Emergency shelter vs temporary housing

[J & D Goldman]

Some more thoughts on this one:

I'll try to go through and summarize some of the points you all raised
in a later messge.  A few additional things occurred to me after
reviewing the discussion.

1) We probably need to clearly distinguish "emergency shelter" from
"temporary housing".  The news reports that continue to come out of
Pakistan make it very clear, even having some decent tents would help
prevent the horrible illness and death in that situation.

2) Perhaps the concept of a community storm shelter(s) has a place
here. Years ago, an area church was the one well-built structure in
the area where people would go during a bad storm, not just for
spiritual reasons, but for physical protection.  Some trailer parks in
the US are now required to provide tornado shelter for their
residents, although tornados come and go very quickly.
  If the world is going to spend millions and even billions on "aid",
perhaps if the earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. are going to be more
routine now, some thought will be given to more long term solutions.
I don't know if it makes sense to think about earthquake resistant
structures (how would a concrete dome(s) do?) in places like these
remote villages in Pakistan or not, but they might elsewhere.

As far as emergency shelter, I started a mental list of what one
needs, realizing as I went how easy it is to overlook important issues
until its too late.  The pluses and minuses of domes vs. various other
structures can be considered - for both Em. shelter and temporary
housing.

Protection from:
Wind - Anchorage, impact resistance
Rain, hail, snow
Cold
Fire
Heat/Sun
Humidity
Insects, rodents, birds, reptiles, monkeys, other animal issues?
  (I'm told the round shape of domes really frustrates bears in
Alaska. Even when left unoccupied for long periods of time, domes seem
immune to their attack.  The bears go around so many times looking for
an entrance they wear a path in the ground and eventually give up and
leave.)
Noise, sound?
Flood?
Toxic gases, odor?

Livability
Cleanliness, sanitation issues?
Sectionability for quarantine/illnesses

Logistics
Ease of assembly, relocation
Deliverability, storeability -fold/knock down
Reuseable, disposal, conversion of materials from Emergency use to
Temporary Housing.

Comments on additions, deletions and changes to the list welcome.

-Dan G.


-----Original Message-----
From: J & D Goldman <jmgoldma at dwx.com>
To: domesteading <domesteading at sculptors.com>
Date: Sunday, October 16, 2005 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Emergency housing


>>From Dick Fishbeck:
>>I guess we should confine our emergency shelter discussion to
>emergency shelter.
>
>Obviously there are some rather healthy disagreements about the
>Katrina aftermath - who to blame, who deserves public assistance, who
>doesn't, etc.   Perhaps we can direct the energy.
>
>Here is the GOOD news.  I have a note from a dome list reader that at
>least one major insurance company is finally asking THE question:
>  What can be build that will still be there after the next one?
>
>I've been waiting to hear that for a long time.  I've long thought
>that even if your home is entirely replaced by your insurance
company,
>and no one was hurt, you still lose a lot of irreplaceable items and
>go through a lot of aggravation when everything you own is scattered
>to the 4 winds and soaked.  Better to have a home structure that has
a
>good chance of survival. If insurance companies start accepting
domes,
>or even encouraging domes, or who knows, even giving better rates for
>domes, wow is all I have to say.  Even if you feel its the right
thing
>for the wrong reason, there might still be a trickle down affect to
>municipal codes so we can get past the classic building inspector
>(e.g. I ain't never gonna sign a permit for THAT...)  and at least
>have the option!
>
>Sal Cerda asks some cogent questions:
>---------------------------------
>The topic of emergency shelter frequently comes up after a natural
>disaster.
>What does not get discussed is what it takes to provide, erect and
use
>emergency housing.  Let's confine the discussion to domes (this IS a
>dome
>list.)
>
>First, some general questions:
>Question 1- Who pays for these domes? Governments?  NGOs? The users?
>Question 2- What kind of foundation will be required?  Emergency
>housing should
>require little or no foundation.
>Question 3- Where will these domes be erected?  Suitable ground must
>be located
>and property rights should be considered.
>
>Emergency shelter implies temporary shelter in all of the above.
>Disposing of a
>temporary shelter or subsequent reuse needs to be considered
>beforehand. Also,
>emergency shelter implies a minimal useful spaces, although it does
>not require
>a minimalist structure.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>When I look at the dollar figures our federal government is spending
>on stopgap measures (cruise ships, trailers, etc.) I have to ask how
>we could BETTER invest those funds - a warehouse full of deployable
>housing, ready to go.  Certainly there are different levels of need.
>Those people in Pakistan are literally dying in the cold rain with
not
>so much as a tree to get under.  Even tents would save lives there.
>They aren't worried about real estate issues and sewer hookups.
>
> But back to Sal's points, and there are more - what are the issues
>and what will it take to get to YES?  Sorry to say humans are crisis
>driven - but therein lies an opportunity.
>
>- Dan G.
>