Choosing first in line for a home

Find those with the greatest need for housing, then use cost-effective solutions so people have their own castle,

ASSUMING that Government funds available for new housing are limited, in what order should those funds be applied and how should they be expended?

I suggest that those with the highest claim should be the people whose needs are the greatest — the people on the margins. Who are those people? They are the “rough sleepers”. Those who, for example, sleep under whatever shelter (or none) that they can find; in the open, on park benches, under bushes, in laneways, in the Hobart Rivulet tunnels, on the Domain.

Next are the homeless in their various forms: “couch surfers”, some of whom are school students; those having temporary accommodation in homeless shelters; women fleeing domestic violence; prisoners who qualify for release if they had accommodation to go to.

It is these people whose needs should be the first to be met, and such funds expended as necessary to provide that accommodation for all the homeless, some of whom are identified above.

How can it be ensured that the maximum number of housing units can be built with that expenditure?

Whenever I hear a Government announcement for new housing I divide the sum specified by the number of housing units to be built. Usually the cost is $400,000 per unit.

That is building middle class housing for the few — rather than more modest housing for those most in need. How can that be done? The best element of the Radburn design at Rokeby provides the answer. The unit cost for such accommodation

would be about $100,000 — four for the price of one. That design is as follows ...

Twenty or so semi-detached units are erected around the perimeter of an elliptical-shaped area which surrounds a large grassed area.

Each residence opens out on to the grassed area and has a small front garden. Access to residences from the street is at the rear. Each unit is approximately 25 square metres and is completely self-contained.

They accommodate one person or perhaps a single mother and infant. It is basic safe accommodation, but it beats being homeless by a “country mile”. Such accommodation is usually within the financial means of persons receiving welfare income.

I know that it is within their financial means from many years’ personal experience providing assistance to persons in need in nearby areas. Rarely do those living in the residences I have described require assistance.

A particular virtue of this style of housing is that its layout facilitates the development of social relationships among the residents and simple mutual assistance.

It enables a sense of community to be established, sharing a cup of tea with a neighbour, having the occasional community barbecue. It mitigates loneliness and isolation.

People previously homeless, so housed, will have other needs as they transition from their former circumstances to having a place of their own.

The point was made humorously in that great Aussie film The Castle that there is a difference between a “house” and a “home”.

As these people have those needs met and they integrate with other residents and learn new life skills, this will help their house become a home, and help them find their way back into the community.

It should happen that some residents, particularly the younger ones, will in due course with help find their own way back into the community, and be able to provide for themselves from their own resources.

The housing proposed will be, for them, a hand up not a handout. It will also add to the stock of available housing and address the basic issue of demand exceeding supply.

The Empire State Building in New York was for many years the tallest building in the world. If it could be completed from start to finish in 410 days, housing of the kind described should be able to be completed within 180 days.

Usually the cost given is $400,000 per unit. That is building middle-class housing for the few — rather than more modest housing

Robert McManus has been a member of voluntary community organisations for nearly 50 years. At St Vincent de Paul Society he was president of Bethlehem House Supporting Homeless Men committee for seven years. He is president of the Abbeyfield Society Hull Street Inc. which provides accommodation for 10 elderly people. The views he has expressed are his own. He does not speak on behalf of any groups mentioned. In 2017 he was awarded an Order of Australia.