Hopefully my grapes don't sound too sour... but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog
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”.
|
I don't buy this one. The "no" crowd was able to conjure up considerable fear and anger as well. Perhaps that's like saying "well they hit me too", but I didn't see that much condescension from our end. Obviously we're condescending in here, because we know it's our own echo chamber.
I say this as an East St. Pauler who knows these people... the resistance to facts was painful
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog
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.
|
Well that's politics... Vote Open convince people by saying "I think the Dillon study might be right but I could be wrong". Perhaps personal conversations could be more ambiguous, but even then the info at hand was strong enough, I'd say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog
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”.
|
That's simply a different issue.
And it's politics, so yes, hijacking happens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog
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.
|
Again, politics. If Vote Open were to suggest that it's pretty much 5 mins every time then this would have been a 75/25 situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog
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!”
|
Because the original barriers were to direct traffic to the businesses, and business suckered the city into covering so much of the costs. The businesses made it clear that their interests as well as pedestrian interests were aligned, contrary to the past.
That said, the "developers are greedy" narrative outside of downtown should cool down a little...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog
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.
|
Businesses, especially big ones, especially real estate, know better than to get drawn into politically divisive debate. Get in, say your piece, quietly exit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog
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?
|
If Edmonton and Portage were blocked, I hear ya... it would be bad, but it's not the only intersection. This is our most famous one, with our highest earners and commercial renters. It's the area with the most potential. Never cap that.
The country is genuinely wondering why we have such a simple problem at our biggest intersection. It makes people write us off, never mind slow the progress we already have in motion.
We don't know where we'd be in 5 years, but with barriers, we know where we can't go. Let's atleast move the can't from the equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog
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”.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog
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.
|
This is a big point. I don't feel unsafe in the concourse. Whatever, I'm a guy I guess. I'm here on weekends, and it's overblown.
It highlights that the underground needs improvement from the city (all the landlords have been busy down there), but was putting them on the spot for it. They're the ally... don't embarrass them... let the voters do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog
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.
|
Good point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinus
And hopefully people like rrskylar and riverman will have dropped off the face of the Earth and never heard from again.
|
Dude, not helping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
It was a council decision, but a more effective leader would have never lost control of the issue in the first place. Bowman folded his hand so as to deprive Motkaluk of what would have been a big issue for her.
To Bowman, inaction on Portage and Main for the next decade is a price he was happy to pay to smooth his way to re-election.
|
Completely agreed. Have a spine, grow some balls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB
No secret here. 201 Portage Ave (formerly the TD Bank building) was built after Portage and Main closed to pedestrians. It has a large, privately funded public court yard as part of the property. Further, since the courtyard first opened it was expanded with the demolition of a building (yes that should get the forum posters here all worked up). It has been hugely successful even with Portage and Main closed. Because of that courtyard the building on the northeast corner fronts mostly to the west. Changing the barriers isn't going to have any meaningful impact to what that property owner is already doing on that corner. That the others haven't done similar with their own property speaks volumes, granted the Bank of Montreal, as a heritage building, cannot change too much.
|
It IS funny that the courtyard faces the intersection open to pedestrians... in another world, it would 10000% face P+M
And it absolutely would make atleast a small difference. Increased foot traffic in all directions at P+M will ensure that.
The other landlords have had zero incentive to do anything because there is zero access at grade!
Prev
Linear Mode
