General Vancouver Development Updates II

[SeymourDrake]

Originally Posted by kikin

not to mention wondering what the new development on the corner of Davie and Burrard will bring to the neighborhood, it feels like the goal is to make that area a centre for "social" stuff, I feel bad for the people that bought homes in that area when it seemed like it was a lot nicer, now the hardware store a block up Davie has almost everything locked behind cages due to the "shoppers" from the Murray etc

The Biggest issue is people thinking they can outrun crime and their social responsibilities within each neighbourhood. I don't feel bad for anyone who moved into downtown Vancouver and think they are somehow protected from everything because they dropped a few million on a condo.

[logan5]

A lot of supportive housing was placed in the downtown area well after a lot of us moved in. I moved into Mt. Pleasant 20 years ago. Since that time, 4 supportive housing facilities have moved into my neighborhood, while the rest of Vancouver gets to live in peace and quiet. You should be thanking us. The fair thing to do would be to have everybody take on their fair share of supportive housing, but nope.

[whatnext]

I'm also a bit surprised how large the balconies are in that render, for a hotel.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm also a bit surprised how large the balconies are in that render, for a hotel.

It's a design doodle, and it's Arno Matis. He has generated dozens of futuristic architectural concepts over the years, with very few actually built. In a few cases another architect has taken over and simplified (cheapened) the design. In others a wholly different design has evolved.

That sketch for 917 Main is no longer on his website, and we don't know whether the actual rezoning looks anything like it, and even if it did, whether the subsequent development application, if/when it appears, will still bear any resemblance to the rezoning.

[kikin]

Originally Posted by logan5

...The fair thing to do would be to have everybody take on their fair share of supportive housing, but nope.

I'm thinking it would be more fair to keep the halfway houses and low barrier SRO's in containment zones (dtes). It is fine to spread out no-drug-allowed social housing for disabled and elderly into all the neighborhoods, but putting fentanyl smoking SRO's in every community would be ridiculous.

[jollyburger]

I wonder why Westbank is trying to lease out the old Hootsuite offices in Mount Pleasant as a data centre if Telus was going to occupy it

https://www.cbre.ca/properties/office/de...venue-vancouver-british-columbia-v5t-4l1

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I wonder why Westbank is trying to lease out the old Hootsuite offices in Mount Pleasant as a data centre if Telus was going to occupy it

https://www.cbre.ca/properties/office/de...venue-vancouver-british-columbia-v5t-4l1

'Page Not Found'

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by kikin

I'm thinking it would be more fair to keep the halfway houses and low barrier SRO's in containment zones (dtes). It is fine to spread out no-drug-allowed social housing for disabled and elderly into all the neighborhoods, but putting fentanyl smoking SRO's in every community would be ridiculous.

And how well has that worked as a policy so far?

Remember that just because you don't see something (....or move it to somewhere where you don't have to acknowledge it...), doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

And how well has that worked as a policy so far?

Remember that just because you don't see something (....or move it to somewhere where you don't have to acknowledge it...), doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist.

Seems like the exact opposite. I mean when the problem just existed in the DTES people did just ignore it.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

And how well has that worked as a policy so far?

Remember that just because you don't see something (....or move it to somewhere where you don't have to acknowledge it...), doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist.

I think that's all they care about, not seeing the problem.

[Glow Fun City]

Originally Posted by madog222

I think that's all they care about, not seeing the problem.

Yep… same with all the people who say “bus them up north” whenever this issue comes up

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Seems like the exact opposite. I mean when the problem just existed in the DTES people did just ignore it.

Originally Posted by madog222

I think that's all they care about, not seeing the problem.

Originally Posted by Glow Fun City

Yep… same with all the people who say “bus them up north” whenever this issue comes up

I mean that's the thing, though.
These are not just objects you place on a shelf away from view and forget about them just because you don't look at that shelf every day, and don't have to.

These are human beings.
They're not just going to stay only there just because you think they should be just there and don't want to acknowledge or deal with the problem they represent.

Most of them don't want to be there any more than these same people don't want to acknowledge that... "there"... exists.

So, not surprisingly, they'll pop up in other places in the city...."they're not supposed to be in" ,...just because they too don't want to be.... "there".

The 'head-in-the-sand' approach has obviously failed as a policy with these many decades of evidence as proof.

[Migrant_Coconut]

More importantly, we're going to keep having this problem as long as we have no shelters, no extra detox capacity, and the mildest weather in all of Western Canada. Clearing them out of the neighbourhood just means it'll be filled up again two months later.

[kikin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

More importantly, we're going to keep having this problem as long as we have no shelters, no extra detox capacity, and the mildest weather in all of Western Canada. Clearing them out of the neighbourhood just means it'll be filled up again two months later.

we need vagrancy laws that are enforced and containment neighborhoods, building big shelters and detox centers isn't going to stop them from choosing to not go to the shelters or detox

public drug intoxication should definitely not be tolerated and I believe is already covered by laws in the book, just not enforced properly, anyone doing a fentanyl bend or folded over in a scattered mess on the sidewalk should not be tolerated in anywhere but a very limited containment area that is full of social services for them

[madog222]

Originally Posted by kikin

we need vagrancy laws that are enforced and containment neighborhoods, building big shelters and detox centers isn't going to stop them from choosing to not go to the shelters or detox

public drug intoxication should definitely not be tolerated and I believe is already covered by laws in the book, just not enforced properly, anyone doing a fentanyl bend or folded over in a scattered mess on the sidewalk should not be tolerated in anywhere but a very limited containment area that is full of social services for them

I’m not sure what any of that has to do with building development.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

More importantly, we're going to keep having this problem as long as we have no shelters, no extra detox capacity, and the mildest weather in all of Western Canada. Clearing them out of the neighbourhood just means it'll be filled up again two months later.

So basically an, 'all of the above' approach that pursues all methods available and using every tool in the toolbox, ....rather than the,.... 'dump them in ...that.... part of town,.... where we don't want to see them anymore nor acknowledge they actually exist and then cross our fingers, hope and pray very hard for the best, and also that that invisible force-field that's somehow supposed to keep them 'contained' in there like they're jelly beans in a closed jar,....actually works'.


Anyway, bringing this back on topic....
An approach where everyone else shoulders the burden of having treatment facilities and supportive housing, would also be beneficial with an eye towards the long-term rehabilitation of East Hastings and the DTES, which wouldn't be seen as a lost cause and the sole area where all druggies get dumped and we forget about it.

And in so doing, also helping redirect some much needed infrastructure support and redevelopment resources there as well.

And that way also, Logan's Mt. Pleasant neighbourhood doesn't have to carry everyone else's water, and we all bear our fair share of the burden.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by kikin

we need vagrancy laws that are enforced and containment neighborhoods, building big shelters and detox centers isn't going to stop them from choosing to not go to the shelters or detox

Vagrancy laws also pretend to "solve" the problem instead of actually solving it; of all the places that've tried it over the last few centuries, which ones have actually ended homelessness or violence?

We're building a second detox centre because the first one's full, and we're out of space in the existing shelters... in other words, people will choose housing and detox, but there isn't enough space for them. Banning public drug use is great virtue-signalling, but in practice means nothing if there's nowhere to put the perp.

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Anyway, bringing this back on topic....
An approach where everyone else shoulders the burden of having treatment facilities and supportive housing, would also be beneficial with an eye towards the long-term rehabilitation of East Hastings and the DTES, which wouldn't be seen as a lost cause and the sole area where all druggies get dumped and we forget about it.

And in so doing, also helping redirect some much needed infrastructure support and redevelopment resources there as well.

Also, overhaul the poverty-industrial complex whose admin just pockets provincial and federal money and lets the problem get worse. Atira was only the tip of the iceberg.

[kikin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Vagrancy laws also pretend to "solve" the problem instead of actually solving it; of all the places that've tried it over the last few centuries, which ones have actually ended homelessness or violence?
...

that is the point, it is impossible to end those things, so spreading it around just ruins everywhere for everyone

places that have solved the disorder problems in their tourist and business and residential areas are numerous in the world though

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by kikin

that is the point, it is impossible to end those things, so spreading it around just ruins everywhere for everyone

places that have solved the disorder problems in their tourist and business and residential areas are numerous in the world though

Rather, spreading it around gives every neighbourhood a small dose of the problem instead of one big one somewhere else.

Those "places" (citations would be nice) likely also have enough shelter and detox space. Starting any kind of enforcement before that is just putting the cart before the horse.

Now could we get back to redevelopment?

[csbvan]

Cranes rising on 4th at both the Safeway site (below) and the Darby's site (didn't get a picture unfortunately):

20260902_095527 by csbvancouver, on Flickr

20260902_095650 by csbvancouver, on Flickr