An Exploration of the Provencher Bridge, Esplanade Riel Collaborative Planning Process
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Bridging Connections: an exploration of the Provencher Bridge, Esplanade Riel collaborative planning process Abstract Alexis Miller, Collaborative planning is not standard practice. The Provencher bridge MCP Candidate redevelopment is a model example of comprehensive collaborative planning, and a seminal piece for Winnipeg’s municipal infrastructure University of Manitoba projects. Susan Freig, MCP, was awarded the opportunity to implement in collaboration with the best public consultation process she could design. This was no tabula Susan Freig, MCP rasa; misgivings, misinformation and tension between St. Boniface and Owner and Principal, the City of Winnipeg branded this project as contentious. As such, a Freig and Associates comprehensive collaborative planning process was created, rooted in relationship building, knowledge sharing and trust. It focused on an open, honest and transparent course of action while ensuring the public were given the information they needed to make an informed decision. Consultation methods were unique and sensitive to the needs of stakeholders involved, provided a dissemination of information and gave both the affected and broader community the power to be heard. What resulted from this community driven process exceeded anyone’s expectations; the creation of an icon: the Esplanade Riel. 1 Facts: a course of action emerges In June of 1996, Susan Freig, owner and Principal at Freig and Associates completed an extensive community profile on the Provencher Bridge Project for the City of Winnipeg. Downtown and St. Boniface were thoroughly outlined to provide the foundation and context for a planning and public consultation process (Freig, 1996). This work, a balanced understanding of both the quantitative and qualitative attributes of each community, highlighted the need for these Map: communities consulted in Alexis Miller in collaboration communities to become partners with Susan Freig the process, (1) Downtown (2) North St. Boniface in the planning process. In (3) St. Boniface addition, it was noted that the schism between St. Boniface and Background: The City wanted a clean slate the City of Winnipeg extended and to move forward in a manner an ordinary beginning? well beyond the Provencher that was acceptable for affected Bridge project; it was embedded A Provencher Bridge, Esplanade publics. As such, a successful in cultural rivalries from an Riel collaborative planning consultation process had to not earlier time in history (Freig, process resulted from the City of only address, but also alleviate 1996). The community profile Winnipeg’s need to rehabilitate suspicions and empower the provided a historical perspective or redevelop the Provencher community members of St. and brought to light the idea that Bridge in the mid 1990’s. In Boniface to become actively this project could be bigger than dire need of repair, the City engaged in the project. the bridge itself, it was viewed initiated a predetermined plan as a potential catalyst for further that antagonized and alienated neighbourhood improvements. community members in St. Interviews with St. Boniface Boniface, Winnipeg’s French community organizations were quarter. Consequently, the conducted, an uncommon project ground to a halt and practice in typical community tensions between St. Boniface profiles, to gain a deeper and the City branded the project understanding of the knowledge as contentious. Community about and the attitudes towards members had no trust in the the project. This process City; this fractured relationship provided valuable insights as to was the basis upon which a how community members could comprehensive collaborative be engaged and established planning process began. consultation priorities. 2 “A planning and The majority was in favour consultation process that of replacing rather than rehabilitating Provencher Bridge emphasizes substantive, (Prairie Research Associates, constructive public 1999). Furthermore, the results input for a project that indicated that two alternatives is technically, socially, were strongly favoured: the New Paired bridges and the New politically and financially Conventional bridge options. acceptable, would enable Survey’s were provided to enrich the community to make a the planning process for both PAC tangible contribution to members and for City Council consideration (Freig, 1999). The the development of their PAC, 16 individuals representing community”. 15 St. Boniface, Downtown and community wide stakeholder groups participated in ten three Two years later, Susan was A communications plan and hour meetings from October awarded the opportunity brand was established to create 1998-May 1999. These meetings to design and implement a “immediate pubic recognition produced a near unanimous public consultation process. for the project and its related consensus to recommend the Building on her previous work print materials” (Freig, 1999, p. New Paired bridges alternative in the community profile, a 2). Each tactic centered on the to City Council (Freig, 1999). year long comprehensive, specific stakeholders involved. This option was approved and mixed methods approach to Bilingual surveys, newsletters, resulted in a $68 million dollar community engagement was newspaper advertisements, open development sponsored by all created. Consultation methods houses, site visit, a project hotline three levels of government. on this project were designed and the creation of a project specifically with a focus on advisory committee (PAC) were the range of affected publics, established. These strategies notably: provided a dissemination of information and gave both · St. Boniface residents, the affected and broader city businesses and community communities the power to speak organizations and to be heard. Information was distributed to 18,000 homes · Downtown residents, and businesses, over 700 people businesses and community attended the open houses and organizations 1575 people responded to · City-wide general public surveys. Conducted in April 1999, the surveys highlighted · Provincial interests practical considerations in keeping or replacing the bridge; · Media responses indicated that the Image: Paired bridges: · Politicians (Freig, 1996, p. general public reinforced the Provencher Bridge (curved) 30). opinions of the affected publics. and Esplanade Riel (straight) 3 Actions & Interviewing potential key As aforementioned, consultants stakeholders from over 45 were considered resources, Interactions: community groups enabled making this a genuine endeavor moving forward Susan to gauge their perceptions to foster a community driven and willingness to participate collaborative approach. It was The ultimate goal of the in the process. Despite negative noted that the PAC were : participation process was to attitudes and distrust in the City of create a meaningful, open, Winnipeg, community members “pleased, not just with the honest and transparent dialogue were receptive and ready to outcome of the process, where community members get involved. Community but that they were part stakeholders were joined on the could participate knowing their of a new approach to input mattered. Additionally, PAC by the City of Winnipeg the process was designed to Public works and Planning dept; public consultation on integrate transportation planning consultants were understood to public works projects- with community planning by be resources only (Freig, 1999). one that offered public taking into account social, input at the earliest economic, environmental, land The PAC created guiding use and technical data (Freig, principles that revolved around opportunity and created 1999). Community members knowledge, communication and the circumstances for were outlined as partners in the respect of differing opinions. A the public to participate facilitator was hired to support the community profile and treated with the fullest level of as such as PAC members. A key agenda of each meeting, which feature was knowledge sharing were organized in four phases to knowledge”. within the PAC and beyond. Each ensure the breadth of knowledge individual on the PAC was a on the project was shared and Emile Chartier, artist, activist, representative of and responsible understood before moving long time resident and former to the external organizations they forward. The first phase involved president of the Old St. Boniface were a part of. background information, the Residents Association and second to determine goals, the PAC member, reflected the third to select bridge alternatives above sentiments during an and the fourth to make a informal interview session. recommendation based upon He felt as though the meetings their knowledge, information were efficient and prompt; the sharing and broad public input atmosphere and discussions were (Freig, 1999). The goals open and fair (they had stuck to prioritized in phase two included: their guiding principles) and he fiscal responsibility, culture and did not consider the committee heritage, aesthetics and economic to have been bought. Being an development. In relation to phase active community member and three, it is important to note that engaging with many different Wardrop Engineering’s bridge organizations throughout his life, alternatives were based upon he acknowledged that sometimes the four conceptual alternatives one knows when people have developed by the PAC. It is made decisions before entering a uncommon for the public to meeting; this was not the case in guide the engineering process.