because of non-payment. 

 In addition, the cement floor in one room had cracked as the occupier had made a fire on it during the colder nights.

An anonymous Council official was quoted as saying that they are concerned about the situation because more such houses are due to be built.  He also said that some of these people have abandoned their newfound houses and are now squatting.

In an earlier column I had queried who, if anyone, is supposed to be responsible for the maintenance of these houses once they have been handed over to their new occupants – a question which was not answered but was unintentionally clarified by the same official who explained that the Council’s responsibility ends when the houses are handed over to their recipients. 

It may be that when the President’s Housing Appeal was first launched it was not anticipated that the response would be so overwhelming.  But now it would seem that District Councils, and perhaps other authorities and institutions are locally making their own, possibly independent contributions. 

The result seems to be that an extraordinary number of new houses are due to be built for the destitute poor, up and down the country.

Might they number five or even 10 thousand? Either way, I am again going to suggest that as a matter of urgency, there needs to be a pause to evaluate the experience to date, to identify what has gone right and what changes in the designs may now be  needed. I suggest that, to date, the designs used have been based on the simplistic idea that the two and a half, which is being built by so many people, is also suitable for the destitute recipient.

I do earnestly suggest that there is a need to re-think this assumption. A suitable house for one person may not be suitable for the next. Why would a lower income person want a house with 10 bedrooms?

Go back to the pre-diamond years when the one room rondavel was used at night for sleeping and the lelapa, during the day, for cooking, eating and socialising.

In the last 20 or so years, those who are better off have abandoned that pattern of living, have built themselves suburban style housing, with garages and parking space replacing a lelapa, and live inside their houses rather than, outside them.

When trying to help those who are without adequate housing, a preliminary stage has, to date been skipped. 

Better housing, or certainly a very different kind of housing, even of a modest kind, brings new costs. A water or power connection requires regular payments, which the destitute cannot afford.

So why give them flush toilets which they have never previously seen or used, or electric light when the sun has previously sufficed?  When the sun goes down, the poor sleep, not watch television.

Is it really beyond the wit of the best brains in this country to design a home for the poorest of the poor which is cheap, replicable, with minimal maintenance needs, easy to construct and meeting the real, rather than supposed needs of its occupants. We now have all these innovation hubs.

Shouldn’t this be precisely why they have been established? But then there is also UB – what a lovely challenge.  But to meet it we need to stop thinking top down and match the house to the person and not the person to the house.  

What value does a window in a house have for a blind person or for someone who has only ever lived in a shack? What value does a destitute place on a building with a number of rooms when they had known only the one. And what is the use of all those doors?

Why provide a house which needs regular maintenance? Why provide a table and chairs for an evening meal when their real value for those who had never possessed them is as fuel for cooking. Why provide a kitchen with a stove when the occupant is likely to cook outside?  

If wood or other naturally available materials will be used, include in all plans a sheltered outside area for cooking; and an appropriate outside toilet, a number of designs being readily available. 

But the value of all houses will crash if the keys to the front door are lost. The better off can replace them, the absolute poor cannot. What happens then?