Katrina Cottage more than temporary housing
May 6, 2007 at 1:13 pm 2 comments
Not exactly a new story but one I recently caught up on that involved two interesting topics: Katrina rebuilding and New Urbanism. At first reading I got caught up in what sometimes seems like New Urbanist efforts to simply retain outward visual appearance of neighborhoods and buildings but this effort clearly runs deeper than that. FEMA planned on spending $70,000 apiece to construct, transport, set up, maintain, and de-commission only 18 months later the trailer seen above on the left. After 18 months, the displaced resident gets nothing and FEMA takes back the trailers, likely only to de-commission them (never get used again). The Katrina Cottage project and its outgrowths sought to create a temporary residence that was more livable inside and out, was less costly, and had the potential to become semi-permanent with plans to incorporate them into a neighborhood setting and for the structure to be expandable, up to three times the original size. Why make a only temporary solution that sucks to live in for more money and materials cost?
Story from the Washington Post
Entry filed under: Community, Design, Disasters, Katrina, Sustainability, Uncategorized. Tags: .
1.
bob | May 27, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I understand the stafford act and its limitations as to providing permanant housing for disaster victims. I don’t understand why we are spending $70k on temporary housing when permanant housing is being built by volunteer labor for $30k turn key. These houses range in size from 1bd/1bath to 3bd/2bath 900sq ft to 1600 sq ft and yes they are $30k turn key!!! We have built 43 so far for the community that we are serving.
Also another thing that is burning me up is: why was funding for gulf coast recovery placed as a rider on the funding for the war in Iraq?? Its time for citizens to take back our gov’t!!! They are voted in by us, supposedly to represent our best interests, yet the lobbying corporations have the ear, checkbook and undivided interests of our political leaders.
2.
jorge | December 12, 2012 at 3:05 pm
The very thing that makes a Katrina cottage so appealing is also it biggest disadvantage: It is attractive and architecturally “complete”, but in miniature form, Because it is miniature form, however, it is not acceptable in most existing communities of larger homes. The fact that it is architecturally complete also makes it very difficult to expand and become something that is larger and that would be more acceptable within an existing community. It would be better to start of with a simple box designed specifically to be expanded and made permanent. It would be less expensive to build initially and would leverage the other non-FEMA resources to convert the temporary housing unit into a long term permanent home. Here is an example of the concept: http://www.association.net/DisasterHousing/AL/exmod.htm