The potential of architecture to address homelessness in Northern Ontario

What is architecture’s potential to
\naddress homelessness in northern Ontario?
\nThis question came from a personal
\nexperience: volunteering in a soup kitchen in
\ndowntown Sudbury throughout my studies at
\nLaurentian University. This experience, over
\nthe last six years, has permeated through my
\narchitectural education. Homelessness is a
\ncomplex phenomenon that architecture alone
\nis unable to solve; nonetheless, architecture
\ndoes have the potential to facilitate responses
\nto homelessness in collaboration with other
\nprofessions on interdisciplinary teams.
\nAttitudes against those living in
\nextreme poverty, historically categorizing
\nthose ‘undeserving’ of assistance, can be seen
\ntoday in the physical, social, and legal realms
\nof the built environment. There is not one, but
\nmany, common experiences of homelessness.
\nThe current literature provides a definition
\nof homelessness as the exclusion from the
\nphysical, social, or legal domains of ‘home’.
\nThis definition portrays homelessness as a
\nspectrum dependent on exclusion. Hostile
\narchitecture and the selective enforcement of
\nmunicipal by-laws are contemporary examples
\nof exclusion that penalize those experiencing
\nhomelessness. These examples can be mapped
\nin Sudbury, Ontario, to demonstrate how
\nspecific architectural elements are spatially
\nconnected to areas of high contact between
\nhoused and homeless individuals. These
\ncontact zones, when designed improperly, can
\nignite prejudice and lead to conflict, ultimately
\nreinforcing stigma. Meanwhile, the theory of
\nintergroup contact postulates that contact
\nbetween out-groups and in-groups also carries
\nthe potential to mitigate stigma and prejudice
\nunder prescribed conditions. The physical
\nmediation of these conflict zones is tested
\nin downtown Sudbury through two installations where the nuances of this process
\nare observed, documented, and applied to the
\nfull building scale.
\nThe process of designing a fullscale building proposal includes an indepth site analysis to understand the local
\nsociodemographics of homelessness and
\nwhere a site could best be located. Upon
\nsite selection, programs are analysed using
\na needs assessment through the secondary
\nanalysis of transcribed interviews of individuals
\nexperiencing homelessness. The needs
\nexpressed by people with lived experience are
\ncross-referenced with the existing services
\nin Sudbury to propose new programs to fill
\nthe service gaps in the city. A process is then
\ndeveloped whereby a phased introduction of the
\nproject brings together relevant stakeholders,
\nleverages their connections in project planning,
\ncreates an interface for meaningful community
\nengagement, and develops the site in phases
\nto avoid gentrification. The architecture is
\ndescribed as a mediator of the physical, social,
\nand legal dimensions of both the site and
\nindividuals’ experiences of homelessness.
\nVisioning is explored by how it may be inhabited
\nby both those who are housed and experiencing
\nhomelessness, including those who have exited
\nhomelessness and secured housing. Finally,
\na future is imagined whereby individuals can
\nfind sustainable exits from homelessness. The
\ncontinued life of the building demonstrates
\nhow it has been designed to meet the needs
\nof its residents and not any one particular
\ncircumstance. The contribution of this
\nwork is the development of a new mode of
\npracticing architecture that is fundamentally
\ninterdisciplinary, allowing physical buildings to
\nmaximize their positive effect on the life in and
\naround them

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.