HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 1:14 PM
cllew cllew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Maybe the feds would have the ability to chime in, but WAA only runs the airport... I'd be pretty surprised if they had any jurisdiction over what happens off their grounds.
They want to protect the 24 hour operation of the airport. Richardson International is one of the few major airports in Canada that does not have a night noise curfew.

If they don't have jurisdictional input I am sure they are a well connected NIMBY on development outside their grounds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 1:20 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by cllew View Post
They want to protect the 24 hour operation of the airport. Richardson International is one of the few major airports in Canada that does not have a night noise curfew.

If they don't have jurisdictional input I am sure they are a well connected NIMBY on development outside their grounds.
Haha except almost no one lives nearby to oppose the project anyways.

Honestly if people are willing to deal with the noise to live there I don't see why transport Canada or nav Canada or the WAA should care. People buying units with the knowledge they're under the short final flight path doesn't seem that unreasonable. That's buyer beware. Any developer could protect their asses by doing good soundproofing.
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 1:23 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by cllew View Post
They want to protect the 24 hour operation of the airport. Richardson International is one of the few major airports in Canada that does not have a night noise curfew.

If they don't have jurisdictional input I am sure they are a well connected NIMBY on development outside their grounds.
No doubt. But at the same time circumstances change. As noted before, planes have become much quieter than in the past. It's the nighttime cargo flights that are the last bastion of the old, loud jets, but in another 20 years those will mostly be gone and replaced by newer, quieter aircraft. And as pressure builds up for more development along Portage, those two factors will converge and ultimately lead to changes.

Besides, it's not like we'd be talking a wholesale gutting of the zone. I can understand that the stadium site will remain protected, for instance. But cutting Portage Avenue out of that zone is basically just trimming around the outer edges... it's literally moving the boundary a couple hundred metres north in some instances.

Eventually the economic pressure will force it to happen. Maybe not for another 20 years, but it will happen eventually.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 1:26 PM
cllew cllew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
Haha except almost no one lives nearby to oppose the project anyways.

Honestly if people are willing to deal with the noise to live there I don't see why transport Canada or navy Canada or the WAA should care. People buying units with the knowledge they're under the short final flight path doesn't seem that unreasonable. That's buyer beware. Any developer could protect their asses by doing good soundproofing.
They city already mandates a level of soundproofing when building in that zone. Winnipeg Airport Acoustic Insulation.

People complain though when they have their windows open or are outside on their balcony (if one is provided).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 1:30 PM
cheswick's Avatar
cheswick cheswick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South Kildonan
Posts: 2,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by cllew View Post
They want to protect the 24 hour operation of the airport. Richardson International is one of the few major airports in Canada that does not have a night noise curfew.

If they don't have jurisdictional input I am sure they are a well connected NIMBY on development outside their grounds.
I'm confused by this. If there are already residents nearer to the airport than whats prohibited, why are they allowed to operate 24 hours? And since they are, why would adding additional residential cause them to not be allowed.


My in laws live pretty close to the airport in montreal. I'm always taken aback by how huge those jets look when they're coming in for a landing. There is a limit on size of plane that can land overnight.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 1:39 PM
cllew cllew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,980
Also to change the Polo Park lands the city would have to do something about the noise control requirements that flow south of Polo Park into River Heights as they have the same requirements due to the runway alignment.

Here is the noise couture for Runway 31
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 1:39 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
I'm confused by this. If there are already residents nearer to the airport than whats prohibited, why are they allowed to operate 24 hours? And since they are, why would adding additional residential cause them to not be allowed.


My in laws live pretty close to the airport in montreal. I'm always taken aback by how huge those jets look when they're coming in for a landing. There is a limit on size of plane that can land overnight.
Until the 70s there was some doubt as to whether Winnipeg's airport would remain on the existing site. Once it was decided the airport wouldn't move, various planning processes began and in the early 90s, the airport vicinity protection area was created. Everything existing within the zone (including some fairly substantial buildings) was grandfathered, but new residential is highly discouraged.

The airport's 24 hour operations are so highly entrenched now that I can't see a couple new 10-15 storey buildings in front of Polo Park as being any kind of threat to that. Besides, as noted earlier, aircraft have become far quieter since the early 90s, mainly in response to pressure from airports. The days of having your house shaken by a plane taking off on a winter night are behind us... the only remaining noisy planes in regular use are working their final years in cargo flights. Soon they will be gone.

In light of the improved sound mitigation technology over the last 25-30 years, the AVDP's boundaries could probably stand to be revisited.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 1:44 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by cllew View Post
Also to change the Polo Park lands the city would have to do something about the noise control requirements that flow south of Polo Park into River Heights as they have the same requirements due to the runway alignment.

Here is the noise couture for Runway 31
Not necessarily... it's less likely that there would be the same kind of pressure to build MURBs in North River Heights. Besides, Polo Park is right on the outer fringes of the AVDP protected area, so it's not like you'd have to dramatically scale it back or anything like that... by contrast, the stadium site was a non-starter for residential development because it was much deeper into the protected area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 3:09 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 8,704
According to the above graphic for Runway 31, Polo Park is fully located into the Yellow and Green areas of the noise pattern. The old stadium site isn't even in the noise restricted zone at all.
__________________
"But a city can be smothered by too much reverence for its past. The skyline must keep acquiring new peaks, because the day we consider it complete and untouchable is the day the city begins to die." - Justin Davidson - May 2010 Issue of New York
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 3:21 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
According to the above graphic for Runway 31, Polo Park is fully located into the Yellow and Green areas of the noise pattern. The old stadium site isn't even in the noise restricted zone at all.
The airport protected area is fairly large... I can't find a jpg to insert but you can google it fairly easily, it's embedded in various zoning pdfs.

It captures a fairly large area to the south and east of the airport, right up to the railway tracks that run behind the Chapters store near Omand's Creek.

IMO the area made sense in the 80s and early 90s when aircraft were much louder than they are today. These days, barring residential development along Portage on the fringes of the protected zone strikes me as excessive.

What's especially interesting is that the plan protects the glidepaths leading to the planned eventual 3rd runway that will have planes flying low directly over Wolseley, old Crescentwood and River Heights and other areas that never been exposed to aircraft noise at all before. That will be quite a poop-storm when WAA eventually announces that it wants to build that new runway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 4:15 PM
scryer scryer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Authentic_City View Post
Agreed, that would be great for Polo. But I don't think towers can be built at Polo Park because of the proximity to the airport. Seems to me this has been discussed in the past when there was a plan to develop mixed use on the old Stadium site.
I know I'm quoting a post that's a day old so please don't burn me at the stake here..

But the proposal in Suburban Vancouver is actually in Richmond. Richmond is pretty infamous for having two reasons for having very strict limitations on height:

1. Richmond is next door to the airport.
2. Richmond is on a natural river delta, meaning that the soil is more like sand.

Personally I think that the Richmond proposal would be very appropriate if it was duplicated in Winnipeg because if they can build a proposal like that that's near the airport and not pose a risk to aircraft, then what's Winnipeg's excuse?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 4:24 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by scryer View Post
I know I'm quoting a post that's a day old so please don't burn me at the stake here..

But the proposal in Suburban Vancouver is actually in Richmond. Richmond is pretty infamous for having two reasons for having very strict limitations on height:

1. Richmond is next door to the airport.
2. Richmond is on a natural river delta, meaning that the soil is more like sand.

Personally I think that the Richmond proposal would be very appropriate if it was duplicated in Winnipeg because if they can build a proposal like that that's near the airport and not pose a risk to aircraft, then what's Winnipeg's excuse?
Very good points. I suspect that if circumstances changed and CF actually wanted to develop that space, it probably wouldn't take much to get the city to pick up its pencil and eraser and slightly redraw the boundary to exclude Polo Park's parking lot and allow for something like the Richmond project to be built here. But who knows how far off something like that could be... the Vancouver region is still very much in a crazy boom period that is way beyond anything we've experienced here, save for a few months around 1911.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2018, 4:27 PM
goldenboi's Avatar
goldenboi goldenboi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 133
That development in Richmond is very close to the airport as well. Richmond is building an entirely new city centre, but none of the buildings can go above 12ish stories.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 10:32 PM
Conrad Conrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenboi View Post
That development in Richmond is very close to the airport as well. Richmond is building an entirely new city centre, but none of the buildings can go above 12ish stories.
I lived in Vancouver for over a decade until recently. Having been to Richmond many times, I happen to think these new developments are hideous—and most of the newer buildings are maxed out at 12 floors. The Richmond skyline is a depressing sight. There is nothing there for Winnipeg to aspire to, believe me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 11:08 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrad View Post
I lived in Vancouver for over a decade until recently. Having been to Richmond many times, I happen to think these new developments are hideous—and most of the newer buildings are maxed out at 12 floors. The Richmond skyline is a depressing sight. There is nothing there for Winnipeg to aspire to, believe me.
Maybe nothing to aspire to, however allowing residential in the polo park area would probably make it feel slightly less depressing than it currently looks. Plus there's definitely people that would buy or rent there. I could see that area totally fill up with midrise apartment blocks for commuters and people who like the convenience of shopping and being close to the airport. It would also be a huge boon for the mall
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2018, 12:53 AM
Conrad Conrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
Maybe nothing to aspire to, however allowing residential in the polo park area would probably make it feel slightly less depressing than it currently looks. Plus there's definitely people that would buy or rent there. I could see that area totally fill up with midrise apartment blocks for commuters and people who like the convenience of shopping and being close to the airport. It would also be a huge boon for the mall
I do agree with you. My only beef is with all the ugly cookie-cutter buildings. I hope Winnipeg can do better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2018, 3:48 AM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
And they are going to get a lot quieter.
Electric planes?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2018, 2:57 PM
Urban recluse Urban recluse is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,797
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2018, 3:17 AM
scryer scryer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrad View Post
I lived in Vancouver for over a decade until recently. Having been to Richmond many times, I happen to think these new developments are hideous—and most of the newer buildings are maxed out at 12 floors. The Richmond skyline is a depressing sight. There is nothing there for Winnipeg to aspire to, believe me.
Architecturally-speaking, Richmond is absolutely nothing to aspire to.

Functionally-speaking, very forward-thinking if Winnipeg did that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2018, 4:00 AM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Back from the dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,504
More high-rise development near Polo Park is an idea that's been waiting decades to happen. The real mystery is why there isn't so much there already.

Virtually the entire length of the western side of St. James could be developed and all of it would sell like crazy. I'd buy a condo there if any were available.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
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 8:30 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.