Winnipeg | Canadian Museum for Human Rights

[Ando]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

The whole notion that human rights could somehow be encapsulated in a museum was/is pretty far fetched to begin with!

Buddy, you're getting bogged down with semantics. The whole purpose of the "museum" is really to educate, to get people thinking about human rights and what's going on in the world around them. And maybe inspiring them to do something about it. If you are not the type of person that likes to think about things and learn, then no, you likely won't enjoy the "museum", although the building itself is worth the price of admission. But it doesn't really matter what I say about this from your perspective because you have axe to grind about this and any other positive development that happens in Winnipeg or Manitoba. You want it to fail.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Ando

... the building itself is worth the price of admission.

The fact the value proposition to go is "to see the building" confirms the view that the proposal for educating about human rights should have been for a comprehensive web-site.

That being said, not all are in love with the chaotic building either:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/art-...but-not-one-of-our-best/article20801763/

It is one of the most anticipated works of architecture in Canada’s history. It is not one of the best.

When New Mexico architect Antoine Predock won the job a decade ago, the building was meant to embody the museum’s high aspirations. Instead, it is a monolith of mixed metaphors – a monument to the vagueness that defined the institution at the start.
<>
On our tour, Predock called this “purposeful chaos” – then tried to walk that remark back. But chaos it is.

How did this come to be? A lack of institutional vision.
<>
... in practice the space is inexcusably clumsy: some boulders and a cubicle farm inside a “cloud” that rests on a bulky steel structure. The stone and white-painted steel members evoke the ballpark that Predock designed for the San Diego Padres.

It’s hard to fathom that the museum, including its mere 47,000 square feet of gallery space, cost $351-million.

I think the value proposition of, "pay the admission to see the building", just took a nosedive.

Anyway - happy to see that over 100,000 have visited the building, though way over half of those were people who paid reduced admission, no admission, or were simply attending a function at one of the spaces for rent.

Stepping back and reflecting, my greatest sadness in this project is how the most worthy cause of human rights was pimped to put up a narrowly focused monument. I can understand why Harper chose not to attend the opening, and chose to not visit even when he was in Winnipeg later on.

For those who are of the opinion that shoveling in $200M from public purses means we need to make this succeed even if the core is rotten need to consider that the $200M is small potatoes as compared to the longer-term requirements for operations, in-kind contributions against paying the Institutional taxes, and the undoubted increases in subsidy requirements. This is a $1B plus sinkhole over the next 25 years! And cutting our losses may not mean scrapping it, as has been highlighted. There are better uses and local needs. I'd consider a multifaceted natural history museum including a focus on our first nations and the lands of Canada, as well as other aboriginal peoples throughout the globe. That type of proposal would put this project on the leading edge of Institutions internationally.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Ando

Buddy, you're getting bogged down with semantics. The whole purpose of the "museum" is really to educate, to get people thinking about human rights and what's going on in the world around them. And maybe inspiring them to do something about it. If you are not the type of person that likes to think about things and learn, then no, you likely won't enjoy the "museum", although the building itself is worth the price of admission. But it doesn't really matter what I say about this from your perspective because you have axe to grind about this and any other positive development that happens in Winnipeg or Manitoba. You want it to fail.

Yup, that's exactly what it is because anyone who thinks the CMHR is/was a waste of tax dollars is surely against human rights and most definitely want's everything in Winnipeg and Manitoba to fail, thanks for the insight!

[Ando]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Yup, that's exactly what it is because anyone who thinks the CMHR is/was a waste of tax dollars is surely against human rights and most definitely want's everything in Winnipeg and Manitoba to fail, thanks for the insight!

You've completely misinterpreted my point. Congratulations. I merely pointed out that simply because the museum doesn't fit in to your narrow definition of what a museum is does not reduce its validity or its value as an educational institution. It has nothing to do with whether one is opposed to or against human rights, but it does have something to do with the value of education and providing a focal point for the discussion of important issues. The view you seem to be putting forward is that, if you personally are opposed to something, then it has no value and it shouldn't exist. That isn't the way life works nor should it.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The fact the value proposition to go is "to see the building" confirms the view that the proposal for educating about human rights should have been for a comprehensive web-site.

That being said, not all are in love with the chaotic building either:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/art-...but-not-one-of-our-best/article20801763/



I think the value proposition of, "pay the admission to see the building", just took a nosedive.

Anyway - happy to see that over 100,000 have visited the building, though way over half of those were people who paid reduced admission, no admission, or were simply attending a function at one of the spaces for rent.

Stepping back and reflecting, my greatest sadness in this project is how the most worthy cause of human rights was pimped to put up a narrowly focused monument. I can understand why Harper chose not to attend the opening, and chose to not visit even when he was in Winnipeg later on.

For those who are of the opinion that shoveling in $200M from public purses means we need to make this succeed even if the core is rotten need to consider that the $200M is small potatoes as compared to the longer-term requirements for operations, in-kind contributions against paying the Institutional taxes, and the undoubted increases in subsidy requirements. This is a $1B plus sinkhole over the next 25 years! And cutting our losses may not mean scrapping it, as has been highlighted. There are better uses and local needs. I'd consider a multifaceted natural history museum including a focus on our first nations and the lands of Canada, as well as other aboriginal peoples throughout the globe. That type of proposal would put this project on the leading edge of Institutions internationally.

Wow, your arguments are so basic I suppose they are appealing to someone who has a very narrow view of this issue. First you came on here trumpeting a rather poorly written article by an academic (yes, he works at RMC but that doesn't add to his credibility here) who is obviously the head of an interest group that didn't get the exact space it wanted dedicated to its issue and therefore has proceed to suggest the baby be thrown out with the bathwater, i.e., if we don't get what we want then there shouldn't get a museum at all and we're going to do our damndest to discredit the museum that is there. Then you try to misrepresent my comments by saying that my only argument is that the building is worth visiting. It is but that's not the most important thing. The Holocaust museum in Washington isn't a beautiful building by conventional standards but the content is amazing, and it's not what you think should be in a standard museum. It makes you think, and that's what we should be doing. Quoting from one article in the Globe and Mail to state that the building is not spectacular is hardly what I would call a comprehensive argument that proves that proposition. Look, you obviously have an axe to grind and you think that by coming on here and quoting one professor and one article that all of a sudden we're all going throw up our arms and say "wow, your're right!", well think again. Most people are willing to let the institution evolve and see what happens. It has laudable objectives and I believe it will be a positive addition. The city is very lucky to have it.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by Ando

Most people are willing to let the institution evolve and see what happens.

Yeah, just think, they could add more television sets!

Sorry buddy, "most people" see it for what it really is, an empty turd.

[yellowghost]

I would like to see it converted to a military museum of some sort in the future. Like one that I visited once in chicago. Not only world war stuff..old swords, ancient suits of armor. Real cool. Even had a real german U-boat which can be explored.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Yeah, just think, they could add more television sets!

Sorry buddy, "most people" see it for what it really is, an empty turd.

So you speak for the masses? Because most people I have met that actually have gone are very happy with it. If though you are speaking for the masses here that love to dissect everything to failure ( one only needs to visit a certain 47 story thread here to see what I mean ). Then you are speaking for the masses. But the masses of this forum.

And just remind yourself. This building was getting built no matter what. If it wasn't here. It would have been in another city and probably the capital and your tax dollars would have been enjoyed by our friends over in Ottawa.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

So you speak for the masses? Because most people I have met that actually have gone are very happy with it. If though you are speaking for the masses here that love to dissect everything to failure ( one only needs to visit a certain 47 story thread here to see what I mean ). Then you are speaking for the masses. But the masses of this forum.

And just remind yourself. This building was getting built no matter what. If it wasn't here. It would have been in another city and probably the capital and your tax dollars would have been enjoyed by our friends over in Ottawa.

Some of us dissect things as a means for analysis and spurring on the discussion. I couldn't care less about this building, but all you do is leave throwaway commentary nobody pays any attention to and you have never added value to a thread that I've seen.

Just because analysis is over your head doesn't mean it's not good analysis. Remember that the next time you want to stop in a thread and leave the same boring comment you always do. If you want to cheer-lead something, I'm sure both Ben Myers and the CMHR will have you as a Twitter follower.

[1ajs]

so whens the eatons debate going to happen its such a broken record on here sometimes


....................


source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/vincent-photography/10044794413/in/photostream/

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Ando

Wow, your arguments are so basic I suppose they are appealing to someone who has a very narrow view of this issue.

Are you referring to the comments from the Globe and Mail architecture critic (whom I quoted) or was it a reference to the Prime Minister boycotting the building?

Originally Posted by 1ajs

source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/vincent-photography/10044794413/in/photostream/

Wow - that sure speaks human rights to me. After seeing that image, I completely understand why we need this and why $1,000,000,000.00 from the pockets of Canadians makes sense to produce the heat required to keep this cloud elevated.

[esquire]

^ Good luck with your crusade to make the CMHR disappear.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Good luck with your crusade to make the CMHR disappear.

It is pretty big. The earth would have to part like the red sea. Though the red river does have quite the crest on occasion.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Are you referring to the comments from the Globe and Mail architecture critic (whom I quoted) or was it a reference to the Prime Minister boycotting the building?



Wow - that sure speaks human rights to me. After seeing that image, I completely understand why we need this and why $1,000,000,000.00 from the pockets of Canadians makes sense to produce the heat required to keep this cloud elevated.

actualy that was my friends projector doing that cause she has the gear to do it with interactive software allowing people to dance on it

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

so whens the eatons debate going to happen its such a broken record on here sometimes

good one.

how about if we all just agree that the building should not have been built and it was an incredible waste of hard earned tax-payers money....it is a massive white elephant that will — the rest of the city into its vortex like a black hole.

....we can all agree to that because it means nothing...

its like arguing about the meal that you ate yesterday....at some point you just have to take a — and move on.

[trueviking]

i do hope those who oppose it spend as much energy opposing all the museums in ottawa that they pay the same amount or more for....who doesn't hate the museum of nature...seriously we need a museum for nature?....we are now spending millions on a monument for those harmed by communism....harmed by communism?...what does that even mean?...national museum of immigration?...really?

[CoryB]

The museum is built and there is next to zero chance in reusing the space for anything else so no point continuing to argue if it should have been built. If you want to continue to attack it can we at least move on to the on-going operational costs and where money could be saved? Also continued attacks over what is or is not included would be another area of fair game.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

actualy that was my friends projector doing that cause she has the gear to do it with interactive software allowing people to dance on it

Excellent. That makes great sense. I've seen that in several malls also.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by CoryB

... move on to the on-going operational costs and where money could be saved? Also continued attacks over what is or is not included would be another area of fair game.

I'm looking forward to seeing more data about this. They've requested a subsidy of $22,000,000.00 per year above and beyond all other revenue, and not including a waiver of property taxes they are also counting on. I'm curious what the actuals for operating are - all of the people required to cover the vast spaces, and massive costs for utilities and upkeep. I'm also curious about their attendance numbers IE broken out into how many people actually paid full admission, as opposed to people brought in for tours for free, attending on the various free days, paid the highly reduced rates earlier on, or simply came as it was an events venue.

If the operating costs total $30,000,000 and they get 300,000 attendance, that is $100 per visit. I suspect that if you only count paying visitors, it will be 200,000 for the year, so $150 per visit. Of that $150 per visit, the admission covers what, $20?

The inspiration?

via Star Wars Parody Hub

May the Schwartz be with you.
• Video Link

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by trueviking

i do hope those who oppose it spend as much energy opposing all the museums in ottawa that they pay the same amount or more for....who doesn't hate the museum of nature...seriously we need a museum for nature?....we are now spending millions on a monument for those harmed by communism....harmed by communism?...what does that even mean?...national museum of immigration?...really?

Let me ask you, do these other national museums have an admission charge policy based on race or ethnicity?