Winnipeg Construction X

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

I mean Waverley West was started 10 years ago there’s no reason to not believe that the area has the ability to evolve into something that resembles walkability considering how close it is to U of M. Especially with how much more attention has been brought towards the consequences of sprawl and car-dependent design.

Something as simple as relocating the Multi-family on the south public road to Bison would do wonders simply because there’s far more services and amenities on Bison. Having Bison act as a fenced off backyard just creates a massive void space from the Town Centre to the schools/rec campus. If you put housing facing the street instead it would help tremendously with the areas vibrancy and get cars off the road.

Also, in the rapid transit plan there is supposed to be a bus running on Bison with 10 minute headways directly to Uni. Why actively make it less convenient for people to take the bus when there’s a golden opportunity to increase ridership in the area just by utilizing a more appropriate denser land-use?

I just wish these developers would even do a surface level site analysis that’s all.

The developers do a site level analysis. They will build what will maximize sales over the shortest time, within the parameters that the city allows them to. City has the final say but if they're okay with the developer pumping more SFHs then then developers will do just that, as it seems to be what sells the fastest and what the current market wants. People still want yards and their own place.

If the city wants to densify then they have to come in and say that more of the land needs to be multifamily, however, if the city comes in too strong and puts in policies that make the land use unfavourable for sales, developers will go elsewhere. I know on this forum not many would mind if a SFH suburb didn't happen, but if housing starts and population growth stagnate on paper then the city starts to look bad and gets a worse name for itself.

Not to defend Waverley west as a magnificent suburb, but having "housesat" in Island Lakes and Southdale, these newer suburbs (waverley west, sage Creek) seem to be much better connected with sidewalks and trails if you try to get anywhere. That latest map being shared around does have an AT connection between South Town Rd and Bison to join the AT path running along Kenaston. There is also much more multifamily than older suburbs.

Yes there is still much to be desired but it is somewhat a step in the right direction

The maps in the open house show this connection more clearly.

https://bisonrun.qualicocommunities....ouse-FINAL.pdf

[peg]

My issue with the way suburbs such as these are designed is they are not very robust, in the way that it will be hard to allow them to evolve over time.

They are designed for a driveway and a drive to and from. I wish developers would look to older models such as the grids of our inner-city neighborhoods. (West End, River heights, Wolseley) These grids are dense, and can easily serve multiple uses and densities over time.

In the distant future, suburbs that we have built would take a lot of work to reorganize into walkable communities (ie. connecting streets, expropriating lots, reducing car dependence, adding more transit, etc.).

If these developers had chosen a more walkable and robust layout of roads, I would have had no issues with the chosen density. What I do have issues with is how developers have not evolved past these traffic-drain models.... (Well, it's probably money lol).

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by OTA in Winnipeg

Saw fences up all the way around on my way home from work tonight. What's changing?

Courtyard renovation, it'll be closed all summer. I recently changed job going from airport area to almost top floor of 201 Portage. Beautiful views up there. I'm so impressed how nice 201 Portage lobby and elevator and concourse eating area is, it's so nice and "glamorous ".

Elevators
https://youtu.be/YPray6XzVAM

Lobby
https://youtu.be/UUAwEjdGwWc

[OTA in Winnipeg]

^Thanks. I need to check that out. Is there an observation area up top?

[bomberjet]

There was a whole shit load of planning that went into Waverley West and this is what it ended up being because this is what the City allows. A car centred development at the edge of the City. This is what happens allover North America.

To be clear I'm not saying it's any good. Most people on here hate it. But this is what the City and Province let the developers get away with. Also note the original developer is Manitoba Housing for the Bridgewater portion, isn't it? Something like that anyways.

And then, they run a freeway through the middle AND THEN put the town centre between the freeway lanes. AND THEN AGAIN, they remove any requirements for overpasses and make people cross the 80 km/h lanes. And now people are complaining it's dangerous because nobody could for see that problem coming. Ridiculous.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

And then, they run a freeway through the middle AND THEN put the town centre between the freeway lanes. AND THEN AGAIN, they remove any requirements for overpasses and make people cross the 80 km/h lanes. And now people are complaining it's dangerous because nobody could for see that problem coming. Ridiculous.

I agree with all your other points but honestly the way they extended Kenaston in between the town centre was quite smart. Instead of having to cross a potential 6-8 lanes of traffic, people only have to cross 2 lanes which saves considerable amounts of time crossing the street and reduces points of contact. I don’t think I’ve heard of any traffic collisions in the area impacting pedestrians, but that also plays a part with low pedestrian traffic in the area. Once the rest of the Town Centre is built out then that might be a different story..

Personally speaking it feels much easier to cross Kenaston in Waverley West then it is to cross most intersections on Portage, Pembina, or any of our stroads as an example. Hell I’m right next to Waverley St between Bridgwater and Waverley Heights and that intersection is much more hostile and dangerous.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

There was a whole shit load of planning that went into Waverley West and this is what it ended up being because this is what the City allows. A car centred development at the edge of the City. This is what happens allover North America.

To be clear I'm not saying it's any good. Most people on here hate it. But this is what the City and Province let the developers get away with. Also note the original developer is Manitoba Housing for the Bridgewater portion, isn't it? Something like that anyways.

And then, they run a freeway through the middle AND THEN put the town centre between the freeway lanes. AND THEN AGAIN, they remove any requirements for overpasses and make people cross the 80 km/h lanes. And now people are complaining it's dangerous because nobody could for see that problem coming. Ridiculous.

Like

[esquire]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

I agree with all your other points but honestly the way they extended Kenaston in between the town centre was quite smart. Instead of having to cross a potential 6-8 lanes of traffic, people only have to cross 2 lanes which saves considerable amounts of time crossing the street and reduces points of contact. I don’t think I’ve heard of any traffic collisions in the area impacting pedestrians, but that also plays a part with low pedestrian traffic in the area. Once the rest of the Town Centre is built out then that might be a different story..

Personally speaking it feels much easier to cross Kenaston in Waverley West then it is to cross most intersections on Portage, Pembina, or any of our stroads as an example. Hell I’m right next to Waverley St between Bridgwater and Waverley Heights and that intersection is much more hostile and dangerous.

Fair comment. The current arrangement does at least eliminate the football field-wide intersection design common in suburban Winnipeg.

I guess the existing design isn't perfect, but when you compare it to Kenaston and Sterling Lyon or Lagimodiere and Regent, then it's not so bad. But still.

[bomberjet]

What really should happen with freeways is that they not be the centre or the front facing of any development ever. They should be in the back, completely separated from the community like a utility.

However doing this creates the divide like in Waverley West. And to combat that problem becomes expensive with overpasses. Not just at major crossing points, but local roads and pathways. In the case of WW, they originally had the road a paired together, not as a couplet. And had overpass at the major crossings. But because that is expensive, it was nixed. As a pedestrian, you should never really need to stand there on an island while cars go by at 80 km/h or 100 km/h as most of the complaints point out. This has actually gone through committees at City Hall.

The town centre concept is great and all. But as we've noted in the short time of our discussion, you need to walk circuitous routes to get there. Sometimes quite lengthy even though you can see the town centre out your back window. And with the town centre, much like in Sage Creek, it's kind of a pseudo town centre. The main roads are for cars only. There are sidewalks. But the store fronts are mostly closed to the street, and open to the sea of asphalt parking behind.

[DowntownOfficeWorker]

The split lane isn't terrible to reduce the number of lanes that need to be crossed at Bridgwater Centre. The biggest problem is the 80 km/h speed limit(which is honestly the biggest problem with Kenaston throughout the entire city but I digress).

What would be a huge improvement though is more pedestrian and cyclist crossings and a reduced speed to 60km/h adjacent to the town centre. It's too late of course, the businesses all face centre street and the right of ways and massive culverts are already in place unfortunately.

The entryways to centre street on the North and South of Bridgwater centre are also awkward for all modes of transport. There's no way safe way to access these entryways as a pedestrian or cyclist. For vehicles, it's possible to drive by the entire strip inadvertently, in which case you need to make a u-turn a kilometer away. Again, had this section been slowed down, a roundabout would have been possible.

[esquire]

I can see the day coming where Kenaston's speed gets reduced to 60 along the town centre. The limit is high for that section of road.

[bomberjet]

With the couplet. If it was just normal, one side wouldn't have to cross at all. Or development would be split on either side, which to my earlier point, sucks.

We all complain about how shitty the road network is in Winnipeg. They should absolutely not reduce the speed limit. But ffs will probably be what happens eventually due to bad planning.

It should a grade separated. But now that becomes in efficient due to the couplet and having 3 different access point. Plus Waverley, which is easier. All of that should've been paid for by the development. But due to no back bone, the City just said ah well.

Could just do a flyover of the bison access points. And then half diamonds at north and south town roads. Will never happen though.

Honestly driving through there is confusing as hell with all the round abouts.

[trueviking]

It drives me crazy that all new suburbs, even ones that are mixed use and mixed density, segregate everything into zones. Apartments on the highway, commercial in a giant parking lot beside it, houses culdesacing in the distance. We know how to design walkable neighbourhoods. Go to the Corydon area. Grid streets with Boulevard trees and sidewalks connecting to a commercial high street. Apartment buildings on corners with retail on the bottom. It’s so easy.

[esquire]

Hear me out on this but what if the City just built a small grid of streets on city owned land, zoned it for mixed uses and sold the land bit by bit. The grid parts of the city are the best parts, so why do we so stubbornly refuse to build any more of it?!

[trueviking]

That’s what they used to do. As the city grew they just extended the streets. Then we just stopped and all new growth happened in developer islands.

River heights is a perfect example. If you walk from Wellington to Taylor you pass through a new decade every two blocks or so. From 1910’s to 1970’s. You can see it in the housing shapes. Then Linden Woods in an island.

[zalf]

Originally Posted by esquire

Hear me out on this but what if the City just built a small grid of streets on city owned land, zoned it for mixed uses and sold the land bit by bit. The grid parts of the city are the best parts, so why do we so stubbornly refuse to build any more of it?!

Also the current practice of Japanese transit agencies, as I understand it. Buy un-/under-developed land. Add a metro station. Sell now more valuable land for development. Use proceeds to buy more land and build more stations. Repeat.

[blueandgoldguy]

I remember when Waverly West was announced, sometime around 2007, there were announcements of a flyover and geothermal heating for houses.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

I remember when Waverly West was announced, sometime around 2007, there were announcements of a flyover and geothermal heating for houses.

I remember that too. I don't think there was a ton of optimism that it would materialize as promised, and we weren't disappointed.

[bomberjet]

The St. Boniface ER expansion has been underway for a few weeks now. Province released a presser today. $141 million. Man that seems like way expensive to me.

https://stbonifacehospital.ca/ed-project/
There's a video of the exterior at the link.

[xubiqtss]

So what's the solution to Winnipeg's planning woes?

I don't imagine the planners employed by the City are morons, even the most rudimentary education would expose how bad these choices are, and most of these people are highly educated.

Stricter planning laws? Citizen activism? Waiting for developers to become more benevolent?

Can the right to a well-planned city ever supersede the rights of private property?