New Central Library | Construction

[lineman]

Originally Posted by McMurph

My problem is that it often seems that people can't tell the difference between the two groups. The vast majority of homeless are decent people deserving of respect and support. They're more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators. Yet it sometimes seems that rich, entitled, secure folks view every scruffy vagrant as the first wave of a zombie horde.

I know a rich white doctor from Lakeview who stopped riding her bike to the Foothills due to fear of "sketchy" people around the pumphouse theatre. That kind of fear is simply ignorant classism and racism and it's as big a problem in our city as actual vagrancy. Making the inner city livable for everybody has to deal with all the assholes, rich and poor.

I like how you called out the rich white doctor, then call her classist and racist in the same paragraph. I guess she totally would be cool with it if she were a new Canadian cycling to her food service job.

Don't wear a hole out on your jump to conclusions mat.

[Wooster]

Old library site is a bit encumbered by the neighbouring Police admin and arrest processing building. But there should be a solution and plan derived for this site over the next couple years.

[McMurph]

Originally Posted by lineman

I like how you called out the rich white doctor, then call her classist and racist in the same paragraph. I guess she totally would be cool with it if she were a new Canadian cycling to her food service job.

Don't wear a hole out on your jump to conclusions mat.

I don't care who you are unless you're scared of somebody else primarily because they're not like you, in absence of any evidence that you're actually in any danger. Using baseless fear to further marginalize people when it's likely that marginalization itself is what scares you is a stupid way to run society. It's relevant to the development of the East Village, but probably not worth hijacking the thread. Sorry.

For what it's worth, I'm a rich white doctor too.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by McMurph

For what it's worth, I'm a rich white doctor too.

You bastard.

[MarkL]

Originally Posted by McMurph

For what it's worth, I'm a rich white doctor too.

Spare some change?

[mellbell416]

Originally Posted by McMurph

I don't care who you are unless you're scared of somebody else primarily because they're not like you, in absence of any evidence that you're actually in any danger. Using baseless fear to further marginalize people when it's likely that marginalization itself is what scares you is a stupid way to run society. It's relevant to the development of the East Village, but probably not worth hijacking the thread. Sorry.

For what it's worth, I'm a rich white doctor too.

My turn to be sorry, but I have to disagree. Women have to make decisions regarding their safety all the time, and a lot of that comes down to intuition, not hard evidence. If you feel unsafe, you take measures to get yourself out of that situation. It is perfectly normal.

[lineman]

Originally Posted by mellbell416

My turn to be sorry, but I have to disagree. Women have to make decisions regarding their safety all the time, and a lot of that comes down to intuition, not hard evidence. If you feel unsafe, you take measures to get yourself out of that situation. It is perfectly normal.

This seems more plausible than being rich and white. Thanks.

[McMurph]

Originally Posted by lineman

This seems more plausible than being rich and white. Thanks.

I completely agree that women have to be far more tuned into and responsive to their own sense of fear. I know for some the river seems sketchy (despite the large number of folks of all gender who commute by it daily). However, the fear of the homeless is completely out of proportion to the threat they pose and seems disproportionately felt by those who have a whole lot of personal resources to protect them from ever being in a similar position. I know a lot of white folks in the States who feel the same fear in black neighbourhoods as my friend does in the presence of the homeless along the bow. The fear is real, the threat is not (or is at least a lot less). In the case of women in particular the fear has to be personally honoured, but it's an ugly reflection of a divided society.

This all came up in response to the occasional and ongoing inane comments about the EV and the new library and the sense among some that it will be ruined if it is used by "undesirables". My comment, which may have itself been a bit out of line, had to do with my belief that many people see an entire group of vulnerable human beings as perverts, vagrants and junkies.

If a homeless dude needs to take a dump or wash himself in our fancy new library because he's got nowhere else to go, then he should. Homeless people in a library is not a problem. Homelessness is.

[Tills13]

Originally Posted by Wooster

For the lazy

The architect from Snohetta explaining the design of Calgary's New Central Library. This will be a gem.

Skip to about 10:00 to hear him start talking, about 20:00 when he starts revealing the actual designs.

• Video Link

thoroughly enjoyed that talk - dude was very pleasing to listen to.

Thanks for posting.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by McMurph

If a homeless dude needs to take a dump or wash himself in our fancy new library because he's got nowhere else to go, then he should. Homeless people in a library is not a problem. Homelessness is.

Or he could use the public washroom, conveniently located in the East Village.

[Spring2008]

Ya thanks for that vid, Wooster. From 10min on is very interesting with each design element having a story behind it. Take it more detailed renderings should be coming out soon?

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Or he could use the public washroom, conveniently located in the East Village.

I apologize if that was sarcasm (I can't quite tell), but you realize that they closed those public washrooms because homeless people were using them...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ea...hairs-scaled-back-after-misuse-1.2633462

The homeless using this new library is going to be a major challenge. As it fills with the homeless it will become less attractive to the 'desired' user. By the very nature of what the city is trying to do with this space (equitable gathering place) it will be attractive to those with nothing better to do.

This is not an indictment of the concept of the library downtown but rather an acknowledgement of the reality that the the city, Provence and federal government are failing and have failed to adequately deal with the issues of mental illness and homelessness.

[Policy Wonk]

Homelessness ≠ Vagrancy. The homeless are a pretty large and diverse group with varying challenges and needs. Vagrancy, at least in the North American use of the word usually refers to nuisance, prostitution, intoxication and panhandling.

The problem is the clash between the ideals of the urban left and how people actually go about their lives. Whether it's explaining that statistically that hobo leering at you while muttering about sluts, whores and bitches probably isn't going to rape you, or simply referring to people as pussies, either has a remarkably limited potential to modify behaviour. And looking at it from the perspective of relatively young able-bodied men is particularly ridiculous.

The thing about safety is it isn't really rational. People are inherently terrible at evaluating risk, of all kinds (just look at Wall Street). The safest I have probably ever been in my life was when I was surrounded by soldiers with MP5's. I however found that situation absolutely terrifying. I thought this was going to happen at any moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJlmYy-mAZY

Acknowledging that when most individuals are contemplating their safety perception is reality, if you are setting out to gentrify a community you need to account for the human element. And when you're investing billions of public and private funds you just might have to nudge the crackheads along to secure the desired outcome. Indeed there are people, women included, who like grit. But that isn't a huge number of people. This situation has played out elsewhere, but I don't think people coming and going via their parking garage equipped with mantraps is really the vibe you're going for.

Maybe there is a case for building a day shelter and safe injection clinic somewhere far, far away, but that isn't the job of a library or especially the people working there. Not every single public space has to be seceded to vagrants just by virtue of being public.

Originally Posted by McMurph

I completely agree that women have to be far more tuned into and responsive to their own sense of fear. I know for some the river seems sketchy (despite the large number of folks of all gender who commute by it daily). However, the fear of the homeless is completely out of proportion to the threat they pose and seems disproportionately felt by those who have a whole lot of personal resources to protect them from ever being in a similar position. I know a lot of white folks in the States who feel the same fear in black neighbourhoods as my friend does in the presence of the homeless along the bow. The fear is real, the threat is not (or is at least a lot less). In the case of women in particular the fear has to be personally honoured, but it's an ugly reflection of a divided society.

This all came up in response to the occasional and ongoing inane comments about the EV and the new library and the sense among some that it will be ruined if it is used by "undesirables". My comment, which may have itself been a bit out of line, had to do with my belief that many people see an entire group of vulnerable human beings as perverts, vagrants and junkies.

If a homeless dude needs to take a dump or wash himself in our fancy new library because he's got nowhere else to go, then he should. Homeless people in a library is not a problem. Homelessness is.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Homelessness ≠ Vagrancy. The homeless are a pretty large and diverse group with varying challenges and needs. Vagrancy, at least in the North American use of the word usually refers to nuisance, prostitution, intoxication and panhandling.

The problem is the clash between the ideals of the urban left and how people actually go about their lives. Whether it's explaining that statistically that hobo leering at you while muttering about sluts, whores and bitches probably isn't going to rape you, or simply referring to people as pussies, either has a remarkably limited potential to modify behaviour. And looking at it from the perspective of relatively young able-bodied men is particularly ridiculous.

The thing about safety is it isn't really rational. People are inherently terrible at evaluating risk, of all kinds (just look at Wall Street). The safest I have probably ever been in my life was when I was surrounded by soldiers with MP5's. I however found that situation absolutely terrifying. I thought this was going to happen at any moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJlmYy-mAZY

Acknowledging that when most individuals are contemplating their safety perception is reality, if you are setting out to gentrify a community you need to account for the human element. And when you're investing billions of public and private funds you just might have to nudge the crackheads along to secure the desired outcome. Indeed there are people, women included, who like grit. But that isn't a huge number of people. This situation has played out elsewhere, but I don't think people coming and going via their parking garage equipped with mantraps is really the vibe you're going for.

Maybe there is a case for building a day shelter and safe injection clinic somewhere far, far away, but that isn't the job of a library or especially the people working there. Not every single public space has to be seceded to vagrants just by virtue of being public.

Agreed that libraries should not necessarily = vagrancy (as you define it). I also agree that the perception of risk/safety does equal your actual level of risk/safety.

Design elements of this library, and many new institutions are addressing the problems of perception. Lighting, visibility and cleanliness of an area all go to address the safety perception issue you describe. So does having a huge node of activity that takes expands the "non-vagrant" population many times over.

Will design elements in themselves remove the kind of people you complain about from the area? No. Will people feel safer? Yes. Will people be safer? Probably, yes.

If the suburban/rural neo-con ideas of cutting mental health funding and social programs weren't so widespread in this part of the world, the "urban left" as you see it wouldn't have to design their spaces with all of this in mind. Perhaps if the political right started looking at "vagrancy" and crime as a product of sociological factors rather than something that should just be ignored and pushed to the next neighbourhood, we would have other institutions (better healthcare, social assistance, substance abuse/mental health programs) and we wouldn't be needing to consider these issues when designing a library. Not the world we live in unfortunately.

Simply pushing vagrancy away like you suggest does no more to resolve these societal issues than staying at home with the doors locked, one hand on a gun pointed at the door for intruder and the other pressing F5 on the Sun's comment section to comment with the classist/racist neo-con team about how taxes are too high and everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Toilets for all. Public space for all. Respect for all.

Start with those irrefutable ideals and work on solutions to issues without losing sight of the ideals. Libraries, even well designed ones, can't come close to solving the issues you described. Nor should they.

But libraries can be designed - which this one is - in a way that upholds those ideals even if the library's role in all of this is minor. It is an excellent piece of public space and should welcome all types.

[Policy Wonk]

Just to be clear, I didn't intend the phrase "urban left" to be derisive.

Unfortunately most of the West created a situation where they are unable to institutionalize or force treatment of the severely mentally ill and substance abusing. By granting this "franchise" we have as a society made this primarily a criminal issue. I don't think that is a great situation, but since society is insistent on pretending these people are fully functioning adults who can rationally choose to refuse care, that's just where it's at. Until this changes it is a police matter. Of course not all of them are mentally ill or so dulled by drugs they might as well be. Some are just assholes who should be in jail.

There is nothing I would like to see more than a new mental institutions built in both Calgary and Edmonton.

But until then, cities shouldn't just give up and tolerate/enable this type of anti-social behaviour.

[LFRENCH]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Just to be clear, I didn't intend the phrase "urban left" to be derisive.

Unfortunately most of the West created a situation where they are unable to institutionalize or force treatment of the severely mentally ill and substance abusing. By granting this "franchise" we have as a society made this primarily a criminal issue. I don't think that is a great situation, but since society is insistent on pretending these people are fully functioning adults who can rationally choose to refuse care, that's just where it's at. Until this changes it is a police matter. Of course not all of them are mentally ill or so dulled by drugs they might as well be. Some are just assholes.

There is nothing I would like to see more than a new mental institutions built in both Calgary and Edmonton.

I've worked in low barrier housing before, trying to explain to the average joe about how care works is always interesting. Essentially you have to be a direct danger to yourself or others before you are able to be forced into treatment.

the grey area lies in the questions of "To what degree are you a danger to yourself or others?""what is the likely hood you/another will die or be seriously injured?"

This threshold is to most, shockingly high... Throwing bricks off 10th floor of a building onto a sidewalk akin to 8th avenue is most likely not high enough.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Just to be clear, I didn't intend the phrase "urban left" to be derisive.

Unfortunately most of the West created a situation where they are unable to institutionalize or force treatment of the severely mentally ill and substance abusing. By granting this "franchise" we have as a society made this primarily a criminal issue. I don't think that is a great situation, but since society is insistent on pretending these people are fully functioning adults who can rationally choose to refuse care, that's just where it's at. Until this changes it is a police matter. Of course not all of them are mentally ill or so dulled by drugs they might as well be. Some are just assholes who should be in jail.

There is nothing I would like to see more than a new mental institutions built in both Calgary and Edmonton.

But until then, cities shouldn't just give up and tolerate/enable this type of anti-social behaviour.

Ah I see what you are saying. I do agree; perhaps not with all the verb-age you use but with your thesis. Criminality is allowed to hide in a population that isn't necessarily criminal itself but is often treated as such with all sorts of negative outcomes as a result including more criminality.

Resorting to the justice system is a terrible tool to address these issues, it is expensive, inefficient, messy and creates a whole swathe or additional social problems. I think that more was done to address the routes of these issues than just criminalizing everything that is deemed anti-social or vagrancy.

In a small way, using design to help influence perceptions of safety of a space is a step in that direction, giving better access between different groups in an environment that is more conducive for positive interaction.

This will help provide a real public good while society sorts out how it wants to address bigger issues of criminality, vagrancy and outcomes when dealing with a complex and vulnerable population.

[RyLucky]

It's interesting how design and location of a library stimulated this discussion.

There are 2 main points of view (simplified):
1) Crime should be dealt with by removing "criminals/undesirables" and/or containing them to certain areas of the city. Should we never develop these areas so long as they have a presence?
2) Crime should be dealt with by reducing the pressures that may lead people to "become criminals", or at least, become criminal adults. Can crime be "designed away"?

Both sides generally agree that some rehabilitation and treatment is desirable in certain situations, though for #1 it is to remove them from streets and reduce their collective negative effect on the community, and for #2ers are motivated by the will to help, perhaps related to a desire for social equity.

So, where and how should we develop? Who exactly is a library for? #1 thinks the library would be wasted in a high-poverty area; the library is for the tax-paying, law-abiding mainstream and their children. #2 thinks inclusive developments in high-poverty areas can restore life and safety.

The difference, perhaps, is that #1 calls it "crime", whereas #2 calls it "poverty".


Personally, I'm definitely of the #2 point of view, which you may already know. Coming down hard casts too wide a net. We've progressed beyond that. I see crime as something that can really only be effectively treated by preventing kids from taking that route by ensuring youth have safety, belonging, voice, and a feeling of self-determination. That's what this library is all about, rather than just being a fancy feather in Calgary's hat. It's as much a symbol of our commitment to education as it is a symbol restoring connection to a neighbourhood long given the cold shoulder.

Philosophy aside, it's a sweet building! The direction they went with design is all about inviting people in, rather than keeping them out.

[Just Build It]

I saw the design last week, but haven't gotten around to posting my opinion until now. I love it

[Ramsayfarian]

As luck has it, I was at the old library this morning for a meeting at Second Cup at 9 am this morning. We ended up turning around and going somewhere else due to the large crowd of folks waiting to get into the library. I didn't count, but I would say it was at least 30 folks waiting to get in, maybe more.


I'm not judging anyone or criticizing or saying the homeless should not be allowed in the library but I think the City might be able to alleviate this problem if they gave them another place to go. As it's my understanding that the shelters kick everyone out during the day and with no where to go, they head to the library.


As I'm downtown a lot, I find the best way to deal with the homeless is to talk to them. Sure some might hit you up for money, but unless they're completely shit faced, most have an interesting tale to tell and are usually pretty friendly despite their scary appearance. It's also fairly humbling and puts things in perspective.