Winnipeg | Upper Fort Garry Provincial Park | 130 Main St. - Page 18

Biff · #**341** Posted **Feb 27, 2007, 3:04 PM**

I happen to know that some departments have infact already vacated the building - Bridge Engineering, and more are to follow.

I agree 100% with Vike that at least, they should remove the building and find an alternate use for the land as it serves as an entrance to downtown.

j.online · #**342** Posted **Mar 1, 2007, 3:43 AM**

hey c_vist, tv, biff, (or anyone who works directly with city staff), can any of you explain to me where you think this short-sighted stupidity from the city keeps coming from?

newflyer · #**343** Posted **Mar 1, 2007, 3:54 AM**

This seems rather common.. where government departments fight to keep there parking next to there offices.

The Post Office has pushed to keep the lot across the street empty... as has the provincial buracrats pushed to keep the lot across from the convention centre from seeing any WCC expansion. It a sad reality.. where government workers have struggled against progress.

I suppose private enterprise workers want to keep there parking as well, but they don't have the pull that upper governmnet buracrats have, especially when it envolves a lot owned by the government.

You'd be suprised what a "nudge nudge" .. "wink wink" can do in the halls of political influence.

I am sure there is some political games being played behind the scene at 100 Main. Which makes me fear this whole thing could die before seeing the light of day.

... along this line of thought .. the biggest concern when Hydro annouced there new downtown office building ... you guessed it .. lack of parking. Although Bob Brennan and the upper management will have nice heated spots waiting for them underground each morning.

The rest are suppose to take transit ... its the green sollution for people without pull.

1ajs · #**344** Posted **Mar 1, 2007, 4:02 AM**

heritage winnipeg came out first asking the city and the city put the call out to see what other intrest was out there for the land to be fair...

newflyer · #**345** Posted **Mar 1, 2007, 4:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ajs

heritage winnipeg came out first asking the city and the city put the call out to see what other intrest was out there for the land to be fair...

The city should move all the workers off the site .. and then get serious about this developement. I don't want the government to fund the constuction .. but facilitate the developement.. as Centre Venture has done on Waterfront.

Biff · #**346** Posted **Mar 1, 2007, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newflyer

I am sure there is some political games being played behind the scene at 100 Main. Which makes me fear this whole thing could die before seeing the light of day.

I don't understand why everyone seems to think there is some conspiracy theory going on with this proposed project. It is a potential multi-million dollar Request for Proposal that takes time to review to come to a decision. It is not just the mayor looking at 3 or 4 pretty pictures and saying "I like this one". On top of the complexities in choosing the best proposal for the city involving this project, the City is currently reviewing other, more valuable RFP's than this one. (Packers Site, St Boniface lands along the river by Whittier Park).

It all takes time boys...relax. The City doesn't intentionally try to screw a few development buffs on a internet forum who are able to fill countless pages with arguments and rumours. Honestly, 99.1% of the City probably doesn't even know this is happening or care what happens.

wags_in_the_peg · #**347** Posted **Mar 1, 2007, 6:24 PM**

Yeah I've been waiting for the results of the "St Boniface lands along the river by Whittier Park" aka Pointe Hebert or North St. Boniface for years now. I love that area and would love to get my hands on a lot and buld a nice home. i received the following email from City a few weeks back. I've been hearing about something happening in the area for 4 or so years..

Dear Mr. ***,

Thank you for your inquiry in regards to the Pointe Hebert Expression of Interest (EOI). At present we are nearing the end of our EOI review process. We anticipate that this process will conclude shortly, and we will be making a recommendation to the Standing Committee on Property & Development in April or May of this year.

David Marsh
Enhanced Land Marketing Program Administrator Real Estate Division

newflyer · #**348** Posted **Mar 1, 2007, 11:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

I don't understand why everyone seems to think there is some conspiracy theory going on with this proposed project. It is a potential multi-million dollar Request for Proposal that takes time to review to come to a decision. It is not just the mayor looking at 3 or 4 pretty pictures and saying "I like this one". On top of the complexities in choosing the best proposal for the city involving this project, the City is currently reviewing other, more valuable RFP's than this one. (Packers Site, St Boniface lands along the river by Whittier Park).

It all takes time boys...relax. The City doesn't intentionally try to screw a few development buffs on a internet forum who are able to fill countless pages with arguments and rumours. Honestly, 99.1% of the City probably doesn't even know this is happening or care what happens.

I truely hope you are right about this. I am a little sensitive since hearing the province buracrats were resistant to the expansion of the convention centre. I'd hate to think that any projects are met with resistance because it may make us of a surface parking lot.

j.online · #**349** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 6:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

I don't understand why everyone seems to think there is some conspiracy theory going on with this proposed project. It is a potential multi-million dollar Request for Proposal that takes time to review to come to a decision. It is not just the mayor looking at 3 or 4 pretty pictures and saying "I like this one". On top of the complexities in choosing the best proposal for the city involving this project, the City is currently reviewing other, more valuable RFP's than this one. (Packers Site, St Boniface lands along the river by Whittier Park).

It all takes time boys...relax. The City doesn't intentionally try to screw a few development buffs on a internet forum who are able to fill countless pages with arguments and rumours. Honestly, 99.1% of the City probably doesn't even know this is happening or care what happens.

Hey biff, don't take my question above the wrong way. I completely appreciate complexity & time needed for the city evaluate the best use of the site. But I do find it annoying when I hear decisions come down to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by c_vist

so basically, the City does not care about a tower or park ... it just might boil down to what happens to the existing building that seals a deal for development.

Short sighted decisions like this make me question where the city's seeming inability to plan long term is coming from? (especially when they keep happening again, and again, and again....)

c vist · #**350** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 3:46 PM**

Looks like the Friends of Upper Fort Garry are turning out to be a pretty powerful and influential group (ie. Park only Proposal).

The politics of dancing continues ...

Archiseek · #**351** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 3:59 PM**

The thing is that any tower that was proposed for there can be plonked down anywhere else in the downtown. I'd rather the building pulled down, the gas station removed and the block turned into a park.

Throw up any proposed down on any of the legion of empty sites on Graham or York or Main closer to P&M

flatlander · #**352** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 4:40 PM**

Archiseek is that you providing refuge for that flying drunkard from Ireland?

Archiseek · #**353** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 4:51 PM**

it was me

drew · #**354** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 4:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archiseek

The thing is that any tower that was proposed for there can be plonked down anywhere else in the downtown. I'd rather the building pulled down, the gas station removed and the block turned into a park.

Throw up any proposed down on any of the legion of empty sites on Graham or York or Main closer to P&M

I agree completely. It is a hugely historic site and should be dedicated as such.

Why Winnipeg continues to knock over existing buildings to build new ones, when there are an embarrasing amount of surface lots around downtown is beyond me...

c vist · #**355** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 6:04 PM**

Drew & Archiseek,
I think you are both forgetting that the two building proposals are outside the grounds of the historic Fort on what is currently high valued surface parking. Thanks to Bergen and an insistance that 100 Main St. remain, parking will be necessary on that site; so why not make it an aspect of a new development. I agree that park space is and should be a component of the site, but should not be the extent of the development.

viperred88 · #**356** Posted **Mar 9, 2007, 4:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archiseek

The thing is that any tower that was proposed for there can be plonked down anywhere else in the downtown. I'd rather the building pulled down, the gas station removed and the block turned into a park.

Throw up any proposed down on any of the legion of empty sites on Graham or York or Main closer to P&M

Yep I agree, unless they have an interpretive/upper fort garry historical centre there with a park of course.

trueviking · #**357** Posted **Mar 9, 2007, 6:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by c vist

Looks like the Friends of Upper Fort Garry are turning out to be a pretty powerful and influential group (ie. Park only Proposal).

The politics of dancing continues ...

uh oh...care to elaborate....is that horse in the lead?

i have heard it includes hartley richarson, the head of forks north portage, gary hilderman of HTFC landscape architects....i wonder who else.

trueviking · #**358** Posted **Mar 9, 2007, 6:20 AM**

i have no use for that entire block to be turned into a park....it would just become another open wasteland

if it is that important to celebrate the fort, then the petro canada should be the first priority....the second should be the removal of 100 main.....that is where the park should be....anything on the south west part of the site is fair game....

a sensitive combination of development and open space is the best solution to ensure the viability of the site as a whole....a good urban park has both....not just open space for the sake of open space.

there is no reason for the park to be as large as an entire city block when the only remnant left is 10 feet square and at the other end of the site.

Only The Lonely.. · #**359** Posted **Mar 9, 2007, 2:38 PM**

I doubt a lot of people would travel from the suburbs to stare at the ass end of Ft. Garry place.

My guess is it would be a fairly underutilized park, especially since it would sit across the street from a larger more interesting park.

c vist · #**360** Posted **Mar 9, 2007, 2:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

I doubt a lot of people would travel from the suburbs to stare at the ass end of Ft. Garry place.

My guess is it would be a fairly underutilized park, especially since it would sit across the street from a larger more interesting park.

I get the sense from both tower developers that blocking the Bergen building is important to them. Probably the main reason they won't build just anywhere. Their logic is strange and twisted ...