Winnipeg Construction

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by CoryB

One of the issues with a traditional grid layout compared to the newer layout systems is that grids do not have any traffic calming measures built in. The newer layout style has a series of progressively larger routes meant to move vehicle traffic. This means that when the main street becomes congested there are not people moving over one or two streets to take a short-cut through the residental area.

Sort of related - At rush hour people will come off the main road speed down my back lane to avoid traffic. It's fairly dangerous, these people will go 50-60 down a snow/ice covered back lane that can fit 1 car.

I suppose ONE good thing I can say for growing up in lindenwoods is that we never had to deal with non-local traffic on our street, any real traffic was contained on lindenwoods drive. Since I've moved however (to an oldschool grid neighborhood) I've noticed some strange traffic around rush hour.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

Sort of related - At rush hour people will come off the main road speed down my back lane to avoid traffic. It's fairly dangerous, these people will go 50-60 down a snow/ice covered back lane that can fit 1 car.

I suppose ONE good thing I can say for growing up in lindenwoods is that we never had to deal with non-local traffic on our street, any real traffic was contained on lindenwoods drive. Since I've moved however (to an oldschool grid neighborhood) I've noticed some strange traffic around rush hour.

That is why I love living in one of the few crescent shaped streets in my predominantly grid neighbourhood.

My street is a shortcut to nowhere.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by CoryB

One of the issues with a traditional grid layout compared to the newer layout systems is that grids do not have any traffic calming measures built in. The newer layout style has a series of progressively larger routes meant to move vehicle traffic. This means that when the main street becomes congested there are not people moving over one or two streets to take a short-cut through the residental area.

I've not thought of this but is it ever true. I live on a street that is essentially a ''shortcut" and people drive far too fast and blow through stop signs.

[steveosnyder]

They always say that the curvilinear street pattern creates more safety for residents, but I don't know if I agree... Sure, on the street in front of your house will have less traffic, but what about the feeder streets (in the Lindenwoods example, Lindenwood Drive).

It also promotes sprawl -- who the hell would want to build anything other than a single family dwelling in that entire subdivision -- schools aside.

Bah, I don't even want to go over all the reasons I hate non-grid pattern development.

[rypinion]

We've seen this here before, I believe, but CMHC's research has suggested that the grid layout is the least efficient.

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/publications/en/rh-pr/tech/socio75.html

Not sure what the consensus was when this was last brought up (pretty certain it was).

[CoryB]

One thing that can be done in curvilinear neighbourhoods to counter the lack of a grid is to overlay a grid structure for walking and cycling paths. For example if you have two cul-de-sacs backing onto each other you have a public path that connects between the closed ends. This means that active transportation has the benefits of a grid neighbourhood while also keeping the benefits of the the measures for calming vehicle traffic.

The flip side of course is responding to people's concerns about vehicle traffic is grid neighbourhoods with mini-traffic circles, speed humps, and random intersection closures. Those all seem the be real popular in Winnipeg.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by CoryB

One thing that can be done in curvilinear neighbourhoods to counter the lack of a grid is to overlay a grid structure for walking and cycling paths. For example if you have two cul-de-sacs backing onto each other you have a public path that connects between the closed ends. This means that active transportation has the benefits of a grid neighbourhood while also keeping the benefits of the the measures for calming vehicle traffic.

The flip side of course is responding to people's concerns about vehicle traffic is grid neighbourhoods with mini-traffic circles, speed humps, and random intersection closures. Those all seem the be real popular in Winnipeg.

Grew up in a curvilinear neighbourhood. The cat walks are huge a benefit. Instead of having to walk 20 mins all the way around, a quick 30 second walk through and you're there. Pretty sweet. Only require a 15' strip of space, not a huge burden on the development. Combine those with strategic planning of the street network and it can work well. Still seems like there's "wasted" space in all the corner pie shaped lots.

Looks like there will be some cat walks in the Devonshire Village development. From what I could tell on the plan anyways. Not sure if cat walk in he technical term, but that's what everybody called them. One draw back however. My sister was robbed of her halloween candy in one! Trapped her in the middle.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by CoryB

One thing that can be done in curvilinear neighbourhoods to counter the lack of a grid is to overlay a grid structure for walking and cycling paths. For example if you have two cul-de-sacs backing onto each other you have a public path that connects between the closed ends. This means that active transportation has the benefits of a grid neighbourhood while also keeping the benefits of the the measures for calming vehicle traffic.

Great examples of this in Windsor Park - particularly Frontenac Park, which connects a vast system of bays together. It's essentially the best of both worlds - built-in traffic calming and very good pedestrian connectivity...

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by rypinion

We've seen this here before, I believe, but CMHC's research has suggested that the grid layout is the least efficient.

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/publications/en/rh-pr/tech/socio75.html

Not sure what the consensus was when this was last brought up (pretty certain it was).

I think that CMHC report is just "efficiency" in the since of more area for houses vs infrastructure. But if there is no incentive or possibility to build density, then it is still inefficient from a maintenance stand point because there is less tax base.

Grid pattern promotes connectivity -- as some people pointed out below, they would only use the shortest path from one point to another, and in a curvilinear pattern, that is usually only one possibility. In a grid pattern there are many possible paths from one point to another, all roughly the same length.

For example, from my office to the law courts there are 4 avenues and 9 streets, and I could take any combination of them to get there in roughly the same time. In linden woods, there is 1 path from any house to any other, or to Walmart, or anywhere. Only one.

[Mininari]

Hey,
Was just browsing the MLS in my area, and noticed that the Woodrow Place Brownstone listings are back, and there's only 2 of them available. (of 4?).
Maybe these are going to move ahead afterall?

http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?propertyId=11942916&PidKey=-1221222588

http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?propertyId=11942922&PidKey=342373657

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Great examples of this in Windsor Park - particularly Frontenac Park, which connects a vast system of bays together. It's essentially the best of both worlds - built-in traffic calming and very good pedestrian connectivity...

I guess the idea was popular in the 50s and 60s. We had those in Pulberry as well. Our neighbourhood wasn't entirely a new subdivision as a grid pattern had been laid out around 1910 but mostly not built out beyond the dirt road stage. The 50s planners chopped up some of the through streets into bays and crescents while leaving some of the other through streets intact. Those through streets, such as my own, became rather busy thanks to people looking for a shortcut to the Fort Garry bridge.

[Auror]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I guess the idea was popular in the 50s and 60s. We had those in Pulberry as well. Our neighbourhood wasn't entirely a new subdivision as a grid pattern had been laid out around 1910 but mostly not built out beyond the dirt road stage. The 50s planners chopped up some of the through streets into bays and crescents while leaving some of the other through streets intact. Those through streets, such as my own, became rather busy thanks to people looking for a shortcut to the Fort Garry bridge.

The Frontenac Park is where I live close to and walk through it frequently. I love this area. I used to live in a grid area (when I grew up in Henderson near Kimberly), there's always traffic around) but now with my two daughters I don't worry about traffic. When I need to walk them to school or go to another friend's house thats in another bay, I just have to go through the pathways and I'm right there very quickly. Much easier than the grid style.

[Biff]

Possible Parcel Four uses to be studied

Posted: 10:27 AM

WINNIPEG FREE PRESS

The Forks will lead a planning process for a contentious city-owned surface parking lot.

This morning, a city committee approved a plan which will see the Forks Renewal Corporation lead a year-long engagement process for the city-owned Parcel Four and Forks land adjacent to the CN main line. The city-owned land is a gravel surface parking lot located next to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights and was previously slated to become a 50,000-square-foot water park, hotel and parkade by an Alberta hotel chain.

Last year, the city's plan to offer a $7-million grant to a private developer willing to build a water park on the site fell through in May after councillors were bombarded with negative feedback from constituents who worried The Forks wasn't the place for a water park. Council asked the company for detailed site plans, prompting hotelier Canalta to walk away from the proposal.

In November, city council's downtown development committee voted to start consultations to come up with a vision of what could be developed on Parcel Four. This morning, the committee unanimously approved a plan to work in collaboration with the Forks Renewal Corporation on an engagement strategy.

The city and the Forks will each provide $75,000 toward the initiative which will include public input and urban design and development study.

"I think right now we're moving in the right direction," downtown development chairman Coun. Mike Pagtakhan said.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/The-Forks-to-study-possible-Parcel-Four-uses-202530101.html

[Wigglez]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/cubes-troubles-a-legal-matter-202467541.html

City to itemize deficiencies at the Cube

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/cubes-troubles-a-legal-matter-202467541.html

City to itemize deficiencies at the Cube

I believe the The cube was desinged for it's asthetic values in the area, Believe it won some accolades for this.(Others may know) Practicallity is another story. As a performing musician the set up was crazy scary, Bad sight lines, sound value is meh...
Hopefully improvments will be made.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Biff

Possible Parcel Four uses to be studied

Posted: 10:27 AM

WINNIPEG FREE PRESS

The Forks will lead a planning process for a contentious city-owned surface parking lot.

This morning, a city committee approved a plan which will see the Forks Renewal Corporation lead a year-long engagement process for the city-owned Parcel Four and Forks land adjacent to the CN main line. The city-owned land is a gravel surface parking lot located next to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights and was previously slated to become a 50,000-square-foot water park, hotel and parkade by an Alberta hotel chain.

Last year, the city's plan to offer a $7-million grant to a private developer willing to build a water park on the site fell through in May after councillors were bombarded with negative feedback from constituents who worried The Forks wasn't the place for a water park. Council asked the company for detailed site plans, prompting hotelier Canalta to walk away from the proposal.

In November, city council's downtown development committee voted to start consultations to come up with a vision of what could be developed on Parcel Four. This morning, the committee unanimously approved a plan to work in collaboration with the Forks Renewal Corporation on an engagement strategy.

The city and the Forks will each provide $75,000 toward the initiative which will include public input and urban design and development study.

"I think right now we're moving in the right direction," downtown development chairman Coun. Mike Pagtakhan said.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/The-Forks-to-study-possible-Parcel-Four-uses-202530101.html

Hope this pans out, for the benifit of the forks. Not like the previous city fiasco, water park? ok..whatever.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Bah, I don't even want to go over all the reasons I hate non-grid pattern development.

I feel the same way, as being involved in the contruction of these burban housing developements, lindenwoods as an example, looking into your neighbors kitchen, bedroom etc...make that 2-3 neighbors as they are planned and laid out, and your privacy as well...not a chance. This might be heaven for some, lovely houses ,stacked together to maximize space and revenue potential,.but give me the old school /backyard/front yard,space between ur neihgbors any day. Ahh.. backlanes..love em..3 car garage in the front yard ?..Pls..those interested please call ur local agent it's all urs.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I think that CMHC report is just "efficiency" in the since of more area for houses vs infrastructure. But if there is no incentive or possibility to build density, then it is still inefficient from a maintenance stand point because there is less tax base.

Grid pattern promotes connectivity -- as some people pointed out below, they would only use the shortest path from one point to another, and in a curvilinear pattern, that is usually only one possibility. In a grid pattern there are many possible paths from one point to another, all roughly the same length.

For example, from my office to the law courts there are 4 avenues and 9 streets, and I could take any combination of them to get there in roughly the same time. In linden woods, there is 1 path from any house to any other, or to Walmart, or anywhere. Only one.

What about a fused grid layout?

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by DavefromSt.Vital

Viking, good article in the Winnipeg Free Press today:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/exit-of-core-grocer-an-opportunity-201884551.html

I recently spent a weekend at the Sheraton Hamilton attached to Jackson Square where the new supermarket is under construction. People seemed to be looking forward to it.

Nicely done indeed.

[Cyro]

Fused - If planners want to go "Suburban"- Less Density, better vehicle patterns sure. Want more pedestrian traffic - Grid just an opinion