East Village Rejuvenation Plan

[MarkL]

I am curious what The Collective here thinks the fate of the Drop-In Centre will be with all of this new development. I noticed the plot that was sold is the one directly across from the Drop-In. As more and more of these get approved and developed there will be increasing pressure on TheDI to just not be where it is. Generally speaking, snazzy new condos do not mingle well with homeless, drug dealers, prostitution, etc.

Keep in mind two points: The drop-in does not own the land it is on, the City does, though it does have 91 years left on its lease of the land. Also, the Executive Director of the past 16 years who oversaw the building of this new building and tended more towards "over my dead body" is retiring in a month.

Working in this industry I already have some opinions on this, but I am curious what you all think.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by MarkL

I am curious what The Collective here thinks the fate of the Drop-In Centre will be with all of this new development. I noticed the plot that was sold is the one directly across from the Drop-In. As more and more of these get approved and developed there will be increasing pressure on TheDI to just not be where it is. Generally speaking, snazzy new condos do not mingle well with homeless, drug dealers, prostitution, etc.

Keep in mind two points: The drop-in does not own the land it is on, the City does, though it does have 91 years left on its lease of the land. Also, the Executive Director of the past 16 years who oversaw the building of this new building and tended more towards "over my dead body" is retiring in a month.

Working in this industry I already have some opinions on this, but I am curious what you all think.

I hope they will move, or change the way they do business. As it stands now, the riverbank and area near the DI is subject to a lot of loitering and undesirable activity. I have no doubt that this will continue when the area re-opens.

[LFRENCH]

Originally Posted by MarkL

I am curious what The Collective here thinks the fate of the Drop-In Centre will be with all of this new development. I noticed the plot that was sold is the one directly across from the Drop-In. As more and more of these get approved and developed there will be increasing pressure on TheDI to just not be where it is. Generally speaking, snazzy new condos do not mingle well with homeless, drug dealers, prostitution, etc.

Keep in mind two points: The drop-in does not own the land it is on, the City does, though it does have 91 years left on its lease of the land. Also, the Executive Director of the past 16 years who oversaw the building of this new building and tended more towards "over my dead body" is retiring in a month.

Working in this industry I already have some opinions on this, but I am curious what you all think.

Hard to really say, although what is more important is that it seems we have learnt from some of the challenges that this particular building has offered us. Therefore one could make the case for changing this model of providing shelter for venerable individuals.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by LFRENCH

Hard to really say, although what is more important is that it seems we have learnt from some of the challenges that this particular building has offered us. Therefore one could make the case for changing this model of providing shelter for venerable individuals.

If they change from a shelter model to a housing model, it would do a lot to clean up the area. In fact we should be doing as much as possible to reduce the number of "shelter" beds in the city and increasing the number of actual homes.

[LFRENCH]

Originally Posted by fusili

If they change from a shelter model to a housing model, it would do a lot to clean up the area. In fact we should be doing as much as possible to reduce the number of "shelter" beds in the city and increasing the number of actual homes.

Exactly my point, shelter is temporary not permanent solution.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by fusili

If they change from a shelter model to a housing model, it would do a lot to clean up the area. In fact we should be doing as much as possible to reduce the number of "shelter" beds in the city and increasing the number of actual homes.

Although the City has limited powers, it would be great if the shelter was removed so long as developments in the EV were required to include a certain portion of affordable housing units (social rented and/or intermediate affordable).

[mooky]

There are a certain percentage of homeless that will never be able to transition to a housing model from a shelter model. I don't know in percentage or hard numbers how many in the Calgary area that is, but it isn't insignificant. Those people would mostly be made up of the mentally ill for who self sufficient living isn't possible. At best some sort of assisted living experience *may* be possible.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by MarkL

I am curious what The Collective here thinks the fate of the Drop-In Centre will be with all of this new development. I noticed the plot that was sold is the one directly across from the Drop-In. As more and more of these get approved and developed there will be increasing pressure on TheDI to just not be where it is. Generally speaking, snazzy new condos do not mingle well with homeless, drug dealers, prostitution, etc.

Keep in mind two points: The drop-in does not own the land it is on, the City does, though it does have 91 years left on its lease of the land. Also, the Executive Director of the past 16 years who oversaw the building of this new building and tended more towards "over my dead body" is retiring in a month.

Working in this industry I already have some opinions on this, but I am curious what you all think.

I think there are so many common concerns including public safety and crime reduction, improved mobility, public health, and increased housing options that can be worked on together.

[tdurden5573]

Originally Posted by MarkL

I am curious what The Collective here thinks the fate of the Drop-In Centre will be with all of this new development. I noticed the plot that was sold is the one directly across from the Drop-In. As more and more of these get approved and developed there will be increasing pressure on TheDI to just not be where it is. Generally speaking, snazzy new condos do not mingle well with homeless, drug dealers, prostitution, etc.

Keep in mind two points: The drop-in does not own the land it is on, the City does, though it does have 91 years left on its lease of the land. Also, the Executive Director of the past 16 years who oversaw the building of this new building and tended more towards "over my dead body" is retiring in a month.

Working in this industry I already have some opinions on this, but I am curious what you all think.

Its wrong to have such a large center built in such prime real estate (especially when it was located beside a beer store and drug den). The center needs to relocate its shelter (overnight) program to smaller locations around the city.

The building itself should stay and become more administrative and day program based (education and counseling services). This would eliminate the high concentration of homeless just hanging around. I ride my bike by there occationaly and there is no way I would every invest money (ie. buy a condo) in the East village with the drop in center operating the way it currently does. I'm not a Nimby, but I also dont enjoy seeing guys shooting up, sh1tting in bushes, screaming at passerbyers, or fighting (all of which ive experienced while going by that area).

East Village has huge potential and needs a mix of high, low, commercial, social developments in order to be a vibrant community - fingers crossed.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by MarkL

I am curious what The Collective here thinks the fate of the Drop-In Centre will be with all of this new development. I noticed the plot that was sold is the one directly across from the Drop-In. As more and more of these get approved and developed there will be increasing pressure on TheDI to just not be where it is. Generally speaking, snazzy new condos do not mingle well with homeless, drug dealers, prostitution, etc.

Keep in mind two points: The drop-in does not own the land it is on, the City does, though it does have 91 years left on its lease of the land. Also, the Executive Director of the past 16 years who oversaw the building of this new building and tended more towards "over my dead body" is retiring in a month.

Working in this industry I already have some opinions on this, but I am curious what you all think.

Vetro seems to be cohabitating well across from Alpha House...

I do think the DIC needs to move though, that land is far too valuable to be warehousing the homeless in this city.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Aegis

I hope they will move, or change the way they do business. As it stands now, the riverbank and area near the DI is subject to a lot of loitering and undesirable activity. I have no doubt that this will continue when the area re-opens.

Where could they move to? Any residential community would fight it tooth and nail. An industrial site might not face opposition but there would be significant issues with utilization; a lot of patrons show up when it is too cold to stay out at night, if they cannot easily reach the shelter its value may be suspect.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by tdurden5573

Its wrong to have such a large center built in such prime real estate (especially when it was located beside a beer store and drug den). The center needs to relocate its shelter (overnight) program to smaller locations around the city.

The building itself should stay and become more administrative and day program based (education and counseling services). This would eliminate the high concentration of homeless just hanging around. I ride my bike by there occationaly and there is no way I would every invest money (ie. buy a condo) in the East village with the drop in center operating the way it currently does. I'm not a Nimby, but I also dont enjoy seeing guys shooting up, sh1tting in bushes, screaming at passerbyers, or fighting (all of which ive experienced while going by that area).

East Village has huge potential and needs a mix of high, low, commercial, social developments in order to be a vibrant community - fingers crossed.

At least on the 'sh1tting in bushes' issue there is now two public self-cleaning washrooms installed that should help improve public health.

My biggest beef is with the high amounts of alcohol and drug abuse. Closing the Cecil really helped, and an even larger buffer zone between liquor establishments and shelters would prevent a cycle of alcohol abuse and poverty. Crime stats also show that East Village has had a tremendous drop in crime (~50%) so a lot of the police targeting drug dealers has been very successful and needs to continue.

Having 3 shelters in one area, one being the largest in Canada, was a mistake to begin with that kind of concentration. Dispersing the clients would help reduce the drug traffickers that target DI clients by reducing the viability of this kind of market. This would help reduce the amount of time the clients spend in the shelter.

There is also a gap between the large amount of emergency shelters in East Village and the amount of affordable near market housing available for them to transition to.

Overall, I think there are still many issues that can find common grounds on and overcome. There is still no East Village community association and I think it would help if Drop-In could partner with the community association to address these issues instead of the DI being the only advocate besides the CMLC for the area.

[fusili]

I think the best solution is to transition the M.O. of the Drop in Centre, and in fact all Homeless agencies, to a housing model or a long-term care model. People should either be put in permanent housing or in permanent care. The problem with the Drop in Centre is just that, it is a drop in centre, not a permanent solution.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Where could they move to? Any residential community would fight it tooth and nail. An industrial site might not face opposition but there would be significant issues with utilization; a lot of patrons show up when it is too cold to stay out at night, if they cannot easily reach the shelter its value may be suspect.

I think there are a number of analogs that the DI could draw upon for better examples of integration within a community and how the scale of a homeless shelter could be sensitive to the size of a community. There are 2,448 residents in East Village and the Drop-In centre can accomodate 1,370 clients. I guess the risk to CMLC is that at this level of concentration, that development will never take place. i.e.: The problems of the community are too great relative to the ability of the community to fix.

I also know there are community associations out there that are open to sharing a portion of this social burden. Some community associations would view having some housing set aside for emergency shelter as part of being a complete community. As a recent example, one can read about the Tuxedo drug rehab centre. It was endorsed by the community association, but not by some of the residents: http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2010/09/16/15378161.html

[jsbertram]

clipped from http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5006184&postcount=123

Originally Posted by Wooster

...

The rendering suggests to me that the DIC isn't part of the East Village plan, but the land around it will be redeveloped anyhow. When the new condo owners move in to the area, they will put pressure on the City Council and the DIC to 'do something' with their clientele.

[YYCguys]

Speaking of the Cecil, I may be wrong, but didn't I see construction fencing around the site? Is it purely for security of the site or is there some sort of demolition/construction going to occur?

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Speaking of the Cecil, I may be wrong, but didn't I see construction fencing around the site? Is it purely for security of the site or is there some sort of demolition/construction going to occur?

I could be wrong, but I think it's being used as staging grounds for 7 avenue LRT refurbishment project.

[Radley77]

Looks like CMLC was thinking alot along the lines of Ramsayfarian!

From Mr. Ollenberger's Twitter, " Testing lighting on RiverWalk! Final bench light colour on right. #yyc http://yfrog.com/n0v2clj ".

[devonb]

Yeah, those lights are either too bright or pointed out in the wrong direction. They're super bright driving along Memorial.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Radley77

At least on the 'sh1tting in bushes' issue there is now two public self-cleaning washrooms installed that should help improve public health.

My biggest beef is with the high amounts of alcohol and drug abuse. Closing the Cecil really helped, and an even larger buffer zone between liquor establishments and shelters would prevent a cycle of alcohol abuse and poverty. Crime stats also show that East Village has had a tremendous drop in crime (~50%) so a lot of the police targeting drug dealers has been very successful and needs to continue.

I don't have the numbers to back this up, but I've been hearing that crime has increased in Bridgeland since the Cecil closed.