HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 5:21 PM
Ando Ando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,272
Skylar, sober enough to read Riverman's posts, drunk enough to enjoy them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 6:23 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,534
My mom made the same comments last night about the bike lanes. "why are they doing that, taking away lanes of traffic?" I love her to death, but I think it's a generational thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 6:42 PM
oftheMoon's Avatar
oftheMoon oftheMoon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: East Exchanger
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by ywgwalk View Post
Worrying about being considered an a**h*** is the main reason why I always find myself very conservative when using my bell.
Recently did tons of riding in NYC on their Citibike bike-share system. Ringing is a bell is all a part of it there. You ring it, people step to the right and you pass.

Here is seems people frown at you if/when you ring a bell - yet it is just courtesy really...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 7:18 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 25,235
^ It's funny how a normal manoeuvre like ringing a bike bell as a courtesy is taken as an act of near-aggression here...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 8:40 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 6,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
My mom made the same comments last night about the bike lanes. "why are they doing that, taking away lanes of traffic?" I love her to death, but I think it's a generational thing.
Common sense improves with age, nothing to do with generational, if you're hacking bike lanes into roadways for a few hundred at most to use for six months of the year is that really the best use to scarce city tax dollars?
__________________
The voice of reason
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 8:48 PM
Pinus Pinus is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ando View Post
There is supposed to be more moderation now so at least if he goes off on one his deep end rants there's a greater possibility he'll get called on it. But yes, I agree, he is a rather pathetic creature.
He doesn't even like the city. Neither does rrskylar, or Urban Recluse. They come to troll, it's as simple as that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 8:48 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,534
Right, right. I forgot. I'm so stupid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 8:53 PM
windypeg windypeg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
My mom made the same comments last night about the bike lanes. "why are they doing that, taking away lanes of traffic?" I love her to death, but I think it's a generational thing.
I don't get how the boomers still think "The more lanes of traffic, the better." Back in their heyday in the 70s & 80s they started plowing as many vehicles into downtown Winnipeg as possible and knocking down buildings to put up more parking. Not surprisingly this is the same time frame during which downtown Winnipeg emptied out and died. Yet they still don't see the correlation.

Most people over 40 here still seem to think:
"More Lanes + More Parking = Successful City"
Jacobs-esque urbanists would say giving an area over to traffic and parking like that will kill it and the case study of downtown Winnipeg seems to verify that, yet many still don't get it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 8:57 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 6,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinus View Post
He doesn't even like the city. Neither does rrskylar, or Urban Recluse. They come to troll, it's as simple as that.
Some of you are something else, criticize anything the city does an somehow you're anti Winnipeg. This is a forum to discuss issues of course everyone is not always in agreement ( big surprise to a few), maybe I should be like the other 95% sheeple in here and cheerlead for the opening of P & M despite the fact 70% of Winnipeg citizens disagree, maybe a neutered forum is what some of you wish for!
__________________
The voice of reason
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 8:57 PM
windypeg windypeg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
Common sense improves with age, nothing to do with generational, if you're hacking bike lanes into roadways for a few hundred at most to use for six months of the year is that really the best use to scarce city tax dollars?
City tax dollars are scarce specifically because up to this point we've spent far too much of them on cars which require by far the most cost-intensive infrastructure per user.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 9:01 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 6,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by windypeg View Post
I don't get how the boomers still think "The more lanes of traffic, the better." Back in their heyday in the 70s & 80s they started plowing as many vehicles into downtown Winnipeg as possible and knocking down buildings to put up more parking. Not surprisingly this is the same time frame during which downtown Winnipeg emptied out and died. Yet they still don't see the correlation.

Most people over 40 here still seem to think:
"More Lanes + More Parking = Successful City"
Jacobs-esque urbanists would say giving an area over to traffic and parking like that will kill it and the case study of downtown Winnipeg seems to verify that, yet many still don't get it.
That's all fine and dandy had Winnipeg had the foresight to design and develop proper regional roadway networks, instead Winnipeg sat and did nothing as the city grew from 500K to over 800K. The current roadway network all but dictates moving vehicles through downtown like it or not. Not sure what more or less surface parking has to do with anything.

I can get around five times larger Mpls./ St.P faster than I can in Winnipeg and that city is a much and more liveable than Winnipeg, proper infrastructure also goes hand in hand with what makes a city good!
__________________
The voice of reason
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 10:09 PM
ywgwalk ywgwalk is offline
Formerly rypinion
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Exchange District, Winnipeg
Posts: 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
I can get around five times larger Mpls./ St.P faster than I can in Winnipeg and that city is a much and more liveable than Winnipeg, proper infrastructure also goes hand in hand with what makes a city good!
Of course, how fast you can get from one side of the city to the other is definitely the most important metric when it comes to urban areas.

On the subject of Minneapolis, it's in the process of getting a lot worse for you and Riverman:

http://www.startribune.com/plan-for-...val/313297271/

Quote:
A plan to add another 30 miles of protected bikeways to Minneapolis streets by 2020 was approved by the City Council on Friday.

The update to the city's long-term bike plan follows a year of discussion and public input on which areas are most in need of safer spaces for bike traffic. The proposed bike lanes would be separated by vehicle traffic by buffers of planters, curbs, parked cars or plastic posts.

The plan suggests adding in the new bike lanes in phases, beginning with 15 miles of streets. Some of those proposed updates already have received funding in the city's budget, but the first phase is estimated to require between $2.4 million and $3 million in additional funds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 10:24 PM
Pinus Pinus is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by ywgwalk View Post
Of course, how fast you can get from one side of the city to the other is definitely the most important metric when it comes to urban areas.

On the subject of Minneapolis, it's in the process of getting a lot worse for you and Riverman:

http://www.startribune.com/plan-for-...val/313297271/
The horror................. The horror...................
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 2:12 AM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by windypeg View Post
I don't get how the boomers still think "The more lanes of traffic, the better." Back in their heyday in the 70s & 80s they started plowing as many vehicles into downtown Winnipeg as possible and knocking down buildings to put up more parking. Not surprisingly this is the same time frame during which downtown Winnipeg emptied out and died. Yet they still don't see the correlation.

Most people over 40 here still seem to think:
"More Lanes + More Parking = Successful City"
Jacobs-esque urbanists would say giving an area over to traffic and parking like that will kill it and the case study of downtown Winnipeg seems to verify that, yet many still don't get it.
I don't think that boomers think "the more lanes of traffic, the better". I think many think, rightly or wrongly, "traffic has been getting worse over the years, why are we taking lanes out of commission for something that is lightly used". I don't agree necessarily, but I get where they're coming from.

What I find more troubling is that many forumers seem almost flabergasted that others might not share their opinion 100% (especially some hyper-urbanist opinions that aren't yet mainstream). Personally, I don't agree with a lot of the things Skylar or Riverman say (and yes, some of their comments come across as rude), but I do recognize that they do represent what a lot of everyday Winnipeggers feel and say. Instead of saying "I can't believe that's what they think! Unbelievable!", try to understand where it's coming from, and find some middle ground. Because they're the types of people we're going to have to convince of our urban ideals if we want anything to change.

I've definitely noticed that over my 15+ years of browsing this site, it's become more of an echo-chamber than ever. You can see that by the overwhelmingly similar responses to polls and comments. It's too bad, because I think healthy debate and reflecting on our own sometimes dogmatic ideals of urbanism will help move things along in this city, rather than just being a forum that preaches to the choir.

/rant
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 1:22 PM
TimeFadesAway TimeFadesAway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
I've definitely noticed that over my 15+ years of browsing this site, it's become more of an echo-chamber than ever. You can see that by the overwhelmingly similar responses to polls and comments. It's too bad, because I think healthy debate and reflecting on our own sometimes dogmatic ideals of urbanism will help move things along in this city, rather than just being a forum that preaches to the choir.
/rant
The difficulty, I think, is that it is difficult to have a healthy debate when the core assumptions that underlie one side of the debate have been proven incorrect. That, then, is not a healthy debate. It's arguing with a wall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 1:44 PM
windypeg windypeg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
That's all fine and dandy had Winnipeg had the foresight to design and develop proper regional roadway networks, instead Winnipeg sat and did nothing as the city grew from 500K to over 800K. The current roadway network all but dictates moving vehicles through downtown like it or not. Not sure what more or less surface parking has to do with anything.

I can get around five times larger Mpls./ St.P faster than I can in Winnipeg and that city is a much and more liveable than Winnipeg, proper infrastructure also goes hand in hand with what makes a city good!
Mpls is one of the most bike-friendly cities in the US. Yes our road network is poorly planned and forces traffic downtown. So what I don't understand is, instead of using your time and energy to push for improvements to traffic arteries and create an inner ring road, you spend it all having hissy fits about bikes. We had a crappy road network long before there were any bike lanes, a handful of bike lanes here and there is not going to make any difference. The peanuts we spend on bikes every year would have virtually no impact if it were redirected into the road budget. It's practically a rounding error. If you want better roads, fine, then focus your energy on that instead of yelling at guys on bikes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 4:41 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 6,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
I don't think that boomers think "the more lanes of traffic, the better". I think many think, rightly or wrongly, "traffic has been getting worse over the years, why are we taking lanes out of commission for something that is lightly used". I don't agree necessarily, but I get where they're coming from.

What I find more troubling is that many forumers seem almost flabergasted that others might not share their opinion 100% (especially some hyper-urbanist opinions that aren't yet mainstream). Personally, I don't agree with a lot of the things Skylar or Riverman say (and yes, some of their comments come across as rude), but I do recognize that they do represent what a lot of everyday Winnipeggers feel and say. Instead of saying "I can't believe that's what they think! Unbelievable!", try to understand where it's coming from, and find some middle ground. Because they're the types of people we're going to have to convince of our urban ideals if we want anything to change.

I've definitely noticed that over my 15+ years of browsing this site, it's become more of an echo-chamber than ever. You can see that by the overwhelmingly similar responses to polls and comments. It's too bad, because I think healthy debate and reflecting on our own sometimes dogmatic ideals of urbanism will help move things along in this city, rather than just being a forum that preaches to the choir.

/rant
Nice post. Too many Jane Jacobs disciples frequenting this forum especially in the Winnipeg threads, hate to burst your bubble but here's a good article on her.

https://business.financialpost.com/o...t-her-is-wrong

Sorry that the post is probably in the wrong thread but just continuing the dialogue.
__________________
The voice of reason
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 5:21 PM
Ando Ando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
Some of you are something else, criticize anything the city does an somehow you're anti Winnipeg. This is a forum to discuss issues of course everyone is not always in agreement ( big surprise to a few), maybe I should be like the other 95% sheeple in here and cheerlead for the opening of P & M despite the fact 70% of Winnipeg citizens disagree, maybe a neutered forum is what some of you wish for!
At a minimum, don't treat your fellow forumers like fools. You know damn well you criticize "everything" about the city, bar none. Don't come on here and try to present yourself as a constructive force that only occasionally makes negative comments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 5:51 PM
windypeg windypeg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
Nice post. Too many Jane Jacobs disciples frequenting this forum especially in the Winnipeg threads, hate to burst your bubble but here's a good article on her.

https://business.financialpost.com/o...t-her-is-wrong

Sorry that the post is probably in the wrong thread but just continuing the dialogue.
This author doesn't try to debunk Jacobs or anything, he just says many lefties incorrectly use her as an excuse to be anti-change and anti-development (I'm thinking of the anti-gentrification goons who hate when nice shops and condos move in to the inner city). I don't think anyone here uses Jacobs that way. Like, who on this forum is against high-rise towers!? We're talking about cars and their impact on cities which is not something mentioned in this article, at all. This is a good case of why you should read the actual article not just the title.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 6:17 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by windypeg View Post
This author doesn't try to debunk Jacobs or anything, he just says many lefties incorrectly use her as an excuse to be anti-change and anti-development (I'm thinking of the anti-gentrification goons who hate when nice shops and condos move in to the inner city). I don't think anyone here uses Jacobs that way. Like, who on this forum is against high-rise towers!? We're talking about cars and their impact on cities which is not something mentioned in this article, at all. This is a good case of why you should read the actual article not just the title.
No but we might be against a highrise tower if it were totally inappropriate for a site.
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:00 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.