News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 8.3K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 9.5K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.1K     0 

The Quarters

Aaron_Lloyd said:
No? I think the ideal should always be to have mixed incomes. Needless to say if we are trying to achieve this in the Boyle area more low income housing is not what the area needs right now.
Click to expand...
Well, what your post seems to be arguing is to concentrate on development that will prioritize attracting wealthier groups of people. The problem is that doing so necessarily gentrifies an area, which will displace the existing low-income residents in Boyle Street. So it won't remain mixed income for very long. Considering the fact that we already prioritize attracting wealthier people to pretty much any other redevelopment area, I'm ok with this one being left off the gentrification table, especially considering the networks of existing community for those in poverty already exist in neighbourhoods like Boyle Street and the services that are most beneficial to them are in the surrounding area.

Having a concentration of poor people isn't a problem in and of itself. Assuming that poor people are a problem best considered in small doses is quite paternalistic and patronizing. Do we have problems with neighbourhoods focused on specific ethnic minorities, or queer villages, or university areas that fixate on 18-22 year olds? No. So why do you have a problem with poor people congregating? I know, I know, look at the endless examples of "ghettos" and the like, right? I'm not denying that there's problems that arise when there's a heavy density of poor people, but diluting them doesn't have to be the answer. Generally speaking, the issues that arise from that concentration of poverty are because you're seeing a concentration of the social marginalization inflicted on poor and often racialized people. If those problems were eviscerated, and poor people were given the dignity and quality of life they deserve, you'd see a lot of the disorder and crime that's associated with concentrations of poverty gone.
 
Well, what your post seems to be arguing is that you took an Intro to Sociology course once but otherwise have a pretty naïve view regarding poverty stricken areas. 😄

I was only arguing that if you want The Quarters to be a sustainable and vibrant commercial and residential district you need to have money flowing into the area that isn't tied to the whims of politicians' government spending habits. A few new higher-end developments to attract some yuppie money to the area isn't going to displace decades worth of existing afforadable housing supply.

We need more non-market housing undoubtedly, but The Quarters isn't where it's needed.
 
Last edited:
Aaron_Lloyd said:
Well, what your post seems to be arguing is that you took an Intro to Sociology course once but otherwise have a pretty naïve view regarding poverty stricken areas. 😄

I was only arguing that if you want The Quarters to be a sustainable and vibrant commercial and residential district you need to have money flowing into the area that isn't tied to the whims of politicians' government spending habits.

A few new higher end devlopments to attract some yuppie money to the area isn't going to displace decades worth of afforadable housing supply.

We need more non-market housing undoubtedly, but The Quarters isn't where it's needed.
Click to expand...

No, I've actually done a lot of research with regards to the effects of gentrification and housing policy. But, please, be an asshole who has a milquetoast understanding of it all, it's so much more invigorating to converse this way.
 
You were the one who implied I was being "paternalistic and patronizing" for having the gall to suggest that maybe we shouldn't force all the poor people to live in the same area. lol
 
Last edited:
Aaron_Lloyd said:
If the 1000 more people living there have minimal disposable income it's not going to stimulate any other sort of development in the area. If anything I'd wager it'd drag the area down even further by scaring off the sort of higher-end residential development which does pull-in people with disposable income.
Click to expand...
why would you say that? just off the top of my head:

their residences would likely eliminate some surface parking lots.

they might have minimal disposable income but that means they probably take transit or walk rather than drive meaning safer transit and sidewalks where “eyes in the street” man as lot,

they are more likely to shop local and shop more often which is good for small local outlets.

they are more likely to animate local parks and have their children attend local schools and enroll in local sports programs.

with close proximity to retail and service providers they are likely to work locally with minimal commuting.

they are close to a complete range of educational options from esl to degree offerings.

all of this - and more - is more attractive to your future higher end residential offerings than what’s there for them now.
 
Some good points for sure. I'd be curious if there are some examples from the past though of non-market housing being built stimulating private investment in a similar environment though. I'm still pretty skeptical as I can think of at least a few counter examples where larger scale public housing in an already impoverished area only further concentrated poverty rather than lead to any sort of healthy mixed income community developing.

My thinking is the costs of upkeeping the varied array of commercial services needed for a vibrant high-quality community requires a certain number of residents who are capable of patronizing these services regularly. Then in turn, these better off residents through their spending habits create an environment where the existing less well off have access to all these services they may not have easy access to in a community which was less mixed in its income.

Again we could use more non-market housing, but it needs to be built where it'll create more income mixing in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, two things I wish could happen in the Quarters is firstly the continued redevelopment on Jasper ave from 97st to 96st. With the elimination of a couple empty lots I think that would go a long way to helping the area. Secondly, the addition of 1 or 2 residential towers either near 97st or closer to 95st and Jasper could further add the density in tennants that may further encourage more retail and customer service businesses to be within walking distance. Units directed to upper lower to mid income would be fine with eventual higher income tennants sought for with future buildings as the area has by then already been improving.
 
Screen Shot 2023-03-02 at 9.35.06 AM.png
 
It's one of my favourite 'little' buildings left in this town, but given that the last proposal demolished it, I worry about anything forthcoming caring much about it either:(
 
davcocom said:
Hopefully, they will integrate the existing building... View attachment 459379
Click to expand...

IanO said:
It's one of my favourite 'little' buildings left in this town, but given that the last proposal demolished it, I worry about anything forthcoming caring much about it either:(
Click to expand...

These are the exact type of buildings in Winnipeg's exchange district, Vancouver's Gastown, Calgary's Inglewood or on Toronto's Queen Street that house cocktail bars and hole in the wall restaurants...so we should absolutely demolish this one like all the others like it we demolish.
 
IanO said:
It's one of my favourite 'little' buildings left in this town, but given that the last proposal demolished it, I worry about anything forthcoming caring much about it either:(
Click to expand...
if the city would give it a historic designation prior to their selling it, there would have less chance of it being demolished (and it would save the city a great deal of money compared with waiting and hoping for a purchaser to designate it "if the city gives them enough money")...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top