The way I'd summarize the downtown area highlighted as "soulness" is that it's the best example in the city that is explicitly not designed - in any way, formally or informally - to support the people that live there. Everything about how the public space is designed (5 to 6 lane arterials, zero trees, zero amenities etc.) and operated (brutally long signal lights, advanced turns for commuters) is not for locals.
Somewhere around 8,000 - 10,000 people live in this area (and have for decades) and I struggle to think of specific examples where an improvement was explicitly made to support local needs, especially when the trade-off was citywide commuter needs. Maybe Century Garden upgrades? But again, those didn't really require any trade-offs against the citywide commuter so were uncontroversial in that respect.
This contrasts with most other areas of the city where even relatively small potential ideas (a playground upgrade, a new crosswalk, a new townhome etc.) are debated endless for their impact to locals - impact to local access, shadows, tree canopy impacts, who will share street parking, capacity of local schools or facilities etc. Local perspectives don't (and shouldn't) always trump citywide needs, but the contrast is striking between downtown residents and the rest of the city.
Luckily - this is changing! 8th Street design is very much a win for locals, where the design dedicates substantial space and effort for people that live nearby, over the needs of car commuters. Lots of other improvements in the Beltline and river parks also are slowly adding more local benefit, winning more trade-off debates. Population growth is increasing political clout and attention which is helping too.
renx.ca
