Downtown

[Glenco]

Saw a post this morning along the lines of "The mayor said what we need to revitalize DT is a stronger supply of housing to have people live there, not RTO for City employees. Wouldn't having people work Downtown cause more people to live Downtown?"

It's kinda sticking with me. I frequently see the comment "If you mandate RTO, people will quit!", but... that's fine? Unemployment is high enough that people would snap up those jobs in a minute, and if they leave for "greener pastures" that still offer hybrid/remote work, they would find out that there isn't a huge demand for people who refuse to work in-person.

I really find Knack’s rationale puzzling. He reasons that having people live downtown verses working will bring 24-7 vitality to the area. Seams to me people who live downtown have jobs and school and aren’t necessarily there during the day.

 

[Barnaby]

People saying they will avoid leaving the office are already anti-social, and likely did this already. RTO will obviously have positive effects on the area over the coming year. @policyenthusiast made a good point. People are allowed to quit their jobs, and maybe DT locals will apply.

Knack is absolutely right about downtown needing more residents, though. Residents are what will drive business demand, nightlife, and evening safety.

 

[Glenco]

People saying they will avoid leaving the office are already anti-social, and likely did this already. RTO will obviously have positive effects on the area over the coming year. @policyenthusiast made a good point. People are allowed to quit their jobs, and maybe DT locals will apply.

Knack is absolutely right about downtown needing more residents, though. Residents are what will drive business demand, nightlife, and evening safety.

It isn’t one or the other. Downtown needs both. :

 

[David A]

I really find Knack’s rationale puzzling. He reasons that having people live downtown verses working will bring 24-7 vitality to the area. Seams to me people who live downtown have jobs and school and aren’t necessarily there during the day.

You have a very good point. Obviously, most people who have jobs downtown are there during the day, people who live there may or may not be there during the day, depending on where they work or go to school.

So it may not be 24-7. Although, I feel the people most likely to want to live downtown are those who work or go to school downtown, so we do need both and they are somewhat connected.

 

[Kosy123]

RTO is great (despite my own opinions on it) for an immediate daytime boost to vibrancy and retail viability. I just don't think more effort and political effort should be spent chasing more of that when downtown's future should be emulating Vancouver where their financial core has a disproportionate amount of residential buildings.

More residents = more retail = more interest in office relocations

 

[Offworld]

The municipal unions must have compromising photos of certain political officials. That's the only explanation that would make sense, because what came out of your mayor's mouth was such nonsense. Honestly, dude.

 

[David A]

The municipal unions must have compromising photos of certain political officials. That's the only explanation that would make sense, because what came out of your mayor's mouth was such nonsense. Honestly, dude.

I also have to wonder about this, the Mayor usually seems more articulate and sensible or at least did before the election.

 

[whattheheck]

^ Sohi (Worst. Mayor. Ever!) 2.0?

 

[TAS]

I also have to wonder about this, the Mayor usually seems more articulate and sensible or at least did before the election.

During election, Cartmell advocated for 5 days a week. Knack countered that promise and is staying consistent to what he said at that time - contracts have already been negotiated and signed with how often city workers are in the office.

 

[CplKlinger]

During election, Cartmell advocated for 5 days a week. Knack countered that promise and is staying consistent to what he said at that time - contracts have already been negotiated and signed with how often city workers are in the office.

Also, we really need to be consistent here. People complain about tax hikes and service cuts - what are they ready to sacrifice in order for the city to pay for the upcoming renewal of the office buildings they're trying to sell? Not to mention that we'd then have to pay millions down the road for ongoing operations and maintenance of those buildings for decades to come. Is that really the best use of our very limited tax dollars, rather than incentivizing residential development or something?