+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Urban Areas (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours (/showthread.php?tid=7)
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - tomh009 - 03-09-2016
I have no objection to a monument recognizing the (recent) contributions of the Canadian military. Putting a decommissioned LAV on a concrete pad seems too massive, though, and just ... gauche.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - MidTowner - 03-09-2016
Just to play devil’s advocate here a bit, what exactly is “gauche” or “tasteless” about putting a Light Armoured Vehicle (for us layman, I might call it a “small tank”), as opposed to putting a tank or captured weaponry from “the enemy” on display? The latter cases are common in many parks, and I’ve never really heard serious agitation about removing any of them. In Victoria Park in London, there is an M4 (so a medium armoured vehicle rather than a light armoured vehicle) from World War II on display, and several cannons captured by the British during the Crimean War. The tank has been on display there for more than sixty years.
That tank was designed to kill people, or protect the people inside so they can kill people, or whatever; so is the LAV III. I sense the latter is not “gauche” because it’s a weapon of war, but for some other reason. Why would the LAV III be any more or less tasteless than an actual tank? Just because one is a lot older? Many of the tanks on display as part of Canadian monuments weren’t older when they were put there.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - zanate - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 09:10 AM)MidTowner Wrote: That tank was designed to kill people, or protect the people inside so they can kill people, or whatever; so is the LAV III. I sense the latter is not “gauche” because it’s a weapon of war, but for some other reason. Why would the LAV III be any more or less tasteless than an actual tank? Just because one is a lot older? Many of the tanks on display as part of Canadian monuments weren’t older when they were put there.
Agreed. I'm not sure I see the objection. It's not uncommon to have old tanks and guns as monuments at cenotaphs, and this one is a part of our modern military's heritage.
Besides, the whole area is concrete and asphalt and covered with (unarmoured) vehicles anyway. What's really so objectionable about one more?
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - tomh009 - 03-09-2016
LAV III is massive. So would be a captured tank, so that wouldn't be ideal for me, either, even if such things are on display everywhere. I would prefer something smaller.
That said, I'm not violently opposed, just expressing my personal preference.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - chutten - 03-09-2016
I don't like it 'cause it's a huge machine of war.
That being said, the Cenotaph area is designated to be used only for remembrance and contemplation. A LAV III wouldn't get in the way of that, and could help remind people of modern contributions as well as historical ones. (So easy it is, in times of peace, oceans away from conflict, to forget our good fortune)
So... on balance I'm a whole lotta 'meh' about it.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - insider - 03-09-2016
(03-08-2016, 10:42 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: Noticed in the City of Waterloo meeting agenda is a pending approval to add full size LAV III to the cenotaph between Paul Puncher and City Hall:
http://calendar.waterloo.ca/Module/Calendar/Document/Download/7f25c300-c793-484b-bfe8-3584f5b85502
This is horrible. Something to remind us about all those senseless deaths and social trauma every time we're walking around?
Is there any interest in mobilizing against this?
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - timc - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 11:48 AM)insider Wrote: This is horrible. Something to remind us about all those senseless deaths and social trauma every time we're walking around?
Isn't that kind of the point of these monuments?
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - Elmira Guy - 03-09-2016
@ Insider. Would you honestly rather people not think about such things? Sure sounds like a great way to ensure such conflicts continue.
As has been said, this is no different than any other war/military monument. I don't have any objection whatsoever.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - nms - 03-11-2016
How many surplus LAVs does the military have? The fact sheet in this thread says that the service life began in 1999 could extend to 2035. Maybe these are the ones that are no longer serviceable?
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - jordan2423 - 03-11-2016
How about we think about this instead: a monument recognizing the Aboriginal people of Canada instead of war killing machines. Instead of ignoring Aboriginals like Canada usually does. It's disheartening to see that in Canada's booklet 'Discover Canada', they mention that 'large numbers of Aboriginals died of European diseases to which they lacked immunity'. This is a disgrace, or maybe because European colonizers murdered and slaughtered millions of Aboriginal peoples... How about we recognize and accept that fact of history in Canada rather than ignoring it. We will not progress as a nation if we decide to ignore our evil past. And unfortunately we do till this very day.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - DHLawrence - 03-14-2016
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in: Developer David Mady files for bankruptcy.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - schooner77 - 03-14-2016
Interesting article. Nowhere is 144 mentioned, and I'm pretty sure it went into bankruptcy before the Collier Centre. I would think the numbers are actually much higher. Hardly seems like a fair punishment for all the debt and countless individuals and companies out millions of dollars.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - mpd618 - 03-15-2016
(03-14-2016, 08:40 PM)schooner77 Wrote: Nowhere is 144 mentioned, and I'm pretty sure it went into bankruptcy before the Collier Centre.
It says this:
Quote:Then, one by one, Mady’s group of companies responsible for projects in other cities like Markham, Scarborough and Waterloo began turning to the courts for creditor protection as construction liens began to pile up.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - plam - 03-15-2016
(03-14-2016, 05:45 PM)DHLawrence Wrote: Wasn't sure which thread to put this in: Developer David Mady files for bankruptcy.
Strangely enough, it's a personal bankruptcy filing, not a corporate one. He had actually guaranteed a lot of the construction costs personally.
RE: General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours - tomh009 - 03-26-2016
Personal guarantees are common for small businesses (I did that, too, when I ran my own company) but I'm a bit surprised that he personally guaranteed over $50M in debt.