Us VS Them, Redux
I’ve found the recent dialogue regarding the proposed Aquatic Centre in the Windsor Star perplexing. Set aside the fact for a moment that most newspapers are supposed to be neutral when it comes to the stories they are covering…
The Windsor Star has been decidedly “Pro Aquatic Centre” in their coverage and opinion pieces. When news stories cover the mayor or council on this topic they seem to paint them in a good light, unlike when coverage is of its opponents. We don’t even need to ask how Chris Vander Doelen or Gord Henderson think. (ED: this directive comes straight from the top)
I’ve noticed their selection in the “Letters To The Editor” section isn’t even well balanced. Here is one rejected “LTTE” which I found addresses many of the questions people are asking about the proposal:
When I first learned of the proposal to build an aquatic centre on the Western Super Anchor Lands, I was excited and eager to get behind a potentially transformative project for Downtown Windsor. After reviewing the business case that Windsor’s City Council will consider on June 13, however, I cannot support any of the three options set out for making it happen.
All three would close the Central Library, the justification being the building’s age (40 years) and a curious argument on page 23 that its design and layout is “not conducive to the realities of Libraries of the 21st Century (sic)”. I’m not sure to which ideal modern libraries should aspire, but I do know that the one we have now is solid, comfortable, well-visited, nicely situated on transit routes and has just enough parking. I always leave the place feeling quite, well, satisfied.
There is no evidence that the other community amenities on the chopping block to fund the proposed aquatic centre, including Adie Knox, Waterworld and the College Avenue Community Centre, are not similarly valued by their neighbours and others across the city. It seems callous and counter-productive to ignore the harms associated with gutting or closing them.
Moreover, with mega-projects come mega-risks. The National Aquatic Centre in Dublin, Ireland, which has been cited as an inspiration for Windsor, has been the subject of litigation and cost over-runs that make the Canderel experience seem like a walk in Jackson Park.
Windsor City Council should be applauded for its interest in improving our downtown and recently generating a potential University of Windsor investment. How about focusing on that for now? Later on, with the right partners or improved revenues we could build the 50 metre pool Windsorites deserve, without all the nasty collateral damage and empty buildings.
Tristan Fehrenbach,
Windsor
Doesn’t seem to offensive does it? Yet the Star’s editorial board decided it wasn’t worthy of publication.
Pink parking spaces and Tim Hortons lids are more newsworthy, I guess.
Much like the recent WFCU Centre, we seem to be having great difficulty speaking rationally when it comes to the Aquatic Centre proposal. It is only when we treat each side of the argument respectfully will we move past the rhetoric and find some unique, made in Windsor solutions to our problems.
Something the Star’s opinion writers have difficulty doing. I guess you sell more newspapers when you’re flamboyant and ridiculous.
Personally, I feel the initial premise of developing Windsor into a “World Class” city has been flawed from the start, but that’s another blog…
Post Feedback
Indeed. Predictably, Gord actually had to reference the CUPE strike (as usual - yawn) and tie it in with this decision. You could almost code a simple computer program to generate the formulaic opinion pieces he and VD write.
I would like to know what is considered “world class”? By who’s definition? Because Windsor talks “world class” but yet always substitutes with “backwoods outhouse”.
Once gain it seems the city is forgetting that communities build downtowns not city hall. With this project we are missing the key ingredient….residents! For too long our downtown has not had cohesive neighbourhoods and this will help to keep it that way.
As my neighbourhood abuts this new proposal. I see the city is stating that keeping existing surface lots for parking. how does this attain, attract new residents? These lots were “temporary” for the interim casino and they have been here for 16 years!
After promising an urban village for almost 20 years this is what we get. existing lots and a big building. Gee, what is in it for the residents?
The residents of Ward 2 and 3 largely sat on their asses on election day instead of going out to vote for change, so they’ll get whatever the incumbent thinks is best for them.
Unfortunately, most people are confused between what’s good for their community and, well, what’s good for City Hall. As we’ve discussed so many times on this blog, we tend to think that if we draw enough “outsiders” within our borders (whether Tecumseh or Texas) we’ll be a better city. Well, tell that to Las Vegas. We need to put the residents first, and the rest will follow. Is the aquatic centre best for the residents? Perhaps, if it didn’t necessitate the closure of numerous other neighbourhood amenities to make it “feasible” (we’ve heard that before, eh?).
Fifty years ago, Jane Jacobs lobbied and wrote against mega-development as a “silver bullet” for neighbourhood revitalization, stating that it “would threaten neighborhood character“. Sadly, most communities (ours included) obviously didn’t read her book.
Unfortunately, I believe this is a done deal.
We briefly talked over th phone about it but its unfortunate we didn’t write a coblog on the subject. there’s a lot of scaledown on each side of the equation.
IS the library sustainable in its current form? Is clustering amenities the same as a “mega-development”
The fact is that this is the first “mega development” that didn’t focus primarily on visitors . (I think the mayor and some councillors may actually see it that way, but these amenities to me can be thought of as primarily for residents)
The fact is that we’re creating a new neihgborhood at the expense of 3 other neighborhoods. No one is looking at what compensation those neighborhoods should be receiving for being TOLD (not asked) to make such a sacrifice. The rushing of this thing through is exacerbating the “carving and ripping out” of part of their neighborhood away from them
Some of us are working behind the scenes to do whatever is possible to mitigate the impacts of what I believe was a poor decision by council. As I said that evening, pubic recreation facilities are best located as near as possible to those that will use them. I also a bit perplexed that all Scaledown bloggers aren’t completely opposed to this idea. It seems to fly in the face of much of what I’ve read on this site with respect big box development. This is unquestionably “big box” public recreation. I suppose one could argue that it isn’t located in the “Costco badlands”, but it is definitely a concentration of amenities from neighbourhoods to the DT. Perhaps I’m not understanding the objectives. Are we only not supportive of development that draws DT business to the burbs? Or are we truly standing up for sustainable, existing neighbourhoods regardless of which other locale is the beneficiary.
It’s exactly the “rushing” part of this debate that gives me pause. Much like the WFCU Centre was rushed in the shadow of Tecumseh’s Ice Track proposal, the new Aquatic Centre is rushed through in part because of the timelines imposed by the Childrens Games.
It always feels that someone’s pulling a fast one on us. It always feels that there’s an engineered crisis we’re responding to with 1/3 of the information needed to make an informed decision.
If you read the report. Even the City of Windsor states that the facility will not be ready for the Children’s Games. So why the rush?
Every tiem Widnsor rushes something, it costs 1.5 times more and we get half the result (WFCU arena, Candarel building, Holiday Inn…).
The report doesn’t say it won’t be ready in time for the games. It says: “Perhaps the most urgent need for the Centre is for the 2013 International Children’s Games. These games have been awarded to the City of Windsor and will take place in the summer of 2013. The goal is to have the Centre constructed by this time. However, should the facility not be built, the swimming portion of the games will have to take place outside of the region, potentially in Michigan. This will mean a loss of revenue from local spectators and more importantly, visitors to the region.”
(comment up to this point deleted By MB as not being relevant to this blog post)
As far as Chris’ blog here, I agree with him. The Star has shown itself to be the offical organ of the mayor regardless of the issue and the harm or benefit to the City. Windsorites deserve better and The Square aims to swing the balance back.
The square is just as biased as The Windsor Star button the opposite end.; both cut from the same cloth. In other words should one die by poison or by pills? Regardless the ending is the same.
I disagree. Every media outlet has bias. (Scaledown’s bias is evident around the aquatic centre..as many have pointed out, this “big box” recreation is the exact type of thing they should be expected to rail agains,…however its development is in the interest of the website’s funder, thus they are very shy in their critique…)
The difference in bias between Star and Square though is significant. The Star is an established, corporately owned, resource-rich organization that supports the status quo in Eddieland unequivocally. The Square features marginalized voices that dissent. (Arditti can be excluded. Mark’s big scoop about financial ties to the Bridge Co. was actually published by Battagello many years ago.) Paulson and Schnurr should not be thrown out with the bathwater though, in fact they shame the professional journalists at the Star because they are willing to perform the function that is the Star’s RESP0NSIBILITY as a community newspaper: Holding those in power to account in a thorough and consistent way.
The way Eddie and his media friends have pushed this Aquatic Centre through is another lesson in PR over substance. Just wait till we get the bill. The thing will be a white elephant before its finished being built. And existing neighbourhoods will suffer. It is grandiose, hypocritical and geared away from serving ordinary people.