Winnipeg - Of Interest

[bomberjet]

Sure whatever it is.

Like I said, it's ridiculous when there's a line of people and it's all parents with their kids, students, etc.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Sure whatever it is.

Like I said, it's ridiculous when there's a line of people and it's all parents with their kids, students, etc.

Well I would feel safer leaving my child read a book alone today as opposed to last year..

University and public libraries have security all over the world. Everyone is welcome but just no weapons or alcohol. Anyone who wants to read a book or access information can buy into the security in place. No one’s liberty is being infringed upon.

Sorry but the library while for everyone, is NOT designed to be a social services warehouse for our most needy members of society. That service I believe, is being planned by the over generous private owners of Portage Place.

Treat everyone the same which means “wand” all patrons...

I’m really ok with that and if one is not, I suggest they read a magazine at shoppers drug mart.

[Riverman]

Well said.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

Does anyone know what the security system is at the new Calgary central library? Or other downtown libraries for that matter? I heard the Calgary one had something, but I'm not sure what that is. Whatever they do, I haven't heard complaints about it.

I think the best "security system" is just being busy and having lots of people around, including children and families. That is a big disincentive for disruptive behaviour.

[bomberjet]

It's a said state of affairs when you need to wand children, search their bags, etc to enter a library. Even the library said it was a mistake.

Also, leaving a child unattended in a public place like that is bad news regardless of security.

[cheswick]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that children / families get to bypass the security screening.

Part of the decision to potentially pull back on the security levels is the library has seen a drop off in the use of the Carol Shields Auditorium by various groups since the security measures were implemented.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by Labroco

University and public libraries have security all over the world. Everyone is welcome but just no weapons or alcohol. Anyone who wants to read a book or access information can buy into the security in place. No one’s liberty is being infringed upon.

Generally true, but UWinnipeg library, for example, doesn't have metal detectors and security guards searching bags and wanding patrons. Why is this level of security necessary at one downtown library, but not the other? Sure, UW has security guards patrolling around campus and cameras, but it's essentially a wide open building - no need to check in with security upon entry. I'm just curious why the security protocols are so different, yet both operate in the downtown/innter city.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

Generally true, but UWinnipeg library, for example, doesn't have metal detectors and security guards searching bags and wanding patrons. Why is this level of security necessary at one downtown library, but not the other? Sure, UW has security guards patrolling around campus and cameras, but it's essentially a wide open building - no need to check in with security upon entry. I'm just curious why the security protocols are so different, yet both operate in the downtown/innter city.

The U of W doesn't operate a public library... it's intended for faculty and students. That isn't to say that people who aren't associated with the university can't enter, but it's a very different situation than what you see at the Millennium Library. Or at least that's how it was when I was a student.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by cheswick

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that children / families get to bypass the security screening.

Part of the decision to potentially pull back on the security levels is the library has seen a drop off in the use of the Carol Shields Auditorium by various groups since the security measures were implemented.

I've definitely seen kids and families being searched. No idea what the policy is though.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

Generally true, but UWinnipeg library, for example, doesn't have metal detectors and security guards searching bags and wanding patrons. Why is this level of security necessary at one downtown library, but not the other? Sure, UW has security guards patrolling around campus and cameras, but it's essentially a wide open building - no need to check in with security upon entry. I'm just curious why the security protocols are so different, yet both operate in the downtown/innter city.

Go to the UofW library and see how many non-students just walk in off the street. It's not very many. It's hidden inside the campus, most homeless people probably don't even know it's there.

[esquire]

Interesting Global/CJOB article about Shindico/CF and WAA fighting over residential development near the airport:

https://globalnews.ca/news/6593964/w...attle-airport/

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by esquire

Interesting Global/CJOB article about Shindico/CF and WAA fighting over residential development near the airport:

https://globalnews.ca/news/6593964/w...attle-airport/

This will be a very interesting story to watch as it unfolds. I imagine major commercial centre owners like Cadillac Fairview are getting nervous about the rise of online shopping and recognize that re-purposing commercial lands near their centres to attract residents will provide both an alternative revenue stream and increase foot traffic at their commercial holdings, which is a win-win for them. The caveat here, of course, is that airport noise is a concern and the WAA doesn't want their own growing business operations potentially limited by new development.

I see the struggle on both sides and I want both to succeed. Personally I think that the development should be allowed to proceed if city council can create a bylaw that will ensure all future noise complaints about airport traffic are fully ignored and no airport operations will be impacted by any amount of residents complaining.

If the airport can continue to operate normally and Cadillac Fairview knows that a market exists for residences that close to the airport on the assumption that noise complaints will be fully ignored, then I think both parties can walk away happy with this development.

Of course, nothing is ever that easy I suppose.

[bomberjet]

There should be a bylaw put in place that when development occurs within the airport zones, the tenants must sign as part of their lease or whatever it is, that they are aware they are within the airport flight paths, etc.

For new and existing buildings. There would likely be push back from the owners as this could result in tenants backing out. But would protect the airport, which IMO is more important. But could be a good compromise.

[esquire]

I'd be curious to know how much of an issue airport noise complaints are currently? There are thousands of people living under flight paths which have probably been there longer than all but a tiny handful of the oldest residents. Are they complaining on the regular? What would be the impact of adding a few thousand more people to the area? How would that affect the airport's operations any more than the existing residents?

I get not building highrises on Mount Royal directly under the runway 36 approach or whatever other extreme example, but surely there is room for compromise here.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'd be curious to know how much of an issue airport noise complaints are currently? There are thousands of people living under flight paths which have probably been there longer than all but a tiny handful of the oldest residents. Are they complaining on the regular? What would be the impact of adding a few thousand more people to the area? How would that affect the airport's operations any more than the existing residents?

I get not building highrises on Mount Royal directly under the runway 36 approach or whatever other extreme example, but surely there is room for compromise here.

I lived on mount royal for 2 years and it was a non-issue for us. It's background noise that you don't really notice. Same with living next to the trains. Get used to it.

[cheswick]

My inlaws leave really close to the airport in Montreal. Whenever I visit I'm amazed by how close the plans get going in for a landing, but yeah, the people who live there don't notice it at all. I believe there are restrictions there for size of plane landing overnight.

[EspionNoir]

According to the link provided the airport wants to exploit the lucrative freight business, so they want to build a third runway in the future. Polo Park’s plan seems to interfere with that.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by EspionNoir

According to the link provided the airport wants to exploit the lucrative freight business, so they want to build a third runway in the future. Polo Park’s plan seems to interfere with that.

Not really. We're decades away from that anyways. It seems short sighted to hold an entire area hostage for the possibility of noise complaints. If they really wanted to do that they'd better show us the cash soon, cause I'm not convinced that its operationally necessary to drive people's land values down because they're scared of pressure.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by EspionNoir

According to the link provided the airport wants to exploit the lucrative freight business, so they want to build a third runway in the future. Polo Park’s plan seems to interfere with that.

There was a third runway. It was torn out some years ago.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by Riverman

There was a third runway. It was torn out some years ago.

It was really short and in the wrong configuration for heavy jets. Part of it is used as the apron for the new terminal building.