De-Amalgamation of Winnipeg

[wardlow]

Random thoughts:

- If you want a thread to fade away, the last thing you want to do is throw in an unfounded accusation of "racism" (and then keep doubling down on it).

- Unicity came about because the provincial NDP wanted to do something big and new in municipal governance, which Unicity was. Unicity was intended to solve the 'problem' of a very uneven property tax field in the metro area, and fix the logjam that existed between biggest city and it's stubborn Mayor Juba and the Metro Corporation of Greater Winnipeg. For the provincial NDP, Unicity had the added bonus of sticking it to their Tory and pro-business political enemies in the Metro Corp and on a number of municipal councils.

- Metro Winnipeg's pre-Unicity system might have not been working very well at the time, but I don't think a two-tiered municipal governments (a city government and a metro region government) necessarily work poorly as a rule.

- Many in the suburban municipalities worried that Unicity would override their distinct character and things like Resident Advisory Groups (RAGs) were put in place as part of Unicity. This ostensibly lives on in Winnipeg's current community committee system, which basically just enables local councillors to approve or deny development in their ward.

- Almost 50 years later, the distinct differences between municipalities still live on. Ask a person in Transcona if they think of themselves as a Winnipegger or a Transconian. Same goes for St. Vital, St. Boniface, Tuxedo, Charleswood, St. James...

- The pre-Unicity City of Winnipeg boundaries includes some of the most desirable residential areas in the current city, as well as the most economically productive area of land in the province: downtown. If de-amalgamation happened along the old boundaries, the City of Winnipeg would be just fine, fiscally speaking.

[Curmudgeon]

It's the city and inner suburbs that are subsidizing newer developments not the other way around. Providing services, infrastructure and utilities to low density suburbs is much more expensive. More km of roadways per person, metres of water and sewage per person, heavily subsidized transit by way of longer and underutilized routes and a one zone system (transit breaks even or makes money in the inner city and adjacent older suburbs). The property and gas taxes collected per household may be higher in some outer suburban areas but they do not come close to covering the additional expenses.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by wardlow

....

- Metro Winnipeg's pre-Unicity system might have not been working very well at the time, but I don't think a two-tiered municipal governments (a city government and a metro region government) necessarily work poorly as a rule.

......

- The pre-Unicity City of Winnipeg boundaries includes some of the most desirable residential areas in the current city, as well as the most economically productive area of land in the province: downtown. If de-amalgamation happened along the old boundaries, the City of Winnipeg would be just fine, fiscally speaking.

At the time of Unicity the City of Winnipeg had about 45% of the metropolitan area's population compared with about 28% now. Winnipeg has the most pronounced doughnut effect of any Canadian city.

In addition to downtown it also includes the most valuable retail node, the Polo Park area. I doubt Unicity would be undone by implementing the old boundaries and re-creating twelve different municipalities. The inner ring suburbs would stay within the city as their infrastructure and service needs are fairly similar.

[wardlow]

^ Right you are in both posts, Curmudgeon.

I doubt Unicity would be undone by implementing the old boundaries and re-creating twelve different municipalities. The inner ring suburbs would stay within the city as their infrastructure and service needs are fairly similar.

It's interesting to think about and discuss as a "what if," but you're right that it's not realistic.

I think a more pressing discussion is eventually going to be what happens in the next 20-30 years, as Winnipeg begins to run out of new greenfield land and surrounding municipalities continue to grow and develop right alongside City boundaries.

[Gm0ney]

Originally Posted by wardlow

^ Right you are in both posts, Curmudgeon.



It's interesting to think about and discuss as a "what if," but you're right that it's not realistic.

I think a more pressing discussion is eventually going to be what happens in the next 20-30 years, as Winnipeg begins to run out of new greenfield land and surrounding municipalities continue to grow and develop right alongside City boundaries.

Won't the city just swallow up some RMs, or pieces of RMs?

Have you seen how big Ottawa is? Winnipeg is currently 464.1 square km.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by balletomane

I got bored and calculated the population of inner city neighbourhoods (former city of Winnipeg) from 1941 to present (the 1941 census was when census tracts were first used).


River Heights
bounded on the north by the Assiniboine River, on the east by the Red River, on the south by Parker/Hurst/Wilkes and on the west by Edgeland/Morpeth.

There are twelve different census tracts comprising the entirety of what are known as Fort Rouge and River Heights. Not sure why you called the entire area River Heights, when referred to together those areas were usually called the South End.

[esquire]

^ Halifax is similarly massive. Annexation would make sense for Winnipeg, it's hard to come up with a cohesive plan when you have a dozen or more outlying municipalities that are a de facto part of Winnipeg, all doing their own thing.

[balletomane]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

There are twelve different census tracts comprising the entirety of what are known as Fort Rouge and River Heights. Not sure why you called the entire area River Heights, when referred to together those areas were usually called the South End.

I guess because on the city website community profiles section that entire area is lumped together as River Heights.

https://winnipeg.ca/census/2011/Community%20Area/

I wonder if before amalgamation that area would've been widely referred to as the South End (just as the North End was and is still called the North End).

[CoryB]

If you want to have a serious discussion on the pros and cons of amalgamation v separation the Phoenix metro area is a good case study as it has at least six large urban areas that border each other and form a single "city". They all have distinct police, fire, water, roads, etc. systems. There is a single shared transit system that runs between them though and they all have their own governing bodies. Its partly why the Coyotes setup in Phoenix, then moved to Glendale and are now shopping a third relocation and are likely to land in Tempe. Also the state zone transportation department has a significant role on the major roads (ie freeways) in the area.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Halifax is similarly massive. Annexation would make sense for Winnipeg, it's hard to come up with a cohesive plan when you have a dozen or more outlying municipalities that are a de facto part of Winnipeg, all doing their own thing.

Annexation would make sense but we're in a thread talking of the opposite? What makes Halifax and Ottawa superior to Vancouver which is a bunch of municipalities? In the states you can find even more examples where the city proper is surrounded by many municipalities. Boston, Atlanta, Minneapolis etc all have populations less than that of Winnipeg.


The island of Montreal was once amalgamated by the provincial government, the next government gave the municipalities a referendum and many of them ceded from the city. You have a case where there are municipalities on the island that are wholly surrounded by the city of Montreal.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by balletomane

I guess because on the city website community profiles section that entire area is lumped together as River Heights.

https://winnipeg.ca/census/2011/Community%20Area/

I wonder if before amalgamation that area would've been widely referred to as the South End (just as the North End was and is still called the North End).

When they were referred together as the portion of the city south of the Assiniboine, yes they were called the South End. But most of the time they were treated as completely separate and distinct areas .

Funny thing though is I don't think there ever was or is a generally accepted boundary between the two areas. Some people considered it to be Stafford while others thought it was Cambridge, certainly north of Grosvenor Crescentwood extends to Cambridge and that's where the lot lines change direction (what street is the Parish line between St. Boniface and St. Charles?, I can't see it being Cambridge as the entire South End except the lots between Kenaston and Edgeland was annexed into Winnipeg in 1882). I grew up thinking it was Harrow for some reason and I think most people think of Grant Park as in River Heights. Fascinating that a shanty town, Rooster Town, once existed in the Grant Park area. Its destruction and the forced relocation of its residents is a shameful part of Winnipeg's history.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Annexation would make sense but we're in a thread talking of the opposite? What makes Halifax and Ottawa superior to Vancouver which is a bunch of municipalities? In the states you can find even more examples where the city proper is surrounded by many municipalities. Boston, Atlanta, Minneapolis etc all have populations less than that of Winnipeg.


The island of Montreal was once amalgamated by the provincial government, the next government gave the municipalities a referendum and many of them ceded from the city. You have a case where there are municipalities on the island that are wholly surrounded by the city of Montreal.

Notwithstanding the occasional Headingley-type scenario, in my view annexation is more desirable and realistic than de-amalgamation.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by CoryB

If you want to have a serious discussion on the pros and cons of amalgamation v separation the Phoenix metro area is a good case study as it has at least six large urban areas that border each other and form a single "city". They all have distinct police, fire, water, roads, etc. systems. There is a single shared transit system that runs between them though and they all have their own governing bodies. Its partly why the Coyotes setup in Phoenix, then moved to Glendale and are now shopping a third relocation and are likely to land in Tempe. Also the state zone transportation department has a significant role on the major roads (ie freeways) in the area.

The Phoenix metropolitan area is not a good case study as is is too dissimilar to Winnipeg. Phoenix itself is a huge city with suburban density and which has tripled in size in the last 50 years, meaning much of the inner city itself is quite recently developed. Every case spins on its facts.

Most metropolitan areas coordinate transit between the different municipalities, examples are Translink for Greater Vancouver, Metro Transit for the Twin Cities or DART for Dallas-Fort Worth (the Metroplex). Winnipeg did too from 1953 when transit became publicly owned and operated until Unicity.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

When they were referred together as the portion of the city south of the Assiniboine, yes they were called the South End. But most of the time they were treated as completely separate and distinct areas .

Funny thing though is I don't think there ever was or is a generally accepted boundary between the two areas. Some people considered it to be Stafford while others thought it was Cambridge, certainly north of Grosvenor Crescentwood extends to Cambridge and that's where the lot lines change direction (what street is the Parish line between St. Boniface and St. Charles?, I can't see it being Cambridge as the entire South End except the lots between Kenaston and Edgeland was annexed into Winnipeg in 1882). I grew up thinking it was Harrow for some reason and I think most people think of Grant Park as in River Heights. Fascinating that a shanty town, Rooster Town, once existed in the Grant Park area. Its destruction and the forced relocation of its residents is a shameful part of Winnipeg's history.

The boundary between parishes of St. Charles and St. Boniface is Kenaston, or at least somewhere between Doncaster and Lockwood Streets.

The subdivision promoted as River Heights was smaller than what is now called River Heights, but eventually the name came to mean all of the area, and names like Cordova Heights, Centennial Park, and Braeside are lost to history (but still can be found on old maps).

I don't know of anyone who's considered anything east of Cambridge St. River Heights, though I've heard some people (eg, real estate agents) call the area around Warsaw and Stafford "Crescentwood." Clearly a bit of a stretch there. Smaller areas with commonly-understood names aside (Osborne Village, Crescentwood, Riverview), I think of everything between Cambridge and the Red as Fort Rouge. Throw in River Heights and you've got the South End.

[bomberjet]

This is how the City currently defines neighbourhoods. Which matches exactly to the Google Maps labeled neighbourhoods in the background.
https://data.winnipeg.ca/City-Planni...hood/fen6-iygi

This link is one step up from the interactive maps.
https://winnipeg.ca/census/2011/

[esquire]

^ I'm clear as to where Riverview and Tuxedo are. It's the parts in between that I find confusing. Is Fort Rouge just west of Pembina or does it stretch east as well? Where does River Heights end and Crescentwood begin? What is the area south of Grant Avenue along Stafford?

[bomberjet]

Fort Rouge seems to be a larger compilation of neighbourhoods. Much like East Kildonan is a compilation of neighbourhoods.

Also, River Heights is bounded by Cambridge in the east and the tracks to the west. Academy on the north and the tracks again on the south.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

This is how the City currently defines neighbourhoods. Which matches exactly to the Google Maps labeled neighbourhoods in the background.
https://data.winnipeg.ca/City-Planni...hood/fen6-iygi

This link is one step up from the interactive maps.
https://winnipeg.ca/census/2011/

Those are made up names that no one uses. I have never heard anyone say they live in Minto or Sir John Franklin. Similar to the French Revolutionary calendar which had ten days to a week named primidi, duodi, tridi, quartidi, etc. It never caught on and was soon abolished.

[bomberjet]

That's the name the City goes with. All names are made-up haha. But I get your point.

Also, there are many, many calendars to go by. We are just stuck to the 28 day cycles of the moon in our 7 day week Gregorian calendar.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Fort Rouge seems to be a larger compilation of neighbourhoods. Much like East Kildonan is a compilation of neighbourhoods.

Also, River Heights is bounded by Cambridge in the east and the tracks to the west. Academy on the north and the tracks again on the south.

Right, just like Crestview, Woodhaven, Silver Heights, Deer Lodge, etc. are neighbourhoods within St. James-Assiniboia.

The boundaries are the Assiniboine River to the north, technically Edgeland to the west, although many people might mistakenly put the boundary at Kenaston and consider Tuxedo to start west of there, certainly not the tracks as Renfrew, Lanark, Beaverbrook, Centennial, Lockwood and Carpathia which are west of the tracks are definitely considered River Heights. Parker, Waverley and Wilkes are the southern boundary.

Note that the lot lines south of the Assiniboine in what was St. Boniface West follow the pattern of the St. Vital (but not St. Boniface East!) but only as far as Cambridge, which perfectly aligns to McPhillips if you go straight north on a map and represents the two mile limit. On the north bank the St. James lots extended as far as Colony Creek. So it seems obvious now that Fort Rouge is the old east-west lots oriented to the Red River while in River Heights the lots are north-south and oriented to the Assiniboine. As the land was rather marshy and wooded it was poorly settled before urban development commenced in the 1890s. Now this has got me questioning where the ferries were located before the Maryland Bridge opened in 1894 and the CNR Oak Point Bridge opened in 1908.