UofA plan vs. Expo

MylesC · 08-02-2010, 02:02 PM

Seeing as Expo has been rather quiet lately (probably dead under the weight of the bureacratic ninnies that have driven it into the ground) I thought I'd pop up some images.

The first, UofA's south campus conceptual plan, released 2008:

The second, a snippet from our Expo 'bid' (and I use that term loosely):

I see we've really got some original thought going!

RTA · 08-02-2010, 02:16 PM

I'm not sure I'm picking up what you're laying down. If the Expo is meant to leave a lasting legacy in buildings, why wouldn't they be designed to fit the South Campus plan?

MylesC · 08-02-2010, 06:51 PM

I'm pointing out that the Expo bid was shoehorned into an existing infrastructure plan for the UofA.

So - the big dreams about a point of reimagining Edmonton and using Expo to springboard forward.....not so much. We're basically pulling a Hamburg and putting Expo in warehouses.

Unless of course one expects classrooms to go into the 'proposed' Canada or Alberta pavillions

RTA, your point would make sense if I felt that we had done a good job on the Expo bid. However, given the way the site selection committee was quietly disbanded, well...call me cynical

andy8244 · 08-02-2010, 07:20 PM

This is a semi-serious question. Apart from about a dozen guys on this site, is anyone in Edmonton actually buying into this whole Expo thing? I get the impression it's pretty much dead in the water?

MylesC · 08-02-2010, 08:18 PM

People were....

Now I'm not so sure.

It's kinda pulling a Port Alberta.

RTA · 08-02-2010, 08:58 PM

What's wrong with trying to achieve the goals of both the South Campus development and of the Expo's lasting legacy buildings? You're trying to spin it as a bad thing, but I don't see how the two need to be mutually exclusive before we can call it a vision.

MylesC · 08-02-2010, 10:34 PM

Perhaps because of some of the "how's" and "why's" that have come into the planning process.

I believe there were plans that were much more speaking to the lofty goals we had for Expo but I'm afraid they were quietly dumped because in this town the UofA gets what the UofA wants.

As I mentioned, the entire site selection citizen committee was disbanded before completing their recommendations.

If the selection of south campus can been arrived at in an open selection manner I wouldn't be so curious about it.

I guess I'm pointing some things out because there needs to be some investigation and questions asked about who is handling Expo and why. A lot of the original citizen boosters that were behind the project have either said 'screw this' or been quietly asked to move aside.

Rather curious.

You'll also find some connections between Expo and Port Alberta if you go digging enough.

The_Cat · 09-02-2010, 12:06 AM

I can understand the U of A having a design in their mind for Expo. If the Expo runs from around May 19 - September 4, 2017, the U of A could have legacy facilities from the Expo, possibly for use in time for classes. The U of A benefitted from the Butterdome during the 1983 Universiade.

The_Cat · 09-02-2010, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy8244

This is a semi-serious question. Apart from about a dozen guys on this site, is anyone in Edmonton actually buying into this whole Expo thing? I get the impression it's pretty much dead in the water?

Edmonton has to win the national bid, followed by the international bid around 2012. We're saving our strength, but we're talking about building the LRT in time for Expo.

IanO · 09-02-2010, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTA

What's wrong with trying to achieve the goals of both the South Campus development and of the Expo's lasting legacy buildings? You're trying to spin it as a bad thing, but I don't see how the two need to be mutually exclusive before we can call it a vision.

agreed

but i do worry the limitations of the UofA plan might create a slightly less creative fair.

as for traction of the EXPO by avg. Joe i just do not see it given the gov't financials, personal financials, and lack of appetite for the EXPO in general.

EdmTrekker · 09-02-2010, 06:14 PM

The concept and locale at South Campus is self serving for the UA - plain and simple. The site will NOT be used for the greater good of the general public down the road - it simply builds out South Campus and sets the stage for THAT development. Had it been at the city centre airport site - or in a river valley park area - those buildings could have been used to house museums (many museums), festive grounds and with other uses as well. I for one will not support the bid as is at UA campus. So many other sites, including Riverside and Victoria park/ golf courses would have provided strong links to downtown and resulted in places for children and families to use. The UA has far too much influence in the EXPO process and is far too controlling in this City. Enough already!

Sonic Death Monkey · 09-02-2010, 07:39 PM

Lower Rossdale is also a proposed Expo site. Let's not forget that.

edmonton daily photo · 09-02-2010, 07:52 PM

I think critics of the site are being very narrow minded. Expo will result in massive infrastructure building for the U of A, AND will bring even MORE international recognition for it and the city.

Decisions such as the one to use the U of A's growth ambitions are also going to make funding expo easier and more attractive to gov't. This is far from a cop out and all these decisions are made with reason behind it.

I don't see why piggy backing on the U of A's design would make a less attractive fair. It's hard to throw that out when we have not seen any real design sketches. PLUS there will be so much more going at the 2 sites than what is depicted in the one picture above.

Edmonton PRT · 10-02-2010, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey

Lower Rossdale is also a proposed Expo site. Let's not forget that.

Let's not forget Northlands, who knows, maybe they will want to have the EXPO site on the racetrack site and the abandoned Rexall Place site? They can boast that they have the new Agricom building as the centrepiece, an existing LRT station and plenty of parking. Is that not a couple of grain elevators being torn down right across from Rexall in preparation of their successful bid?

Renton · 11-02-2010, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

The concept and locale at South Campus is self serving for the UA - plain and simple. The site will NOT be used for the greater good of the general public down the road - it simply builds out South Campus and sets the stage for THAT development. Had it been at the city centre airport site - or in a river valley park area - those buildings could have been used to house museums (many museums), festive grounds and with other uses as well. I for one will not support the bid as is at UA campus. So many other sites, including Riverside and Victoria park/ golf courses would have provided strong links to downtown and resulted in places for children and families to use. The UA has far too much influence in the EXPO process and is far too controlling in this City. Enough already!

As long as the UofA is still considered a government subsidized, PUBLIC post-secondary institution, I think you'll have a difficult time convincing too many people that investement isn't in the 'greater good'.

Not that I'm particularily pumped about this project, just that I don't believe that parks, festival grounds, or museums (as you list for instance) are particularily more worthy of government support than our education system.

RichardS · 11-02-2010, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

I think critics of the site are being very narrow minded. Expo will result in massive infrastructure building for the U of A, AND will bring even MORE international recognition for it and the city.

Decisions such as the one to use the U of A's growth ambitions are also going to make funding expo easier and more attractive to gov't. This is far from a cop out and all these decisions are made with reason behind it.

I don't see why piggy backing on the U of A's design would make a less attractive fair. It's hard to throw that out when we have not seen any real design sketches. PLUS there will be so much more going at the 2 sites than what is depicted in the one picture above.

I want to contrast with...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

The concept and locale at South Campus is self serving for the UA - plain and simple. The site will NOT be used for the greater good of the general public down the road - it simply builds out South Campus and sets the stage for THAT development. Had it been at the city centre airport site - or in a river valley park area - those buildings could have been used to house museums (many museums), festive grounds and with other uses as well. I for one will not support the bid as is at UA campus. So many other sites, including Riverside and Victoria park/ golf courses would have provided strong links to downtown and resulted in places for children and families to use. The UA has far too much influence in the EXPO process and is far too controlling in this City. Enough already!

...for EdmTrekker's comments...well...I'm hearing this far more often than not.

EDP - I don't think that the critics of the site are being very narrow minded at all...more that they actually want to see a bit larger of a vision that translates to more people. I could argue that the approach of building what we would build anyway...of let's build a campus and a bridge as a legacy...could be more narrowminded than not.

I agree that the second site can help out with this legacy feel, but it is the secondary site nonetheless.

I agree that the site can hold vision, and there is most definitely merit in the comment of "to use the U of A's growth ambitions are also going to make funding expo easier and more attractive to gov't."; however, that cannot be the end all, be all. While education can be the greater good, one could then argue that we build an EXPO site that will become a hospital complex would be in the greater good. For a more city-wide legacy appeal, you could do something near the legislature grounds (aka Victoria golf course), integrate the RAM, the Leg redevelopment, Rossdale, and others to give a legacy infrastructure gift to ALL Canadians that make a set of attractions that people may actually want to visit long after an EXPO has departed has merit to both government and business sponsors.

This line from EdmTrekker says it best...and echos the sentiment I keep hearing.

"The site will NOT be used for the greater good of the general public down the road - it simply builds out South Campus and sets the stage for THAT development."

True or not...that is the sentiment I get...even from some of the BIGGEST boosters originally on the Citizen Committee...notwithstanding others like:

the farm like feel...removed from the core of the city...surrounded by single family homes...why not build it out in Leduc or Rabbit Hill?
The missed opportunity to completely transform an area that was once blighted by industry into an area that is reborn a la False Creek.
this doesn't feel grassroots anymore...it looks like people checking off a laundry list for their own gain...

EXPO's are meant to invigorate an entire area. EXPO's are meant to capture an entire city's imagination, and leave a legacy that translates to a broad audience. EXPO's can leave a legacy outside buildings, but the buildings and their interactivity to a larger audience can keep the "dream alive".

The question becomes...

Does a set of campus buildings that will become a campus for a select audience translate into a legacy for Edmonton, Alberta, and Canada that we will look back to in 20 years and say this was it? Can the legacy EVENTS that happen here be enough, and the buildings are just a means to an end?

-OR-

Is this just a build out of a campus that we are going to build anyway once demand warrants? Are there better legacy options, and do buildings and their eventual use mean more than the event itself?

It is time that this bid comes back out of the cone of silence, and starts actively communicating what it is, and what it means to more people. Be open and potentially over communicate. The biggest problem is that to the layperson, the bid looks more like a small band working in secret rather than a grassroots push.

...right now...from the conversations I'm having with rabid grassroots promoters of the idea...let's just say that whomever is on the second phase of this bid has a lot of PR work ahead of them...not that this site and bid couldn't be a great city-wide legacy...but a tram to a water taxi to somehow connect 2 sites is not going to cut it...

moahunter · 22-02-2010, 12:35 PM

^somebody has to make decisions though, to keep it moving forward. You could consult everybody, but even then, everybody won't be happy with whatever is decided. I think for projects, often a small tight knit team, is the way to get things done. It may not be perfect, and maybe some people will have their nose out of joint that their brilliant ideas weren't listened too, but nothing ever is perfect. The alternative that so often results in Edmonton is paralysis by analysis.

EdmTrekker · 22-02-2010, 12:54 PM

from Skyscraper...comparing Shanghai Expo 2010 to Edmonton 2017...

"Not that Shanghai needed EXPO - it is an amazing world class city.

No question that BIG cities will be looking to make a global statement hosting a major EXPO. Edmonton is looking at a MINOR Expo - with prefab buildings (although I wish the buildings were of a much higher quality). Prefab means there will be severe limitations - function and form must follow what is possible to be produced at the fabrication facility...so the die is cast as to what can visually be created. Life cycle of the structures are substantially less and ultimately the potential use of the buildings long term is also restricted. I am not convinced this approach is worth the cost to be paid by taxpayers in spending a couple of billion dollars to provide the hosting venues compared to a MAJOR Expo where each country pays to build their own pavilion. Then again, the U of A envisions a major opportunity to build out South Campus...at a time when leading Universities worldwide are looking to reduce the need for students to attend classes in a physical campus setting and replace it with technology such as webinars and other mediums to reduce the cost in providing campus based education. Maybe Pre-Fab is all that IS needed...just to bad we taxpayers are being asked to spend a few billion on a temporary fair. Those billions could be used to build pavilions that could be converted to broadcast studios and other infrastructure needed to bring remote distance learning to the world, add almost unlimited new student learning spaces and provide LONG TERM cost savings to the Government as funding to Universities and Colleges could be better controlled and managed. Have we the right theme for the Edmonton Expo? Is not access to education what the University should be striving to achieve - increasing the number of students by having them study at home or in classrooms around the world?.
From Wiki:

"Presently, there are two types of world expositions: registered and recognized (sometimes unofficially known as "major" and "minor" fairs, respectively[3]). Registered exhibitions are the biggest category events. Previously, registered expositions were called “Universal Expositions”. Even though this name lingers on in public memory, it is no longer in use as an official term. At registered exhibitions, participants generally build their own pavilions. They are therefore the most extravagant and most expensive expos. Their duration may be between six weeks and six months. Since 1995, the interval between two registered expositions has been at least five years. The next registered exposition will be Expo 2010 in Shanghai.
Recognized expositions are smaller in scope and investments and generally shorter in duration; between three weeks and three months. Previously, these expositions were called "International or Specialized Expositions" but these terms are no longer used officially. Their total surface area must not exceed 25 ha and organizers must build pavilions for the participating states, free of rent, charges, taxes and expenses. The largest country pavilions may not exceed 1,000 m². Only one recognized exhibition can be held between two registered exhibitions.[4]"

"Recognized Expositions" or International or Specialized Expositions
International expositions are usually united by a common theme—such as Transportation (Vancouver Expo 86), or, 'Leisure in the Age of Technology' (Brisbane, Expo '8

. Such themes are narrower than the wider scope of Universal expositions. Specialized and international expositions are usually smaller in scale and cheaper to run for the host committee and participants because the architectural fees are lower and they only have to rent the space from the host committee, usually with the pre-fabricated structure already completed. Countries then have the option of 'adding' their own colours, design etc. to the outside of the pre-fabricated structure and filling in the inside with their own content. One example of this is China, which invariably has chosen to add a Chinese archway in the front of its pre-fabricated pavilions to symbolize the nation (Expo '88, Expo '92, Expo '93). The 2008 International Exhibition has been hosted by Zaragoza, Spain with the theme "Water and the Sustainable Development".
Expo 2012 will be held in Yeosu, South Korea, with the theme "The Living Ocean and Coast: Diversity of Resources and Sustainable Activities”[5]

2010 Shanghai (China)
2012 Yeosu (South Korea)
2015 Milan (Italy)
2016 Antalya (Turkey)
Expo 2017 yet to be designated
Expo 2020 yet to be designated

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_(exhibition)

EdmTrekker · 22-02-2010, 12:56 PM

And this...

"Back to Shanghai for a moment...I had to work hard on the Shanghai Expo website to find a reference to Canada. Even the search box came up with noting. I was worried we were not participating like in Zarazoga. Eventually I found the reference:

http://en.expo2010.cn/expo/expo_engl...t1ai48610.html

I quite liked Mexico's approach to a pavilion...talk about simplicity and ease of disassembly."

RichardS · 22-02-2010, 01:31 PM

moa,

No one is asking that people get consensus from the masses on all decisions. That is not even close to the point.You do need a nimble team...that is a given. No one will be happy with all decisions. That statement is so cliche it hurts.

-HOWEVER-

You need to keep people engaged. This is about communicating the end goals over and over. It is about keeping yourself in the public eye. It is about branding, messaging, and repetition....it is about showing the 40+ Type "A" personalities in the citizen committee the transition from the ideas and decisions made then to what is here today...for those results are a bit different than the final product from the citizens committee...but they could be won over...

...but then, our recent Olympic marketing effort is telling...

08-02-2010, 02:02 PM	#1
MylesC Addicted to C2E Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Edmonton, AB	UofA plan vs. Expo Seeing as Expo has been rather quiet lately (probably dead under the weight of the bureacratic ninnies that have driven it into the ground) I thought I'd pop up some images. The first, UofA's south campus conceptual plan, released 2008: The second, a snippet from our Expo 'bid' (and I use that term loosely): I see we've really got some original thought going! __________________ Man of Downtown

08-02-2010, 02:16 PM	#2
RTA Addicted to C2E Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Holyrood	I'm not sure I'm picking up what you're laying down. If the Expo is meant to leave a lasting legacy in buildings, why wouldn't they be designed to fit the South Campus plan? __________________ RTA IS Edmonton.

08-02-2010, 06:51 PM	#3
MylesC Addicted to C2E Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Edmonton, AB	I'm pointing out that the Expo bid was shoehorned into an existing infrastructure plan for the UofA. So - the big dreams about a point of reimagining Edmonton and using Expo to springboard forward.....not so much. We're basically pulling a Hamburg and putting Expo in warehouses. Unless of course one expects classrooms to go into the 'proposed' Canada or Alberta pavillions RTA, your point would make sense if I felt that we had done a good job on the Expo bid. However, given the way the site selection committee was quietly disbanded, well...call me cynical __________________ Man of Downtown

08-02-2010, 07:20 PM	#4
andy8244 Addicted to C2E Join Date: Aug 2009	This is a semi-serious question. Apart from about a dozen guys on this site, is anyone in Edmonton actually buying into this whole Expo thing? I get the impression it's pretty much dead in the water? __________________ If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

08-02-2010, 08:18 PM	#5
MylesC Addicted to C2E Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Edmonton, AB	People were.... Now I'm not so sure. It's kinda pulling a Port Alberta. __________________ Man of Downtown

08-02-2010, 08:58 PM	#6
RTA Addicted to C2E Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Holyrood	What's wrong with trying to achieve the goals of both the South Campus development and of the Expo's lasting legacy buildings? You're trying to spin it as a bad thing, but I don't see how the two need to be mutually exclusive before we can call it a vision. __________________ RTA IS Edmonton.

08-02-2010, 10:34 PM	#7
MylesC Addicted to C2E Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Edmonton, AB	Perhaps because of some of the "how's" and "why's" that have come into the planning process. I believe there were plans that were much more speaking to the lofty goals we had for Expo but I'm afraid they were quietly dumped because in this town the UofA gets what the UofA wants. As I mentioned, the entire site selection citizen committee was disbanded before completing their recommendations. If the selection of south campus can been arrived at in an open selection manner I wouldn't be so curious about it. I guess I'm pointing some things out because there needs to be some investigation and questions asked about who is handling Expo and why. A lot of the original citizen boosters that were behind the project have either said 'screw this' or been quietly asked to move aside. Rather curious. You'll also find some connections between Expo and Port Alberta if you go digging enough. __________________ Man of Downtown

09-02-2010, 12:06 AM	#8
The_Cat Addicted to C2E Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sherwood Park, AB	I can understand the U of A having a design in their mind for Expo. If the Expo runs from around May 19 - September 4, 2017, the U of A could have legacy facilities from the Expo, possibly for use in time for classes. The U of A benefitted from the Butterdome during the 1983 Universiade. __________________ "Ideas are bulletproof." - V for Vendetta

09-02-2010, 06:14 PM	#11
EdmTrekker Addicted to C2E Join Date: Jul 2006	The concept and locale at South Campus is self serving for the UA - plain and simple. The site will NOT be used for the greater good of the general public down the road - it simply builds out South Campus and sets the stage for THAT development. Had it been at the city centre airport site - or in a river valley park area - those buildings could have been used to house museums (many museums), festive grounds and with other uses as well. I for one will not support the bid as is at UA campus. So many other sites, including Riverside and Victoria park/ golf courses would have provided strong links to downtown and resulted in places for children and families to use. The UA has far too much influence in the EXPO process and is far too controlling in this City. Enough already!

09-02-2010, 07:39 PM	#12
Sonic Death Monkey Addicted to C2E Join Date: Mar 2006	Lower Rossdale is also a proposed Expo site. Let's not forget that. __________________ I've lived in the downtown area for nearly 20 years. Never been assaulted. Never been mugged. Never been raped. Never been murdered.

09-02-2010, 07:52 PM	#13
edmonton daily photo Addicted to C2E Join Date: May 2008	I think critics of the site are being very narrow minded. Expo will result in massive infrastructure building for the U of A, AND will bring even MORE international recognition for it and the city. Decisions such as the one to use the U of A's growth ambitions are also going to make funding expo easier and more attractive to gov't. This is far from a cop out and all these decisions are made with reason behind it. I don't see why piggy backing on the U of A's design would make a less attractive fair. It's hard to throw that out when we have not seen any real design sketches. PLUS there will be so much more going at the 2 sites than what is depicted in the one picture above.

22-02-2010, 12:35 PM	#17
moahunter Addicted to C2E Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton, Alberta	^somebody has to make decisions though, to keep it moving forward. You could consult everybody, but even then, everybody won't be happy with whatever is decided. I think for projects, often a small tight knit team, is the way to get things done. It may not be perfect, and maybe some people will have their nose out of joint that their brilliant ideas weren't listened too, but nothing ever is perfect. The alternative that so often results in Edmonton is paralysis by analysis.

22-02-2010, 12:54 PM	#18
EdmTrekker Addicted to C2E Join Date: Jul 2006	from Skyscraper...comparing Shanghai Expo 2010 to Edmonton 2017... "Not that Shanghai needed EXPO - it is an amazing world class city. No question that BIG cities will be looking to make a global statement hosting a major EXPO. Edmonton is looking at a MINOR Expo - with prefab buildings (although I wish the buildings were of a much higher quality). Prefab means there will be severe limitations - function and form must follow what is possible to be produced at the fabrication facility...so the die is cast as to what can visually be created. Life cycle of the structures are substantially less and ultimately the potential use of the buildings long term is also restricted. I am not convinced this approach is worth the cost to be paid by taxpayers in spending a couple of billion dollars to provide the hosting venues compared to a MAJOR Expo where each country pays to build their own pavilion. Then again, the U of A envisions a major opportunity to build out South Campus...at a time when leading Universities worldwide are looking to reduce the need for students to attend classes in a physical campus setting and replace it with technology such as webinars and other mediums to reduce the cost in providing campus based education. Maybe Pre-Fab is all that IS needed...just to bad we taxpayers are being asked to spend a few billion on a temporary fair. Those billions could be used to build pavilions that could be converted to broadcast studios and other infrastructure needed to bring remote distance learning to the world, add almost unlimited new student learning spaces and provide LONG TERM cost savings to the Government as funding to Universities and Colleges could be better controlled and managed. Have we the right theme for the Edmonton Expo? Is not access to education what the University should be striving to achieve - increasing the number of students by having them study at home or in classrooms around the world?. From Wiki: "Presently, there are two types of world expositions: registered and recognized (sometimes unofficially known as "major" and "minor" fairs, respectively[3]). Registered exhibitions are the biggest category events. Previously, registered expositions were called “Universal Expositions”. Even though this name lingers on in public memory, it is no longer in use as an official term. At registered exhibitions, participants generally build their own pavilions. They are therefore the most extravagant and most expensive expos. Their duration may be between six weeks and six months. Since 1995, the interval between two registered expositions has been at least five years. The next registered exposition will be Expo 2010 in Shanghai. Recognized expositions are smaller in scope and investments and generally shorter in duration; between three weeks and three months. Previously, these expositions were called "International or Specialized Expositions" but these terms are no longer used officially. Their total surface area must not exceed 25 ha and organizers must build pavilions for the participating states, free of rent, charges, taxes and expenses. The largest country pavilions may not exceed 1,000 m². Only one recognized exhibition can be held between two registered exhibitions.[4]" "Recognized Expositions" or International or Specialized Expositions International expositions are usually united by a common theme—such as Transportation (Vancouver Expo 86), or, 'Leisure in the Age of Technology' (Brisbane, Expo '8. Such themes are narrower than the wider scope of Universal expositions. Specialized and international expositions are usually smaller in scale and cheaper to run for the host committee and participants because the architectural fees are lower and they only have to rent the space from the host committee, usually with the pre-fabricated structure already completed. Countries then have the option of 'adding' their own colours, design etc. to the outside of the pre-fabricated structure and filling in the inside with their own content. One example of this is China, which invariably has chosen to add a Chinese archway in the front of its pre-fabricated pavilions to symbolize the nation (Expo '88, Expo '92, Expo '93). The 2008 International Exhibition has been hosted by Zaragoza, Spain with the theme "Water and the Sustainable Development". Expo 2012 will be held in Yeosu, South Korea, with the theme "The Living Ocean and Coast: Diversity of Resources and Sustainable Activities”[5] 2010 Shanghai (China) 2012 Yeosu (South Korea) 2015 Milan (Italy) 2016 Antalya (Turkey) Expo 2017 yet to be designated Expo 2020 yet to be designated Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_(exhibition)

22-02-2010, 12:56 PM	#19
EdmTrekker Addicted to C2E Join Date: Jul 2006	And this... "Back to Shanghai for a moment...I had to work hard on the Shanghai Expo website to find a reference to Canada. Even the search box came up with noting. I was worried we were not participating like in Zarazoga. Eventually I found the reference: http://en.expo2010.cn/expo/expo_engl...t1ai48610.html I quite liked Mexico's approach to a pavilion...talk about simplicity and ease of disassembly."

22-02-2010, 01:31 PM	#20
RichardS Addicted to C2E Site Admin Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Edmonton	moa, No one is asking that people get consensus from the masses on all decisions. That is not even close to the point.You do need a nimble team...that is a given. No one will be happy with all decisions. That statement is so cliche it hurts. -HOWEVER- You need to keep people engaged. This is about communicating the end goals over and over. It is about keeping yourself in the public eye. It is about branding, messaging, and repetition....it is about showing the 40+ Type "A" personalities in the citizen committee the transition from the ideas and decisions made then to what is here today...for those results are a bit different than the final product from the citizens committee...but they could be won over... ...but then, our recent Olympic marketing effort is telling... __________________ sigh