Winnipeg | Portage and Main

[oaktom]

here portage and main base idea

[oaktom]

what do think of my concept of portage and main bus transit plan

[oaktom]

[oaktom]

[oaktom]

[oaktom]

[oaktom]

I found old design on web from city crossing 2004 recently. I am so close to have all the old entries of city crossing 2004 design competition I miss just few now

[CoryB]

"Winnipeg's downtown is too spread out."

"Winnipeg's downtown has one of the worst pedestrian experiences."

"Winnipeg's downtown needs more concentration of people".

--

If you believe any of those, the absolute WORST thing that could happen for downtown is to officially open Portage and Main to pedestrians.

Long ago I have crossed Main at Portage. Going to just where the barrier ends and then going across. It isn't a great experience and there is so little east of Main and south of Portage there is nearly no reason to cross there outside of lost tourists staying at the Fairmont. Yes Bell has their office there but even before the massive rounds of layoffs the employees knew fairly well about the pathways that connect that building to the rest of downtown. There is also a street level crossing of them between Portage and Graham.

The other thing we need to talk about is that most pedestrians will travel about 5 blocks from origin to destination. If we strictly talk Portage and Main as one of those points we are talking about Canada Life Centre to the west, City Hall to the North and the Via station to the south. (South blocks are longer). In that circle there is almost no destination points in the southwest corner off of Portage Ave or Main St. There are some destinations west of Main and north of Portage but for the most part they are just a little outside that 5 block range which is comfortable for most people. Further, for pedestrians starting at the Fairmont or Richardson building travelling to the northwest corner if they go one block north on the east side of Main St they can then cross Main at an existing ground level crossing.

Now if we go back to looking at pedestrian travel east-west across Portage and Main within the five block range most would travel if they aren't going to Canada Life Centre we are looking at Winnipeg Square or the office buildings an Portage and Main. For employees going from one office building to another at Portage and Main the existing walkways are the routes they will use.

So with all that taking into account, someone want to explain where exactly these theoretical pedestrians that desperately need to cross Portage and Main are coming from and going to?

[esquire]

^ Going to/from the Fairmont, going to/from points in the east Exchange, going to/from Shaw Park. Sure there are detours that can get you around having to go underground, but they aren't necessarily obvious to visitors.

Part of the issue here is the pathetic state of the underground system, including the legs that branch off the P&M concourse like Winnipeg Square. The Lombard Place leg is in decent shape, I'll give them credit. But the rest of it is mostly vacant units, 70s brown tiles and dark, empty spaces that look like crap. It feels abandoned any time other than 11:00-1:00 on weekdays.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by CoryB

"Winnipeg's downtown is too spread out."

"Winnipeg's downtown has one of the worst pedestrian experiences."

"Winnipeg's downtown needs more concentration of people".

--

If you believe any of those, the absolute WORST thing that could happen for downtown is to officially open Portage and Main to pedestrians.

Long ago I have crossed Main at Portage. Going to just where the barrier ends and then going across. It isn't a great experience and there is so little east of Main and south of Portage there is nearly no reason to cross there outside of lost tourists staying at the Fairmont. Yes Bell has their office there but even before the massive rounds of layoffs the employees knew fairly well about the pathways that connect that building to the rest of downtown. There is also a street level crossing of them between Portage and Graham.

The other thing we need to talk about is that most pedestrians will travel about 5 blocks from origin to destination. If we strictly talk Portage and Main as one of those points we are talking about Canada Life Centre to the west, City Hall to the North and the Via station to the south. (South blocks are longer). In that circle there is almost no destination points in the southwest corner off of Portage Ave or Main St. There are some destinations west of Main and north of Portage but for the most part they are just a little outside that 5 block range which is comfortable for most people. Further, for pedestrians starting at the Fairmont or Richardson building travelling to the northwest corner if they go one block north on the east side of Main St they can then cross Main at an existing ground level crossing.

Now if we go back to looking at pedestrian travel east-west across Portage and Main within the five block range most would travel if they aren't going to Canada Life Centre we are looking at Winnipeg Square or the office buildings an Portage and Main. For employees going from one office building to another at Portage and Main the existing walkways are the routes they will use.

So with all that taking into account, someone want to explain where exactly these theoretical pedestrians that desperately need to cross Portage and Main are coming from and going to?

A few things.

1. Portage and Main being a terrible experience for pedestrians and being primarily a thoroughfare for cars is why there hasn't been development on the East of Main St. You make it easier and more convenient for pedestrians to cross Portage and Main all of a sudden it opens development opportunities. I recall Glen Murray saying that by keeping Portage & Main closed we are losing $100s of millions in terms of investment toward developing said area.

2. Pedestrians on average would walk 400m. A 400m radius from Portage & Main includes City Hall, Canada Life Centre, Shaw Park, 300 Main, Police HQ, and of course the cluster of office buildings within the area. It is essentially our financial district and if you've seen financial districts of other cities its usually where the highest levels of pedestrian activity occur. You fill in those parking lots and P&M becomes a happening place once again.

3. We can't only think of pedestrians. Cyclists exist as well, and opening up the crossing for Portage & Main also means adding bike lanes on Portage & Main. Pedestrians might only go a few blocks, but Polo Park is only 5km away from P&M and most people can make that cycle trip in under 30 mins.

4. Most importantly Portage & Main is expected to be a transit hub serving every single one of our future rapid transit lines which means large amounts of people will need to walk to and from Portage & Main. Therefore, there needs to be adequate pedestrian infrastructure that can handle large volumes of pedestrians in which my response is that a scramble crossing is the only appropriate solution for P&M

So while Portage & Main being opened today isn't an absolute emergency (still requires high urgency) it will become a necessity even 5 years down the line should we as a city want to develop and revitalize our core.

[esquire]

^ Exactly. It may not be red-hot urgent, but it is important. The Fairmont is a pretty important hotel, a lot of business travellers stay there. Forcing them into a dank, empty tunnel is going to shape their impression of the city, and not for the better.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Going to/from the Fairmont, going to/from points in the east Exchange, going to/from Shaw Park. Sure there are detours that can get you around having to go underground, but they aren't necessarily obvious to visitors.

Part of the issue here is the pathetic state of the underground system, including the legs that branch off the P&M concourse like Winnipeg Square. The Lombard Place leg is in decent shape, I'll give them credit. But the rest of it is mostly vacant units, 70s brown tiles and dark, empty spaces that look like crap. It feels abandoned any time other than 11:00-1:00 on weekdays.

1. Let's be real here as Shaw Park has very limited attendance from pedestrians. I would guess that the majority of those are coming from the condos in the East Exchange as that is one of the fewer spots that is within the five block walkable range.

2. East Exchange and the west part of downtown see near zero pedestrian traffic and changing the flow at Portage and Main will not change that as the East Exchange is well outside that five block range most people consider to be walkable. If Portage and Main is open or closed to pedestrian it doesn't change how far the Waterfront Dr condos are from Canada Life Centre for example. Further, the East Exchange to the west of Main downtown you would cross Main St at McDermot. No major detour needed.

3. Sounds like you haven't been in the underground part of the walkways in over five years. Both Winnipeg Square and 201 Portage Ave (formerly TD Building) completed major renos of their spaces long before the pandemic hit and are nearly fully occupied outside of maybe some pandemic related vacancies but find me a place that didn't experience those. With the Metis Federation having taken ownership of the southeast corner I am sure that will have its own renovations soon just leaving the City owned circus portion with its dated feeling. As the membrane between the ceiling on the circus and the ground level above reportedly needs replacement I doubt it sees any changes until that work is completed. And like it or not that work will need to be completed one way or another on tax payer dime and opening Portage and Main to pedestrians won't make that major bill go away.

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

A few things.

1. Portage and Main being a terrible experience for pedestrians and being primarily a thoroughfare for cars is why there hasn't been development on the East of Main St. You make it easier and more convenient for pedestrians to cross Portage and Main all of a sudden it opens development opportunities. I recall Glen Murray saying that by keeping Portage & Main closed we are losing $100s of millions in terms of investment toward developing said area.

The East Exchange area is fully developed and that won't change. Reality is all this "development" east of Main is essentially the building the hotel was planning to convert on the south side of Portage E and the parking lots between the rail line and Westbrook. There is not a lot of development potential that is being "held back" by the current state of Portage and Main.

As for those it thoroughfares, they were built on the edges of downtown with the core area being west of Main, south of Portage and east of Osborne. Notice how outside of a few office buildings on Portage Ave and on Main St near City Hall that captures the majority of the downtown office area?

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

2. Pedestrians on average would walk 400m. A 400m radius from Portage & Main includes City Hall, Canada Life Centre, Shaw Park, 300 Main, Police HQ, and of course the cluster of office buildings within the area. It is essentially our financial district and if you've seen financial districts of other cities its usually where the highest levels of pedestrian activity occur. You fill in those parking lots and P&M becomes a happening place once again.

I strongly disagree with you there and the employment numbers of Winnipeg and Manitoba also do not support you either. The #1 employer locally is the Provincal government. The top local employer is the Power Corp. Another major local employer of office staff is Skip the Dishes. All three are located outside the 400m Portage and Main radius and 2 of the 3 are for the large part well outside of that radius. Only Skip the Dishes is close and even it is just outside that raidus.

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

3. We can't only think of pedestrians. Cyclists exist as well, and opening up the crossing for Portage & Main also means adding bike lanes on Portage & Main. Pedestrians might only go a few blocks, but Polo Park is only 5km away from P&M and most people can make that cycle trip in under 30 mins.

Portage and Main is open to cyclists as it stands today. Next.

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

4. Most importantly Portage & Main is expected to be a transit hub serving every single one of our future rapid transit lines which means large amounts of people will need to walk to and from Portage & Main. Therefore, there needs to be adequate pedestrian infrastructure that can handle large volumes of pedestrians in which my response is that a scramble crossing is the only appropriate solution for P&M

Yet when the proposal to open Portage and Main to pedestrians was sent to public vote one of the loudest voices opposing the change was Winnipeg Transit as they had access to enough information to see how this dumb proposal would completely cripple the downtown road network and negatively impact public transit travel times.

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

So while Portage & Main being opened today isn't an absolute emergency (still requires high urgency) it will become a necessity even 5 years down the line should we as a city want to develop and revitalize our core.

Strongly disagree. Other than the pressing need to address the street literally falling into the walkways opening Portage and Main to pedestrians is such a low priority and what downtown Winnipeg overall needs our great grandchildren could be having this same discussion with very little having changed. The other thing that should be addressed is making the existing walkway system more accessible to people with limited mobility.

[zalf]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Portage and Main is open to cyclists as it stands today. Next.

Maybe in the most technical, least useful sense of the phrase, but you can't say with a straight face that cycling through Portage & Main as it exists today would be anything less than harrowing.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by zalf

Maybe in the most technical, least useful sense of the phrase, but you can't say with a straight face that cycling through Portage & Main as it exists today would be anything less than harrowing.

But lets be real, if the City did the style of Portage and Main overall, as advocated by #TeamOpen in 2018, we would have at best one block of dedicated cycling lanes in each direction from Portage and Main. Exactly how many cyclists would be using those?

As I have been saying for years going back before the vote happened looking at a single intersection in isolation for only one mode of transit (pedestrians) is not the sort of long term planning the city needs. We need to look on a larger scale how the different modes (vehicles, transit, cyclists, pedestrians) are going to move throughout the downtown and connect to areas beyond that. Once we for instance know transit would like to move both north and south transit flows to the east side of Main St, etc we can then look at the broader changes which need to happen and how modernizing the flow at Portage and Main can be part of that. In 2018 that level of detail was entirely missing from what was presented and in keeping with parliamentary process if a proposal is lacking in detail to vote in favor of it, as presented, you vote in opposition to it so the deficiencies in the proposal can be addressed.

[oaktom]

The bule part are could become new opportunities
For development by portage and main like affordable housing or residential apartment or restaurants or shops etc ������

[oaktom]

What if this happened for the area by portage and main

[esquire]

^ Love it.

[optimusREIM]

Does that come from a real proposal alive or dead? Or is it vision?

[Biff]

Something Number Ten (Viking) did as a "what if" on the Richardson Centre, Functional Foods & Neutraceuticals site.

Concept aside, I cannot for the life of me understand why those lots around the Forks and the ball park don't have this type of development on them. Seems like these locations in other cities are teeming with development and life.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Biff

Concept aside, I cannot for the life of me understand why those lots around the Forks and the ball park don't have this type of development on them. Seems like these locations in other cities are teeming with development and life.

Couldn't agree more. I wasn't necessarily expecting the full on Yaletown treatment there, but it's hard to believe that not even one or two of the lots in the area immediately around Shaw Park generated any residential development.

Something like the Vike proposal that oaktom posted would have been fantastic... there is still room for something like it on the Westbrook parking lots.