News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

urbandreamer said:
25 August 2010: blurry night shot:

Just imagine if RF becomes mayor he'll sell this to a private developer and we'll end up with a 199 storey tower! :p

dsc02672l.jpg
Click to expand...

Or sell it to a club owner... with a rooftop patio, elevator, 6 million in renos (to put in perspective, 'CIRCA' with it's makeover of over 30,000 sq feet, only costed 8 million, nad legal capacity is over 3000!) and potential for the return of the Fez batik street side patio, this place will be again the hotspot of the district lol.
 
Um, the beds did not cost $275,000 per. I think you have confused the total cost of the project divided by the number of beds that will be in it.

The building is to be used for more than just a shelter.
 
gristle said:
Um, the beds did not cost $275,000 per. I think you have confused the total cost of the project divided by the number of beds that will be in it.

The building is to be used for more than just a shelter.
Click to expand...

It's not a large building yet it contains 40 beds. How much room could there be left for other uses? (And a ping pong room doesn't count.)
 
gristle said:
The building is to be used for more than just a shelter.
Click to expand...


Yes, rooftop smoking patio... amazing!

I wonder if they are also one of the shelters that give out smokes and free wine (60 and 80k respectively from last years' budget)


p.s. I love how they hired architects to design and build. And here I thought Architects where only reserved for those custom infill homes that's been sprouting up around the core.

Only the best!
 
js97 said:
Yes, rooftop smoking patio... amazing!

I wonder if they are also one of the shelters that give out smokes and free wine (60 and 80k respectively from last years' budget)
Click to expand...

Seriously? Harm reduction strategies like providing a limited quantity of alcohol to people who will literally guzzle mouthwash if forced to go without isn't extravagant or unusual.
 
GraphicMatt said:
Seriously? Harm reduction strategies like providing a limited quantity of alcohol to people who will literally guzzle mouthwash if forced to go without isn't extravagant or unusual.
Click to expand...

I dont' mind those harm reduction measures...

I'm just pointing out the imagage of a homeless guy sitting on the rooftop patio in the heart of the entertainment district with a smoke in one hand, and a glass of red in another. I wonder if they hand out sunscreen too.
 
Shelters like this will save the taxpayers tons of money in the long run because those who often live on the street become ill (in various ways) and require numerous hospital visits over their lifetimes. These visits can cost up to a million dollars over the lifetime of the homeless individual.

It is far cheaper to the taxpayer to provide shelter (instead of health care costs) and give these individuals somewhere safe to stay.

Some form of temporary, but stable housing is even better than a shelter (like what is being done at the Edwin at Queen & Broadview; see http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/875668).
 
gristle said:
Um, the beds did not cost $275,000 per. I think you have confused the total cost of the project divided by the number of beds that will be in it.

The building is to be used for more than just a shelter.
Click to expand...

From the article the only other spaces inside the shelter will be devoted to offices for counselors whose job it will be to "coax them off the street and into homes". In other words coax them into homes that don't exist for them. Probably the only thing worse than the $11 Million capital costs will be the operating budget for large staff of well-paid social workers.
 
Peepers said:
From the article the only other spaces inside the shelter will be devoted to offices for counselors whose job it will be to "coax them off the street and into homes". In other words coax them into homes that don't exist for them. Probably the only thing worse than the $11 Million capital costs will be the operating budget for large staff of well-paid social workers.
Click to expand...

C'mon.

[video=youtube;XZC6hZ4QzJQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZC6hZ4QzJQ[/video]
 
greenleaf said:
Shelters like this will save the taxpayers tons of money in the long run because those who often live on the street become ill (in various ways) and require numerous hospital visits over their lifetimes. These visits can cost up to a million dollars over the lifetime of the homeless individual.

It is far cheaper to the taxpayer to provide shelter (instead of health care costs) and give these individuals somewhere safe to stay.

Some form of temporary, but stable housing is even better than a shelter (like what is being done at the Edwin at Queen & Broadview; see http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/875668).
Click to expand...

So in other word, you think a private sector investment firm would be willing to sign a contract with the city to build the shelter now in return for a cut of future savings? For some reason, I highly doubt that.

Also, although we have been building shelters for the last who knows how long, our health care spending is still spiraling out of control. Where was the savings? Why were we still forced to pay a health premium whereas homeless people don't have to pay a cent?

Maybe a better way to solve this is to base the health premium on your health risk. How about those who "require numerous hospital visits over their lifetimes" has to pay their fair share, whereas those who take care themselves don't have to pay as much?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top