Winnipeg Construction X - Page 141

EndoftheBeginning · #**2801** Posted **Jun 25, 2020, 2:29 PM**

260 River Road - didn't see this on the main page. Remember seeing some preliminary plans a while back. Newer renders have been submitted. 128 units in two four storey buildings.

buzzg · #**2802** Posted **Jun 25, 2020, 5:08 PM**

I really hope the city is reserving some right of way there so they have space to eventually get rid of that at-grade intersection.

optimusREIM · #**2803** Posted **Jun 25, 2020, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzg

I really hope the city is reserving some right of way there so they have space to eventually get rid of that at-grade intersection.

Plenty of space there, it's currently set up fairly inefficiently. Honestly would be fine if river just passed under bishop without connecting.

Spocket · #**2804** Posted **Jun 25, 2020, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Plenty of space there, it's currently set up fairly inefficiently. Honestly would be fine if river just passed under bishop without connecting.

I always figured they could do that with a simple half diamond. Cheap and does the job.

esquire · #**2805** Posted **Jun 25, 2020, 10:30 PM**

There is more than likely enough room for a full diamond. It wouldn't require anything more complicated than that.

But even if an interchange isn't built the City should figure out a way to get more cars on River to clear a green light. The greens on River are short and traffic tends to back up heavily at peak periods as only a few cars can turn left on any given sequence.

Kris22 · #**2806** Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 4:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

But even if an interchange isn't built the City should figure out a way to get more cars on River to clear a green light. The greens on River are short and traffic tends to back up heavily at peak periods as only a few cars can turn left on any given sequence.

Yes and throw a bus into the mix + bad drivers and sometimes only 1 bus + 1 car make the left turn onto River.

I always wondered if that lot would be developed. I'm all for higher density next to major artery roads (as I think we all are). I would never personally want to listen to the constant wizzing of 80 km/hr traffic outside my bedroom window but apparently lots of people love it.

But I'm sure the residents behind this site are having a conniption.

There's also that lot further east up Bishop right near the mall, at St. Mary's and Bishop, that I can't believe isn't a high-rise apartment. Anyone know what the deal is with that? https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.8293292,-...7WpSwof6Q6VHqxw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

bomberjet · #**2807** Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 4:32 AM**

Pet peeve of mine, company names with the year in them. Just choose a different name..

esquire · #**2808** Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 12:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris22

Yes and throw a bus into the mix + bad drivers and sometimes only 1 bus + 1 car make the left turn onto River.

I always wondered if that lot would be developed. I'm all for higher density next to major artery roads (as I think we all are). I would never personally want to listen to the constant wizzing of 80 km/hr traffic outside my bedroom window but apparently lots of people love it.

But I'm sure the residents behind this site are having a conniption.

I'm sure they must be... I live in that general neck of the woods, nowhere near the site itself, but I still got a NIMBY call to action in my mailbox telling me to call City Hall to tell them how outraged I am by the proposal and how flawed it is, etc.

So they must be pretty motivated if they're blanketing the entire area with leaflets.

Personally I think the development is perfectly appropriate, even if it is a little on the ugly side.

dmacc · #**2809** Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 12:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm sure they must be... I live in that general neck of the woods, nowhere near the site itself, but I still got a NIMBY call to action in my mailbox telling me to call City Hall to tell them how outraged I am by the proposal and how flawed it is, etc.

So they must be pretty motivated if they're blanketing the entire area with leaflets.

Personally I think the development is perfectly appropriate, even if it is a little on the ugly side.

I think it would be a good idea to email your councilor and let them know that you think it's appropriate, add a little balance.

esquire · #**2810** Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 12:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmacc

I think it would be a good idea to email your councilor and let them know that you think it's appropriate, add a little balance.

Yeah, good call. I think I will do just that.

EndoftheBeginning · #**2811** Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 2:29 PM**

^ The applications for variance, subdivision and rezoning have 22 exhibits filed in support of the application. There was an open house in January that had 91 in attendance and they note the main concern was increase in traffic on River Road. The agenda doesn't have anyone filing in opposition.

3de14eec6a · #**2812** Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

Donald and St Mary - SW corner is owned by MPI - the SE corner is where they did the soil testing last year. I have heard there is some things slowly coming out about this one

Some equipment on the SE corner again today. Looks like a drilling rig. Any more recent word?

Jeff · #**2813** Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 5:32 PM**

snippet from the FreeP today:

Quote:

Part of downtown Portage Avenue temporarily closed Sunday

06/26/2020 10:25 AM
Crane work will cause Portage Avenue East to close to westbound traffic on Sunday.
The city says the street will be closed to to westbound traffic between Main Street and Westbrook Street from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Pedestrians will still be able to walk along the street, but Winnipeg Transit buses will be rerouted.

wonder what the crane's for?

buzzg · #**2814** Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

snippet from the FreeP today:

wonder what the crane's for?

Richardson plaza work. Likely hauling out the huge old concrete pavers.

Biff · #**2815** Posted **Jun 26, 2020, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3de14eec6a

Some equipment on the SE corner again today. Looks like a drilling rig. Any more recent word?

I passed by at lunch, looks like a soil testing rig.

trueviking · #**2816** Posted **Jun 27, 2020, 1:19 AM**

Geotech.

Spocket · #**2817** Posted **Jun 27, 2020, 9:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

There is more than likely enough room for a full diamond. It wouldn't require anything more complicated than that.

But even if an interchange isn't built the City should figure out a way to get more cars on River to clear a green light. The greens on River are short and traffic tends to back up heavily at peak periods as only a few cars can turn left on any given sequence.

I always thought there was room for a full diamond as well but for some reason, and I may be misremembering the reason, there was something else going on that made a full diamond far too expensive than it would at first seem. Just to look at one would think that it's a simple no-brainer and probably should have been built almost as an afterthought from the get-go. I wish I could remember what it was that I read (maybe something to do with riverbank stabilization)

esquire · #**2818** Posted **Jun 27, 2020, 4:23 PM**

^ Yeah, you're probably right. I compared the site with some urban and highway diamonds and the Bishop/River is definitely wide enough for at least a single-point urban interchange configuration (sort of a super-compact diamond) but length might be a bit of an issue coming off the bridge. Maybe a folded diamond might be more appropriate?

I'm sure the City probably has probably had a plan drawn up for that intersection since the 60s or 70s... it would be interesting to know what it is.

Spocket · #**2819** Posted **Jun 27, 2020, 6:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Yeah, you're probably right. I compared the site with some urban and highway diamonds and the Bishop/River is definitely wide enough for at least a single-point urban interchange configuration (sort of a super-compact diamond) but length might be a bit of an issue coming off the bridge. Maybe a folded diamond might be more appropriate?

I'm sure the City probably has probably had a plan drawn up for that intersection since the 60s or 70s... it would be interesting to know what it is.

Oh, wait...now I remember. It wasn't what I read, it was just a matter of thinking it through. If you actually look closely, there isn't enough room for a full diamond. It's misleading because the hydro reserve corridor makes it look like there's a lot more room than there is actually is. I mean, the room is there but I don't know what the law actually says about how much room you can take from said corridors. In any case, you'd have to build two spans as opposed to one and you'd have to more or less extend either the Fort Garry bridge or build the grade separation as River Rd. going under Bishop. The conclusion I came to was that the cost couldn't justify the traffic counts. It's really just not a busy intersection despite how counter intuitive that may seem. I don't think it could be done with simple earthworks. If River Road goes over or under Bishop, it's got to be a pier supported structure pretty much the whole way. In the future, if the city allows higher density development along the riverbank fronting River road, it might make sense but for the foreseeable future it just doesn't make any cost sense at all to build a grade separation. I'm obviously no engineer and can't really say, anyway, just a total armchair civil engineer's best guess. I suppose there is a solution which involves moving River Road closer to the river although then you could only get a half diamond which is what I was thinking initially. Of course, in that case, you'd probably have to raise the Fort Garry bridge or put in a lot of cash to protect River at the the River.

Andy6 · #**2820** Posted **Jun 27, 2020, 6:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Yeah, you're probably right. I compared the site with some urban and highway diamonds and the Bishop/River is definitely wide enough for at least a single-point urban interchange configuration (sort of a super-compact diamond) but length might be a bit of an issue coming off the bridge. Maybe a folded diamond might be more appropriate?

I'm sure the City probably has probably had a plan drawn up for that intersection since the 60s or 70s... it would be interesting to know what it is.

There was supposed to be an overpass there similar to the one on Kingston Row, from what I remember, but the Sterling Lyon government cancelled the funding when it came into office. I think the NDP had started the Bishop Grandin project quite suddenly after it had been stalled for a long time. Around 1975, the City was in the middle of extending Beaverhill Blvd. across the Seine to St. Anne’s Road so it couldn’t have been expecting the Route 165 project to go ahead, since it duplicated the proposed Beaverhill bridge, which was never built.