Historical Winnipeg discussion

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Reading several of the posts here over the years, you would think Winnipeg has the worst soil conditions for building structures on the entire planet.

an entire field of engineering was started cause of our soil conditions. witch are common around the world but the freez thaw frost heaves reak havoc on everything

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

an entire field of engineering was started cause of our soil conditions. witch are common around the world but the freez thaw frost heaves reak havoc on everything

The freeze thaw cycle would be much worse in eastern Canada and much of the midwestern and northeastern U.S. as in those locations they are dealing with freezes and thaws throughout the entire winter season. One of the reasons why they use copious amounts of road salt.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

The freeze thaw cycle would be much worse in eastern Canada and much of the midwestern and northeastern U.S. as in those locations they are dealing with freezes and thaws throughout the entire winter season. One of the reasons why they use copious amounts of road salt.

Well sure. But again, the soils are different. For instance Toronto is basically all sandy granular soil, and footings work great there - and typically don't move much, it also drains well, so the same issues with sump pits and weeping tiles we have here are probably unheard of there. Not to mention, the frost out east doesn't really penetrate too far under ground. When I say freeze/thaw, I am talking about several feet into the ground, which we get here in Winnipeg.

In Calgary, the Bow is founded on a gigantic raft slab (which is basically a massive footing). That just can't be done here in Winnipeg. Again, because the soils are different.

The soils are different everywhere. They aren't even the same across Winnipeg (at least in terms of depth to bedrock anyway).

[esquire]

Originally Posted by drew

The soils are different everywhere. They aren't even the same across Winnipeg (at least in terms of depth to bedrock anyway).

Ignoring all other factors besides soil conditions, what would be the best part of town to build a highrise in?

[bomberjet]

I'd probably say St. James area. Ground is higher in that area, which I think is due to bedrock being higher. Worst would probably be Pembina/Bishop area. Lots of silt and otherwise over there from my experience. Downtown has lots of cobbles from what I've heard.

I'm not 100% sure, but seems like a lot of the tall buildings go straight to caissons, instead of piles. But IIRC the tower on Stradbrook is on piles. In comparison TNS and Sutton place are on caissons for a similar height of building.

[drew]

Originally Posted by esquire

Ignoring all other factors besides soil conditions, what would be the best part of town to build a highrise in?

For a highrise - it doesn't really matter because you are founding it right bedrock no matter where it goes (rock-socketed caissons).

Towards the Westwood/Headingly side of the City, bedrock gets to within 20-feet of grade, so I guess out there you wouldn't have to drill down as far. But it also means putting piles down below a house isn't quite as simple as it would be elsewhere (different type of pile - caissons versus friction piles).

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by drew

Well sure. But again, the soils are different. For instance Toronto is basically all sandy granular soil, and footings work great there - and typically don't move much, it also drains well, so the same issues with sump pits and weeping tiles we have here are probably unheard of there. Not to mention, the frost out east doesn't really penetrate too far under ground. When I say freeze/thaw, I am talking about several feet into the ground, which we get here in Winnipeg.

In Calgary, the Bow is founded on a gigantic raft slab (which is basically a massive footing). That just can't be done here in Winnipeg. Again, because the soils are different.

The soils are different everywhere. They aren't even the same across Winnipeg (at least in terms of depth to bedrock anyway).

I’ve been in Toronto a long time now and can’t ever recollect anyone talking about foundation problems. Whatever the equivalent of Abalon might be out here, it isn’t a household name. They’re actually at my parents’ house in Winnipeg this week and not for the first time.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by drew

Well sure. But again, the soils are different. For instance Toronto is basically all sandy granular soil, and footings work great there - and typically don't move much, it also drains well, so the same issues with sump pits and weeping tiles we have here are probably unheard of there. Not to mention, the frost out east doesn't really penetrate too far under ground. When I say freeze/thaw, I am talking about several feet into the ground, which we get here in Winnipeg.

In Calgary, the Bow is founded on a gigantic raft slab (which is basically a massive footing). That just can't be done here in Winnipeg. Again, because the soils are different.

The soils are different everywhere. They aren't even the same across Winnipeg (at least in terms of depth to bedrock anyway).

Yes, you’d rarely if ever get the sort of sustained subzero temperatures in Toronto that would freeze the ground other than superficially. It would be pretty rare that the temperature in the city would be below zero for even 48 hours at a stretch. I’m guesing that there are some winters where that doesn’t happen even once.

[Gm0ney]

Is River Heights particularly bad? I've been in some houses there where crazy things are going on with foundation: Forests of teleposts in the basement, slab floors that rolled like ocean waves, subfloors built over the original floor to level rooms...

[drew]

River Heights is pretty bad in spots, and suffers from bad soil in conjunction with older home foundation construction, especially the houses with the first go at concrete walls built in the 20s/30s/40s.

Just stick to the north side of the river - Wolseley in comparison is *overall* much better.

For newer areas, beware of any subdivisions built over recently cleared aspen/poplar forest (i.e Bloomer Crescent in Charleswood). The trees take a tremendous amount of water out of the ground, and once they are gone, the soil tends to rebound slowly over the next several years, causing all manner of bad things.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by drew

Well sure. But again, the soils are different. For instance Toronto is basically all sandy granular soil, and footings work great there - and typically don't move much, it also drains well, so the same issues with sump pits and weeping tiles we have here are probably unheard of there. Not to mention, the frost out east doesn't really penetrate too far under ground. When I say freeze/thaw, I am talking about several feet into the ground, which we get here in Winnipeg.

In Calgary, the Bow is founded on a gigantic raft slab (which is basically a massive footing). That just can't be done here in Winnipeg. Again, because the soils are different.

The soils are different everywhere. They aren't even the same across Winnipeg (at least in terms of depth to bedrock anyway).

In southern Siberia a very similar soil type to the Red River Valley is prevalent in most areas. So cities such as Yekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk, Omsk, Novosibirsk and Tomsk (the first four have > 1 million pop.) have similar soil conditions as well as nearly identical climates when annual temperatures, seasonal temperature fluctuations, precipitation and hours of sunshine are compared with Winnipeg. Plenty of historical and ornate structures in those cities.

Can't forget that the 1886 City Hall was located right next to the creekbed of Brown's Creek. The 1875 city hall had to be demolished after 8 years due to structural problems. I'm sure by the early 1960s or even before there were some structural problems, though they could have been repaired, but ornate Victorian architecture was the antithesis of modernism and was not valued in the immediate postwar period, and that fact wasn't unique to just Winnipeg. Just before WW1 the plan was to replace the city hall at the opposite end of the planned Mall from the then under construction Legislative Building. If that would happened the gingerbread city hall might have been seen a new use and still be with us today, who knows. By the late 1950s it was acknowledged that Main St. was in decline and it was thought that a mega-development including a new Civic Centre, a museum and planetarium and concert hall would reverse the area's fortunes (it didn't). Anyways, it's unfortunate that such a building was lost. Hopefully we won't repeat the same mistakes again with what historical buildings we have left. What's really under assault in recent years is the older housing stock in the areas adjacent to downtown.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by drew

River Heights is pretty bad in spots, and suffers from bad soil in conjunction with older home foundation construction, especially the houses with the first go at concrete walls built in the 20s/30s/40s.

Just stick to the north side of the river - Wolseley in comparison is *overall* much better......

Prior to annexation by the City of Winnipeg in 1882, River Heights and Fort Rouge were known as St. Boniface West and were low-lying areas with a significant amount of marshland. I've heard of many people living in those areas (and Norwood Flats as well) complain of structural problems.

[plrh]

I have worked in many subdivisions, and I couldn't see much variation in integrity with the methods that developers use now. Maybe I'm wrong, I am no expert and I'm only speaking about construction in the last 15 years.

After the organic layer is removed, the streets are cut out, and the lots are roughly graded, new houses sit mostly on compacted clay backfill. I think if it used to be a swamp, it shouldn't really matter.

Onsite it all looks like either clay, silt, or granular backfill.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Prior to annexation by the City of Winnipeg in 1882, River Heights and Fort Rouge were known as St. Boniface West and were low-lying areas with a significant amount of marshland. I've heard of many people living in those areas (and Norwood Flats as well) complain of structural problems.

Not sure how accurate this is, but 15 years ago when we were looking at houses in River Heights our realtor told us that the area was originally undulating land with several creeks running through it. The area was leveled and developed. So, it can be hit and miss with some houses over old creek beds or backfilled areas subject to lots of problems, while others are okay. Growing up in a newer part of River Heights (house was built c. 1949), we never had a problem with our foundation, but our house was on piles (unusual for those days). My friends in older River Heights houses (20s, 30s) on stone foundations or early concrete foundations seemed to have lots of issues with cracking, heaving, seepage, etc. We end up buying north of the Assiniboine and have had no problems with the foundation of our older home.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by plrh

I have worked in many subdivisions, and I couldn't see much variation in integrity with the methods that developers use now. Maybe I'm wrong, I am no expert and I'm only speaking about construction in the last 15 years.

After the organic layer is removed, the streets are cut out, and the lots are roughly graded, new houses sit mostly on compacted clay backfill. I think if it used to be a swamp, it shouldn't really matter.

Onsite it all looks like either clay, silt, or granular backfill.

Houses really shouldn't be built on any type of backfill. That's asking for problems. The ground should be excavated down to underside of basement, in situ material compacted in place, then built up from there. Or something like that. Piled foundations are better, but must be done properly and are more expensive.

Compacting of the fill below said houses is key. And from what I see of people in construction, they will do the bare bones minimum. In grading works, they test for compaction. Contractors will literally compact the same area 10 times, then test it and be like " we all good son. we out." Meanwhile the rest of the area is under compacted. This is bad for differential settlement. If it's going to settle, which most likely it will, you want it to settle evenly. Having one area more compacted then another leads to uneven settlement, where you get the issues.

Localizing this to a house foundation, there should be no issues with quality control.

Anecdote. I was working with a crew last summer. The foreman was having his new house built. Someone messed up and they over excavated by like 3 feet or something. Seems like someone was 1m off from the design elevation. The company said they would just backfill below the house and it'd be fine. This foreman dude lost it, backed out of the house. Not sure where it ended up, but likely in court. He was pissed for the reasons I explained above.

[drew]

Footing foundations in Winnipeg should just not be allowed period.

Everything should be on piles. It will drive up costs, but the long term benefits would far out-way any up front costs.

And yes, footings should almost never be placed on fill - unless that fill itself is designed and spec'd as "engineered fill". But by then, you are probably already eclipsing the costs of a piled foundation.

[Riverman]

What type of piles are used for a house in Winnipeg Drew?

[drew]

^ cast-in-place friction piles typically.

Usually 16" diameter, reinforced, 20 to 30 foot in length depending on whats needed and where they go.

[plrh]

I don't mean to say that the footings were placed on backfill. If you fill 4 or 5 feet the bottom of the basement would still be on virgin soil. It can be difficult to tell after a little while where the original prairie was in a development that is under construction.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by drew

^ cast-in-place friction piles typically.

Usually 16" diameter, reinforced, 20 to 30 foot in length depending on whats needed and where they go.

Would they be poured in tubes or right into the hole (hence friction)?

Thanks for the edmucation!