Politics could kill Canal and Aquarium
Remembering a keynote discussion from the International Downtown Association where the mayor’s of 5 U.S. cities sat on a Panel and answered questions.
One of the subjects was something about how to get things done.
These Mayor’s all agreed that when a mayor or election campaign tied themselves to a particular project, it made it that much more difficult for that project to succeed. When an election campaign or an individual politician ties themselves closely to a project, the people who oppose them will likely oppose that project with a fervor.
So lets say the mayor or some other pro canal candidate like Dave Cook runs next year. Lets say they wrap themselves up in the Canal/Acquarium. Lets say they handily win the election with 60% votes.
That means their opponents will do anything they can to discredit these projects that they might otherwise find palatable. That means 40% who didn’t vote for those candidates will come to vehemently oppose those projects.
Sure, you could say these same people might simply dislike these projects regardless. But there are varying degrees to which you oppose the project. I don’t think anyone wanted the Arena to go out east, but the fact that it got built after several decades muted much of the criticism.
The aquarium is very intriguing because its not simply a tourist attraction as I read it. It is an educational institute. Without saltwater fish, I doubt it could even succeed as solely a tourist attraction, No pretty colours, sharks and dolphins.
However I could see this aquarium succeeding as an educational tourism location. Visits from academics and students studying the great lakes. Visits from representatives of other areas who need to educate themselves on the worlds largest freshwater location. I’m sure I’m not even scratching the surface of what the University discussed with the Mayor
There is fascinating stories about the rebirth of Sturgeon on the great lakes, Environmental successes and future threats.
If these projects are to be given a chance to be judged on their own merits, Mayoral and council candidates need to detach themselves from them as much as possible. Maybe a referendum is in order but it would be a shame to see these projects stillborn
Post Feedback
Much of what frightens me when it comes to elections and politics.
Goals should be stated (rejuvenate our downtown with a mix of new residents and attractions for families that attract core business operations that nourish them), policies written that enable those goals to see the light of day and then have the politicians step back and let the experts decided exactly what those attractions or amenities should be.
Then LISTEN to the experts and decide how best to implement their suggestions. They don’t pull tis stuff out of their nether-regions. They use best practices form other successful commmunities.
We need to address what the prime directive our politicians should have, and lobbying for single-projects should be a lot lower on the list. The vision or our community should be their priority and then leave it to those who know how to implement that vision. As far as I know, retired teachers and public servants (examples only, please!) don’t have the expertise to run a utilities company or land development.
Just because a candidate wins 60% of the vote, does not necessarily mean that all of those people completely support that candidates platform.
A stand-alone aquarium, even one that is part of an educational institution, just won’t be enough to attract local people. I could buy-in to a small-scale aquarium that is combined with the science centre and a historical museum. Such a facility should be located adjacent to the Art Gallery.
About the aquarium… when I first heard whispers of this idea, I would have to admit, that my eyes were rolling. I didnt think that funding would exist for a good-enough aquarium to actually attract people. BUT then I heard of the partnership with GLIER and other Great-Lakes groups that make this firstly a Research Center, and secondly, a tourism attraction.
Now you’ve got something that is: sustainable, and attractive to the creative class. This has potential to attract more researchers and graduate students to the downtown, and help to expand on UW. (and can draw in expertise from neighboring Wayne St, U Michigan, UWO, and others) All this, and bringing in tourists , visitors, and hopefully downtown businesses too. After a venue on this scale is established, the rest may just fall in place.
I’ve always been ‘on the fence’ about the canal, there are a lot of unknowns. However, if they build an aquarium, and build it RIGHT, they could have something here. (Right = nice fancy stone building with real architectural features) Aquarium + marina = success. I could take or leave the canal. After all, the downtown streetscaping theme, at least near the casino, has a sorta marine-look to it already… maybe it was destiny?
In the case of Windsor’s track record of slow progress on infrastructure projects, maybe a 1-issue mayor platform may be a way of actually getting things accomplished! In all seriousness, I would probably vote for someone with a 10 or 50 year plan before I vote for someone that is willing to sell out Windsor for a quick fix.
… then Great Lakes Maritime Museums, Science Centers, and the like, can be added on later!
Ideas are wonderful. But the key to the story is here:
“Francis said he hopes to meet with university president Alan Wildeman in September and discuss the idea of setting up a joint study committee and even launching a feasibility study, something for which Haffner said there is “strong interest” being expressed by university faculty.”
There is strong interest expressed by Faculty on several issues. The proposal would still have to go through administration, the President and ultimately be approved by the Board of Governors.
Remember the Engineering Facility discussion?
Given the financial constraints facing universities across the Province; in addition to each university’s own ‘infrastructure deficit’ and student needs being balanced with tuition - I not sure - again - how financially feasible this would be. Endowment funds across universities across the province took a huge beating - to varying degrees - with some universities having to “top” up their funds.
In other words, money is tight - beyond tight in an attempt to balancing operations to keep tuition rate increases lower.
I agree with Vincent - the three in tandum would be awesome.
But looking at the “political” angle from a different perspective - we saw this very same tactic utilized with the “urban village” in 2006 - an election year.
It’s funny how “interest” is always expressed just in time for municipal elections in this city.
That’s why Windsor needs a 10, 50 and 100 year plan….
We have a 20-year plan. It’s called the Official Plan.
ok, maybe i should be more specific….
a good plan that the city actually follows?
I’d like to add - it is premature to be even discussing this - as it was with the canal.
Have the community consultations already. Get public buy-in. Ensure we WILL get the funding or that it even meets criteria of the newly minted SW Ontario Development Agency.
More hype - no substance. JP et al, can call me negative all th ey want, I’m sick to death of the bright shiny objects dangled before us.
IF the city is serious about any of these proposals - they will do in a way that is both realistic and driven by the community.
community consultations sound good in principle, but unfortunately, if you want community input in this town, you will end up with More roads, better paved roads, and wider spots for their SUV’s.
I think a leader with a long-term vision that can work with people, business and government, and bring people together is more important. (agree to disagree)
A 50 or 100 year plan is a little unrealistic for these types of projects.
But an overall plan, for the site would be great!
And more than a plan, as I write below, community buy in.
The first problem with the idea of combining the University research facility with a public attraction is just that. Rarely have such joint ventures been administatively successful, leading to internal conflicts over what side of the house will receive the lion’s share of funding; tourist side or research side?
Secondly the “western anchor” needs to be an over-all development plan with complementary components, not a piece meal mixture of ideas du jour. Animal attractions, beyond their massive associated costs, are on a decline in the public eye. Sharks, dolphins? Where do those exist in the Great Lakes? Non starter.
Lastly, the suddeness of the aquarium idea reminds me of how Memphis, TN, was sold on the idea of a gigantic pyramid for their riverfront. It now sits empty, drawing only curious drive-bys and invoices for upkeep.
Someone has to repeat the obvious. Detroits Great Lakes Aquarium was a wonderful institution in a great location next to other anchors such as the plantarium?/botanical garden, the Great Lakes Nautical Museum, zoo, horse riding stables, and canoe rentals, and the Detroit Boat Club. It was within easy reach of Chicago, Indianapolis, Toronto, London, Grand Rapids, and you can fill in the rest of the population circle. It was even within arms length of several universities including Windsor’s own. How many Windsorites can say that they ever visted and experienced it or even knew about it? And the obvious question: If Detroit and the Metropolitan areas (population: 5 million)could not sustain it what makes anyone think that Windsor could (Windsor, Sarnia, Chatham-Kent population combined is 520,700 and declining). Also…This is not the first time that a Windsor City Council tried to make an aquarium fly. It never went through for the same reasons as above. Lets be realistic. The Mayor has a few extra million bucks that are burning a hole in his pocket. Hold onto your lids folks…It’s in the wind. Next up…A waterslide.
The latest “silver-bullet” solution as far as I’m concerned. I wish they would just come up with some concrete terms and issue an RFP for an urban village. Define x amount of space within the terms to allow for a “signature” attraction to be included. For the long term viability of the downtown I think we need to replace some/all of the livable spaces that have been destroyed over the last 20 years as the first priority.
Why is it that Walkerville is such a desirable area to live in now? It certainly isn’t because of an aquarium, canal or any other silver bullet solution.
Remember the post was not on the merits of the aquarium or the canal, the post was about mayoral and council candidates who wrap themselves in the flag of these projects actually being a detriment to the project.
During the election when we see this we should remember its politicking as if they truly cared about advancing these projects they wouldn’t tie their campaigns to them.
I agree mostly with Chris H. the candidates need to make their priorities clear and how much resources they are willing to dedicate to those priorities. Then we need to have experts determine the best way to acheive those prioritities.
To answer BBS’ question. It is because Walkerville offers something that the rest of the city doesn’t have; Unique architecture, a small town feel to the community, cleanliness, perceived rightly or wrongly, safety.
Now compare the above to the neighbourhoods surrounding downtown…Hmmm…..
By the way Chris H is so right there isn’t much to offer after that post. But we know that isn’t going to happen here where keeping the cards to oneself is the name of the game.
Chris H,
You have to narrow the focus more. Simply stating goals and then letting the experts tell you what to do leaves the door open for waste and fritter. Look what happened with the airport when the question was “What should we do?”, and the $250,000 answer was, “Market it so people know it’s there.” Much more precise and concise direction must be provided so that the public purse is no longer abused.
Yes, of course you are right L.O.S. Hopefully, along with the hired expert recommendations comes quantifiable metrics which performance can be judged against. The point of my comment was that here we are, electing regular folks of all shapes and sizes, and expecting them to be able to run utility companies, golf courses, an airport and our municipal land development office. Clearly, this is out of their realm of expertise and they should leave the details of these offices to the experts and provide political oversight that serves their vision as shared with the taxpayers.
Chris H, but of course that would be the smart and right thing to do so you know that can’t be done with the current members. After all, wages need to be increased and egos need to be stroked. It is the Windsor way!
P.S. Of course progressive cities would do just that but progressive we haven’t been since the 1950s. Thank God for Scaledown and the bloggers in this city.