Clearly the author has the humane-environment-recipe all figured out. Galston’s interpretation of ‘Modernism’ is a bit shallow in its own right and I can’t imagine the projects noted are single handedly to blame for Winnipeg’s urban decline given the myriad of factors that contribute to urban longevity. These projects seemed to be successful during the 60s. Policy making probably has a little more to do with the decline we see and I think you’ll agree it is over a host of other reasons. If modern architecture is to blame for the death of the city, surely you would concurr that architecture has the power to save it? Well, I would say…certainly enhance, contribute, improve…yes, and also in fairness detract from our environments (as the art is utilized by poor hands, poor clients) – as all urban design is not ‘good design’. But Winnipeg’s problems are social problems, economic problems…leadership problems. Murray should have hung on as Mayor, perhaps. I don’t think I have ever met another politician who was such an advocate of architecture and urbanism and had the nerve to quarterback his ideas down town council’s throats. Ah, democracy…

The author blanketly proclaims modernism as anti-pedestrian or inhumane. There’s one I haven’t heard before. Makes me wonder if his ‘momma’ taught him that. His understanding of architecture beyond 1920 – the period of historical modernism – is somewhat lacking in the article, although it is unclear exactly how broad a scope of modern he is referring to. In juxtaposition to the old, the ‘modern’ never seemed so new and at the same time, the historic so transcendent of our time and place. Contrast is a good thing to me. Winnipeg is the perfect context for this kind of contrast of mixed use and re-use, of breaking conventions (look at the building stock!)but the merits of a project should be evaluated on any per project basis, and not with a broad brush based on fleeting qualities of style. If it has been stylized, it would seem old already. Style is simply taxonomy. Define ‘modern’ in terms of what is being done today.

Well, perhaps Galston is simply a romantic at heart and yearns for neighbourhoods which are tarted up with the diluted ornament of yesturday – viva the Baroque…the Rococo…the Arts & Crafts of centuries ago. Preserve it like petrified wood. Whatever makes you comfortable. Linus couldn’t let go of that blanket either.

Though more authentic than the pastiche manifestations of today’s exurban neighbourhoods (ie. Waverley West), the architecture of America’s past – the Tudor, Queen Anne and the Georgian styles to name a few – also lacked a true sense of regionalism. Vernacular styles of construction brought by immigrants. Lest we forget, in their own right, they were once considered ‘modern’; perpetuated from the east during a ‘battle of styles’ – tasteful bites of skiamorph on a stick. Copied facsimilies, lived in by conformists. Today the zeitgeist is subject to new media, globalism, sustainability and on and on – these issues do not constrain themselves to the Beaux Arts school (nor Manitoba for that matter). More opportunity in the latter. Historic preservation is deserved, but let’s not suggest architectural taxidermy is the answer to the urban decline supposedly laid waste by modernism as is suggested.

The article makes for poor hyperbole.

Thank you