News   Apr 03, 2020
 6.3K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.8K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 4.6K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

I wonder what the population stats would reveal on school aged children in the downtown area. If the numbers support a downtown area school, it wouldn’t have be a stand alone school. Vancouver is quite good at integrating schools into multi use projects (residential/child care/community centre) in their downtown area such as at Coal Harbour and Olympic Village, for example.
Calgary has a community profile page where it breaks down the demographics for all its neighborhoods. It is a few years old now though as it's based on the 2021 Census.


At that time, the Downtown Core, Beltline, East Village and West End, and even the immediately surrounding communities (like Sunalta, Bankview, Mission) had a low percentage of student-age residents.
 
Just finished an extensive bike ride along the Riverwalk, including East Village. I’m just going to go ahead and say it because I don’t care anymore, but they need to remove the DIC ASAP and relocate it somewhere else more on the fringes. Can’t believe the city renewed its existence for another decade. I try to be sympathetic to the plight of others, but it isn’t fair to everyone else trying to live their lives, buy a home and enjoy their surroundings. The DIC is the sole reason why the East Village has not exploded and been completed. I don’t blame people for not wanting to live around there. Such a beautiful area is being wasted away. It’s depressing to see.

We wanted to eat lunch in East Village and there really aren’t many options or choices. There should be a Cactus Club in the building next to the Simmons or something along those lines. But with tweekers congregating all over the place who wants to set up a restaurant there? Ended up going to Chix Diner. $3.50 for a can of beer was a good deal!
If we move it, where will it go?

I've been pondering this for a bit, as its obvious the facility is both holding the area back, and not really succeeding in its mission.

Firstly, the mega facility may make some sort of financial sense from consolidating services, but the negatives from concentrating a large amount of vulnerables like that more than offset any cost savings.

Breaking up the DIC into smaller facilities in dispersed locations would address that, perhaps have one in each quadrant, like the hospitals are spread. In fact, locating these smaller facilities near the hospitals might be a good idea..

Banff trail area could work for the NW, somewhere east of Chinook for SW, plenty of options in the NE, and iirc there is already a new facility in the works in Highfield which could cover the SE, although not exactly close to the hospital. All these areas are also good locations for supportive housing developments, being near employment and transit nodes

Of course that's only half the equation. Until more is done to address the immediate sources and root causes of the problem, no amount of new facilities will fix this.

I know most Canadians are more comfortable with softer solutions, but you can't hug your way out of an opium war.. And yes, we're in one.

Personally I think we need to start treating the producer and trafficking problem the way the Chinese do. They do have a lot of experience with such things and know what works.

On the flip side, I think the feds should also look at increasing the full legalization and regulation of more less harmful drugs. Canada has had legal weed for almost a decade, maybe its time to add a few more things to the menu to further take away from the black market

As for what to do with the growing army of lost souls, I'm supportive of the forced treatment idea, at least in theory. IMO if treatment is going to be successful, it needs to be done outside of the city, so maybe its also time to bring back the funny farms. Let the permenantly brain fried wander in peace and let those with a chance to recover do so in quieter environs.
 
Last edited:
I fully agree with Infrastructure Enthusiast’s ideas. I’m at the point where they need to be gathered up and forcibly sent to some type of set up outside of the city where they can detox, get mental support, learn new skills, and get set up for introduction back to society. The ones that can pass will be welcomed back with some affordable housing. The ones that refuse or are too far gone can wander around the corn fields in peace and leave everyone else alone. There are over 7 billion on this planet. Everyone can’t be saved.
 
The problem from what I understand with forced rehabilitation is that it does nothing to address the root causes of how and why individuals became addicted in the first place. It's not as simple as just "locking them up and teaching them life skills" so they come out rehabilitated and ready to contribute to society. That's the same argument used for prison, and again, that's essentially what we're advocating for when we talk about forced treatment.

If someone becomes addicted to drugs as a byproduct of them being homeless and having zero support or structure in their life, you can't just lock them up for a few weeks to detox and then send them on their way and expect them to not become addicted again if you haven't done anything to address the root causes of their problems.

If forced treatment was proven to work moreso than any other form then I'd be on board with it, but from what I've read, there is little evidence that it's an effective strategy in the long term.
 
The solutions are out there... in fact they have been successfully implemented in another oil and gas city from a conservative corner of the world. We could easily do this in Calgary if A: we had a provincial government that actually gave a shit about solving the problem, instead of paying lip service to it and instead making moves so that the issue is downloaded onto municipalities they want to make life difficult for and B: if we moved past the mentality common in most English-speaking countries that someone who is homeless and suffering from addiction or mental health has to somehow prove their worthiness by either getting sober or getting on meds before we give them help with finding a home. We have a problem in North America where the homeless, renters and the working poor are viewed as somehow morally inferior to those who own homes and so therefore must continually prove their worth to society (see most NIMBYism).

What happened? In 2012, the city went all-in on a concept called "Housing First." Since then, homelessness is down 63% in the greater Houston area, and more than 30,000 people have been housed.

Housing First means spend money on getting the unhoused into their own apartments, subsidize their rent, then provide the services needed to stabilize their lives – not fix the person first; not just add more shelter beds.

"Our natural instinct when we see homelessness increasing is to hire more outreach workers and to build more shelter beds," said Mandy Chapman Semple, the architect of Houston's success story. She now advises other cities on how to replicate it, among them Dallas, New Orleans, and Oklahoma City. "The idea that if you have no permanent place to live, that you're also going to be able to transform and tackle complex mental health issues, addiction issues, complex financial issues? It's just unrealistic."


 
Just finished an extensive bike ride along the Riverwalk, including East Village. I’m just going to go ahead and say it because I don’t care anymore, but they need to remove the DIC ASAP and relocate it somewhere else more on the fringes. Can’t believe the city renewed its existence for another decade. I try to be sympathetic to the plight of others, but it isn’t fair to everyone else trying to live their lives, buy a home and enjoy their surroundings. The DIC is the sole reason why the East Village has not exploded and been completed. I don’t blame people for not wanting to live around there. Such a beautiful area is being wasted away. It’s depressing to see.

We wanted to eat lunch in East Village and there really aren’t many options or choices. There should be a Cactus Club in the building next to the Simmons or something along those lines. But with tweekers congregating all over the place who wants to set up a restaurant there? Ended up going to Chix Diner. $3.50 for a can of beer was a good deal!
I agree - it’s time - the current situation in the EV can’t be allowed to continue
 
Calgary has a community profile page where it breaks down the demographics for all its neighborhoods. It is a few years old now though as it's based on the 2021 Census.


At that time, the Downtown Core, Beltline, East Village and West End, and even the immediately surrounding communities (like Sunalta, Bankview, Mission) had a low percentage of student-age residents.
Calgary has grown so much in the past 4 years that I'd argue that 2021 census data is practically obsolete (although, granted it's the best we have). We've pretty much added a Greater Victoria since then.
 
The solutions are out there... in fact they have been successfully implemented in another oil and gas city from a conservative corner of the world. We could easily do this in Calgary if A: we had a provincial government that actually gave a shit about solving the problem, instead of paying lip service to it and instead making moves so that the issue is downloaded onto municipalities they want to make life difficult for and B: if we moved past the mentality common in most English-speaking countries that someone who is homeless and suffering from addiction or mental health has to somehow prove their worthiness by either getting sober or getting on meds before we give them help with finding a home. We have a problem in North America where the homeless, renters and the working poor are viewed as somehow morally inferior to those who own homes and so therefore must continually prove their worth to society (see most NIMBYism).

What happened? In 2012, the city went all-in on a concept called "Housing First." Since then, homelessness is down 63% in the greater Houston area, and more than 30,000 people have been housed.

Housing First means spend money on getting the unhoused into their own apartments, subsidize their rent, then provide the services needed to stabilize their lives – not fix the person first; not just add more shelter beds.

"Our natural instinct when we see homelessness increasing is to hire more outreach workers and to build more shelter beds," said Mandy Chapman Semple, the architect of Houston's success story. She now advises other cities on how to replicate it, among them Dallas, New Orleans, and Oklahoma City. "The idea that if you have no permanent place to live, that you're also going to be able to transform and tackle complex mental health issues, addiction issues, complex financial issues? It's just unrealistic."



I agree, housing is a huge piece of the puzzle, didn't medicine hat come to a similar conclusion with their supportive housing initiative?

I'm pretty impressed with the atco/ahc projects in the west end. Modular construction is a huge game changer for those sorts of projects. I hope we see more of those pop up as fillers all over the city in the right TOD locations.
 
Medicine Hat went all in on the housing first strategy, and it worked briefly, but unfortunately things kind of regressed back to the previous situation. There are more homeless people on the streets now in MH than there was before the housing initiative, but without the housing solution maybe that number is much higher today?

I'll always believe housing needs to be part of the strategy, but I also don't believe it's a full solution, given the substance addition issue. The best we can do is roll out a housing solution, give it some time and see who falls through the cracks and can't be helped. Then it's a different conversation for the remaining, forced rehab? I don't know.

If we got housing down 63% like Houston it means probably 37% fall into that category of un-helpable, or extremely difficult to help. 37% is still much better than 100%.
 
Unfortunately, the Trump administration just put out an executive order banning federal funds for any "Housing First" program - even thought it was a Republican idea (one of a few good ones to come out of the Bush administration). I guess, like EVs and mRNA vaccines, they think it's not manly enough, or too woke.

It's not clear what exactly will replace Housing First, other than performative tough talk. I've often banged my head against the wall on this forum arguing that tough talk of "cracking down" and "being like China" is not a policy solution. If you want to get people off the street, you need actual plans for where they're going to go and how they're going to get there. Building specialized institutions to put them is extremely expensive, which is why conservatives typically favoured "Housing First", which made use of surplus rental units on the private market. Of course, that depends on housing being plentiful and cheap, which was more the case in the 1990s and 2000s, but less the case now. When there's a shortage of housing, the people living on the edge of homelessness are the ones who lose the game of musical chairs.

My fear is that "tough talk" and "cracking down" will just result in the de facto strategy of police "whack-a-mole" where patrol officers spend their entire shift driving from one complaint to the next, ripping down encampments, picking people up, dropping them off at shelters or jails, only to have them back on the street in a matter of hours (and at an extremely high cost to taxpayers to go through the whole, useless cycle). But, sure, media images of angry officers ripping down tents and throwing people into paddy wagons looks good for Trump's social media content.
 
Vancouver has plenty of subsidised housing and it's not exactly working out of them. I'm not sure how things operate Houston but I think their crisis is less severe than Canadian cities and West Coast American cities. It could also be that their homelessness is less linked to substance abuse than it is here.

Meanwhile, our downtowns can't afford more trials and errors. The situation is getting really dramatic and at this pace, some cities risk ending up with streets fully abandoned by normal people like Hastings. The Drop-in-Centre is unfair to all of the population of the East Village, Bridgeland, Chinatown and the surroundings. I know the Drop-In Centre center has been here for a while, before the E&V revitalisation, but it's greatly affecting the quality of life of 50K/100K people (not just the people living in the area but also shopping, working, transiting). Are there benefits to having the Drop-In Centre located downtown? Absolutely, it makes essential services more accessible to people in need. But should the needs and safety of 100,000 others also be part of the conversation? In my opinion, yes and it has not been the case at all, even though the Drop-In Centre is financed by the taxes of these 100.000.

I'm a EV resident, pay a significant amount of taxes and never had a say in the story.
 

Back
Top