ok so now that the city has made 38 44 albert st a lvl 3 historic witch is a good move in trying to preserve the street feel and such now and the fact its a national historic site and all.. do we wana get ahold of the developer or do we wana sit down and come up with a card layout and site blah blah charter ect?
Fuck, even Thunder Bay wouldn't save a piece of shit like that! And God knows we have tonnes of them, too. It isn't even architecturally significant! Am I missing something???
Fuck, even Thunder Bay wouldn't save a piece of shit like that! And God knows we have tonnes of them, too. It isn't even architecturally significant! Am I missing something???
all it needs is new windows a sandblasting and then a paint job. removal of the stuco on the back and new windows
all it needs is one more tenit and it will be full btw
City council's decision on the fate of 38-44 Albert St is something we as a group can be
encouraged about: the decision to save the properties (for now) appears to have been made
based not as much on the building's architectural or historical merit as it was based on
the integrity of the street-scape, and preserving Albert Street's pedestrian-oriented
(built up) nature. It shows that council is open to developments in the Exchange, but is
not afraid to put their foot down (in this case, anyway) to ensure that the district's
quality isn't diluted by more surface parking lots. It would seem that this position
falls in line with the general position of our fledging organization, and it would
indicate that a voice coming from our perspective may be listened to at City Hall (in
some cases, anyway).
OK guys, I suggest that any of us who are interested meet again in the next 10 days or so.
If you know people who weren't there the first time but who'd be an asset to our group (i.e. architects, those with connections, experience, etc.), invite them out.
I vote that we have just a couple things on our agenda rgalston suggests we come up with a charter that reflects our objectives, and he's offered to be our chair. And the website is another issue (j.online may have a connection for design of a webpage).
Hey, since I can't make this meeting for obvious reasons I would like to add a few notes:
-Last time we were discussing what does it mean to make things 'pedestrian-friendly'. The definition can be quite vague, but I think really we get pedestrian-friendly development if we have the right mindset. In Vancouver, they make sure every project is planned with these parties in mind in order of priority:
1)Pedestrians
2)Cyclists
3)Transit
4)Goods Movement
5)Private automobiles
If we thoughtfully apply this to any planning situation we will naturally end up with pedestrian-friendly development.
-Also, has anyone heard of Enrique Penalosa. He was the former mayor of Bogota Colombia and amongst his accomplishments was building a BRT system which carries over a million passengers and bike network of over 200 km. He says that building cities we want to live in begins with one decision:
"Do we build a city for cars or for people?"
Now the answer is obvious to any of us, but let's think from the perspective of someone who doesn't know any better. I mean aren't people being carried and driving cars? We all know the pragmatic reasons against the private automobile whether that be pollution and efficiency, but I believe there are fundamental ethical reasons for putting pedestrians before cars.
If you plan a city for only private automobiles, you are planning only for those who can drive cars and those who can afford cars. A just society I believe is one where there is equal opportunity for all citizens; if you build everything for cars then you are significantly reducing the opportunity for people who are poor, young or old to live happy lives. We are all pedestrians, but we are not all drivers - so really building a city around pedestrians is about creating equal opportunity for all people to succeed.
Hey, since I can't make this meeting for obvious reasons I would like to add a few notes:
-Last time we were discussing what does it mean to make things 'pedestrian-friendly'. The definition can be quite vague, but I think really we get pedestrian-friendly development if we have the right mindset. In Vancouver, they make sure every project is planned with these parties in mind in order of priority:
1)Pedestrians
2)Cyclists
3)Transit
4)Goods Movement
5)Private automobiles
If we thoughtfully apply this to any planning situation we will naturally end up with pedestrian-friendly development.
-Also, has anyone heard of Enrique Penalosa. He was the former mayor of Bogota Colombia and amongst his accomplishments was building a BRT system which carries over a million passengers and bike network of over 200 km. He says that building cities we want to live in begins with one decision:
"Do we build a city for cars or for people?"
Now the answer is obvious to any of us, but let's think from the perspective of someone who doesn't know any better. I mean aren't people being carried and driving cars? We all know the pragmatic reasons against the private automobile whether that be pollution and efficiency, but I believe there are fundamental ethical reasons for putting pedestrians before cars.
If you plan a city for only private automobiles, you are planning only for those who can drive cars and those who can afford cars. A just society I believe is one where there is equal opportunity for all citizens; if you build everything for cars then you are significantly reducing the opportunity for people who are poor, young or old to live happy lives. We are all pedestrians, but we are not all drivers - so really building a city around pedestrians is about creating equal opportunity for all people to succeed.
lee in the end you nailed it!
i said wensday due to the fact i am leaving the country next weekend inless theres a blizard of some sort south of us.
The little house that is part of the building is the oldest structure (1877) in Winnipeg's downtown core (other than the Fort Garry Gate, I guess). When you hold out against all odds for 130 years, you deserve a bit of respect, even if you're ugly.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Prev
And God knows we have tonnes of them, too. It isn't even architecturally significant! Am I missing something???
Linear Mode
