Print this document

 

"Rethinking the Niagara Frontier" A 21st Century Park February 7, 2000 Meeting Notes Draft Notes Attendees

1. Welcome and Context

David Crombie welcomed all participants and thanked everyone for attending the meeting. He noted that there are many cross-border economic development initiatives currently underway in the Niagara Region including transportation, trade, the environment and others. The Waterfront Regeneration Trust and The Urban Design Project at the University at Buffalo have come together in an effort to bring all these initiatives together in a forum. This is not inventing something new, but a way of integrating and building on the work that local municipalities are already doing.

Mr. Crombie suggested that the group look at the Niagara map distributed by Clint Brown as a way of thinking about what can be done and as a way of bringing people and ideas together. He described the importance of maps to the group by speaking of Hugh Brody’s book titled Maps & Dreams which illustrates how maps were used by the Beaver Indians as a tool for survival – they were used to indicate where to get food, where to set up camp etc. – and how these maps were redrawn as conditions changed.

(back to the top)

2. Introductions

Participants introduced themselves and briefly described the organizations which they represented.

3. Roundtable Discussion

Bob Shibley explained that this meeting was a working session to help plan a March/April workshop that would result in an action agenda for a June symposium.

Bob used maps of the Niagara River and adjacent lands to describe bi-national assets of the region including parks and open spaces, transportation, roadways cultural amenities and waterways. He distributed a map showing these assets and explained the meaning of placing our cities within parks. He used Germany’s Emscher Landscape Park as a regional example to describe how economic, ecological and community values can be integrated and promoted.

Bob asked the group to think of what is currently underway in the region and along the River and who controls the capital assets that could contribute in creating a 21st Century park. The group’s suggestions concerning key institutions included:

Environmental Groups

Tourism Groups

Businesses/Industries

Transportation Groups

Governments/Agencies

Institutions

Bi-National/International Groups

After compiling the above list, Bob Shibley asked participants for their suggestions as to who should be involved in the Parks Symposium and next steps.

Participants suggested that it may be useful to identify who will be directly impacted by the project and future planning in the area, what the benefits are to the region that no one single project would provide, and who would directly benefit. Benefits need to be defined and organizational and administrative models need to be considered.

They also suggested to encourage people to think collaboratively and to integrate economic, ecological and community elements. Tom DeSantis and Lucy Cook suggested looking at precedents such as Germany’s Emscher Landscape Park which uses the park concept and the environment to elevate the status of the area and provide a framework for economic development.

Clint Brown suggested that as a first step, people need to understand what "already is" – what is currently underway in the area – and then pull all the pieces together.

Some participants thought that the word "park" may be misleading – people may think we are talking about Prospect Park or Fort George. We need to have people understand that the term "park" is being reinvented to imply cities in parks. Clint Brown suggested using a different working title for the project, perhaps "21st Century Niagara Park." Kerry Grant suggested using the title "Rethinking the Niagara Frontier" and to focus on the scenic river, the corridor and the border. Another suggestion for a title was "21st Century Niagara." Clint thought that the Parks Symposium should be an opportunity to re-frame the activities we’re currently undertaking.

Jeff Belt thought that a useful start may be an interactive web-site that would serve as a communication tool for a variety of topics, and that is operated and maintained by a site manager. This would enable people to get information and at the same time meet in small groups to have discussions. This approach could enable stakeholders to emerge through time.

There was some discussion of community involvement. How would people living in the region be able to identify what their wishes are and explain why they are living in Niagara? Bob Shibley and Lucy Cook indicated that over the years there have been plenty of visioning exercises for the public; now is the time for implementation and accounting to the public for their visioning work. Bob also suggested that we would, of course, need to provide mechanisms for the on-going role of the public in the program.

Bob Shibley circulated a draft list of "purposes" of the Parks Symposium and asked participants for their comments. Meeting participants thought that the purposes as listed were generally too narrow – there was no indication of community development, of economic development or knowledge-based industries for example. It was also suggested that the word "tourism" as used needed to be broader.

4. Conclusions/ Next Steps

Bill Connor thought that a Symposium would be beneficial for the region. It could be an opportunity to understand global trends and successful initiatives, and would enable Niagara to understand the opportunities at hand. Bill noted that the region is now struggling with slow growth. There is a deep commitment for the bi-national region, and a project like the Symposium can help put a framework around current initiatives and demonstrate our ability to work together. It is important therefore, that we get people to understand what this project is all about.

Edmund Sullivan added that if we can leverage more money, we can make both sides more attractive.

Ed Rutkowski suggested that a time constraint be put on this project. This helps to understand the benefits of the project and the consequences of not working together.

Debbie Whitehouse added that it is important to continue communicating as a group.

In summarizing the discussion, Beth Benson indicated that the group defined a way of "re-thinking" the Niagara region – this includes defining and updating the assets in the region and re-framing them in a new vision that guides investment. Ongoing communication would be key, as well as examining organizational needs.

David Crombie concluded by indicating that an Advisory Group will be assembled for this project, and if anyone wishes to be on this group they should contact Beth Benson or Bob Shibley.

 

Other relevant comments