Wpg: Chief Peguis Trail Extension

[Phil's neighbour]

Lots of information about North Point Village here:

http://www.winnipeg.ca/CLKDMIS/ViewD...onId=&InitUrl=

Five to 10 year timeline, 500,000 square feet of commercial plus, eventually, a diamond interchange on McPhillips.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Phil's neighbour

Lots of information about North Point Village here:

http://www.winnipeg.ca/CLKDMIS/ViewD...onId=&InitUrl=

Five to 10 year timeline, 500,000 square feet of commercial plus, eventually, a diamond interchange on McPhillips.

You forgot to add the 2000+ parking stalls, and the fact that this "complete community" includes exactly 0 mixed-use zoning and no zones that allows office as a land-use.

McPhillips is going to be the next Kenaston/Regent. They are going to widen the street and have lights to service auto-dependent commercial super centres. This is the worst plan I have seen in a while.

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

You forgot to add the 2000+ parking stalls, and the fact that this "complete community" includes exactly 0 mixed-use zoning and no zones that allows office as a land-use.

McPhillips is going to be the next Kenaston/Regent. They are going to widen the street and have lights to service auto-dependent commercial super centres. This is the worst plan I have seen in a while.

It's going to be one of those tract housing developments again. It's no surprise that this part of the land around Murray Ave was eventually going to be developed, but not in this sort of way where the idea of housing development is still stuck in the late 20th century.

[Simplicity]

I'm just curious about this, but what if the developer has no problem selling units? Who's going to have the gall to go around telling people that what they want is wrong?

I always wonder about these sorts of things. People talk about 'planning better neighbourhoods', but it would seem to me that the demand is loud and clear: the neighbourhoods that are being built are exactly the kind people like to see...

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I'm just curious about this, but what if the developer has no problem selling units? Who's going to have the gall to go around telling people that what they want is wrong?

I always wonder about these sorts of things. People talk about 'planning better neighbourhoods', but it would seem to me that the demand is loud and clear: the neighbourhoods that are being built are exactly the kind people like to see...

First, the City should be allowed to tell them what they can and can't build because they will be on the hook for the continued maintenance costs for the infrastructure.

Second, the "demand" is housing, period. Good housing, bad housing, people want and need housing. Is there more demand for this, or is it the fact that it is all that is available for multiple reasons: banks not giving financing to "experimental" projects (ie. non-hypertrophic neighbourhoods), planners forcing extra-wide streets in residential neighbourhoods, forced building set-backs to add "green space", forced parking stalls, etc.etc.etc.

EDIT: Just so I can be a little more clear in this... I would like to live on a street that looks something like the below images, but all of these roads would be considered against zoning.





The best that we create is something like this:



And I don't even want to link to some of the worst stuff.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

First, the City should be allowed to tell them what they can and can't build because they will be on the hook for the continued maintenance costs for the infrastructure.

Second, the "demand" is housing, period. Good housing, bad housing, people want and need housing. Is there more demand for this, or is it the fact that it is all that is available for multiple reasons: banks not giving financing to "experimental" projects (ie. non-hypertrophic neighbourhoods), planners forcing extra-wide streets in residential neighbourhoods, forced building set-backs to add "green space", forced parking stalls, etc.etc.etc.

EDIT: Just so I can be a little more clear in this... I would like to live on a street that looks something like the below images, but all of these roads would be considered against zoning.





The best that we create is something like this:



And I don't even want to link to some of the worst stuff.

You also have to considering things like emergency vehicles, snow clearing, transit, parking, economics, etc. etc. What is it about that very narrow street that makes it "better planning"?

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Bdog

You also have to considering things like emergency vehicles, snow clearing, transit, parking, economics, etc. etc. What is it about that very narrow street that makes it "better planning"?

Those streets exist some place -- do you think they don't consider those things? Also, the idea of emergency vehicles is somewhat funny in that the vast majority of emergency calls are for vehicular accidents and these narrow streets mean that they are less likely.

And aside from that, I don't know if I would say it is "better planning" so much as I would say it is "sustainable planning". You aren't investing mass amounts of money on artificially wide (in that they are forced to be that wide) streets that cost a fortune in life-cycle costs.

And finally, it's the fact that these things, which some people do demand, are not allowed. Why is it that someone who wants an estate lot in the suburbs can get what they want, with their 5 car driveway and wide streets, but if I asked for what I want it would be laughed out of public hearing.

[bomberjet]

You expect some retail development on north McPhillips to be an old European town with tiny trails for streets? Cars will never go away here. There is tonnes of room and people need to drive. I'm not going to take a bus out to Grand Beach. There also also cars in Europe, with huge freeways. Just like everywhere else in the world.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

And finally, it's the fact that these things, which some people do demand, are not allowed. Why is it that someone who wants an estate lot in the suburbs can get what they want, with their 5 car driveway and wide streets, but if I asked for what I want it would be laughed out of public hearing.

Most likely because what you want, almost nobody else wants?

An unsaleable lot is not a good thing to include in a community.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

You expect some retail development on north McPhillips to be an old European town with tiny trails for streets? Cars will never go away here. There is tonnes of room and people need to drive. I'm not going to take a bus out to Grand Beach. There also also cars in Europe, with huge freeways. Just like everywhere else in the world.

I think you took my comment out of context. Simplicity said "but it would seem to me that the demand is loud and clear: the neighbourhoods that are being built are exactly the kind people like to see..." I said that it isn't demand that drives people to buy these houses, it's the fact that all that are supplied (for multiple reasons).

If he asked "what did you want to see here" I would have said a few things to make it better. I would have eliminated the "Public Road 1" connection to McPhillips. I would have changed the zoning from C4 for the entire Westerly lot to Mixed-use and eliminated some of the parking requirement. I also wouldn't have forced the developer to make "Public Road 4" 22 meters (72 feet) wide (why the hell a residential street would need to be wide enough for 6 SUV's to drive safely down it I will never know).

So, to answer your question, I don't want this area to be an "old European town". I expect it to actually be "complete" (by north american standards).

[bomberjet]

Okay, fair enough.

At what location would you like to see access to the site be allowed? If not from McPhillips, than from Chief? I would think Chief would be the last place access would be granted from, McPhillips second last. So that leaves Murray or a new road at some location to the east. Both of which would require access of some significance somewhere. Access to and from service roads parallel to Chief/McPhillips?

Any road will need access to at least one major roadway in the area. Same problem that's going on with the East St Paul development at PTH 59N/101. So if access is directed to Murray, that will turn into a busy roadway. Then lights will go up on McPhillips and you're in the same boat again.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Okay, fair enough.

At what location would you like to see access to the site be allowed? If not from McPhillips, than from Chief? I would think Chief would be the last place access would be granted from, McPhillips second last. So that leaves Murray or a new road at some location to the east. Both of which would require access of some significance somewhere. Access to and from service roads parallel to Chief/McPhillips?

Any road will need access to at least one major roadway in the area. Same problem that's going on with the East St Paul development at PTH 59N/101. So if access is directed to Murray, that will turn into a busy roadway. Then lights will go up on McPhillips and you're in the same boat again.

I think all access should go from residential collector to regional collector to expressway -- from the community roads to Murray, to McPhillips. I don't think a residential collector should be feeding directly to an expressway.

If they want to make this street the regional collector (which would be silly, considering it slices right through the neighbourhood) then they should disconnect Murray and force people on it.

Either way, only 1 connection to McPhillips (and none to CPT) should be made -- I think it should be Murray, but some might argue it should be "Public Road 1".

As an aside; I have another problem with the planners at the City -- Houses are not allowed to front collectors. This means the developer will build service roads for these collectors to have houses front onto, making the amount of infrastructure so much more. Like here in Lindenwoods. So, instead of having a 72 foot wide street, what they will end up having is a 22 foot service road, 22 foot "green space" (because I know I would love for my kids to play in that boulevard), 50 feet of residential collector, another 12 or so feet of "green space" and then a 6 foot wide sidewalk. A total of 112 feet used for infrastructure; this makes me ill.

[alittle1]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I think all access should go from residential collector to regional collector to expressway -- from the community roads to Murray, to McPhillips. I don't think a residential collector should be feeding directly to an expressway.

If they want to make this street the regional collector (which would be silly, considering it slices right through the neighbourhood) then they should disconnect Murray and force people on it.

Either way, only 1 connection to McPhillips (and none to CPT) should be made -- I think it should be Murray, but some might argue it should be "Public Road 1".

As an aside; I have another problem with the planners at the City -- Houses are not allowed to front collectors. This means the developer will build service roads for these collectors to have houses front onto, making the amount of infrastructure so much more. Like here in Lindenwoods. So, instead of having a 72 foot wide street, what they will end up having is a 22 foot service road, 22 foot "green space" (because I know I would love for my kids to play in that boulevard), 50 feet of residential collector, another 12 or so feet of "green space" and then a 6 foot wide sidewalk. A total of 112 feet used for infrastructure; this makes me ill.

Why not give people a reason to leave their cars at home and take an alternative way to get to their job or shopping, etc. People have bloody legs to walk, you know. Only today's kid's don't walk more then ten feet to go to the shitter, the fridge or to bed. Parent's are always driving their kids somewhere. The next generation of kids will not have legs, just bigger thumbs and guts.

Bomberjet,

You say you will never take a bus to Grand Beach, but yet you are probably the first to complain if you can't find a place to park your car close to the lake. We used to take a train to the Lake, what's wrong with that?

Steve O,

So what's wrong with European towns? Nice cobbblestone streets, brick or stone houses, no mudholes or puddles, do you really need a firetruck with a brick house? And you want your kids to play on a 22 foot strip of land along side a busy roadway? Sure, just wait nine months and you can have replacement kids. Take them to a park, try walking or biking to get there, maybe you will appreciate a bike path a little more.

Speaking of planned neighbourhoods, anyone ever take a ride along Lyndale drive in Norwood and see how the front yards of all the homes are joined, have a common walkway and the backlanes are used for service alleys and auto traffic. Wildwood park is another example of that concept. Also tried a few times in Transcona in the 70"s (Gables Court) and Stinson and Taft Court off of Morley West.

Here's a plain piece of paper, get out your crayon and show me what you can draw:


















*********************************************************

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by alittle1

Why not give people a reason to leave their cars at home and take an alternative way to get to their job or shopping, etc. People have bloody legs to walk, you know.

I don't know, because we work in order to satisfy certain luxuries we'd like? You know, like driving when it's 40 below. All of this commentary suggesting that Winnipeg is a place where people are going to be open to walking or cycling in the winter on a daily basis is just so ridiculous.

The insincerity in these arguments is almost palpable. Everybody knows why our city has ended up the way it has. People demand things, the market meets those demands. Simple as that. The city can't go around telling people to want what they don't. Your little experiment in the exchange has worked so well, hasn't it?

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by alittle1

Bomberjet,

You say you will never take a bus to Grand Beach, but yet you are probably the first to complain if you can't find a place to park your car close to the lake. We used to take a train to the Lake, what's wrong with that?

First things first. I'm pro public transit. I take the bus to Bombers and Jets games. Don't take it to work due to the two transfers and 1.5 hour trip time. I use trains and buses anytime I'm in another city before I will take a cab or even drive my own car.

But I would love to take the train to Grand Beach. Grandma and Grandpa had endless stories growing up. Maybe I used the wrong words. It's not that I wouldn't take the bus there. But does a bus even go to Grand Beach on a daily basis (in summer)? And if so, how often?

Sorry for getting off topic folks.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

But I would love to take the train to Grand Beach. Grandma and Grandpa had endless stories growing up.

My Dad had a lot of stories about that train, there was one that went out after supper and came back after midnight following the dances. As this is a family forum, I won't elaborate.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I don't know, because we work in order to satisfy certain luxuries we'd like? You know, like driving when it's 40 below. All of this commentary suggesting that Winnipeg is a place where people are going to be open to walking or cycling in the winter on a daily basis is just so ridiculous.

The insincerity in these arguments is almost palpable. Everybody knows why our city has ended up the way it has. People demand things, the market meets those demands. Simple as that. The city can't go around telling people to want what they don't. Your little experiment in the exchange has worked so well, hasn't it?

The fact that you think "the market" is the thing that makes people drive is a bit of a farce. People tell themselves the "love to drive" because it is easier than the cognitive dissonance they feel when they "have to" drive to work but hate sitting in traffic (I use work as an example, but it's the same as driving to the grocery store too). Oh the irony -- if only all this traffic got off the road so I could have an easier time getting to work in my car.

I see 2 big problems with you saying "the market demand it": one is the giant subsidies that automobile traffic get, the other is the disconnect between the costs and the use of their car. If people had to pay a true market price for driving do you think they would? Of course they wouldn't. That's why people hate: paying for parking their car, the suggestion of adding a toll road, the suggestion of adding a tax to pay for roads on to their insurance. So the government forces an abundance of free parking, they don't have to pay tolls, and the Province backs off their additional automobile insurance tax. Instead we pay for that automobile infrastructure with property taxes and higher level capital transfers (yay Build Canada Funding!). People can't actually judge how much their car is truely costing them when all the money to pay for it is coming from income and property tax.

I don't own a car, and while I don't consider myself representative by any stretch, I still make due. And I don't know what experiment in the exchange you are talking about, but I would hardly call the neighbourhood walkable by any stretch of the imagination.

[alittle1]

The Chief Peguis Trail is a fine example of the City's short sightedness of planning in this City. This route has been earmarked for future roadway expansion since the 1960's (Metro days). Very little property acquisition has been done to expand on 'feeder veins' to the main East - West artery over the past 50 years.

Given the clean sheet of paper that City planning had, what did they do with it?

1. Built a four lane bridge over the Red River, dead ended a road at both ends Henderson and Main St.)

2. Extended a four lane roadway from Henderson to Lagimodiere, with one access point (Gateway), which stops traffic both ways.

And they call that Planning?

Nothing was done to speed up traffic to make the drive to the roadway more bearable or pleasant, so why not just take the same old road you took for the last 25 years. In fact, some people in North Kildonan have said that it split the community in two. Having been given the opportunity to do something dynamic with the Gateway - Raleigh corridor the City fell flat on its face. A surface intersection and a overhead bike path is not good planning. The 'Planners' should turn in their Planner badge if this is all they could come up with.

Where the City should have been....

a. A future transit corridor should have been integrated into the overall plan with connection points at all major cross feeder streets. Commuter parking areas should have been allotted for in the master plan. Existing bus feeder routes should be tied into the system also.

b. Major residential community planning should have been invoked 25 years ago and buildup of adjacent area to the roadway should have been instituted. This means: that high density residential and commercial properties should have been erected adjacent to the proposed roadway, with smaller less-density housing being erected next with single family properties and suburban making up the balance.

NOTE! This was started back in the 60's along Henderson when apartments, shopping centers, and strip malls covered vacant tracts of land from McLeod to Knowles Ave. By the early 70's, a saturation point had been reached and Henderson Hwy. had reached its limit. The City was unwilling to expand its road system and development slowed to a crawl. With its hands tied, councillors of the area went into the 'stop sign mode' and while tax dollars flowed in, very few public projects went up.

The City Planners have the supreme power to direct development and channel development by way of infrastructure to select areas of the City. It is only because of greed that a few individuals in power have decided to line their own pockets, that we have what we have. The average person on the street only knows what they read in the daily paper and has no idea what goes on behind closed doors, until the shit hits the fan which usually scatters it over a wide area, rather than point out those particular individuals as the culprit.

The City's Fathers would learn more of what the want's of the City are by reading a few local forums, like this one, then conducting extravagant studies which they have been accustom to.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by alittle1

The Chief Peguis Trail is a fine example of the City's short sightedness of planning in this City. This route has been earmarked for future roadway expansion since the 1960's (Metro days). Very little property acquisition has been done to expand on 'feeder veins' to the main East - West artery over the past 50 years.

Given the clean sheet of paper that City planning had, what did they do with it?

1. Built a four lane bridge over the Red River, dead ended a road at both ends Henderson and Main St.)

2. Extended a four lane roadway from Henderson to Lagimodiere, with one access point (Gateway), which stops traffic both ways.

And they call that Planning?

Nothing was done to speed up traffic to make the drive to the roadway more bearable or pleasant, so why not just take the same old road you took for the last 25 years. In fact, some people in North Kildonan have said that it split the community in two. Having been given the opportunity to do something dynamic with the Gateway - Raleigh corridor the City fell flat on its face. A surface intersection and a overhead bike path is not good planning. The 'Planners' should turn in their Planner badge if this is all they could come up with.

Where the City should have been....

a. A future transit corridor should have been integrated into the overall plan with connection points at all major cross feeder streets. Commuter parking areas should have been allotted for in the master plan. Existing bus feeder routes should be tied into the system also.

b. Major residential community planning should have been invoked 25 years ago and buildup of adjacent area to the roadway should have been instituted. This means: that high density residential and commercial properties should have been erected adjacent to the proposed roadway, with smaller less-density housing being erected next with single family properties and suburban making up the balance.

NOTE! This was started back in the 60's along Henderson when apartments, shopping centers, and strip malls covered vacant tracts of land from McLeod to Knowles Ave. By the early 70's, a saturation point had been reached and Henderson Hwy. had reached its limit. The City was unwilling to expand its road system and development slowed to a crawl. With its hands tied, councillors of the area went into the 'stop sign mode' and while tax dollars flowed in, very few public projects went up.

The City Planners have the supreme power to direct development and channel development by way of infrastructure to select areas of the City. It is only because of greed that a few individuals in power have decided to line their own pockets, that we have what we have. The average person on the street only knows what they read in the daily paper and has no idea what goes on behind closed doors, until the shit hits the fan which usually scatters it over a wide area, rather than point out those particular individuals as the culprit.

The City's Fathers would learn more of what the want's of the City are by reading a few local forums, like this one, then conducting extravagant studies which they have been accustom to.

The first part had me laughing, then I shook my head in agreement and then I thought about the lack of any vision or proper planning for this city and I got mad, thanks asshole!

PS the Chief Peguis Trail Settlers Bridge opened way, way back in 1990 did any politician then think the bridge would be still be dead-ended 24 years later. If they did they should be found (if still alive) hanged, drawn and quartered!

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

The fact that you think "the market" is the thing that makes people drive is a bit of a farce.

People drive because the city is so expansive and poorly coordinated. It's a little difficult to walk this back at this point.