Building Tiny Homes Is a Giant Task in a Destroyed San Francisco

English

Building tiny houses in San Francisco is very expensive. And getting a direct answer from the city authorities, why they are so expensive, is not easy.

Last week, a proposal to place 70 to 80 tiny homes in a closed Walgreens parking lot in Mission came under the San Francisco Chronicle’s microscope as the project met with fierce opposition from neighbors.

In many ways, this is to be expected: NIMBY is a dedicated group, and the people of Capp Street are already tackling prostitution issues.

But it’s the tab — the project’s cost is estimated at $7.4 million, or nearly $100,000 per unit — that has led many to question whether the city can be taken seriously in addressing two of its most pressing crises: homelessness and housing.

The standard has filed public requests for a detailed cost breakdown of the tiny house project, and the level of detail in the city’s responses has ranged from math on a napkin to non-existent.

The Department of Homeless and Supportive Housing (HSH) presented a three-page PowerPoint presentation, and between the required title page and the last page was “Questions? Thank you” was something reminiscent of the context.

The estimate shows the difference between the two proposed scenarios, the more expensive of which would require the demolition of a $1 million building to expand parking for an additional 10 tiny houses. Meanwhile, the brief items on the list include a note saying the calculations were based on a tiny house community of 70 apartments at 33 Gough St.

Compared to the Gough site, projected costs for the Mission project were 20% higher per unit, according to HSH, as the Public Works Department inflates the project’s labor, design, engineering, and maintenance costs.

Emily Cohen, spokesperson for HSH, said the whopping $7.4 million cost is due to “a very robust program model that includes 24/7 staffing, case management, shelter health, food and safety.”

She noted that the estimated costs are “a high-level estimate and we expect the actual costs to be lower once Public Works puts the work up for auction.”

However, a PowerPoint presentation with the name of HSH Director Shirin McSpadden on the title page says the exact opposite: “We recently received an estimate from Public Works that further increases capital costs and includes several contingencies,” the document says.

Comparing the different narratives across city departments proved impossible.

The Department of Public Works (DPW), which will oversee the actual work of building the tiny houses, declined to provide a detailed breakdown of costs, citing an exception to the state’s public records.

Rachel Gordon, spokesperson for DPW, said the agency’s lawyers determined that disclosing any details could put companies at a competitive disadvantage if they do not read this article before filing. (Note: Thank you for reading the Standard.)

Gordon says DPW doesn’t usually get requests from the media for detailed breakdowns of project costs, so even trying to find a document on estimated costs was a unique exercise for the agency. She added that the Gough Street project received significant donations to offset costs, so these new homes only cost about $50,000 each, nearly half the cost of the Mission Street project.

Elizabeth Funk, executive director of DignityMoves, a non-profit organization that helped oversee the Gough Street project and specializes in providing personal housing at a lower cost, confirmed that the donations have significantly reduced the cost of this project compared to what the city could do on its own. forces.

Gensler donated about $640,000 to the architectural design, while furniture, legal assistance, and the general contractor’s fee were mostly pro bono, according to the detailed budget.

“Gensler won’t work for the city for free, but they will work for a nonprofit,” Funk said.

According to DignityMoves budget documents, the Gof project totaled just over $2.3 million, while the Santa Barbara lot of 35 tiny homes cost $1.85 million thanks to donated appliances, furniture, and project management fees.

“I think this model has a lot of potential for wide replication,” said Funk. “Non-profits can be a lot more flexible.”

If the math is correct on all sides, it seems that San Francisco has essentially trapped itself in a bureaucracy, and all that bureaucracy is just a nod to San Francisco’s inability to make progress on housing and homelessness.

A $1.4 million project of 25 apartments was built in San Jose and low-cost pallet shelters for 71 people were created in Oakland, but not all tiny house projects are “apples to apples,” Funk said. Quality of construction, access to plumbing and electricity, and additional services may vary depending on the tiny house project. DignityMoves houses are designed for 20 years of operation.

Supervisor Hillary Ronen, who represents the Mission and did not respond to a request for comment on the story, complained to The Chronicle that she supported the tiny house project, but the response to housing and the high price got her thinking.

She expressed a sense of resignation that such a small project would not help deal with the city’s staggering homelessness crisis, although one obvious solution to the Mission’s hyperlocal crisis would be to prioritize the homeless residents currently living on the streets themselves. around the project.

Ronen added that she was tired of being the “sacrificial lamb” of the city in the fight for progress.

So, the tyranny of the San Francisco bureaucracy demands another sacrifice.

English