Background:

This has been a very busy summer for me, and I think the pace is accelerating.  What started as a few outings a week has become a marathon of summer activities.  My daughter has been even busier than I have, having gone out to somewhere exciting almost every single day since June.  She’s gone to the zoo a couple of times this summer, to the Children’s Museum, to Folk Fest, to Kids Fest… she actually missed the kids shows at Fringe due to scheduling conflicts; my 16-month old daughter has more scheduling conflicts than I’ve ever had.  This past weekend we had Ballet in the Park, Sesame Street Live, a social gathering, strawberry picking, a beach visit, a farm visit, and a family dinner.  Coming in August: Folklorama, a trip to another beach, a trip to the Whiteshell, and perhaps a return visit to Hecla (her third trip to the island).  This in addition to her trips down Corydon, in the Exchange, to the Forks, to the dog park, etc.

Even if I took every day off for the rest of the summer, I don’t think we’d be able to show my daughter everything we’d like her to see in and around Winnipeg.  ChrisD.ca just reminded me via Twitter about the Winnipeg Beach boardwalk; we haven’t been there at all this year.

Over the next week or so, I’m going to talk about some of these jewels of Winnipeg.  I won’t focus on their history or take any photos, because there are already some very good people doing just that (Mr. Christian, Bryan Scott).  But I’ll talk about what’s happening now, what we’ll hopefully see in the near future, and I’ll mention the hazards ahead.

Rorie Street – from Bryan Scott, Winnipeg: Love and Hate

Jewel #1: The Exchange District

The Exchange District is North America’s most extensive collection of turn-of-the-20th-century architecture, and is also a place that is becoming livelier by the day.  New businesses are moving in, more residents are on their way, and the cultural events keep growing.  There are many jewels in Winnipeg, but the Exchange District is the jewel that’s most likely to put us on the map.  In fact, the Exchange District is the downtown of the month for the International Downtown Association.

Cultural Centre of Winnipeg

The Exchange District is teeming with events, particularly in the summer, but with galleries, music venues, and theatres offering year-round entertainment.  This summer has already seen the Winnipeg Jazz Festival, the Soca Reggae Festival, and the Fringe Festival in the heart of the Exchange District.

There are also festivals at other times of year in the Exchange, including the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra’s New Music Festival and Manitoba Theatre Centre’s Master Playwright Festival, which features the work of a different playwright each year.  2009 was MillerFest (Arthur Miller), and 2010 will see ChurchillFest in honour of Caryl Churchill.

Heritage Under Siege

A portion of the Exchange District, around 20 blocks, is a National Historic Site.  In theory, this should offer protection to heritage buildings, but there is definite concern among many heritage-minded Winnipeggers that many of the buildings could be demolished simply because they are not deemed “interesting” or “historic” enough.  For instance, the Grain Exchange Annex will soon be demolished to create a loading zone and surface lot.  The reasoning used by the city, the property owner, and even Heritage Winnipeg was that the building was not significant enough, and that it was built in 1920 as opposed to 1913 (the “upper limit” for the described characteristics of the national historic site), so it was not considered historic.

Other buildings that could be at risk are any that currently have no designation, along with any with Grade III designation.   Grades I and II are more secure for the time being, but Grade II buildings can be demoted to Grade III status through city council.  Familiar buildings on the Grade III list include:

• Kelly House, which survived a demolition attempt in fall of 2008
• Royal Albert Arms Hotel
• Oseredok, the Ukrainian Cultural and Educational Centre
• Glengarry Block and Allen Building: two of the three buildings that Manitoba Hydro had hoped to convert to a substation.  The third, the Daylite Building, has Grade II protection.  This still may not prevent a future effort by the Manitoba government Crown Corporation to gut the interiors of these buildings for its equipment.
• 165 – 179 McDermot Avenue: this strip of six buildings on McDermot is one of the best preserved streetscapes in the district.

McDermot Avenue streetscape

Bailey’s Restaurant, a building built in 1900, isn’t even on the historic buildings list, which means that it has no heritage protection at all.

Despite the increasing vitality and reputation of the Exchange District, this jewel of Winnipeg is not safe from demolition by neglect or the cancer of parking lots.  Here are some excellent articles on the constant attack on the Exchange District:

Under Siege (Bryan Scott)
Community News – Hydro (substation plans) (Residents of the Exchange District)
Small Storefronts Serve big purpose in Exchange District (Robert Galston)

The Liveable Neighbourhood

The Exchange District, while only home to around 600 people at present, is slowly gaining in residential population and in services.  Most Winnipeggers have heard of the new condos being built along Waterfront Drive (The Strand, The Excelsior, Sky Waterfront Condominiums, Ship Street Village), but not as many people are aware of The Edge on Princess.  This is a heritage building converted to New York style loft apartments, with bachelors priced at $750/month, including heat, water, and electric.  One bedrooms are priced at $950-1,150 and there are also some two bedroom units available.  Another interesting project is YouCube, which promises a total of 18 townhouse condos priced between $196,450 and $300,000.

Other condos in the Exchange are Fairchild Lofts at 110 Princess St and Old Market Square Lofts at 283 Bannatyne Ave.  Due to the high price of homes in the Exchange District, the incoming population will be composed mainly of affluent professionals.  However, there will soon be a 100-strong student component as well as the Union Bank Tower is renovated into a space that will include the Red River College hospitality programs as well as the college’s first student residence.

Our Billion Dollar Asset

The Exchange District is on its way to becoming… wait for it… a “world class” destination.  Actually, in this case, there is definitely no exaggeration.  When you take one of the best preserved (for the time being) commercial districts in North America, add in some of the finest cultural institutions in Canada, and include the entertainment and festivals that we see every year, you end up with something that is truly special.  Combined with several other attractions (some of which I’ll be writing about), the Exchange District has the potential to make Winnipeg a tourist destination.  This sounds like fantasy to many Winnipeggers, because we’re so used to the Simpsons’ take on our city:

Now Entering Winnipeg / We were born here, what’s your excuse?

But the reality is that several accidents of history and geography have blessed us with a one-of-a-kind historic commercial district, and the people of Winnipeg have filled the district with culture and excitement and commerce.  Our next steps should be to start leveraging our billion-dollar asset into a genuine international draw.  This isn’t done simply by throwing money at the Exchange, although there are dozens of buildings that could use some money for restoration and renovation.  It’s done by building up the amount of attractions within the district, growing the number and size of festivals and events, and capitalizing on what we already have.  I won’t go into details on this today, but I’m sure we all have a few ideas on what could come next for the Exchange.

I can’t think of a more exciting time for Winnipeg since the turn of the century, when we were the Chicago of the North.  And a large part of that excitement is coming from Winnipeg Jewel #1: the Exchange District.

Councillors O’Shaughnessy and Fielding made it very clear that they felt the Annex had no heritage value whatsoever, with Councillor O’Shaughnessy trying to make it quite clear that in his opinion the Exchange District (a billion dollar asset in my opinion) has no value in his mind whatsoever; I assume he’s not a fan of 19th and early 20th century architecture and the tourists and commerce they can bring.

The most interesting thing about the debate was the fact that the argument towards demolition was based primarily on Heritage Winnipeg‘s decision to stand with the developer in saying that the Annex was not worth saving.  The dynamic of heritage preservation in this city has been changed, and not for the better, by Heritage Winnipeg’s decision to actively support the destruction of built heritage.  This was an odd choice for an organization whose mission is “to promote and encourage the conservation of historic/heritage structures and sites and attend to those matters which enhance and complement this purpose”.  As Councillor Gerbasi asked, why did Cindy Tugwell not just stay home if she didn’t think the Annex was worth saving?  Why did Heritage Winnipeg go out of its way to promote the demolition of a 1920 office building in good condition?

This odd change in behaviour, which was made with no public comment to Winnipeggers who have supported the organization in the past, comes just after the Dennistoun House situation, where Heritage Winnipeg’s Executive Directory Cindy Tugwell stated publicly that she hadn’t even realized that there was a heritage building facing demolition.

I sent an e-mail to both Cindy Tugwell and the President of Heritage Winnipeg, Penny McMillan, to find out if a representative would speak at council in favour of preserving the Annex.  I received no response to that correspondence, other than seeing that Cindy Tugwell had chosen to speak for demolition, even before the property owner and architect were added to the delegation list.

I don’t say this lightly, but I feel it needs to be said: when the next heritage building is at risk, I have no faith that Heritage Winnipeg will provide any advocacy whatsoever.  It’s not their job to compromise with developers; that is the job of city staff and city council.  The mandate of Heritage Winnipeg, like that of any defence attorney, is to defend their client to the best of their abilities.  When regular citizens are required to speak at council to defend heritage because Heritage Winnipeg has switched sides, it becomes obvious that the organization is no longer serving the purpose for which it is intended.

I would like to see a new organization created to work for the betterment of the Exchange District and the core area as a whole, because it’s clear to me that at the moment there are no citizen-run organizations we can rely on to ensure that we don’t lose the Exchange District piece by piece.  I’m imagining an Internet-based group, which relies on its members to lobby all levels of government when necessary to advance our agenda of a vibrant downtown, modeled on cities that truly know how to foster a healthy urban environment.

Is anyone on the Intranets willing to stand up for downtown Winnipeg and our billion-dollar asset?  I just watched Fight Club, so there’s a chance it may require wearing all black and shaving your heads.  Let me know if you’re interested.

Note: I also want to be clear that I do not fault the property owner, Artis REIT, or the architect, Ray Wan, for their plans.  As a business, even a business with an eye for heritage, Artis REIT is going to make choices that in their mind carry an acceptable amount of risk for a worthwhile return.  In their opinion, this plan was a better horse to bet on than preserving the Annex as part of the new development.  However, that does not mean that the city should absolve itself of any responsibility to negotiate for preservation.  Councillor O’Shaughnessy, as part of his statement, took us on a quick tour of all of the surface lots and new buildings that were a result of the city’s utter failure to preserve its heritage.  He also reminded us that the city made promises to support Artis REIT in the past with a heritage restoration but backed out, resulting in serious losses for the company.  Perhaps it’s no wonder that Artis REIT isn’t asking for a similar plan for the Annex.  Why should they risk their company on a city that isn’t willing to support its unique heritage district?

WINNIPEG – July 21, 2009 – The plan to build an architecturally-suitable parkade in the East Exchange District is a welcome development, but that doesn’t mean that the Grain Exchange Annex should be demolished, says Regan Wolfrom, a concerned Winnipeg resident.

“The proposed parkade will sit beside the Annex, so there’s no compelling reason to demolish a building in good condition,” Wolfrom says.  “The Exchange District is a billion-dollar asset, and every demolished building strips some of that value away.”

According to architectural renderings, the Annex will be replaced by several surface parking spaces, and an enlarged loading zone is also a possibility.  The parkade will be constructed on the adjacent property, and would not intrude on the existing footprint of the Annex.

“Tearing down a heritage building to expand a loading zone is the old way of doing things,” Wolfrom says.  “The end result will be less potential density and less tax revenue.  How does that make our downtown better?”

The owner of the Grain Exchange Building and the planned parkade is Artis REIT, a Winnipeg-based company that owns several other prominent buildings in the city, including Johnston Terminal and the Hamilton Building on Main Street.  Wolfrom says that he appreciates the work that Artis REIT is doing to preserve Winnipeg’s heritage.

“Artis REIT is a part of the solution in Winnipeg, and I know that they can come up with a viable plan that preserves the Grain Exchange Annex as part of their parkade project.”

Regan Wolfrom will be speaking at City Council on Wednesday, July 22nd in opposition to a recommendation from the Standing Policy Committee on Property and Development that delists the Annex portion of the Grain Exchange Building, removing its heritage protection completely and allowing a demolition permit to be granted.

http://www.reganwolfrom.ca/

The pending demolition approval for the Grain Exchange Annex is a good example of our problem.  The bloggers who have written about it (Rise and Sprawl, Progressive Winnipeg, Average City, Kenton, The View from Seven, Regan the dirty liberal) are not only in favour of saving the Annex, but are collectively disgusted that the Winnipeg Parking Authority, The Forks North Portage Partnership, CentreVenture and the Exchange District BIZ are all apparently in support of demolishing an historic building within a National Historic Site to build a parkade beside half a block of existing surface parking lots.  So we write on our blogs, and readers comment on our blogs, usually in agreement, but that seems to be the end of it.  We’re not mobilized enough to bring real change to our city.

Now, two things about the Annex:

1.    There is no need to demolish the Annex is order to build a parkade.  Including the Annex in the parkade project is an easy way to dump an historic building that the owners do not find profitable at this time.
2.    Several years from now, when the Annex is long gone, there will be a desire on the part of developers to build commercial space along Lombard Avenue.  At that point, one of the existing surface parking lots will be converted to a new building, creating about the same amount of space as the Annex building before it was demolished.  We will then see approvals at to build a brand new building in our National Historic Site, to make up for space that was lost when City Hall allowed the Annex to be destroyed.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to build parkades on surface parking lots, and save the buildings for the expected increase in demand over the coming years?  If the Annex is unprofitable, couldn’t the city look at incentives for the property owner to save the building until demand increases?

I was torn about Dennistoun House, because there was a true conflict between two important goals: heritage versus increased core density.  But there is no conflict with the Annex: it’s an historic building in a National Historic Site, and there’s plenty of room for parkades beside it.  Even though many people will argue that parkades should never be built (and in an ideal world they wouldn’t be, but that’s not our world), few rational people can argue that there’s any sense in destroying a building we’ll all wish we still had five years from now.

So what can we do to save the Annex?  Heritage Winnipeg has been working to save the building, but that hasn’t been enough.  I personally think the issue with Heritage Winnipeg is that they exist to preserve, but that their mandate does not include economic and social development in the core area.  I think we need to take on a holistic mission to save our core.  We need to get together and build a strategy for saving this city.

There are many people in various groups in this city who care about the core, including members of the Active Transportation lobby, progressive political groups, and environmentalist organizations.  There are also business owners, civic leaders and academics who are passionate about this issue.  Why aren’t we banding together to communicate our common position to the city?

A movement to save our city starts by getting a little face time.  There is an EPC meeting on Wednesday, July 15th, and a city council meeting on July 22nd (a very big city council meeting, with the water utility, the Annex, and other fun).  These are the final meetings before summer break (as I said to Councillor Thomas, it must feel like getting out of school for the summer).  Unfortunately, we cannot have a voice at EPC on historical buildings, so our only chance to speak is at City Council on the 22nd.

Who is willing to speak at council?  If those of us who care about this issue work together, we can rotate our schedules to make sure we always have a voice when these decisions are being made.  I’m thinking about going to City Council, but it’s hard to get the time off (activism was much easier when I was self-employed).

Is there anyone who’s ready to speak for all of us at City Council?

The biggest problem with a new idea is that it often comes surrounded with so much noise that we can’t tell if the idea itself is worth considering.  There have been rumours and conspiracy theories regarding the new water utility, along with city hall’s rebuttal sales pitch, and it leaves many Winnipeggers unsure of what the city is actually planning.

From what I can see, most Winnipeggers believe in one of several different notions of what this utility would be:

1.    Privatization of all water: this is the idea that Winnipeg Water and Waste will be replaced with a multinational company that takes all the money it can from Winnipeg while doing as little work as possible.  This would be similar to the fiascos in Cochabamba, Bolivia and in Hamilton, where private companies took advantage of poorly-assembled deals and the public suffered.

2.    Business as usual: it’s just some internal adjustments and reorganization, and no big deal.  If anything, it’s just a chance for Mayor Katz’s opponents to take shots at him, or conversely, it’s a way for the mayor to distance himself from upcoming rate hikes.

3.    It’s a progressive way to trim the fat in the public service and a great way to bring environmental innovations and new revenue streams.  It also removes temptation from the city to raise water rates as a hidden tax increase.

The notion that this is a plot to privatize our water system is incorrect, as is the notion that nothing will change.  So that leaves us with option #3, but there are some very big risks involved.

In a perfect world, the corporatization of our water utility will lead to better efficiencies and innovations, and will create a stable service that is not affected by the whims of city government.  In a perfect world, our publicly-owned utility would have all of the cost savings and dynamics of a private company but without the endless drive for higher profits.

But we’re not dealing with a perfect world; we’re dealing with a world where city staff and city council are taking a risk on something new in the hopes that things will work out well, and where private companies will be placing bids on projects simply so they can make more money in the future than they make at present.

A perfect contract can bring us needed improvements to our water and sewage systems, with all of the risks of cost overruns and mismanagement being shouldered by the private company and not our city.  But can we get a company to agree to such a contract, or will we need to shoulder at least some of the risk?  And what happens if the company goes bankrupt, or simply defrauds us?  Even if we have the right to sue the company for negligence or wrongdoing, will we win the case, and even then, will the company actually be able to pay us our due?

There are risks involved in corporatization of our water and waste service and the planned inclusion of private partnerships.  But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t risks in keeping the status quo.  We have $605 million in upgrades that need to be made in the North End and South End Pollution Control Centres.  Our most recent capital water projects, a water treatment plant and an upgrade to the West End Pollution Control Centre, resulted in overruns of over 45% and 80% respectively, and a total of $116 million in unexpected over-spending.  According to the city, these overruns were due in part to the fact that we needed outside expertise to complete the upgrades, and that outside expertise in the form of consultants (rather than partners) was far more costly than predicted.

Consultants have no vested interest in bringing a project in within budget, because they receive no incentives to do so.  In fact, project overruns result in more profit for consultants.  This doesn’t mean that consultants are maliciously fleecing the city at every opportunity, but the temptation exists.  As the people at Despair, Inc. say about consulting:

If you’re not a part of the solution, there’s good money to be made in prolonging the problem.

Mayor Katz explains the new partnership model as the private companies having “skin in the game”.  This is a term from famed US investor Warren Buffet that denotes a relationship where the people running the company (or in this case, the project) have invested their own money, and are therefore just as motivated to see it succeed.  This could be through direct financing, or through the assumption of financial risk.

Using the two most recent capital projects as a guide, we can assume that the $605 million in upgrades can easily result in cost overruns of between 45% and 80%.  That’s a total of $270 – 480 million of extra costs that are a definite possibility on these projects.  The city’s plan is to move as much of the responsibility of these extra costs onto the private partner as possible, so that if overruns occur, the city would not be left to pay for them alone.  Of course, the ultimate hope is that the private partner would ensure that these overruns don’t happen, since every dollar over is a loss in profit, as opposed to extra consulting revenue.  In addition, the city hopes that this utility will then sell the service of its upgraded facilities to other communities in the Capital Region that will otherwise also be required to upgrade their waste treatment facilities in the next few years.  This will help to pay back some of this large initial investment, and will bring future revenues to the utility.  These service deals will be much easier to negotiate when the politics of city vs. bedroom community is removed.

The city needs to do something to fix a very big problem that already exists in our water services.  There may be other ways to prevent the cost overruns in future capital projects, but I haven’t heard any suggested as part of this debate.  The only rebuttals to the city’s plan have been tales of all of the bad things that could happen, rather than any alternatives.  This is partly the city’s fault, because it has not communicated well enough that we are dealing with a serious water and waste crisis in Winnipeg.  We have millions of dollars in upgrades coming, we’re not sure exactly how we’ll pay for it all, and we definitely can’t afford any large cost overruns.  Our water rates are likely to increase substantially over the next few years to pay for these needed upgrades, no matter what form our water and waste services take.

The city needs to be honest with us about the water and waste crisis.  While I know that the mayor wants to keep things upbeat, sometimes it’s important to tell us things that we may not like to hear.  Unless Winnipeggers understand the full reason why this utility is being planned, they’ll be left to ponder the various rumours and conspiracy theories out there.  And there’s no shortage of rumours and conspiracy theories on this one.

Meanwhile, the opponents of this new water utility need to present alternatives to corporatization of water and waste that will deal with the serious risk of cost overruns.  Show us that you have a better idea.  And please, stop using the term “privatization” to describe the utility, since privatization is not at all what the city is looking at.

1. You were bashing Elmwood while trying to save Kelvin Community Centre: I’m not sure what I said or did that could be classified as bashing, but I imagine it might be drawing attention to the issues in Elmwood that led me to believe that a local community centre is a necessity for the neighbourhood.  While I understand that some residents don’t want to talk about the negative things that are happening in Elmwood, it doesn’t change the fact that Elmwood has problems with crime, gangs, and at-risk youth.  When I talk about crime and gangs, and about children who do not have enough positive role modeling, I’m not criticizing the thousands of Elmwood residents who make a positive contribution to their community.  All I am doing is responding to problems that are very real, and saying that we require action on the part of residents and government to find positive solutions.
2. Kelvin Community Centre should have been shut down years ago: I am well aware that there are significant numbers of Elmwood residents who believe that Kelvin was a lost cause and that our community is no worse off without it.  Some residents tell me that they have no problem driving to Bronx Park or Gateway for recreation, while others say that the people of Elmwood don’t deserve a club if they can’t be bothered to volunteer to run it.  The problem with both of these arguments is that they are leaving out the fact that the children who won’t make it out to Bronx Park or Gateway and whose parents are unable or uninterested in volunteering are the ones who are in danger of turning to crime and gangs.  Our personal feelings towards these children or their parents don’t change the fact that without alternatives to petty crime and bad influences, these children will take the wrong path in life.  And these are the children who live in our neighbourhood, so the decisions they make affect all of us.
3. You had nothing good to say about Bronx Park before, and now you’re grabbing all the attention for it: there were a few occasions when reporters would ask me about the Bronx Park expansion, seeing if I had any criticisms for the project.  It certainly would have made a good story for there to be a dispute between Elmwood and East Kildonan about community centres, but it never did happen.  During the campaign to save Kelvin, we were in regular contact with representatives of Bronx Park and other community centres in Northeast Winnipeg.  The Bronx Park expansion project was not related to Kelvin Community Centre in any way when it was originally promised; it was only after the decision was made to close Kelvin CC that the General Council of Winnipeg Community Centres (GCWCC) started to mention Kelvin square footage being “allocated” to Bronx Park.  So there never has been a conflict between Bronx Park and Kelvin, just as there was no conflict between Kelvin and Chalmers CC.  My current duties as Vice President of Bronx Park do involve some work with the Bronx Park campus, but most of my focus is still on the Kelvin site and on programming in general.  The volunteers at Bronx Park and Good Neighbours who worked for years on the expansion project are the ones who deserve our gratitude and applause, and I am pleased to see that there was positive coverage of those volunteers in the media rather than any preoccupation with myself and Kelvin.
4. You didn’t have a chance against Bill Blaikie, who has done far more than you ever will: when we started our campaign, there were two or three names that had been floated for the NDP candidate, all of whom we felt would be strong challengers.  When the news came in late November that Bill Blaikie was considering the position, we were definitely surprised.  However, the reputation of Bill Blaikie is no reason for me to suspend what I feel are legitimate criticisms of both the NDP government and Mr. Blaikie himself.  I won’t repost those criticisms now (I have mentioned these criticisms on this blog before), but I stand by my belief that the NDP government of Manitoba is not serving the interests of its citizens, and Mr. Blaikie’s willingness to join a government that acts counter to what he espouses to be his ideals opens him up for criticism.  His acceptance of nomination as a MLA in the NDP government means that he is now accountable for the failings of this government.  As far as the argument that Mr. Blaikie has done far more than I ever will, obviously there is no way to prove or disprove this statement as I can’t say what I’ll accomplish in my lifetime as I’ve yet to read my obituary.
5. Continually spamming our mailboxes: there were definitely some problems with our flyer campaign, and if I could do it again I’d certainly do it quite a bit differently.  The materials and process used in printing were less environmentally friendly than they should have been, and the content of the flyers was specific in its criticisms but not specific enough in communicating my personal ideas and goals.  However, I do stand by my criticisms of the NDP and Mr. Blaikie, and I believe that the record of the NDP is evidence on its own that they do not deserve re-election.
6. Going on and on about the Disraeli Bridge: my platform was well-rounded in my opinion, but obviously the attention was placed on the upcoming closure of the Disraeli Bridge.  Unfortunately, most voters still aren’t aware of my position on Disraeli, as it was printed in the media and stated by other candidates that all candidates support keeping the bridge open during construction.  It is not feasible to keep the bridge open for the entire construction period as a single-span bridge, as there will need to be some periods of closure.  That is why I have recommended that construction of a temporary span to twin the Louise Bridge before Disraeli construction begins.   This, along with some traffic routing changes, would relieve congestion during the periods of closure which are necessary to do the job properly.
7. Too many phone calls: to this day, I am still not sure how many phone calls went out.  I personally recommended against the recorded messages, but because a by-election campaign is not a one-person show, I deferred to other opinions.  We chose to have one initial phone blast informing voters that the by-election had been called and a phone blast for Election Day.  A Disraeli-themed phone blast allegedly occurred during the middle of the campaign which some voters attributed to me, but which did not come from my campaign.  We also employed a professional phone bank to poll voters and to remind voters on Election Day, but there were some technical issues that resulted in multiple calls to voters even after they had voted.  In my opinion, the phoning was excessive and the errors were unacceptable.  I do know that the NDP and PC parties also conducted extensive phone campaigns, but if I could do it all over again, I would consider not using the phone at all.
8. You went to the NDP first for the nomination and they turned you down: this rumour is not only untrue, it’s actually a reversal of the truth.  I was approached by members of two other political parties, one of which was the NDP.  Several NDP members asked me to seek the nomination, but I was never approached by any official representatives of the Doer government or the NDP constituency association in Elmwood.  I chose the Manitoba Liberal Party because I felt that it was the party which best shared my beliefs, and because Dr. Gerrard is a respected and honourable person who has always worked for all Manitobans.  I did not choose the NDP, and that is because I feel that the NDP has been irresponsible and negligent in its governance, and that Premier Doer and his cabinet should be held accountable for many wrongs over the past decade.  In hindsight, I do not know if I could have won the NDP nomination, because I don’t know when Bill Blaikie decided to run.  He didn’t contact NDP members about the possibility until long after I was already the Liberal candidate, and while I don’t know if things would have gone differently had I been seeking the NDP nomination, to presume that it would have affected his decision would be foolhardy on my part.

There were definitely things I could have done better as a Liberal candidate, and there were things that I could have done better in my work with Kelvin and Bronx Park.  We all make mistakes, and what distinguishes success from failure is whether we learn from those mistakes.  Was I the best candidate for the Liberal party in the Elmwood By-Election?  Probably not.  I’m sure there’s someone out there who is more qualified, who has campaign experience, and who has a stronger record for results.  It’s important for Liberal members to work to find that better candidate, and if that person is not available, to work with the candidate you do have to compensate for the weaknesses and amplify their good qualities.

The only way to provide an alternative to the corruption of the NDP government is to win campaigns on the ground, and that can only happen if we all work together.

More info:
Average City, Rise and Sprawl

Apparently the Forks North Portage Partnership and the Winnipeg Parking Authority want more parking in the eastern Exchange District because of growth on Waterfront Drive and the upcoming Canadian Museum for Human Rights.  The owners of the Grain Exchange Building, Artis REIT, would like to demolish the Annex that was built in 1920 in order to add more parking spaces to the area in the form of a new parkade.  As you can see on the parking map from the Grain Exchange Building website, there are quite a few surface parking lots nearby.

Unfortunately, the Grain Exchange Annex building has not been used since at least 2004, and with room available in many other buildings in the Exchange District, it may not be easy to lease the space.  Currently, the Annex is a liability to the owners of the Grain Exchange Building, and they are losing money on it.  Converting the Annex into a parkade would bring revenue for the property owner, so it makes sense from a business perspective.  So it’s hard to fault the owners for wanting to turn a money-loser into a money-maker.

The problem for the owner is that they can’t touch the annex because it’s considered part of the Grade II Grain Exchange Building, attached via a small overpass.  In order to demolish the annex, they would need to have the Grain Exchange Building’s status changed from Grade II to Grade III.  That would be inappropriate, as the Grain Exchange Building is far too important historically to be designated Grade III (the minimum level of historic protection).  A better alternative is to create an exception that allows the annex to be considered a separate structure with Grade III status, along with the stipulation that if the overpass were to be demolished, the Grain Exchange Building would need to have the hole in its wall at the connection point be restored as closely as possible to the original brick.  At that point the owner could proceed with their request for demolition of the Annex without the Grain Exchange Building being involved.  Any thought of the Grain Exchange Building being reduced in grade is unacceptable in the context of the Exchange District being a valuable historic site.

As far as the parkade construction is concerned, I personally do not agree with the idea.  I accept the business motives, but the city has greater motives than business when dealing with historic properties.

Whether or not you believe that Grain Exchange Annex to be an attractive building, from what I can tell it is an important building from the standpoint of Winnipeg architectural history: an example of a 1920s transitional structure between turn of the century and modern architecture.  This gives it historical value.  Of course, some would argue that it’s not historic enough to be saved if a better need for the space is found.  That is an argument that could be made, but only if there weren’t several surface parking lots directly adjacent to the Grain Exchange Building.

At this time, I do not know who owns those surface parking lots, but I would guess that it’s not the same owner as the Grain Exchange Building, or else Artis REIT would probably be considering a parkade on a surface lot.  They should still consider it; it’s possible to conceive a partnership between the owner of the Grain Exchange Building and the owner of a surface lot to arrange jointly for a parkade.  For instance, Artis REIT could build and operate the parkade while property ownership would remain with the original lot owner, providing a lease that brings a higher return than keeping the same old surface parking lot in place.  There are many combinations possible, but at the end of the day we wouldn’t be losing a 90-year-old building to make way for more cars.

Winnipeg is a city where people can work together to achieve a compromise that works for everyone.  I hope that our city councillors will provide the leadership for a better development plan on Lombard that delivers a win to every Winnipegger.

From what I can tell (or rather, imagine without any evidence), their diabolical plan seems to be as follows:

1. Reduce funding for the City of Winnipeg budgets while throwing money into everything else under the sun, including high profile projects in Winnipeg that will forever be seen as Gary Doer’s legacy.  This will show that the NDP government is generous, while the mayor is stingy and ineffective.  Part of this step is to make sure that any contentious issues are placed squarely at the foot of the mayor, as opposed to the province, where true authority on many issues lies.
2. Outlaw corporate and union contributions, knowing full well that unions have other tactics for donating to campaigns through the labour of members or the election-time issue campaigns they run in support of the NDP.  This is supposed to attack at Sammy’s support, by not only forcing all business owners to donate in the names of their friends and relatives, but also by restricting the amount of money he can personally donate to his campaign.  This also moves the issue of unfair campaigns into the municipal arena, while creating a smoke screen for the NDP’s provincial election funding scandal.
3. Move Dan Vandal into position to be the next mayor, bringing their formidable machine into play in the next civic election.  This machine will be strengthened by turning the opinion of all NDP supporters firmly against the mayor (see step #1).  The NDP machine will also support NDP candidates against Katz’s most loyal councillors.
4. Once Dan Vandal becomes the next mayor and surrounds himself with a slate of NDP councillors, the Tory and Liberal councillors will be demoralized and will eventually accept their new permanent home in opposition in this socialist paradise known as Manitoba.
5. Repeat as necessary in Brandon, Steinbach, Winkler, and Morden.

I suspect that this has long been a concern of the mayor and his allies.  It’s no secret that there are two slates in city council.  A few years ago, I would have called it the mayor’s slate and everyone else.  I think I was mistaken.  It seems to be the NDP slate and everyone else, including the mayor.

I’ve certainly had my share of disagreements on urban matters with Mayor Katz, Councillors Steeves and Swandel, and many other elected officials.  It’s natural that people have different opinions on issues.  I’ve even said things about the mayor that I’ve come to regret (well, one thing), and I was wrong to even entertain for a second the idea that the mayor is involved in some vast right-wing conspiracy.  There is no vast right-wing conspiracy, because there’s no need for one.  People who have views to the right of the political centre are pretty upfront and honest about what they are trying to achieve: a business friendly climate, low taxes, crime prevention using a deterrent and enforcement approach, etc.  There aren’t too many surprises there.

Now the mayor seems to be convinced that a vast left-wing conspiracy exists in the NDP.  Since we all know that Premier Doer is as much a Tory as he is a Dipper, he’s apparently not involved.  Perhaps the alleged puppeteers of this conspiracy are the same Machiavellians planning the new post-Doer NDP.

I like conspiracies; I think it’s really fun to hypothesize and postulate about what this or that shadowy group is planning and why.  But I look at this vast left-wing conspiracy with quite a bit of skepticism.

Sure, it would fit in with my beliefs that the NDP elite are about power at all costs, rather than any ideology.  It would match my notion that Mr. Doer’s lieutenants are actively jostling for position, scrambling to be at the top of the pile when the Premier retires.  It would answer my question of why the province is working so hard to make the city look bad.

But conspiracies aren’t easy.  You need strong leaders, and committed devotees who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the cause.  The NDP only has one strong leader, and he doesn’t seem to be in charge of this effort.  And I doubt that the people at the top levels of the NDP pyramid are willing to sacrifice their positions for anything.

Here’s what I think is really going on: the Premier is spending his political capital while he can, and the rest of the NDP caucus is covering their own behinds on an individual basis.  Selinger did just that when he asked for a CYA letter for the campaign finance irregularities.  Health Minister Theresa Oswald does that every time she declares something akin to “I believe that every member of this House, every parent in the room, knows that waiting one day is too long when your child is in pain…” while avoiding any changes that could upset the NDP establishment.  And Mr. Blaikie is becoming quite astute with the tactic as he spends his time attacking Tories and making fun of Liberals, rather than putting forward the concerns of his constituents that are being ignored by the provincial government.

So where do I stand on the municipal campaign reform bill?  I do think that an equal playing field in civic politics would be nice, but I’m not sure that this legislation will make it so.  The bill may increase the strength of party politics at city hall, as candidates may start to need party support to handle tasks that perhaps could have been handled by a candidate’s deep pockets.  I don’t think Mayor Katz will have trouble adjusting his fundraising, as much of it officially came from individuals anyway.  So I am not sure if this bill provides tangible benefits in the quest for better municipal accountability.  I would have to be shown the merits before I would personally agree with this bill.  Without knowing the merits, all I can see is a political distraction and even more polarization at city hall.

The nice thing about the rebirth of a culture is that it can create hope.  It can remove barriers to solving problems, and can bring real change in the lives of its people.  But there is still a serious deficit of hope in many aboriginal communities today.  We are not seeing reductions in suicide, crime, abuse or addiction, and we are not seeing infrastructure improvements that are essentials for aboriginal communities.

As was written in the Winnipeg Free Press, there is an entrenched sense of hopelessness among many aboriginal youth.  It’s pretty easy to imagine how such hopelessness could have taken root, considering the immense social problems that are faced by youth who have grown up in a culture that has been under attack for centuries.  After war, land theft, forced assimilation, and disenfranchisement, we are now seeing across North America an unconscious government policy of death by neglect.  The epidemics of violence, addiction, poverty and suicide have continued at a level of destruction unimaginable to most of us.

So what is the solution?  How do we bring hope to aboriginal youth and improvements to their communities?

Obviously, more federal initiatives for infrastructure improvements would help, as would more provincial support.  And it’s important to support cultural programs for aboriginal communities.  These are all good things in my opinion.

But what will really make a difference for the aboriginal nations of Canada is a national movement to demand better from the government, from non-aboriginal Canadians, but also from aboriginal youths themselves.

What I think would work well is the warrior society.  The Cree, Anishinaabe, Assiniboine and Dakota nations (among many others) have long and proud histories of warrior societies, which are responsible for protecting the nation in times of crisis.  These societies generally adhere to strong codes of conduct, following such teachings as those from the Seven Grandfathers (Wisdom, Love, Respect, Bravery, Honesty, Humility and Truth).  While there are probably a good number of warrior societies in existence, I’m not sure that there is one that has gained momentum among multiple communities and aboriginal nations.

A modern multi-nation warrior society could include the following elements:

1.    Warfare: a warrior is expected to be active in sport, such as hockey and soccer, but with an additional emphasis on aboriginal sport such as Lacrosse or Okichitaw martial arts.

2.    Survival: a warrior is expected to know how to survive, and should be well-versed in traditional and modern survival skills and equipment.

3.    Protection: a warrior is expected to protect the people and the community, which would be demonstrated through volunteer work and adherence to the code of conduct.

The warrior society would not need to be limited to aboriginal members, but it’s important to have the guidance and involvement of elders.  An important part of the society could be outreach to non-aboriginal communities.  An example of this would be members of the society helping with flood protection every spring wherever they are needed.

In addition, the warrior society could serve as the voice of aboriginal youth when discussing government policies towards aboriginal communities and rights.  A strong multi-nation society would send a much louder message than individual nations or bands.  The warrior society would also prepare youth for the responsibilities of citizenship, including voting and speaking out against injustice.

As a Canadian of European origin (German, English and Scottish), I do not presume to be an expert on aboriginal culture, and I am only a new student to aboriginal history.  However, I have some experience with youth who are struggling to find hope and identity, and I’ve seen some things that work and some things that don’t.  I believe that the ideas of the warrior society can bring real solutions, and these ideas need support from all of us.   That makes good sense, because all Canadians benefit from the continued rebirth of our aboriginal nations.

From Hansard:

I mean, if there ever was an ecumenical moment in northeast Winnipeg, it’s the way in which, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a federal, provincial, or municipal, whether you’re Conservative or New Democrat–I don’t believe we have any Liberals in northeast Winnipeg, which is a happy situation–but not wanting to transgress on the non-partisan nature of the debate, Mr. Speaker, we were all united, even those who were unelected, on the unacceptable nature of the 16-month closure that is part of the current plan the City has.

Blaikie then proceeds to speak at length without providing any actual information, and then takes another parting shot at those who dared to speak out against the NDP’s history of neglect in Northeast Winnipeg:

There was a temptation, certainly in the recent by-election, to “partisanize”–I don’t know if there’s such a word–the issue.

Of course, there was no mention in his speech about viable and cost-effective alternatives, such as the immediate twinning of the Louise Bridge with a temporary span, which was of course an idea brought forward by the Manitoba Liberals.  Just as with every other issue, including the outright theft of money from motorists driving under the regular posted limit inside unmarked and poorly marked construction zones, the NDP and Mr. Blaikie show their contempt for the voters of Manitoba.

Let’s keep the bridge open while it’s being repaired, either by, as I say, building a second span first or by finding a way to repair it and keep it open at the same time.

Obviously Mr. Blaikie’s non-partisan approach includes ignoring any ideas that might come from the non-existent Elmwood Liberals.  If I existed, I’d be pretty disgusted right now.

From PC Manitoba Leader Hugh McFadyen: “We’ve had a much stronger response on this issue than just about any other one in my three years as leader. This one takes the cake in terms of the number of people contacting us. We were getting hundreds of emails even before we launched the petition.”  (Winnipeg Free Press – May 11th, 2009)

Now I don’t doubt that Mr. McFadyen’s office is getting the highest number of feedback from voters on this issue.  That doesn’t make me feel any better.

People are dying in our hospital system and neither the bloated bureaucracy nor the NDP government are working on anything that will help to solve this crisis.  We have children who are losing their lives as a result of serious problems in northern communities involving social services and infrastructure, with nothing by way of an action plan from the Premier.  And we have an addiction to Federal Transfer payments at a time when our benefactor in Ottawa is running into record deficits, yet there is no ambition from the NDP to reduce the need for transfers or even to pay down our provincial debt.

So what does it take to have people phoning their politicians or signing online petitions or joining various Facebook groups?  Why, photo radar, of course.

I don’t believe it’s a political issue with any legs, and I’d like to see it resolved as soon as possible so that we can deal with some of the things that should be big issues but apparently just aren’t.  So I’ve come up with the same solution that I’m sure most people have already figured out for themselves, but which seems to escape both the Tories and the NDP.

I received a ticket myself on Lagimodière; there were not only no workers, but no equipment or barricades on the road, and I don’t even recall seeing a reduced speed limit sign.  That is unjust, and that’s why I decided to fight the ticket.  However, I have relatives who work on the highways, so I don’t like this idea of “no ticket when there are no workers” blanket for speeding in construction zones.

How do you know when there is a worker present?  If you are driving along five kilometres of construction, there are going to be large stretches where there are no workers, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be any workers at all.

With every issue of fairness, there are varying shades of “fair”.  I did not feel it was fair for me to pay a ticket because there was no clear indication that it was a construction zone, which is why I didn’t automatically slow down as I would do in an actual construction zone.  It felt to me that the photo radar ticket violated the spirit of the law, as I knew that it was penalizing people who would have slowed down had they been in an actual construction zone.  But there are also people out there who would have sped through no matter what the signage, and there are also a number of people who would have sped through even with workers present.

The problem with saying that there needs to be workers present is that it becomes the responsibility of the driver to determine when there are workers present.  In addition, if two lanes are reduced to one, workers or no workers there should still be a reduction in speed.  Having a series of barricades along a road, along with other hazards inherent to a work site, means that speed should be reduced.  The problem with Lagimodière Blvd was that both lanes were open, there were no workers, the barricades were completely off of the lanes, and no equipment was visible at the site.  A construction zone speeding ticket is a violation of the spirit of the law, so in that case an override by the government is appropriate.

What we need is an amended law that makes it clear what a construction zone is and forbids speeding within that construction zone.  In my opinion (common sense as opposed to actually digging out the laws), a construction zone is any of the following:

1. A stretch of road is a construction zone where there are workers present; or
2. A stretch of road is a construction zone for the entire length of time that obstructions related to construction (such as barriers or pylons) are in place on the roadway, even if no workers are present; or
3. A stretch of road is a construction zone for the entire length of time that the road surface or lane structure are compromised or temporarily altered by the ongoing construction process, whether or not there are workers or barricades present.

(There may also be a need to separate construction zones into two different grades, where any zone with workers present will have a lower speed limit and higher fines for speeding, but I’m not sure that would be an improvement.)

When a stretch of road meets one or more of these criteria, it is then appropriate to have prominent signage displayed (preferably with flashing lights) to denote that it is a construction zone and that speed much be reduced.  If a stretch of road had workers who have left for the day and no obstructions or compromised road surfaces or laneways, the signage should be removed until the workers return to the site.

Why is that important?  Because it’s a contract between construction crews and motorists, and if the motorist keeps seeing “reduced speed” construction zones that don’t have workers, obstructions, etc., there is an increased chance that the motorist will defy the contract and speed through.  By taking the time to mark construction zones fairly, any excuse for speeding through a construction zone is removed.

If a ticket was issued when an area marked as a “construction zone” did not meet the three criteria when the alleged offense took place, the ticket should be made invalid.  However, there should not be a blanket ban on tickets for speeding when “no workers are present”, because that’s the kind of ban that will cost lives.  And even though the fines are the issue that is making people angry enough to speak up, it’s the lives of construction workers and motorists that are more important in the end.

I was expecting that after a week or so of rest and quiet, I’d feel re-energized and ready to get back to work on Kelvin, Disraeli, and a few new battles that have appeared in the past few months.  But after a week, then two weeks, then even three and four weeks, I didn’t feel that burst of new energy.  In general, I’m still pretty tired.

I think I’ve been looking at this the wrong way.  I won’t feel energized by taking time away from the work; I need to get back to work to start feeling renewed.

From what I can see, nothing has been accomplished by the provincial government for the Elmwood constituency since the election.  (The flood isn’t a good enough reason for nothing to be happening.)  All of the talk about “solving” Disraeli has evaporated into that familiar NDP status quo.  Meanwhile, the province is still silent on the other issues, and completely unresponsive to the ongoing crisis in healthcare.

But if I had expected the NDP and Mr. Blaikie to actually solve problems in Elmwood, I wouldn’t have ran against them in the by-election.  So in the absence of leadership from the provincial NDP, it’s up to all of us to get to work on the issues that matter.

Here are my plans for the month of May; if anyone would like to help out, please let me know.  More people not only makes the work easier, it also makes it much more fun.

1. Bring a hang-out night to Kelvin.  I don’t have details yet, but it would consist of one evening a week where we’d bring out whatever equipment we have, open up the long lost Kelvin canteen, and reconnect with all of the people who thought of Kelvin as their club.
2. Put together a new Disraeli traffic plan that meets the needs of Elmwood, River East, and Point Douglas.  This plan will improve on some of the ideas I’ve mentioned here and on betterdisraeli.com and will be formally brought before the City of Winnipeg.
3. Talk to Manitoba Housing about their complex on Watt Street near Chalmers, to see what it would take to get a playground installed.
4. Continue to work with the city to find a proper use for the Kelvin frontage on Henderson.
5. Get more details about the upcoming drop-in programs for summer, and see what assistance is needed to make them successful.

If anyone has information that can help me out on any of these, please e-mail me or post a comment.

And as an ongoing activity, I will of course remember to post about events in our city and province.  What kind of blog would this be if I didn’t do that?

All talk, no substance

Doer’s sudden interest in Disraeli closure is a cynical attempt to woo voters
By KEVIN ENGSTROM

Attention, Elmwood residents: the premier is trying to fool you.

Last weekend at the NDP convention in Brandon, Gary Doer talked about northeast Winnipeg’s looming 16-month traffic nightmare that is the Disraeli Bridge closure.

He spoke as if it is an important issue personally to him, that he has a genuine desire to work with the city to come up with ideas to keep the bridge partially open to motorists during construction.

Of course, the fact Elmwood residents think it’s an important issue at a time when Doer’s best bearded buddy Bill Blaikie (try saying that five times quickly) is attempting to win a byelection there is pure coincidence.

Uh huh.

If you believe that, and Doer sure hopes you do, then you might also think the world is flat and the breasts of all SUNshine Girls are real.

We weren’t in Brandon last weekend, so we can’t say with certainty if the premier had his fingers crossed while saying all of this. However, for those who have been paying attention, Doer’s commitment to finding a solution to the coming chaos on the road appears only slightly more sincere than O.J. Simpson’s pledge to find the real killers.

Fact is, the premier has known about the Disraeli project for nearly two years. If he cared at all about the daily road rage coming Elmwood’s way, it stands to reason he would have done something about it by now.

After all, it’s not like he has an aversion to wading into city issues when he thinks it’s important (see overpass, Kenaston and Community Club, Southdale for examples).

But sources say the premier only spoke to Mayor Sam Katz about the bridge a few weeks ago, with no follow-up meeting scheduled (Blaikie, meanwhile has never met with the mayor on the issue).

If Doer really wanted to solve the problem, he’d throw some provincial money at it. That would allow the city to build two separate bridge spans, with one staying open to traffic for the duration of construction. Instead, Doer has already ruled out giving any new money to the city to allow that to happen.

To sum up, then, the premier wants to see something happen but waited almost two years to tell anyone about it and is unwilling to part with any money to ensure anyone listens. Gee, Gary, way to show the people of Elmwood you think this is important.

We strongly suspect the only reason the premier said anything at all about the Disraeli is to help Blaikie. The ex-MP’s efforts to get elected were obviously hindered by the NDP government’s lack of a position on the riding’s top issue, so Doer came up with one.

The fact the position his government has taken is devoid of any substance whatsoever is something he figures most Elmwood voters won’t realize until well after the election is over and they’re stuck in traffic.

Such a cynical move from the leader of this province is disappointing. Even more disappointing is the sinking suspicion we have it will probably work.

Like the voters in Elmwood, Mr. Engstrom recognizes that the Premier’s Disraeli “announcement” is simple more empty words from the NDP.  Of course, as someone who has been speaking to the people of Elmwood for some time now, I can tell that the NDP’s distraction is not going to work.

Until the NDP government is willing to put in its fair share for the Disraeli/Louise projects, it will be clear to the voters that the NDP still haven’t learned that Elmwood won’t be taken for granted any longer.

Of course, that is very much the opposite of what the Green movement is about.  Speaking as someone who is well-acquainted with these values, I find it absolutely appalling that Mr. Beddome would feel that it is appropriate to lie about my position on Disraeli.  It is only proper for Mr. Beddome to apologize to me for his comments.

While my campaign material and my comments at the door have been tough on the NDP, I have always made sure that my facts are accurate.  That is an important part of leadership, and an important part of being the change that you would like to see in the world.

It has been said by some people that Mr. Blaikie is running on name recognition alone.  I know that Mr. Blaikie is working hard on this campaign, so I don’t believe that he’s simply relying on his fame to win.  However, I think that the Green Party of Manitoba is running on name recognition alone, rather than on any record of results for Elmwood.  I have spoken to voters who have the impression that they need to vote for the Green Party of Manitoba simply because they have concerns about the environment.  They are often surprised when I mention that the Manitoba Liberal Party has already taken the lead on environmental policy, and that our MLAs have been working to hold the NDP government to account for its failure to lead in this area.

Good government policy comes from representatives who engage all citizens and who work each day to get results.  The Manitoba Liberal Party is bringing the people of Elmwood together to find solutions for all of the challenges we face.  We are considering opinions and ideas from all sides of the political spectrum, because we know that good ideas aren’t about who came up with them.  It’s this inclusive mentality that will bring the results we need on healthcare, public safety, infrastructure, and yes, the environment.

Now I don’t expect that Mr. Beddome will issue a public apology for his careless statements about my position on Disraeli, but I certainly hope that he will be more careful in future.  There is no room in the governance of this province for politicians who are willing to distort reality for their own personal gain.

Oh, and Mr Beddome: I received an unjust speeding ticket on Lagimodiere Blvd (usually maximum 80 kph) by driving 76 kph in an unmarked construction zone where there were not only no workers present, but no construction equipment on the roadway.  My position is that construction zones must be properly marked and that there should be signage to clearly indicate when workers are present, as this improves safety.  Perhaps in future if you would like clarification you should contact me personally before resorting to these types of attacks.

It has become clear over the past few months that the Disraeli bridge rehabilitation is a big issue for the 100,000 residents of Northeast Winnipeg.  It’s also clear that the NDP government has no plan to provide traffic relief for its citizens.

While the City of Winnipeg is attempting to have half of the Disraeli bridges (one lane each way) open during construction, some people I’ve spoken to who are involved with the project have mentioned that this plan is not as easy as we’d hope.

Most people know that there will be some periods of full closure, in part because there are some construction tasks (such as pouring concrete) that require that there be no traffic using any part of the single-span bridge.  What is not clear yet is how long these periods of full closure will last.  What is clear is that there needs to be a plan for reducing traffic gridlock when the Disraeli is completely shut down.

That’s where the Louise Bridge comes in: the plan I’ve been putting forward, with the support of Councillor Jeff Browaty, is for the Louise Bridge to be twinned immediately.  This requires funding from the province, but there’s federal infrastructure cash available, too.

The plan:

1. Throw up a new two-lane span beside the existing Louise
2. Perform Disraeli rehab
3. Replace original two-lane Louise bridge with a second two-lane span.

But there’s an issue here: the city would like to realign both the Louise Bridge and Higgins Avenue, connecting Point Douglas to Nairn on the east side of Watt/Archibald.  This project involves significant property acquisition, brownfield mitigation (maybe not full clean-up yet), and some serious planning to get it right.  It will also take an estimated $100 million and more than one season to complete.

So the best plan for immediate traffic relief for the Northeast is not the plan the city wants long-term.  But there is a way to get the city everything it needs (but maybe doesn’t yet realize it wants):

Construct a temporary second span for the Louise Bridge.

As long as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans approves, we can add three temporary piers alongside the current bridge and assemble a prefabricated temporary bridge that is wide enough for two lanes of traffic.  Once the Disraeli is finished, the city can begin work on its ambitious Point Douglas realignment project.  After completion, the temporary bridge and its piers can be removed, and the original Louise can become a heritage active transportation bridge.

Incredibly preliminary cost estimates place the construction of a temporary Louise span between two and four million dollars.

So what stands in the way of this idea?  The Doer government needs to show its support for the people of Northeast Winnipeg by committing to funding the temporary bridge, and the city of Winnipeg needs to make a final decision on whether or not the Point Douglas realignment plan should go forward.

No matter what the city decides, it’s essential that the provincial government guarantee that there will always be a minimum of six bridge lanes open at all times between Main Street and Henderson, whether on the Redwood, the Disraeli, or the Louise.  We have eight bridge lanes open now, with almost 90,000 daily trips across them, and four bridge lanes (two at Redwood, two at Louise) are not enough.

Update: Progressive Winnipeg has a post on this topic as well: “Hoodwinked” or “Steeked”?

While I’ve never believed that all suburban expansion is avoidable in our current social climate, it’s clear to me that Waverley West is not a new urbanist development, or an example of “smart growth”.  And as more and more of the NDP government’s promises (geothermal, inner city revenues, etc) fall apart, it’s starting to look like Mr. Doer and his team never had any intention of creating anything more than a big land deal that’s good for the provincial government and bad for the city.

Meanwhile, Garth Steek continues on his campaign to sell Waverley West to the media and the public with a comment in the Free Press:

Your article ‘Hood-winked? by Bartley Kives and Mary Agnes Welch (Feb. 15) warrants response. The headline infers that there has been misrepresentation surrounding the Waverley West subdivision. This is clearly not the case.

Although initial discussion of Waverley West commenced six years ago, the first houses did not begin construction until one year ago after tens of millions of dollars had been spent completing the necessary infrastructure.

Your photo at the top of the page is misleading, suggesting the subdivision is a single home. Why did you not photograph Millbank or Bridgeland? They are fully developed and showcase many exceptional homes.

Clearly, the public appreciates Waverley West as more building permits were taken in this subdivision than any other area in Winnipeg between November 2008 and February 2009.

Although geothermal installation is not easily realized in Waverley West, there is a very viable alternative, namely electric heat, which leaves no carbon footprint and is far less expensive. This hardly constitutes a broken promise.

(This comment about electric heat leaving no carbon footprint is misleading.  We are all led to believe that Manitoba Hydro has 100% renewable energy, but a coal plant and some natural gas plants show that not all of our electricity comes from a renewable source.  Now if the province were sticking up some solar panels, I might be a little more impressed.)

Your article notes “Homes are listed for $313,000 to $503,000 with huge lots.” This is not correct. In fact, the standard lots in Waverley West are considerably smaller than traditional neighbourhoods to ensure heightened density. The amenity lots on the lake are indeed larger and the prices of these homes are reflective of the larger lot sizes.

Flyovers were not incorporated because of their enormous cost but their absence in no way precludes homeowners from walking in what is a well-planned neighbourhood.

(It’s true that homeowners can still choose to run across the Kenaston Expressway.  See? And yes, I know that “expressway” is a bit of an exaggeration.  Hyperbole sells.)

Traffic calming measures such as roundabouts coupled with sidewalks, extensive walking trails, natural park areas and inland waterways make Waverley West an exceptional place to live. Architects Smith Carter were responsible for these items.

It is ironic that your writers did not take the time to contact any of the builders or homeowners who have invested millions of dollars in this subdivision and who believe strongly in it.

Tenants for a new town centre have yet to arrive because new businesses require a certain occupancy threshold. It is unrealistic to expect businesses at this early stage of development.

(As Rob at Rise and Sprawl pointed out, much business will come to the “town centre” from places like La Salle and Oak Bluff, so it’s best that they get the Kenaston Expressway finished first.  Build it and they will come.)

Waverley West is not a “car-bound subdivision” any more than other areas of the city. Winnipeg realizes many months of cold weather and regardless of how well-planned a subdivision will be, car transportation will be essential.

(Any subdivision that is sliced open by a Neighbourhood Anihilation Road (NAR) like Kenaston is car-bound.  If I lived in Millbank or Bridgeland and wanted a loaf of bread, how would I purchase it?  See above for tips on crossing Kenaston.)

With reference to expenses, the City of Winnipeg acknowledges that servicing a new subdivision such as Waverley West is less than half of what they are for inner-city areas. This includes emergency services, garbage pickup and snow removal.

(First of all, I’d like to see a reference to the City of Winnipeg’s acknowledgement of this “fact”.  And apparently the new definition of services is that servicing is only based on operating costs, as opposed to the huge capital costs required to create the new infrastructure.)

It is well-known by the city, province and private sector that this development will more than pay for itself, as substantiated by two independent studies.

(If we use Mr. Steek’s narrow view of balance sheets, we can still see that the projections that Waverley West will hopefully see a modest “profit” don’t include all development and servicing expenses, and makes unsubstantiated assumptions that the city will not have to make any alterations or additions to its plan over the next 80 years.  Because as we all know, nothing ever comes up over eight decades.)

With 6,500 new residents coming to this province annually, the demand for new housing is obvious, particularly in the southwest quadrant that had virtually no building lots left.

Critics of Waverley West advocated that everyone should “move downtown,” even though the city agreed there were at most 200 infill lots, many of them incapable of accommodating a new home. The MHRC lands (Bridgwater Forest) and Ladco lands (South Pointe) are essential for the future growth and prosperity of the City of Winnipeg.

(While I’m not expecting everyone to “move downtown”, I do find it odd that Mr. Steek is only aware of one type of “home”, which is, of course, the single family house.)

It is easy to suggest the public has been ‘Hood-winked one year into a new subdivision, while ignoring the public’s support and the commitment of the building and development community.

Homeowners will come to Waverley West because of its location and the housing choices offered.

(Edit: Homeowners will come to Waverley West because it’s one of the only options available due to many sprawl incentives for developers and little incentive for higher density and/or inner-city development.)

The early success of the subdivision underscores the strength of our economy and citizens commitment to Winnipeg.

I hope that all potential homeowners reading this article will attend the Spring Parade of Homes March 7 to 22 and make the decision about Waverley West based on firsthand experience.

I don’t think anyone is hoping for the failure of Waverley West à la Rush Limbaugh.  We just want our provincial government to make decisions based on the interests of its citizens, and we don’t like the nagging feeling that Waverley West could be an elaborate shell game where the suburb of the future (if that’s not an oxymoron) is swapped out with the same old subdivisions.  We were promised something more, and I’m worried that we’re not getting it.

My impression is that the WRHA’s version of a wait time limit will be yet another layer of bureaucracy that penalizes and further demoralizes front-line staff while the true source of the health care crisis (ever-expanding RHA bureaucracies) is unaffected.

Here is an interesting post about wait time limits: Wait Time & Delayed Care: Should the US & Canada Adopt England’s 4 Hour ER (A&E) Wait Time Guarantee

If the WRHA and the NDP government want to get serious about health care guarantees, they should be looking holistically at patient’s rights.  This is what the Manitoba Liberal Party has been proposing.

I will be posting soon in more detail about health care in Manitoba, due to some questions I’ve received, so I hope to cover patient’s rights in more detail then.

As long as Dr. Postl and the NDP government are in charge of health care, all of the “ideas” will be reactionary.  We need a proactive health care leadership, and we’re not getting that in Manitoba.  We deserve better.

I’ve noticed that this story about Elmwood – Transcona MP Jim Maloway’s Passenger’s Bill of Rights is the latest in a long string of articles on the subject.  In fact, the Winnipeg Free Press has published six Passenger’s Bill of Rights stories in the past twenty days.

Since there is an interest in “bill of rights” stories at the WFP, I would like to recommend they feature another bill that was introduced in the last session of the Manitoba Legislature: a mental health bill of rights from Dr. Jon Gerrard.

Bill 230 – The Mental Health Bill of Rights Act applies to all individuals with mental health conditions including Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, alcohol and drug addiction, Alzheimer’s disease, personality disorder and brain injury and calls for:

• Full access to social, recreational and employment programs that are open to others;
• Adequate housing, supportive environment and information about the beneficial effects of lifestyle choices;
• An advocate chosen by the individual and a circle of friends to be fully informed of the individual’s situation and to be able to advocate on the individual’s behalf;
• Access to timely health care, urgent support for individuals who may be suicidal, affordable access to pharmaceutical treatment;
• A plan upon discharge from an institution that meets the individual’s needs
• The individual’s mental illness to be taken into consideration in the provision of legal and justice service.

And of course, there’s also that whole health care crisis we keep reading about.

We’ll have to wait to see what types of alternative proposals will be coming from Hydro regarding their King St. substation.  I think there are two ways this can go:

1. Hydro finds a suitable alternative which doesn’t require huge expense, leaving most citizens wondering why they didn’t look at the alternative before they so proudly confirmed their original plans.
2. Hydro returns with a statement that there are no alternatives available, and the fight begins anew.

No matter what the result of the re-examination, I don’t think it will make most residents feel any better about how things are being run at Manitoba Hydro.

Ryan Block - c.1895

Ryan Block - 2004

(both images from Heritage Winnipeg)

The new structure will apparently span across the surface lot to the south of the King Building.  I have not seen any architectural renderings of this structure (I’d love to see some if anyone knows where to look), so I’m uneasy about the end product.

I believe wholeheartedly that we will need redevelopment along with preservation in order to have the Exchange District reach its full potential, and I think that some parking will always be needed in these areas.  My concern is that we will see an ugly example of façadism, where we just have two brick fronts attached to a concrete parking monstrosity.

Here are some nice examples of parkades designed to fit into their historic neighbourhoods:

New Street Parking Garage - Staunton, Virginia, This is new construction meant to match the style of the surrounding historic properties.

(more info)

Justice Center Parking Garage - Chester County, Pennsylvania. Another new construction.

(more info)

Parking Garage - Fredericksburg, Virginia

(from http://flickr.com/photos/army_arch/2482996361/)

Hoboken Automatic Parking Garage

(more info)

I believe it would be possible for the King Building to be rebuilt with an innovative design (whether with masonry or glass) that makes the historic components the focus of the structure.  I hope that masonry from the rest of the building could be reused as a component in the new construction, so that we don’t just have two mismatched pieces of building sitting beside one another.  If we are unable to hide parking underground (or reduce demand for parking) in our downtown, then at least we can have parking garages that respect their surroundings.

We’re taking a step back from this particular proposal and saying let’s take a step back and look at all the options that are available to us and see if this is still the best way to go forward.

Some people may view this as a retreat, but I don’t see it as such.  This is the preamble of a corporation’s attempt to turn three historic properties into lifeless façades, calling the result a reasonable compromise.

The citizens of Winnipeg need to be clear on this matter: there is no room for compromise with historic buildings within our National Historic Site.  Preservation of the buildings is acceptable.  Redevelopment of the buildings is acceptable.  But destroying these buildings for a substation expansion while leaving only the fronts will never be acceptable.

I see three options available to Manitoba Hydro that can be put forward to the community:

1. Expand the substation as needed using the adjacent surface lots (or the lots across King Street), with any overflow being handled by a separate new or existing substation placed away from the Princess – Albert corridor.  This expansion could be done under existing surface lots.
2. Find an alternative delivery method for substations, such as creating a close network of smaller, indoor substations in downtown buildings.
3. Create a new underground substation in an alternative location, such as the surface lots at Hargrave and Notre Dame or the CityPlace parking lot.  An innovative electric utility might want to look at creating Manitoba’s first Smart Park lot, with future parking spaces created underneath solar carports for charging electric vehicles.

Google's Solar Carport

There are viable options available.  If Premier Doer can route a hydro line for hundreds of extra kilometres and millions of dollars, we can certainly have a substation expansion plan that makes our city better, not worse.

From Mr. Christian

Related posts:

West End Dumplings

Rise and Sprawl

Policy Frog

The affected properties are the Wilson building (288 McDermot), the Glengarry building (290 McDermot) and the Daylight building (296 McDermot).  Again we have 20th century thinking from our public utility.

First we have a Manitoba Hydro that bungles all attempts at wind farms, and whose geothermal efforts are marginal at best.  Then we have a Manitoba Hydro that will build transmission lines along the West side of Lake Winnipeg (thanks to Premier Doer), losing energy in the extra length and not even considering an underwater transmission line.  Then we have a Manitoba Hydro that subsidizes employee parking at its new downtown office tower while handing out its “we love the environment” calendars to everyone.  And now we have a Manitoba Hydro that wants to tear down heritage buildings (maybe leaving a façade) to expand a substation.  From what I can tell, these actions have made Manitoba Hydro one of the worst corporate citizens in our province.

Does anyone remember the Manitoba Hydro “Beware the Underground” billboard that they had up at their Point Douglas site?  It was designed like a movie poster to warn of all of the terrifying dangers that lurk beneath the earth’s surface.  Apparently this fear extends to all area of Hydro’s planning.

Put a transmission line under water?  That’s scary!

An underground substation?  Absolutely terrifying!

TEPCO 500kV underground substation - Tokyo, Japan

[from http://www.cigre-jnc.org/sc_a3b3_2005/]

Underground substation located under park

[from http://flickr.com/photos/59265382@N00/932628960]

Obviously it’s not fair to blame this all on the executives at Hydro; they’re not in charge of fostering an integrated approach to redevelopment and to social and environmental restoration in our province.  That’s someone else’s job.  Our Premier has been criticized before for showing little to no leadership.  Manitoba Hydro is one of the most visible examples of his failings as our Premier.

It’s time for some new ideas in our province; obviously our provincial government is borrowing too many from the 1960s.

See Robert Galston’s posts:
Don’t act surprised
A silk gym on a parkade’s head
Saved for now

An application was made for it to be demolished, in order to make way for a 3-level parkade and a high-performance gym.  Sport Manitoba decided to alter its proposal, sparing the heritage property for the time being.  This was in exchange for the building becoming a Grade III listed property, rather than Grade II, Grade III being far less restrictive for developers.

This drawing (not a final version, so there is definitely room for some good ideas) seems to indicate that only the façade of the 1884 structure will be kept.  The demolition of the Smart Bag Co. building is phase two of the project, so it may not happen if the funding doesn’t materialize.  However, this doesn’t change the fact that the city appears to be using the Grade III listing for the preservation of façades as opposed to buildings.  Of course, it is possible that City Council will reject the application for demolition of the Smart Bag Co. building, if the demolition is sent to Council for a vote.  (see the RRC addendum below to understand my wariness of the process)

The three grades of listed properties

Here is the description of the three protection grades, from the City of Winnipeg’s Planning, Property and Development Division:

Grade I buildings are Winnipeg’s outstanding examples of architectural and historical merit, which are to be preserved in perpetuity. Restoration and maintenance of the entire interior and exterior of these structures are the only types of work permitted. In general, alterations, deletions, and additions to these buildings are considered unacceptable.

Grade II buildings include the majority of Winnipeg’s heritage stock. Sympathetic alterations and additions to the exterior and listed interior elements of these buildings may be allowed in order to maintain the economic viability of the structure. In certain instances, the adaptive re-use of listed interior elements may be permitted.

Grade III buildings have been identified as moderately significant heritage examples worthy of listing. Suitable exterior alterations and modifications may be permitted. There is usually no restriction on interior alterations.

Very few buildings in Winnipeg are listed as Grade I, including the Walker Theatre, the Grey Nun’s Convent (St. Boniface Museum), the Union Bank Building (home of the planned RRC expansion), and the Upper Fort Garry Gate.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Union Bank Building; the Red River College expansion should need to follow very strict guidelines due to the building being a National Historic Site (which should carry more weight than its Grade I designation).

But as a Grade III property, what can happen to the Smart Bag Co. building?  Here’s what The Historic Buildings By-Law (1474/77) says about Grade III:

(c) Grade III; the objectives of which are:

(i) to prevent demolition, removal, alteration or repair of the building, erection or structure unless and until shown to be necessary to the satisfaction of the Designated Committee in cases of removal,
alteration, or repair and Council in the case of demolition, and

(ii) to regulate any necessary demolition, removal, alteration or repair of the building, erection or structure so as to preserve the special architectural or historical interest as far as possible, and

(iii) to record, or preserve where possible, components deemed to have special architectural or historical interest prior to, or in the course of, any necessary demolition, removal, alteration or repair.

So what does this mean?  It means that the building can be altered to preserve its architectural or historical interest as long as it meets the approval of the Standing Policy Committee on Property and Development.  Grade III structures can be demolished or removed through a vote of Council, while the Grades I and II require delisting or at least a downgrade to Grade III.

This means that as long as the committee is satisfied that there is a satisfactory level of preservation involved extensive changes to the interior and the exterior can be approved.  The big question in my mind is where the line is between alterations and partial demolition.  I could not find an explanation of this in The Winnipeg Building By-Law (4555/87).

Façadism

A trend that has emerged in the past decade in development is façadism, where the façade of a historical building is preserved while most of the building is demolished.  This has become popular in Europe and in some American cities.  The best example of façadism in Winnipeg was actually caused by a fire, as opposed to a wrecking ball: the St. Boniface Cathedral (1908).

In 1968, the cathedral caught fire and was mostly destroyed.  Rather than demolish the ruins, which were still quite impressive, renowned architect Etienne Gaboury designed a reconstruction that preserved what had remained after the fire.  The end result is a unique landmark that is probably one of the best examples of façade preservation on earth.

The St. Boniface Cathedral is a much different case than most instances of façadism, as the structure was not demolished by choice.  Most orphaned façades are on purpose.

Some people view façadism as a compromise between preservation and development.  I personally view it as development that pretends to preserve history, while in reality takes life out of the buildings and leaves empty fronts.  The parts of a heritage building that are demolished are gone forever, and the remnants look more like movie set pieces than living history.

I’m not saying that I am condemning façadism in all its forms, but I am saying that it isn’t preservation when almost all of the building is demolished.  In fact, many preservationists view façadism as a danger to their efforts, because what looks at first like a compromise is really a loss for preservation.  A project that takes a historic structure and leaves only its façade is demolition and new development, not restoration or preservation.  In addition to the loss of history, façadist construction is often very unappealing, in my opinion:

Can this really be called preservation, when it more closely resembles a living death?  I’m not sure the designers and builders of the original structures would appreciate these frankensteins.

Originally, I believed that an attempt to convert a structure such as Smart Bag Co. into a parkade or a sports facility would require delisting, as the only retrofit I can imagine would include the removal of most of the original structure, perhaps preserving the façade alone.  I see now that delisting is not required; however, City Council approval of partial demolition is required.  That is the life and death cycle of a Grade III building; I wouldn’t call it protected — I’d call it buffered.

Middle ground

So is there a middle ground between façadism and preservation?  Is there a way to redevelop a heritage building, rather than only saving the front or forcing it to stay exactly the same?  I’m not sure.

On the one hand, it’s important to preserve our city’s history by keeping the best examples of the past in their original state.  However, if we save all of our historic buildings just as they are, we’ll end up with two hundred beautiful heritage buildings, but half of them will be empty.  Our city cannot sustain the complete preservation of so many buildings in their original states.

(a beautiful photo from Bryan Scott – Winnipeg: Love and Hate)

One proposed project that is receiving some criticism is the renovation of the Masonic Memorial Temple (1895) on Donald.  The existing historic building has very few windows due to its former use for Masonic rites, so the plan that was approved by the city includes a glass addition that will protrude from the North Wall and hang over the sidewalk from the second floor.  Is this an innovative way of improving space in a historic building, or the defacement of a treasured landmark?  I suppose it’s all a matter of opinion.

Can an existing building of historic value be redeveloped?  I think it can be.

The best example of a redevelopment (as opposed to pure façadism) is the Red River College Princess Street Campus.

(Images taken from http://www.architecture.uwaterloo.ca/faculty_projects/terri/sustain_casestudies/princess.html)

Five historical buildings were partially demolished (a bank from the 1960s was demolished with some materials reused), while their fronts were preserved and restored, and large portions of the original buildings were retained.  In addition, a neighbouring warehouse building on William Avenue was completely renovated and joined to the structure.  I find the interior of the RRC building to be more interesting than the façades, because I’ve always had an interest in the more utilitarian parts of heritage buildings.

Here is an excellent diagram that’s part of an article from Canadian Architect:

(More info on the original buildings can be found at http://www.heritagewinnipeg.com/advocacy/redRiver.htm)

In essence, Red River College’s Princess Street Campus is part façadism and part something else.  And it’s that something else that is very exciting.

Rather than removing the existing buildings entirely, the structures were joined together along with new construction to create a blend of old and new.  The original buildings by themselves did not meet RRC’s needs, and they had been vacant and neglected for thirty years.   So by redeveloping as opposed to completely demolishing, the end result was far more palatable than façades alone.  Not everything was saved, but the Grain Exchange trading floor is there, as are some original vault doors.  Doug Corbett, George Cibinel and their team came up with an architectural design that gave the old buildings a second life and created a building that respects the history of the Exchange District.

Perhaps the solution to our preservation problems is to choose the best option for each situation.  For Red River, the vacant buildings on Princess were reused as much as possible.  For the Former Union Bank Building, full preservation is the best idea.  So what about little old Smart Bag Co.?  Hopefully the final proposal will take a page from architects like Etienne Gaboury and the team at Corbett Cibinel; with a little daring, we can have something the breathes new life without snuffing out the history.

RRC Addendum

Note: this might be an error on my part, but it appears that the Red River College Princess Street Campus was constructed without proper delisting of two Grade II buildings, as their alterations were more extensive than a Grade II listing should allow.  The Historic Buildings By-Law still lists 160 and 164 Princess St as Grade II, which I believe means that these changes should not have been allowed.

(b) Grade II; the objectives of which are:

(i) to preserve the entire exterior of the building, erection or structure
and such of its interior elements as are specified in the listing, and

(ii) to ensure that all repairs thereof are appropriate to their special
architectural or historical interest, and

(iii) to prevent or regulate demolition, removal, alteration or repair of the
remainder of such interior in the manner described in subsection
5(c).

The three Grade III buildings may have had proper approval by Council (I haven’t checked at this point) for their partial demolition, but I don’t know how permits could have been given for 160 and 164 without reclassifying them as Grade III or delisting them.  What does this mean for the Former Union Bank Building?  Can its Grade I interior be altered without proper historical appropriateness?

Now’s the time to start with that pressure.

The Better Disraeli campaign begins next week.