Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

[Red Star]

Are we going to remove all the trees everywhere cause drugs are hard to do in a desert?

We live in a society where we can't really speak openly about certain issues and thus, can't solve the issues surrounding homelessness and open drug use. We have to speak in euphemisms, tie-toe around the issue or use soft language to address the issue. The result is that architects have to design "anti-Loitering" devices or end up cutting down large trees in parks.

Public parks should be safely enjoyed by all people that participate in a society. Old, young, rich, poor, abled, disabled...you get the point. But whenever homeless people are allowed to congregate and consume drugs unmolested in public places, crime and filth follow. And this is why we can't have nice things, such as glass on the Peace Bridge.

 

[The Familia]

I think part of the problem is that many of the trees in Olympic Plaza are spruce. These get really big, and as Duck mentioned, block a lot of viewpoints and create little shelters for homeless people to camp under. If all the trees were large elms or other deciduous trees with a high canopy there wouldn't be much of a problem. Nothing beats all the elms along mcleod that create that nice tree canopy over the sidewalks.

The infrastructure, concrete, and paving stones are in terrible shape and need replacing. The plaza needs a major overhaul in my mind. They must keep the water/ice rink feature without question and I wouldn't mind if they kept some of the Greek columns as tribute to the Olympics.

 

[Surrealplaces]

IIRC, they removed a bunch of spruce trees about 15 years ago, due to visibility and safety concerns. I guess they must have grown back? or maybe they never got removed? My understanding is they were going to go with deciduous trees that had a thick canopy at the top end rather than the bottom end.

 

[John Wick]

My understanding is that it's to be a total overhaul. Which includes the large pines to be taken out.
Safety/visibility is a huge part of that. A lot of the nooks & crannies and levels/steps in the current plaza just create blind spots for illicit activity.
I believe that there still will be a water feature as a focal point, but the aim is to make it a lot more open and inviting space.

 

[Mountain Man]

Only trees I remember them taking out was after snowtember killed a bunch.

 

[DougB]

Definitely a shame to lose mature trees in the core, but they are basically just a place to do drugs, so they have to go.

I was in Dallas a few weeks back and saw what appeared to be a very effective strategy to reduce public drug consumption and homeless encampments that didn't involve urban design:
-if the police see someone doing drugs in the open, they make them stomp on their paraphernalia and dump the drugs down a sewer drain. I saw plenty of glass pipes being smashed
-if they see a tent, they ask the occupant to move. When they move, they are asked again to move again, and again and again

Seems to be working around DT Dallas, but unsure if it pushes these people into less visible places or they hop the next bus to California

 

[maestro]

IMHO, that's just cruel. These are people.. Amomg them will be Afghan vets. Other were at one time successful before falling down the opiod hole. All it does is embarrass instead of trying to help..

 

[outoftheice]

Fun fact (or at least so I've been told so it may just be rumour) but the trees along the northern edge of Olympic Plaza were planted specifically because they interfered with sight lines. Apparently the television broadcaster during the Olympics didn't like having the train in their medal ceremony camera shots so the trees were planted to act as a screen between the train and the plaza. Obviously this screening effect has become an issue as time has gone on.

 

[Silence&Motion]

We live in a society where we can't really speak openly about certain issues and thus, can't solve the issues surrounding homelessness and open drug use. We have to speak in euphemisms, tie-toe around the issue or use soft language to address the issue. The result is that architects have to design "anti-Loitering" devices or end up cutting down large trees in parks.

Wait... are you saying that "political correctness" is causing homelessness issues?

Trust me, no one speaks more openly and frankly about homelessness and addiction that people who actually work in the sector.

As long as housing is expensive, homelessness is an extremely difficult issue to solve. Trust me when I say Dallas's main solution to homelessness is cheaper real estate. They also stomp on crack pipes and take down tents in Seattle. It's extremely expensive to have police constantly chasing the homeless around the city and doesn't do anything.

Unfortunately a lot of people are under the mistaken belief that homelessness could be solved simply by the police "cracking down" on drug users - whatever that means. Talk about euphemisms!

 

[ByeByeBaby]

HomeSpace to develop two Calgary emergency housing sites​

Two emergency housing sites; one near Whitehorn LRT and one near Fish Creek LRT have had HomeSpace selected as the group; they plan to put 52 three-bedroom townhouses on each site as transitional housing for families in need.

 

[CBBarnett]

HomeSpace to develop two Calgary emergency housing sites​

Two emergency housing sites; one near Whitehorn LRT and one near Fish Creek LRT have had HomeSpace selected as the group; they plan to put 52 three-bedroom townhouses on each site as transitional housing for families in need.

Great news and great locations!

One bone to pick:
I always found it odd - particularly in these TOD cases - that affordable housing developments in Calgary so regularly exceed the parking minimums. I can't recall any other affordable housing program in Canada that ends up with this result so consistently.

• Whitehorn: 52 units, 56 stalls - 50m from LRT
• Shawnessey: 52 units, 60 stalls - 50m from LRT

Meanwhile, we have many market infill developments that are finding their stalls are not being used. Many use the minimum or attempt to relax even below that by providing 0.5 stalls/unit or lower in all types of developments near transit.

Given the locations and the stated goal of affordable housing, if we fit another 10 to 20 townhomes instead of the parking wouldn't that be a better outcome? I struggle to rationalize the decision process here about parking given it prevents even more housing on the same site.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

Great news and great locations!

One bone to pick:
I always found it odd - particularly in these TOD cases - that affordable housing developments in Calgary so regularly exceed the parking minimums. I can't recall any other affordable housing program in Canada that ends up with this result so consistently.

• Whitehorn: 52 units, 56 stalls - 50m from LRT
• Shawnessey: 52 units, 60 stalls - 50m from LRT

Meanwhile, we have many market infill developments that are finding their stalls are not being used. Many use the minimum or attempt to relax even below that by providing 0.5 stalls/unit or lower in all types of developments near transit.

Given the locations and the stated goal of affordable housing, if we fit another 10 to 20 townhomes instead of the parking wouldn't that be a better outcome? I struggle to rationalize the decision process here about parking given it prevents even more housing on the same site.

Great point!

If I read the fine print correctly, the Shawnessy site has half of the units including a carport; it seems like for a bit more money, they could have had the same 52 3BR units, plus 27 1 bedroom ~600 sq ft units (and a total of 33 stalls). The Whitehorn site has only on-street parking, plus a small surface lot. There's a patch of grass left undeveloped next to the surface lot, so I wonder if it was their financial capacity that limited the project; there's room for another dozen or so units there.

That said, these are all 3 bedroom units, and there are not many 3 adult or 2 parent/2+ child households in this city without one car, even at the bottom end of the income scale.

 

[Red Star]

Wait... are you saying that "political correctness" is causing homelessness issues?

Trust me, no one speaks more openly and frankly about homelessness and addiction that people who actually work in the sector.

As long as housing is expensive, homelessness is an extremely difficult issue to solve. Trust me when I say Dallas's main solution to homelessness is cheaper real estate. They also stomp on crack pipes and take down tents in Seattle. It's extremely expensive to have police constantly chasing the homeless around the city and doesn't do anything.

Unfortunately a lot of people are under the mistaken belief that homelessness could be solved simply by the police "cracking down" on drug users - whatever that means. Talk about euphemisms!

I think homelessness is the result of people suffering from substance abuse problems and mental illnesses (with a large overlap of both). The question we should ask ourselves is what is it about this liberal-capitalist society that produces so many addicts and mentally ill people?

I personally think it's a combination of loneliness, social alienation, a lack of purpose within society, low wages for menial work, childhood trauma caused from a poor family structure, rampant income inequality, not knowing or having anything in common with your neighbors and a general decline of social capital that produces these mental health issues.

While the aforementioned issues probably cannot be resolved under the current political paradigm, what we can and should do as a quick win is a build a tiered mental health facility outside of the city limits that can provide the treatment homeless people need and deserve. Provide them with a place where they can’t degrade the public realm, cannot harm themselves or be preyed upon by criminal elements.

The thing that I find kind of disturbing is that no politician, no charity and no government organization ever really seems like they want to solve this problem. I always get the impression that they use homelessness as a political football to achieve what they want from the system. Even a high status academic like yourself did not propose a cogent solution in your response to my original post.

 

[trtcttc]

I think homelessness is the result of people suffering from substance abuse problems and mental illnesses (with a large overlap of both). The question we should ask ourselves is what is it about this liberal-capitalist society that produces so many addicts and mentally ill people?

I think the biggest issue is the introduction of drugs within our societies. Lower income or homeless are actually pretty easy things that we have enough fiscal capacity to deal with. The challenge is with drug users which degrade the shelters, safe spaces for everyone. I think the answer is pretty clearly forced treatment, but no politician is willing to sacrifice their political capital because the issue will 1) not affect the majority of voters enough to care 2) attract tremendous pressure from activists which will flood the media with how this is inhumane, not respecting human rights, etc.

I don't think the issue is severe enough to resort to those steps in Calgary. But there is a way to solve this problem, it will just be unpleasant and society as a whole has been unwilling to make that tradeoff. A more extreme example is what is happening in El Salvador, everyone would've said there's no way to fix the gang/drug problems in Central America, and there's pretty clearly a way but their society has deteriorated to a point where people are willing to sacrifice some individual rights for the broader good of the society.

 

[Silence&Motion]

I think homelessness is the result of people suffering from substance abuse problems and mental illnesses (with a large overlap of both). The question we should ask ourselves is what is it about this liberal-capitalist society that produces so many addicts and mentally ill people?

I personally think it's a combination of loneliness, social alienation, a lack of purpose within society, low wages for menial work, childhood trauma caused from a poor family structure, rampant income inequality, not knowing or having anything in common with your neighbors and a general decline of social capital that produces these mental health issues.

While the aforementioned issues probably cannot be resolved under the current political paradigm, what we can and should do as a quick win is a build a tiered mental health facility outside of the city limits that can provide the treatment homeless people need and deserve. Provide them with a place where they can’t degrade the public realm, cannot harm themselves or be preyed upon by criminal elements.

The thing that I find kind of disturbing is that no politician, no charity and no government organization ever really seems like they want to solve this problem. I always get the impression that they use homelessness as a political football to achieve what they want from the system. Even a high status academic like yourself did not propose a cogent solution in your response to my original post.

Because in poorer, less economically-developed countries, housing is cheap! In most places throughout history, poor people could simply build themselves shanties. That's exactly what happens here with encampments, but we find it completely intolerable and ask the police to go take them down.

The fact is, that if housing is scarce, the lowest tier of society will always lack housing. The solution is to provide more housing! We don't even need to make it some fancy, expensive medical compound on the edge of town. It can just be plain, no frills housing. If people need support, you can send social workers around for a fraction of the cost of police.

But, in Canada, governments at all levels have simply washed their hands of the housing issue and handed it over to the private market. We're dealing with the consequences today at every level of the socioeconomic spectrum. Homelessness is the same root cause as middle-income families being priced out of home ownership.