333 Montreal Rd [Salvation Army] | 10+13m | 3+4f | Approved

[Vanier]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I'm not a big fan of Jimbo, but reducing the number of shelters in a city's major tourist area from three to two seems like a reasonable objective for a mayor.

It is a reasonable objective. Where they want to relocate it is not.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Vanier

It is a reasonable objective. Where they want to relocate it is not.

If not Vanier, then where. Why would one place be better than another?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Vanier

It is a reasonable objective. Where they want to relocate it is not.

I have yet to be convinced that the current locations of the shelters have any impact on tourism.

It's a fig-leaf for the NIMBYism that drove Watson to drive one out of "the Market" in the first place.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

If not Vanier, then where. Why would one place be better than another?

Any suitable locations near Jim Watson's house?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I have yet to be convinced that the current locations of the shelters have any impact on tourism.

It's a fig-leaf for the NIMBYism that drove Watson to drive one out of "the Market" in the first place.

And your opposition to moving it to Vanier is not based on NIMBYism?

Nobody in the city wants a homeless shelter in their neighbourhood. The NIMBY rate is 100%.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Any suitable locations near Jim Watson's house?

There's the Gas Station National Historic Site

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

And your opposition to moving it to Vanier is not based on NIMBYism?

My what now?

Nobody in the city wants a homeless shelter in their neighbourhood. The NIMBY rate is 100%.

Vanier has not hitherto had much in the way of a NIMBY movement. It seems to have just been handed the catalyst for one, however.

My problem with Watson's sop to NIMBYism and prettyism is that it comes in the broader context of his council's obvious and utter disdain for the east side on a whole bunch of policy files and administrative basics, whether the obvious big one of the total arse-up that transit east of the Rideau Canal has become in the past decade, to the littler things like the vast discrepancy between snow-clearing practice in the eastern part of the urban area (not just Vanier) and the suburbs, to the twenty-year effort to "clean up" street prostitution in the rest of the city by redirecting it to Montreal Road and south Vanier, to the incredible blind eye that seems to have been turned to the spate of arsons until it became too much for even the folks on Laurier West to ignore.

It's not even benign neglect any more, it's outright malignant. And it's dumb: Overbrook and Vanier are just as close to downtown as Hintonburg, with just as much potential for urban renewal, economic development, and significant additions to the city's tax base, without adding one inch of sprawl to a bloated suburban-dominated city... but there is absolutely no support from city hall, and much in the way of undermining things that could make a difference.

There's also the lurking suspicion that if Watson can engineer the relocation of one less-than-desirable societal problem out of downtown and into a neighbourhood that doesn't have the socio-economic and political clout to push back, that the floodgates will open. (There are a lot of people in town who think a safe-injection site on Rideau is too close to the pretty parts of Sandy Hill; guess where they would rather see that facility located?)

Ottawa has a SERIOUS classism problem. Jim Watson feeds it, and feeds off it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It's not even benign neglect any more, it's outright malignant. And it's dumb: Overbrook and Vanier are just as close to downtown as Hintonburg, with just as much potential for urban renewal, economic development, and significant additions to the city's tax base, without adding one inch of sprawl to a bloated suburban-dominated city... but there is absolutely no support from city hall, and much in the way of undermining things that could make a difference.

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure spending big bucks to try to gentrify Vanier and then spend more big bucks addressing the social problems wherever the gentrify-ees end up would make a lot of sense.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure spending big bucks to try to gentrify Vanier and then spend more big bucks addressing the social problems wherever the gentrify-ees end up would make a lot of sense.

The city shouldn't be spending big (or little) bucks trying to gentrify ANYWHERE. Gentrification is a process driven by big and little - mainly little - bucks spent and invested by individual businesses, households, and institutions.

What the city should be doing is balancing out its - that is, Jim Watson's - fixation with solving one problem by physically relocating it, with other initiatives to improve the quality of life in a grotesquely neglected part of the city. It is almost criminal the extent to which basic public services in the near east side have been cannibalized to provide them in other, more affluent and powerful parts of town, and to keep taxes in those "nice" areas low.

As it stands, Vanier in particular is getting all of the burden of the 2000 amalgamation, and absolutely no benefit. Other areas that used to be part of the former Ottawa or Gloucester are faring little better.

Of course, it's hard for a "rough" neighbourhood to even try to exercise political power in Ottawa: not only is the composition of city council stacked against the urban area by the obscene over-representation of already politically-powerful rural areas, there are wards, of which Rideau-Vanier is a prime example, even within the urban-suburban areas, which have many thousands more residents than the city average, diluting the weight of the voter who lives there.

As I have said before: Ottawa has a very bad classism problem. It needs to start fixing it.

[canabiz]

Guess you can kiss the *gentrification* plan for Vanier good-bye now.

[Vanier]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

If not Vanier, then where. Why would one place be better than another?

Many old schools lay fallow and these can be redeveloped.

A site nearby is the former Rideau High and it seems better suited. Access to public transit is excellent (7, 12, 19 and 14 service the area). Lots of area to build on, plenty of green space, plenty of room for a setback and would likely have little impact on the residents of the area.

Similarly, the site of the old Technical High School in Centretown. This is right on the Transitway/LRT and near municipal services. Lots of room for a building and for a park outside. There will also be the new central library nearby. The neighbourhood is more robust and it is better to integrate than to concentrate.

Another possible location is in Lebreton Flats. Integration within a new neighbourhood would not affect new development. Again, excellent transit and it is near the new proposed library.

I'd mention other areas west of Bronson Ave. but Westend Watson would have noting of it.

[Marshsparrow]

Lebreton Flats - good luck selling units

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Vanier

Many old schools lay fallow and these can be redeveloped.

A site nearby is the former Rideau High and it seems better suited. Access to public transit is excellent (7, 12, 19 and 14 service the area). Lots of area to build on, plenty of green space, plenty of room for a setback and would likely have little impact on the residents of the area.

Similarly, the site of the old Technical High School in Centretown. This is right on the Transitway/LRT and near municipal services. Lots of room for a building and for a park outside. There will also be the new central library nearby. The neighbourhood is more robust and it is better to integrate than to concentrate.

Another possible location is in Lebreton Flats. Integration within a new neighbourhood would not affect new development. Again, excellent transit and it is near the new proposed library.

I'd mention other areas west of Bronson Ave. but Westend Watson would have noting of it.

That is not an uninteresting idea, although it seems unlikely. We haven't heard much about future use/redevelopment of the Rideau High site, istm.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

Lebreton Flats - good luck selling units

Honestly, I doubt it would have any impact.

[c_speed3108]

I have two thoughts. One we shouldn't be building one large shelter, trying to warehouse marginalized portions of the population. The large shelter should be replaced by approximately half a dozen smaller locations scatter across the city.

This would also avoid having huge concentrations of vulnerable people that things like drug dealers pray upon.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

I have two thoughts. One we shouldn't be building one large shelter, trying to warehouse marginalized portions of the population. The large shelter should be replaced by approximately half a dozen smaller locations scatter across the city.

This would also avoid having huge concentrations of vulnerable people that things like drug dealers pray upon.

You would not be the first to make that observation. I assume that the economics (lowest expenditure per marginalized person) is not conducive to a less centralized approach?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The city shouldn't be spending big (or little) bucks trying to gentrify ANYWHERE. Gentrification is a process driven by big and little - mainly little - bucks spent and invested by individual businesses, households, and institutions.

.

This type of gentrification has not worked in Vanier, except on the periphery where spillover gentrification from other neighborhoods has occurred. This is why the Sally Ann was able to acquire a large plot of land on a commercial street for 5 million.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The city shouldn't be spending big (or little) bucks trying to gentrify ANYWHERE. Gentrification is a process driven by big and little - mainly little - bucks spent and invested by individual businesses, households, and institutions.

What the city should be doing is balancing out its - that is, Jim Watson's - fixation with solving one problem by physically relocating it, with other initiatives to improve the quality of life in a grotesquely neglected part of the city. It is almost criminal the extent to which basic public services in the near east side have been cannibalized to provide them in other, more affluent and powerful parts of town, and to keep taxes in those "nice" areas low.

As it stands, Vanier in particular is getting all of the burden of the 2000 amalgamation, and absolutely no benefit. Other areas that used to be part of the former Ottawa or Gloucester are faring little better.

Of course, it's hard for a "rough" neighbourhood to even try to exercise political power in Ottawa: not only is the composition of city council stacked against the urban area by the obscene over-representation of already politically-powerful rural areas, there are wards, of which Rideau-Vanier is a prime example, even within the urban-suburban areas, which have many thousands more residents than the city average, diluting the weight of the voter who lives there.

As I have said before: Ottawa has a very bad classism problem. It needs to start fixing it.

I don't really see any evidence of this. It's transit woes are not from neglect but basic geography and the need to spread LRT around in order to get it passed. If you look at parks Vanier has lots of renovated parks certainly better than lots of wealthier areas. It has one of the best recreation centres in the city.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Vanier

Many old schools lay fallow and these can be redeveloped.

A site nearby is the former Rideau High and it seems better suited. Access to public transit is excellent (7, 12, 19 and 14 service the area). Lots of area to build on, plenty of green space, plenty of room for a setback and would likely have little impact on the residents of the area.

The problem with schools is that before they can be disposed of they have to be offered to other school boards and post-secondary institutions, after that they are put on the open market and the Sally Ann would have to outbid developers.

Also, the school board continues to operate an elementary school next door. Not sure they would want a homeless shelter as a neighbour.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by canabiz

Guess you can kiss the *gentrification* plan for Vanier good-bye now.

Or at least until the developers who have been quietly land-banking in the vicinity for the past decade pull Jimbo aside and give him the gears.