Proposed Winnipeg Water Park

[chrisallard5454]

Here is the thread guys. I am not sure how to post all relevant conversations to this thread so we can continue the discussion here, however I will try. If someone would like to do so before I am finished that will work too.

[chrisallard5454]

I will just start with the letter's sent to city council

Originally Posted by Mininari

Done.

Good Afternoon Sir,

I am writing in response to the plans recently made public to build a $75M water park facility on a large piece of property in the immediate vicinity of the Forks National Heritage Site.

As a former urban planning student at Simon Fraser University, I am appalled at this proposal. A large, car-oriented public recreation facility, whether it be public or privately run, does not fit the urban fabric of the area in question. This area has shown a great deal of promise in recent years as a pedestrian-oriented destination with the coming Canadian Museum for Human Rights, expansions at the Children's Museum, and mixed-use developments north along Waterfront Drive, and in St. Boniface. A waterpark is a facility for families to drive into, disappear within the walls, then come out and go home.

Granted, the facility would represent development of a prime piece of property that is presently underutilized, and another hotel in the area would certainly could be beneficial to the area. However, I firmly believe that a better use of this parcel of land would be for a large mixed-use development including ground-level retail with 4 - 5 levels of condos above, and perhaps public space and walkways. Tie this development in to possible future conversion of Union Station to a transit hub, which could feature a future LRT station. Concerns about the rail mainline nearby could easily be mitigated with modern construction techniques, architectural features, etc.

I emplore you to please voice your opposition to this project in its present form. As a father of a 9-month old infant, I do agree that this city needs a significant new water-oriented recreation facility. However, I would recommend that the city look for a hotelier partner that would be willing to build this project as part of the Seasons of Tuxedo development, which is intended to include several regional destination retailers (such as IKEA, Cabelas). This project fits the nature of that development much better, and leaves the prominent lands available at the forks for redevelopment that makes more sense for the area.

Thank you for hearing my concerns,

Originally Posted by trueviking

anytime you see this disclaimer you know its done.

outstanding letter mininari....perfectly said.

i sent this to them yesterday...



Please do not allow the construction of a waterpark on the City land at the Forks Site. That property holds great opportunity to be a catalyst for change in the downtown. With the construction of the CMHR it has become the most important piece of land in the city and should not be handed over to a private developer without careful consideration of its effect on the Forks and surrounding neighbourhoods.

That land has the opportunity to at long last, bridge the gap between the Forks and the rest of downtown. It can bring the urban nature of the city to the Forks and vibrancy of the Forks to the downtown. A waterpark is not this type of catalyst.

The opportunity is too great to not translate that public asset into something that transforms our urban centre. A waterpark can be placed anywhere. Urban areas are not appropriate for drive-in, drive-out destinations requiring high volumes of parking for their success.

The Human Rights Museum's ultimate success will be measured by our ability to translate its impact into a catalyst for farther-reaching development, as they did in Bilbao.

Development must be compatible with the public focus of the area, while maximizing the full potential of its location. Enhancing the current amenities at The Forks and affecting a lasting, positive change in the downtown are goals that can be achieved with an appropriate and cohesive plan for the entire property along the rail line.

Please do not be short sighted and allow this development to occur. The land must be coordinated with that of the Forks mixed use, ‘Rail side’ development to maximize the benefits to our city. It is part of a greater ecosystem. It is not an isolated property. Please do what is right for the future of Winnipeg.

Thank You.

[chrisallard5454]

I just received a very beautiful and thought out reply from Scott Fielding. I really appreciate the time he put into getting back to me. What a nice man.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I just received a very beautiful and thought out reply from Scott Fielding. I really appreciate the time he put into getting back to me. What a nice man.

Care to post it?

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by h0twired

Care to post it?

Don't need to, I have it memorized,

"Thank you for your thoughts and concerns..."

The ... were his. To me this reads, shut up lowly citizen, its happening despite the merits against it.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I just received a very beautiful and thought out reply from Scott Fielding. I really appreciate the time he put into getting back to me. What a nice man.

Sarcasm?

[Authentic_City]

I received the following thoughtful (automated?!?) reply from Sam Katz's office:


On behalf of Mayor Sam Katz, I would like to thank you for your email.

Please be assured that your comments are valued and will be brought to the Mayor's attention.

Again, thank you for your email.

Yours sincerely,

Tania Costantini Liba
Office of the Mayor
The City of Winnipeg

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

I received the following thoughtful (automated?!?) reply from Sam Katz's office:


On behalf of Mayor Sam Katz, I would like to thank you for your email.

Please be assured that your comments are valued and will be brought to the Mayor's attention.

Again, thank you for your email.

Yours sincerely,

Tania Costantini Liba
Office of the Mayor
The City of Winnipeg

I recieve the exact same one every time I send an email to him. He probably doesn't even get them.

[chrisallard5454]

Jenny Gerbasi was the first councelor to actually get back to me. Here is what she said, followed by my reply.

Thanks for writing ! I appreciate hearing your thoughts...I have a lot of concerns about this proposal as well.



Most sincerely,

Jenny

This is my reply

Jenny,

Thank you for taking the time to get back to me. I don't want to reiterate what I have already said, but I would like one thing to be clear regarding Mr. Katz, or Sam, which ever you prefer. His statement claiming that the vast majority of the populace is behind this Water Park is nothing short of conjecture if not completely false. I feel I am beating a dead horse by sending my letter in as this proposal will probably go through, and considering that so far Mr. Katz and Mr. Fieldings have both ignored my pleas.

I don't know what kind of ability you have to prevent this from going through, but since you are the first councelor to actually take the time to read what it is I have to say, I would like to thank you and inform you that you have my backing as a citizen on questioning this. It may not mean much to you, but I know many people who are not at all happy with what Katz is doing to ensure this will go through.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I just received a very beautiful and thought out reply from Scott Fielding. I really appreciate the time he put into getting back to me. What a nice man.

Well look at that...

bkives: #wpgcouncil Fielding said he likes Canalta proposal but "I'm in love with my constituents" and will support Vandal motion.

[Mininari]

and now they've voted to defer the final vote for 70 days.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Mininari

and now they've voted to defer the final vote for 70 days.

Until summer when they hope everyone will forget about this bad proposal.

PS Wyatt is a tool.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Until summer when they hope everyone will forget about this bad proposal.

PS Wyatt is a tool.

I hope CanAlta just leaves the table because they don't want to spend the money on the preliminary design and renderings of their hotel.

[chrisallard5454]

I attended the meeting in person, and it is very obvious which councillors have a head on their shoulders. I really like Jenny Gerbasi's arguments along with Orlikow, who brought some new and interesting arguments to the table. Brian Mayes seemed very bright, and had some jokes. Mike Paktaghan and Nordrman had very good points as well. Harvey Smith almost swore he was so disgusted that this was even being considered. Russ Wyatt's speech made no sense, and Scott Fielding constantly contradicted himself as he always has saying he is glad we are getting a world class facility, only to follow later saying he wished it was bigger. Good points from two delicates and a third I could not at all understand.

[chrisallard5454]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...147121145.html

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.

[Biff]

I just saw this thread so i will put my comment here as well:

I look at it like this $75 million comprises Phase 1 & 2 of hotel, water park and parkade.

Phase 1 - 125 room hotel - $15-$20 million
- Water park - $15 - $20 million

Phase 2 - 125 room hotel expansion - $10 -$15 (most amenities would be in first phase)
- 400+ stall parkade - $15 - $20 million

Money gets pretty thin with all of those components. I am not expecting anything Forks worthy here but we should all reserve judgement until we get the first render.

....just a note, on the CanadInn website for Grand Forks it lists the water park there as 40,000 sq ft. So essentially what we are going to get here is a glorified hotel water park. This will be nothing like a destination water park like WEM. Another example is the Water Park of America in Minneapolis that we really liked, is 70,000 sq ft. This is a great hotel water park but again not a destination water park. I feel that 50,000 sq ft is too small but then again i am not footing the bill. I think i would feel differently if it weren't being touted as Winnipeg's water park instead of just a new hotel with a great water park.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Biff

I just saw this thread so i will put my comment here as well:

I look at it like this $75 million comprises Phase 1 & 2 of hotel, water park and parkade.

Phase 1 - 125 room hotel - $15-$20 million
- Water park - $15 - $20 million

Phase 2 - 125 room hotel expansion - $10 -$15 (most amenities would be in first phase)
- 400+ stall parkade - $15 - $20 million
.

can anyone name a 'phase 2' of anything that actually happened in winnipeg?....i cant.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by trueviking

can anyone name a 'phase 2' of anything that actually happened in winnipeg?....i cant.

Milner Ridge - Phase 2. Does that count?

[techfreak]

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.

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by techfreak

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.