Winnipeg | CF Polo Park Redevelopment - Page 7

armorand93 · #**121** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 2:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Yeah who wants a 24 hour airport anyway besides being the busiest cargo airport in the country means too many noisy planes! Take that business somewhere else, we're Manitoba all we need and want is govt. business and more bureaucrats, free enterprise sucks!

"Next up on Winnipeg municipal government: replacing all flags with our brothers from the Soviet Union! Stay tuned!"

Cadillac Fairview needs to get these people by the balls... the fact that this debates even happening, is ridiculous. Especially knowing the benefit of an extra couple thousand of people/customers/sheep at the biggest mall for almost a thousand miles in the middle of Canada, along with employment, students, etc etc... tired of these NIMBY's shitting all over Winnipeg. Enoughs enough.

rrskylar · #**122** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 4:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WinCitySparky

I think he was being sarcastic.

Well, uh...no! I’m paid the big bucks here to offer the contrarian view!

Biff · #**123** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 2:43 PM**

They said there would be below grade parking and other parkades throughout the site.....there is lots of area to replace the parking.

optimusREIM · #**124** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 4:34 PM**

Someone mentioned that this whole thing may leave the airport vulnerable to nuisance suits, but I was thinking and basically that right to sue could just be legislated away via zoning, the same as residential new builds are zoned away under the current arrangement.

The noise complaint issue is a red-herring...

Andy6 · #**125** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 4:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Someone mentioned that this whole thing may leave the airport vulnerable to nuisance suits, but I was thinking and basically that right to sue could just be legislated away via zoning, the same as residential new builds are zoned away under the current arrangement.

The noise complaint issue is a red-herring...

It would be the political pressure that large numbers of voters would be able to bring to bear, more than lawsuits.

optimusREIM · #**126** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 5:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy6

It would be the political pressure that large numbers of voters would be able to bring to bear, more than lawsuits.

I would again just point to the myriad other places in the world where this just doesn't seem to be an issue. How come we think we're somehow special?

Curmudgeon · #**127** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTA in Winnipeg

^Oh, WTF ever. I'm old enough to remember when everyone would just stop talking when a plane was overhead because it was just so loud it was impossible to talk and to be heard. Those days are long gone rrskylar.

I now live on Mount Royal which is in line of the main runway of the YWG. I almost never hear them. When I do, well, I'm used to it now, so I rarely hear it.

A bunch of medium rises in Polo Park is nothing. Why is this even a debate?

Friends live in St. James near Ferry and Silver and trust me, you can hear the planes loud and clear, esp. when the weather is warmer and the windows are open. For me it seems very loud but according to them, and as you stated, they are used to the noise. But that's where the airport is located, and they were well aware of that when they moved there.

I'm in favour of any good development which adds density to the central part of the city (and Polo Park is quite central). The renderings look good, but they always do. More density around Polo Park would increase transit ridership along Portage Ave. to the point where a high capacity rail-based line would not only be feasible but required.

Andy6 · #**128** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I would again just point to the myriad other places in the world where this just doesn't seem to be an issue. How come we think we're somehow special?

It has been a major issue in Toronto since they built condos across from the Island airport. I’m sure that experience is part of what is driving this.

bomberjet · #**129** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 6:15 PM**

Is the island airport mostly turbo props?

Seems the issue here is with the 24 hour service. How many of the cargo planes coming in overnight are turbo prop? Jets are fairly quite now and the noise comes from the props.

buzzg · #**130** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 6:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy6

It has been a major issue in Toronto since they built condos across from the Island airport. I’m sure that experience is part of what is driving this.

Those people chose to buy a condo beside an airport that long predates their condo... too bad.

vjose32 · #**131** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 6:18 PM**

Well if they go through with adding residential then they need to improve the roads and traffic flow in the area.

bomberjet · #**132** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 6:22 PM**

Is traffic actually that bad?? I go there during Christmas rush and it might take a light cycle or two. Otherwise I have zero issues going there on a Saturday afternoon.

But traffic in Winnipeg is not bad in general. I also find since they re-did all the roads around Polo park, traffic moves better than it did with previously.

Riverman · #**133** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 6:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Is the island airport mostly turbo props?

Seems the issue here is with the 24 hour service. How many of the cargo planes coming in overnight are turbo prop? Jets are fairly quite now and the noise comes from the props.

Only turboprops, all Q400s and some light aircraft.

You are incorrect about the noise, turbofan engines are far louder than turboprops generally speaking.

bomberjet · #**134** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 7:09 PM**

Hmm. I thought with the advances in noise dampening that the exposed prop planes were louder than the jets.

buzzg · #**135** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vjose32

Well if they go through with adding residential then they need to improve the roads and traffic flow in the area.

They just spent the last three years upgrading all the roads in the area. There's really no issue there in my opinion, people can deal with the 3 weeks of higher traffic before Christmas, it's not a big deal.

What should happen is a comprehensive transit upgrade plan:
- how to improve transit in the Polo area, integrate it in development
- how to make a proper (semi-indoor?) major transit hub
- how to build out the Portage portion of the BLUE Line

The city should be looking at this as a major opportunity to actually fund more build out of the RT network. Use a significant portion (or all) of the new taxes from this to build out the BLUE Line. Require CF to spend some money on public areas and the transit hub to make this a real TOD – this happens all the time in other cities: transit infrastructure integrated into private developments.

Riverman · #**136** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 7:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Hmm. I thought with the advances in noise dampening that the exposed prop planes were louder than the jets.

The engine in the new Airbus A220 approaches turboprop noise levels, but it involves driving the fan through a gear train. Very difficult to do on any large engine.

Jammon · #**137** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 8:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

The engine in the new Airbus A220 approaches turboprop noise levels, but it involves driving the fan through a gear train. Very difficult to do on any large engine.

This is older, but should give you some idea of the noise factor: https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm

I'm all for this getting built. If they allow WAA to stamp their authority here, it's going to send (yet another) very strong signal that Winnipeg isn't open to outside investment. Time to be done with the small-minded mentality of the NIMBYs in this city.

Andy6 · #**138** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 8:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jammon

This is older, but should give you some idea of the noise factor: https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm

I'm all for this getting built. If they allow WAA to stamp their authority here, it's going to send (yet another) very strong signal that Winnipeg isn't open to outside investment. Time to be done with the small-minded mentality of the NIMBYs in this city.

But the whole problem is that this development will bring NIMBYs into the airport area. What the NIMBYs at the airport don’t want in their “backyard” is other NIMBYs. So those with an aversion to NIMBYs are going to have to pick their poison.

borkborkbork · #**139** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 9:14 PM**

In Toronto, the residential density around the Billy Bishop flight path has led to a lot of NIMBYism around the airport -- for a while Porter was looking at running a YWG-YTZ route but neighbourhood opposition to VLJs killed it

Jammon · #**140** Posted **Mar 3, 2020, 10:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy6

But the whole problem is that this development will bring NIMBYs into the airport area. What the NIMBYs at the airport don’t want in their “backyard” is other NIMBYs. So those with an aversion to NIMBYs are going to have to pick their poison.

I'm just not sure why we would allow WAA to dictate what should and shouldn't happen in the area. I get that there are restrictions, but the reality is that this development is way outside their jurisdiction. It's not airport adjacent and doesn't really affect their ability to develop infrastructure- especially this argument for a third runway. Winnipeg isn't Toronto. I don't see the need for this type of development when we haven't even hit a population of one million. Edmonton does just fine with two runaways and they have double the number of passengers of Winnipeg.