Winnipeg | Upper Fort Garry Provincial Park | 130 Main St.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by viperred88

what do you guys expect the city got ignorant about the location and expected everything to be done with the year kinda of half ass planning in my books. Just like the waterpark where they want to rush to build by next year with no proper planning and forethought. Sometimes it takes more than a year to properly get things done right with projects of this magnitude.

Well that's more or less the point though. The Friends had DECADES and could have negotiated something while the city was still just hanging onto the land. Was the city actually ignorant ? Maybe but as I've pointed out so many times already THERE IS NO FORT THERE anymore. Just the gate. Maybe the city should have tabled a plan to develop the property into a park or something but because the fort isn't actually there anymore, outside of some sense of nostalgia maybe there isn't much reason to consider that land any more valuable from a historical standpoint than any other property in the downtown area. Maybe there's some old 19th century garbage underneath , buried in the mud but otherwise what good is the land as a heritage piece ?

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Well that's more or less the point though. The Friends had DECADES and could have negotiated something while the city was still just hanging onto the land. Was the city actually ignorant ? Maybe but as I've pointed out so many times already THERE IS NO FORT THERE anymore. Just the gate. Maybe the city should have tabled a plan to develop the property into a park or something but because the fort isn't actually there anymore, outside of some sense of nostalgia maybe there isn't much reason to consider that land any more valuable from a historical standpoint than any other property in the downtown area. Maybe there's some old 19th century garbage underneath , buried in the mud but otherwise what good is the land as a heritage piece ?

As long as 100 Main Street was there, who would have thought there was any real potential for much development? That was a new building within my own memory; no one would have thought that it would be demolished so soon. Part of the fort is there, and it needs to be developed further. How better than by reconstructing a larger portion of the fort? There are plenty of reconstructions that are major tourist draws: Louisbourg and Williamsburg, Virginia are obvious examples. This one would be unique in terms of its visibility on the main street of the downtown of a (somewhat) large city.

I don't really think there needs to be an apartment building on that exact spot. If there's room for one on whatever's left over, then fine. But if it's possible to make money on a new apartment tower downtown, someone will built one somewhere else.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I don't really think there needs to be an apartment building on that exact spot. If there's room for one on whatever's left over, then fine. But if it's possible to make money on a new apartment tower downtown, someone will built one somewhere else.

^ exactly. Chelsea Courts anyone?

Or how about the dozens of surface lots on or around Broadway?

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by Andy6

better than by reconstructing a larger portion of the fort? There are plenty of reconstructions that are major tourist draws: Louisbourg and Williamsburg, Virginia are obvious examples. This one would be unique in terms of its visibility on the main street of the downtown of a (somewhat) large city.

If you have ever been to colonial Williamsburg you will quickly realize that there will never been anything close to that ANYWHERE in Canada.

http://www.history.org/

That place is insane in size and authenticity. I went there for the 4th of July when I was 15 and you could spend days there and still not see anything.

100 Main would be a cheesy reproduction and 1/100th of the size.

The interactive flash map gives you an idea as to how big it is. Just picture a thousand people also walking around in character and costume and the fact that most of the buildings are original construction.

http://www.history.org/visit/tourTheTown/flash.cfm

[Andy6]

Well if it has 1/100 of the economic spinoff of Colonial Williamsburg it will still beat an apartment building by quite a bit. And in this case it isn't isolated by itself. UFG would be part of the whole Forks-St. Boniface-Exchange-Riverwalk experience. It's building on strength that's already there.

Yes, I've been to Colonial Williamsburg. It is quite the experience, especially in the summer heat.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by h0twired

If you have ever been to colonial Williamsburg you will quickly realize that there will never been anything close to that ANYWHERE in Canada.

http://www.history.org/

That place is insane in size and authenticity. I went there for the 4th of July when I was 15 and you could spend days there and still not see anything.

100 Main would be a cheesy reproduction and 1/100th of the size.

The interactive flash map gives you an idea as to how big it is. Just picture a thousand people also walking around in character and costume and the fact that most of the buildings are original construction.

http://www.history.org/visit/tourTheTown/flash.cfm

Plus, it would be no more historically accurate than Fort Garry Place.

[c vist]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I don't really think there needs to be an apartment building on that exact spot. If there's room for one on whatever is left over, then fine. But if it's possible to make money on a new apartment tower downtown, someone will built one somewhere else.

Thanks to poor media attention, everyone still believes the Fort is below the site of the new apartment tower. The apartment building is on surplus lands adjacent to the previous Fort. Kives said it quite clear in his recent article, which was probably the most responsible reporting I've read in some time ... why can't the "Friends" work with Crystal and develop the site together.

There is room for both projects to go ahead on and adjacent to the site ... but there are many stubborn rich Patrons of the City at the helm. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[1ajs]

someone should go talk to them and see why both can't be there....

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by c vist

Thanks to poor media attention, everyone still believes the Fort is below the site of the new apartment tower. The apartment building is on surplus lands adjacent to the previous Fort. Kives said it quite clear in his recent article, which was probably the most responsible reporting I've read in some time ... why can't the "Friends" work with Crystal and develop the site together.

There is room for both projects to go ahead on and adjacent to the site ... but there are many stubborn rich Patrons of the City at the helm. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

but wasn't the issue that the actual extent of the fort, as recently ascertained, cut into the surplus part of the parcel to the point that the tower won't work? I'm not sure I'm understanding the story. Have the Friends stated that they won't allow an apartment on the SW portion of the parcel or is it that the developer doesn't want to, or can't, build one there now that it's even smaller than it was thought to be?

[c vist]

Originally Posted by Andy6

but wasn't the issue that the actual extent of the fort, as recently ascertained, cut into the surplus part of the parcel to the point that the tower won't work? I'm not sure I'm understanding the story. Have the Friends stated that they won't allow an apartment on the SW portion of the parcel or is it that the developer doesn't want to, or can't, build one there now that it's even smaller than it was thought to be?

The land that was being sold to Crystal was cut back as a result of the archaeological dig of the old Fort foundation. With the land for purchase never being on the original Fort site, it was only reduced in size because of the dig.

The "Friends" have made it clear that they want to build the interpretive centre on the the land adjacent, not on the original Fort site. This has been the deal-stopper to the "Friends" ... seems like they should give a wee bit on the land that isn't part of the old Fort?

[flatlander]

The Mayor's role here should be to pull these two parties together and find a solution, because there is bound to be one. Instead, he comes out with stupid comments about 'a deal is a deal.' Except his kind of deals take place behind closed doors without any opportunity for discussion or compromise. Much as I think there can be a solution for both if I had the money i would poney it up just to rub it in his face.

[trueviking]

hopefully this re-design to not include the half baked idea of an interpretive centre will be the beginings of a realization that both projects can live quite happily beside each other.

if the tower doesnt sit on any part of the fort's footprint and the park no longer wants the land that the tower will take up for their interpretive centre, then they really have no basis for an argument.

this whole trying to buy the land so they cant disregard the deal they made with the city is bogus....

i hope the city shows a spine and simply awards the land adjacent to the fort to the developer to give our city a welcome downtown housing project and then says to the friends that they can have all the land that the fort once occupied...take it or leave it....would they say no?...what would their justification for refusing that deal be?

[wags_in_the_peg]

free press editorial....

Reality check

CITY council's conditional offer in December to hand over to the Friends of Upper Fort Garry surplus land where the former fort once stood was a rough compromise. It set out a gargantuan task for the group, and the Friends have reportedly raised a small chunk of the $10 million they need by the end of March. Now Premier Gary Doer has asked that they take a provincial donation of $1.5 million to help purchase the site outright.

It is an uncomfortable saw-off that falls far short of the goal -- the group had hoped to secure more than $4 million from the province and also from the federal government in order to fulfill its dream to buy and develop the whole site, not just a piece of the property and the stone gate that remains. But it may be an irresistible lifeline. It is a humble starting point that, as Mr. Doer noted Tuesday, allows the citizens' group to preserve some of the land and the centrepiece of history, a landmark of where Manitoba's first administrative centre once sat.

How the group can develop a heritage site without significant public money is a conundrum. Before the Friends made their pitch to secure the whole site, bound by Main Street and Assiniboine Avenue, there was a potential private partner to help in that project. That partner was a development company that wanted to buy from the city a chunk of its surplus land, the southwest corner at Assiniboine Avenue and Fort Street. It proposed to build a condominium with a timber and stone facade that would fit into the site's historic context. Where a parking lot now sits, the company envisioned landscaping of the grounds, including a proposed farmer's market. That would have showcased the remaining stone gate of the fort, which is all but hidden behind buildings now on the grounds.

But that project was abandoned when the Friends insisted that the whole plot be developed as historic grounds. The Friends may feel themselves being backed into a corner now and a spokesman noted that they are sorting through the new realities.

In the sorting, the Friends should ask themselves the obvious questions -- have they allowed their vision for the site to blind them to the realities? Are they allowing the best -- a $12 million project -- to get in the way of the good, a $3-million to $5-million project?

The lonely stone arch could use some natty presentation. Hidden behind the imposing Manitoba Club on Broadway and an aging curling rink on Fort Street, it is humbled by the sprawling blacktop of a parking lot that dominates the area. History's remnant sits in a kind of heritage purgatory, speaking more to the years of neglect than a storied past. The Friends would do Upper Fort Garry a service in taking the premier's offer, securing the property and then welcoming a private partner who sees the possibilities in tearing up a parking lot and sowing a park.

[wags_in_the_peg]

free press poll
Will you contribute to the Friends of Upper Fort Garry campaign?
Yes 23%
No 77%
Total Votes: 996

[rgalston]

Also in the paper today, David Asper revises history on behalf of the Friends:

Reclaim a critical part of our past
Fri Feb 8 2008

David Asper

THE current debate in Winnipeg over a piece of property on Main Street where the grand Upper Fort Garry once stood is not some kind of quixotic crusade undertaken by a small clique of history buffs or sentimentalists. Winnipeggers need to take note of what is at stake on this issue and step up to be heard.

One of the great failings of our country is that we do not devote enough time and resources to the teaching and animation of Canadian history generally, and especially the local history of our province and city. Countries that have the greatest sense of national identity and even national purpose tend to be those where understanding the past is a priority in the education systems, and in many cases history shapes economic development, urban planning and a wide spectrum of other modern activities. One only needs to look to the U.S., the United Kingdom and almost all of Europe to see this in action.
The Upper Fort Garry matter is a great example of how, properly done, we might take a small step to rectify this problem in our own backyard.

Looking at a map of Winnipeg from 1885 one will see that from Main Street and Broadway to Point Douglas, there existed a precinct of five forts associated with the fur trade. Upper Fort Garry sat angled across what is now Main Street in a southeastern-facing rectangular shape. Across the Assiniboine was Fort Rouge, located right on the nose of the land that bisects the Red and Assiniboine rivers. Sitting on the land where The Forks is now located were two forts -- the original Fort Garry and Fort Gibraltar. Fort Douglas was located a little farther north on the river's edge of what is now Point Douglas.

If you lived in Winnipeg in the 18th and 19th centuries, this was the Times Square of the fur trade! And it was a time full of keen entrepreneurial spirit. The original Fort Gibraltar was built by the North West Company right beside the Hudson's Bay Company forts as a symbol of the will to compete for the lucrative fur business. In modern times it would be akin to Dan Murray opening a Chevy dealership in Bob Kozminski's Ford backyard. In fact, looking back, the five fort district of Winnipeg may be the model on which the modern auto mall is based.


Upper Fort Garry was the largest of the five forts and eventually became the site of Louis Riel's provisional government, the Red River Rebellion and all of the subsequent events that led to proclamation of the Manitoba Act, bringing our province into Confederation. Straddling Main Street, ox carts, often spread 20 wide so as to not create impassible deep ruts along the Main trail, went back and forth between the Upper and Lower Forts carrying their goods and doing business along the way.
When you drive along Main Street today, you are retracing the path of our history.

Looking back, it seems tragic that somehow we lost sight of the historic and economic value of preserving this district of five forts and finding a way to interconnect them as both a tourism and commercial hub. Given the smashing success of The Forks development, one can only imagine how much bigger the idea could be if we extended it and went back in time again to help develop our future.

After it was destroyed, Fort Gibraltar was reconstructed on the other side of the river by the Festival du Voyageur. Wouldn't it be amazing if a footbridge could be constructed from The Forks to link it back to its original location and thereby establish even better connectivity to St. Boniface? [It would, if one wasn't already built several years ago.]

First things first.

The site of Upper Fort Garry is now an important potential gateway to our downtown, and good urban planners generally advocate demarcation of downtowns with some kind of marker that you have arrived in that area. As a matter of fact, the idea of gateways is a recognized part of the overall vision for Winnipeg's downtown.

Which brings us to the issue at hand. Here we have an opportunity to reclaim a critical part of our past in a way that creates a fantastic teaching tool as well as symbolically restoring a landmark that furthers the betterment of our downtown. It has been said that those who know their history stand on the shoulders of giants.

Our political leaders need a signal from us that we want to see further into the future from atop those broad shoulders. The volunteers who are promoting the Upper Fort Garry project need a signal in the form of your donations. It's easily done at www.upperfortgarry.com. My family is on board.

This is important and worth doing. Like The Forks and so many other projects that have made Winnipeg a better place to be, if we get ourselves together on this issue now, there will come a day when everyone will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

David Asper is executive vice-president of Canwest and chairman of the National Post. He is based in Winnipeg.

[Boreal]

I totally agree with you TV. If the two projects can't be made to co-exist, then both the city and the "Friends" should be held accountable. A recreation of the fort is perhaps neat, as Andy eluded, differentiating Winnipeg from other mid-major or large centres. An interpretive centre that belongs in Conklin Shows need not be on land that is not original fort land. That excess should be awarded to the rightful proprietor, Crystal Properties and their development team.

Then it is the citizens of Winnipeg who win. They get to revisit their history, and a near seem-popping apartment market is stimulated with however many units fit into that 22 or 23 story complex.

[j.online]

I actually agree with Asper's editorial. I just don't agree that they need the entire lot to acheive those goals.

If the Friends are that hell-bent on building an interpretive centre, the land I'd be purchasing would be North West's parking lot across the street since the city is already donating the fort's site for free. Here's how I'd do it:

1. Apartment
2. Curling Club
3. Fort re-creation / park
4. Interpretive Centre
5. Tunnel between fort & centre: not a service tunnel like between city hall & centennial center, but designed in the style of the fort with artifacts from the interpretive centre extending through the tunnel (plus, walking across Main's 10 lanes is not fun even at the best of times)
6. Parkade

Advantages

• Creates a much stronger link between the fort & the forks. As it is now, the park 'feels' isolated from the forks even though it's relatively close. Having the interpretive centre on the east side on Main puts it 'on site' with the forks, creating a much stronger physical & psychological connection between the 2 sites.
• From the Interpretive Centre, frame the views to the actual fort in a well designed way so one feels compelled to go check it out.
• If designed well, having presence on both sides of Main st. would create a strong "gateway into history" and into downtown.
• Finding parking in this area is hard enough as it is now. Developing the area more will only make it worse. And with our car culture, having onsite parking will make it that much easier to visit. I'd make it big enough to have a couple levels reserved for North West Company folks.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

[vid]

That's a pretty small parcel for a parkade...

[j.online]

yeah, i was thinking that too. maybe swap it around with the interpretive centre.

[Andy6]

Maybe in recognition of Winnipeg's car culture, you could turn it into a "drive-thru" interpretive centre.