It seems weird to me that it wuld be here-with a shuttle to take folks to work. It doesn't have to be on the LRT line but perhaps a bus line would have been a good choice. I do agree that all social housing should not be downtown, but it is helpful if it is near grocery store and recreationan. Wonder if the twilleger Y will offer some recreation opportunities for these folks-but even so-how would they get there?

Somehow I suspect that many homeless people in Edmondton are First Nations.  I suspect this suburb is mostlt white or Asian.

Could this be a racial problem, perhaps ???

It seems to me that by providing housing of different types, in all communities is better, than  sections for those who are rich,(or poor)  and sections those with mental illness and with addictions,. those married, and those not, sections for men, and sections for women.

I suspect most people would agree that dividing up cities like that is not possible or diseriable. So while the people say it is about addictions, or smoking, it could really just be code for Indian, since we knbow their are drinkers and smokers and menatlly ill people in all parts of society.

I don't think it's about race.  I've read some comments from people in the community and the only example of something related to race that came up was someone who would be open to certain issues, such as new immigrants who had a difficult time covering all their needs.

Yes, certain ethnicities have higher rates of addictions, homelessness, etc.  But the issue I do see is people being concerned about potential crime, drug, and violence problems whether or not those who move in are white.

Cities are also segregated to a certain extent, and I don't think that's always a bad thing.  People of a certain age sometime like to congregate together.  A certain lifestyle might be more suitable for downtown whereas another lifestyle is more suitable to the suburbs.  Sometimes certain areas are culturally based.  It's easier to immigrate to a country when you can be around people who can speak your native languange, can buy the foods you're used to, people understand your customs, etc.

It's always about balance, like you say sometimes between of the same type do have good reasons to stay together. But in doing so we must becareful not to segregate peoe so much that their fear towards others is not fueled by lack of contact.

For example the case of the women in the article fearful of her child becoming infected with HiV.

Also except for the man who is fearful of the new residents going through public ashtrays for cigaretter butts, all of the things the existing residents are fearful of coming to their area is already present. They already have alcholics and drug users, and people living with mental illness in their community. Addicts and those with mental illness exist in evry community.

In my opinion the danger come from people living in downtown "ghettos" where those with various illnesses lack services, social, health and policing. while those in the burbs believe that there neighbourhoud lack these services, the truth is the burbs have less services in genral, but the greater numbers in the downtown neighbourhoods means that on a ratio basis the burbs actually have more and better services.

Alex, I agree the HIV comment was odd, I didn't come across the original comment, I wouldn't mind seeing the original wording cuz it just seemed a little bizarre.

I agree that people have mental illnesses, addictions, etc. everywhere.  Sticking people who are likely recovering from more than just one of those problems all in one building is different than what the average neighbourhood deals with.

I also wonder a bit about HOA fees.  Usually, all residents in the neighbourhood have to pay these.  Will those in the support housing have to?  Does it pay for things they would be interested in?  If they don't pay for it, should they be allowed to use the ammenities.  I'm sure that's far on the priority list right now, but if this goes through it may come up.

What are HOA fees?

Homeowners association fees.  Some just cover things like walking trails that are the responsibility and not the neighbourhood.  Others include much more, like rec centres or community lakes.

I agree with Alex's comments about finding balance.  In the GTA - we now rarely see construction of a buidling that is totally subsidized/social services housing.  Rather, the building usually have a mix of tennants - some paying market rent, some paying rent geared to income.  So it surprises me the whole building in this story is focused on social assistance clients. 

I think larger GTA condo buildings now are actually required to contain a percentage of "affordable" housing - "affordable" is a bit of a misnomer in one sense - out of reach of anyone on disability benefits for sure - but more affordable for those starting into the housing market. 

Access to caseworkers, social workers, supports etc. will be key to the success of this venture I think.  The response of the neighbourhood is pretty predictable - in time they will hopefully become good neighbours.  I hope the church will take a strong advocacy position - they're not really mentionned except that the land is leased from them.  What a great mission opportunity -  hope they don't cave to the disgruntled among them.  

I agree a mix is good.  This is really forcing it though.  AFAIK, there are no apartments in the community.  Some people may rent out their house or condo, but it's primarily home owners who live in the community.

That means supports that these people do develop will likely have to change once they are no longer eligible for the supportive housing, because I doubt many will be able to afford to buy in the neighbourhood.

The area I am in currently would be much more ideal.  Instead of a 30min busride to a Walmart, it's probably less than a 30 min walk.  I have numerous pharmacies and grocery stores I can walk to, along with a doctor's office, optometrist, diagnostic lab, etc.  There is a large amount of rental property.  Public transportation is accessible.  I'm not downtown, but I'm not in the suburbs.

It's a good point regarding proximity to community stores etc.  It does sound a bit like this is a growing edge of the city - would that be fair to say?  I recall when my highschool was built (many decades ago!!)  we all said What??? Why build it such a long way away from housing?  It was truly WAAY out in a field.  Now it's a hub for the community that has grown around it - I can't hardly find my way to it when I'm back in that city.   So possibly there are further development plans for the area this building is going into?  

In terms of 'forcing' - there usually is no other way, in my experience.  Years ago, the Community Living association bought a small house on my street for a group home for developmentally challenged adults.  The outrage and complaint in the community was truly embarassing to me.  They moved in anyway, and have been great neighbours - but there's always a big dust-up when something like this is proposed I think.  

Not really.  I'm not 100% familiar with the area, but I know some of the communities around it better.  AFAIK, development is pretty much complete.  I am getting much of my information about what's in the neighbourhood from the internet.  An community adjacent from the greater area (the towne is kind of a sub-community) has many more services, but it's on the other side of the ring road, so it's not easy to walk between the two.  I don't know if a bus goes directly between the 2 communities, but I wouldn't be surprised if one didn't.

https://terwillegartowne.org/community-map

Info from a real estate page, there are at least grocery stores:

http://www.edmontonrealestate.pro/terwillegar.php

This quiet neighborhood, located in the southwest distract of Edmonton is especially attractive, as it is within very close walking proximity to a wide array of eating establishments and shopping essentials;  such as, Starbucks™, Second Cup™, grocery stores, liquor stores and major banks, all located on 23^rd Avenue.  With this many amenities, just down the road; staying on top of day-to-day errands has never been so easy.

A huge bonus of living in this particular area is ‘The Terwillegar Community Rec Centre’ which is comprised of an arena Complex and a massive recreation centre complex and is the envy of almost every other Neighborhood in Edmonton.  With countless fitness classes, youth programs, an aquatic centre and state-of-the-art equipment, this facility is more than just a place to keep fit, it’s a beacon for the Community of Terwillegar Towne and a safe and positive place for families to bond and grow.

Since this is a ‘newer’ community, it is comprised mostly of young families and local professionals; the median age for adults is 25 to 40 years old with the majority of children being 4 and under.  Private Dwellings were not constructed in this community until 1996, at which point, massive construction began to transform Terwillegar Towne into the community it is today. The majority of erected structures are owner occupied single detached homes. Periodically placed throughout are a few duplex/triplex and fourplex with a very small handful of apartments that are less than 5 stories. Almost all units are owner occupied, very few are offered as rental properties.   There are also a handful of newer and recently completed schools available to students in this area. Below is a list of these schools:

Public Schools:

• Lillian Osbourne (10 – 12) - (http://lillianosborne.epsb.ca/)
• Esther Starkman School – (http://estherstarkman.epsb.ca/about-our-school)

Catholic Schools:

• Archbishop Joseph MacNeil School (K – 9) - (http://www.archbishopjosephmacneil.ecsd.net/)
• Monsignor William Irwin Catholic School – (http://www.monsignorwilliamirwin.ecsd.net/) 

Even though this is a relatively newer neighbourhood, most of the residents and land developers share in the common desire to make this a community bursting with classic charm and old fashioned attention to detail and most importantly - respect for one’s surroundings and neighbors.  Proof of this, is through The ‘Terwillegar Towne Residents Association’ (http://www.terwillegartowne.org/).   If you own a property within the boundaries of this Community, then you automatically become a member of this Association.  A volunteer Board of Directors diligently works to ensure that the needs and concerns of this Community are heard and attended to and that the maintenance of this neighborhood is held to a certain level of standards. 

A unique neighborhood, such as Terwillegar Towne, that is specifically crafted, to meet certain goals for its residents is a rare and new initiative in Edmonton.  Its rapid growth has proven that this formula of building a ‘small town’ feel within a City, is successful, as evidenced by the countless families that have chosen this safe, quiet and comforting place theirs’ to call home.  

I really don't understand the point of putting a building for single people in a family neighbourhood.  The demographics do just seem wrong to me.

From what I read in the FAQ pages, it's certainly not just for single people - they do anticipate some single parents & families as well.  I think the FAQ page is very informative - sounds like an excellent project IMO.  http://www.jphawc.ca/page20.html

I can think of a good number of patients I have seen in the past year who are homeless or verging on that - most through no real fault of their own, and unrelated to addictions or mental health issues - mainly illness or injury rendering them unable to work in previous employment, or for some, at all.  The spectre of homelessness is terrifying.   I wish there was such an option for them. 

This is another issue. But It used to be normal to have multi generational housing in every community.  That is housing for families, housing for young adults and the elderly.  That way  people could live in suitable housing without leaving their community. So for example when a full house became too much for an elderly person or couple to up keep, they could move into   different housing without leaving their communty, which of course includes their church and friends.

  The whole concept  of family neighbourhoods is only a recent development, (50 years or so) and one that I believe has failed communities and families, as it excludes the elederly and other people who have family but do not live with them.

If this is like Property Tax in Ontario, than renters do not pay, but the owners do. The owners will pay using the rent that they charge their tennants.

Sorry Carolla, I didn't mean to give the impression it's only single people.  I just think in this case, it should be primarily for families, and it doesn't appear that's what the original plan was.

The community wasn't consulted originally, and it looks like they are planning on scaling the number of units down, I don't know if that means a smaller building or just less single bedroom units.

Alex, it's different than property taxes.  It's almost like a community tax.  It covers things the city doesn't.  When I move, I get a membership card for access, but need to show ID along with the title of the property to get it.  If someone rents out their home, they can choose to give up their access for the renter to use it, or to keep it for themselves.  The communities that I am aware of that have such things do not have buildings where a company rents out multiple units.

The church as been vandalized wtih graffiti.  No Homeless was written on the outside of the church a few times.  They plan on turning it into a mural.

The graffiti is an interesting reflection of the community.  I like the church's response re muralizing. 

Some of the residents were concerned about an increase in crime - it looks like it's already started! 

I don't think it's a reflection of the community as a whole.

LOL!  Truth chemgal.  

I also agree that it's not a reflection on the WHOLE community - but I bet there are those within it who are surprised "their people/kids" would do such a thing.  Bit of an eye opener for them perhaps. 

Just a mini update:

The original FB group where some of the most uneducated comments from has turned into a closed group.  Supposedly it was for people who lived in the community only, but the admin allegedly  kicks people out if their comments suggest they don't share her same views.

It sounds like there are few in the community who strongly oppose the housing, a few who strongly support it and a great number of people who just want to learn more.  There's probably a bunch of people who don't really care much either, so aren't vocal. 

Now I an upset because my reasonable counter argument got wiped out after an hour's preparation.

Developers drool over single family neighborhoods in cities. I grew up in Calgary, eventually living in Elbow Park. They want to build apartments and condos, destroying the historic character of the "hood" in the process. Once in, they drive up the land prices till single families can't buy in. 

They start out with a group home or other dreadfully necessary housing. Then comes a developer crying "Why not me? One little ten story structure in an out-of-the-way corner can't hurt"". Then the rush is on . 

Those who oppose this process are called NIMBY's and selfish for defending the character of their neighborhood. Even churches are manoevered into denouncing them.

I grew up very poor. It is degrading to be the poorest kid in a rich school.

The majority of the very poor need to be within a short walk of the services they depend on. Bus passes are often lost, stolen, or sold in a desperate moment. Handicapped souls do better near a shopping center giving them freedon of choice and movement. "Handi-busses" require planning, are slow and often inflexible.

Many of those who cry "NIMBY" have their own selfish agendas.

Judd, I'm a bit confused.  Are you saying condos and apartments increase the value of homes in the neighbourhood?  I've seen the opposite.

They decrease the value of homes but increase the value of the real estate (at least initially)

India many years ago experimented with housing developments that mixed social classes. I don't know how it turned out. I do know it's a great experience for children to mix with people of a variety of ethinic in income levels. Meeting immigrant children from societies with high ambitions opened up a whole new world for me. Most of them were Jewish, and their intellectual enthusiasms, quite unknown in my Crhstian, working class district.    changed my life.

I have also lived in a district of upper middle class homeowners. Bo-ring. Pretentious and intellectually vacant.

From what I know, increased density increases both real estate and single home values. However values also go up in single home areas, just to a lesser degree.  In Ottawa we have a traditional low income neighbourhoods in lowertown. Some parts of it have seen single homes replaced by apartments, while in parts  single family homes  have been renovated and are only affordable by the very rich. The only affordable housing for working and middle income people are in the coops.  While public and coop housing was the only affordable places for low income.

What was discovered in Ottawa was that when high density housing replaced single homes, the neighbourhoods, became populated with the rich and those who incomes were low enough for public housing.  This has lead the city to force developers to provide susbsidies for households making less than 140,000, in order to insure that low middle income people will not be shut out.

The subsidies can range for 40 to 60 thousand off the purchase price that those making less than 140 or so, and apply to only a certain percentage. (I think 5%-10) of the new units.

If I compare apples to apples, the neighbourhoods in the same area in the city have higher values if they only contain single family detaches homes.  In areas that are primarily single family detached, those that are closer to the multi family dwellings are less expensive (sometimes partially due to the house, sometimes it's purely location).

It depends on how you measure it. For example, just outside of downtown Ottawa to the south is the Glebe. Which is more or less single family homes, or single family homes that ahve been converted into 2, 3 or 4 apartments. 

The value of the real estate is much less that it is in my neighbourhood. However the avergae homes is much more expensive than the average condo.   This is because you can build a condo with 50 units valued between 300,000 to one million on the land of 4 houses.  4 houses in the Glebe may go for between 700,000 to 1 million each, HOwver even if they sold for 1 million, the land and the new building have a worth that is many times greater..

Even the houses that remain next to the condos go up in value because speculation is that they will be torn down next and the land will be sold for a greater price to another condo development, or perhaps the city or a coop.

They aren't turning single family homes into multifamily homes in this neighbourhood though.  How similar is Glebe to Terwilleger Towne?

I suspect very little. The Glebe is over 100 years old at least. I was just using it as an example, becasue it is in Ottawa, the city where I live and thus know best.

I took a course in the economics of cities, where we studied Jane Jacobs, and she too believed and provided many examples of how higher density housing increases property values.  During the course I looked at various neighbourhoods in Ottawa, and saw that this "rule of thumb" applied.

Hva eyou compared the value of homes in Terwilleger with the values of homes in mixed neighbourhoods of Edmonton?

Cameron Heights isn't mixed, single family homes only, and similar houses are more expensive there.  There aren't many below $500, and of the ones that are, similar houses can be found for cheaper in other neighbourhoods that aren't close to a major road like the ring road.

Magrath Heights has more of the segregated type housing.  The condos are in a specific area, as are the duplexes.  Again, the houses are expensive.

The Hamptons is more mixed.  The expensive area is separated into it's own little area.  Outside of that area, affordable houses can be found.

The trendy are of Windermere would be an interesting area to compare to, but it's split into Upper Windermere, Langdale, etc. and I'm not familiar enough to make a good comparison.

Like I said, I don't know Terwillegar as well.  It's more mixed than Cameron Heights or Magrath.  There isn't just one area that contains all the non-single family detached houses.

I tried to compare similar areas of the city, but I get W and SW confused.  The Hamptons and Cameron Heights are W.  The rest of the communities are all considered SW I believe.  Magrath is a bit older than the others I believe, but it still has a newer area.  Those houses I can't compare though, the houses are different.

It's been cancelled.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/terwillegar-homeless-residence-dr...