When Bigger Isn’t Better: Learnings from North America’s Largest Unhoused Shelter

“(I) wouldn’t build a space this large again”, stated David Sawatzky, the Chief Operating Officer at the Calgary Drop-In Centre.

At 90,000 square feet, the Centre is the largest unhoused facility in North America. It is making strides in addressing the needs of the unhoused community through its adoption of a Housing First Approach.

On a recent tour of the building, it became clear the phrase “the bigger the better” may not always apply. Historic models of shelter success lay in the number of people the shelter could house. Today, this centralized, one-size-fits-all model clashes with the evolving goals of the organization to promote long-term housing stability.

While urban life was different in 2001, the persistence of social issues such as homelessness is still a difficult challenge to address. The solution in Calgary? Build a ginormous shelter. Therefore, the Centre was purpose-built. At the time, the number of temporarily housed people was seen as the main measurement for success, driving funding decisions.

In 2016, the organization adopted the Housing First approach, where they fully recognized the value of being a pitstop in an unhoused person's journey rather than be the final destination.

In response to adopting Housing First, the organization restructured how they use its six-floor layout. Each level serves a distinct purpose, offering different accommodations, community amenities, and support services.

Under this improved system, new residents or those actively seeking housing start on the top floors. Once they indicate they are not interested or feel prepared to move to permanent housing, they are transferred to less private areas to discourage them from remaining long-term.

The organization effectively ditched the old model focused on providing the space itself alongside short-term amenities like workshops and entertainment rather than long-term outcomes. With this shift to ensuring each person successfully moves beyond the shelter system, the layout and scale of the building has been unable to adequately support the organization's new objectives and values.

While David explained how they successfully adapted their programs to the building, a more decentralized approach with nine separate buildings instead of one larger one would increase effectiveness.

He would rather utilize a cohort-based approach, where people with similar needs could have spaces that better meet those specific needs. The cohorts could be based on gender, support needs, mental health challenges, or adapt to changing demands. This distribution would better suit the housing-first approach by enabling targeted staff and program aid alongside fostering camaraderie among those seeking the services.

Beyond the cohort-related design challenges, the building also lacks key accessibility features. Adding physical accessibility features (e.g. wheelchair ramps) and sensory accessibility elements (e.g. tactile markings) into the building relies on the funding available. David explicitly stated this deficit as very unfortunate.

So why not move towards this approach? What first comes to mind is a lack of budget, resources, and suitable buildings. While that may be true, there is a strong visible sign of pressure from other sources.

Just south of the Centre, the rapidly developing East Village neighbourhood features high-end apartments and new commercial spaces. The Centre, which dug its roots in the community for decades, is consistently under fire as an adjacent low-income space that some perceive as attracting the “undesirable.”

“We deal with battles every day,” David commented.

This situation speaks to larger conversations about the service being unwelcome everywhere. The perception of it being a magnet for social disorder is false. David added “This is their community, the Centre is part of the solution”, debunking the presumption it’s causing problems for the area.

Overall, the Centre’s story reflects a broader shift in how we think about supporting unhoused individuals. While quality was always at the forefront, conversations with quantity at the forefront have diminished. Evidently, the massive nature of the building once symbolized success, but today's focus on moving people to permanent housing revealed its limitations.

The challenges faced by the Centre offer valuable insights for other municipalities grappling with homelessness, such as the importance of aligning infrastructure with evolving service models and the need to address negative community perceptions. A smaller, more focused establishment would allow staff to more efficiently provide help and produce a greater sense of community.

Ultimately, the Centre’s story is one of resilience and deep care for those facing societal marginalization. Despite extensive barriers and growing external pressures, it is clear their unwavering focus on promoting dignity and pathways out of homelessness will continue until no person is left unhoused.

Written by Field School Student Jaden Macyk.