Why Don’t We Just Build Massive Apartment Complexes to House the Homeless?
Meandering through considerations on homelessness policies
I.
The homeless population is a relatively small one. In 2022, 105,655 people in Canada used an emergency shelter, and in 2021, 28,631 people were chronically homeless (e.g., persistent homelessness that lasts six non-consecutive months over one year or 18 non-consecutive months over 3 years). Vancouver, oft-cited as one of the worst cities for homelessness in Canada, had 2,420 homeless in 2023, with 71% (1718) chronically homeless.
Though scant, the homeless population has a disproportionate impact. One person on the street is jarring and noticeable. One person in a tent can block a sidewalk. One person with unaddressed problems can command massive amounts of resources from police or hospitals. The people you may have met on Parc Avenue in Montreal or East Hastings Street in Vancouver are likely the same ones you would encounter today, tomorrow, or the next day. Chronic homelessness is tenacious.
II.
The “Regent International” was a luxury hotel recently turned into a commercial apartment building in China. It has a capacity of 30,000 people. This single building could house the entire homeless population in Canada as of 2021.
In the USSR, the communists practically printed affordable housing. The “Khrushchevka” was a low-cost, easy-to-build, three to five-story apartment building. The “Brezhnevka” was the larger version later employed in cities like Moscow. From 1961-1968, 64,000 units were constructed, and they continue to house millions today.
These apartments were often poorly constructed and maintained—but they worked, and they are decidedly better than homelessness. These “Commie Blocks” had their issues. But, surely our modern, capitalist, Canadian economy can produce housing faster and more efficiently—while enriching the shareholders.
III.
Confronted with this knowledge, I sometimes cannot help but transform into an older, grouchier version of myself. Perfection shouldn't be the enemy of good! Nobody builds anymore! There are too many immigrants, and my back hurts.
Vancouver is spending 5.1 billion dollars per year on its social safety net, with approximately 1.5 billion put towards poverty and homelessness. Ken Sim, Mayor of Vancouver, says: "Despite the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent… this approach has failed…We need to rethink the hyper-concentration of services in the Downtown Eastside.”
So, readers (Mayor Sim, perhaps), imagine a new solution: a series of Khrushc-anadas, littered through the country, serving each major metropolitan area, operated by the state, housing the homeless, and making the world a better place.
This plan might make a reasonable dent in homelessness numbers. But, it’s more likely to fail for a variety of (somewhat obvious) reasons. In this essay, I deliver an autopsy of my idea, using this as an opportunity to explore questions such as: is concentrating on homelessness services a positive approach? And, is housing enough to address the homelessness crisis?
Concentration of Services: Risks and Benefits
Because of high rates of mental health and substance use issues, homeless individuals require extensive resources, care, and security to be adequately housed. In Canada, 74% of homeless individuals report dealing with either substance use or mental health struggles—47% experience both (n = 22,159). I want to be crystal clear that everybody’s lived experience is unique, that mental illnesses affect people in dramatically different ways, and that symptoms do not present uniformly. There is a range of experiences with mental illness; however, the extremes are overrepresented in the homeless population. Individuals who cannot self-regulate, take care of themselves, or remain in touch with reality need the most resources and often face the most opportunities to end up homeless. These issues create unpredictable consequences.
In a shelter with high concentrations of recently homeless individuals, the consequences may manifest as an increase in fights between residents, poor hygiene, and regular disorder. None of this is unmanageable, but it warrants consideration. Further, individuals with substance use disorders often use drugs or smoke in their rooms, creating another layer of risk that must be considered. This summer, I worked at a shelter with a few dozen units; this fall, they had a fire which forced the temporary evacuation and relocation of each resident. Even that small shelter, with 24-hour surveillance, regular case management, and daily fire-safety inspections, is vulnerable.
Aside from the building, the tenant's safety requires attention. A concentration of individuals with substance use disorders often attracts drug dealers and distributors. Supply meets demand—concentration makes that easier; this may increase the risk of substance abuse among people who are or are trying to become sober. In two of the shelters I worked at, drug dealers set up operations directly outside of the shelter—at times, dealing through the front gates. Additionally, newly homeless individuals may experience peer pressure to use drugs. In a 2008 study of Australian homelessness, authors Guy Johnson and Chris Chamberlain find that this pressure occurs because people entering homelessness often have no stable social group and strive for a sense of belonging; mixing in with the homeless subculture through drug use facilitates access to non-judgmental, stigma-free support. This negative socialization of recently homeless individuals was cited as a reason why, at the shelters I worked at, youth were not allowed to receive services.
On the other hand, concentrating resources is a good thing because it increases efficiency and accessibility. If people know where services are located, they are more likely to seek them out and gain access. Furthermore, a high concentration of individuals means case managers can easily interact with people, an ACT (Assertive Community Treatment) team can help multiple people from one location, and donations can be consolidated in one place. Economies of scale matter. However, there are diminishing returns to high concentration. Some concentration is important and likely does increase accessibility, treatment, and efficiency. However, you only need a few central spots that people can access and get referrals from, a few central spots for meals, and a few central locations for people with the most severe symptoms who need the most help. My proposed shelters are likely beyond the necessary levels of concentration, which could generate negative effects.
Nobody Builds Anymore: Why?
Canada’s expansive regulations slow down building developments. In the 2023 OECD Product Market Regulation report, Canada ranked among the worst OECD countries for administrative and regulatory burdens and requirements for licenses and permits. In any building meant for homeless individuals, there are additional requirements for specialized labour, such as support workers, case managers, and administrators. Setting up shop alone would be burdensome.
In general, housing is made less affordable by regulation. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (an insurance and mortgage crown corporation) found that approval delays are highly correlated with unaffordable housing. With high approval delays, supply cannot efficiently respond to demand, which leads to housing shortages.
Further regulations are not always coordinated; the federal conflicts with the provincial conflicts with the municipal. My project would be locked up in regulatory hell for many years being inspected, probed, and reinspected. Of course, regulation is necessary—especially to prevent the issues I previously outlined. However, well-intentioned regulation, exacerbated by a general Canadian tendency to overregulate, means delays are more likely. Notably, more delays mean less political incentive to turn to building as a solution. Spending a decade to address incredibly visible, present, and proximate issues is a bad strategy, especially close to an election. Alternative approaches are easier to sell and would help get people off the streets now.
We know where it comes from, where will it go?
Buck the bureaucracy, let's talk people. Many homeowners dislike new developments.
“Not in my backyard,” they say. “You dirty NIMBY!” we reply.
Many homeowners do not want traffic, congestion, or noise to increase, nor do they want their property value, privacy, or green space to decrease. So, these homeowners complain, petition, and lobby their municipal governments. And because these homeowners have significantly more time, money, and political influence than hypothetical future residents, they successfully block new developments. Many such cases!
These hurdles are inconvenient for housing development but would be insurmountable for a series of shelters as proposed. Even if this could be built, they would not be near public transit, accessible, or in the “nice” parts of town. By definition, these buildings require undeveloped lots to build on—which are hard to find anywhere reasonably close to a city center. Unlike in China, where new housing developments come free in every cereal box, the Canadian system (for better or for worse) rarely exercises eminent domain.
This probably wouldn’t work, anyway.
Ignore everything else. In one week, let's construct these hypothetical shelters from indestructible materials, in prime locations, right under the noses of every bureaucrat and regulator in Canada. Even then, many people would not opt to use this shelter.
Some homeless individuals leave shelters, opting for life on the streets to avoid risks of assault, theft, or harassment. They may not feel comfortable following the rules of the shelter—ranging from scheduled meals to bans on pets. Who should we prioritize? Individuals with allergies to pets or individuals with pets? Will there be gender-separated buildings? Will there be family units?
Even addressing all these problems, a home, unfortunately, is not enough to stop homelessness. Homelessness is complex, and a roof over the head is good, but it is only the first step.
IV.
It may be clear by now that I have used the hypothetical of a mega project to highlight some key difficulties in providing housing. “Just build more houses” is not a realistic solution to the ongoing homelessness crisis. There are immense safety considerations, regulatory burdens and delays, and community concerns about where these homes are built. My khrushc-anadas are not the solution.
Housing is a great first step. However, housing does not address the root causes of homelessness, meaning it is poor prevention, nor is it enough on its own to treat homelessness.
V.
So, let's examine an alternative that does work: Housing First. Housing First is an approach that offers unconditional, independent housing as fast as possible to homeless individuals. This housing is often complemented with supportive services. Notably, a key difference between Housing First and a traditional system is that Housing First does not graduate homeless people into independent living (e.g., Emergency shelter, to assisted living, to transitional housing, etc.).
CASE STUDY: Innovative Efforts to Address Homelessness Among Veterans, Thomas P. O'Toole and Lisa Pape. North Carolina Medical Journal November 2015
Between 2009 and 2014, 200 thousand homeless veterans were housed, slashing veteran homelessness in the USA by 40%. This was an immensely successful project—intricate, thorough, and coordinated between levels of government. Firstly, the VA ramped up homelessness prevention by providing grants to local community agencies for at-risk Veterans. Then, they began outreach in two key ways: surveying encampments to find homeless veterans and using public services to identify vets. 4.2 Million people were screened in ambulances, for example, and 50 thousand were referred to the proper services—this is called the “no wrong door” approach, because no matter where you go, you will be referred to the proper place.
After that came housing. Specifically, reduced-barrier grant-subsidized housing, with extra support for individuals with higher needs. With veterans housed, they received visits from ACT teams to provide medical care and other assistance. Everyone in the program received a case manager and access to healthcare and dental care. With these supports in place, these veterans also received employment training. The VA further worked with community organizations and public assistance programs like welfare to ensure success; 50% of veterans were employed by discharge. These results are sustained as of 2024, with a 55.6% reduction in US Veterans' homelessness compared to 2010.
Prevention, Outreach, Housing, Treatment, and Sustainment. In the case of the VA, these pillars supported one another and created an environment for success. Throughout communities that have successfully reduced or ended chronic homelessness, such as Bergen County, New Jersey, or Medicine Hat, Alberta, rigorous data collection, preventative care, and social support were used to complement and bolster their housing efforts.
STUDY: The At Home/Chez Soi Study
The At Home/Chez Soi project studied the efficacy of Housing First compared to “treatment as usual” as a method for reducing homelessness among mentally ill homeless people. The study examined five cities in Canada that tested housing-first programs. As they define, “Housing First supports people who are homeless and living with mental illness by combining the immediate provision of permanent housing with wrap-around support.” For the HF group, participants received housing for two years (mostly through the private rental market) and case management or an ACT team, depending on the severity of their needs.
The results are clearly positive. For the high-needs group that used ACT teams, every $10 invested saved $9.60 in public services. For moderate needs, savings were $3.42. Aside from cost savings, enrolled individuals enjoyed increased stability, quality of life, and housing retention afterwards. For an annual per-person cost of approximately $6311, one person can be taken off the streets. This is flippant, but applying this to the entirety of Vancouver’s 1718-strong chronically homeless population would cost $10,842,298.001. 10 Million is a rounding error in the billions spent on homelessness each year.
Notably, the individuals who received HF but did not remain stable were associated with more severe mental illness, more social contacts with unhoused individuals, and stronger connections to street life (whereas the stable groups were associated with positive social contacts like family and cultural supports). Insofar as large shelters facilitate stronger social connections within the unhoused community, these results somewhat support my initial stance against over-concentration.
VI.
Why don’t we just build massive apartment complexes to house the homeless? Because it would be difficult to build, hard to maintain, and less effective than potential alternatives. Housing First is a battle-tested alternative, which, when complemented with robust social services, is effective in sustainably integrating homeless individuals back into their communities.
My takeaways from this essay:
Rapidly expanding shelters in every major city is unlikely to solve homelessness on its own.
Housing is not enough; it must be complemented by support to help address the specific health and social needs of homeless individuals.
There is a possible negative feedback loop in homeless shelters. This needs much more research before I can conclude anything concrete. However, it seems that the high concentration of one subculture in a shelter can potentially reinforce negative lifestyles. Additionally, the high concentration likely increases the risk of stigmatization and drug use. I am unsure how to weigh the positives of a stigma-free social group versus the negatives of increased drug use.
What do you think? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
Of course, the true costs of such a program would be much larger. This final six thousand dollar cost comes after accounting for the cost-savings incurred by other public services.
So you think building a glut of housing in the short term won't really help the current homelessness population, but speeding up permitting for development and generally deregulating the housing market so supply can increase across the board will limit homelessness in the long run?
This is basically my take. It can be hard to thread the needle between saying "just building housing won't work" and "just building housing will work."