HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2012, 7:41 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 5,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
can anyone name a 'phase 2' of anything that actually happened in winnipeg?....i cant.
Milner Ridge - Phase 2. Does that count?
__________________
"But a city can be smothered by too much reverence for its past. The skyline must keep acquiring new peaks, because the day we consider it complete and untouchable is the day the city begins to die." - Justin Davidson - May 2010 Issue of New York
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2012, 7:43 PM
chrisallard5454's Avatar
chrisallard5454 chrisallard5454 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jabroni View Post
Someone mentioned earlier that the waterpark should be located at Seasons of Tuxedo/IKEA location. It would make complete sense if they put that there, and not at The Forks.



Oh no doubt we support it, but not for the same reasons in terms of location. We've been talking about having a waterpark in this city for years, and it all came down to location location location.

If there's a need for a catalyst to make the Seasons of Tuxedo go into full fruition, then this new waterpark would be it.

EDIT:

Fun Mountain was great, whenever we have parties or special events going on. I just wish they would update the place, rather than make it look like it's stuck in the 90's.
I don't support his water park, because it does nothing for the city. It is just another glorified pool, like the many that Winnipeg already has. The public funds could be used to jump start phase 2 of our rapid transit.
__________________
2017 Tryout for DEL 2 Kassel Huskies
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2012, 7:47 PM
chrisallard5454's Avatar
chrisallard5454 chrisallard5454 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,047
To whom it may concern,

One year ago an idea was put forth highlighting the possible Parcel 4 developments that could spur positive growth for Winnipeg's downtown. It seems this article has fallen on blind eyes, as there has been no attempt at obtaining appropriate development for this site.

Winnipeg is a city on the brink of achieving positive growth in her core after decades of stagnant development, and it is crucial now more than ever that long term decisions be made to utilize this growth in the best possible fashion. Short sightedness (and the impatient mindset that the first piece of development proposed should be chosen) needs to be put aside in order to make way for future planning in this city.

City Council took 32 years to come up with our first leg of Rapid Transit, and though it could have been done more efficiently, it must be praised that many alternatives were taken into consideration. Should the same not be said of the very valuable piece of land in question? Rather than just agree to build the first thing that comes to mind, should we not sit and contemplate the impact that potential developments may have on the surrounding community and the city as a whole?

Short of offending anyone, I must say that 50, 000 sq feet for a water park falls short of being ‘world class.’ So much so that after a quick search I have found almost two dozen water parks that are larger than this proposal in Canada alone. To build this park would only support the naive and ignorant belief of many Canadians that Winnipeg is "cheap". It is a quick fix to catalyze an empty lot that holds prime real estate. If so much consideration can be given for the SHED zone surrounding the MTS Centre, should not the CMHR, a truly world class museum, receive the same kind of consideration with its surrounding development? I have conversed with multiple city planners, who have spent years studying the principles of making cities sustainable, and I have yet to hear a positive remark from any of them regarding this said proposal. It is appalling to think that a city as wonderful as Winnipeg is willing to settle for something as low as a hotel with a glorified pool.

That being said, I do believe that the city could benefit from a water park, as any municipality would. For this to be considered though, proper planning must be put in place. A water park, like any amusement - based piece of development, is a drive in and drive out facility that does nothing to support the surrounding community. This is proven by major water parks already established throughout Canada: Canada's Wonderland, Falls View, Calypso, Wild Water Kingdom, etc. are all great water parks surrounded by a sea of surface parking. This sort of development belongs in an under utilized piece of land that would not suffer from being home to such a isolated piece of development. Since I am not an advocate of sprawl, I would assume the best location for such a piece of development would perhaps be brownfield property somewhere in St. Boniface, where a community has already been established. This is one example, but several others spring to mind….

Winnipeg's downtown is on the cusp of once again being a place to be. It is finally piercing the veil of public perception that suggests the heart of our city is unsafe. But we are not yet at a place where we can sit comfortably and allow precious property to be given away to any development that comes forth, nor should we ever be. Yet with such a fragile base community, where population growth is the biggest desire, our first concern should be to increase the amount of people living downtown. We should be doing all we can to bring people downtown for long periods of time, if not indefinitely. Safety is not perceived to be an issue during the 9-5 work hours when thousands of people migrate downtown for work. It is after the cars are started and the doors are closed that fear begins to mould its way into the minds of those reluctant to venture downtown.

With more people visiting and living downtown this perception can be reversed. Canada's most desirable cities have desirable downtown cores. And it must be noted that though many have water parks, none such facilities are located in their urban core.

I suspect that this letter will probably fall once again on blind eyes, as this development is being spearheaded by the mayor himself. However, in the interest of our citizens, I soberly and passionately urge all who envision a sustainable and sophisticated Winnipeg to reconsider the supposed merits of this endeavour.
__________________
2017 Tryout for DEL 2 Kassel Huskies
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2012, 8:44 PM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,304

Great letter; I hope you sent that off to our friends at city hall.

Some points:

#1) would / could they build the watermark with the option to expand it in the future?
#2) the 'drive in / drive out' mentality we're branding this with IS also how the CMHR will and the forks currently operate for many... especially during winter. Some percentage of those families will probably visit an eatery at or nearby the forks before / after their gallivant, and maybe stick around. They probably will just leave if its a really cold winter day though. (who wants to walk to the forks with wet hair?)
#3) the comment above about people coming to town to shop / visit may indeed choose to stay at the Forks / downtown, especially if theres amenities for families & kids. The CMHR, expanded childrens museum & outdoor playground, & a waterpark would make it a desirable place to hang out during a weekend visit.
#4) there are OTHER lots that could be examined for development with what we would prefer to have there.
#5) Sam Katz and his parking lot kronies are definitely going to benefit from this someway.

I guess I'm trying to look at this with an open mind as it could have some benefits.

But I still think its a project better suited for the IKEA / Seasons development... especially if it is nothing more than a glorified hotel water park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2012, 8:58 PM
alittle1 alittle1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by armorand93 View Post
Funny how everyone forgets about Fun Mountain. Them and Tinkertown could use a seasonal bus route, Winnipeg Transit could use $4 recreation fares (one-way) and people can endure the bus ride...
Fun Mountain, Tinkertown, isn't there a railroad track next to those properties? How about a LRT, maybe even reach it out to Lorrette.... .

"The little town where the train runs around...."


With regards to ChrisAllard's postings:

I don't think you get the email thing yet. In the old days, if you had something important to send you did it by the Queen's mail. You knew that they got your letter if you paid the correct postage, had the correct address (even if you just wrote 'The Mayor, City Hall, Wpg.' ) on the envelope. If they did receive it. it was hard to get rid of. Couldn't just toss it in the waste basket. it would be found and read. Consequently, you would have to answer it FORMALLY, on official City stationery and sign it with their name in ink, give it to a secretary to post it back to you. The old chain of command scene!

Today, it comes in a blink and goes in a blink. Never seen it at all. Send me it back again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2012, 9:44 PM
techfreak techfreak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 47
In my opinion, 50,000 sq ft is too small. If you're going to build a water park in an important location, it has to be world class. Looking at the top 30 largest water parks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoor_water_park, this water park would be at the bottom. Not only does it have to be large you the architecture has to fit the location, and more than generic. If you're going to build a 50,000 sq ft water park, build it at the old site of the Winnipeg Arena.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2012, 10:18 PM
khabibulin khabibulin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by techfreak View Post
In my opinion, 50,000 sq ft is too small. If you're going to build a water park in an important location, it has to be world class. Looking at the top 30 largest water parks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoor_water_park, this water park would be at the bottom. Not only does it have to be large you the architecture has to fit the location, and more than generic. If you're going to build a 50,000 sq ft water park, build it at the old site of the Winnipeg Arena.
I agree, bigger would be better. In the name of full disclosure, it would be the 4th largest indoor waterpark in Canada (behind WEM and 2 at Niagara Falls) and the 32nd largest in North America.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2012, 10:43 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 5,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisallard5454 View Post
I don't support his water park, because it does nothing for the city. It is just another glorified pool, like the many that Winnipeg already has. The public funds could be used to jump start phase 2 of our rapid transit.
Or fund much needed repairs and renovations to the existing public pools, you know the ones just about anyone can use without being subsidized for admission or not costing a fairly expensive night at a hotel.
__________________
I'm sober enough to know what I'm doing, and drunk enough to really enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2012, 11:24 PM
JamieDavid Exchange JamieDavid Exchange is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 546
Mayor Sam Katz's dream of using public funds to build a private water park may soon come to fruition in the form of a $75-million hotel, water park and parkade complex northwest of The Forks.

On Friday, council's downtown and riverbank committee will consider an offer by Drumheller, Alta., hotel chain Canalta to purchase the gravel surface lot known as Parcel Four from the city for $6 million. Working with Calgary water-park designer Waterfun Products and an undisclosed group of investors, Canalta wants to build a 250-room hotel, a 450-stall parkade and a 50,000-square-foot, stand-alone water park with a wave pool, slides and a lazy river, among other amenities.

The plan also calls for Winnipeg to provide Canalta with a $7-million grant, contingent upon the completion of a community-access agreement that would provide the city with $700,000 worth of admission credits every year for the next 25 years.

"In return for the grant, the proponent will have to abide by a public-access agreement. Kids, wherever they come from, will have access to this investment," Mayor Sam Katz said Wednesday, stating he believes there is "overwhelming support" from the public for a water park.

The Canalta proposal is the third water-park plan to be presented to city council since 2008, when Katz championed a plan to replace a $9-million Kildonan Park pool project with a more modest $2.8-million job, as well as the $7-million water-park plan.

This grant was originally awarded to the Canad Inns hotel chain but withdrawn when negotiations between the city and the Winnipeg hotelier faltered. A new search for a private partner in 2009 led to a response from Winnipeg's Shindico Realty, which was acting as an agent for a water park and hotel developer, according to a report by city real estate manager John Zabudney.

That plan initially involved a luxury hotel but later evolved into the Canalta proposal, Zabudney writes. Shindico continues to act as agent but is not the developer, city property director Barry Thorgrimson said.

Pending council approval on April 25, the first phase of the project -- 125 hotel rooms and the water park -- could open as early as 2013, said Thorgrimson. Canalta operates most of its hotels in small towns and is "excited to come to the big city," he said.

An official with Canalta declined to comment.

The second phase of the complex would involve another 125 hotel rooms and a 450-stall parkade, which could be used by Shaw Park, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights and The Forks, Thorgrimson said.

The land in question was originally set aside for parking for the human rights museum and The Forks. The museum has yet to assess the impact of the water park on its operations, said spokeswoman Angela Cassie. The Forks plans to work with Canalta to ensure the water park fits with pre-existing plans to develop more parking as well as housing near the CN rail line, said Jim August, CEO of The Forks-North Portage Partnership.
"This is a somewhat complicated site," he said.

Katz's plan is likely to win the support of a majority of council members, but there is some opposition. Fort Rouge Coun. Jenny Gerbasi said she's disappointed the Canalta water park will be 10,000 square feet smaller than the facility Canad Inns proposed.

Gerbasi also said she's concerned the city has yet to work out details of the public-access agreement, which would see the city's community services department dole out admission credits through social-service agencies.

"We don't have control over the facility and I don't know if this is the best use of our funds," Gerbasi said.

The city would be better-served spending $7 million on fixing roads, added Colin Craig, the Manitoba director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who said the spending weakens the city's case for more infrastructure funding.

"This is like buying a big-screen TV for your living room and (putting it) under a leaky roof. At some point, you have to fix the roof," Craig said.

Katz, however, said there is no contradiction between offering a grant to a private water park while community centres, pools and hockey rinks are hard up for cash. Creating a water park with public access fulfils the city's recreation mandate, he said.

"Downtown is changing and this will keep things going, in my opinion," Katz said. "Plus, I think this will be a great tourist attraction in the future."
(http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...147121145.html)


So, to me, it sounds like if they go ahead with this project, not only will there be another tourist attraction to promote visitors to choose Winnipeg as their destination, there will also be mixed use residential still planned for that area, which what everyone's been complaining about.

There's another HUGE surface lot just south of York that would fit the mixed use development. A parkade will be built to accommodate parking needed to replace the surface stalls. It will congest the area, but why do you think area such as Corydon and Osborne are destinations?, cause they're congested, filled with people at all times/months of the year, which in turn makes people feel safer roaming the areas.

Parcel 4 land is a visible eyesore that can be seen from 25 kilometers up from the sky in our downtown. (check Google Earth if you don't believe me) Green space isn't being taken away.

I agree, it would have to be something classy to attract people, but there's no use speculating till we all see the proposal. A classy, world class, one-of-a-kind water park will benefit Winnipeg. Anything less should be protested.



For up to the date posts of the 311 At Centre Point Winnipeg, PLEASE visit my form here at -----> http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=197745
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 12:56 AM
chrisallard5454's Avatar
chrisallard5454 chrisallard5454 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamieDavid Exchange View Post
Mayor Sam Katz's dream of using public funds to build a private water park may soon come to fruition in the form of a $75-million hotel, water park and parkade complex northwest of The Forks.

On Friday, council's downtown and riverbank committee will consider an offer by Drumheller, Alta., hotel chain Canalta to purchase the gravel surface lot known as Parcel Four from the city for $6 million. Working with Calgary water-park designer Waterfun Products and an undisclosed group of investors, Canalta wants to build a 250-room hotel, a 450-stall parkade and a 50,000-square-foot, stand-alone water park with a wave pool, slides and a lazy river, among other amenities.

The plan also calls for Winnipeg to provide Canalta with a $7-million grant, contingent upon the completion of a community-access agreement that would provide the city with $700,000 worth of admission credits every year for the next 25 years.

"In return for the grant, the proponent will have to abide by a public-access agreement. Kids, wherever they come from, will have access to this investment," Mayor Sam Katz said Wednesday, stating he believes there is "overwhelming support" from the public for a water park.

The Canalta proposal is the third water-park plan to be presented to city council since 2008, when Katz championed a plan to replace a $9-million Kildonan Park pool project with a more modest $2.8-million job, as well as the $7-million water-park plan.

This grant was originally awarded to the Canad Inns hotel chain but withdrawn when negotiations between the city and the Winnipeg hotelier faltered. A new search for a private partner in 2009 led to a response from Winnipeg's Shindico Realty, which was acting as an agent for a water park and hotel developer, according to a report by city real estate manager John Zabudney.

That plan initially involved a luxury hotel but later evolved into the Canalta proposal, Zabudney writes. Shindico continues to act as agent but is not the developer, city property director Barry Thorgrimson said.

Pending council approval on April 25, the first phase of the project -- 125 hotel rooms and the water park -- could open as early as 2013, said Thorgrimson. Canalta operates most of its hotels in small towns and is "excited to come to the big city," he said.

An official with Canalta declined to comment.

The second phase of the complex would involve another 125 hotel rooms and a 450-stall parkade, which could be used by Shaw Park, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights and The Forks, Thorgrimson said.

The land in question was originally set aside for parking for the human rights museum and The Forks. The museum has yet to assess the impact of the water park on its operations, said spokeswoman Angela Cassie. The Forks plans to work with Canalta to ensure the water park fits with pre-existing plans to develop more parking as well as housing near the CN rail line, said Jim August, CEO of The Forks-North Portage Partnership.
"This is a somewhat complicated site," he said.

Katz's plan is likely to win the support of a majority of council members, but there is some opposition. Fort Rouge Coun. Jenny Gerbasi said she's disappointed the Canalta water park will be 10,000 square feet smaller than the facility Canad Inns proposed.

Gerbasi also said she's concerned the city has yet to work out details of the public-access agreement, which would see the city's community services department dole out admission credits through social-service agencies.

"We don't have control over the facility and I don't know if this is the best use of our funds," Gerbasi said.

The city would be better-served spending $7 million on fixing roads, added Colin Craig, the Manitoba director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who said the spending weakens the city's case for more infrastructure funding.

"This is like buying a big-screen TV for your living room and (putting it) under a leaky roof. At some point, you have to fix the roof," Craig said.

Katz, however, said there is no contradiction between offering a grant to a private water park while community centres, pools and hockey rinks are hard up for cash. Creating a water park with public access fulfils the city's recreation mandate, he said.

"Downtown is changing and this will keep things going, in my opinion," Katz said. "Plus, I think this will be a great tourist attraction in the future."
(http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...147121145.html)


So, to me, it sounds like if they go ahead with this project, not only will there be another tourist attraction to promote visitors to choose Winnipeg as their destination, there will also be mixed use residential still planned for that area, which what everyone's been complaining about.

There's another HUGE surface lot just south of York that would fit the mixed use development. A parkade will be built to accommodate parking needed to replace the surface stalls. It will congest the area, but why do you think area such as Corydon and Osborne are destinations?, cause they're congested, filled with people at all times/months of the year, which in turn makes people feel safer roaming the areas.

Parcel 4 land is a visible eyesore that can be seen from 25 kilometers up from the sky in our downtown. (check Google Earth if you don't believe me) Green space isn't being taken away.

I agree, it would have to be something classy to attract people, but there's no use speculating till we all see the proposal. A classy, world class, one-of-a-kind water park will benefit Winnipeg. Anything less should be protested.



For up to the date posts of the 311 At Centre Point Winnipeg, PLEASE visit my form here at -----> http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=197745
So you consider a 50 000 square foot pool to be a tourist attraction? Because I sure as hell don't. It isn't a world class water park. At 50 000 square feet it can not be world class unless it is a 400 foot drop straight down in the slide, in which case the area is too small for the landing. So no it is going to be the farthest thing from world class. It is going to be a joke. Calling this world class would be like calling our BRT Leg world class.
__________________
2017 Tryout for DEL 2 Kassel Huskies
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 1:20 AM
JamieDavid Exchange JamieDavid Exchange is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 546
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 1:23 AM
JamieDavid Exchange JamieDavid Exchange is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 546
Hopefully we'll all find out a bit more information tomorrow after the vote. Maybe a proposal will be leaked to the media if we're lucky. End all the speculations and finally start a real debate over something that's been factually presented to us.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 4:26 AM
Authentic_City's Avatar
Authentic_City Authentic_City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamieDavid Exchange View Post
Hopefully we'll all find out a bit more information tomorrow after the vote. Maybe a proposal will be leaked to the media if we're lucky. End all the speculations and finally start a real debate over something that's been factually presented to us.
Funny how there's a vote only 2 days after the proposal is made public, and with no real information provided to the public. So city council will vote first, and consult the public after? No thanks, I prefer public consultation to be meaningful. Apparently Katz and his band of yes me could give a rats ass about what the public think.

And by the way, no one on the this forum is complaining about a loss of green space or lamenting the loss of a gravel parking lot that is visible from outer space. We're outraged that a second rate motel outfit from rural Alberta is building a substandard kiddy pool and splash pad adjacent to the Forks and CMHR with a 7 million dollar public subsidy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 4:39 AM
headhorse's Avatar
headhorse headhorse is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,171
I received the same vague reply as Chris from Fielding. Here's one from Eadie that's probably worse.

Quote:
I would remind all who believe a water park is not wanted at the Forks that a consultation with Winnipeggers in the late 1980’s indicated that we wanted the Forks to be a place for a water park. I believe in the survey, the water park was number one in terms of proposed facilities. Yes Winnipeg has grown since then, but an indoor water park is still a facility Winnipeggers want. Another location would be good at say the Convention Centre. However, there is no proposal at that location. I do not subscribe to locating a water park in suburbia as access is poor as in the football stadium.
I don't think a survey from the 80s is relevant and I don't think our 50,000 sq/ft waterpark will ever draw crowds of 30,000.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 4:41 AM
trebor204's Avatar
trebor204 trebor204 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 582
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 4:54 AM
Authentic_City's Avatar
Authentic_City Authentic_City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,235
I received this response from Eadie after suggesting a waterpark is better suited to the suburbs:

Quote:
"Suburban locations do not work for access for all Winnipeggers. This kind of consideration of such facilities is wrong for the football stadium and so on. The MTS Centre is an ideal consideration for such facilities."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 5:02 AM
UPP UPP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Regina, Canada
Posts: 477
The city of Yorkton (pop. 18,000) has a water park nearly the same size. It too has several water slides, an olympic sized pool, a wave pool and a river run. It was built completely by the city and is part of the Gallagher Centre which includes hockey and curling rinks. You don't have to stay at a motel to use the facility.

I don't think this facility will draw tourists from outside the immediate Winnipeg area. It would have to be something special, like the West Ed Mall Water park. Our family drives 8 hours from Regina to use that facility.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 5:07 AM
Authentic_City's Avatar
Authentic_City Authentic_City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trebor204 View Post
Good lord! From the Administrative Report:

Quote:
The Canalta Group of Companies is a family owned hospitality enterprise that includes 33 hotels operating under the Canalta, Ramada, Super 8 and Travelodge brands...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 5:19 AM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,304
Quoting a survey from the late 80's???? I'd say there are a lot of new people, young 'uns grown up who might have a different opinion on the subject. Update the survey; that is simply expired.

The responses that are being received to our various suggestions / complaints strongly indicates that this city needs to clean house at city hall. I'm not talking about the council, but rather, the public servants. Their thinking is still stuck in the 80's... with yet another 80's urban renewal 'mega project' being served up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 5:26 AM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mininari View Post
Quoting a survey from the late 80's???? I'd say there are a lot of new people, young 'uns grown up who might have a different opinion on the subject. Update the survey; that is simply expired.

The responses that are being received to our various suggestions / complaints strongly indicates that this city needs to clean house at city hall. I'm not talking about the council, but rather, the public servants. Their thinking is still stuck in the 80's... with yet another 80's urban renewal 'mega project' being served up.
Interesting, since the public service basically takes direction from council. By clean house, do you mean fire and lay off civil servants because they lack vision? Good luck - a better idea would be to clean house with council, which you'll have the opportunity to do in the fall of 2014.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:54 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.