A forumer's long view of Winnipeg

[GreyGarden]

haha "resident debbie downer".

Comparing our downtown has been frustrating for awhile. I feel like there are individual projects that when looked at in isolation, are nice (or good enough) projects. But all of these pieces are all so far away from each other. There is no sense of momentum ever. You never get the sense that the wheel is starting to turn on a particular street.

Not that I've given up hope, but more my interest has shifted away from downtown and towards the surrounding neighbourhoods. In particular West Broadway and Osborne Village and the Exchange as a kind of inbetween. These neighbourhoods are far more liveable than downtown ever will be in my opinion - with the Exchange being the least. I find the same holds true in other Canadian cities. As Vike mentioned in another thread, tower neighbourhoods are generally pretty unpleasant. I occasionally find these two to be a tad annoying but I agreed with the sentiment of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCmz-fgp24E

I thought it was interesting that they distinguished Canadian downtowns from American cities with crime ridden downtowns. I think in the Canadian context Winnipeg has been a hold out to this trend as downtown sometimes still feels kind of threatening whereas other downtowns in Canada, while dull, usually don't have that same scary vibe to them. I have no idea what the actual statistics are compared to other prairie cities.

But back to the point, I agree with their general premise, that it isn't downtown or nothing - and that in their opinion, and mine as well, the greatest urban experience can come from those dense, but mid to low-rise neighbourhoods surrounding downtowns. I just can't understand why Osborne Village and West Broadway can't seem to get the ball rolling - Osborne Village especially as it seems to be a far stronger magnet for development compared to West Broadway. West Broadway may just not have the density and wealth to support the amenities we'd like to see yet - small businesses, some chain retail, restaurants and bars - beyond what is already there. And if the rumours of a nail salon at Wolseley and Sherbrook are true, it now feels like the street is actually regressing - especially in light of there being no bakery anymore. However, I've thought for a few years that Osborne Village likely had enough mid to high earning residents to support a more vibrant neighbourhood than what is currently there. Based on the above, if the Saskatchewan cities can have vibrant high streets I'm at a loss as to why urban Winnipeggers can't seem to support and attract businesses.

[sleepyeyed]

Tom Brodbeck
@tombrodbeck

Manitoba’s interprovincial exodus has been getting worse over the past 10 years. Last year’s bleeding was worst since 1979-80. Most are going to B.C. and Alberta. #wfp

https://twitter.com/tombrodbeck/stat...jpcxQ7GdeeGbHA

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by sleepyeyed

https://twitter.com/tombrodbeck/stat...jpcxQ7GdeeGbHA

Not surprising considering crime issues worse a government that has failed to make us more competitive and only interested in the deficit and nothing else its sad when Saskatchewan is leaving us in the dust with business development and thriving downtowns in Regina and Stoon

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by thurmas

Not surprising considering crime issues worse a government that has failed to make us more competitive and only interested in the deficit and nothing else its sad when Saskatchewan is leaving us in the dust with business development and thriving downtowns in Regina and Stoon

One of the first twitter comments I see from that article complains about high property taxes?! Winnipeg's property taxes are not that high like WTF is he even talking about. If anything they need to raised to properly address infrastructure issues. Then of course he also says government workers are overpaid And that is driving people away? Pretty sure our government workers aren't paid anymore than government workers in other provinces...

What a disappointment this government has been. Discussing the previous provincial government's inability to make Manitoba a more competitive and desirable place to be...and making it even less desirable nearly 7 years in. To think I actually believe their discourse. Never again...well, until the next time.

[esquire]

I just got back from a few places in Atlantic Canada and my time in Halifax in particular is not helping me deal with all of this.

It was my first time in Halifax in 13 years and I was blown away by how much that city has changed since my last visit. The Waterfront Boardwalk runs 4.4 km and was packed with people every day. Imagine the Assiniboine Riverwalk but lined with restaurants, museums, shops. hotels, etc. Multiple condo buildings filled with residents, as well as interesting shops and restaurants at the base. A pleasant vibe with few of the menacing undertones of our city, especially after dark. It's not gentrified beyond imagination or anything like that - still a pretty honest, gritty city but generally friendly and lively. They clearly have their social problems as well, but they don't dominate the way they do here. There are streets that you can walk for long stretches with interesting storefronts and little fast-moving stroady traffic.

I remember going to Halifax in the 90s and it was sleepy. It felt like Regina with a seaport. Now it looks like Vancouver. It's clearly a huge tourist draw, the plane there and back from Toronto was filled with vacationers, and there were tons of obvious tourists on the streets. Unlike the flight to Winnipeg where it's only residents and those being paid to come here for work. Kind of made it hard to come home.

[esquire]

Having pondered this some more, I will say this. Winnipeg does a great job when it comes to large, show-stopping projects. To name a few examples, the CMHR, the Centennial Centre (museum & concert hall), Assiniboine Park (and all of its components) all blow away their Halifax counterparts in terms of their sheer scale and impressiveness. For a city its size, Halifax has a pathetic set of sports venues. Even our truncated little Blue Line BRT exceeds anything that exists in Halifax. So Winnipeg does hold up well in some regards.

But where Winnipeg fails is at the fundamental level of creating a safe and appealing urban environment where people can walk around the city and find continuous strips of interesting and useful shops, services and amenities (like parks and libraries). What they have is clearly well cared for... the neglect or vandalism that plagues so many Winnipeg public spaces is not really an issue there from what I was able to see.

[Sheepish]

Indeed...I had commented about Halifax in June.
Lots of downtown residential development - both around the waterfront and adjacent neigbourhoods. Clean streets. Virtually no parking lots. Lots of restaurants and bars in walking distance. Minimal visible homelessness.
Certainly, the tourism draw of Halifax is understandable, and it makes a difference. But there is something for our civic leaders - and the new Mayor to learn from and aspire to! With a larger population and industrial base, we should be further ahead.

[pacman]

Forgive a little old man yelling at the clouds even though I'm still in my 40s. The older I get and the more I travel, the more pessimistic I am about Winnipeg's future simply because we've either been left in the dust by other cities in Canada that have advantages like resources (Edmonton/Calgary), better weather (Vancouver), big thinking politicians (everywhere else), or a combination thereof. I feel really old when I tell my kids that when I went to elementary school in the late 70's Winnipeg had relatively recently been surpassed by Vancouver as Canada's 3rd most important city but we were still a comfortable 4th in the hierarchy of Canadian importance. Edmonton and Calgary were starting to make a run and were at a similar level to us but by no means were they bigger and better than "Solid 4th Winnipeg".

I remember going on western road trips with my parents growing up and having a slight superiority complex to other major western centres (except Vancouver, always loved that city). But looking back I realize that those cities all seemed to have grand plans or thought they were better than they were (except Regina, they didn't seem to have any kind of draw back in the late 70s/early 80s). Saskatoon was small but they had visions of being an NHL city, who in their right minds would think to build an NHL size arena and try to bring the St Louis Blues to town back then but they had plans. Calgary was starting to see the oil boom but even then they already had the Calgary tower and built a signature arena that made them instantly recognizable across Canada, what was our biggest tourist attraction in the 70s - the zoo and Assiniboia Downs? They went after the winter olympics in the early 80s when they were still a bunch of nobodies. Edmonton was smaller than us but they built a massive football stadium in the 70s and expanded it to 60,000 seats in the early 80s. They were also early entrants into mass transit, not to mention the massive gamble that continues to pay dividends called the West Edmonton mall when they had no business thinking of themselves as a destination. Vancouver blew past us and never looked back. I remember the excitement of Expo 86 and everything that came along with it. They plowed ahead with the Skytrain and eventually into the olympics too.

I know some of you are probably saying that not all of that stuff was roses and you're glad Winnipeg for example didn't "fall victim" to the money pits that the Olympics have become. That being said, the profile of these cities at the time did not prevent them from dreaming of being bigger and more important on the national and international scale. If you rewind back to 1975 for example who would've thought that Calgary would become such an important air travel hub ahead of Winnipeg? We have the better location, we're perfectly situated roughly halfway between Montreal/Toronto and Vancouver and relatively close to Chicago. We had a larger population, a thriving aeronautical industry, and even though we get some blizzards we're relatively isolated from extreme weather events (hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes...). The problem is that Calgary leveraged their new-found prominence and capitalized on oil to the point that everything snowballed from there. Winnipeg has been saddled with smalltime apologist politicians who refuse to go against public opinion unless it is small scale enough that it can't legitimately be an election issue (million dollar toilet on the Provencher Bridge).

Winnipeg refused to proactively start building a proper rapid transit system when public opinion was divided, refused to think big when it comes to public mega-projects (aside from the floodway- kudos to Roblin), and cowered in a shell trying to hang on to the glory days when they were the Chicago of the North while other cities built for the future.

I would be more upbeat if I didn't see this continuing, but the political will is simply absent from Winnipeg to do what's best for Winnipeg fuck the public opinion. Politicians here are unable to simply open their most historically important intersection to foot traffic unless 50% +1 allow it because they are terrified of the consequences. The province plans to put a friggin roundabout at the intersection of the Trans-Canada and Yellowhead instead of a grade separation and the bridge over the Trans Canada at Portage la Prairie has had removed girders for how many years? Winnipeg's politicians refuse to use bus shelters as bus shelters instead of homeless shelters because they have no balls. They hide behind the "treat the root causes" line as a shield because they are terrified of making hard decisions and dealing with the fallout. Regina and Saskatoon's COMBINED populations are significantly smaller than Winnipeg's yet they are building their transportation infrastructure to accommodate massive growth proactively instead of piecemeal over not only decades but literally over half a century. Winnipeg's investment into our rapid transit system compared to Edmonton's is shameful, and that has nothing to do with the size of the city because they've been on the bandwagon for decades and ar reaping the rewards.

Sorry for the rant, but this forumer's long view of Winnipeg is that based on my 40something years of existence there is ZERO reason to believe that Winnipeg will do anything but continue to slip farther behind other Canadian cities. That is unless some visionary can not only snap us out of this "good-enoughness" but actually mobilize our citizens into big thinking. While some cities have obvious advantages that we cannot compete with, West Edmonton mall is a simple example of something that could have been built anywhere including Winnipeg. We need to find our something.

[Boreal]

Obviously everyone's personal take is valid, and if it is reassuring at all, it sounds like most cities, certainly the biggest 3 from Lake Superior all the way to the BC interior are staring down the barrel of a very similar gun. It certainly doesn't mean we should accept the challenges Winnipeg is facing as reasonable, but we are not living in little Gotham on the prairies while Edmonton and Calgary are sunshine and wild roses. I wouldn't want to get into a mud wrestling battle over whom is King Feces of Turd Mountain, but perhaps a measured look at Winnipeg in the current moment is worthwhile. I'd even add Minneapolis to this mix if it helps, personally, as a matter of recognizing that our challenges are real, and maybe a touch greater than others, but I don't believe we stand out in an ultra-dramatic way relative to our, let's call them contemporaries. Or perhaps I'm wrong, and back off to my hobbit hole I go.

[Sheepish]

Both comments above are intelligent and measured...which is important. The fact that other jurisdictions are experiencing similar challenges and stresses is valid - and perhaps somewhat comforting (apparently misery really does love company!). That said, by comparison or by it's own right, we have a very serious problem that needs solving...or at least addressing to minimize the impact on the general population and the future of the city. We need people at the top levels who have a vision for how things need to be, and how to get there...long view...and short view! My question for our mayoral candidates...'what is your vision for Winnipeg, and what will you do to get there'?

[🌳🌱🌿🌴🍁]

Originally Posted by pacman

Forgive....

I am writing this fairly quickly, so haven't checked it thoroughly. Also, while some of it is a response, it is more of a general reaction to issues you raised as I haven't gone over your comments to check everything.

In any case, thanks for your thoughts – some of which I agree with, e.g., the lack of vision of many 'leaders' there over the years, with their small-minded perspectives, and the public transport choices which continue today.

Your 'rant' (as you put it) goes in different directions, but I respect that you acknowledge your uncertainty re possible solutions. That is certainly preferable to a lot of the 'certainty' on this site and elsewhere. That being said, while I personally definitely do not claim to have all the answers (far from it), I think we might disagree about certain courses of action.

I was born (not in WPG) in the early 70s, and also travelled to Vancouver for Expo 86 before subsequently living in Vancouver for 12 years starting in 1998. Expo 86 brought that city into the international spotlight/consciousness, and in the following years as Hong Kong was being handed back to China a lot of money flowed out of Asia into BC and elsewhere. For better and worse. Given that kind of historical context, combined with the city's geographical setting and so on (at the same time, the weather is not always optimal in my view + earthquake risk, etc.), there is a reason why on a global stage Vancouver drew in so much money and 'blew past' WPG as you put it.

As for Calgary, yes, it is Canada's Dallas: how much money has been generated in Alberta by the oil industry over the years? And as with Edmonton, it is situated relatively close to some of the most spectacular scenery in Canada, depending on your tastes. So there is a lot of money and there are a lot of natural amenities there. But I don't think Calgary is a more impressive city than WPG in many ways.

Edmonton built Commonwealth Stadium for the Games and expanded it, and I agree that it looks like a nice stadium. But why would a big stadium like that be the be-all-and-end-all for such a city? Did it help EDM secure World Cup games? As for the West Edmonton Mall, I guess we might disagree about the value of a giant shopping mall. Actually, I think one of WPG's stupidest mistakes was prioritizing the construction of shopping malls like Polo Park which sucked the life out of downtown. Downtowns are a window to the world (as evidenced by the somewhat odd travelogue in the Canadian vacations section of this site). In any case, can't people in WPG travel to Minneapolis if they really want a gigantic shopping mall?

I know when I was there in recent years, I bought a laptop and had to go to the Apple store at Polo Park (of course, packed, and my purchase further validated Apple’s decision to locate in the mall). In most other cities, those stores are downtown. And McNally Robinson opened a beautiful flagship bookstore and it is in a mall. Etc., etc., etc. I realize that they tried on a smaller scale downtown there, in another mall, and no one went. So people have to want it too. I always have gone to MEC when in WPG, to support their decision to invest where and how they did.

In fact, what does 'thinking big' mean? Supertalls à la NYC? That isn’t going to happen in WPG as you know. And then some support the ugly crap like that proposed high-rise simply because it has a certain height or whatever and will 'make the skyline more impressive.' And because it is replacing a parking lot. That is not thinking big in my view; in fact, it is the opposite. ‘Good enoughness,’ as you say. Thinking big does not necessarily mean size.

I have lived in the Paris area for more than a decade on and off, although not sure for how much longer. Paris, a world city, obviously blows Canadian cities out of the water in many ways. Paris also restricts building heights within its urban limits (the fact that it has pushed social problems from its historic core out to the surrounding areas is another topic, although it seems to be the opposite of the hollowed-out North American model).

But I think Paris would envy some of the things WPG has, or maybe has HAD due to the idiotic management there (how much money has been lost in the police-related scandals and so on?). On that point, in answer to your question about what to do: maybe START BY PROTECTING THE UNIQUE TREASURES THE CITY HAS. Example? The urban tree canopy. I think it might even already might be too late now, and one can question the pruning and re-planting cycles that have been in place over the years there. But this has alwys been a unique and invaluable part of WPG, a jewel very much taken for granted. You grew up with it, no? I understand that it doesn't seem like a 'big' thing, but it is. I am at least certain of that, if nothing else.

Also, all those cities you mentioned (and I know there are places like Gastown in Vancouver), would totally envy the range of historic architecture in WPG, which was saved by default – lack of development interest if I am not mistaken, not some great vision – while many other North American cities razed their tradition and history. Were those cities 'building for the future' in that sense? And now, from afar, it feels like WPG is going in that direction, e.g., Wellington Crescent.

As an aside, I was able to visit St. Louis a while ago and loved a lot of the historic architecture there, but it faces similar issues:

https://twitter.com/joewittebrood/st...54517831987200

In any case, I think you are also maybe not giving WPG enough credit in terms of some of its positive achievements (perhaps despite itself). Look at this before and after comparison. And it is not finished (I understand that the usual suspects will only see a ‘million dollar toilet’, etc.) although I am aware of the recent crime issues discussed on SSP:

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/wp...NEP7969668.jpg
https://www.outdoorcanada.ca/wp-cont...ea1d270a_o.jpg

Thanks to the vision of certain individuals in this case, WPG has thus been undertaking one of the great transformations of public space in North America. And the CMHR is definitely not small-minded in terms of its design, putting aside other issues with its management/financing, which is another debate. That building ranks with Parisian monuments in terms of scale and materials.

Assiniboine Park is a very special place, and you didn’t mention the new Leaf building there (I am aware there is also controversy re the budget, but you are talking about vision).

https://twitter.com/SecondNatureMB/s...12415997317121

There are people with vision there, probably including some running for mayor.

This week, I was in Vincennes, a neighbouring city of Paris, and it is so walkable and there are people everywhere on the streets even in August (people = safety). Look at this street view:

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8471...7i16384!8i8192

So START with making a liveable city from the centre out, and not expanding endlessly when the city can't even take care of its existing infrastructure. Consider density like this mini mid-rise concept:

https://twitter.com/naama_blonder/st...17109306269697

Take a look at what this architect and planner there said, below. Imagine what the city would be like today if her vision had been followed. Then add to it and 'think big' like in the 'glory days' before the Panama Canal and war when the city actually wanted to be a beautiful Chicago of the North. Maybe that is part of the 'something' you are searching for.

"In 1960 Lord termed Winnipeg a "city without a centre” with a “nebulous downtown area of mixed uses with old deteriorated residences side by side with old commercial developments and a few very fine new commercial buildings.” Yet the solution in her mind came not in suburban development – whose “mushrooming out” she stated will would simply create "new slums to come" – but rather redevelopment of extent neighourhoods. By 1963, Lord, then executive director of the Community Planning Association of Canada came forward (alongside Len Wyner, manager of a Winnipeg building cleaning company) with a plan to partially achieve this goal with a plan to establish a “brighter, cleaner central Winnipeg in time for Canada's centenary celebration in 1967.” This plan, which they stated was modelled on Norwich, England, whose council and the Civic Trust of Great Britain, in 1957, proposed the improved of the city “without major alteration or expense.” The strategy, which Lord upheld for Winnipeg, was to involve the examination of a street by those with “an experienced eye,” its potential appraised and a “plan of renovation and redecorating” prepared. Lord promoted these ideas in the local press and television programs such as that of Bud Sherman. Such a strategy of small scale, street-by-street, urban redevelopment was a far cry from many of the modernization plans which would proceed in Winnipeg and across the continent.

https://www.winnipegarchitecture.ca/elizabeth-lord/

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by 🌳🌱🌿🌴🍁

I am writing this fairly quickly, so haven't checked it thoroughly. Also, while some of it is a response, it is more of a general reaction to issues you raised as I haven't gone over your comments to check everything.

In any case, thanks for your thoughts – some of which I agree with, e.g., the lack of vision of many 'leaders' there over the years, with their small-minded perspectives, and the public transport choices which continue today.

Your 'rant' (as you put it) goes in different directions, but I respect that you acknowledge your uncertainty re possible solutions. That is certainly preferable to a lot of the 'certainty' on this site and elsewhere. That being said, while I personally definitely do not claim to have all the answers (far from it), I think we might disagree about certain courses of action.

I was born (not in WPG) in the early 70s, and also travelled to Vancouver for Expo 86 before subsequently living in Vancouver for 12 years starting in 1998. Expo 86 brought that city into the international spotlight/consciousness, and in the following years as Hong Kong was being handed back to China a lot of money flowed out of Asia into BC and elsewhere. For better and worse. Given that kind of historical context, combined with the city's geographical setting and so on (at the same time, the weather is not always optimal in my view + earthquake risk, etc.), there is a reason why on a global stage Vancouver drew in so much money and 'blew past' WPG as you put it.

As for Calgary, yes, it is Canada's Dallas: how much money has been generated in Alberta by the oil industry over the years? And as with Edmonton, it is situated relatively close to some of the most spectacular scenery in Canada, depending on your tastes. So there is a lot of money and there are a lot of natural amenities there. But I don't think Calgary is a more impressive city than WPG in many ways.

Edmonton built Commonwealth Stadium for the Games and expanded it, and I agree that it looks like a nice stadium. But why would a big stadium like that be the be-all-and-end-all for such a city? Did it help EDM secure World Cup games? As for the West Edmonton Mall, I guess we might disagree about the value of a giant shopping mall. Actually, I think one of WPG's stupidest mistakes was prioritizing the construction of shopping malls like Polo Park which sucked the life out of downtown. Downtowns are a window to the world (as evidenced by the somewhat odd travelogue in the Canadian vacations section of this site). In any case, can't people in WPG travel to Minneapolis if they really want a gigantic shopping mall?

I know when I was there in recent years, I bought a laptop and had to go to the Apple store at Polo Park (of course, packed, and my purchase further validated Apple’s decision to locate in the mall). In most other cities, those stores are downtown. And McNally Robinson opened a beautiful flagship bookstore and it is in a mall. Etc., etc., etc. I realize that they tried on a smaller scale downtown there, in another mall, and no one went. So people have to want it too. I always have gone to MEC when in WPG, to support their decision to invest where and how they did.

In fact, what does 'thinking big' mean? Supertalls à la NYC? That isn’t going to happen in WPG as you know. And then some support the ugly crap like that proposed high-rise simply because it has a certain height or whatever and will 'make the skyline more impressive.' And because it is replacing a parking lot. That is not thinking big in my view; in fact, it is the opposite. ‘Good enoughness,’ as you say. Thinking big does not necessarily mean size.

I have lived in the Paris area for more than a decade on and off, although not sure for how much longer. Paris, a world city, obviously blows Canadian cities out of the water in many ways. Paris also restricts building heights within its urban limits (the fact that it has pushed social problems from its historic core out to the surrounding areas is another topic, although it seems to be the opposite of the hollowed-out North American model).

But I think Paris would envy some of the things WPG has, or maybe has HAD due to the idiotic management there (how much money has been lost in the police-related scandals and so on?). On that point, in answer to your question about what to do: maybe START BY PROTECTING THE UNIQUE TREASURES THE CITY HAS. Example? The urban tree canopy. I think it might even already might be too late now, and one can question the pruning and re-planting cycles that have been in place over the years there. But this has alwys been a unique and invaluable part of WPG, a jewel very much taken for granted. You grew up with it, no? I understand that it doesn't seem like a 'big' thing, but it is. I am at least certain of that, if nothing else.

Also, all those cities you mentioned (and I know there are places like Gastown in Vancouver), would totally envy the range of historic architecture in WPG, which was saved by default – lack of development interest if I am not mistaken, not some great vision – while many other North American cities razed their tradition and history. Were those cities 'building for the future' in that sense? And now, from afar, it feels like WPG is going in that direction, e.g., Wellington Crescent.

As an aside, I was able to visit St. Louis a while ago and loved a lot of the historic architecture there, but it faces similar issues:

https://twitter.com/joewittebrood/st...54517831987200

In any case, I think you are also maybe not giving WPG enough credit in terms of some of its positive achievements (perhaps despite itself). Look at this before and after comparison. And it is not finished (I understand that the usual suspects will only see a ‘million dollar toilet’, etc.) although I am aware of the recent crime issues discussed on SSP:

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/wp...NEP7969668.jpg
https://www.outdoorcanada.ca/wp-cont...ea1d270a_o.jpg

Thanks to the vision of certain individuals in this case, WPG has thus been undertaking one of the great transformations of public space in North America. And the CMHR is definitely not small-minded in terms of its design, putting aside other issues with its management/financing, which is another debate. That building ranks with Parisian monuments in terms of scale and materials.

Assiniboine Park is a very special place, and you didn’t mention the new Leaf building there (I am aware there is also controversy re the budget, but you are talking about vision).

https://twitter.com/SecondNatureMB/s...12415997317121

There are people with vision there, probably including some running for mayor.

This week, I was in Vincennes, a neighbouring city of Paris, and it is so walkable and there are people everywhere on the streets even in August (people = safety). Look at this street view:

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8471...7i16384!8i8192

So START with making a liveable city from the centre out, and not expanding endlessly when the city can't even take care of its existing infrastructure. Consider density like this mini mid-rise concept:

https://twitter.com/naama_blonder/st...17109306269697

Take a look at what this architect and planner there said, below. Imagine what the city would be like today if her vision had been followed. Then add to it and 'think big' like in the 'glory days' before the Panama Canal and war when the city actually wanted to be a beautiful Chicago of the North. Maybe that is part of the 'something' you are searching for.

"In 1960 Lord termed Winnipeg a "city without a centre” with a “nebulous downtown area of mixed uses with old deteriorated residences side by side with old commercial developments and a few very fine new commercial buildings.” Yet the solution in her mind came not in suburban development – whose “mushrooming out” she stated will would simply create "new slums to come" – but rather redevelopment of extent neighourhoods. By 1963, Lord, then executive director of the Community Planning Association of Canada came forward (alongside Len Wyner, manager of a Winnipeg building cleaning company) with a plan to partially achieve this goal with a plan to establish a “brighter, cleaner central Winnipeg in time for Canada's centenary celebration in 1967.” This plan, which they stated was modelled on Norwich, England, whose council and the Civic Trust of Great Britain, in 1957, proposed the improved of the city “without major alteration or expense.” The strategy, which Lord upheld for Winnipeg, was to involve the examination of a street by those with “an experienced eye,” its potential appraised and a “plan of renovation and redecorating” prepared. Lord promoted these ideas in the local press and television programs such as that of Bud Sherman. Such a strategy of small scale, street-by-street, urban redevelopment was a far cry from many of the modernization plans which would proceed in Winnipeg and across the continent.

https://www.winnipegarchitecture.ca/elizabeth-lord/

Excellent post. And BANG on. I was going to write some of the things you pointed out. Thank you for saving me the time lol.

People forget Winnipeg was once a major player and Edmonton and Calgary were little dumps. Had it not been for oil, they'd still be little dumps. And what was Calgary like when oil tanker recently. They have half filled towers now all over downtown. They had foreclosures left and right. The thing is Calgary isn't some super city anymore and it's on its way back down the ladder. Oil is high right now. But as we try to get away from oil Calgary is going to suffer.

Winnipeg also is one of the most stable economies in Canada. It always weather's these ups and downs as it's so diversified. There is something about being a slow growing city that also helps in the long run.

Take Detroit. It's like the Calgary of the USA. It was once a city of almost 4 million. Car Industry bails on the city and look at it now. It's technically smaller by population then Winnipeg. And that's because it's entire economy was based on the auto industry. Just like Calgary is based on OIL.

I do often wonder what Winnipeg would be like if they built it though where Gimli is. With the lakes and all the tourism that would have brought.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

I do often wonder what Winnipeg would be like if they built it though where Gimli is. With the lakes and all the tourism that would have brought.

When the CPR Was originally laid, wasn’t it to go through Selkirk?

[cllew]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

When the CPR Was originally laid, wasn’t it to go through Selkirk?

You are correct.

If you look at something like google maps you can see the curve in the CP Mainline south to Winnipeg from the intended route to Selkirk at Molson Mb.

Selkirk was the surveyors preferred route due to it being more flood resistant than Winnipeg.

There are numerous articles you can find thru Google that explain how the city of Winnipeg put out money and "forever" property tax exemptions to have the line come thru here.

[esquire]

It's an interesting "what if" game to consider how things would have worked out had Selkirk ended up as the capital city instead of Winnipeg.

In the end I don't think things would have been dramatically different, but in some respects Selkirk may have been a marginally better choice that could have made it a slightly more appealing option as a place to live. For one, better flood resistance means that the massive amounts of money put into the floodway and fixing flood damage could have been put into other desirable amenities.

I realize this one is a bit more of an intangible, but slightly better proximity to Lake Winnipeg and to the Canadian Shield areas just east of Selkirk might have held some appeal for people. That type of thing is not necessarily a huge factor, but appearance does affect the image of a place at least somewhat. If "Selkirk International Airport" was located near Libau, let's say, it would give a different first impression than YWG currently does.

[pacman]

Originally Posted by 🌳🌱🌿🌴🍁

I am writing this fairly quickly, so haven't checked it thoroughly. Also, while some of it is a response, it is more of a general reaction to issues you raised as I haven't gone over your comments to check everything.

In any case, thanks for your thoughts – some of which I agree with, e.g., the lack of vision of many 'leaders' there over the years, with their small-minded perspectives, and the public transport choices which continue today.

Your 'rant' (as you put it) goes in different directions, but I respect that you acknowledge your uncertainty re possible solutions. That is certainly preferable to a lot of the 'certainty' on this site and elsewhere. That being said, while I personally definitely do not claim to have all the answers (far from it), I think we might disagree about certain courses of action.

I was born (not in WPG) in the early 70s, and also travelled to Vancouver for Expo 86 before subsequently living in Vancouver for 12 years starting in 1998. Expo 86 brought that city into the international spotlight/consciousness, and in the following years as Hong Kong was being handed back to China a lot of money flowed out of Asia into BC and elsewhere. For better and worse. Given that kind of historical context, combined with the city's geographical setting and so on (at the same time, the weather is not always optimal in my view + earthquake risk, etc.), there is a reason why on a global stage Vancouver drew in so much money and 'blew past' WPG as you put it.

As for Calgary, yes, it is Canada's Dallas: how much money has been generated in Alberta by the oil industry over the years? And as with Edmonton, it is situated relatively close to some of the most spectacular scenery in Canada, depending on your tastes. So there is a lot of money and there are a lot of natural amenities there. But I don't think Calgary is a more impressive city than WPG in many ways.

Edmonton built Commonwealth Stadium for the Games and expanded it, and I agree that it looks like a nice stadium. But why would a big stadium like that be the be-all-and-end-all for such a city? Did it help EDM secure World Cup games? As for the West Edmonton Mall, I guess we might disagree about the value of a giant shopping mall. Actually, I think one of WPG's stupidest mistakes was prioritizing the construction of shopping malls like Polo Park which sucked the life out of downtown. Downtowns are a window to the world (as evidenced by the somewhat odd travelogue in the Canadian vacations section of this site). In any case, can't people in WPG travel to Minneapolis if they really want a gigantic shopping mall?

I know when I was there in recent years, I bought a laptop and had to go to the Apple store at Polo Park (of course, packed, and my purchase further validated Apple’s decision to locate in the mall). In most other cities, those stores are downtown. And McNally Robinson opened a beautiful flagship bookstore and it is in a mall. Etc., etc., etc. I realize that they tried on a smaller scale downtown there, in another mall, and no one went. So people have to want it too. I always have gone to MEC when in WPG, to support their decision to invest where and how they did.

In fact, what does 'thinking big' mean? Supertalls à la NYC? That isn’t going to happen in WPG as you know. And then some support the ugly crap like that proposed high-rise simply because it has a certain height or whatever and will 'make the skyline more impressive.' And because it is replacing a parking lot. That is not thinking big in my view; in fact, it is the opposite. ‘Good enoughness,’ as you say. Thinking big does not necessarily mean size.

I have lived in the Paris area for more than a decade on and off, although not sure for how much longer. Paris, a world city, obviously blows Canadian cities out of the water in many ways. Paris also restricts building heights within its urban limits (the fact that it has pushed social problems from its historic core out to the surrounding areas is another topic, although it seems to be the opposite of the hollowed-out North American model).

But I think Paris would envy some of the things WPG has, or maybe has HAD due to the idiotic management there (how much money has been lost in the police-related scandals and so on?). On that point, in answer to your question about what to do: maybe START BY PROTECTING THE UNIQUE TREASURES THE CITY HAS. Example? The urban tree canopy. I think it might even already might be too late now, and one can question the pruning and re-planting cycles that have been in place over the years there. But this has alwys been a unique and invaluable part of WPG, a jewel very much taken for granted. You grew up with it, no? I understand that it doesn't seem like a 'big' thing, but it is. I am at least certain of that, if nothing else.

Also, all those cities you mentioned (and I know there are places like Gastown in Vancouver), would totally envy the range of historic architecture in WPG, which was saved by default – lack of development interest if I am not mistaken, not some great vision – while many other North American cities razed their tradition and history. Were those cities 'building for the future' in that sense? And now, from afar, it feels like WPG is going in that direction, e.g., Wellington Crescent.

As an aside, I was able to visit St. Louis a while ago and loved a lot of the historic architecture there, but it faces similar issues:

https://twitter.com/joewittebrood/st...54517831987200

In any case, I think you are also maybe not giving WPG enough credit in terms of some of its positive achievements (perhaps despite itself). Look at this before and after comparison. And it is not finished (I understand that the usual suspects will only see a ‘million dollar toilet’, etc.) although I am aware of the recent crime issues discussed on SSP:

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/wp...NEP7969668.jpg
https://www.outdoorcanada.ca/wp-cont...ea1d270a_o.jpg

Thanks to the vision of certain individuals in this case, WPG has thus been undertaking one of the great transformations of public space in North America. And the CMHR is definitely not small-minded in terms of its design, putting aside other issues with its management/financing, which is another debate. That building ranks with Parisian monuments in terms of scale and materials.

Assiniboine Park is a very special place, and you didn’t mention the new Leaf building there (I am aware there is also controversy re the budget, but you are talking about vision).

https://twitter.com/SecondNatureMB/s...12415997317121

There are people with vision there, probably including some running for mayor.

This week, I was in Vincennes, a neighbouring city of Paris, and it is so walkable and there are people everywhere on the streets even in August (people = safety). Look at this street view:

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8471...7i16384!8i8192

So START with making a liveable city from the centre out, and not expanding endlessly when the city can't even take care of its existing infrastructure. Consider density like this mini mid-rise concept:

https://twitter.com/naama_blonder/st...17109306269697

Take a look at what this architect and planner there said, below. Imagine what the city would be like today if her vision had been followed. Then add to it and 'think big' like in the 'glory days' before the Panama Canal and war when the city actually wanted to be a beautiful Chicago of the North. Maybe that is part of the 'something' you are searching for.

"In 1960 Lord termed Winnipeg a "city without a centre” with a “nebulous downtown area of mixed uses with old deteriorated residences side by side with old commercial developments and a few very fine new commercial buildings.” Yet the solution in her mind came not in suburban development – whose “mushrooming out” she stated will would simply create "new slums to come" – but rather redevelopment of extent neighourhoods. By 1963, Lord, then executive director of the Community Planning Association of Canada came forward (alongside Len Wyner, manager of a Winnipeg building cleaning company) with a plan to partially achieve this goal with a plan to establish a “brighter, cleaner central Winnipeg in time for Canada's centenary celebration in 1967.” This plan, which they stated was modelled on Norwich, England, whose council and the Civic Trust of Great Britain, in 1957, proposed the improved of the city “without major alteration or expense.” The strategy, which Lord upheld for Winnipeg, was to involve the examination of a street by those with “an experienced eye,” its potential appraised and a “plan of renovation and redecorating” prepared. Lord promoted these ideas in the local press and television programs such as that of Bud Sherman. Such a strategy of small scale, street-by-street, urban redevelopment was a far cry from many of the modernization plans which would proceed in Winnipeg and across the continent.

https://www.winnipegarchitecture.ca/elizabeth-lord/

Thanks for your reply. I certainly appreciate the thought that you put into it which is way more than I put in my original post. I had just returned from a roadtrip to Edmonton via Regina and Saskatoon and it frustrated me so I kinda just rambled and vented some things without any real deep thinking. This is evidenced by my thoughts on Vancouver which I realize were pretty off-base since they were a bigger/better city than Winnipeg long before I implied. Your reply deserves some more thought from me but just a couple of quick thoughts...

The West Edmonton mall example was by no means me cheerleading malls in general which seems like what you took from it. For me it was the conscious decision from Edmonton to build a national level (dare I say international) level tourist attraction. The vision they had to build a "mall" of that scale was not just "hey we need a new mall, let's build it big", they chose to build an attraction. Just the fact that a city that size incorporated a world class indoor waterpark and indoor amusement park, threw in the ice rink and a really cool replica ship into this development meant this was not built just as a local amenity, but also to draw tourists. That simple decision to super-super-size the mall concept is the vision I was talking about. Obviously malls are polarizing in this forum, but I don't think anyone can dispute that at the time it was built it was a home-run decision for Edmonton and it has had staying power. 40 years later I just went to Edmonton on a family road trip specifically because my youngest daughter wanted to hit that mall and the crowds were absolutely nuts so it also had staying power regardless of the downturn in North American malls in general over the last few years.

Next, I read your post and recognize that I didn't give credit to the positives Winnipeg has had over the same period of time I was complaining about. The Forks was a home run for Winnipeg at the time and it continues to be a fantastic attraction. The CMHR, hopefully The Leaf, etc... have definitely shown that Winnipeg has the ability to build nice things when they want to.

I read your reply and realize that I may be in the minority here but I don't truly appreciate the actual city-building discussions and you have great examples of the little things that make cities great such as the pedestrian experience and things on that scale. I tend to look at things on a macro level and because I am involved in the roadwork industry things like freeways and transit infrastructure really draw my attention when I visit other cities. This was the main source of my frustration when I went on my roadtrip and caused me to vent. I know freeways truly go against the principles of many on this forum and you guys are welcome to that view. For me, it is a visually simple example of which direction the city is trending (at least in North America) whether or not you guys wanna hear that. I think it is fair to say one would generally build freeways and mass transit systems in cities that are growing as opposed to stagnating/shrinking. The large scale road infrastructure projects built since the 80s in Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary, and Edmonton compared to Winnipeg show that Winnipeg is being left behind and I fear that it is snowballing. Winnipeg is simply not prepared to optimally use their current footprint and the solution here is inevitably to continue sprawling. I'm not a big urbanist and I will not pretend to be able to argue with some of you on here on the details, but nobody can convince me that Winnipeg would not be better off and set-up to grow if we had a truly free-flowing inner ring road of Chief Peguis/Route 90/Bishop/Lag surrounded by a free flowing perimeter highway complete with Headingly and St Norbert bypasses. Couple that road infrastructure with proper built out rapid transit and the car-centric culture that currently lives in downtown would be suburbanized and the idealistic pedestrian-friendly setting would be able to thrive where you all want - downtown/central.

I know I'm generalizing and simplifying a much more complex discussion that you guys are much better suited to argue, but sometimes I feel that you guys get wrapped up and focus on the details such as wall cladding materials and interacting with sidewalks that the bigger picture things like free-flowing ring-roads are treated as ugly step-children that should be shunned fearing they take the shine away from the low and mid-rise developments that are so important to fixing Winnipeg. Why can't we have both?

For all the good things Winnipeg has done over the last few decades, there have been so many missed opportunities and so many cities are passing or catching up to us and setting themselves up to continue their growth. Again, this is about my personal long view of Winnipeg. I know the majority of people here love to look at the incremental gains from smaller success stories organically contributing to the growth/betterment of Winnipeg. But I think we are asleep at the wheel when it comes to leadership with their eye on the bigger picture that should be steering the overall progress of the city. The big picture and big visions needs to have a seat at the table, and unfortunately we seem to have people who pretend to worry about the big picture while always putting it on the back burner when tough decisions need to be made. Looks like I ended up rambling again, hopefully its more coherent this time around. Maybe one of these days I'll sit down and take the time to properly express my thoughts.

[1ajs]

cheers

wpg is easy to get anywhere via bike car or foot. if we are going to keep the same no freeway vibe then we need to refocus on the fact were multiple cities and make their old downtowns back into community hubs and encourage infill in these for density and create incentves to develop density in these areas to discourage huge office parks we will always have people crossing the whole city for work but if creat opertunity to be closer to ur job in a sustainable way why not

[esquire]

The no freeway thing is OK, but in some respects it feels like we have the worst of both worlds. We do have pseudo-freeways which effectively function as freeways, but they are very half-assed with few interchanges and are prone to congestion and backups. And the upshot of this is that so much crosstown traffic spills over onto the normal arterial road network, such that we have tons of busy stroads. There are very few high street type settings that aren't marred by heavy traffic, including trucks.

So we don't have freeways except we kind of do, but inner city streets are still choked by busy crosstown traffic. Might as well just have the full on freeways and at least move the rush hour grain truck traffic out of downtown.

[🌳🌱🌿🌴🍁]

Originally Posted by pacman

Thanks for your reply....

Winston Churchill once said, “We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.”

Go one step further: “We shape our cities and afterwards our cities shape us.” Our vision and our daily realities – how we act, interact and perceive things – is influenced by our surroundings.

From what I recall, Churchill would have been somewhat contemporary with the development of a city like WPG. And in a European context – putting aside the thousands of years of indigenous settlement – WPG was more or less built out of nothing on a windswept prairie. Yet still it ASPIRED at the time to become a great capital and for a while was on the way to becoming one of the leading cities of North America.

Part of that was a manifestation of the City Beautiful philosophy. Why would such a place construct such an impressive legislature, for example? Why would it plant such beautiful trees for the future, which are now being decimated in part (from what I understand) due to neglect and a lack of proper care over the years?

You lament a lack of vision, missed opportunities and so on – and I agree with you. But there was vision there when the city was being created, and there was vision in Elizabeth Lord’s analysis 60 YEARS AGO. Her attitude was visionary AND doable. It would have made a world of difference.

To be fair, it seems from a few of your comments that you view this forum as some sort of elitist conversation. Like it’s an ivory tower, detached from the real ‘meat-and-potatoes’ world out there. You make comments like, “Obviously malls are polarizing in this forum,” “I know the majority of people here love to look at the incremental gains,” etc. And that would be your right, of course.

My father was a professor of transportation engineering and a highways expert. I grew up partly in that milieu and interacted regularly with his colleagues and students. One of them was for several years high up in the transportation administration in WPG. I talked to him once about the Esplanade Riel bridge. He said that if he’d had his way, the bridge would probably have been built bare bones, no-frills, get-from-point-a-to-point-b in the cheapest way possible.

Subsequently, he felt that he had been wrong about that. He recognized that it had become a local landmark. When you say, “sometimes I feel that you guys get wrapped up and focus on the details such as wall cladding materials and interacting with sidewalks,” would that have been a detail for you – the architectural design of the bridge? I would argue that sometimes the devil is in fact in the details.

Vision is aiming for something better despite the inevitable critics, who always have their own agendas. And to infer that WPG has been excessive on insisting on wall cladding materials and the like would be factually mistaken, in my view. In fact, one could argue that it has been the opposite in recent decades. But cities get what they expect, and consequently get what they deserve.

You wrote: “I know freeways truly go against the principles of many on this forum and you guys are welcome to that view. For me, it is a visually simple example of which direction the city is trending (at least in North America) whether or not you guys wanna hear that.” I respect that you feel that way. But is it not a sweeping generalization to say that the construction of freeways represents progress because they are a ‘visually simple example’ of how a city should evolve? You say that like it is some incontrovertible 100% fact that ‘we’ (I personally only speak for myself) don’t want to hear.

If I am not mistaken, one of the most famous books in that field is ‘Divided Highways: Building the Interstate Highways, Transforming American Life.’ And the author chose that title precisely because it reflects the nuanced legacy of such massive road development – that it and the culture it has encouraged is not all black-and-white, despite the obvious benefits of the interstate system.

You also mentioned how you are in the roadwork industry, which leads you to focus on freeways and transit infrastructure when checking out other places. That is understandable. But do you agree or not with the following viewpoint, that the size and nature of road infrastructure there, not to mention the other municipal infrastructure extended out to support sprawl, is becoming or has already become unsustainable?

https://twitter.com/brent_bellamy/st...84687835488257

Do you agree with that or not? I understand that there may be debate about the numbers, and do not claim to be an expert. And I am not even talking about the insane alleged scandals of stolen money I have heard about there with the police building and so on. How much of that could have gone into transit infrastructure? It is embarrassing and I hope that there will be justice and restitution if there was wrongdoing.

I have to admit having lived in both Europe and North America that I am baffled by some North American tourists who come to Europe and say how charming things are (and spend their money on them, by the way, just so you don’t think I am going off on some pie-in-the-sky tangent) – but then go back home and say those things can never be implemented there, like Europe is some sort of Disneyland which exists in a parallel universe.

So what is your own big vision? Okay, if it is a freely-flowing inner ring road, fine. But please be ‘concrete’: how much might it cost, is it possible to do now or in the near-future and how exactly will it bring the downtown/central area back to health? Indeed, maybe what you say is true and I certainly respect your expertise, experience and perspective on that issue. And if it is true, then it should be pursued – or some form of it that is possible in the current context.

At the same time, why write “the idealistic pedestrian-friendly setting you all want” like that is some sort of alien concept. Words matter. Do YOU not also want an ‘idealistic’ pedestrian-friendly setting for your daughter to grow up in? This is not some us vs. them issue. It makes me think of China stopping climate talks with the U.S. because of Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, as if climate does not affect China. As if the pandemic which came out of China stopped at its borders.

If I proposed some ‘incremental’ things it is simply because I am trying to be realistic and recognize that there are some steps now that could be taken on the path to turning things around. And some of those same things are actually being prioritized by 'world-class' cities like Paris and Washington, DC. Another concrete example I admire there along those lines is the WPG Wildflowers project, bringing back native ecosystems to replace grass and concrete. And again, I understand that you or others might find those things airy-fairy and insignificant, but in my opinion they are not. If possible, expand it on a massive, city-wide scale, in my view. You wanted unique 'somethings' for the city: why not start by being a pioneering place in the restoration of a unique, endangered local habitat/landscape? That, and all the benefits that go along with it, is going to get way more attention on an international scale than a big new waterpark.

https://www.instagram.com/wpgwildflowerproject/?hl=en

Of course, there is nothing stopping anyone from adding in big or even super-sized (as you put it) projects as well, if they have something in mind. And if you think it’s not too late given your understandable despondency about the city’s history, development and current state. But I think we can agree that whether or not it's a good idea, WPG has missed the boat in terms of building a bigger shopping centre than West Edmonton Mall, not to mention the Mall of America. And in terms of an airport hub, Toronto, Chicago, and Atlanta are probably not too worried about being surpassed. Or maybe a leading transit or freight hub as they have been trying to do for years if I am not mistaken – but there must be about 10 other cities trying to do the same. If that succeeds and it is a good thing in every sense (including air quality/environmental impacts – those things do matter), good.

So a city trying to move forward has to start from where it is, not where it should be. And putting aside some of the great and ongoing developments there like the Forks, it is where it is due to the stupid mistakes, small-minded thinking and lack of vision that you and I both agree have been in great supply over the decades. And maybe even going back to where the city was originally situated, as noted before. The question is then, in which direction does the city go from here?

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

cheers

wpg is easy to get anywhere via bike car or foot.

in theory (distances), but in practice (actual experience) absolutely not.

very little bike infrastructure other than recreational paths, and such a bike theft problem that you more or less can't bike commute unless you have locked indoor storage at your work.

walking is better but a lot of downtown is starting to feel dicey to walk alone outside of certain hours.

it's a car city -> every other mode is neglected -> it's a car city