Winnipeg Construction VIII

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by hexrae

This nonsensical idea that P&M needs to remain closed to pedestrians "just because" with no anylsis to the benefits or downfalls is quite frankly ridiculous, count me on the side of sceptical to any negatives on the re-opening.

The idea that opening P&M like turning back the clock will somehow bring vibrancy back to that region of downtown seems to be just another in a long line of ideas that will not work or even come close to reaching their intended goal.

[windypeg]

I don't think anyone believes P&M is suddenly going to look like times square after it's opened. But it's an embarrassment that people walking around our most prominent intersection are forced down a dirty, drab stairway into a drab underground hole that hasn't aged well. The entrances have aged horribly, the staircases near Richardson reeks like cigarettes all the time and the one by 201 portage smells like pee. At the very least the building owners should have to put a little money into upkeep.

But it's a silly argument because there's really no downside to opening it. Traffic already stops for the lights. Admittedly I'm no traffic engineer but I really can't see this having much of an effect. Does P&M as it is now really flow that much more smoothly than portage & memorial or other similar intersections that have crossings? Why not let people cross considering there's really no downside?

[biguc]

Listen, people: Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean it should stay that way. The barriers were made for a stupid reason. They present many problems to their immediate area and to the cohesiveness of downtown as a whole. They have negligible upside.

Tearing them down may not give us a metaphorical steak dinner, but stop turning down a decent home-cooked meal because you're used to the shitty taste of Michelinas and feel the need to justify having put up with that crap for 40 years.

Originally Posted by NK59

Opening would surely slow down our transit system.

Why?

And why do you think making an environment hostile to pedestrians (the people who ride transit) is good for transit?



There is nothing that makes me more angry than the flagrant fucking stupidity that streams out of people when we talk about tearing down the barricades. I get some of the parochial bullshit that goes on in this city: yes, it's scary that almost every other place on earth lets people buy booze from any store that wants to sell it, and we need the LC because God knows we're all feeble minded and racist and the stupid way things are done must be to protect at least some of us from ourselves. But we're talking about letting people cross the street.

That's it. Just let people cross the God damn street you fascists.

[inlp89]

It actually blows my mind there are people against opening up P&M? I really can not believe what Im reading here. Its one of the most famous intersections in Canada and its a dead spot as it is now and has been for 40 years. These are early days but just like the MTS had its fare share of proponents, history proved them dead wrong. If you are only against this because this is part of your daily route (Short term personal interest) then shame on you. Ive read some arguments against on here and they are so unbelievably short sighted it hurt my brain. Time will be the judge.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by inlp89

It actually blows my mind there are people against opening up P&M? I really can not believe what Im reading here.

Stockholm syndrome? It's the only explanation I can fathom.

[emeraldeyes]

@biguc

If you think some of the anti-opening comments on this forum are ridiculous, you should read some of the comments on the CBC website. One poster is actually asserting they have read somewhere that when the intersection was open to pedestrians there was one fatality/serious injury every week! FFS people.

Is anyone going to the forum this evening?

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

I do not believe anyone is arguing that opening P&M will suddenly transform the area. It is simply one step to animate the area with more people. If a new storefront or more appear in the area because of increased pedestrian numbers, then that is great.

Image courtesy of Strong Towns.

I honestly don't think anything good or bad will happen with the opening, I just agree with this, it's the first step of many (many) that will make our downtown more pedestrian viable.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I honestly don't think anything good or bad will happen with the opening, I just agree with this, it's the first step of many (many) that will make our downtown more pedestrian viable.

I agree. Not a panacea for downtown by any means, but there is no good reason to keep the barricades in place.

Portage and Colony is a huge intersection with 6-8 lanes of traffic in all directions and cars turning left in two directions. I walk across this intersection all the time and it's fine. No reason why P&M won't work just as well.

[Urban recluse]

We must pay no heed to the ignorant commuters who see the intersection as a quick way through downtown; the city and business leaders must do what is best for downtown. Just as parents make decisions for children, our civic and business leaders must make decisions which benefit the downtown despite objections from suburban commuters who have no regard for the vibrancy of the area.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

We must pay no heed to the ignorant commuters who see the intersection as a quick way through downtown; the city and business leaders must do what is best for downtown. Just as parents make decisions for children, our civic and business leaders must make decisions which benefit the downtown despite objections from suburban commuters who have no regard for the vibrancy of the area.

Well apparently the government thinks a 17 year old must wear a bike helmet when riding to school. How ridiculous is that? My choice as a parent out the window.

[Urban recluse]

A company relies on experienced managers and/or board members to operate successfully. When it comes to downtown revitalization, my opinion is that government should rely on those with knowledge, including city planners, business leaders, engineers, architects, and academics. Relying on the public will not result in a successful outcome because you will be presented with inertia and ignorance. A great example are polls (i.e. FP showing a majority of people thinking P&M should remain closed to pedestrians), or asinine comments on websites.

[Urban recluse]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Well apparently the government thinks a 17 year old must wear a bike helmet when riding to school. How ridiculous is that? My choice as a parent out the window.

I think that is acceptable.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Well apparently the government thinks a 17 year old must wear a bike helmet when riding to school. How ridiculous is that? My choice as a parent out the window.

Don't get me started on the government requiring car seats to keep my kids safe! If I want my daughter to crawl around the backseat as I drive that should be my decision. My choice as a parent out the window.

[drew]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Don't get me started on the government requiring car seats to keep my kids safe! If I want my daughter to crawl around the backseat as I drive that should be my decision. My choice as a parent out the window.

The problem is that we as tax payers end up paying for your medical bill, or your car insurance payout when your kid smacks their head on a curb or flies out the window as your car hits something. So in that sense we all need to follow minimum guidelines.

You could argue that not requiring these safety devices is actually cheaper - due to a fatality requiring no medical care, etc. etc. but that is an argument for another day.

[Urban recluse]

Show suite now open; this is a decent project with color. A dozen of these around Waterfront would be great.

http://www.welofts.ca/contact-us/

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

I think that is acceptable.

I'll respectfully disagree. Next people will be required to wear helmets walking down the street because you could trip. Never mind the icy sidewalks. Whoa man, much safer than riding a bike (that was sarcasm!).

[Urban recluse]

Originally Posted by drew

The problem is that we as tax payers end up paying for your medical bill, or your car insurance payout when your kid smacks their head on a curb or flies out the window as your car hits something. So in that sense we all need to follow minimum guidelines.

You could argue that not requiring these safety devices is actually cheaper - due to a fatality requiring no medical care, etc. etc. but that is an argument for another day.

Bingo. Inept decisions resulting in actions affecting the rest of us (i.e. Healthcare costs) are not welcomed.

[esquire]

On this bike helmet thing, for what it's worth, anyone with libertarian inclinations certainly wouldn't like the fact that socialized medicine is being used as an argument to support another perceived infringement of liberty.

Although in my view, it's a perfectly reasonable safety rule whether or not our health care system is even brought into the picture.

[Urban recluse]

Everyone must contribute to reducing healthcare costs.

I am anxious to see the renderings for 360 Main.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by esquire

On this bike helmet thing, for what it's worth, anyone with libertarian inclinations certainly wouldn't like the fact that socialized medicine is being used as an argument to support another perceived infringement of liberty.

Although in my view, it's a perfectly reasonable safety rule whether or not our health care system is even brought into the picture.

I have heard that the safety aspect of bike helmets is offset by the fact that people tend to act more dangerously when they think the helmet will keep them safe. I don't know if that's true or not, nor do I have a problem with helmet laws.