EV & the Calgary Drop-In & Rehab Centre

[speedog]

Seeing as there's been a bit of discussion in the 'East Village Rejuvenation Plan' thread regarding the Calgary Drop-In & Rehab Centre, I though I'd create this thread to discuss that issue specifically so as to not have that other thread skew off track too much. I realize that the Calgary Drop-In & Rehab Centre is very much a part of the East Village Rejuvenation Plan but the issues that arise from having the Calgary Drop-In & Rehab Centre (and other similar ventures/services) in the core/beltline are bigger than just the East Village.

Moving forward, people have a lot of strong opinions regarding The DI (nickname used by the Calgary Drop-In & Rehab Centre) - should it remain where it is, should it be moved, should it be changed? Problem is the clientele that utilize the facilities/services as provided by The DI, the Salvation Army, the Mustard Seed and others will usually migrate downtown - all transit focuses on downtown and people just generally navigate there as well. Moving these facilities elsewhere is often unwanted by the neighbors in those communities be it residential or, commercial or industrial and in reality, a central location is probably the most economical way to service the people using these facilities.

Of note, there are similar facilities that do exist in residential or industrial areas and in almost every case, the affected community did put up a fight. There is some sort of drug rehab place that opened up quietly about a year or so ago in the community next to ours and while it was opposed, I have never seen or heard anything bad arising out it being there - then again, I don't know anything about it or what services it provides. It is just there and is very nondescript.

Never the less, The Di and it's like in the downtown core and beltline - there is no easy solution. I don't see the city looking to decentralize these facilities any time soon and at this moment in time, The DI does indeed already have a number of satellite facilities that are not located in the downtown core. I don't have any answers but do know these operations provide invaluable services - my family has volunteered at The DI and my wife has both an uncle and cousin who work at The DI. Yeah, I get that people spending money on digs in the East Village don't want to see the clientele of The DI and such in their community but these facilities have to exist somewhere - the question is if not where they are now then where?

[Riise]

I believe that any discussion and plans for relocating the DI and other facilities needs to motivated by the needs of the DI and our city's Social Services providers rather than the demands/expectations stemming from local redevelopment and urban regeneration.

[Policy Wonk]

A good point of comparison is Skid Row (and surrounding area) in Los Angeles as Calgary emulated in the East Village every single bad decision that was made there.

[Calgarian]

My last post from the EV thread.

Originally Posted by mellbell416

I don't think it would be easy to move the DIC - any neighborhood is going to pull a hair-pulling, jumping-up-and-down NIMBY fit if you try to put a homeless shelter anywhere near them.

Oh yeah, look at the drama surrounding their proposal in Thorncliff. They need to have a few small shelters around the city as others have said, and they definitely need more transitional housing like the Thorncliff proposal.

[Design-mind]

Even if the DI centre was relocated, the homeless will likely congregate in EV, where there will be parks, the Library, plenty of people etc. Calgary has to start to learn how to coexist with the homeless instead of always relocating them. NYC is doing it right by spreading them out. When we push them into certain neighbourhoods it creates an "us against them" mentality. I am not saying I have a solution, but the problem is not going to go away, so we need to rethink the way we are doing things now.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

My last post from the EV thread.



Oh yeah, look at the drama surrounding their proposal in GREENVIEW. They need to have a few small shelters around the city as others have said, and they definitely need more transitional housing like the GREENVIEW proposal.

Fixed that for you!

[outoftheice]

As someone who purchased a unit in the East Village (and is very much looking forward to moving in this summer) I don't see an issue with the DI being located where it is. I would agree that right now the number of homeless people that one tends to find in the East Village has an impact on the feel of the area when one is walking around (especially at night). Perhaps I'm naïve, but I firmly believe that as the number of residents jumps in the East Village over the next few years the impact on the neighbourhood 'feel' of those who make use of the DI will be less and less.

To support this notion, I look to my own experiences on Stephen Avenue. If I walk down Stephen Avenue on a cold winter day, those who are out on the street are usually me, a few other brave souls going about their business and clusters of homeless people. The homeless stand out and completely changes the 'feel' of the street. Doing the same walk in July, the Avenue is bustling with people. I can almost always recognize the same faces of the homeless who are hanging around the same spots as they were on the winter day but now they are surrounded by people going about their day. They are still there but their presence isn't really felt and doesn't impact the 'vibe' on the street.

I think we'll see the same in the East Village. Those making use of the Drop In Centre will still be there but there will be enough bustle on the streets of the East Village day and night that they will no longer stand out as a focal point.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Fixed that for you!

Wrong side of McKnight I guess . Still, thats a good site for what the DIC wants to put there, and it's already a run down, vacant hotel in a spot that was never really nice, especially when Mustang's was open haha.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

Even if the DI centre was relocated, the homeless will likely congregate in EV, where there will be parks, the Library, plenty of people etc. Calgary has to start to learn how to coexist with the homeless instead of always relocating them. NYC is doing it right by spreading them out. When we push them into certain neighbourhoods it creates an "us against them" mentality. I am not saying I have a solution, but the problem is not going to go away, so we need to rethink the way we are doing things now.

The Beltline has all these things and I see far, far fewer homeless people there.

What is the real reason people become homeless? I always thought it was mental illness and addictions. Is the homeless problem getting better or worse in Calgary?

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Wrong side of McKnight I guess . Still, thats a good site for what the DIC wants to put there, and it's already a run down, vacant hotel in a spot that was never really nice, especially when Mustang's was open haha.

The consultant hired by the Community Association has completed a concept plan that looks fairly good. Creates a little village by redeveloping the site by placing a number of mixed use buildings around the hotel building such as a grocery store on a main level with a few levels of residential above in one, a gym on a main level in another, again with a few levels of residential above, etc. The hotel building is retained. The problem that has been brewing is that the DIC changed the plan for the hotel building from a mix of suites to all single bedrooms with a common dining room, and I don't blame the CA for walking away from the table with a terrible plan like that for the hotel building. If this village concept would go ahead with the hotel building retaining the original mixed suite plan, I think it would be a lovely addition to an otherwise ugly area of the community, and I hope the CA can get onboard with that.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

especially when Mustang's was open haha.

Wow, great reference! I wasn't even legal when that placed closed and I've been legal for a while now.

[dazzlingdave88]

No amount of "ideal urban design" will end this problem. It needs to be solved by working with the individuals and social agencies. Besides, kicking the homeless out of this area, will only relocate them somewhere else.

Maybe East Village residents should have a levy that goes towards these social agencies. I know it's not the residents fault, but they are choosing to live in an area that requires gentrification. I would also argue that you could have that levy citywide. Having it in the suburbs would just ensure this problem doesn't spread.

Just my two cents.

[Doug]

Splitting the facility into several smaller ones would likely make sense but will never happen due to community opposition. I can see it being moved somewhere that will never gentrify, like Alyth or Bonnybrook.

[floobie]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

As someone who purchased a unit in the East Village (and is very much looking forward to moving in this summer) I don't see an issue with the DI being located where it is. I would agree that right now the number of homeless people that one tends to find in the East Village has an impact on the feel of the area when one is walking around (especially at night). Perhaps I'm naïve, but I firmly believe that as the number of residents jumps in the East Village over the next few years the impact on the neighbourhood 'feel' of those who make use of the DI will be less and less.

To support this notion, I look to my own experiences on Stephen Avenue. If I walk down Stephen Avenue on a cold winter day, those who are out on the street are usually me, a few other brave souls going about their business and clusters of homeless people. The homeless stand out and completely changes the 'feel' of the street. Doing the same walk in July, the Avenue is bustling with people. I can almost always recognize the same faces of the homeless who are hanging around the same spots as they were on the winter day but now they are surrounded by people going about their day. They are still there but their presence isn't really felt and doesn't impact the 'vibe' on the street.

I think we'll see the same in the East Village. Those making use of the Drop In Centre will still be there but there will be enough bustle on the streets of the East Village day and night that they will no longer stand out as a focal point.

Nailed it. Realistically, there will always be homeless people. And, simply moving them and the facilities they need elsewhere is kind of pointless. Logistically, it makes sense for these facilities to be central with good access to transit. What matters is the "feel" of an area. Simply adding a higher population of non-homeless people to an area will quite readily make it more palatable or whatever.

If enough people are living and generally doing shit in the east village, the impact the drop in centre will have on the feel of the area will decrease.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by floobie

If enough people are living and generally doing shit in the east village, the impact the drop in centre will have on the feel of the area will decrease.

So, why doesn't that work in a place like San Francisco where the impact of vagrants doesn't seem to be lost in the masses of people?

[LFRENCH]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

So, why doesn't that work in a place like San Francisco where the impact of vagrants doesn't seem to be lost in the masses of people?

I would suggest it is a matter of the sheer volume and that much of those using services such as Glide Mission are black. I remember once serving meals at the DI and it was nothing like when I served at the Glide.

[Policy Wonk]

Most of the vagrants I have seen in San Francisco were white.

If the issue is people objecting to vagrants disorderly behaviour, which seems to be the prevailing complaint I pickup on down there. More people being exposed to that behaviour is just going to upset more people.

Or more crudely, if a homeless guy poops on the sidewalk and nobody live tweets it, did it really happen?

[LFRENCH]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Most of the vagrants I have seen in San Francisco were white.

If the issue is people objecting to vagrants disorderly behaviour, which seems to be the prevailing complaint I pickup on down there. More people being exposed to that behaviour is just going to upset more people.

Or more crudely, if a homeless guy poops on the sidewalk and nobody live tweets it, did it really happen?

You obviously never went near UN plaza and civic center, while there is all different ethnic groups down and out its strongly black. Back alleys around Eddy are very much the same. even south of mission where my dad grew up is largely meth tweekers these days.

Eitherway SF's homeless issue is very complex and I think no one would argue that the levels of poverty detracts from the city.

And to your second post, I did see some homeless dude take a shit in a corner on macleod trail at 10:45am last tuesday. Needless to say I was on my way to an early lunch and that quickly became just coffee.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Most of the vagrants I have seen in San Francisco were white.

Are you blind or do you just like arguing for the sake of arguing?

In a city that's only 7% black, it's ASTONISHING how many homeless in SF are black. The solid majority, absolutely.

[Policy Wonk]

I'm saying that most of the vagrants I have seen in SF were white. This isn't a sociological endeavor. That's just what I recall having seen.

This 2013 study puts the proportion of African American homeless at 24%.

While historically the homeless population has been overwhelmingly White and African American, this year the proportion of Latino survey respondents doubled, and the race ethnicity breakdown was:
29 percent White, 26 percent Latino/Hispanic, 24 percent Black/African American, 5 percent Asian, and 13 percent Other/Multi‐Racial

http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.or...less_Count.pdf