A forumer's long view of Winnipeg

[ue]

Originally Posted by biguc

Winnipeg's classist and racist interventions are a lot more deliberate than simple gentrification. The St. Regis is the latest example but back in the '90s the city absolutely decimated Main street. You could argue that this was predicated on making the Exchange palatable to middle-class residents. Funny how sunk in the settler attitude is.

Originally Posted by biguc

Yeah you guys get it. Instead of making a functioning neighbourhood where the residents of a given area have access to the things they need to thrive, just push them aside so the people who already have what they need (through no connection to the area) can move in. Probably on the back of a mega project that cost more than the small-scale, grassroots improvements that would have solved the local problems. What problems? Just knock down the SROs and wonder why there's suddenly so many homeless people.

I too didn't understand why the St. Regis was so vilified--or why the Vendome and Garrick currently are--but it's not that I don't know why.

Thanks for these posts. I think that you're able to more succinctly articulate what I am trying to say.

For anyone confused by points, this is more or less what I am meaning, condensed into a few short paragraphs.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by ue

It'd be one thing if the various levels of gov't didn't have the resources to do this, but they've clearly shown they do through their financing and spurring of developments to attract wealth back into the city. What's more is their push for downtown revitalization has come at the expense of these marginalized communities. Every time CentreVenture condemns an SRO, every time a condo developer gets a TIF payment, every time anything involving trying to gentrify an area should be seen as gross negligence as well as fundamentally rooted in classist and racist ideology.

Thanks for the great post, ue. This part especially helped me to understand where you're coming from.

Edit - Not that I want to make you write even more...but I didn't totally get this:

Originally Posted by ue

even if a lot of the developments occurring are within the arbitrary confines of 'the Exchange', it doesn't change the fact that these are at times a block or two, or even across the street from, low-income marginalized communities. The Exchange is not isolated from these communities, it was very much an extension of them until gentrification occurred.

I don't see the confines of the Exchange as being arbitrary at all. It's the original commercial core of the city, consisting of a collection of old office and warehouse buildings that were left vacant or underused when the core shifted to South Portage in the postwar era. If you walk west on Bannatyne or McDermot, it's extremely obvious where the Exchange ends. On McDermot there's an abrupt change in the built form at Hargrave, from multi-storey brick to low-rise, and it's been that way for over 100 years. So I don't really see how the Exchange was "very much an extension" of low-income communities to the west. Wasn't it always something quite distinct, both in built form (tightly packed mid-rise brick buildings) and in use (commercial/industrial)? Certainly the parts of the Exchange that remain derelict today (e.g. the Peck Building) don't seem to be an extension of any other community. The Porter Building, as another example, was empty above the ground floor since 1975 before becoming apartments a couple years ago.

My understanding of residential development in the Exchange is that it answered the question of "what do we do with this huge collection of derelict buildings right in the centre of the city?" I definitely agree that you can take issue with the way the question was answered. But it seems like an oversimplification to view it through the standard lens of gentrification. The fact that we shifted our commercial core, rather than building over it like most other North American cities, created a fairly unique situation. (I'm not trying to say that that makes everything A-OK.)

[thewave46]

I can see the arguments for and against gentrification.

I think some gentrification is a good thing. The worst disasters of housing policy are concentrated pockets of poverty. In particular, low-income tower blocks were known for this.

However, the downside of gentrification is the flip side of this - a formerly low-income neighbourhood becomes exclusively high-income, simply displacing the problem onto the street or into another area.

With some gentrification, one has a mix of income levels and provides a political base to support improved services. Exclusively low-income areas have almost no political support beyond the local MP/MLA/city councillor, but by getting buy-in from a more well-rounded community, you don't alienate people you'll need to build a consensus (see: suburbanites).

[EspionNoir]

I’m not sure if government intervention/programs provide the best result anymore. The future regarding this issue will probably lie in the future entrepreneurs who have the passion, capital and resources to help these marginalized people out.

Unrelated (or probably related): how feasible will indigenous-managed resorts/hotels be? I stayed in a hotel managed by the indigenous people in Calgary, probably 4 stars and has a casino, and I was fairly satisfied with it. The best help may be to make them do business which will be self-sustainable in the long run. But business knowledge comes with education at first.

[YWG-RO]

Walked around downtown a bit yesterday evening. Haven’t done so in a couple of years.

Some random observations:
Not many people around. Those I saw were mainly underhoused or had obvious mental health or addictions challenges.
The sidewalks are filthy: garbage, dried vomit, dried blood, feces, etc.
Many empty / for lease storefronts.
TNC thankfully was a hub of activity with skateboarders and folks hanging out at the restaurants.

I must admit that I didn’t feel the safest. I was left with an overwhelming feeling of emptiness and sadness.

We are nearing retirement and I had been considering eventually downsizing to a condo or apartment downtown. For now, we can’t even contemplate this. I appreciate that COVID plays a huge role, but it seems far worse now than the 1980s. What a shame how much progress we’ve apparently lost.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by YWG-RO

Walked around downtown a bit yesterday evening. Haven’t done so in a couple of years.

Some random observations:
Not many people around. Those I saw were mainly underhoused or had obvious mental health or addictions challenges.
The sidewalks are filthy: garbage, dried vomit, dried blood, feces, etc.
Many empty / for lease storefronts.
TNC thankfully was a hub of activity with skateboarders and folks hanging out at the restaurants.

I must admit that I didn’t feel the safest. I was left with an overwhelming feeling of emptiness and sadness.

We are nearing retirement and I had been considering eventually downsizing to a condo or apartment downtown. For now, we can’t even contemplate this. I appreciate that COVID plays a huge role, but it seems far worse now than the 1980s. What a shame how much progress we’ve apparently lost.

There is no question that Covid-19 was a massive setback for downtown. Just removing the day to day traffic that sustained so many shops, services and restaurants was a huge blow. I have said before that downtown feels like a more desolate place now... the streets feel emptier than before.

I suppose the real question is whether a) it will bounce back to levels at or near before March 2020 and b) if yes, how long will it take? If it's less than a year then it may not be a big deal. If it's more than a year then downtown could be in trouble, which would be sad to see given how slow and hard won any gains were over the last 25 years.

Just from what I can tell from personal contacts, most people I know working in the private sector have been back downtown for quite some time now. Some never left. But in the public and non profit sectors, WFH is still the rule for many. And with the public sector presence being as big as it is in Winnipeg, that's a huge chunk of downtown's consumer spending power that has been removed for over a year and a half. And of course travel/tourism is still probably a sliver of what it once was. It's a hard hit to take.

[Ando]

I don't think being too alarmist at this point is in order. Downtowns everywhere have taken a hit but as things come back to normal so will the people and so will the downtowns. Seriously, some of the descriptions in this thread make it sound like downtown Bagdad.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Ando

I don't think being too alarmist at this point is in order. Downtowns everywhere have taken a hit but as things come back to normal so will the people and so will the downtowns. Seriously, some of the descriptions in this thread make it sound like downtown Bagdad.

I think every large Canadian downtown has been affected, but some have more fundamentals in place to help bounce back. Winnipeg's situation was more precarious, which is why some of us are concerned. Is downtown resilient enough to get back to where it was two years ago? I hope so, but it's far from certain.

[ue]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

Thanks for the great post, ue. This part especially helped me to understand where you're coming from.

Edit - Not that I want to make you write even more...but I didn't totally get this:

No problem! I'm glad I'm (mostly) making sense . It often feels futile getting into these discussions on places like this because there is such an ingrained ideology that many espouse which is hard to work against. So I'm happy to be able to get through to people and have them understand where I'm coming from. With that out of the way...

I don't see the confines of the Exchange as being arbitrary at all. It's the original commercial core of the city, consisting of a collection of old office and warehouse buildings that were left vacant or underused when the core shifted to South Portage in the postwar era. If you walk west on Bannatyne or McDermot, it's extremely obvious where the Exchange ends. On McDermot there's an abrupt change in the built form at Hargrave, from multi-storey brick to low-rise, and it's been that way for over 100 years. So I don't really see how the Exchange was "very much an extension" of low-income communities to the west. Wasn't it always something quite distinct, both in built form (tightly packed mid-rise brick buildings) and in use (commercial/industrial)? Certainly the parts of the Exchange that remain derelict today (e.g. the Peck Building) don't seem to be an extension of any other community. The Porter Building, as another example, was empty above the ground floor since 1975 before becoming apartments a couple years ago.

My understanding of residential development in the Exchange is that it answered the question of "what do we do with this huge collection of derelict buildings right in the centre of the city?" I definitely agree that you can take issue with the way the question was answered. But it seems like an oversimplification to view it through the standard lens of gentrification. The fact that we shifted our commercial core, rather than building over it like most other North American cities, created a fairly unique situation. (I'm not trying to say that that makes everything A-OK.)

Yes, my understanding of the Exchange is that it was the commercial and warehousing core of the city until the postwar era, when things noticeably shifted to the South Portage area, as you described. This left the area mostly in tact, but also left it to decay and abandon. While the intended use of the area was different, you can see parallels to the decay that was allowed to proliferate in Centennial, Point Douglas, Chinatown, Central Park, not to mention the West and North Ends. And because the Exchange is surrounded by these communities, until the revitalization push, if anybody was in the area, it was likely people from these communities, going to and from. Not to mention it becoming a site of a growing homeless population. The demography of the area on the street therefore was more reflective of the neglect and divestment of both government and capital from the area, like its neighbours, even if less people literally lived in the Exchange at the time. This what I mean when it was an extension of its surroundings, even if the typology of the neighbourhood is noticeably different. This spillover also continues to this day. I often see marginalized folks walking through the Exchange, which prompted the private security force.

Regarding the boundaries, these are the boundaries I'm more or less working with:


This matches more or less with maps from websites rooted in the city, but I used Google Maps to have the satellite overlay. To me, the Red River College panhandle immediately sticks out and is weird. Why is it included but other historic retrofits like Cibo are not? To the immediate north and west of RCC are old buildings that look very Exchange-y, but are not included in the boundaries. Places like Bill Worb Furs that most would probably think of as 'the Exchange' without looking at a map. Then there's the stuff west of Princess St to about Dagmar that also looks and feels very Exchange-y in comparison to Central Park and Centennial to the west. But again, not officially the Exchange. Or what about the Alexander Ave retrofits? Technically not the Exchange, but definitely connected to Exchange gentrification efforts.

You're right that the ways in which the Exchange was engineered to develop have lots of room for critique. And yes, they can't just be viewed through the lens of gentrification, they must also be viewed through the lens of racial capitalism and neoliberal austerity. The city chose to continue its neglect of marginalized communities by prioritizing the area for middle and upper income folks, who don't face housing shortages and a lack of other needs, as a result of austerity, classism, capital-orientation, and racism. Again, those lofts could have been public housing. Nobody surrounding the Exchange was actually asked or given what they wanted, and had to put up with a wealthier clientele setting up next door while their conditions continue to deteriorate.

Regarding the 'shifting of the core' - yes, but I don't think it's that easy. The inner city was abandoned by those with the means and began to deteriorate, leaving only those who couldn't live anywhere else to either remain or move in. This happened everywhere. And since the 1980s, there have been countless endeavours by a myriad of cities to lure back capital. You see this in Downtown Detroit. You see this in Downtown Los Angeles. You see this in Toronto's West End and St Lawrence. You see this in Chicago's Near South Side. In San Francisco's South of Market area. In all cases the working class or otherwise marginalized communities that frequented these areas are pushed out to assuage the needs of capital.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by esquire

I think every large Canadian downtown has been affected, but some have more fundamentals in place to help bounce back. Winnipeg's situation was more precarious, which is why some of us are concerned. Is downtown resilient enough to get back to where it was two years ago? I hope so, but it's far from certain.

I get where you are coming from. I hate to bring politics into it, but aside from the impact of COVID, the city has suffered from a provincial government run by a rural caucus that really doesn't seem to have much inclination to do anything but cut and not to invest in the future. I think the COVID impact will be mitigated but the city is sadly in need of some progressive thinking and political will when it comes to things like transportation and rapid transit.

[blueandgoldguy]

ooohhhhhh, CentreVenture called out. Wonder if our resident CentreVenture member has anything to say about that

[esquire]

It would be easier to accept the Exchange District as gentrified enclave argument if it weren't surrounded by some of the lowest-cost housing you're going to find anywhere in Canada, particularly in that kind of proximity to a central business district. You only have to go a few hundred metres to the north or the west of the Exchange District as shown on the map ue posted above to find neighbourhoods that are probably going to be as affordable as they come. Centennial, Central Park, Point Douglas... all affordable, and all basically a stone's throw from the Exchange. No one but the truly destitute is priced out of downtown Winnipeg or surrounding neighbourhoods.

I get the impression that gentrification means something very different in Winnipeg than it does in most other Canadian cities... elsewhere it brings to mind large clusters of renovated homes and condos, with boutiques and restaurants catering exclusively to a well-heeled clientele and practically inaccessible to those without substantial means. In Winnipeg, gentrification has come to mean any neighbourhood not occupied exclusively by the working poor or the underclass.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by ue

Or what about the Alexander Ave retrofits? Technically not the Exchange, but definitely connected to Exchange gentrification efforts.

You've referred to the changes in the Exchange as gentrification, but if gentrification is defined as "the process of neighborhood change that results in the replacement of lower income residents with higher income ones" (Kennedy & Leonard 2001), then I'm not sure that the term even applies to the Exchange, where the higher income residents are not replacing anybody. The Woodbine, Albert, and McLaren are still there, and potentially even expanding in the case of the McLaren.

Originally Posted by ue

Regarding the 'shifting of the core' - yes, but I don't think it's that easy. The inner city was abandoned by those with the means and began to deteriorate, leaving only those who couldn't live anywhere else to either remain or move in. This happened everywhere.

You're conflating two different situations here, though. There's the disinvestment/donut effect that took place all across North America. And there's the shift of the commercial core to South Portage, which was a unique product of the geography of downtown Winnipeg. The Exchange is not a residential neighbourhood that was abandoned by those with means, leaving only those who couldn't afford to live anywhere else (unlike, say, West Broadway or Central Park). It's a commercial district that was abandoned because it was easier to construct new buildings in the erstwhile residential area a few blocks south. I don't think the ethical issues that arise in the former situation are the same as those that arise in the latter, and I don't find it helpful to conflate the two.

Let me put it this way. In the standard case of Brooklyn-style gentrification, the ethical position is clear: don't let middle-class people take over the homes and businesses of lower-income people. For the Exchange, your position seems to be: don't let middle-class people take over a tract of empty commercial buildings because there are lower-income people in adjacent areas who might be harmed by the presence of a middle-class neighbourhood nearby. I'm not here to argue against that position, but it's a lot more nuanced than the standard case of gentrification, and I don't fully understand the ramifications of it. Should the entire Exchange have been given over to public housing?

The uniqueness of the Exchange situation is reflected by the designation of the Exchange as a national historic site: most cities don't have an original CBD that was abandoned and left intact. Frankly I'm not sure that the literature on gentrification provides much guidance on what to do in a situation like that (but it's not my field so I'm prepared to be wrong).

[ue]

Originally Posted by esquire

It would be easier to accept the Exchange District as gentrified enclave argument if it weren't surrounded by some of the lowest-cost housing you're going to find anywhere in Canada, particularly in that kind of proximity to a central business district. You only have to go a few hundred metres to the north or the west of the Exchange District as shown on the map ue posted above to find neighbourhoods that are probably going to be as affordable as they come. Centennial, Central Park, Point Douglas... all affordable, and all basically a stone's throw from the Exchange. No one but the truly destitute is priced out of downtown Winnipeg or surrounding neighbourhoods.

I get the impression that gentrification means something very different in Winnipeg than it does in most other Canadian cities... elsewhere it brings to mind large clusters of renovated homes and condos, with boutiques and restaurants catering exclusively to a well-heeled clientele and practically inaccessible to those without substantial means. In Winnipeg, gentrification has come to mean any neighbourhood not occupied exclusively by the working poor or the underclass.

While the areas surrounding the Exchange are in fact relatively affordable, as I stated earlier repeatedly is how the quality of housing is subpar. Housing that has holes in the floor, rodent and bug infestations, poor insulation, shitty landlords, and so on. Further, as I also said, the number of affordable units continues to shrink, to the point that a lot of poor housing ends up being occupied by large numbers of people such that they are overcrowded. People who rely on income assistance for their housing are extremely limited by their options, even as community organizations work hard to try and find solutions. Surely you can't say this situation is exactly ideal.

This is a good book if you want to learn more (it is specifically about Winnipeg). It is how I came to learn in greater detail about Winnipeg's housing issues because, sure, it isn't as obvious as extremely pricey locales like Toronto, but that doesn't mean they aren't there: https://fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/poor-housing

You seem to be deliberately ignoring my argument. The Exchange, prior to revitalization, was similarly 'destitute' as its neighbours were. Instead of looking at the neglect faced by communities in the vicinity and trying to use the Exchange as an opportunity to ameliorate the situation by using the buildings to create good long-term housing that is safer and healthier to live in and to allow the community (that lived in or near to the Exchange when nobody else did) a say in what to do with the area, the city bulldozed parts of those communities, and spent millions luring capital, all the while the social situation for those in places like Main St and Centennial continue to deteriorate. And now you're complaining about how the West End has 'fallen' on dark times not realizing it is a policy failure not unlike what happened with the Exchange because of shit priorities on the behalf of government.

[ue]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

You've referred to the changes in the Exchange as gentrification, but if gentrification is defined as "the process of neighborhood change that results in the replacement of lower income residents with higher income ones" (Kennedy & Leonard 2001), then I'm not sure that the term even applies to the Exchange, where the higher income residents are not replacing anybody. The Woodbine, Albert, and McLaren are still there, and potentially even expanding in the case of the McLaren.

Except that there is displacement. Stephen Juba Park was redone and condos built across the street to displace the unhoused. Main Street was bombed to make the area more attractive to capital. This was done to make the Exchange more appealing or 'successful'. The Exchange was and is occupied by people from marginalized communities, but now they are policed by a private security force to make sure yuppies feel comfortable. Further, the land that the Exchange now sits on is literally stolen Indigenous land via people like Wolseley and his militia. The divestment of social programs, such as public housing, also makes the situation worse by pushing people into more precarious housing situations. This is all displacement.

So, again, instead of looking at the Exchange and seeing an opportunity to allow for some reconciliation with Indigenous and other marginalized communities that make up the area by giving it over to those communities, providing adequate funding for services, converting the buildings into affordable housing, and so on, the city chased demographics from the South End.

This is a great book dealing with the topic (also Winnipeg-specific): https://arpbooks.org/Books/S/Stolen-City

You're conflating two different situations here, though. There's the disinvestment/donut effect that took place all across North America. And there's the shift of the commercial core to South Portage, which was a unique product of the geography of downtown Winnipeg. The Exchange is not a residential neighbourhood that was abandoned by those with means, leaving only those who couldn't afford to live anywhere else (unlike, say, West Broadway or Central Park). It's a commercial district that was abandoned because it was easier to construct new buildings in the erstwhile residential area a few blocks south. I don't think the ethical issues that arise in the former situation are the same as those that arise in the latter, and I don't find it helpful to conflate the two.

Los Angeles and Detroit had 'new downtowns' pop up in the early 20th century. Koreatown and Hollywood for Los Angeles, and New Center for Detroit. In the late 20th century, Century City was built in Los Angeles too. Within Downtown Los Angeles, the commercial core shifted to the Bunker Hill area (which was razed in a 'renewal' scheme) leaving the 'Historic Core' centred on Broadway intact. In the case of Detroit, 'New Center' was never able to fully supplant Downtown Detroit, but the postwar divestment from Detroit to suburban office parks certainly helped allow for that city's downtown to maintain its rich Art Deco core. In LA, these subsequent cores ensured that Downtown Los Angeles could never be *the* downtown, and even then the downtown is centred shifted a bit.

In Canada, both Quebec City and Montreal are classic examples of the downtown shifting, leaving the 'old town' relatively in tact. Not much would remain of Vieux-Montreal if all those towers on Rene Levesque were built there instead. Quebec City's walled core would have been decimated if the business core hadn't shifted outside the walls. In Vancouver, Hastings and Main used to be the heart of the city. Gastown and parts of the DTES are in a similar situation to the Exchange in that the reason so much of the old building stock remains is due to the core shifting westward, onto the peninsula.

So, no, I don't buy the argument that Winnipeg was somehow unique in its wholesale abandonment of the original core, allowing it to remain relatively intact compared with other North American cities.

Let me put it this way. In the standard case of Brooklyn-style gentrification, the ethical position is clear: don't let middle-class people take over the homes and businesses of lower-income people. For the Exchange, your position seems to be: don't let middle-class people take over a tract of empty commercial buildings because there are lower-income people in adjacent areas who might be harmed by the presence of a middle-class neighbourhood nearby. I'm not here to argue against that position, but it's a lot more nuanced than the standard case of gentrification, and I don't fully understand the ramifications of it. Should the entire Exchange have been given over to public housing?

Again, these communities did not and do not exist in a world completely separable from the Exchange. They utilized the Exchange when nobody else did, therefore it was more theirs than anybody elses, and they would be the ones most impacted by the renewal of the area. And in some cases, as the Stephen Juba situation indicates, certain members of the downtown community were literally living in the Exchange. You could make the argument it isn't as cut and dry as, say, Williamsburg gentrifying, but I don't think it's unclear that there was and is gentrification occurring. Why are luxury condos being built next to dilapidated housing and houseless camps? Surely the middle and upper income folks moving into these condos were already adequately housed and therefore their situation not really in need of improvement.

I don't think there isn't a place for middle and upper income folks in the central city. I just believe that those who already live in the area should get right of first refusal and their needs should be prioritized, as repeated policy decisions have impacted them most negatively. If and when there is no longer an issue of refugees in overcrowded housing, Indigenous discrimination by landlords, and there is no longer anyone unhoused in the city, then we can talk about giving extra space to the wealthy, provided their presence doesn't force out their more marginalized neighbours.

The uniqueness of the Exchange situation is reflected by the designation of the Exchange as a national historic site: most cities don't have an original CBD that was abandoned and left intact. Frankly I'm not sure that the literature on gentrification provides much guidance on what to do in a situation like that (but it's not my field so I'm prepared to be wrong).

Well, Quebec's Vieux-Quebec is a UNESCO World Heritage Site...

[esquire]

Originally Posted by ue

While the areas surrounding the Exchange are in fact relatively affordable, as I stated earlier repeatedly is how the quality of housing is subpar. Housing that has holes in the floor, rodent and bug infestations, poor insulation, shitty landlords, and so on. Further, as I also said, the number of affordable units continues to shrink, to the point that a lot of poor housing ends up being occupied by large numbers of people such that they are overcrowded. People who rely on income assistance for their housing are extremely limited by their options, even as community organizations work hard to try and find solutions. Surely you can't say this situation is exactly ideal.

This is a good book if you want to learn more (it is specifically about Winnipeg). It is how I came to learn in greater detail about Winnipeg's housing issues because, sure, it isn't as obvious as extremely pricey locales like Toronto, but that doesn't mean they aren't there: https://fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/poor-housing

You seem to be deliberately ignoring my argument. The Exchange, prior to revitalization, was similarly 'destitute' as its neighbours were. Instead of looking at the neglect faced by communities in the vicinity and trying to use the Exchange as an opportunity to ameliorate the situation by using the buildings to create good long-term housing that is safer and healthier to live in and to allow the community (that lived in or near to the Exchange when nobody else did) a say in what to do with the area, the city bulldozed parts of those communities, and spent millions luring capital, all the while the social situation for those in places like Main St and Centennial continue to deteriorate. And now you're complaining about how the West End has 'fallen' on dark times not realizing it is a policy failure not unlike what happened with the Exchange because of shit priorities on the behalf of government.

How does using the Exchange for the reasons you cited amelioriate the situation of Centennial and the West End? Let's assume that in an alternate universe the Exchange had became a neighbourhood of public housing complexes, co-ops and affordable private sector housing. OK, sounds fine. But you are still left with an unchanged Centennial, West End, North End, etc. Someone would fill the spots vacated by those who left for the Exchange. Only fixing the problems in those areas head-on will result in their improvement. It can't be escaped by shuffling people around. At the end of the day all that would have happened in your scenario is that Exchange District condo yuppies would have congregated in some other neighbourhood and you'd probably still be upset that wherever they landed wasn't used for public housing instead.

The Exchange District has nothing to do with the problems you have been talking about... as has been pointed out numerous times, virtually no one was displaced by residential development in the Exchange. I don't know how long you've lived in Winnipeg, but the Exchange in the 80s was basically a bunch of small, mostly old legacy businesses taking advantage of the cheap old warehouse buildings. Other than a couple of 80s development projects like the Ashdown Lofts, no one lived in the Exchange. People lived in Chinatown and the North Main strip nearby as they do now, but those are different areas.

[ue]

Originally Posted by esquire

How does using the Exchange for the reasons you cited amelioriate the situation of Centennial and the West End? Let's assume that in an alternate universe the Exchange had became a neighbourhood of public housing complexes, co-ops and affordable private sector housing. OK, sounds fine. But you are still left with an unchanged Centennial, West End, North End, etc. Someone would fill the spots vacated by those who left for the Exchange. Only fixing the problems in those areas head-on will result in their improvement. It can't be escaped by shuffling people around. At the end of the day all that would have happened in your scenario is that Exchange District condo yuppies would have congregated in some other neighbourhood and you'd probably still be upset that wherever they landed wasn't used for public housing instead.

So, I don't have knowledge offhand of the precise number of units that could be made of the buildings in the Exchange, but I don't doubt that due to the density that exists there, it would provide housing for a decent chunk of people. Definitely way more than gets built now. So it already would solve more problems than what has been done instead. People from Centennial, Point Douglas, Main Street, Central Park, and other communities with people either unhoused or precariously housed could move into Exchange District buildings. In the meantime, those units vacated in those neighbourhoods could be seized and remediated and given to newcomers who cannot afford housing in middle and upper class neighbourhoods. Obviously it is an ongoing thing that would not be solved by just doing one thing (moving people into affordable housing in the Exchange).

The Exchange District has nothing to do with the problems you have been talking about... as has been pointed out numerous times, virtually no one was displaced by residential development in the Exchange. I don't know how long you've lived in Winnipeg, but the Exchange in the 80s was basically a bunch of small, mostly old legacy businesses taking advantage of the cheap old warehouse buildings. Other than a couple of 80s development projects like the Ashdown Lofts, no one lived in the Exchange. People lived in Chinatown and the North Main strip nearby as they do now, but those are different areas.

Again people lived in places like Stephen Juba Park and were displaced for Exchange condos. This has also been pointed out numerous times. This isn't as cut and dry as you really want to make it out to be. But you've also ignored my repeated calls to do something so I don't really see much point in further engaging with you when you seem to just want to complain and wonder why issues persist but feel ok with the city's continued prioritization of those with the means recolonizing the core while the situation for those most marginalized continue to get the shaft.

I wasn't in Winnipeg in the '80s, but I'm assuming since nobody else was in the area except some old legacy businesses, the people that were in the area were those from nearby communities coming to and from. This still happens to this day, of course, but with increased policing. You can't just say the Chinese Gardens across the street from old warehouses live completely removed from those warehouses. There is spillover and mingling. These communities again do not exist in a vacuum. And as I have shown in my previous posts, there is very clear encroachment of condos towards Centennial and Point Douglas because the Exchange doesn't exist as this walled off garden.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by ue

Again people lived in places like Stephen Juba Park and were displaced for Exchange condos. This has also been pointed out numerous times. This isn't as cut and dry as you really want to make it out to be. But you've also ignored my repeated calls to do something so I don't really see much point in further engaging with you when you seem to just want to complain and wonder why issues persist but feel ok with the city's continued prioritization of those with the means recolonizing the core while the situation for those most marginalized continue to get the shaft.

What do you suppose that the number of homeless living people regularly living in Stephen Juba Park pre-Exchange condos might have been? 2, 3, 4? Based on what I remember from that era I'd imagine it probably would have been on that scale. It's not as though there were any large encampments with dozens of people.

I disagree that Exchange District development should have been prevented on the basis of a small handful of people living in the park. How do we know that the people living in Stephen Juba Park didn't simply go somewhere else when condos went up?

And let me remind you that if you don't feel like engaging with me, you don't have to. I won't be offended.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by ue

Further, the land that the Exchange now sits on is literally stolen Indigenous land via people like Wolseley and his militia.

True but applies to the city of Winnipeg as a whole, so if this is where the argument about the Exchange in particular ends up, I think it's jumped the shark.

Originally Posted by ue

Well, Quebec's Vieux-Quebec is a UNESCO World Heritage Site...

OK, if the relevant differences between Vieux-Québec and the Exchange aren't obvious, then I give up on this conversation.

[ue]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

True but applies to the city of Winnipeg as a whole, so if this is where the argument about the Exchange in particular ends up, I think it's jumped the shark.

I don't think it has. There was an opportunity to do some real work in terms of addressing the harm of colonization with the previously empty Exchange. Instead, a new generation of colonization was enacted.

OK, if the relevant differences between Vieux-Québec and the Exchange aren't obvious, then I give up on this conversation.

I am not being insincere when I say that I don't think there's a big difference between Vieux-Quebec and the Exchange. They were at one point the commercial cores of their respective cities and those cores shifted at a later date. Even if for some unknown reason you wanted to ignore Quebec City, I still gave you detailed examples from Vancouver, Montreal, Los Angeles, and Detroit. I am not trying to be difficult, but if you would rather not meaningfully engage, then that's fine. I thought you were trying to actually see where I am coming from, which is why I continued to engage with you. But I can just drop out so the rest of you can enjoy your echo chamber. I can do better things with my time.