HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2018, 7:51 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 25,235
^ I get what you're saying, but at the same time, Churchill is a tiny town of under 1,000 people and we're one of Canada's major cities... yet it somehow feels like our tourism strategy now consists of shamelessly riding Churchill's coattails. Whatever works, I suppose...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2018, 8:02 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is online now
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 6,304
^ it's funny though - for international tourists - that is what they come to Manitoba to see. If you think about it, everything else Manitoba has to offer is likely offered as good or better somewhere else, and likely in a more convenient area of the map.

We have Churchill, and winter. Churchill is pretty unique, and winter is also unique, in the sense that you can set your watch to the fact that snow and cold will happen here, for a consistent three months. There aren't too many other of a decent population that can claim this "feat".

Time to start going heavy on the winter tourism. I think Edmonton has started marketing itself like this, but we can beat their winter any day of the week.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2018, 10:23 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 8,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew View Post
^ it's funny though - for international tourists - that is what they come to Manitoba to see. If you think about it, everything else Manitoba has to offer is likely offered as good or better somewhere else, and likely in a more convenient area of the map.

We have Churchill, and winter. Churchill is pretty unique, and winter is also unique, in the sense that you can set your watch to the fact that snow and cold will happen here, for a consistent three months. There aren't too many other of a decent population that can claim this "feat".

Time to start going heavy on the winter tourism. I think Edmonton has started marketing itself like this, but we can beat their winter any day of the week.
Fly-in fishing and Churchill overwhelm Winnipeg as elite travel destinations.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2018, 12:30 PM
Hecate's Avatar
Hecate Hecate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
Fly-in fishing and Churchill overwhelm Winnipeg as elite travel destinations.
You are 100% right. I see more American vehicles driving around in Selkirk than I do in Winnipeg. All going north for fishing. Lots of the smaller tour companies fly out of St. Andrews airport.
Churchill would be the number one draw for overseas tourists. It’s too bad our province continues to neglect building a road to Churchill. the tourist benefits alone would justify it, more people would go to Churchill if they could afford to go there, but it’s cheaper to fly to Europe. not to mention that having a road would allow Churchill to become a distribution centre for the rest of the north lowering the cost of goods for everyone up there and providing more jobs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2018, 7:18 PM
Ando Ando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
^ I get what you're saying, but at the same time, Churchill is a tiny town of under 1,000 people and we're one of Canada's major cities... yet it somehow feels like our tourism strategy now consists of shamelessly riding Churchill's coattails. Whatever works, I suppose...
I don’t really get the argument. The Inuit centre has little to do directly with Churchill. Inuit art and the collection are from all over the north. They have the largest collection in the world and need somewhere to put it on exhibit. Sure, Journey to Churchill is directly connected but it gives tourists n opportunity to see polar bears in Winnipeg - most of those people will never get up to Churchill. Other attractions like Diversity Gardens or the Forks or CMHR have nothing to do with Churchill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2018, 12:01 AM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 25,235
^ Yeah, fair enough, it isn't every attraction that's taking that path. But it does seem as though we're claiming Inuit art and polar bears as "our own" when Inuit and polar bears are 1,000+ km away from here. It seems a little contrived.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2018, 3:18 PM
DowntownBooster DowntownBooster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
^ Yeah, fair enough, it isn't every attraction that's taking that path. But it does seem as though we're claiming Inuit art and polar bears as "our own" when Inuit and polar bears are 1,000+ km away from here. It seems a little contrived.
At least it makes more sense to have Inuit art here in Winnipeg than in Toronto.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2018, 3:48 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,210
Yeah, I don't think a $65m art gallery in Inuvik would've been a good investment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2018, 7:40 PM
blueandgoldguy blueandgoldguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hecate View Post
You are 100% right. I see more American vehicles driving around in Selkirk than I do in Winnipeg. All going north for fishing. Lots of the smaller tour companies fly out of St. Andrews airport.
Churchill would be the number one draw for overseas tourists. It’s too bad our province continues to neglect building a road to Churchill. the tourist benefits alone would justify it, more people would go to Churchill if they could afford to go there, but it’s cheaper to fly to Europe. not to mention that having a road would allow Churchill to become a distribution centre for the rest of the north lowering the cost of goods for everyone up there and providing more jobs.
What would the cost of a 2-lane highway (with some passing lanes) from Sundance (I think this is where the road ends?) to Churchill cost? That's about 250 km in a straight line which we know the road will not be with all the bogs and lakes. Then there is the challenges of the tundra one would have to deal with.

Conservatively, would we be talking about $1 - $2 billion to build this road? I'm not sure the return - more efficient transportation of goods and services and increased tourism due to accessibility - would be worth the cost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2018, 8:32 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 25,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DowntownBooster View Post
At least it makes more sense to have Inuit art here in Winnipeg than in Toronto.
I'm not convinced that it necessarily would be... it could have just as easily been the AGO that stocked up on Inuit art. We're practically as far removed from the Arctic as Toronto is. But I suppose it's a good thing that the WAG has something like this to hang its hat on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2018, 8:35 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 25,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy View Post
What would the cost of a 2-lane highway (with some passing lanes) from Sundance (I think this is where the road ends?) to Churchill cost? That's about 250 km in a straight line which we know the road will not be with all the bogs and lakes. Then there is the challenges of the tundra one would have to deal with.

Conservatively, would we be talking about $1 - $2 billion to build this road? I'm not sure the return - more efficient transportation of goods and services and increased tourism due to accessibility - would be worth the cost.
It would probably make more economic sense for the province to buy a combi 737 and run it back and forth between Winnipeg-Thompson-Churchill ferrying freight and medical passengers at subsidized rates, and international tourists at full price. You'd achieve largely the same ends but without the inevitable billion dollar plus up front pricetag of building a highway to serve a town of 1,000.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 1:46 AM
dennis dennis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,174
Could Churchill perhaps for the time being be serviced by a winter road, or would the permafrost still make it costly to maintain?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 3:07 AM
borkborkbork borkborkbork is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennis View Post
Could Churchill perhaps for the time being be serviced by a winter road, or would the permafrost still make it costly to maintain?
wonder what happened to that guy who was trying to build an airship but his hanger burnt down
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 11:52 AM
Hecate's Avatar
Hecate Hecate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 234
The province and needs to get off its ass and do something to help the people of that town regardless. a road is a good place to start. We have let the rail line go to shit and we have pretty much almost killed the port. Churchill could be so much more, and as mining operations and explorations open up in northern manitoba and Nunavut, Churchill has the potential to become an important northern city. Goods brought to Churchill can be flown and shipped out to other northern communities in Nunavut. arctic cruises on the Hudson’s bay taking people to different northern coastal towns would provide jobs for hundreds of people all over. It would increase tourism like crazy and those people would all come through Winnipeg. Lots of people want to go see Churchill but not at $2000 a day per person. The road to Churchill would benefit this entire province not just 1000 people living in Churchill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 1:45 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,596
I have an idea....fix the rail line. It works fine, heavy freight, passengers...all boxes ticked. The repair figures estimated to be in the $40 to $100 million range. Much better than the $1-2 billion for a road that would likely require heavy constant maintenance.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 1:53 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,534
That's quite the estimate to fix the rail line.. The rail line is in bad shape even when it's open.

I'm of the opinion the Port of Churchill is of national significance. The world is moving in to the arctic and Canada needs to be there front and centre. Port of Churchill provides a key link in that. Second is tourism.

A road will be built at some point. They could parallel it with a rail line fairly easy. Or vice versa. Expensive yes, but with the Feds it can be done.

What will probably happen is nothing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 2:02 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 25,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
I'm of the opinion the Port of Churchill is of national significance. The world is moving in to the arctic and Canada needs to be there front and centre. Port of Churchill provides a key link in that. Second is tourism.
Yeah, the tourism angle is overrated... I'm not sure that you want to ramp up the number of tourists to an ecologically sensitive area by a factor of 10 or 100 anyway. However, the arctic sovereignty angle is much more compelling... Churchill could play an important part in helping to secure Canada's foothold in the arctic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 2:15 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,534
Tourism would be a spin off benefit. If you can drive somewhere, more people are likely to go, including me.

I tried going to Churchill when I was working in Gillam 10 years ago (holy crap, 10 years..), and due to the unreliability of the train it didn't work out. We waited for the train one morning and it was a no show. The next weekend it came early and we missed it lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 2:21 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 25,235
^ Little known fun fact (and forgive me if I've mentioned this before), you can get to Churchill for next to nothing on Aeroplan or Air Miles. It's an 'in province' destination which means you can get there for a very small number of miles plus whatever taxes and fees, assuming that you're starting out from Winnipeg. You can literally get enough miles by signing up for a free credit card. Of course it's pricy once you get there, but then most people aren't going there for two weeks, it's basically a 3 day trip.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 2:25 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Yeah, the tourism angle is overrated... I'm not sure that you want to ramp up the number of tourists to an ecologically sensitive area by a factor of 10 or 100 anyway. However, the arctic sovereignty angle is much more compelling... Churchill could play an important part in helping to secure Canada's foothold in the arctic.
This is exactly what I was going to say. It will be important for us to have a military base and presence up there, but I do not think trying to increase tourism and shipping through the arctic waters is something we should be doing at all.

We need to make sure the people living there can survive, and some tourism is fine, but making it the Bermuda of the north would be catastrophic for the area. Some of the most famous tourist spots in the world are curbin or outright banning tourism due to the havoc it wreaks on nature. Even Thailand is taking action.
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 1:15 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.