Part 3—The 2025 Vancouver by-election is about many problems but only one Issue— open communications between government and governed
CC#147— Homelessness, addiction and mental health Part 1
There is only one issue in this by-election
“Okay Dad,” said my son, “I’ve been patient while we discussed standards of maintenance, but can we please move on to homelessness, addiction and mental health?”
“Sure,” I started. “But we first need to remember I’m just an architect and urban designer, so will comment from that perspective and any knowledge I’ve gained along the way.” He nodded so I continued.
“The so-called affordable housing currently on offer will only make the problems worse. And the supportive elements will do nothing for those with addiction and/or mental health issues.”
I gathered my thoughts. “You may have heard that just before Christmas, BC’s highest court ruled that the province was unable to ignore its citizens by declaring that a proposed high-rise congregate housing project in Kitsilano for our hardest to house would be approved as is, with no further public input permitted. The city and provincial communicators have been a bit silent as they revisit their approach—but they are resolute in their insistence on that form of housing in that location, over the objections of many citizens.”
“Setting aside my annoyance that citizens had to go to the BC Court of Appeal to get a fair hearing,” he answered, “and I frankly don’t understand the legal issues. What’s wrong with the form of housing proposed by government for Kits? Or elsewhere, for that matter?”
“In the congregate housing model that the provincial and city governments favour for Kitsilano and other locations in the city, a relatively large number of individuals who may be homeless and are usually struggling with either or both of addiction and mental health issues, are installed in a building of 50-130 homes, usually in very small studio apartments—the Kits proposal is 129 homes. There are few if any “normal” tenants in the building. But there is a place where residents and their visitors can purchase and consume their addictive substances, with little or no supervision[1]. And the projects are “low barrier,” which means anybody can come visit or hang out.
The Kits proposal is particularly problematic because it is at the end of the new SkyTrain extension, offering ready access from anywhere served by SkyTrain. And it’s across the street from an elementary school and a toddler park.”
“Gee,” he interjected, “could they have picked a worse spot?”
I continued. “I’ve not even gotten into the specific urban design problems with the Kits proposal. For come reason government proposes to build these projects using a modular housing approach. Each studio is essentially an insulated shipping container that can’t be connected with a neighbour. So that means that a couple needs to go through the public hall to visit each other. I’ve written more about this previously[2].
Furthermore, because of the modular housing system that they’ve elected to use, a 13-storey building has the height and massing of 17 storeys—so more shadowing of the neighbouring school and park.”
“So what’s a better solution?” he asked.
“We are lucky in BC to have a team of scientists at Simon Fraser University who have been studying these addiction and mental health issues across many communities. A too-brief summary of the findings of their 2018 report after a six-year project:
Congregate housing does not work because its residents have insufficient choice, support and too many temptations.
What does work is to disperse folks across many buildings, with no more than 5% of the residents in any building from the population of those needing support. That way they become residents of a “normal” living environment of their choosing. Studies actually show the 95% ordinary citizens in a building will often look out for those needing support.
But the care burden can’t just be borne by the neighbours. There needs to be a roving cohort of mental health workers supported by security personnel such as police. You can read a better summary of the SFU research and what followed here[3].”
“Seems straightforward—why aren’t we doing that?” was his next question.
“A week after the scientific team reported a summary of their peer-reviewed[4] findings to BC government officials, they were ordered to destroy their research database.” I paused for effect.
“How can that possibly be?” he asked incredulously.
“I don’t have the answer to that question, but it goes to my thesis about the need for open communications between government and governed, doesn’t it?
Let’s take a break before we continue talking about how to address these complex issues and how that bears on the upcoming city by-election.”
The post above is 700 words, about 40 seconds than the three minutes that Vancouver City Council now permits for public presentations at its meetings.
If you appreciated this post, please share to your social media and consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at
Brian Palmquist writes on the traditional, ancestral and unceded lands of the Musqueam people. He is a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired, still teaching, writing and consulting a bit, but not beholden to any client or city hall. These conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on a 50-year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. He is the author of the Amazon best seller and AIBC Construction Administration course text, “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” A glutton for punishment, he recently started writing a book about how we can Embrace, Enhance and Evolve the places we love to live.
[1] During the first public hearings about the Kits project, the potential managers would not commit to staffing levels.
[2] https://brianpalmquist.substack.com/p/embrace-enhance-and-evolve-kitsilano
[3] https://www.canadianaffairs.news/2024/11/21/b-c-orders-database-destruction-after-professor-presents-controversial-housing-study/
[4] “Peer reviewed” means that before publication, findings are reviewed by several qualified scientists who are not connected to the research, hence independent.
Is it true that BC government officials ordered reesearchers "to destroy their research database" ??
If this is in fact the case, why would the researchers in question actually follow such a ridiculous order?
Surely as professionals they could have and should have strongly objected to such an order, spoken to members of the opposition and to the media if necessary--- rather than destroying all that work.
It seems that tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on this research project over several years. Is there no accountability for such outrageous wastefulness?