Introducing a new construction system or method to the
public is a complex and complicated process.
Beyond the engineering, economic and design factors, there are social
and cultural issues which need to be addressed.
Creating beautiful, high-performance, affordable structures may be
doomed to failure if social context is ignored.
The most well intended efforts may fail precisely because of those good
intentions.
Several years ago I was in discussion with members of a well
known non-profit organization which provides houses for people. This organization does wonderful work and is
well known in the US and internationally.
Its work is championed by a former US president. We
were talking about the possibility of them using my masonry system to provide
houses for people who could not otherwise afford decent housing.
The members of this group understood all the benefits of
this innovative masonry system: that it is very high-strength, provides extensive
design flexibility, is environmentally appropriate, fireproof, tornado and
hurricane resistant, very affordable, etc.
Still, they were quick to say
that it would be a mistake for me to use their organization as a means to
introduce this advanced construction method to the public and to the
construction marketplace.
The members of this non-profit organization said that “folks
will think: ‘that’s what poor people live in’”.
If we use your system for housing, it will create a stigma and nobody
will want to live in it, they explained.
It would not matter how great or beautiful or efficient or advanced a building
was, if it was seen as ‘charity housing’ then nobody would covet the design,
quite the opposite; people would associate a design with welfare recipients and
poor people.
Instead, this group urged me to work with top architects,
designers and planners to introduce this system as a high-end architectural
feature. Put a high price tag on it and
people will want it, it will be coveted.
This group that builds houses for
homeless people was telling me that in order to really help poor homeless
people I should introduce this system to exclusive gated communities and their
very wealthy occupants. It was hard to
escape the irony of their truth.
Perception matters.
Since these discussions (several years ago) there has been
an interesting development in housing, the “tiny home” movement. This movement promotes the use and acceptance
of people living in much smaller homes than usual for the US. The tiny home movement is seen as a response
to the increasingly large homes that were being built up until the financial
crisis of 2008, which was created largely by the sub-prime mortgages that
fueled this type of construction, commonly called “McMansions.”
Does the tiny home movement allow the possibility of a new
construction method to create affordable housing without being doomed by the
stigma of association? Frankly, I don’t
know. The vast majority of US citizens
do not live in tiny homes. The tiny home
movement remains far from mainstream and is viewed as something of an oddity by
most (“How can someone live in something so small?”). What
Americans consider a tiny home is the average size of a house in much of the
rest of the world (as the recent economic recovery strengthens here in the US,
the size of our houses is increasing again also).
By making this system available on the open marketplace, it
will provide the option for the homeowner to create a better house for less
money, without any government or non-profit subsidy or associated stigma. The economics of concrete block production
mean that once these block are being made, they will be available to provide
inexpensive housing, as soon as they are made.
We do not need to ‘ramp up’ to an economy of scale in order to make this
high-performance masonry system affordable; it will be affordable as soon as it
is produced by a block manufacturer.
This is the nature and the essential advantage of the concrete block
industry.
We are a country that shops at Wal-Mart. We love a great deal and we love saving
money. The market will speak, and I plan
to listen. Whether the customer wants
300 square feet or 3,000 square feet for their home, we can provide it better,
cheaper with this masonry system.
Perhaps the best way to help the poor is by providing better products at
lower prices. This fact may help with
the challenges posed by public perception.
RrrrrreaPete! Good stuff man. As an ardent supporter of the "tiny home movement" I'm sympathetic to this, your dilemma. I can understand this non profit's reasoning of the stigma problem as I can think of military kwansit huts and the "temporary" feeling they give. I tend to think that getting to public via the back door is probably your best bet. And just like the non profit org. we all know these buildings are cool, you, we just have to get everybody else to see that too.
ReplyDelete