Winnipeg | Exchange District | Developments & Discussions

[esquire]

Originally Posted by michelleb

Pentecostals/evangelicals are not nearly the nice people you think they are. Mega churches are a huge red flag to be avoided. It's not surprising they would think nothing of bulldozing the neighbourhood in their zeal to expand.

For what it's worth, Calvary Temple is a longstanding institution... I would not lump them in the same category as "big box" mega-churches like that huge one out on Lagimodiere.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by esquire

For what it's worth, Calvary Temple is a longstanding institution... I would not lump them in the same category as "big box" mega-churches like that huge one out on Lagimodiere.

Legacy makes no difference. They are Springs, just less sucessful.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Legacy makes no difference. They are Springs, just less sucessful.

There is a demonstrable difference, Calvary Temple is part of a larger body... Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. As far as I know, Springs is completely on its own and not accountable to anyone outside of the organization.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I wouldn't let them off the hook that easily. They might do good work in their community but at the same time they have a responsibility to be good neighbours and not ones that contribute to the decline of the area. Because all that surface parking does not make for a better neighbourhood.

They could have, and should have worked to find ways to deal with their parking situation without demolishing buildings to add to their already large amount of parking available for Sunday services.

Yikes. Before calling out their "responsibility to be good neighbours", look into what this church does for the immediate community and beyond for our most vulnerable. That aside, they didn't come up with this proposal. Hydro did. Hydro initiated this whole thing, after the backlash they got (rightly) from their McDermot heritage building substation proposal a few years earlier. So instead, they arranged a deal to demolish some non-heritage, post-war, mostly vacant buildings at the time, in order to secure power to downtown for the future. Much needed.

Yet somehow, the church is the villain in this. Even though they ended up with, or close to, the same amount of stalls they had in the first place.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by michelleb

Pentecostals/evangelicals are not nearly the nice people you think they are. Mega churches are a huge red flag to be avoided. It's not surprising they would think nothing of bulldozing the neighbourhood in their zeal to expand.

So stereotyping large groups of people is now okay if they are religious?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Yikes. Before calling out their "responsibility to be good neighbours", look into what this church does for the immediate community and beyond for our most vulnerable. That aside, they didn't come up with this proposal. Hydro did. Hydro initiated this whole thing, after the backlash they got (rightly) from their McDermot heritage building substation proposal a few years earlier. So instead, they arranged a deal to demolish some non-heritage, post-war, mostly vacant buildings at the time, in order to secure power to downtown for the future. Much needed.

Yet somehow, the church is the villain in this. Even though they ended up with, or close to, the same amount of stalls they had in the first place.

Who said Hydro was coming off any better in all of this? The whole exercise, starting with the initial proposal to gut those warehouses on McDermot, was oddly tone deaf for a company that did all the right things with its headquarters just a few years before that. What they ended up with on Adelaide was marginally better but it still took out a good chunk of a functional block. But Hydro wouldn't have done what it did if the church hadn't insisted on maintaining its supply of parking.

I appreciate that the church has provided spiritual nourishment for people in the area plus whatever other acts of charity, etc. But you can't get around the fact that their obsession with parking has had a very negative effect on the surrounding area.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by esquire

I appreciate that the church has provided spiritual nourishment for people in the area plus whatever other acts of charity, etc. But you can't get around the fact that their obsession with parking has had a very negative effect on the surrounding area.

Obsession with parking? They kept the same amount of stalls they had previously - only now it's on the other side of the street.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Obsession with parking? They kept the same amount of stalls they had previously - only now it's on the other side of the street.

Yes, but they insisted on not losing a spot. How much of a difference could those few dozen spots really make on a Sunday morning when there's hardly anyone else around in the area?

[Biff]

God said "thy must be able to park nearest the front door".

Thy must be done....amen.

[esquire]

^ Yeah, really. "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, unless if there's no convenient parking in which case just go shopping at Canadian Tire instead"

[Jeff]

these last two posts have thrust me from obscurity to LOL very loudly!!!

[Jeff]

hydro should have bought that lot on Hargrave that's empty for that "African cultural centre" and made that the church's parking lot instead! shame to see that lot just sitting there barricaded off languishing away.

[buzzg]

Hydro "came up with" this plan because the church demanded they have surface parking immediately across the street. Hydro would have much preferred to just buy the lot and move on, but church insisted Hydro take care of it. If the church really cared about the community, they could have just demanded Hydro to not tear down that building, and just put a single parking level on top of the already existing lot.

Originally Posted by Jeff

hydro should have bought that lot on Hargrave that's empty for that "African cultural centre" and made that the church's parking lot instead! shame to see that lot just sitting there barricaded off languishing away.

And walk a block – are you mad?!?

[bomberjet]

Not to generalize or stereotype. But elderly people of the era generally do not care about urbanism. They want to get where they're going easily, quickly and with minimal walking. Church people will pander to the elderly as that's mostly who goes to church (please don't hate me for generalizing religion to elderly people).

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Not to generalize or stereotype. But elderly people of the era generally do not care about urbanism. They want to get where they're going easily, quickly and with minimal walking. Church people will pander to the elderly as that's mostly who goes to church (please don't hate me for generalizing religion to elderly people).

I don't think it's about the elderly so much as it is a generational issue. My family has been connected to a church in the North End, and I can tell you that in the 80s it was obsessed with buying up neighbouring houses to expand the parking lot. This was seen as a top priority, there had to be a big big parking lot, even though the church had existed since the 1960s with only a small one. But it was the 80s, and everyone in that era had come to expect big parking lots everywhere they went and church was no different. They bought and demolished a few houses but never came close to the goal of a massive parking lot.

The mentality still persists, but it doesn't seem to be the major priority that it once was. For whatever reason people seem at least a little more OK with the idea of walking a short distance than they were 25 years ago. The church even added a dropoff lane in recent years to allow people to easily drop off those with mobility issues near the entrance, and then go park the car. In the 80s, that wouldn't have happened... it would have been "buy houses and demolish them for more parking!"

[bomberjet]

I guess that's what I mean. It's the same elderly people now who back then had parking as top priority.

[Wolf13]

I know people from both Calvary Temple, Vineyard (who is goign through their own heritage battle now) and... *duh duh duhhhhhh* Springs. Surprisingly, all really nice. Religion is a touchy subject, I know, and people aren't perfect. We can take the foot off the gas a little

The American war between the liberals and their mega-churches is not easily transplanted in Canada. My experience with churchgoers across Canada hasn't been foul with larger organizations. It's perhaps easy to assume, but I'm not sure there's a Canadian Jerry Falwell chuckling like Mr Burns in all these buildings

Originally Posted by esquire

^ The point is that it's not one or the other. They can still do their good work while not actively helping to ruin their surroundings. Making the neighbourhood worse actually undermines the work they are attempting to do for the people living in that area.

I kinda agree. I'm saying that they're perhaps merely ignorant to their effect on urbanism.

I'm also suggesting we worship urbanism on this site, yet cannot possibly claim that our adoration for urbanism is the same as their adoration for their chosen deity.

Originally Posted by michelleb

____________ are not nearly the nice people you think they are. ___________ are a huge red flag to be avoided. It's not surprising they would think nothing of bulldozing the neighbourhood in their zeal to ________.

Fill in the blanks, I dare you . Maybe pick a race for the first one if you're bold, or maybe a different religion. Or income class, or sexual orientation.

Originally Posted by Bdog

Yikes. Before calling out their "responsibility to be good neighbours", look into what this church does for the immediate community and beyond for our most vulnerable. That aside, they didn't come up with this proposal. Hydro did. Hydro initiated this whole thing, after the backlash they got (rightly) from their McDermot heritage building substation proposal a few years earlier. So instead, they arranged a deal to demolish some non-heritage, post-war, mostly vacant buildings at the time, in order to secure power to downtown for the future. Much needed.

Yet somehow, the church is the villain in this. Even though they ended up with, or close to, the same amount of stalls they had in the first place.

+1

Originally Posted by buzzg

And walk a block – are you mad?!?

I knew you wanted P+M to stay blocked

[bomberjet]

Of course they're nice people Wolf. Most people are nice.

[michelleb]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Fill in the blanks, I dare you . Maybe pick a race for the first one if you're bold, or maybe a different religion. Or income class, or sexual orientation.

Having been raised fundamentalist, I'm fine with calling them out. The big displays of wealth and membership, evidenced through buildings and parking lots, are a common feature.

[Bdog]

If Hydro had just bought the buildings, demolished them, and built their substation on the site, the church would not have even been involved. In that case, would people be calling on them to give up their parking lot across the street (next to desolate Towne Theatre)? Would people be calling them bad neighbours for keeping their existing lot? No. So why should they lose parking because Hydro choose the other side of the street?

The fact that we're calling the demolition of mostly vacant, decrepit low rise 1950s buildings a travesty and the act a "bad neighbours" is hard for me to comprehend. Bad neighbours to who? Towne Theatre? The substation? The parking lot behind it? Is this really our brand of urbanism on this forum? Vacant existing buildings up to the street at all costs, no matter the viability, no matter the context, no matter the heritage status, no matter what? If that's our argument as urbanists, it's no wonder we're going to have a hard time getting the general public on board.

Anyway, for those still in mourning over this travesty, below is a memento of the devastating loss. Just to the west of that photo, existing parking lot. Across the street, existing parking lot and concrete Towne wall. I guess that's what we call "destroying the neighbourhood" now.



This one hurts almost as much as when we lost the McIntyre Block.