Free Press columnist Gordon Sinclair Jr. took time out from slandering dead people to write another piece where he continues to perpetuate the myth that the “last vestige” of Upper Fort Garry is at risk from residential development.
In today’s column, Sinclair makes several references to “preserving” the site, and urges City Council to “give us back our birthplace.”
Unless Gordon was born in the middle of a parking lot, I have no idea what he’s talking about.
It’s been well-documented elsewhere that the proposed residential development sits completely outside of the footprint of the old fort, on a surface lot at the corner of Assiniboine Ave and Fort Street. Both the developer and the City have expressed interest in turning the actual remains of the fort site (you know, the part that doesn’t sit under six lanes of traffic) into a heritage park. The gate itself will be preserved no matter what.
I also find it funny that he keeps referring to the rather modest-sized residential development as a “highrise apartment complex,” and mentions “highrise developer Ruben Spletzer,” as though the guy was Donald Trump. The “highrise” will be 15 stories tall, or about half the height of Fort Garry Place, which is directly across the street. It will also be designed to complement an adjacent heritage park. The Burj Dubai Tower it’s not.
Why Sinclair feels the need to obfuscate the truth is a bit puzzling to me. If you believe the Friends of Upper Fort Garry plan would be better for the city than adding more downtown residents, then argue the merits of the plan Gordon, don’t just fear monger.
And as for the 440,000+ items of great archeological importance — like a 140-year-old toilet seat — that you say have been unearthed in the vicinity of The Forks, might I suggest that a better home for them might be…oh, I don’t know…The Forks? You know, that big multi-million dollar tourist attraction that’s located right across the street?
Related:
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: friends of upper fort garry, gordon sinclair jr, upper fort garry
I found it funny how the tone of his article seemed to be that these “artifacts” would somehow be forgotten if the interpretive centre didn’t get built. He neglected to mention where the artifacts are right now, and why there isn’t an exhibit elsewhere (where they would also get more attention) such as the Museum of Man and Nature.
“Why Sinclair feels the need to obfuscate the truth is a bit puzzling to me”.
Asking why Sinclair feels the need to obfuscate the truth is a bit like asking why a dog feels a need to bark. In both cases, it is in their very essence, it is “what they do”, in a dog’s case to make himself heard, and in Sinclair’s case – well, same reason I guess.