David A
Senior Member
WFH was basically a temporary response to an unprecedented event, if someone on our past city council promised that would be permanent I feel that was rather foolish of them.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Markyeg
Active Member
The leasing map for Stantec shows both units on either side of Eye Distict as pending. Anyone know what the corner unit will be, or what we should expect?
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
That will be nice though if a couple units are going to be filled, it will definitely help the look and feel of the area with occupied spaces.
CplKlinger
Senior Member
I don't think anyone is disputing the importance of people spending money downtown. It's just a matter of details. For example, the Infill Infrastructure Fund's webpage says that the supports it spent an average of $8,794 per unit. If we assume an average of 1.3 people per unit, that works out to around 730 new residents. Around 1,280 city staff work hybrid as of January, 2026. So then it comes down to what kind of downtown we want going forward. Do we want to bring 1,280 people into the office 5x a week instead of 2x per week, and aim for a downtown that is vibrant during weekday business hours but pretty desolate the rest of the time; or do we want to have an additional 730ish residents that have the potential to support downtown 24/7, while also filling in some more empty lots?
I'm not trying to make that question seem loaded. I've said in the past how I feel, but the fact of the matter is that we have very limited resources to go around and need to make every dollar count. It's not a "yes, and" conversation; every dollar we spend on bringing office workers in more frequently is a dollar not spent on bringing more residents living downtown, and vice versa. I'm not saying that one option is better than the other, but I will say that people who don't support return-to-office mandates as a tool for downtown revitalization can still very much want downtown to succeed. I go out of my way to shop and eat downtown, I visit downtown's parks, I write council in support of motions that fund services and initiatives that support downtown, and just like you I want even more people to support our downtown; even if we disagree on the methods to increase that customer base.
whattheheck
Active Member
'I write council in support of motions that fund services and initiatives that support downtown'
And that's the problem. The fact city hall continues to use limited tax dollars for various initiatives to compel people to come downtown. And it STILL isn't working. (because if it was, people would not need to be compelled to come downtown. They would make the choice to, without the need for a taxpayer funded program)
Having ALL government employees back would. More people on trains and busses. More people in pedways. People (non-zombie ones) beget more people.
And all without the need to come up with 'motions that fund services and initiatives that support downtown'. Lead by example. (which the city is not)
And that's the problem. The fact city hall continues to use limited tax dollars for various initiatives to compel people to come downtown. And it STILL isn't working. (because if it was, people would not need to be compelled to come downtown. They would make the choice to, without the need for a taxpayer funded program)
Having ALL government employees back would. More people on trains and busses. More people in pedways. People (non-zombie ones) beget more people.
And all without the need to come up with 'motions that fund services and initiatives that support downtown'. Lead by example. (which the city is not)
CplKlinger
Senior Member
To the contrary, I'd argue that the past few years have been quite fruitful on that front. The Warehouse Park has led to 1,800 residential units on adjacent properties being planned, under construction, or already completed. The Infill Infrastructure Fund has supported more than 4,400 units, many of-which are downtown (some of-which are by Warehouse Park, but not all). The Downtown Student Housing Incentive will fund a minimum of 500 units for students, and the projects must have a building permit by November 2026. The CRL extension means that hundreds more units will be built north of Rogers Place by 2028, with thousands more to follow over the coming ten years. The extension also brings us an Attainable Housing Fund, with details TBD (the council package was delayed to allow for negotiations with the province and private industry to improve the program that gets recommended to council).
Not only does all of this improve downtown's vibrancy and business environment during a larger range of hours and days than ending hybrid work, but it also spreads the benefits out more. These residential developments are all over downtown, whereas COE workers are concentrated in the blocks surrounding city hall.
Barnaby
Senior Member
When is the city funding an ETS gondola? It would be around $200 million and solve Whyte's transit issue.
TAS
Senior Member
On the WFH front is there any common ground that on days of really bad weather and poor road conditions that workers who can work from home should just stay home thereby also improving the likely long commute for people who do have to drive around?
And if somebody is feeling under the weather or has a cough, but can still work ok, should they just wfh? Or how about a parent with sick kids that maybe doesn't have to miss work by taking a family care day or day off, but instead can get work done at home and attend meetings because virtual meetings are an option now when they weren't prior to 2020?
And if somebody is feeling under the weather or has a cough, but can still work ok, should they just wfh? Or how about a parent with sick kids that maybe doesn't have to miss work by taking a family care day or day off, but instead can get work done at home and attend meetings because virtual meetings are an option now when they weren't prior to 2020?
Last edited:
IanO
Superstar
I don't think it's an either or, but rather a better balance given that COVID is over. Yes, the world has changed and work can be approached in a variety of ways, but it's about ensuring flexibility when needed for all, while bring folks back to the office in a more meaningful way.
Markyeg
Active Member
A large chunk of the people who currently WFH for the city don’t think the same way as you, and if they weren’t working from the office DT would stick to their bubbles out in the suburbs.
David A
Senior Member
I would agree it is not all bad. However without more economic activity (ie. jobs) I feel there are limits to the number of people who will want to live downtown, so we also need to bring more jobs to (and back to) downtown.
The Student Housing Incentive is good and happening soon. I hope the CRL extension also helps increase residential over the longer term, but we have had ambitious plans in the past not come to fruition as much as hoped, so it may be too early to completely count on that.
IanO
Superstar
As mentioned, an 'Attainable Housing Program' is forthcoming and so that should spur additional housing, but it begs the ongoing question of why is Downtown not carrying its own weight and being attractive enough to more people.
Why do people 'choose' Downtowns to live in? Root demand questions need to be better identified and supported.
Why do people 'avoid' central parts of a city?
How do we market these areas better and provide better experiences?
Why do people 'choose' Downtowns to live in? Root demand questions need to be better identified and supported.
Why do people 'avoid' central parts of a city?
How do we market these areas better and provide better experiences?
Markyeg
Active Member
Something that would help right away is if the city reverted back to free evening and weekend parking (on non-event days).
The city put the cart before the horse when they implemented those changes. You need to make DT a place that people want to come visit first, rather than find ways to make them not want to come.
whattheheck
Active Member
^What is this sorcery?! Applying common sense and logic is blasphemy! 