Winnipeg Construction X

[1ajs]

dumbest move is it looks like tey wana get rid of the bus loop???

[BAKGUY]

Originally Posted by trueviking

announcement today of a $1.5 billion redevelopment of the area around Polo Park, including the old stadium site....residential and commercial. A great transition from the retail hellscape it is today.

https://www.chrisd.ca/2023/01/12/pol...al-retail/amp/

I am all for this ...however, what ends up is that this becomes the new downtown. So the olde downtown needs to be going in some direction as well.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

dumbest move is it looks like tey wana get rid of the bus loop???

This is a 10 year plan for arguably the largest infill project in the city's history, with all the concept plans indicating a less car-centric focus will be used. I'm confident a bus loop and even an accommodation for a future BRT/LRT station will be included.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

dumbest move is it looks like tey wana get rid of the bus loop???

On the contrary I think this sets up the opportunity to create an even better rapid transit station on the site. With almost every important amenity of portage on the north side of it I hope the rapid transit lanes run on the westbound lanes rather then having it run centre-median.

Polo Park terminal has a nice ring too it.

[esquire]

Let's give CF some credit here, they aren't exactly amateurs running a mom and pop operation. I'm sure some thought has been given to transit and parking.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by esquire

Let's give CF some credit here, they aren't exactly amateurs running a mom and pop operation. I'm sure some thought has been given to transit and parking.

Exactly, to add:

A) a good chunk of their commercial customers and retail workers currently arrive by transit and will continue to use transit, especially as service improves and traffic worsens

B) there's no way in hell that City Hall would approve this plan with the removal of transit servicing - even with stupid planning decisions this city has done

C) how could they market such a huge development in this day and age without transit connectivity

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by WildCake

This is a 10 year plan for arguably the largest infill project in the city's history, with all the concept plans indicating a less car-centric focus will be used. I'm confident a bus loop and even an accommodation for a future BRT/LRT station will be included.

1. If, and that is a colossal sized if, LRT ever happened there is zero chance a station could be on the current Polo Park site, even the parking lot. Simply put the tight proximity of the site to the existing and still in service rail line means the only approach LRT could ever have is on the existing Portage Ave roadway and that it would need to go under the rail line. When the theoretical LRT comes up at the west side of the underpass there is not enough space to significantly moved the LRT line much off of Portage. Also keep in mind that to the west of the proposed site, the current MH substation is essentially unmovable.

All that doesn't even start taking into account the economic value of the space the LRT would need to occupy. Simply put, if LRT ever happens, any right of way and station would need to be built on what is currently the west bound Portage right of way or perhaps on the eastbound side where the site logistics are slightly less challenging.

2. The site plans definitely try to gloss over how private vehicle focused the plans are but it is definitely still a huge piece of the project. In the documentation it talks about a plan to have 1.5x the current on site parking. Over the course of the 10 year development plan I could see that easily becoming 2x or more as the change to residential plus expanded commercial on site is definitely going to increase parking demand.

It seems the plan is either below grade parking or ground floor commercial, then several floors of parking, followed by the residential or office spaces. Speaking of office, it is somewhat interesting there is no talk of including any office space in the development, especially the spaces that will front onto Portage Ave.

[thebasketballgeek]

^just like with the existing BRT plans, the LRT would have too eat some of that existing road space. Really having the amount of lanes for cars currently on Portage is quite excessive and unnecessary. There doesn’t have to be more then 4 lanes for cars provided that any rework of Portage includes bike lanes and transit ROW.

Also, I agree with the lack of office space, but with the direct connection to Downtown it isn’t egregious.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by CoryB

1. If, and that is a colossal sized if, LRT ever happened there is zero chance a station could be on the current Polo Park site, even the parking lot. Simply put the tight proximity of the site to the existing and still in service rail line means the only approach LRT could ever have is on the existing Portage Ave roadway and that it would need to go under the rail line. When the theoretical LRT comes up at the west side of the underpass there is not enough space to significantly moved the LRT line much off of Portage. Also keep in mind that to the west of the proposed site, the current MH substation is essentially unmovable.

All that doesn't even start taking into account the economic value of the space the LRT would need to occupy. Simply put, if LRT ever happens, any right of way and station would need to be built on what is currently the west bound Portage right of way or perhaps on the eastbound side where the site logistics are slightly less challenging.

2. The site plans definitely try to gloss over how private vehicle focused the plans are but it is definitely still a huge piece of the project. In the documentation it talks about a plan to have 1.5x the current on site parking. Over the course of the 10 year development plan I could see that easily becoming 2x or more as the change to residential plus expanded commercial on site is definitely going to increase parking demand.

It seems the plan is either below grade parking or ground floor commercial, then several floors of parking, followed by the residential or office spaces. Speaking of office, it is somewhat interesting there is no talk of including any office space in the development, especially the spaces that will front onto Portage Ave.

couple notes.
1. All that assumes that any future LRT will be at grade in that area. I think that when you start talking about the amount of stuff that needs to fit in that space, the case for creating a section of transitway either about or below grade becomes a bit more compelling.

2. Plan looks solid overall, but as you mention, the lack of office is intriguing. I could see that figuring in before the last revision of the plan. Parking will be a nightmare if no other transportation options are significantly upgraded. I would also think that if this becomes that much of a destination, there would also need to be discussion about what to do about the roadways leading there, esp. route 90. Not saying an extra 4,000 units of residential would create that big of a problem on route 90, but it should be accompanied by the question of what to do on route 90. At some point, simply widening ad infinitum is not gonna cut it, plus it will be a vibe killer to have an ever widening roadway. There will have to be a serious transit talk and/or signficant upgrade to route 90 talk at some point.

[esquire]

It would come as a bit of a surprise to me if there wasn't a significant office component to this project... maybe not in the form of a 10 storey pure office tower, but maybe a few floors in a few buildings, that sort of thing.

But then again, maybe not. Office development never really seemed to take off in the Polo Park/Airport area. There is plenty of light industrial, business park type stuff, but not really a lot of corporate-type offices. Just a handful of multi-storey, multi-tenant buildings and I can't think of any built within the last 30 years. The only big newer office users around there are 24-7 In Touch and Western Financial. And 24-7 In Touch is probably only there to take advantage of the large vacant retail spaces that became available.

Also, I agree with optiumsREIM that there will be some impetus to reconsider Route 90. Not just capacity but also connectivity to the Polo Park area. The roads in that area haven't changed much in 50 years other than minor improvements like pushing Silver and St. Matthews through to St. James St., even though there is way more traffic around there.

[bomberjet]

I think the bus loop is still there in between the buildings. Hard to see.

[zalf]

This somehow completely passed me by:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...less-1.6712828

22 small apartments for the homeless, with space for staff and programming.

A purpose-built complex sure seems a hell of a lot more humane than the various sea can-based proposals that come up once in a while.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by esquire

I mean... yeesh... look at this...



Are there no design standards left in this city? This looks like something straight out of the 60s or 70s, especially in terms of site layout.

I don't understand how it is not an overarching planning mandate in Winnipeg that all buildings fronting high streets must push up to the property line.

Well, I do understand, as the City is worried it will scare away potential development along those routes. But man, in my work I've seen greater vision and political fortitude in our smaller cities for more comprehensive urban design than I ever encounter in Winnipeg.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by WestEndWander

I don't understand how it is not an overarching planning mandate in Winnipeg that all buildings fronting high streets must push up to the property line.

Well, I do understand, as the City is worried it will scare away potential development along those routes. But man, in my work I've seen greater vision and political fortitude in our smaller cities for more comprehensive urban design than I ever encounter in Winnipeg.

Yea I agree. If it is scaring away development by putting the bare minimum in urban design, maybe we would be better off scaring these developers away and wait until an appropriate design is proposed.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by zalf

This somehow completely passed me by:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...less-1.6712828

22 small apartments for the homeless, with space for staff and programming.

A purpose-built complex sure seems a hell of a lot more humane than the various sea can-based proposals that come up once in a while.

It was originally proposed as shipping containers but it turned out to be cost prohibitive at the beginning of Covid with the global shortage of containers. This resulted in a more traditional design first estimated at approx $6m. It ended up costing much, much more than that.

I toured it last fall. It looks like a great facility.

[trueviking]

^ the good news is by not using shipping containers anyone taller than 6’-3” can live there !

[trueviking]

It’s also my understanding that you aren’t allowed to use used shipping containers to make housing. They have to be new.

[davequanbury]

Originally Posted by cllew

Looking at Google maps its been a parking lot since at least 2007 as that is the earliest picture of the lot on file

Maybe we're talking about different sites... There is a parking lot along that block, but the render I saw shows the new building immediately north of a three story apartment building, a site occupied by three houses on google earth. That made me assume the existing parkinglot was not going to be filled by the new building. I guess we'll see where they plunk it.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

couple notes.
1. All that assumes that any future LRT will be at grade in that area. I think that when you start talking about the amount of stuff that needs to fit in that space, the case for creating a section of transitway either about or below grade becomes a bit more compelling.

I actually considered the different possibilities for LRT in the Polo Park area. Consider Route 90 is a massive underground project in the area. Then add in the complexities of adding in something new under the rail line east of CF Polo Park which itself is partially raised above grade. So for a few reasons underground LRT from say Valour to Berry is likely not feasible.

So a raised LRT line? Definitely seems more likely. The challenge is that raised rail line east of the CF Polo Park site. If we say it is about one story high plus the height of the rail traffic that would mean raising the LRT line to close to a third story to go over the rail line. Honestly anything is possible but does it make more sense to push a raised rapid transit line up even higher to cross the rail line or alternatively drop it to ground level and use the existing right of way for Portage Ave under the rail line?

To me, looking at every possibility of a dedicated rapid transit line on Portage, the most likely scenario seems to be merging the transitway onto Portage for at least the section where it passes the rail line.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

Also, I agree with optiumsREIM that there will be some impetus to reconsider Route 90. Not just capacity but also connectivity to the Polo Park area. The roads in that area haven't changed much in 50 years other than minor improvements like pushing Silver and St. Matthews through to St. James St., even though there is way more traffic around there.

There is a public plan for the last couple of years looking at how to restructure Portage and Route 90.

I cannot remember the full details but I do remember it would be removing the west to sound ramp and replacing it with a traffic light to allow left turns onto what is essentially the east the south ramp today. There would then be a similar east to north left turn light added for the current west to north ramp. I think there were other changes as part of the plan but I cannot recall them.