Originally Posted by Bdog
Well, it was a disappointing result tonight on the Portage and Main file. If there’s any silver lining, let’s hope that the discussion has brought to the forefront words like “vision” and “pedestrian” and will help keep them in the municipal political vernacular. Also, kudos to guys like True Viking who put everything they had into this campaign.
That being said, here’s my unsolicited (and sure to be unpopular) 10 reasons I feel like Team Open’s approach was off-base.
1. Condescension towards opponents: This is probably the biggest one, and I heard it again and again from friends and colleagues. It’s unfortunate to see fence-sitters or “indifferents” vote “no” because they couldn’t stand the arrogance, condescension, and sometimes outright mockery from *some* in the open campaign. Those who want it closed are “selfish suburbanites”, “uninformed”, “drive big trucks out to East St. Paul”. Scrolling back a few pages and we see that those voting no are implied to be “idiots”, “a**holes”, “coddled rich people”, or “objectively wrong”.
2. Traffic Study “Facts”: Team Open was adamant that everything in the traffic study was fact, and that we should follow what the engineering study says (even though I doubt many read the full study, and if they did, understand it in its entirety). Fair enough. Odd though that there seems to be a high correlation of those who take the “Dillon study” as gospel in this case, but denounced the BRT “Dillon study” as biased and without merit. If an engineering study came out tomorrow showing that the Oakbank Corridor was in fact needed, I wonder if this forum would defend it as fact.
3. Accessibility: A lot was made of accessibility in this campaign. Great, as this is a major issue and should be top of mind. There was concern amongst *some* in the wider accessibility community that the Open Campaign hi-jacked the conversation about accessibility to one project (which is not one of the top priorities for many who have mobility challenges). One block away, there are bike lanes making it impossible for Handi-Transit drop offs, and heritage buildings that can’t be accessed by those in wheelchairs. As an accessibility advocate myself, I look forward to the deluge of support for our cause from all those who call a closed Portage and Main a “Human Rights Disaster”.
4. Cherry picking stats: Transit delays and increased operating costs were ignored or downplayed, even if they were legitimate concerns. When describing traffic delays, the highest numbers (like the 5-minute delay) are dismissed as “only one movement has that delay”. That’s true! But then don’t use Ismaila Alfa’s 15-minute trek in a wheelchair as the example of delays for those with mobility challenges – it’s also the extreme case.
5. Cognitive Dissonance: When developers at Portage and Main want the intersection open, it’s “Listen to the business owners! They want it, they know best!”. When developers anywhere else in the City want something it’s “Greedy developers, only in it for themselves. Don’t listen to them!”
6. Business support: I kept hearing over and over that businesses are 100% behind this, including the 4 property owners, the Chamber of Commerce, the BIZ. Great! I also kept hearing that Portage and Main would be of a huge financial benefit to these businesses in proximity. Also great! But, if they stood to gain so much from opening the intersection, why not support the campaign more forcefully? Why not support the much-hyped Go Fund Me campaign (that got less than 15% of its goal)? If an intersection that’s been closed for 40 years is preventing me from developing the prime lot that I bought 5 years ago, I’m sure as hell going to be doing a lot more than signing a conditional letter of support and making a 1-minute Youtube video. But that’s just me.
7. Not the be all end all of downtown, or Winnipeg, for that matter: Many good things have happened, and will continue to happen, in our downtown regardless of whether Portage and Main is open or closed. But many on team Open seemed to indicate that Downtown is on a downward spiral because the intersection is closed. Comments like “Canada is watching – they’re waiting to see the direction Winnipeg is going” permeated the Team Open feeds. Seemingly, somewhere in Toronto there’s a firm is waiting to invest millions in our City, but watching from afar, if we vote no, they’re out! How many posts do we need to see of some farmer’s market in Amsterdam with a caption “this is what happens when we have walkable cities”. Sure, well then maybe we’ll see a farmer’s market at Main and Broadway soon?
8. Exaggerated claims: In person and online, there have been some bold claims that border on hyperbole. Opening Portage and Main will “be a huge boost to tourism”, “create a large influx of tax revenues for the city”, “spur on a bunch of new development”.
9. Crime: The same people who for years have been telling us how safe downtown is, and that people shouldn’t be worried walking around downtown (“it’s just perception from those paranoid suburbanites, downtown is actually very safe!”) are now talking about how dangerous the underground is! This to me was a shocker, reading about how many Team Open volunteers had been assaulted or had felt threatened in Winnipeg Square or in the Circus. If this level of crime is concentrated down below, then we have much more serious issues than opening the intersection is going to solve.
10. All of the “urbanist capital” was spent on this one issue: This is a big one for me. Unfortunately, in large part to Team Open, this issue took centre stage in the election. All the urbanist capital was spent, rightly or wrongly, on this highly contentious issue. There was minimal discussion about major (and arguably more important) urban issues like Transit, bike lanes, infill development, affordable housing, etc. I get it – those issues weren’t on the ballot. But still, they definitely could have been part of the dialogue. A lost opportunity in my humble opinion.
|
Prev
Linear Mode
