Winnipeg | Portage and Main

[optimusREIM]

I don't believe those 95 percent of people should have had a say anyways.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by drew

^ posts in a thread without activity for 4 days complaining that people are still arguing...

lol!

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by vjose32

Seriously you guys are still trying to argue this should be opened? Give it a rest already, the people have spoken.

As what said before, 95% of people live in the suburbs, unlike say New York, where there are probably more people downtown than our entire population. It’s like comparing grapefruits to grapes.

That's the issue. Opponents to the opening have yet put a good case forward. The openers have a strong case. Politically speaking, we have every reason to be upset since this should never have been up to the suburbs.

I'm a professional, and work downtown, so while I don't live there by golly would I respect the wishes of residents combined with smart planning principles. The people voted for stupidity, and stupidity is frustrating.

Hence the endless venting in this thread.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

That's the issue. Opponents to the opening have yet put a good case forward. The openers have a strong case. Politically speaking, we have every reason to be upset since this should never have been up to the suburbs.

I'm a professional, and work downtown, so while I don't live there by golly would I respect the wishes of residents combined with smart planning principles. The people voted for stupidity, and stupidity is frustrating.

Hence the endless venting in this thread.

It's perfectly reasonable to believe that opening the intersection to pedestrians will lead to significant traffic delays, more accidents and more injuries, in addition to being expensive and unlikely to produce any great benefit for downtown. It's certainly not "stupidity" and, in fact, reflects the "smart planning principles" of 40 years ago (which, at very least, leads one to suspect that planning isn't an exact science and that planners' current prescriptions ought to be taken with a grain of salt).

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Andy6

It's perfectly reasonable to believe that opening the intersection to pedestrians will lead to significant traffic delays, more accidents and more injuries, in addition to being expensive and unlikely to produce any great benefit for downtown. It's certainly not "stupidity" and, in fact, reflects the "smart planning principles" of 40 years ago (which, at very least, leads one to suspect that planning isn't an exact science and that planners' current prescriptions ought to be taken with a grain of salt).

This is a very good point. Of course we're all enlightened today, but imagine if the internet existed back in the 60s, 70s and 80s what we'd be hearing from our resident experts in the design professions then:

-Housing projects will be the best thing to happen to our lower income residents, giving them lots of space and communal areas in a perfect towers in the park setting!
-Portage Place will be the saviour of downtown, bringing in the perfect mix of uses including residential, retail, office, and entertainment!
-Freeways will efficiently move traffic through our congested city, and offer residents more freedom of movement!
-Modernist buildings replacing the ugly, run-down buildings of the Exchange will be just what we need to revitalize our north Main skid-row!
-Neighbourhood high streets need to ban signage, which is disgusting and dirty looking, and replace stores up to the street with parking-rich stripmalls!

In hindsight, all this "great planning" and "excellent design" turned out to be just the opposite. I'm not sure what makes us so confident, a mere few decades later, that we're "objectively right" about whatever urbanist principles or planning fashion is in vogue this decade (not referring to P&M here, just the enlightened attitude in general).

[optimusREIM]

Well the problem with that reasoning is that opening the corner would be easily reversible should it be a massive failure

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by Andy6

... It's certainly not "stupidity" and, in fact, reflects the "smart planning principles" of 40 years ago (which, at very least, leads one to suspect that planning isn't an exact science and that planners' current prescriptions ought to be taken with a grain of salt).

There were at least some local planners who did not like this idea when it came up in the 1970s. Remember, this wasn't an idea drawn up by city planners or traffic engineers, it was drawn up as part of a real estate agreement between property owners wanting an underground shopping mall and the City.

This didn't reflect "smart planning principles" of 40 years ago. If it did, there would surely have been other downtown intersections in North American that were fully closed to pedestrians in the 1970s. But of course there were not.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by Andy6

It's perfectly reasonable to believe that opening the intersection to pedestrians will lead to significant traffic delays, more accidents and more injuries, in addition to being expensive and unlikely to produce any great benefit for downtown. It's certainly not "stupidity" and, in fact, reflects the "smart planning principles" of 40 years ago (which, at very least, leads one to suspect that planning isn't an exact science and that planners' current prescriptions ought to be taken with a grain of salt).

Haha that is some beautifully twisted logic.

"Well, we know planners are dummies who get things wrong, we know this because the planners 40 years ago were idiots who screwed things up. Therefore, we should NOT listen to what the planners today are saying, and instead stick with the decision of the planners 40 years ago, who we know were idiots who screwed everything up." .......

Seriously though... the traffic delays - you guys are still talking like we're tearing down a freeway interchange or something. This is a normal intersection. It already has traffic lights. There's already a light cycle you have to wait for. How much difference could it really make letting people cross during said light cycle? I could see 5-ish minute delays. People wait twice as long to get through the Timmies drive thru in the morning so I don't see why they can't put up with the same wait to make our downtown actually seem like a downtown. If a few more people car-pooled or took the bus traffic wouldn't be a problem in the first place. You can watch cars leaving downtown at rush hour and 9/10 have ONE person in them. All those extra cars on the road clogging it up, because each driver needs his own personal chariot instead of riding with a buddy, and you want to blame traffic on a few people crossing the street?

Also the "danger to pedestrians" argument always makes me laugh because really, if that's your big concern, we should be making it a priority to design a city that is more friendly to pedestrians. That means traffic calming, narrowing streets and widening sidewalks, more controlled intersections etc, just generally prioritizing the pedestrian's comfort over the motorist which means low speeds.... It's sort of ridiculous to see people insisting traffic needs to plow through a busy area at top speed, inches away from where people are walking, and claim they're all about pedestrian safety. It's obviously about pampering drivers but very poorly disguised as being for pedestrian safety.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by windypeg

Haha that is some beautifully twisted logic.

"Well, we know planners are dummies who get things wrong, we know this because the planners 40 years ago were idiots who screwed things up. Therefore, we should NOT listen to what the planners today are saying, and instead stick with the decision of the planners 40 years ago, who we know were idiots who screwed everything up." .......

Seriously though... the traffic delays - you guys are still talking like we're tearing down a freeway interchange or something. This is a normal intersection. It already has traffic lights. There's already a light cycle you have to wait for. How much difference could it really make letting people cross during said light cycle? I could see 5-ish minute delays. People wait twice as long to get through the Timmies drive thru in the morning so I don't see why they can't put up with the same wait to make our downtown actually seem like a downtown. If a few more people car-pooled or took the bus traffic wouldn't be a problem in the first place. You can watch cars leaving downtown at rush hour and 9/10 have ONE person in them. All those extra cars on the road clogging it up, because each driver needs his own personal chariot instead of riding with a buddy, and you want to blame traffic on a few people crossing the street?

Also the "danger to pedestrians" argument always makes me laugh because really, if that's your big concern, we should be making it a priority to design a city that is more friendly to pedestrians. That means traffic calming, narrowing streets and widening sidewalks, more controlled intersections etc, just generally prioritizing the pedestrian's comfort over the motorist which means low speeds.... It's sort of ridiculous to see people insisting traffic needs to plow through a busy area at top speed, inches away from where people are walking, and claim they're all about pedestrian safety. It's obviously about pampering drivers but very poorly disguised as being for pedestrian safety.

Exactly. It's too bad proponents of the "keep it closed" side seem to have been more interested in "winning" the debate rather than discussing it and coming to a solution that can speak to concerns of both sides (like the idea of a Fort street bus mall). Nope...they HAVE to get everything their way AND toss in personal attacks and insults along the way. I sincerely hope the next time this issue comes up the "open" side has some adults to talk to.

[Stormer]

Observations from afar (Regina):

I have not read the entire thread and this may have been covered, but the referendum seems like a total political abdication of responsibility. How would you feel if you lived/worked on or near an arterial street and the City decided to let the whole population vote on whether you could walk across your own street. That is not how its supposed to work.

The City administration and perhaps Council should be making these decisions, not voters. Voters should decide who is the mayor and council and hold them accountable for their decisions.

Can you imagine if they held a City-wide vote on whether a neighbourhood should get a new arena or other amenity. Would such things ever get built?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Observations from afar (Regina):

I have not read the entire thread and this may have been covered, but the referendum seems like a total political abdication of responsibility. How would you feel if you lived/worked on or near an arterial street and the City decided to let the whole population vote on whether you could walk across your own street. That is not how its supposed to work.

The City administration and perhaps Council should be making these decisions, not voters. Voters should decide who is the mayor and council and hold them accountable for their decisions.

Can you imagine if they held a City-wide vote on whether a neighbourhood should get a new arena or other amenity. Would such things ever get built?

You are 100% correct.

This referendum was nothing more than a convenient way for the mayor and council to wash their hands of an issue that was clearly more trouble than it was worth politically. Which, on one level, you can't blame them for considering how it took on a life of its own, with some people genuinely believing that opening the intersection would cause some sort of traffic mayhem beyond what already exists due to all of our sprawl.

[bomberjet]

Yes, Stormer. Your bang on. It's complete BS.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by pspeid

toss in personal attacks and insults along the way. I sincerely hope the next time this issue comes up the "open" side has some adults to talk to.

My experience is most of the insults and personal attacks were coming from Team Open with things like people opposing being "uniformed", "they shouldn't have a say in the decision" and worse.

The fact is there was not enough information to make an informed choice in either direction and trying to raise these concerns resulted in a constant stream of personal attacks from Team Open making it impossible to have a serious, adult conversation on the topic.

Hopefully when it comes up again Team Open will behave in a more civilized way so there can be an open, honest and informed discussion of both sides of the issue.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Observations from afar (Regina):

[...]

The City administration and perhaps Council should be making these decisions, not voters. Voters should decide who is the mayor and council and hold them accountable for their decisions.

That is just the subtext that is often lost in this discussion. The current mayor had very openly promised to open Portage and Main to pedestrians in their campaign in 2014 and got elected. While in office the mayor became painfully aware that he lacked the support of council to delivery that promise and to try and push it forward on his own could cost him being re-elected. Rather than have his own re-election become a defacto vote on the issue he agreed with some councillors to have the question put on the ballot.

Going into the vote it was fairly clear that "no" (should P&M be open) would win. There was no organized "no" campaign but "yes" (Team Open) had a formal and organized campaign yet still lost by a significant margin.

It wasn't so much that the elected officials didn't follow through on their duties it is more than gave voters a token vote on an issue that had already been decided to try and save face.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by CoryB

My experience is most of the insults and personal attacks were coming from Team Open with things like people opposing being "uniformed", "they shouldn't have a say in the decision" and worse.

The fact is there was not enough information to make an informed choice in either direction and trying to raise these concerns resulted in a constant stream of personal attacks from Team Open making it impossible to have a serious, adult conversation on the topic.

Hopefully when it comes up again Team Open will behave in a more civilized way so there can be an open, honest and informed discussion of both sides of the issue.

C'mon Cory. I talked to many team closed people and they're just the same. Some are polite, some are complete assholes. No matter what information was presented, it was fingers in ears going "la la la la la la".

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

C'mon Cory. I talked to many team closed people and they're just the same. Some are polite, some are complete assholes. No matter what information was presented, it was fingers in ears going "la la la la la la".

This constant referencing of tone seems to be based on the assumption that anyone who doesn't agree about something is being a disrespectful jerk.

People are being way too sensitive... and this goes for people on both sides of the discussion.

[bomberjet]

^I'd agree Esquire. It's based more on emotions than on facts.

[Ando]

Ack. I'm sorry we are re-hashing all of this again. But I'm tired of hearing all of this nonsense over again about the tone of the Yes side. That's just a red herring used by people who realize they really have no substantive reason to oppose something. The whole Trump populist rhetoric is premised on opposing so-called "elitism". It saves you from actually having to come up with reasoned arguments when you don't have any.
The question hopefully will turn to what happens next. There will undoubtedly be a waiting period but it will be important to start thinking about how to get this done. Hopefully, our "elected" representatives can play their part.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by CoryB

My experience is most of the insults and personal attacks were coming from Team Open with things like people opposing being "uniformed", "they shouldn't have a say in the decision" and worse.

The fact is there was not enough information to make an informed choice in either direction and trying to raise these concerns resulted in a constant stream of personal attacks from Team Open making it impossible to have a serious, adult conversation on the topic.

Hopefully when it comes up again Team Open will behave in a more civilized way so there can be an open, honest and informed discussion of both sides of the issue.

The one thing that is obviously true here us that no one really knows what the results of opening the intersection would be. Everyone is just guessing. No one is “stupid” merely because they hold a more optimistic or a less optimistic view about what would happen. The city should have had much better information and a much clearer set of options on the table before going to a referendum on this issue.

[vjose32]

Originally Posted by Andy6

It's perfectly reasonable to believe that opening the intersection to pedestrians will lead to significant traffic delays, more accidents and more injuries, in addition to being expensive and unlikely to produce any great benefit for downtown. It's certainly not "stupidity" and, in fact, reflects the "smart planning principles" of 40 years ago (which, at very least, leads one to suspect that planning isn't an exact science and that planners' current prescriptions ought to be taken with a grain of salt).

Couldn’t agree more