Winnipeg Construction X

[plrh]

https://globalnews.ca/news/6593964/w...attle-airport/

http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/dmis/View...onId=&InitUrl=

It's a shame they are probably going to lose (just being pessimistic). I think some density around the mall would be great. I live under a flight path and it does not bother me a bit. It could make for some half-assed TOD being close enough to downtown.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by plrh

https://globalnews.ca/news/6593964/w...attle-airport/

http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/dmis/View...onId=&InitUrl=

It's a shame they are probably going to lose (just being pessimistic). I think some density around the mall would be great. I live under a flight path and it does not bother me a bit. It could make for some half-assed TOD being close enough to downtown.

its a toughy but when comes to our airport we cant be shooting our selfs in the foot

[plrh]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

its a toughy but when comes to our airport we cant be shooting our selfs in the foot

I am biased because i like watching the planes come in.

[EspionNoir]

On the plus side the competition shows that the opportunities here are pretty good.

[optimusREIM]

Idk. This for me is a clear case of buyer beware. There are already people living in the area. They know what they're getting into. Let them build stuff. This is such a stupid debate.

[thurmas]

there are major airports surrounded by far more development than Winnipeg's is I don't see how this is an issue people know when they move to that area it's close to an airport shouldn't be a problem just get this done as the area has been an eyesore since the stadium was torn down.

[inlp89]

I frequent CF Richmond and there is a ton of residential construction, oh and btw YVR is very close by and 10X busier than YWG. Crazy to think airport authority would stop development due to noise complaints? Did i read that right?

[esquire]

^ Hard to argue with the conclusion of the planners... the planning policy documents say don't do it, so don't do it. If there's a problem, then maybe revisit Our Winnipeg and the AVDP.

It sounds to me like the AVDP is in serious need of rethinking.

[Authentic_City]

Coming along

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Idk. This for me is a clear case of buyer beware. There are already people living in the area. They know what they're getting into. Let them build stuff. This is such a stupid debate.

100%. This is one of those things everyone on here should be emailing their councillors about how ridiculous this is.

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Hard to argue with the conclusion of the planners... the planning policy documents say don't do it, so don't do it. If there's a problem, then maybe revisit Our Winnipeg and the AVDP.

It sounds to me like the AVDP is in serious need of rethinking.

The planners’ jobs should be to make the RIGHT decision, not blindly follow son (out of date) document. If the document isn’t aligned to reality, bring it up and look to change it. Our Winnipeg is a guideline after all, not law.

[ywgwalk]

In a new report to city council's Assiniboia community committee, planner Robert Galston recommend the city reject the development application altogether, noting the Winnipeg Airports Authority is not in favour of the change.

One of the first times I think I've seen rgalston (former forumer) mentioned in an article, although maybe I've just not been paying enough attention.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Hard to argue with the conclusion of the planners... the planning policy documents say don't do it, so don't do it. If there's a problem, then maybe revisit Our Winnipeg and the AVDP.

It sounds to me like the AVDP is in serious need of rethinking.

The City of Winnipeg government*** is in serious need of replacing

[Luisito]

Oh wow that place is really coming along. I haven't been down there in a while. Thanks for sharing that.

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

Coming along

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by inlp89

I frequent CF Richmond and there is a ton of residential construction, oh and btw YVR is very close by and 10X busier than YWG. Crazy to think airport authority would stop development due to noise complaints? Did i read that right?

I'm curious - the WAA is aware, that its in the MIDDLE OF A CITY, right? I mean, if its such a problem... they should either pinch some pennies for a new airport, or they should REALLY shut the hell up about their precious "air space".

Its like my previous posts about the Polo Park area needing drastic investment and employment increases. Yes, Winnipeg needs an airport, but those dumbass NIMBY's were also the same ones that have been constantly thrwarting development and progress, for *decades*. From public transit, to double-standards regarding development (example: new hotels at the Airport), to terminal expansion, and now? Threatening the Dark Ages, over a few TOD's and apartments near the biggest mall in between the GTA & Alberta... lmao when does it end?!?!?! Maybe we should just go Amish & whip out the horsebuggies, if THATS the opinion that the WAA has for the City of Winnipeg. It's beyond stupid.

By the way, this is coming from someone who lived DIRECTLY under their flightpaths, that had 747s shake the living shit out of my house... and even ***I*** am advocating for the development of Polo Park & St. James. These WAA asshats should go back to urban design... clearly, they don't even know its the 2020s yet.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by buzzg

The planners’ jobs should be to make the RIGHT decision, not blindly follow son (out of date) document. If the document isn’t aligned to reality, bring it up and look to change it. Our Winnipeg is a guideline after all, not law.

The planners should follow planning policies that have been put in place, they shouldn't override them just because they don't agree...otherwise, what's the point of having planning policies in the first place if the decisions end up being based on nothing more than the gut feeling of whatever planners are on the file?

If the policies are not ideal from their perspective, then tell the politicians what the problems are and get them to amend the plans. Which definitely seems like the appropriate thing to do here.

Also to ywgwalk's post, I suspect something was lost in translation... I can't imagine that any city planner would oppose a development just because WAA opposes it. WAA doesn't (or shouldn't, at least) get to call the shots on development. The impression I got from the administrative report was that the problem is the official plans don't allow for residential development at Polo Park and that the department's hands are therefore tied. But if council decided to change its mind and amend the plan, then anything can happen...

And let's get real here, with Shindico and CF pushing for the development, you have to like its chances. Let's just say that those companies have a way of getting what they want.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by esquire

And let's get real here, with Shindico and CF pushing for the development, you have to like its chances. Let's just say that those companies have a way of getting what they want.

IMO Shindico and CF bought the property confident they could eventually bully/cajole the city into changing the current rules. I hope people remember that what Shindico and CF want is strictly good for Shindico and CF. Despite all their PR blather about how it will be good for the city, this is all about $$$ for their own pockets. They do give a rat's ass if their development eventually harms the way the airport operates, and once the building are there, we will not be able to turn the clock back.

If the regulation is currently not working, then overhaul the regulation with the input of WAA. If exceptions are made here then I fear the city will have no legal recourse against any future developers who want to drop their little project anywhere they want.

[esquire]

^ Without question planning policies should take into account WAA's input. But should WAA get to have the final say? I mean, I'm sure it would be great for WAA operations if they convinced the city to buy every residential building over 3 storeys in that part of town and demolish it. But would that be good for the city? Would it even be necessary?

What WAA can't seem to answer here is with the airport coexisting for decades with the existing thousands of residences (including many mid/highrise buildings) in the area, why letting CF/Shindico add some more to their site would suddenly be an existential threat.

There needs to be some balance here and at the moment I think that's missing. We have a large chunk of the city that is basically frozen in 1975 because the airport wants it that way. It doesn't make sense.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by esquire

The planners should follow planning policies that have been put in place, they shouldn't override them just because they don't agree...otherwise, what's the point of having planning policies in the first place if the decisions end up being based on nothing more than the gut feeling of whatever planners are on the file?

If the policies are not ideal from their perspective, then tell the politicians what the problems are and get them to amend the plans. Which definitely seems like the appropriate thing to do here.

Also to ywgwalk's post, I suspect something was lost in translation... I can't imagine that any city planner would oppose a development just because WAA opposes it. WAA doesn't (or shouldn't, at least) get to call the shots on development. The impression I got from the administrative report was that the problem is the official plans don't allow for residential development at Polo Park and that the department's hands are therefore tied. But if council decided to change its mind and amend the plan, then anything can happen...

And let's get real here, with Shindico and CF pushing for the development, you have to like its chances. Let's just say that those companies have a way of getting what they want.

Sorry, you think our low rent municipal politicians with no planning expertise or education should be making planning decisions? And actual trained and educated planners (more than a "gut feel") should heed to them and not update a bylaw that was made 21 years ago? That's absurd.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Sorry, you think our low rent municipal politicians with no planning expertise or education should be making planning decisions? And actual trained and educated planners (more than a "gut feel") should heed to them and not update a bylaw that was made 21 years ago? That's absurd.

Well the planners dont seem to be onboard with the update. So we get to rely on the politicians to get r done

[esquire]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Sorry, you think our low rent municipal politicians with no planning expertise or education should be making planning decisions? And actual trained and educated planners (more than a "gut feel") should heed to them and not update a bylaw that was made 21 years ago? That's absurd.

No matter what level of government we're talking about, the politicians set the policy (with input from administration). And administration is supposed to implement it. The trained and educated planners can't simply pick and choose which policies they're going to implement.

In this case administration has to say "Sorry CF/Shindico, no matter how good your idea is, we have a policy that tells us it isn't allowed. So no."

Then the ball is in the politicians' court to change the policy. They do this all the time, except the amendments are normally to accommodate shitty things that are bad for the city like giant parking lots, big boxes and drive throughs. Had the planners said yes to CF/Shindico's request, WAA would have had every right to freak out saying that the policy in place was being ignored.