Winnipeg | Portage and Main

[bomberjet]

Yes!

BREAKING: Online poll by SSP forumers shows overwhelming support for opening P&M!

[Ando]

Brilliant! Best post ever!

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

You sound like Donald Trump.

This surprises you?

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Yes!

BREAKING: Online poll by SSP forumers shows overwhelming support for opening P&M!

Yeah, what a surprise!

[Bdog]

While I'll personally be voting "Open", as clearly most SSP forumers will be, here are my unsolicited two cents about this whole thing.

Several people I have talked to have been very turned off by what they feel is the over-the-top rhetoric and condescension from *some* in the Team Open camp. Instead of making a strong, cohesive case for opening up the barricades, there's been a lot of finger pointing and name calling of the "No" camp. They're "uninformed", "uneducated", "selfish", "afraid of change". They don't care about the city. They just want to drive their huge SUV to Bridgewater.

Why take this approach of attacking and mocking opponents, in many cases very publicly, instead of taking a more positive approach? A few of my friends work right there, were on the fence, but will now be voting "no" as they are so fed up with that attitude. It's the same attitude that says a church is "selfishly destroying the neighbourhood" because they wanted their parking lot replaced.

I love urbanism as much as most forumers do. But, we might want to be careful about our approach, as not to permanently turn people off to what may be very good steps towards a more urban city.

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by Bdog

While I'll personally be voting "Open", as clearly most SSP forumers will be, here are my unsolicited two cents about this whole thing.

Several people I have talked to have been very turned off by what they feel is the over-the-top rhetoric and condescension from *some* in the Team Open camp. Instead of making a strong, cohesive case for opening up the barricades, there's been a lot of finger pointing and name calling of the "No" camp. They're "uninformed", "uneducated", "selfish", "afraid of change". They don't care about the city. They just want to drive their huge SUV to Bridgewater.

Why take this approach of attacking and mocking opponents, in many cases very publicly, instead of taking a more positive approach? A few of my friends work right there, were on the fence, but will now be voting "no" as they are so fed up with that attitude. It's the same attitude that says a church is "selfishly destroying the neighbourhood" because they wanted their parking lot replaced.

I love urbanism as much as most forumers do. But, we might want to be careful about our approach, as not to permanently turn people off to what may be very good steps towards a more urban city.

Indeed.

This has been an emotional debate, and it has been running high as of late. Team Open will need to be careful indeed. Perhaps keep a cool head and maybe approach the issue in a different way. In what way, I'm not so sure, but somehow, they will need to get through to people.

[Bluenote]

Y’all forget the reason people were not impressed was there was no vision laid out. It was just. Hey we want to open portage and main. What you think. Wtf do you expect people to say then. You need to show what it would look like for people to change their minds.

Will it save and change that part of downtown. NO. That’s where people are also miffed. O direction by city hall as usual. It will take so much more to change that intersection.

I’m almost back on thmy fence with that cool elevated design someone came up with years ago. Make it a landmark.

[esquire]

^ Elevated walkways would make it even worse... take all the things we dislike about the underground concourse, and then combine it with everything we dislike about the skywalk system. Not exactly a recipe for success.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Elevated walkways would make it even worse... take all the things we dislike about the underground concourse, and then combine it with everything we dinslike about the skywalk system. Not exactly a recipe for success.

Then leave it the way it is , plant some flowers and be done with it.

Sorry Esquire just opening it isn’t going to change anything. It will still be the same dead zone it is today. ALOT more needs to be done to make it a so called tourist attraction. And when I say elevated. I don’t mean a sky walk. Some deign was posted way back of a open air circular one. It looked pretty awesome and it would be the so called tourist attraction as it would be almost one of a kind.

No one cares about going to P&M for a tourist destination. I’m for opening it. But $13 million and let’s double that as I’m sure it will cost 2 to 3 times as much as it’s Winnipeg to have some office workers cross the street is stupid. It you are going to open it. There HAS to be more to it.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Bdog

While I'll personally be voting "Open", as clearly most SSP forumers will be, here are my unsolicited two cents about this whole thing.

Several people I have talked to have been very turned off by what they feel is the over-the-top rhetoric and condescension from *some* in the Team Open camp. Instead of making a strong, cohesive case for opening up the barricades, there's been a lot of finger pointing and name calling of the "No" camp. They're "uninformed", "uneducated", "selfish", "afraid of change". They don't care about the city. They just want to drive their huge SUV to Bridgewater.

Why take this approach of attacking and mocking opponents, in many cases very publicly, instead of taking a more positive approach? A few of my friends work right there, were on the fence, but will now be voting "no" as they are so fed up with that attitude. It's the same attitude that says a church is "selfishly destroying the neighbourhood" because they wanted their parking lot replaced.

I love urbanism as much as most forumers do. But, we might want to be careful about our approach, as not to permanently turn people off to what may be very good steps towards a more urban city.

Sorry but the NO side has been doing just the same. Jeff Browaty lies about it just about every day. The no side calls the Yes side elites who want to live in some utopian fantasy land and are "uneducated" about the devastation, despair, and gridlock that will happen when it opens.

My biggest surprise of all this so far has been the silence of all the building owners and that personally wrote letters requesting the intersection be open.

One question I have: if the building owners choose not to re-sign the contract, letting it expire – could that not mean the barriers have to come down?

[Ando]

Originally Posted by Bdog

While I'll personally be voting "Open", as clearly most SSP forumers will be, here are my unsolicited two cents about this whole thing.

Several people I have talked to have been very turned off by what they feel is the over-the-top rhetoric and condescension from *some* in the Team Open camp. Instead of making a strong, cohesive case for opening up the barricades, there's been a lot of finger pointing and name calling of the "No" camp. They're "uninformed", "uneducated", "selfish", "afraid of change". They don't care about the city. They just want to drive their huge SUV to Bridgewater.

Why take this approach of attacking and mocking opponents, in many cases very publicly, instead of taking a more positive approach? A few of my friends work right there, were on the fence, but will now be voting "no" as they are so fed up with that attitude. It's the same attitude that says a church is "selfishly destroying the neighbourhood" because they wanted their parking lot replaced.

I love urbanism as much as most forumers do. But, we might want to be careful about our approach, as not to permanently turn people off to what may be very good steps towards a more urban city.

at this risk of sounding elitist, if someone who was going to vote "yes" decides to vote "no" just because they didn't like some of the rhetoric of the "yes" side, then that's just braindead as far as logic goes.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Sorry but the NO side has been doing just the same. Jeff Browaty lies about it just about every day. The no side calls the Yes side elites who want to live in some utopian fantasy land and are "uneducated" about the devastation, despair, and gridlock that will happen when it opens.

Yep. In contrast to this brand of lazy populist fearmongering, the Vote Open campaign has been nothing but positive and educational as far as its engagement with the public has been.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Bdog

While I'll personally be voting "Open", as clearly most SSP forumers will be, here are my unsolicited two cents about this whole thing.

Several people I have talked to have been very turned off by what they feel is the over-the-top rhetoric and condescension from *some* in the Team Open camp. Instead of making a strong, cohesive case for opening up the barricades, there's been a lot of finger pointing and name calling of the "No" camp. They're "uninformed", "uneducated", "selfish", "afraid of change". They don't care about the city. They just want to drive their huge SUV to Bridgewater.

Why take this approach of attacking and mocking opponents, in many cases very publicly, instead of taking a more positive approach? A few of my friends work right there, were on the fence, but will now be voting "no" as they are so fed up with that attitude. It's the same attitude that says a church is "selfishly destroying the neighbourhood" because they wanted their parking lot replaced.

I love urbanism as much as most forumers do. But, we might want to be careful about our approach, as not to permanently turn people off to what may be very good steps towards a more urban city.

yeah, I've heard this a couple times...I have never seen it to be honest. I think people don't like to have their preconceptions to be challenged and maybe see that as an attack. I'm not sure how you debate without rebutting. I haven't seen anyone formally attack anyone. Maybe on the internet.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by trueviking

yeah, I've heard this a couple times...I have never seen it to be honest. I think people don't like to have their preconceptions to be challenged and maybe see that as an attack. I'm not sure how you debate without rebutting. I haven't seen anyone formally attack anyone. Maybe on the internet.

Nailed it.

[oftheMoon]

Some of the strong "No" people you see on social media seem to want to vote that way just to piss off the "yes" people. To put those urbanists in their place to so speak. They seem to have no other supported reason to vote no other than that. It feels very confrontational. Cars good, pedestrians bad sort of thing.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by Bdog

While I'll personally be voting "Open", as clearly most SSP forumers will be, here are my unsolicited two cents about this whole thing.

Several people I have talked to have been very turned off by what they feel is the over-the-top rhetoric and condescension from *some* in the Team Open camp. Instead of making a strong, cohesive case for opening up the barricades, there's been a lot of finger pointing and name calling of the "No" camp. They're "uninformed", "uneducated", "selfish", "afraid of change". They don't care about the city. They just want to drive their huge SUV to Bridgewater.

Why take this approach of attacking and mocking opponents, in many cases very publicly, instead of taking a more positive approach? A few of my friends work right there, were on the fence, but will now be voting "no" as they are so fed up with that attitude. It's the same attitude that says a church is "selfishly destroying the neighbourhood" because they wanted their parking lot replaced.

I love urbanism as much as most forumers do. But, we might want to be careful about our approach, as not to permanently turn people off to what may be very good steps towards a more urban city.

I don't really get this. From what I've seen the "Open" side has tried to make their case about accessibility, walkability and such and has been met with nothing but cynicism and mockery from the "closed" side. TeamOpen has tried hard to make a positive case, but the Closed folks won't listen and all of their arguments are simply not supported by facts. They're clinging to these totally unfounded claims about traffic chaos, mass pedestrian deaths, etc, and also have taken to using P&M as a scapegoat for every single budgetary challenge the city has, ignoring the enormous police budget and half-billion dollar road projects. There's no other way to describe that except uninformed - they don't seem to know squat about what is in the city budget. And more importantly, they don't seem to care to learn. They just want something to rally against. The No guys have been incredible negative and simply refuse to listen to the facts, and frankly most of their beliefs (ie the pedestrian slaughter that will somehow ensue) are downright hysteria. I'm all for respectful debate but how do you respond to that?

TeamClosed seems like it's full of denial and cynicism for no particular reason. That's not name-calling, just calling it like I see it. We've seen this before. Remember how many people insisted MTS Centre and the Forks would be huge failures/white elephants. I don't know why but the typical Winnipegger resists change and almost seems to take a sick satisfaction in seeing projects fail. Not trying to insult anyone but that's how it is.

Originally Posted by trueviking

yeah, I've heard this a couple times...I have never seen it to be honest. I think people don't like to have their preconceptions to be challenged and maybe see that as an attack. I'm not sure how you debate without rebutting. I haven't seen anyone formally attack anyone. Maybe on the internet.

Bingo.

[headhorse]

yeah a bunch of coddled rich people who have never been told they're wrong in their life aren't really worthy of much sympathy.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by headhorse

yeah a bunch of coddled rich people who have never been told they're wrong in their life aren't really worthy of much sympathy.

This is the exact attitude I'm referring to. It's more pervasive in this debate than many care to admit.

There's a lot of talk about "facts" and the No side being "ignorant" and "uninformed". I find it somewhat ironic that the exact same people who denounced the Dillon rapid transit route alignment study as "wrong", "politically motivated", "full of inaccurate information", now take the Portage and Main report by the same firm and engineers as gospel. Maybe the "put BRT down Pembina" camp should stick to the "facts" in the alignment study, and show their support for the dog leg?

[trueviking]

it is a very frustrating experience to debate with one side using facts and one side using preconceptions and gut feel.

traffic will snarl.
here is a 95 page study saying it wont.
i dont believe it.

it will be unsafe
here's a study that says it will be no different than any other intersection
i dont believe it.

it will cost tens of millions of dollars
here's a study that outlines the cost in detail
I dont believe it.

Its not like the no side has any factual grounds for their opinions, so how do you debate it without giving the documented facts.

Now we are being criticized for being too factual.
I'm not sure how else to respond to that.

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by Bdog

This is the exact attitude I'm referring to. It's more pervasive in this debate than many care to admit.

There's a lot of talk about "facts" and the No side being "ignorant" and "uninformed". I find it somewhat ironic that the exact same people who denounced the Dillon rapid transit route alignment study as "wrong", "politically motivated", "full of inaccurate information", now take the Portage and Main report by the same firm and engineers as gospel. Maybe the "put BRT down Pembina" camp should stick to the "facts" in the alignment study, and show their support for the dog leg?

I don't care about the report, I think the intersection should be open to pedestrians regardless of the traffic outcomes... we're adaptable and we need to transition to a city with much higher rates of public and active transit usage.

this isn't ideological, it's the basis of years of study on climatology and urban planning.

also, my opposition to their report/SW BRT is based on my opposition to servicing imaginary TOD's and suburbs over increasing service in the inner city and adding more frequent transit to places that already have the density for it.