Market Square

[Chris]

One of my colleagues recently had a shelter open in their 'backyard' and have already experienced theft on their property...

And they know the two are directly related?

[Momo26]

One of my colleagues recently had a shelter open in their 'backyard' and have already experienced theft on their property...

And they know the two are directly related?

You bet ya! ... since they walked right into the shelter, saw all  of the stuff stolen and confronted the fellow that stole it , all the while not be questioned or greeted by anyone at the shelter.

[ijmorlan]

Yeah, the bus mall on Rideau St was a mess.  Unfortunately, it's still a mess with the structures gone.  They did, however, remove one of the two pedestrian overpasses that linked the Rideau Centre with the (yawn) Hudson Bay store, so that was good.  Frieman Mall, however, which passes through the Bay to link Rideau St with the Market, is very well used.  Over in Centretown, the existing underground links between a number of buildings are very under utilized.

In other words, the structures weren’t the problem.

Re: Centretown, what buildings have underground links? I’m not aware of any except that I think the new underground LRT stations are each connected to a couple of nearby buildings. But those are new.

A link here and there does not provide much value, especially for underground links that are invisible from the surface. The real value comes when one can walk on a straight and level path for several blocks on a different level from motor vehicle traffic.

[Bjays93]

Yeah, the bus mall on Rideau St was a mess.  Unfortunately, it's still a mess with the structures gone.  They did, however, remove one of the two pedestrian overpasses that linked the Rideau Centre with the (yawn) Hudson Bay store, so that was good.  Frieman Mall, however, which passes through the Bay to link Rideau St with the Market, is very well used.  Over in Centretown, the existing underground links between a number of buildings are very under utilized.

In other words, the structures weren’t the problem.

Re: Centretown, what buildings have underground links? I’m not aware of any except that I think the new underground LRT stations are each connected to a couple of nearby buildings. But those are new.

A link here and there does not provide much value, especially for underground links that are invisible from the surface. The real value comes when one can walk on a straight and level path for several blocks on a different level from motor vehicle traffic.

There are no underground links that I am aware of. Unless we're thinking something totally different, there aren't any lrt stations underground. 

As for market square since that's what this thread is about,

Will it be getting any kind of external face lift thanks to the conestoga expansion?

[panamaniac]

Yeah, the bus mall on Rideau St was a mess.  Unfortunately, it's still a mess with the structures gone.  They did, however, remove one of the two pedestrian overpasses that linked the Rideau Centre with the (yawn) Hudson Bay store, so that was good.  Frieman Mall, however, which passes through the Bay to link Rideau St with the Market, is very well used.  Over in Centretown, the existing underground links between a number of buildings are very under utilized.

In other words, the structures weren’t the problem.

Re: Centretown, what buildings have underground links? I’m not aware of any except that I think the new underground LRT stations are each connected to a couple of nearby buildings. But those are new.

A link here and there does not provide much value, especially for underground links that are invisible from the surface. The real value comes when one can walk on a straight and level path for several blocks on a different level from motor vehicle traffic.

In other words, the structures weren’t the problem.

Re: Centretown, what buildings have underground links? I’m not aware of any except that I think the new underground LRT stations are each connected to a couple of nearby buildings. But those are new.

A link here and there does not provide much value, especially for underground links that are invisible from the surface. The real value comes when one can walk on a straight and level path for several blocks on a different level from motor vehicle traffic.

There are no underground links that I am aware of. Unless we're thinking something totally different, there aren't any lrt stations underground. 

As for market square since that's what this thread is about,

Will it be getting any kind of external face lift thanks to the conestoga expansion?

You mean in Ottawa's Centretown?  Sure there are, and have been for decades (pedestrian tunnels that is, the LRT stations are new).  There's also an old tunnel, now closed, between the Chateau Laurier and the old train station (currently housing the Senate of Canada).  Further afield, the many buildings of Carleton Univerity are linked by pedestrian tunnels.

[jamincan]

Place de Ville had an underground shopping concourse type thing going on, but I'm not sure that it really offered much in the way of connectivity.

The Rideau bus shelter/mall was definitely the major part of the problem, I think reading that article and others makes that abundantly clear. The fact that removing them didn't immediately eliminate the problem does not mean that their introduction didn't create it.

[ijmorlan]

Place de Ville had an underground shopping concourse type thing going on, but I'm not sure that it really offered much in the way of connectivity.

The Rideau bus shelter/mall was definitely the major part of the problem, I think reading that article and others makes that abundantly clear. The fact that removing them didn't immediately eliminate the problem does not mean that their introduction didn't create it.

In what way can putting a roof over the sidewalk cause a problem? What is so fundamental to a good urban experience about getting rained on? Nobody ever explains this to me. I’m not clear about which article you are talking about — did I miss a link up-thread?

That being said, I do recall that the design of the covers was dumb. There were places where outside of a door there was a cover over part of the sidewalk, but there was a small no-roof gap between the door and the cover.

[Chris]

And they know the two are directly related?

You bet ya! ... since they walked right into the shelter, saw all  of the stuff stolen and confronted the fellow that stole it , all the while not be questioned or greeted by anyone at the shelter.

Thanks for the extra detail. Interactions such as this one erode faith in others.

[Momo26]

Indeed. It's too bad, these are tough socio-economic issues to deal with, and appear especially magnified in Kitchener. There is no one-size-fits-all either. If you make the shelters/facilities in one part of town exclusively, that comes with its issues...if you spread it into neighborhoods/school zones, there's a plethora of other issues.

Has any city tackled this successfully?

[ijmorlan]

Indeed. It's too bad, these are tough socio-economic issues to deal with, and appear especially magnified in Kitchener. There is no one-size-fits-all either. If you make the shelters/facilities in one part of town exclusively, that comes with its issues...if you spread it into neighborhoods/school zones, there's a plethora of other issues.

Has any city tackled this successfully?

This is difficult, and can’t be solved by arguing between between harsh and being lenient.

There are some people I legitimately don’t want living near me (people who threaten or harass people, or steal stuff) and there are people who are fine (people of every race, background, and economic situation).

I think our problem is that we don’t have much ability to provide good accountability with the justice system and police response to minor crimes (or major ones for that matter). We no longer do harsh punishment for minor crime (transportation to Van Diemen’s land is right out); but we don’t have a system that really takes responsibility for minor re-offenders.

I think we need a system that provides a cross between a mental hospital, group home, prison, and halfway house, and which would provide many of the same services as all of these. The idea is to house people in a controlled environment where their privileges can be adjusted according to behaviour, while providing them with whatever treatment they need. Continue stealing bicycles (or shoplifting, or whatever), and one will end up spending all of ones time inside the facility. Behave appropriately, and one will get more and more freedom and eventually the option to move out. All occupants who are able would have the opportunity to work. The facility would have to be run in a way that provides a safe environment for both its occupants and the public living nearby. The approach taken to outside appointments (e.g. to see a doctor) would also be part of the privilege adjustment: some people would be trusted to go to the doctor and come back by themselves, while others would travel in a prison van. Other in-between possibilities also exist.

What this means in detail I don’t know enough about the people involved to really say. I think of the recent case where a shoplifter was given a very light sentence (time served plus one day in jail, if I recall, when the judge could have given multiple years), and then was picked up for another offence within a week. Clearly, they need to be kept in a controlled environment; but I don’t believe in just dumping people in jail.

I think people who want to be lenient don’t appreciate that things we take for granted, such as convenient retail stores where anybody can just walk in, pick up what they need, and pay money to an unarmed cashier on their way out of the store, can only exist if shoplifting is rare. On the other hand, people who want to be harsh don’t appreciate how fantastically expensive (in many ways, not just money) it is to maintain a large prison system.

I’m aware that what I’m proposing would be very expensive. But it seems to me that what we’re doing right now is pretty expensive too.

[tomh009]

Place de Ville had an underground shopping concourse type thing going on, but I'm not sure that it really offered much in the way of connectivity.

The Rideau bus shelter/mall was definitely the major part of the problem, I think reading that article and others makes that abundantly clear. The fact that removing them didn't immediately eliminate the problem does not mean that their introduction didn't create it.

In what way can putting a roof over the sidewalk cause a problem? What is so fundamental to a good urban experience about getting rained on? Nobody ever explains this to me. I’m not clear about which article you are talking about — did I miss a link up-thread?

Indoor/covered streets don't always work, though, even if they are not duplicating outdoor sidewalks. See the Thunder Bay situation for an example:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/a...r-it-down/

(Should be available free if you have not exceeded X articles this month)

[ijmorlan]

In what way can putting a roof over the sidewalk cause a problem? What is so fundamental to a good urban experience about getting rained on? Nobody ever explains this to me. I’m not clear about which article you are talking about — did I miss a link up-thread?

Indoor/covered streets don't always work, though, even if they are not duplicating outdoor sidewalks. See the Thunder Bay situation for an example:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/a...r-it-down/

(Should be available free if you have not exceeded X articles this month)

I read that article on paper. Interesting article!

As I understand it, the mall replaced a failing section of downtown. So the fact that the mall isn’t working well says little about the merits of enclosing shopping areas.

Of course one problem we have is that since there is so little enclosed public space, any we build immediately attracts homeless people. If there was enclosed public space all over the place, or if we had a really good housing strategy for people who can’t maintain themselves in housing, this wouldn’t be such an issue.

[jeffster]

Indeed. It's too bad, these are tough socio-economic issues to deal with, and appear especially magnified in Kitchener. There is no one-size-fits-all either. If you make the shelters/facilities in one part of town exclusively, that comes with its issues...if you spread it into neighborhoods/school zones, there's a plethora of other issues.

Has any city tackled this successfully?

This is difficult, and can’t be solved by arguing between between harsh and being lenient.....snip....
I’m aware that what I’m proposing would be very expensive. But it seems to me that what we’re doing right now is pretty expensive too.

There are no real solutions for this idea -- even if something just short of prison costs. The issue is that some simply can't be helped, no matter what you do. In the 'olden days', they'd be put into a sanitarium, but humans rights basically forbids that, even if it's the best solution for everyone involved (the public, the workers, the individual). Some people you just can't reach, so you get what we have here right now, which is the way the society wants it, well, it gets it, and I don't like it anymore than you guys.

Can't help those that either don't want to be helped, or at least follow some basic rules, including respect for others, which many have zero of.

[tomh009]

This is difficult, and can’t be solved by arguing between between harsh and being lenient.....snip....
I’m aware that what I’m proposing would be very expensive. But it seems to me that what we’re doing right now is pretty expensive too.

There are no real solutions for this idea -- even if something just short of prison costs. The issue is that some simply can't be helped, no matter what you do. In the 'olden days', they'd be put into a sanitarium, but humans rights basically forbids that, even if it's the best solution for everyone involved (the public, the workers, the individual). Some people you just can't reach, so you get what we have here right now, which is the way the society wants it, well, it gets it, and I don't like it anymore than you guys.

Can't help those that either don't want to be helped, or at least follow some basic rules, including respect for others, which many have zero of.

I agree to the extent that it's true that not everyone wants help -- or at least not help on the terms that we are willing to provide it.

But I disagree with the implication (whether intentional or not) in your post that we cannot do better. For example, the Housing First approach has been highly successful in dramatically reducing homelessness in cities such as Edmonton and Helsinki. We might not be able to house 100% of the (current level of) homeless, but I don't see a 90% reduction (for example) as impossible.

[jeffster]

There are no real solutions for this idea -- even if something just short of prison costs. The issue is that some simply can't be helped, no matter what you do. In the 'olden days', they'd be put into a sanitarium, but humans rights basically forbids that, even if it's the best solution for everyone involved (the public, the workers, the individual). Some people you just can't reach, so you get what we have here right now, which is the way the society wants it, well, it gets it, and I don't like it anymore than you guys.

Can't help those that either don't want to be helped, or at least follow some basic rules, including respect for others, which many have zero of.

I agree to the extent that it's true that not everyone wants help -- or at least not help on the terms that we are willing to provide it.

But I disagree with the implication (whether intentional or not) in your post that we cannot do better. For example, the Housing First approach has been highly successful in dramatically reducing homelessness in cities such as Edmonton and Helsinki. We might not be able to house 100% of the (current level of) homeless, but I don't see a 90% reduction (for example) as impossible.

My reference was that a 100% solution is not possible. I agree we need to do a lot more, what I am not sure of how much we could do and with what result. I am not even sure if 90% is possible.

I did read about on the Edmonton situation (there is still a lot of homelessness) but something struck me: try to keep people away from the courts (the criminal system) if possible. I feel that it is all too easy for one to receive a criminal record and then be behind the 8-ball, as it were, the rest of their lives, and basically in and out of jail (even if just for a few days).

Another change we'd need to see in this the Region is the City of Waterloo chipping in to solve the problem. It currently does zero to help people out and everything is left to Kitchener and Cambridge.

Something else I would like to see is more education for those still in school, to teach them about life. Almost nothing is taught in schools these days (though apparently this might be changing) but for the past 15 years or so, absolutely no focus on life skills. If kids are taught how to manage money, personal hygiene, and stuff like this, I really think homeless would be cut significantly. But as it stands, schools teach children nothing about day to day living.

If people were taught how to take care of themselves and their surroundings, then you'd have a lot more private landlords listing affordable rentals, as the risk is less. And the region itself could afford more housing.

Lots of things would should try....hopefully forward thinking people to implement.