“waterfront development like this becomes an anchor for an area and we’ve seen across not only Canada and North America but around the world where a vibrant waterfront really leads to the redevelopment the urban area arounding (sic) it” – Ian Angus
Opbastard translation: if this fails, its not my fault.
Is this what is being done on the Thunder Bay waterfront? If you remember, the waterfront before this project consisted of lots of industrial/brownsfield land surrounding a very beautiful small park and marina.
After the outlay of over $60 million of taxpayers money, the waterfront will consist of the same industrial/brownsfield land surrounding a small park, marina. Some of the park land is being sold to a private developer. The developer claims to be interested in building a hotel and condominiums.
I would like the supporters of this project to tell me a single place on earth that bulldozed a beautiful waterfront park flat. A park that developed over decades. Wiped off the face of the earth to build another waterfront park. Has that ever been done before?
I would like the supporters of this project to tell me a single place on earth that spent over $60 million on a waterfront and not reclaimed one square inch of industrial/brownsfield land.
Once again, The quote is short on facts. Councilor-at-large and co-owner of Ruberto Holdings and Property Management Company 1987 would not approve of Councilor Angus’ statement. Mr. Ruberto likes people to use facts, He does not like to use them himself , however, as facts are too easy to discredit. A councilor can get pinned down by facts. Voters remember facts.
Statements such as “we’ve seen across not only Canada and North America but around the world where a vibrant waterfront really leads to the redevelopment the urban area” assume the audience HAS seen these vibrant waterfronts. Personally, I am not sure if I have or not. A few hints from Mr. Angus might have been nice.
He could have asked the firm Brook McIlroy Pace for some examples. We have paid them well over $7 million for consultant services on the waterfront project. I am sure they could have provided a list to Angus for a discounted price. Maybe even free.
Will this project produce a vibrant waterfront here in Thunder Bay? Who the fuck knows? Not Ian Angus. That’s for sure.
“with a project this complex there could still be be challenges and with those challenges there may or may not be costs so with the three things you have in a project, quality, schedule and cost and you can have two of them but not all of them and working working to get all of them so its a challenging task.” – Katherine Dugmore
Opbastard translation: Managing this project turned out to be harder than I thought. Its a really, really hard job, especially since I do not have a clue what I am doing. Not a clue. Mind is totally blank here. Because of this fact, I have no idea how much its going to cost or even when it will be complete.
Complex? Really? Hmmm. I am sure that during the summer of 2009, the people that were making the argument that this project was very complex were the Friends of Marina Park. Making that very argument to the Ministry of the Environment during the Environmental Assessment process. I believe one of the reasons for having an individual Environmental Assessment Study, an EA process that takes more time but is much more thorough, is that the project is complex. So Friends of Marina Park = complex project
While the FOMP were making their “complex project” argument, I am pretty sure that Ms. Dugmore and company were making the exact opposite argument to the Ministry of the Environment. They were assuring the MOE that the project was routine. Nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing complex about it. Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy. A class Environmental Assessment Study, an accelerated EA process that is completed by the City of Thunder Bay over a much shorter timeline, would more than suffice. So Katherine Dugmore and high priced army of consultants = routine, ordinary project.
Now, Ms. Dugmore is agreeing with the Friends of Marina Park “complex project” argument. Her remarks to council and the media over the passed year or so underline the fact that the Friends of Marina Park were correct in their assessment of the project. It also underlines the fact that Ms. Dugmore and the high priced army of consultants were wrong. It seems that, while the EA process was underway, their assumptions as to the amount of work that was required to complete this project were woefully inaccurate. The budget history of this project bears witness to this fact.
It took a year or so for reality to sink in and take hold but take hold it did. A mental beachhead unprecedented in local government. Now Ms. Dugmore has the words “complex” and “project” exiting her mouth on a regular basis. On television, in newspapers and at council meetings. Makes no difference. My name is Katherine Dugmore and the waterfront is a complex project.
It takes a big person to admit they were wrong especially in such a public way. Ms. Dugmore is definitely a big person. The biggest. I get emotional just thinking about it.
It is good to see that Ms. Dugmore and the “naysayers” are all on the same page now and I welcome her conversion. It is too bad that it has taken Ms. Dugmore so long to understand what many of us have known right from day one. The waterfront project is very complex and required a full and thorough individual EA study. She did finally see the light, however and that can be seen as a positive. Better late than never I say.
She now would be welcomed into the Friends of Marina Park with open arms, if the organization still existed. It does not, I’m sad to say.
My understanding of the competency situation of the Waterfront Development Office manager has now changed a slight bit. A more compassionate view of things. Evidently, Ms. Dugmore is not so much incompetent as she is “slow”. She does understand things…eventually. It just takes a really long time and lots and lots of public money.