Quote:
Originally Posted by drew
^ how could we have had both? the footprint of the park means the tower would have needed to fit on a tiny sliver of land along Fort Street. It would never have happened IMO.
Either way, we still have both. Just slightly further away.
Also, the picture of Paris is nice, but what is/was/maybe proposed for Winnipeg with the tower would have looked nothing like that, ever. More like an old gate, a plaque, a couple benches and some giant fat-bottomed pre-cast monolith casting a giant middle finger down on Main street for the next 100 years.
EDIT: actually, with Fort Garry Place, we basically already have that. But at least the park will be larger.
|
Drew, of course you are right. Celebrating the history of the city should be a priority and obviously the site of Upper Fort Garry is of utmost historic significance. But all you're going get from (most of) the crowd on here is dyspeptic and dystopian natter, and all the other dys's you can think of. It's cool on here to be negative and run everything down. Of course the park isn't finished, and but it's so much fun think about imaginary condos in the sky that could have been built there and how the park doesn't look great, even though chances are the critics haven been no where near it. I know it's hard to see the logic of 90 percent of the postings on here.
Threaded Mode