As it is the weekend, there has been little development on the official-end of the story. I have been ‘rallying the troops’ so to speak, trying get people to voice their protest against building a large high rise right beside the gate. So far, I think, the numbers are encouraging. As of now there are 46 names. Within Canada, the majority of these people are obviously in Winnipeg; but there are also people in Kitchener, Edmonton, Vancouver, Toronto, St. George, Victoria, St. Andrew’s, and Starbuck. There is even a vote from Pasig City in the Philippines. So clearly there are people outside of Winnipeg who agree that this is a bad decision. Do you wish to sign it too? http://siteocanada.start-a-petition.com

But it is not enough to simply slam it as bad and leave it as that. There is nothing worse than destroying a solution without fixing the problem. That is why I congratulate Winnipeg Free Press columnist Gordon Sinclair for the article he wrote last week on a proposed ‘land swap’ with the development company, for a river lot just down the street. Even better was that the developer has expressed willingness to consider a compromise - this truly would be a ‘win-win’ situation in my opinion. For this I also applaud him, for his sensitiveness to a community against this proposed development. It also means that public out-cry is working, and that there is hope that an amiable solution can be attained. Lets all hope for that.

I came across a debate on this issue on a website called “New Winnipeg Community.” Some very good points were made, on both ends I think; instead of signing up on the site I’m just going to leave a commentary here. One member said:

Should the city sell the downtown land regarded as the birthplace of Winnipeg to a private developer?

Like I asked elsewhere:
Just how many “birthplace of Winnipeg”s are there?
-The Forks is the birthplace of Winnipeg
-Portage and Main is the birthplace of Winnipeg (why, oh why were they short-sighted and develop on that corner for “short-term financial gain” over the past 145 years?
-Point Douglas is the birthplace of Winnipeg (again, why did they allow people to live on that important historic site?)
-What’s today the east Exchange District could be considered the “birthplace of Winnipeg”, because that’s where a handful of settlers set up free-market commerce and trade on their land from 1849 to the mid-1860s, when commerce moved over to Portage and Main
-Upper Fort Garry is now, too? What about Fort Douglas, Rouge or Gibralter?

If we did not build anywhere adjacent to historic sites, all of downtown would be a giant park.

I have to admit that he does have a point; If we were too paranoid about our historical buildings and building new ones next to them (or over them) we would have a huge giant park downtown. This is funny to imagine, but ridiculous to discuss. There is in no way a movement to make, or even an opinion that there should be, a giant park downtown. The one thing that Heritage Winnipeg strives for is to feed on this economic excitement that has always seemed to characterize our downtown; not drown it in a large historic site. Don’t be silly. They don’t want to wall of these buildings, they want them to be an active part of Winnipeg; some of our most historic buildings are currently used - one must only take a stroll down Portage Avenue to see this. I am an historian at heart, and so I know that I am not as sympathetic to the argument of new buildings as some others may be. I do not see why we cannot continue to use these buildings, and respect their history as well as take a part of it. The Ashdown building’s history did not end when the hardware business moved out. We are not removed from history - we are an active part of it. We live in history, both the history that we create and that has been created for us.

However, I want to focus on the commenter’s major issue: “how many birthplaces of Winnipeg are there?” This, to me, shows an introduction to Winnipeg history backed by a major ignorance of it. For starters, the areas he mentioned are all part of a common area within the city, where all the major events that led to the city’s founding happened, starting with the North West Company, or further back the arrival of the French and Fort Rouge, or even farther back the use of the site as a native trading grounds. There are all part of the common birthplace of Winnipeg. But what the person who wrote this does not understand is that Upper Fort Garry is the only remaining relic to the beginnings of the city. Yes, there are numerous old buildings downtown that need cultural protection - but those were all after the advent (and decline) of UFG. Our history stems from the fur-trade and trading companies like the NWC and the HBC. The first seeds of settlement were the Red River Settlers, but before that there was European occupation by the Montreal controlled NWC at Fort Gibraltar - of which no physical remains of the original structure remain. UFG grew out of this struggle for trade in the region, and was the first sign of European permanence in the area. So yes, all of those areas mentioned are considered pieces of Winnipeg’s birthplace, but no one has ever suggested changing it all into a park. If one listens to what is being fought for, it is the retention of these buildings and their continued use within an active community - not to separate and alienate it.

But it can be argued, perhaps, that this is what is proposed to be done with the gate - create a park around it. For starters, what is so wrong with that? Are we so arrogant and proud of our own day that we turn our backs on the past and the physical relics of those that have given us our history? This is really such a small concession to make to the past, and it will have a wonder of effects in the future. A people that is in touch with their history is far more rich than those that are not. A city is given a certain charm to visitors and inhabitants, and the whole place seems to exude an air of permanence. These are all just words I realize, and may only serve to rally those already on my side while inviting scorn from those who oppose. But to me it seems that some people think Friends of Upper Fort Garry simply want the land to make a park, of the same kind of Bonnycastle, which one has called “a passive park.” This is telling of our current mind frame: If there are not attractions or flashing lights or something to distract us, it is useless. I personally feel that Bonnycastle park is one of the city’s best - small, quite, close to the river, and surrounded by the past.

Fort Garry Gate Park will be the same deal, except with a Gate. I don’t see what you could achieve in an entire square block that you couldn’t achieve with half. It’s not like this is some idyllic piece of green pasture - it’s an urban block surrounded by two of the busiest streets in the City.

We shouldn’t pretend it’s something it isn’t.

An ignorance, to me, of what FUFG plans to do with the site. “Look - one of the proposed highrises leaves all the room you want for a huge park.” To see what he is referring to, follow this link: http://www.corbettcibinel.com/images/uploads/100MainStr%20aj2.jpg. I’m sure people will agree with me that this statement cannot be honestly heartfelt. Its like sharing the remaining scraps of a nice dinner with a friend and saying they both got what they wanted. To me this is a matter of respect, to the fort that saw and spurred the growth of this city. Also another plan of the proposal: http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c222/cvist/100mainB.jpg. This might look okay, but I just do not think that it is right to build such a high rise building, that will dwarf the fort, right beside it. “It is possible for hertiage sites to coexist with modern buildings, but not here. We should turn it into park.” With that I totally agree. I think what the problem is is that people simply think FUFG and Heritage Winnipeg wants only to make a park with a reconstruction of part of the fort. I was personally baffled when I read that one of the proposed high rises “leaves all the room you want for a huge park.” That blue outline makes it seem like we would actually get a lot - except that the building on 100 Main Street would remain, half of the fort’s space would still be lost to Main Street, and the curling club would still remain. What are we left with? I would offer that these people don’t realize what is proposed for the site. Not another park to amble about, gazing at the nice reconstructed walls (which to me is a great idea enough, though I realize my own bias is at work there), but a world-class interpretive historical site for locals and tourists. And what I hope to accomplish in my petition is to not only show that there is a strong sentiment within Winnipeg that the city’s current plans should not be carried out, but that there are also people outside of Winnipeg that are concerned about this. But what is it that they propose? Check it out - http://www.heritagewinnipeg.com/advocacy/fortGarry.htm.

For those of you who haven’t signed the petition to try and reverse City Council’s decision, and you would like to, please visit http://siteocanada.start-a-petition.com and add your name. Also, spread the word of this petition to all that you can. We need as much voices as we can to show how big of an issue this is.

Sorry, but I did not give the link to the website that I centered this discussion upon. Here it is: http://www.newwinnipeg.com/community/discussion/1472/condos-at-citys-birthplace/

Thank you!

- JGM