i passed by around 1 am ish or so and they were filming - there was also some filming at the VAG - they had about 3 cabs parked that said NYC Taxi or something like that
"You need to be able to access [the drugs] you need right away, safely from nurses or doctors, not from the Hells Angels," report co-author Wendy Pedersen said.
Transformed Downtown Eastside could be a global model: report
- Ensure public spaces are public - its seems lately DTES people do not want any non-DTES down there... I certainly haven't felt welcomed when checking the area lately - before woodwards it wasn't as bad - are they being instructed to yell at and make non-DTES feel unwelcomed?
Attract more children - so they can watch people shoot up with the easy access drugs as advocates want?
binners bill of rights? really they do it already - now they need a bill of rights to do it?
I'm not against respectful binners. They come by our apartment complex every recycle day, pull out some cans, and don't make a mess.
As for Wendy Pedersen's comments.. holy entitlement batman. That's my biggest problem with the DTES. Whatever they do, I'm paying for it, and to them, it's never enough. Gimme gimme gimme!!!
I wonder what happens if they don't get their bill or rights, will the binners unionize?, walk out and stop binning?
Does anyone know when Mark Brand plans on re-opening Save-On Meats? It's been a few months and I haven't seen any work take place, mind you it's hard to see anything with the shutters closed. Looking forward to see what he has in store.
I think he is busy setting up Sea Monstr Sushi, (which is still not open, arggh). Then he can turn his attention to Save-on-Meats. I don't imagine his lease is very high so he can probably afford to sit on the space for a while.
i passed by around 1 am ish or so and they were filming - there was also some filming at the VAG - they had about 3 cabs parked that said NYC Taxi or something like that
two shoots going on at the same time
Looks like some Xmas trees are being set up on the Bay canopy - Seymour & Georgia.
- Ensure public spaces are public - its seems lately DTES people do not want any non-DTES down there... I certainly haven't felt welcomed when checking the area lately - before woodwards it wasn't as bad - are they being instructed to yell at and make non-DTES feel unwelcomed?
I wouldn't doubt it. I honestly think the last thing these people want is for the DTES to improve. They NEED it to stay the way it is.
And anyone who thinks otherwise isn't welcome to be there
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa
I wonder what happens if they don't get their bill or rights, will the binners unionize?, walk out and stop binning?
I could definitely see a binners union taking shape in Vancouver. That is just sooo... *Vancouver*.
As a downtown eastside/chinatown resident, I agree with most of what's on the list of DTES Solution...with the exceptions of
- Build social housing --- In relation to other parts of metro van, isn't there already proportionally more social housing in DTES? And how does this help people, being lumped together like outcasts?
- Tackle systemic poverty --- Since when did we decide that poverty is a long-term systemic problem? Are we not institutionalising poverty? How about finding new opportunities to incorporate a diversity of incomes?
- Stop gentrification --- Does gentrification mean anything new? Do we have to keep decaying empty heritage buildings empty, and not build a new heritage-styie building that could be used, and bring safe housing, jobs, and families?
I really don't get the lets not make changes attitude, except that I think someone is making money off of the current situation.
Re. the DTES Solution:
Two of those goals (in particular) work together to keep the DTES exactly as it is: No highrises and More Social Housing.
No highrises = no revenue-generating residents moving into the neighbourhood. No residents with jobs, no new life on the streets, no attracting of suppporting businesses (stores, services and employers).
More Social Housing = more revenue-depleting residents, already on low to no income, who don't raise much tax revenue for the city, don't add much financial support for the local businesses, and provide one social mix in the neighbourhood.
For the neighbourhood to reach the same level of balance as the rest of the city, LESS social housing and MORE market residential is needed. The easiest way to get the former is to disperse the facilities around the city (which is happening with the 14 new sites under development). The easiest way to ge the latter is to build high-density residential - a.k.a. highrises.
The best way to accomplish that would be to build market housing, with a social component, as is required in any new development anyways. I'd much prefer a developer has to pay for people's social housing, then tax money drawn from the general population. Now you just have to convince people that they *want* to live down there. And to do that, you target the young yuppie crowd first who are likely to be more sympathetic to the plight of those in the area, and view it as an opportunity to gentrify the neighbourhood. It could be our own SoHo! Build relatively cheap housing (no marble and stainless steel everything), and open a few Starbucks and hand-made soap shops. Ta da!
Then, eventually, it will be a real neighbourhood and not a crack den, and you can build more high-end places and have the healthy income mix we see elsewhere.
I agree with djh, but unfortunately, with the existing concentration of social housing in the neighbourhood, I think that the amount of market rental or condominium housing required to achieve a "normal" "economically sustainable" balance in the DTES is no longer possible (i.e. there's so much social housing that you'd need to pile on too much development onto the other existing sites.
I think that means that the DTES will forever be dependent on the rest of the City to pay its way - the best you can do now is to mitigate the amount of subsidies required to support the DTES (I.e. curtail further concentration of social housing there) and try to get it to be sustainable, stand on its own two feet and rely less on the rest of the City (financially) as a crutch.
When the city feels there is too much concentration of a particular type of housing, they can just put a moratorium of further development of that type of zoning in an area. The same could happen with Social Housing development in the DTES (?perhaps it would have to be in conjunction with the Province?).
As long as the ratio of Social-to-Market Housing is getting more even, the neighbourhood will improve. Add a sprinkle of Social Housing to each neighbourhood throughout the vast spread of the region and nobody even notices. But thousands upon thousands of poor people in one area is going to pull that area downhill.
So, if we get more projects like Woodwards in the DTES then we'll see improvement. When I say "like Woodwards" I mean in terms of high-density development, a relaxation on height limits, and a desire to add market residential into the core of a poor neighbourhood. Call it gentrification if you like, but the aim is to bring money into the area, so that the area gets some self-respect, eyes on the street, cleans-up, and the city has more revenue from the new residents with which to help those who are less fortunate. It's not going to get better by keeping the area broke because the authorities will forever be complaining that they need more money to make the area better.
The thing is you don't even require highrises nor eliminating the current SROs. The city's numbers going off the top of my head are that the dtes currently has 16K residents and that under existing zoning upon buildout could house 50k residents. Now not all of those 16K current residents are low income but even if we pretend they were upon buildout and placing a stop to new SROs then the area would have a ratio of ~33% low income. But in all honestly that number would probably be much lower if we ever got to buildout. Plus we also know the city will allow a tad above current zoning in quite a few spots. I'm not too worried about the DTES longterm.
I find the thought of no neighbourhood changes yet improve conditions for the poor to be a little paradoxical. How can you not change the neighbourhood when you give the poor people more resources to get back on their feet? =S
Anyway, we need to encourage developers to build in the DTES... while at the same time ensure that there are plenty of resources and homes to encourage people to get off their drug habits and get back on their feet. The social housing and support program minimums that were applied to Woodwards should be similarly applied elsewhere.
The best way to accomplish that would be to build market housing, with a social component, as is required in any new development anyways. I'd much prefer a developer has to pay for people's social housing, then tax money drawn from the general population. Now you just have to convince people that they *want* to live down there. And to do that, you target the young yuppie crowd first who are likely to be more sympathetic to the plight of those in the area, and view it as an opportunity to gentrify the neighbourhood. It could be our own SoHo! Build relatively cheap housing (no marble and stainless steel everything), and open a few Starbucks and hand-made soap shops. Ta da!
Then, eventually, it will be a real neighbourhood and not a crack den, and you can build more high-end places and have the healthy income mix we see elsewhere.
Prev
they do it already - now they need a bill of rights to do it? 
I could definitely see a binners union taking shape in Vancouver. That is just sooo... *Vancouver*.
Linear Mode
