unhappy Winnipegger

[UrbanPlannerr]

Originally Posted by VanExPat

Not to jump down your throat UrbanPlanerr, but this strikes me as another case of Winnipegers feeling inadequate and latching on to some kind of "big city item" we lack as the cause. A perimeter Freeway wont suddenly make us a thriving metropolis.

Winnipeg has the deck stacked against it in many ways, but if we just focused on playing to its strengths, and stopped constantly comparing ourselves to calgary or vancouver, etc. etc., we'd be much better off.

It is very much so this, but when I usually compare winnipeg, I'll do so in comparison to say Halifax, Toledo, Regina, Edmonton, ect.... usually something around Winnipeg's population, and yes there are many other factors, and yes, I do not know exactly how my money is being spent by the government on which items/ how much money our (Manitoba) government has, ect, ect....

Anyways everyone basically keeps saying the obvious, I was just wondering why places like Halifax or Regina have freeways, and yes they are not important, but I’m guessing Nova Scotia and New Brunswick somewhat have an advantage because of the rockyness and Regina with it's oil money. And the reason why winnipeg lacks a freeway 'ring road' is because money is needed everywhere in many places right now so that is at the bottom of the list of very important things.

txs for the input by everyone


on a side note, found this on Wikipedia, encouraging the development of turning the perimeter into a freeway on Wikipedia, I know its stupid but I thought it was somewhat interesting, labeling the perimeter highway as "disaster by design”.

http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/FB042Disaste...tember2006.pdf

[UrbanPlannerr]

Originally Posted by trueviking

consider the built up area of calgary compared to that of winnipeg....with 2/3 of the population you can fit 2 1/2 winnipeg's inside the footprint of calgary....this is due in part to the freeway system that has enabled sprawl in the larger city.

To be honest I'm not sure this was a good comparison, possibly if Winnipeg and calgary where the same population (metro and urban), but when looking at wikipedia, Winnipeg only has 70.5 more people/km2 than calgary, and that’s including the river valley and the extremely large nose hill park. It almost appears to be that Winnipeg sprawls the same amount, it’s just that Calgary has a couple freeways.


BTW, I don't live in a house, and I'm all in for Ikea being built near the bomber stadium if this makes any difference.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by UrbanPlannerr

To be honest I'm not sure this was a good comparison, possibly if Winnipeg and calgary where the same population (metro and urban), but when looking at wikipedia, Winnipeg only has 70.5 more people/km2 than calgary, and that’s including the river valley and the extremely large nose hill park. It almost appears to be that Winnipeg sprawls the same amount, it’s just that Calgary has a couple freeways.

thats exactly why i posted the actual built area as the comparison....it is impossible to compare densities using municipal boundaries which often have no relationship to the actual size of the city.....as an example, the huge amounts of farmland between the perimeter and kenaston is included in the area calculations but does not fairly represent urban area....the perimeter in no way corresponds to the actual size of winnipeg, but it is all within city limits...in many places it is several kilometres from built area....calgary is much the same.

if we compare the actual built up area and compare the known populations then it is a more acurate description of density....winnipeg's population shown is about 650k and calgary's is about a million.

[UrbanPlannerr]

One observation I made, possibly Winnipeg's suburban University of Manitoba campus is the single largest contributing factor to sprawl within southern Winnipeg? That and, I have the feeling most families with kids want a suburban lifestyle, and not a small apartment downtown?

[VanExPat]

Originally Posted by UrbanPlannerr

One observation I made, possibly Winnipeg's suburban University of Manitoba campus is the single largest contributing factor to sprawl within southern Winnipeg? That and, I have the feeling most families with kids want a suburban lifestyle, and not a small apartment downtown?

nobody is suggesting all these suburban families move into cramped apartments. look at a core area like wolseley...I cant imagine a more perfect setting for raising kids. good housing stock, quiet tree lined streets, and the classic urban planning (look sidewalks!) that makes it possible for little timmy to do all sorts of things that dont require constant chauffering by parents.

granted, not everyone can live in wolseley, but if we can break the phobia of living in a core neighbourhood, maybe we can start to improve the rest of them. I think thats what the whole argument is here, trying to change that momentum.

[UrbanPlannerr]

Originally Posted by VanExPat

nobody is suggesting all these suburban families move into cramped apartments. look at a core area like wolseley...I cant imagine a more perfect setting for raising kids. good housing stock, quiet tree lined streets, and the classic urban planning (look sidewalks!) that makes it possible for little timmy to do all sorts of things that dont require constant chauffering by parents.

granted, not everyone can live in wolseley, but if we can break the phobia of living in a core neighbourhood, maybe we can start to improve the rest of them. I think thats what the whole argument is here, trying to change that momentum.

Um, Yes, if I had a family and was to invest my entire future in Winnipeg, I would 100% not move to Waverley West/ Fort Richmond/ ect, I am not a dumbass. However, For these areas not to exist and for Winnipeg to stay 700,000 people, we will definitely need areas like fort Richmond in today’s day and age. You and almost everyone else seem to be avoiding this very important fact of life that exists and has existed for almost 100 years now....(as in most large cities do need suburbs to survive/grow). If you do now want your city to grow than forget suburbs= forget large population = forget revitalize downtown. I'm taking a wild guess here but it seems to be common sense to me that this is how a modern city now works. Also grow smart = grow $$$.

In Winnipeg's unique case however, I have a feeling Winnipeg is currently too poor to grow (suburbs) because of the fact that it is lacking urban density. So I really can't say how Winnipeg will pan out after more massive subdivisions are built, without massive downtown revitalization (residential growth) accompanying it?

[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by trueviking

there is no business park associated with the project...the list of retailers reads like portage avenue circa 1974...its quite depressing.

I was under the impression that there was a business park as part of the development (proposed at the very least) from past articles and that page on the city site that I linked to.

If what you're saying - that there will be no business park - is correct, that makes me quite happy.

Some other mentions of the business/office park, and not always as 'proposed:'

http://winnipeg.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...0120/20090120/

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bre...-41832837.html

[vid]

Originally Posted by UrbanPlannerr

It is very much so this, but when I usually compare winnipeg, I'll do so in comparison to say Halifax, Toledo, Regina, Edmonton, ect.... usually something around Winnipeg's population

Halifax is half the size, Regina a third, Toledo is pretty accurate, Edmonton is barely smaller than Calgary and Ottawa. I'd suggest comparing it to Quebec City but their freeway network puts many similar sized US cities to shame. The Quebec Government has totally "pimped" the place, at the expense of poor old Montreal.

[VanExPat]

you assume that we're all just striving for population growth. its great if its done right, but if a growing city just means that we keep pushing the burbs further out than whats the point? a sustainable livable city is what we should be after.
also, what correlation do the suburbs and a healthy downtown have? if anything I would say its the opposite. the suburbs are full of people that work downtown, and that does stimulate the economy, but all it does for downtown is pop a few more office buildings up. likely those buildings will behave the same as our current ones, with the whole office fleeing en mass at 5:00pm.

[UrbanPlannerr]

Originally Posted by VanExPat

you assume that we're all just striving for population growth. its great if its done right, but if a growing city just means that we keep pushing the burbs further out than whats the point? a sustainable livable city is what we should be after.
also, what correlation do the suburbs and a healthy downtown have? if anything I would say its the opposite. the suburbs are full of people that work downtown, and that does stimulate the economy, but all it does for downtown is pop a few more office buildings up. likely those buildings will behave the same as our current ones, with the whole office fleeing en mass at 5:00pm.

OMG... really, obviously what needs to be done is an increased population downtown, did I say obviously enough for ya?

I believe the best way to insure sustainablity is to keep density (residential and comercial) to a maximum! (= suburban growth to a minimum, the core increase in density to a maximum!)

Possibly our mayor, Sam Katz, just hasn't figured this one out yet??

The reason I was defending the suburbs, btw, was because yes I am living in them, but also, I am guessing most of you on this forum also live in Winnipeg's suburbs. I'd find it hard to believe in this day and age for any city in a region like Winnipeg's to lack suburbs. There is a reason for them, why they exist, and many of you are simply ___ to realize this. Yes I do think that’s enough with the suburban growth though for a city like Winnipeg as I am not sure how it will have the proper infrastructure funding to grow further out (like Calgary), without very congested streets (and driving us into the poor house)... Maybe it is fine now but how about in 50 years with constant growth... Yes let’s hope it mostly goes downtown. And No, I did not buy a new house. Why not take advantage of what’s already there. And I do not need to go into personal reason why I am living where I do, but give me a break already...

It's the sad but true truth about human population growth... Really I am a changed man, let’s just go with stopping any new house built, start building only 3 or more story buildings and stop sprawl altogether, everywhere.

[VanExPat]

we're on the same page then, good. it just sounded like you were saying that a thriving downtown depended on the growth of suburbs.

[UrbanPlannerr]

Originally Posted by VanExPat

we're on the same page then, good. it just sounded like you were saying that a thriving downtown depended on the growth of suburbs.

In todays day and age, I'd think anyone over the age of say 13 could figure out sprawl and destruction of farmland/nature is bad and +density is good.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by DowntownWpg

I was under the impression that there was a business park as part of the development (proposed at the very least) from past articles and that page on the city site that I linked to.

If what you're saying - that there will be no business park - is correct, that makes me quite happy.

Some other mentions of the business/office park, and not always as 'proposed:'

http://winnipeg.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...0120/20090120/

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bre...-41832837.html

im looking at the plan right now....no business park.

[grumpy old man]

An office complex is part of the development vision. Not sure where it currently sits in the plan today.

[trueviking]

^nope.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by UrbanPlannerr

And No, I did not buy a new house. Why not take advantage of what’s already there. And I do not need to go into personal reason why I am living where I do, but give me a break already...

It's the sad but true truth about human population growth... Really I am a changed man, let’s just go with stopping any new house built, start building only 3 or more story buildings and stop sprawl altogether, everywhere.

you live with your mom dont you.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by trueviking

vancouver is very often touted as one of the best examples of urban form in north america....because it has no freeways

You're talking about the City of Vancouver PROPER, which comprises about 26% of Metro Vancouver's population. Unlike Unicities such as Calgary or Winnipeg.

On that note, are you aware of the freeway upgrades to Highway 1 with cross-sections as wide as 10 or 14 lanes to be constructed in the near future in Metro Vancouver?

Or other free-flow highways to be constructed in Metro Vancouver as well?

Much needed BTW.

Here are a couple of the schematics described above:

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/PMH1...ce_Concept.pdf

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/PMH1...ce_Concept.pdf

[1ajs]

aww yea.... freeways are needed in some places like metro van due to it being in a valley!

[bob1954]

If Calgary isn't careful, (because a lot of the citizens there don't care if they live close to core or to each other), they're going to end up like a Denver or LA and other US cities..

[1ajs]

naa more like a hilly version of toronto...