Calgary Part III - Is our Canal Plan the exception to the rule?
I went to a roundtable discussion which discussed the building of Iconic Structures in your city.
I wanted to relate what they said to our proposed Canal Plan which I support
At first I was starting to get pretty discouraged. Most experts on the panel agreed that the rule was that incremental change that created liveable, sustainable cities were far more important than iconic structures that defined your city
That the top two cities in the world (According to Monacle Magazine thought to be the hippest magazine) were Copenhagen and Melbourne
In Copenhagen no in the room could think of one identifiable building or structure in the skyline. Copenhagen became number 1 by focusing on how to make that city liveable, by banning cars from the center and focusing on the people that live there
In Melbourne it was the same thing, Sydney with its opera house that is a world class icon was closed to the people, if you’ve ever walked around it (and I have) it has a concrete barrier surrounding it and it shows no signs of life. Melbourne on the other hand has the most welcome liveable aspects of a city.
THat the elements that made Copenhagen and Melbourne what they were consisted of incremental change that improved the living standards for all residents. The secret to success is incrementalism, great cities have about 200 little things going at once
So about now I’m about to throw in the towel when I heard there was hope.
There were exceptions to the rule when it came to iconic structures in your city. It is when iconic structure is used as a means to an end rather than an end within itself.
The Bow building in Calgary was touted as one as it was being used to elevate the entire East Village.
That instead of looking at the always exaggerated “Frank Gehry” Effect, look at the changes that can leverage the icon to the entire area.
What is the environment that you are creating around the area where you will place this iconic structure?
Are the financial incentives in place in the surrounding area to attract even more development?
Is there a plan that you are working on to eliminate obstacles that would make this structure a success?
There can be a halo effect, the bow building is financing 200 million of redevleopment of the East village
They Have an east village redevelopment plan that was in place before they built the Bow building.
There was much more but I dont want to prolong this post
So I would conclude that the Canal Plan could revitalize Downtown and could be an exception to the rule of Incremental vs. Iconic change to our downtown. However this can only happen if the Sustainable Downtown Plan was being implemented and the 167 recommendations contained in the 1997 Downtown Plan were being Implemented already. If the Canal facilitates incremental change to the rest of downtown it will work, if not it will suffer from the exaggerated Frank Gehry effect.
Post Feedback
In and of itself, I still don’t think the canal plan will “revitalize” our downtown. As you noted, “Most experts on the panel agreed that the rule was that incremental change that created liveable, sustainable cities were far more important than iconic structures that defined your city” However, you do admit that “iconic” structures (what we’ve been calling “silver bullets” up to this point) acting as redevelopment catalysts are the exception and not the rule. Jane Jacobs, 60 years ago, imparted this same wisdom.
I have yet to see any evidence to dissuade me from believing that the foundation of our cores must receive an injection of funding, and true revitalization will not occur until we focus on water/sewage services and mass transit. You know - attention to detail.
Don’t get me wrong, though. I still love the canal idea. I just think that this might be a political footbal to carry Francis to his third term. You know what he’ll say, “Give me one more term and we’ll finish this canal. Look how close we are now!”
And then the downward spiral will continue…
Mark, at least you didn’t compare it to San Antonio or Oklahoma City again. Considering their cnaals at the smallest length is only 14 blocks compared to 4 in Windsor.
You are aboslutely right though, it is the multitude of little things that will dirve a city forward. Just as the rebuilding of a neighbourhood starts with the first house being renovated and the second one getting painted…
Actually the best comparison is the bow building and east village in Calgary
I think that this post somewhat bridges the gap between our two stances.
That the megaprojects can work BUT only if they are done in an environment that can leverage them. And the only way to create that environment is through hundreds (if not thousands) of incremental changes
Comparisons aside, why is it all the other places have the best ideas worth implementing here?
Business is leaving due to poor infrastructure and yes a canal is pretty to look at, however if each and every business in the downtown core used their money and credit facilities to do it, then so be it, do it.
Each business could pay a proportion equal to the frontage they occupy.
Sounds fair to me.
Other than that they have no idea what the cost would be for re-routing ancient sewers and water lines. And if they found an arrowhead, all work would boil down to a few hand trowels and some brushes.
When will Windsor have it’s own “branding” of an original idea?
Absolutely Mark. WE need to start working together to make the necesarry changes that WE, as owners, taxpayers want. If we can keep the pressure on city hall to enact what it is we are seeking I am sure they will eventually listen or not get re-elected.
Kdduck, I think one of the issues facing Windsor is that so many of the buildings are owned by out of region owners. Mark can you verify this?
With low cost buildings we realy have a double edged sword. The make-a-quick-buck people, the speculators (Jenny Coco) against those who genuinely want to make a difference in their community and believe in business ethics (something sorely lacking in today’s business world).
As it is Windsor has traded it’s past by neglecting our heritage and those chickens have come home to roost. Just look at the people who responded to the Windsor Star’s article on money for houses. The “not my taxes” people were up in arms. But what they fail to realize is that if there a reno incentives we will continue to lose what we have and thus their own properties will become worthless. Ths mindset MUST change!
Mark, comparing the Bow to the ‘canal’ idea is not a fair comparison. It would be like comparing watermelons to raisins. The Bow is being developed by and for the oil giant Encana. The sheer scale and money being invested by one company is enormous and dwarfs any idea that Windsor could put forth. Windsor and Calgary are VERY different cities with very different legislation governing how things are developed. Not too mention that the Bow is being built directly adjacent to the light rail transit line.
I’ll admit that there are some similarities between the ‘areas’ surrounding the Bow development and the canal idea (mainly that they have revitalization plans in place).
Also, don’t be deceived by the growth of Calgary either. Council is struggling with looking at a 12% increase in taxes this year alone to offset the growing burden of subsidizing the infrastructure going out into the suburbs and prairies. The municipal government is focusing on what the infrastructure and service needs of the city are going to be into the future. They are quickly realizing that the old infrastructure in the city is deteriorating quickly and most of it in the established areas will need to be replaced within the next 20 years at the TAXPAYERS expense, not developers. They way the city has been doing business is really putting them in a very difficult position when it comes to the long-term sustainability of the city’s infrastructure.
In Windsor’s case, sticking with the “rule that incremental change creates liveable, sustainable cities” is in my humble opinion “far more important than iconic structures that define your city”.
Its not the structure that I’m comparing, its the area surrounding the structure that is more important. I’m comparing parts of downtown to the East Village.
Its what they did to prepare the area so that they could leverage the billion dollar Bow bldg to an additional 200 million of surrounding development and improvements. by that comparison
What are we doing to leverage the canal plan to bring about revitialization to the area surrounding City Center West.
PRIME EXAMPLE:
If the Glengarry Marentette CIP was fully implemented would the 800 million Casino/Convention/Arena have been able to help that area revitalize?
If the sustainable Downtown Plan was implemented would we have been able to capture some casino employees as residents.
Okay, thank you for the clarification. They did give some bonusing incentives to the Bow in exchange for the provision of additional funds for surrounding development. I’m not sure if the Planning Act in Ontario allows for the type of bonusing allowed in Alberta (or bonusing at all for that matter). Again I reiterate that they are working under two very different legislative frameworks.
P.S. the CIP’s are only one example of incremental changes. Most successful cities have between 100-200 of these changes being managed at one time
The 1997 Downtown plan has 167 incremental changes that were never addressed in any meaningful way
examples of small incremental changes from other downtowns
implementing HRP
Accelerate and finish streetscape
Wayfinding signage program
Gateway markers
The point is that Iconic structures such as a riverwalk/marina will not work as an alternative to incremental changes. It can only be leveraged if the environment surrounding it is prepared to accomodate and leverage it.
P.S. I still support the Canal/Riverwalk/Marina plan. I just want it done right and that discussion is yet to be had