54 responses so far ↓

• 1 Lewis N. Villegas // Apr 14, 2010 at 5:31 pm

  Hi, Stephane, good to have you back! As you can read from the comments posted above, mine is not an isolated sentiment.

  Here’s some push-back. Is the quote we are discussing this one:

  “homeless problem [is] created by provincial policies”

  We can split hairs:

  “Homelessness” is mostly a by-product of mental illness and addiction; but “the homeless problem” is created by provincial policies.

  Isn’t that political football par excellence? The polarized ideology of B.C. politics fails to serve the people. The interests of the party, and the individual candidate’s hopes for re-election, are put ahead of the search for common ground. Meanwhile, the substance of the issue is clouded, and made ever more difficult to understand.

  Let me try to de-murk some of the dtes waters.

  Our brand of street-involvement is very much associated with mental illness and addiction. A recovering alcoholic recently described the problem of the addict as putting “filling the pie hole” ahead of his own personal well-being, and ahead of relationships with family and community. In the case of schizophrenia, the very hand extending to offer help is experienced as a threat. There is something debilitating about each of those conditions—never mind both of them together—that incapacitates the individual’s ability to function in a way poverty does not.

  I grew up in Montevideo. There was poverty right in my neighbourhood, but there was not homelessness. In Buenos Aires, and in other larger urban centres of South America, the “Villamiserias” are examples of how entire communities of poor people self-organize and achieve remarkable levels of functioning.

  You say:

  “Providing adequate housing and levels of welfare will, in fact, pretty much end homelessness.”

  The observation that has troubled me is how the cost of renting an SRO seems to keep pace with the size of the welfare check. How is the comparison between those two numbers today? Anyone? (Michael, I like your numbers for the cost of shelters per person per night. Does that include staffing costs?)

  “…you are treating what is a political and economic problem as a medical problem…”

  Economics and politics are not the same kind of thing. One is based on facts, the other is based on ideology—in our region, rampant ideology. The “Dtes Housing Plan” provides a brief historic sketch—facts—providing a time-based analysis of the area [from page 10]:

  ” [1] early 1900s, prostitution along Dupont (now Pender) Street… Brothels, bookies, and alcohol were associated with the area.”

  ” [2] 1950s urban renewal—the City [continued to acquire] significant tracts of land… [along with] systematic disinvestment… Banks, aware of City policies, no longer approved [local] loans.”

  The 50-year leap between 1 & 2 is revealing. In 1946 there was a “shift” in the tax burden. Federal tax collection went from being tariff-based to direct collections from Canadians in the form of Income Tax. As the Canadian population boomed, the Federal bureaucracies bloated. The Vancouver Planning Department was created in 1951 (Montreal’s in 1947). Freeways and urban renewal were Federal initiatives, as was CMHC, and the bank’s pushing residential mortgages in suburban locations.

  ” [3] late 1960s, a freeway [planned along] Prior and Union; Carrall to the waterfront; [and on the] Georgia Viaducts. Local residents successfully rallied against… and argued that … Downtown Eastside was a vibrant and functional low-income community.”

  Thus, we can trace the birth of the so-called Downtown Eastside to the advent of centralized planning, and governments losing the “Freeway Fight”.

  The analysis fails to identify the loading of the unbuilt freeway’s traffic onto Hastings, Prior, Cordoba and Powell representing additional levels of neighbourhood blight and further disinvestment by all levels of government.

  However, all of the causes presented thus far in the analysis point to economic issues, and a shift in urban design methodology at a Federal level. The central government was acting out of a surplus of new-found power (i.e. taxation), and—obvious to us now—with a complete lack of capacity for understanding urban problems.

  Whatever else the population of our historic neighbourhoods is suffering, they are also having to shoulder a bankrupt vision of urbanism.

  The Dtes Housing Plan’s historic sketch continues, turning to focus on the social side of the issue:

  “The number of low-income people in the area has remained about the same over time, but the nature of the community is changing:

  [1] resource-based workers being replaced by younger people, some with serious multiple problems.

  [2] alcohol [losing ground to] heroin, crack cocaine and chemicals…

  [3] de-institutionalization of the mentally ill [1980’s].

  [4] retail activity [marginalized, all but lost]

  [5] reduction of job opportunities for lower skilled people

  Note that here, addiction and mental illness (1,2 & 3) figure as prominently as the economic issues (4 &5). Business was bled away from the historic neighbourhoods resulting in a chronic lack of local employment and services.

  I have come to call this the “Missing Pillar” in the Four Pillar Strategy.

  Without a functioning local economy, progress in recovery is made that much more difficult. Without a massive urban design intervention the pilling-on effects of 60 years of modernist-paradigm planning will continue to weigh as one of the most significant burdens for those living in the historic neighbourhoods.

  We have layer-upon-layer of problems, and a constellation of opportunities. The consensus-based, consultative approach is the best way out of this mess uniquely of our making.

• 2 spartikus // Apr 14, 2010 at 8:46 pm

  Excellent comment, Lewis.

• 3 Michael Geller // Apr 16, 2010 at 10:51 am

  At the Architecture for Humanity event last night, a number of design/construction proposals were put forward for affordable housing solutions. Some had come forward a year ago, in response to a city call…but unfortunately none proceeded, reportedly because the province was not prepared to fund the operating costsf or such ‘quick’ solutions.

  Janice Abbott of Atira, who has had a lot of experience in the field, and other presenters offered some surprising observations. For instance, not everyone wants a self contained unit. That’s right. According to their experiences, many people do not want to cook for themselves…they prefer a communal eating arrangement; furthermore, some people are quite content with shared bathrooms…and even prefer them to private bathrooms. While I found this difficult to believe, that’s because I am a very different person than those being housed.

  Similarly, some people did not appreciate the wonderful (and oftentimes expensive) roof-top
  lounges and outdoor amenities. Instead, they prefered to congregate around the lobby.

  I would like to congratulate Councillor Kerry Jang for his presentation which highlighted the importance of trying to prevent homelessness, rather than just trying to solve it with more accommodation. Jang was quite honest in his assessment of the challenges.

  I just wish more people would also focus on the things we can do to prevent homelessness, including helping people find employment, keeping kids off the streets through family reunification, etc., since without these types of initiatives, we’ll never end homelessness in Vancouver.

• 4 Lewis N. Villegas // Apr 17, 2010 at 9:11 am

  Coming out of Boston some 10 to 15 years ago, Michael, the optimum number of people for addiction recovery (these folks would leave the premises after the program is complete), and mental illness support (these folks might not leave) was seven per household.

  That was confirmed by one non-profit doing recovery programs in houses I visited in Coquitlam and Surrey. However, because of lack of space, and high demand, they were bunking people and housing 11 or so per 3 bedroom suburban home. The basement was set up as a meeting area where sessions took place. The kitchen and the coffee pot was the area of congregation, and going outside was not so cool since they were in a suburban neighbourhood.

  That fee-simple building that we jaw about would support this “scale” of occupancy, and prove flexible enough for all the options you describe.