Can't share a vision when no one asks

Enlarge Image

The front yard of the new museum is made up of two parking lots; one the contentious Parcel 4 owned by the city, the other of similar size owned by The Forks. (RUTH BONNEVILLE / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS) Photo Store

I want you to take a little walk with me to the epicentre of a civic controversy.

It's a place you may have been, but not really noticed; a sprawling car-cluttered property behind Union Station and in front of the still-under-construction Canadian Museum for Human Rights. Two surface parking lots of similar size fan out there to form the as-yet-undeveloped front yard of what will be Winnipeg's spectacular signature structure. One of the parking lots -- the gravel one that's caused seismic political activity -- is owned by the city. The paved one belongs to The Forks North Portage Partnership.

Together they offer an unobstructed sightline for train tourists' first-stop impressions of Winnipeg and the almost completed exterior of a museum.

Just as importantly, though, the wide-open vista in front of the museum offers something else.

A wide-open opportunity.

A chance to retain the openness that showcases the building's imposing presence and design the grounds outside the museum to honour the message on the inside. A chance, in my view, to leave a lush, largely green landscape that would be in peaceful harmony with its striking architectural presence.

All that stands in the way of that vision, or any other, is our imagination.

And our will.

Oh yes, and the city's hurry to develop its parking lot.

The Forks, meanwhile, has taken a different approach. So far, The Forks has offered a "concept" for developing its land, including a low-level, tiered parking structure nestled against the rail lines, plus a promenade, store fronts and residential units. All of which The Forks has presented publicly and will be open for discussion again at future public consultations.

"We're going to take our time," Forks CEO Jim August told me. "We're not in a hurry."

By way of contrast, much of city council is practically pawing the ground in anticipation of approving the development of its parking lot. And the city hasn't seen any reason to consult with the public on its "vision," which includes a hotel and a parkade. Plus a water park that has been welcomed by the public with all the enthusiasm of a backyard wasps' nest.

Which prompted me wonder what officials at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights think of a water park at their front door, and whether the city has even consulted with them.

So I asked the museum's president and CEO, Stuart Murray, those questions. Starting with whether the city has consulted with him about what they're doing in the museum's front yard?

"No," Murray said. "They haven't."

No?

Just to make sure I was hearing correctly, I asked again in a different way.

Has the city asked the museum what it would like in its front yard?

"That discussion has not taken place," Murray reiterated. "Nobody has said to us, 'What do you want?' "

I have the sense -- or at least the hope -- that's something Stuart Murray, and perhaps his board of trustees, have been itching to say.

"If we are asked our opinion," Murray added later, "I'll provide it."

I took that to mean, if he is asked by the city, because when I inquired about his opinion of the water park, Murray wouldn't say because no one has seen the plans.

"You're asking me to speculate."

Saying anything now, Murray suggested, would be like commenting "on thin air."

At which point I reminded him that, on the contrary, when to comes to the water park being situated in front of the museum he leads, the air is thick with outrage.

Murray did add this, though: "I have all the confidence in the world that we'll be part of the discussion."

I regret to remind Stuart Murray the discussion is already happening at city hall, and they're not on the invitation list. And while the city should be ashamed for not consulting with the museum, the museum should be embarrassed it hasn't talked to the city without being asked. That should have been insisted on as plan A. Of course, there's always plan B.

The museum won't be open until 2014 at the earliest. And if The Forks isn't in a hurry to develop its portion of the museum's front yard, the city shouldn't be either.

What's the rush?

In the meantime, the city, The Forks and the museum should sit down together and plan their one and only wide-open opportunity to do this legacy project in a world-class way that will complement a world-class building.

As I was saying, all that stands in the way of our vision is our imagination. And our will.

Our will to work together.

gordon.sinclair@freepress.mb.ca

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition May 5, 2012 A4