Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
To balletomane's point, how many of those things can be said to be the fault of Unicity? There were broader trends at play such as the decline of Winnipeg's stature relative to other major western cities, the influx of a relatively impoverished population (leading to higher inner city crime), the fact that the large urban core was growing quite old and in need of rehabilitation/renewal.
Although shopping and retail has been decentralized, many of Winnipeg's important office, institutional and cultural functions remain centrally located. That would have been much tougher to accomplish had suburban cities been free to do whatever they wanted to steal activity away from the core.
As with Toronto, I think there came to be a more unified and cohesive attempt at planning the city, rather than letting every little municipality do whatever it wanted. No question that came at a cost of letting suburban areas wield some more control over things, but I think Winnipeg has done an acceptable job of keeping sprawl in check.
|
I agree with your points, its a bit like a chicken or egg question. I'm sure both had their part in causing and speeding up the decline of the inner city. One thing that's for sure is that other than the amalgamation itself, unicity lacked vision, it seemed the city didn't really contemplate what would happen after the city was enlarged and services centralized under one authority.