Mississippi Cottages Are Too Nice
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 04.13.08
Lori Waselchuk for The New York Times
Object lesson on why this never ends: FEMA gets it right, and is testing the "Mississippi Cottages" offered by Mississippi Emergency Management Agency (MEMA), which the New York Times describes as having "tin roofs, small porches and are colored like Easter eggs — rose-hip pink, malted mint, cloudless blue. The cottages are on wheels, but the larger models can be put on permanent foundations. All are equipped with appliances, beds, a table and chairs, ceiling fans, even pots and pans, and cost an average of $32,000 apiece to build." People love them.
But guess what? Local municipalities are resisting them." They fear people who get cottages will simply live in them and not rebuild their houses, said Mike Womack, executive director of the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency.
“They’re too nice,” he said. “I’ve heard this over and over again.” ::New York Times
UPDATE: Information on the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program which provides the cottages.
Hmm. I don't like the tin roof, but the rest doesn't sound so bad. I like the Carribbean-esque coloring. I wonder how far they have to be shipped, and what those fuel costs are like. I'd be interested to try staying in one just to see what it's like.
"Too nice" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
I will take one of these cottages if they are not wanted.......
too nice? fine! let them keep it and what is so wrong with that? (if they can be made into permanent structures isnt that better... than paying extra for a house?)......... Guess its all about someon e getting stuck with a bill or not getting enough money somewhere but imagine a city of these things! 50,000 of these filling a space maybe 1/3 the size of a normal similarly sized community....... *sigh*
Can someone please explain the "they're too nice" comment? What is the reason(s) local officials fear people will live in these rather than rebuilding? How is that a problem?
I do understand their fears but there are better ways to ensure that the houses will not be use as permanent housing than by keeping them away from people. Logic people...If you are in business or politics you know how to make two things work if nothing else : money and public opinion. Why should people have to suffer just because there is a chance that they may like living in a place that resembles a home more than a vehicle.
'Local municipalities are resisting them.'
Mike Womack should name them so that the good people of Mississippi know who's not looking to get re-elected.
Missing from the story in the times, and apparently unavailable as a google search, is where in the heck are these cottages manufactured? Who makes them? And, can the public buy them to place on their own property?
LA: I tried to find our who designed them (they look a bit like marianne Cusato's design) but could not find out who was making them or who designed them at the time of the posting. Perhaps someone reading this will let us know....
Missing from the story in the times, and apparently unavailable as a google search, is where in the heck are these cottages manufactured? Who makes them? And, can the public buy them to place on their own property?
I wanted to see what the inside looks like so I found this link: http://www.mississippirenewal.com/info/dayJan-11-06.html
but it answers all of your questions Ralph.
Personally, I think it's ridiculous that they are worried people actually living in them. Why would you want people to build a 2,000 sf home that uses way more resources than they need if they are happy in a 300 sf home? At least these are cuter than the trailers.
FYI
It's not a "tin roof" it's a standing seam metal roof. They are not cheap and have a great life span.
According to this article in the St. Petersburg Times, they were designed by Marianne Cusato.
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/28/Homes/The_house_that_Katrin.shtml
Well, my question is...SO WHAT if they are nice?? And so what if they don't want to move?? These people have struggled so much...what's $32K in assistance for a family when we are continually throwing and have thrown billions of dollars at this problem and it hasn't yet resolved. Get a life people!!
http://www.mscottage.org/cottage/
The cottages contractors in answer to the question above. Just search MEMA and cottages
Alexa, I will try to explain the thinking behind why "too nice" is bad.
To some people, such as many in the Republican party in the US, the government (and their tax dollars), should not be used to provide handouts to others. So they don't want these cottages to be given away for free and have the people living in a home paid for with their tax dollars.
I suspect that many of the readers of this website consider the government as a potential agent for community assistance and providing a home for someone displaced as (1) a sign of compassion for someone who lost their home (and I hope that should I be so unlucky as to lose my home that someone would have compassion), and (2) see the cost of the assistance being offset somewhat by the faster return to productivity that having a house would provide the person and their family, thereby helping the recipient remain a productive member of society.
Why might 'local governments' be unhappy if people choose to stick with the cottages? Perhaps they are worried about losing tax revenue: less property tax and less use of taxable goods and services that comes with the smaller space. Bigger houses (and construction) create a cascade of commercial exchanges, and thus tax revenue/economic expansion. But even if 'they' are more interested in economic stimulation rather than filling local coffers, it still seems a little arrogant to decide that people need to have bigger houses- why shouldn't someone be happy in a smaller house?
If they stay in the house permanatley, they should begin to charge them rent, say after a year or two. Hey, if it became their permanant residence, this would just become pre-fab housing, wouldn't it?
ok - so I may be wrong but the point of temporary housing is to give someone free(ish) shelter while they pay to have their own home rebuilt....
Where's the harm in having "purchase this cottage" as an option? Then people can own their home. No waiting. And it's cute.
Clearly that's probably over-simplified, but if you start there and work out the details then it should all come together: people get cute homes, temporary or otherwise, and no one's getting a "Free lunch," so to speak.
Interesting that they put a metal roof on something that is supposed to be temporary. Metal roofs can last a life time.
What are their plans for them after said owners build a bigger energy consuming home, I wonder?
Floorplans for similar houses from Lowes:
http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=pg&p=2006_landing/Katrina_Cottage/KatrinaCottage.html
I am in love with them, but I agree with the commenter above: if they think people will stay in them (see: San Fancisco 1906 earthquake refugee shacks), sell the houses to the homeowners or rent them.
Hey, I want one! They ARE really nice, and I think they'd be perfect for full-time living. What's wrong with that? They are super cute and can be put on a permanent foundation. How could that possibly be a downside for a city?
My organization worked with the state of Mississippi to design these units. From my point of view, I think the biggest things of note are that they are built to exceed energy star standards, designed to both the HUD-code (regulating manufactured housing) and the 2003 IRC (so they can be permanently set on a foundation/they are built to the same standards as a site-built home), and can withstand up to 150 mph winds. More importantly, however, is the way they were designed, bid, prototyped, and constructed. Following Katrina, FEMA put out a 25 line specification as to what they would like to buy (http://www.manufacturedhousing.org/admin/template/brochures/482temp.pdf), letting vendors unload formaldehyde laden housing units left and right. This approach of integrating the quality assurance and quality control into the specification resulted in significantly higher quality homes at little/no extra cost, and should be taken as a prototype for FEMA's future housing procurement.
This only scratches the surface of the project (and doesn't even begin to touch the difficulties encountered with permanently placing them....the "too nice" comments), but a little more information about all of this can be found here:
http://www.fas.org/programs/energy/btech/about/MEMA%20AHPP%20Article.pdf
http://www.fas.org/programs/energy/btech/about/Surviving%20the%20FEMA%20Aftermath.pdf
I say let them stay in them, but only if they are the ones with the wheels (aka: trailers). This way, the next time a hurricane is coming, they can haul them out of the way of the storm. It might sound stupid, but it might save a lot of destruction.
If people want to stay in them permanently - why woud that be a 'handout'. Just work out a low-cost/free mortgage for the $32,000 cost and sell them to those who want to keep the houses. If the mortage is a 10 year one they'll pay around $3,200 a year - which is certainly doable for most, if not all of the familes. (This would not include the cost of a mortage for the land that they own - if they own the land they're putting it on). For those that don't wish to keep the houses, the government could use them as low-cost public houseing in the area. Seems win-win to me.
To try to explain the "too nice" persective:
It is the very permanance of these cottages that local municipalities are resisting. I personally don't agree with the logic, but local zoning boards do not want these cottages to stay permanently since they feel that would alter the aesthetic nature of their communities. Apparently, they are willing to let people live in low quality, unhealthy structures (FEMA trailers) since no one in ther right mind would keep one long term - but are unwilling to allow the cuter, safer, greener, and more permanent cottages that would likely be there in in twenty years, since it doesn't look (architecturally) like whatever was there before. Apparently, they are holding out for rebuilds of the structures that got swept away in the first place.
In my view - shameful public policy.
I think the municipalities are trying to keep neighborhoods from turning into trailer parks. Even though these structures are called "cottages", they are really dolled-up trailers with porches and hip roofs. In the photos you can see the trailer tounge sticking out from under the porch.
Some have said that people shouldn't be forced to build a 2000 sqft house if they want to live in something smaller. Who is forcing them to build a 2000 sqft house? If they want a smaller house, I don't know of any reason they couldn't build a smaller house.
I want one! Why, I'd even pay $50k for one. I would love to have a nice small cottage/bungalow that doesn't cost a fortune, and they are very cute!
The designs are loosely based on a winning idea from the Lifecycle Building Challenge:
www.lifecyclebuilding.org
Here is the entry:
http://www.lifecyclebuilding.org/2007/winner-greenmobile.php
the cottages are too nice, but not nice enough to make into permanent housing. sounds a bit ridiculous to me. who is it that decides the houses or the neighborhoods are too nice or not nice enough? i am disgusted. give these people housing and do it now! haven't they suffered enough?
personally, i think people should be able to live in something nice after such devastation, and i think that they should be able to choose whether or not to live in them....why can't they just pay it off? besides, if they're really that affordable, maybe it's a good thing for all types of people. i would live in one.
Yep you just cant let the lower classes or the disaster victims have it nice thats just not American! They should be homelss or living in formaldahyde FEMA trailers....
Does the word "GRANT" mean "grant", or is this a flim flam used car salesman trick? These nice little houses were built with GRANT money. Does all the grant money given to organizations have to be returned? It's the taxes ,stupid! How are you going to tax a "grant".."gift" When it becomes a permanent fixture,on let's say $32,ooo, there need be an appraisal. Possibly the house will not appraise at the stated cost of construction either. 400- 700 square foot structure on wheels and tons of tie downs resting on uncemented cement blocks. Taxing these little homes will amount to lower taxesand this makes people nervous. Since when can't a person live in a house as small as they see fit..or fit in..It's a case of squeezing out undesireable lower class property. Hey, don't mention that all the $280 million was supposed to be to help real people who were without real places to call home. Pitiful,and shameful bureaucracy!!
First, if you google "Tiny Houses" you will find a number of cottages for purchase or plans to build your own. I would be interested to know how many people who say "I would live in one" actually will.
Second, I am in a long slow planning period for a community of tiny cottages (under 1000 square feet). I'd be glad to correspond with people doing or interested in something similar, or with references to share. So far the ones I like best are at www.tumbleweedhouses.com/houses/
Some are on wheels. (I like the idea above of keeping the wheels so you can haul them out of the way of danger.)
People who have been traumatized by storms, forced evacuation and separations need most of all to feel safe. The more familiar people, settings and surroundings they have around them, the safer they'll feel. People who are used to living in houses will find apartment, or worse public shelter, living foreign. The sooner they can be back in as familiar a dwelling as possible, the better. But the biggest and one of the more traumatizing decisions FEMA made was to separate not only family members, but even neighborhoods. With clusters of tiny cottages, it would be easier to keep together the extended family that people may be accustomed to relying on in times of need, and the easier it will be for them to help look after each other.