What Vancouver can do about Homelessness—Part 1
City Conversation #68: What are the foundations of policies that will address homelessness in a meaningful, measurable way?
August 16, 2022—2nd in the series. We have been tackling homelessness all wrong for at least a decade. Why do we think more of the same will miraculously turn out differently?
“Departue” by George Lunden—photo by Brian Palmquist
“What makes you think you have the solution to homelessness, which I understand we’ve been struggling with for at least the past 10 years—or that’s what they tell me—I was barely voting age 10 years ago!” My son was not going to let me get off lightly.
“Actually,” I answered, “Vancouver’s first efforts to deal with homelessness began in the 1990s, when Phillip Owen, an otherwise very conservative Mayor, saw the four pillars approach developed in Switzerland as the best way to combat rampant drug use, which is a major cause of homelessness—not the only one, but probably the biggest cause today.”
“Okay,” he responded, palms up, “what is it and what’s become of it relative to today?”
I turned on my professor voice: “The four pillar approach to drug addiction is based on four principles. In very concise summary form:
Harm reduction, i.e., safe drug supply and not harming drug users—the safe injection sites come from this;
Prevention, reducing drug use by education and early intervention;
Treatment is a series of supportive services to help folks withdraw from addiction;
Enforcement is aimed at arresting and convicting drug dealers and suppliers, reducing crime associated with drugs, fear of crime and street disorder, all the while preserving and protecting life.
“Sounds good,” he responded after a few moments reflection. “How did we get from there to today?”
“Simplistically,” I responded, “we’ve managed #1, harm reduction, with safe injection sites supported by paramedic services when needed. Our #2 efforts are pretty pathetic—think high school health. The current civic and provincial governments say they have implemented #3, treatment services, by warehousing the homeless, including the drug-addicted homeless, in hotels bought at premium prices and failed congregate settings such as the just-approved 8th & Arbutus project. And as for #4, the police are facing a catch and release approach to crime courtesy of the city’s direction and the province’s laws around most crime of the type committed by addicts, where offenders know they will be out on the street a day after committing an offence.”
“Wow!” he said after a few moments taking it in. “Sounds like a colossal fail. How do you think we can turn this around?”
“I would actually start with Pillar #3—Treatment. Dr. Julian Somers, Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Simon Fraser University, has 17 years worth of independently peer-reviewed data and reports supporting an alternative approach that’s not being applied.” He raised his hand so I stopped.
“What’s peer-reviewed, why does that matter and why isn’t his data being applied?”
“Great questions,” I responded with a frown. “Peer-reviewed research is the best that universities do. Before a report, or finding, or recommendation is released as scientifically valid, it’s reviewed by an independent group of the writer’s academic peers. “Independent” means they are distant enough from the original work that they cannot be influenced in their reviews.” He nodded with that lightbulb-going-off look so I continued.
“The reason it’s not being applied seems to be that it runs contrary to the warehousing approach of the current city government, BC Housing and the provincial government. In fact, the provincial government ordered Somers to destroy his 17 years worth of research as soon as they discovered its conclusions.” He raised his eyebrows, which I took as a signal to continue.
“The essence of Somers’s research is that in order to offer by far the best chance to achieve successful treatment, the third pillar, individuals with drug, alcohol or mental health issues should be distributed across a wide variety of locations, with no more than 5% of any building’s residents having issues requiring support. Support could be on site or on call, as it is in most warehousing facilities in any event.”
He paused, taking that in. “So rather than a small number of large facilities whose residents are mostly in need of support and community, we should have a small number of folks in many facilities.”
I decided to make it real. “You know the fellow in your building I met the other day while we were sitting on your front lawn (he’s turned the yard in front of his ground level studio in his older walkup building into a communal seating area, patio and garden)?”
“You mean Maxim?” he responded. (Name changed for obvious reasons).
“Yes, him.” He awaited my connection. “I could tell just from talking to him that Maxim has a severe alcohol problem.” He nodded. “So he’s in one of the 15 apartments in your building—that’s about 5% of the total.”
After a moment, he frowned, gesticulated and declared, “But we all take care of Maxim—he’s part of our community!” I smiled.
“That’s the point of Somers’s research, the reality of it. When a building has a small number of folks with issues, then they become part of the building and neighbourhood community, and you look out for them. When there are 100 Maxims in a single building, then Maxim’s addiction issues are the community.”
“The underlying foundational principle is to relocate the homeless throughout the city, so that there are no more than 5% in any building, and services are available to them.”
I let him close the conversation about homelessness. “So if we were able to offer the homeless homes with supports for their issues, distributed across the city, Maxim and all the Maxims would stand a better chance!” He gave me one of his patented hugs.
“Is housing affordability that simple?”
“Yes and no,” I replied. “Homelessness requires that the province support a distributed approach and that the city use zoning to make it happen. Affordability goes hand in hand with addressing homelessness, but it also involves the feds as well as civic and provincial governments.”
What Vancouver can’t do about Homelessness
Two days ago I read an article advising that only 0.5% of recent federal funding for housing for the homeless has been funnelled to Vancouver, while 50% has gone to Toronto, 10,000% more than Vancouver. Without our fair share of federal and provincial funding, our options are limited regardless of what form housing for the homeless takes. The next post in this series looks at some ways to create enough distributed supportive housing to meet our needs. But funding for ongoing support and facility management is also required, and is the responsibility of senior levels of government.
The Time for Action is Here and Now
The additional five What Vancouver can do about… conversations that follow are my continuing take on actionable homelessness, housing insecurity, neighbourhood planning and related policies that our next civic government should focus on—what we can actually achieve versus what we might aspire to (and waste taxpayer money on). They may or may not be the detailed policies of any civic party, but are most closely aligned to TEAM for a Livable Vancouver.
Vancouver’s civic election is October 15th of this year. Lots more damage can still be done to our city before that date—and it will continue, and worsen, unless TEAM elects the next Mayor and a majority (6 of 10) City Councillors—less than 6 and not much will change for the better. If you are concerned that the City Conversations you’ve been reading are examples of what’s wrong with our city, feel some affinity to my What Vancouver can do about… conversations and want to bring back Vancouver’s livability, join TEAM and work with us to restore Vancouver as a place we can all afford to call home.
And please let me know what other subjects you are passionate about so we can have that conversation before election day, October 15th.
Today’s questions: Do you think these foundational principles can work? Are they worth trying? What aspects do you like/dislike? Where do you think I have missed or hit the mark?
I read and respond to all comments made below. If you enjoyed this post, consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at
I am a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). I am semi-retired for the moment, still teaching and writing, so not beholden to any client or city hall. City Conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on my 40+ year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. I am the author of the award winning Amazon best seller “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” I am also a member of TEAM for a livable Vancouver, a new political party dedicated to restoring a livable Vancouver starting with the 2022 civic election. Although I am not a candidate for TEAM or any other civic party, City Conversations are generally congruent with TEAM policy, so if you like the ideas that I’m writing about, please consider joining TEAM.