This is going to be a long one.
Chris Allard
9:12 PM (18 hours ago)
to Skatz, sfielding, jswandel, phavixbeck, bmayes, jbrowaty, gnordman, mpagtakhan, dvandal, readie, jgerbasi, jorlikow, dsharma, hsmith, tsteen, rwyatt
I have sent this email now multiple times, and have only been responded to through automation. I will continue to send this message until the name of the person who I am emailing is reached. Thank you.
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 endeavor.
Sincerely
Christopher Allard.
Fielding, Scott
9:25 PM (18 hours ago)
to me
Thanks for your email and comment.
Regards,
Scott Fielding
City Councillor St James-Brooklands
Chair of Finance
City of Winnipeg
(204) 986 5848
Sent from my iPhone
Havixbeck, Paula
paula@winnipeg.ca
8:05 AM (7 hours ago)
to me
Thank you for taking the time to write. I concur with a few if your points. This is special land, rich with history, and needs to be developed with care.
Chris Allard
9:39 AM (6 hours ago)
to readie
I have sent this email now multiple times, and have only been responded to through automation. I will continue to send this message until the name of the person who I am emailing is reached. Thank you.
Also I have heard the responses you have put out about placing a water park in suburban neighborhoods. I too am not an advocate for sprawl. But there are some projects that do not belong downtown. Especially when they are on par with towns that are only 10 000 in population.
Ross, please... using a poll that was taken 30 years ago to determine what should occur today? LUDICROUS!!!! A sentence can't even be used to describe my frustration at finding this out!!!! Let me inform you that I -along with a large portion of the people you are trying to bring to this city- wasn't alive then, and policies and desires have changed drastically in the last 30 years. You sincerely believe that the world hasn't changed since 1980. If you don't then pardon my language, but you need to get a clue.
It is a wonder why people think Winnipeg is so backwards, when these kind of arguments spring up. I might as well be an advocate to go to war with Russia with your logic. I will inform the Prime Minister that the Nuclear Warheads are without a doubt about to be launched. Oh, and one last thing... Who is this Bush of which you speak? Oh that's right HE ISN"T EVEN PRESIDENT YET!!!!!
Fielding, Scott
10:09 AM (5 hours ago)
to me
Chris
Again thanks for your thoughts on the subject.
I respectfully disagree with you opinion. I think the water park is a very good thing for the city and very much like the location. Through the EOI we built in extra points for a downtown location.
In terms of the size of the water park, this is what the market has come forward with. There was 't a proposal for a larger park and thus we have to make a decision based on what has come in. This process has been over 4 years and even with a 7 million dollars subsidy to build it, this is the best proposal. If the city built and ran it, the cost would be 25m plus the operating costs which I can tell you as Chair of Finance would cost us more to operate than anticipated revenue
I am excited and very much support it.
Again, thanks for your comments.
Regards,
Scott Fielding
City Councillor St James-Brooklands
Chair of Finance
City of Winnipeg
(204) 986 5848
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-04-13, at 8:27 AM, "Chris Allard" <chris.allard54@gmail.com<mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com>> wrote:
Mr Fielding,
Please reply with a few remarks that inform me that you are more than an automation. Otherwise I will continue to press you with my concerns. I am also not naive enough to think you won't block me, so let me remind you that I can get around that. Thank you.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Fielding, Scott <sfielding@winnipeg.ca<mailto:sfielding@winnipeg.ca>> wrote:
Thanks for your email and comment.
Regards,
Scott Fielding
City Councillor St James-Brooklands
Chair of Finance
City of Winnipeg
(204) 986 5848<tel:%28204%29%20986%205848>
Sent from my iPhone
Chris Allard
10:51 AM (5 hours ago)
to Scott
So essentially what you are saying is because there is no vested interest in this location you are willing to settle for this location with a sub-par development. That concerns me, as it should. Especially since the mayor, as always, is claiming that this development will be world class. If the majority of the population would rather this park not be developed than tell me what reason is it that council should push this forward. Please provide me with a good reason.
My second question is why would the city build and run it? There is no desperate call for a Water Park, despite what the Mayor thinks. There is however a desperate call for Rapid Transit (Which is where this money was already slated).
Do not get me wrong, this is not a case of Nimbyism. I just believe (along with the majority of the city planners in this city) that this is poorly thought out, rushed, and more suited to be classified as serving the purpose of the mayor as a pet project, than the citizens of this city.
Please tell me, do you to the best of your knowledge, know if there is a glorified pool (which at 50 000 square feet is exactly that) beside BILBAO? The CMHR is a world Class facility, you should treat it as such, and really think twice before putting a highway chain beside it.
My former warning in regards to response still stands.
Thank you, however for finally getting back to me. And I eagerly await your reply.
Sincerely Chris
Chris Allard
10:58 AM (4 hours ago)
to readie
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Chris Allard <chris.allard54@gmail.com> wrote:
I have sent this email now multiple times, and have only been responded to through automation. I will continue to send this message until the name of the person who I am emailing is reached. Thank you.
Also I have heard the responses you have put out about placing a water park in suburban neighborhoods. I too am not an advocate for sprawl. But there are some projects that do not belong downtown. Especially when they are on par with towns that are only 10 000 in population.
Ross, please... using a poll that was taken 30 years ago to determine what should occur today? LUDICROUS!!!! A sentence can't even be used to describe my frustration at finding this out!!!! Let me inform you that I -along with a large portion of the people you are trying to bring to this city- wasn't alive then, and policies and desires have changed drastically in the last 30 years. You sincerely believe that the world hasn't changed since 1980. If you don't then pardon my language, but you need to get a clue.
It is a wonder why people think Winnipeg is so backwards, when these kind of arguments spring up. I might as well be an advocate to go to war with Russia with your logic. I will inform the Prime Minister that the Nuclear Warheads are without a doubt about to be launched. Oh, and one last thing... Who is this Bush of which you speak? Oh that's right HE ISN"T EVEN PRESIDENT YET!!!!!
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 endeavor.
Sincerely
Christopher Allard.
Fielding, Scott
11:12 AM (4 hours ago)
to me
Maybe send me your contact number and we can chat further as I am
Running into a meeting .
Regards,
Scott Fielding
City Councillor St James-Brooklands
Chair of Finance
City of Winnipeg
(204) 986 5848
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-04-13, at 9:52 AM, "Chris Allard" <chris.allard54@gmail.com<mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com>> wrote:
So essentially what you are saying is because there is no vested interest in this location you are willing to settle for this location with a sub-par development. That concerns me, as it should. Especially since the mayor, as always, is claiming that this development will be world class. If the majority of the population would rather this park not be developed than tell me what reason is it that council should push this forward. Please provide me with a good reason.
My second question is why would the city build and run it? There is no desperate call for a Water Park, despite what the Mayor thinks. There is however a desperate call for Rapid Transit (Which is where this money was already slated).
Do not get me wrong, this is not a case of Nimbyism. I just believe (along with the majority of the city planners in this city) that this is poorly thought out, rushed, and more suited to be classified as serving the purpose of the mayor as a pet project, than the citizens of this city.
Please tell me, do you to the best of your knowledge, know if there is a glorified pool (which at 50 000 square feet is exactly that) beside BILBAO? The CMHR is a world Class facility, you should treat it as such, and really think twice before putting a highway chain beside it.
My former warning in regards to response still stands.
Thank you, however for finally getting back to me. And I eagerly await your reply.
Sincerely Chris
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Fielding, Scott <sfielding@winnipeg.ca<mailto:sfielding@winnipeg.ca>> wrote:
Chris
Again thanks for your thoughts on the subject.
I respectfully disagree with you opinion. I think the water park is a very good thing for the city and very much like the location. Through the EOI we built in extra points for a downtown location.
In terms of the size of the water park, this is what the market has come forward with. There was 't a proposal for a larger park and thus we have to make a decision based on what has come in. This process has been over 4 years and even with a 7 million dollars subsidy to build it, this is the best proposal. If the city built and ran it, the cost would be 25m plus the operating costs which I can tell you as Chair of Finance would cost us more to operate than anticipated revenue
I am excited and very much support it.
Again, thanks for your comments.
Regards,
Scott Fielding
City Councillor St James-Brooklands
Chair of Finance
City of Winnipeg
(204) 986 5848<tel:%28204%29%20986%205848>
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-04-13, at 8:27 AM, "Chris Allard" <chris.allard54@gmail.com<mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com><mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com<mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Mr Fielding,
Please reply with a few remarks that inform me that you are more than an automation. Otherwise I will continue to press you with my concerns. I am also not naive enough to think you won't block me, so let me remind you that I can get around that. Thank you.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Fielding, Scott <sfielding@winnipeg.ca<mailto:sfielding@winnipeg.ca><mailto:sfielding@winnipeg.ca<mailto:sfielding@winnipeg.ca>>> wrote:
Thanks for your email and comment.
Regards,
Scott Fielding
City Councillor St James-Brooklands
Chair of Finance
City of Winnipeg
(204) 986 5848<tel:%28204%29%20986%205848><tel:%28204%29%20986%205848>
Sent from my iPhone
Chris Allard
11:16 AM (4 hours ago)
to Scott
It will be long distance as I am currently out of town. I would assume that you have a phone number I could reach with which has a long distance plan. I would have to call you from my gmail account (which doesn't have a registered number), as I am short on funds and do not have a long distance account. I am looking forward to our discussion.
Sincerely,
Christopher.
Chris Allard
11:19 AM (4 hours ago)
to Scott
Scratch that. You can reach me at (1) 519-425-4023. I look forward to hearing from you.
Fielding, Scott
11:22 AM (4 hours ago)
to me
If your free I will call sometime between 11-12 @ the number below
From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:19 AM
To: Fielding, Scott
Subject: Re: Canalta Water Park
Mayes, Brian
11:53 AM (4 hours ago)
to me
Based on the information I currently have it is my intention to vote against the proposal. Brian Mayes
From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:11 AM
To: MYO-Mayor; Swandel, Justin; Mayes, Brian; Browaty, Jeff; Nordman, Grant; Pagtakhan, Mike; Vandal, Daniel; Eadie, Ross; Gerbasi, Jenny; Orlikow, John; Sharma, Devi (Councillor); Smith, Harvey; Steen, Thomas; Wyatt, Russ
Subject: Re: Canalta Water Park
Vandal, Daniel
11:57 AM (3 hours ago)
to me
Thank you Chris. You obviously are passionate about our city and I appreciate that. I believe the most important consideration is site and building design for this important site. The actual use is not incompatible with the Forks - Museum. Hundreds of young families will flock to this site 12 out of 12 months. With a world class design, it will be a great addition to our City. (If it is approved) DV
Steen, Thomas
11:59 AM (3 hours ago)
to me
Thank-you for your e-mail.
Timothy E. Nyhof
Executive Assistant
Councilor Steen
From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:11 AM
To: MYO-Mayor; Swandel, Justin; Mayes, Brian; Browaty, Jeff; Nordman, Grant; Pagtakhan, Mike; Vandal, Daniel; Eadie, Ross; Gerbasi, Jenny; Orlikow, John; Sharma, Devi (Councillor); Smith, Harvey; Steen, Thomas; Wyatt, Russ
Subject: Re: Canalta Water Park
Chris Allard
12:03 PM (3 hours ago)
to Daniel
My Concern is that a facility being proposed by a Highway motel Chain, with a proposed 50 000 square foot facility is in no way "world class". It is in no way "North America Class", it isn't even "Canada Class". But it will be "Manitoba Class", and from the perception of most, that class is non existent. And according to the many Urban planners this site is not at all congruent with a water park. Without the intention of sounding rude, I would most definitely take the word of many educated professionals without hidden agenda's, over that of a city counselor who's mayor has been spearheading this development for four years for no apparent reason.
Thank you,
Christopher.
Chris Allard
12:04 PM (3 hours ago)
to Thomas
Thomas, I do not accept that as an appropriate response to my concerns. And until you reply with one I will continue to press you with my concerns. Blocking my email will also be to no avail, so please take the time to listen to what I have to say.
Sincerely,
Christopher Allard
Vandal, Daniel
1:45 PM (2 hours ago)
to me
The fact is we really won't know until we see the design...and until then all is speculation. Any company is capable of building quality...it is a function of spending what is needed and proper oversight and direction from those in authority to do so.
I totally agree the desing / look is the important issue. DV
________________________________
From: Chris Allard [chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:03 AM
To: Vandal, Daniel
Subject: Re: Canalta Water Park
My Concern is that a facility being proposed by a Highway motel Chain, with a proposed 50 000 square foot facility is in no way "world class". It is in no way "North America Class", it isn't even "Canada Class". But it will be "Manitoba Class", and from the perception of most, that class is non existent. And according to the many Urban planners this site is not at all congruent with a water park. Without the intention of sounding rude, I would most definitely take the word of many educated professionals without hidden agenda's, over that of a city counselor who's mayor has been spearheading this development for four years for no apparent reason.
Thank you,
Christopher.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Vandal, Daniel <dvandal@winnipeg.ca<mailto
vandal@winnipeg.ca>> wrote:
Thank you Chris. You obviously are passionate about our city and I appreciate that. I believe the most important consideration is site and building design for this important site. The actual use is not incompatible with the Forks - Museum. Hundreds of young families will flock to this site 12 out of 12 months. With a world class design, it will be a great addition to our City. (If it is approved) DV
From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com<mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com>]
Steen, Thomas
2:09 PM (1 hour ago)
to me
I indicated that I received the e-mail. I have printed it and put in his in-basket.
Timothy E. Nyhof
Executive Assistant
Councilor Steen
From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:05 AM
To: Steen, Thomas
Eadie, Ross
2:42 PM (1 hour ago)
to me
Message read.
From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:15 PM
To: MYO-Mayor; Fielding, Scott; Swandel, Justin; Havixbeck, Paula; Mayes, Brian; Browaty, Jeff; Nordman, Grant; Pagtakhan, Mike; Vandal, Daniel; Eadie, Ross; Gerbasi, Jenny; Orlikow, John; Sharma, Devi (Councillor); Smith, Harvey; Steen, Thomas; Wyatt, Russ
Subject: Canalta Water Park
Eadie, Ross
3:35 PM (21 minutes ago)
to me
Well I disagree with you about downtown, I will be voting no for other reasons of more importance.
From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 8:40 AM
To: Eadie, Ross
Subject: Canalta Water Park
Eadie, Ross
3:39 PM (18 minutes ago)
to me
Oh I forgot to mention people are busy, and you cannot expect responses so quickly even though this plan is being foisted on us quickly. It takes some time to figure out what is going on.
From: Chris Allard [mailto:chris.allard54@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:13 AM
To: Eadie, Ross
Subject: Re: Canalta Water Park
Chris Allard
3:47 PM (9 minutes ago)
to Ross
Thank you Ross for getting back to me, I understand you are busy, unfortunately it is as you stated that because of the speed at which this is being pushed through that I have been trying to get in touch with you in such an urgent format. I apologize for pushing my concerns on you so harshly.
Sincerely Christopher.
Prev
Linear Mode
