Creekview

A mid-1980s co-op where men with high-level quadriplegia moved out of hospital

Creekview was a Vancouver housing project in the mid-1980s. A small group of men with high-level quadriplegia moved from hospital into a co-op apartment. Most of them used ventilators.

Creekview did not create CSIL. It showed that people with very high support needs could live outside an institution. Haw later described some self-direction in the house; the evidence does not show a CSIL-style individual employer contract.

What housing and support looked like before Creekview

Haw 1989 is a later Canadian Paraplegic Association (CPA) overview. It is not a 1970s file from the time.

Haw described few options before 1973 besides modified homes or extended care. He then listed the 1972 Lions / CPA Paraplegic Lodge, a 1974 government-funded group home, 1978 Long Term Care hours, and 1979 Kelly Court. He said those hours were still not enough for people paralyzed from the neck down. He presented Creekview as an attempt to expand options for ventilator-dependent quadriplegics.

In February 1984, Doug Mowat told the legislature that Pearson Hospital was an extended-care setting for physically disabled people. He gave their average age as 42. He named “a new type of disabled person called a high-lesion respiratory quadriplegic.”

SCI BC history separately records earlier British Columbia Paraplegic Association (BCPA) work, including the 1972 lodge and Doug Mowat as executive director from 1960. That page is later organizational narrative.

What Creekview was

Creekview was a community residence near False Creek / Granville Island in Vancouver. It housed a small group of men with high-level, mostly ventilator-dependent quadriplegia.

In February 1984, Doug Mowat told the legislature that six “high-lesion respiratory quadriplegic” residents would soon leave Pearson Hospital for “the Creekview Co-op on False Creek.” He described a six-bedroom co-op apartment “with all the support services plugged in.”

In April 1986, Health Minister Jim Nielsen said six “young men,” “most of them depending on respiratory machines,” were living there in “an independent group setting.”

Norman Haw (1989) called the project Creekview 202. He described an “integrated self managed independent living project” in a 100-unit cooperative funded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). The residents had private rooms and shared kitchen and living space.

No source we have read explains what “202” means. SCI BC’s later history calls Creekview “the world’s first” project of this kind. That claim is SCI BC’s later wording. It has not been independently verified.

SCI BC (2019) uses the spelling Creekside. Hansard, Haw, and Fayerman 2018 say Creekview. The evidence does not show that those names refer to two different projects.

When it was planned and opened

By 24 February 1984 the move was already planned (Hansard). Haw later dated the opening to September 1985. SCI BC and Fayerman also say 1985. By April 1986 the minister said residents were in place and the endeavour “began last year” (Hansard).

No 1985 opening document has been seen. Why Mowat’s “soon” became a 1985 opening is still unexplained.

Fayerman later reports an “early 1980s” CPA cost analysis. That is a later recollection, not a 1980s file we have read.

Who started it and who lived there

Sources from the time name six men. They do not name them as individuals.

Nielsen said the six “convinced various government agencies” to allow an independent group setting. Haw said CPA and at least six former Pearson residents developed Creekview 202. Five were ventilator-dependent. All six were equal co-op members.

Mowat described the planned move as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). That 1984 sitting does not say he designed or ran the project.

Later accounts add names. Fayerman 2018 reports Walt Lawrence recalling a group of “five or six,” a 1985 move, and credit to “then MLA Doug Mowat.” SCI BC (2019) says the co-op was “championed by SCI BC’s Doug Mowat.”

Text from the time supports a resident-and-CPA project that needed government agreement. The “championed” wording is later recollection. Formal CSIL design-group membership is not documented for Lawrence or Mowat.

Relationship to Pearson Hospital

Creekview residents came from Pearson. Pearson did not simply disappear from their support.

Mowat said six people “will soon be leaving Pearson Hospital.” Haw later called them former Pearson residents. The 1987 abstract says Pearson “continues to play a role.” Haw said Pearson staff trained attendants.

Fayerman later reports a Pearson respiratory therapist at first, and that Lawrence had spent 16 years at George Pearson Hospital. Those are 2018 accounts. Sources use Pearson Hospital and, later, George Pearson Hospital. The evidence does not show that those names refer to different institutions.

How support and funding worked

Haw gave the most specific description. The Ministry of Health and the Workers Compensation Board provided funding “to the tenants through CPA” for support services. One resident was involved in hiring and firing staff. Members paid a share of income for rent.

The 1987 abstract lists a staffed community model. It does not describe the employment relationship.

Lawrence later said he “could still direct [his] care.” Fayerman describes shared care and later ventilator support from the Provincial Respiratory Outreach Program. Those are 2018 attributions, not 1985 documents.

The sources we have read do not show that each resident was a statutory employer in the later CSIL sense. They do not show a CSIL-style individual contract. They do not show a named home-support agency running the house.

The 1987 evaluation

The report itself has not been read. Two public sources from 1987–89 confirm that an evaluation existed.

The Mattinson and Rompf 1987 abstract says a formal evaluation was completed by the B.C. government and CPA. It names topics. It does not report findings.

Haw 1989 paraphrases three results: lower cost than Pearson, health at least as good, and accreditation standards met. Those points are Haw’s paraphrase. They are not attributed here to Patricia Ryan or Ryan & Wiggins.

Who wrote the evaluation is still contradictory. The abstract names government and CPA. Haw says “an independent evaluation.” Ryan / Ryan & Wiggins remain unconfirmed. See the wanted evaluation record.

Other cost figures are not the same claim. Mowat’s 1984 estimate was about $300 a day at Pearson versus $45–$50 in the co-op. Fayerman later reported a 30 per cent saving from an “early 1980s” study.

Nielsen’s 1986 phrase “complete success” was the minister’s characterization. It was not an evaluation finding.

Records from the 1980s are preferred when later stories disagree. Later memories are labelled as later accounts. Cost figures from different years are not mixed into one “savings” number. Full quotations live on the source pages.

Why Creekview matters — and what came next

No source we have read says Creekview became ECPM or “led to CSIL.” None says Creekview residents sat on a CSIL design group.

Gauthier 2014 lists pre-CSIL arrangements. It names “The Agency,” ECPM, and “People paid themselves.” It does not name Creekview.

Creekview showed that community living and some self-direction were possible for people with very high physical support needs. Whether that directly influenced ECPM or CSIL remains an open question. Later sources describe ECPM as individual funding and employer training that followed the person, rather than shared support in a housing project. The evidence does not show that Creekview formally became ECPM.

What we still do not know

  • The evaluation’s exact title page, authors, and how it relates to the 1987 article and to any earlier CPA cost study.
  • What “202” means, and how the 2019 “Creekside” spelling arose.
  • The six residents’ names, and whether Walt Lawrence was one of them.
  • Who hired, paid, and could dismiss attendants, and what “funding through CPA” meant in practice.
  • Pearson’s continuing role, and Mowat’s role besides the 1984 speech.
  • Any document from the time that connects Creekview to ECPM or 1990s CSIL design.
  • Whether residents saw Creekview as a finished arrangement or a step toward more individualized funding.

Please do not contact people named in this archive, or their families or colleagues, without a separately agreed research protocol.

See also