Winnipeg Construction X - Page 114

pspeid · #**2261** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 3:58 PM**

From the sound of it this is probably a good time to review that regulation anyway, with or without pressure from Shindico/CF. Have the WAA sit down with city planners and draft something that reflects current air travel realities and the needs of WAA.

What the city can't do, as I mentioned, is simply buy the PR line from Shindico/CF as fact. Seriously, if Shindico/CF were concerned about building something that was "good for the city" they'd build an addictions treatment centre or housing for the homeless. Remember folks, it's all about $$. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but let's be realistic!

As a side note, I fully expect Shindico/CF to fall back on the old "if we don't start the project now it will be cancelled......FOREVER!" threat if they don't get the city to approve their plans soon.

Winnipegger · #**2262** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 4:12 PM**

The reality is that Winnipeg's population is growing at around 10,000 people per year with no signs of slowing down (barring a significant global crisis or federal change in immigration policy), which translates to roughly 3,000 to 5,000 new housing units every year. We will most likely continue to see a 50/50 split of housing starts in greenfield versus established neighborhoods/downtown, which means that new low and mid-rise towers are going to continue to be the norm here in Winnipeg with the occasional highrise. If those new units can't go in by Polo Park, they will just end up going in somewhere else in the city. It's not like we lose that development forever, it just might take a different form and location.

esquire · #**2263** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 4:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pspeid

What the city can't do, as I mentioned, is simply buy the PR line from Shindico/CF as fact. Seriously, if Shindico/CF were concerned about building something that was "good for the city" they'd build an addictions treatment centre or housing for the homeless. Remember folks, it's all about $$. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but let's be realistic!

I agree that the city can't simply accept Shindico/CF's assertions as fact. But at the same time it shouldn't accept WAA's assertions as fact either. Residential development under flight paths has not impacted WAA's ability to maintain 24 hour operations. So why is this new proposal suddenly a threat?

I would suggest that the current AVDP is tilted too far in favour of the airport.

plrh · #**2264** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 4:31 PM**

I wonder if the decibel isoline numbers are accurate anymore. Planes are quieter than they were twenty years ago. It would be interesting to see if there was a change over time (or how much).

esquire · #**2265** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 4:52 PM**

There have been significant developments in aircraft noise reduction over the last 30 years. There is value in quiet aircraft that don't threaten 24 hour operations. At the very least the AVDP should be updated to reflect that.

cllew · #**2266** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by plrh

I wonder if the decibel isoline numbers are accurate anymore. Planes are quieter than they were twenty years ago. It would be interesting to see if there was a change over time (or how much).

New passenger planes are quiet but from what I have been told the air freight companies are still using the older louder jet power engines (they don't cost as much as the new quiet ones) and the air freight is usually coming and going in the overnight hours.

esquire · #**2267** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 5:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cllew

New passenger planes are quiet but from what I have been told the air freight companies are still using the older louder jet power engines (they don't cost as much as the new quiet ones) and the air freight is usually coming and going in the overnight hours.

The older cargo jets will still be around for a few more years but they won't last forever... they too will be replaced by newer models.

cllew · #**2268** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 5:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

The older cargo jets will still be around for a few more years but they won't last forever... they too will be replaced by newer models.

But until they are gone they will be the ones that generate the complaints about jet noise at night that the current zoning regulations are suppose to prevent.

I can support revisiting the airport regulations in 10-15 years when the freight jets are swapped out.

esquire · #**2269** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 5:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cllew

But until they are gone they will be the ones that generate the complaints about jet noise at night that the current zoning regulations are suppose to prevent.

I can support revisiting the airport regulations in 10-15 years when the freight jets are swapped out.

How bad can it be if thousands of people manage to live in the area as they have for decades? Have they attempted to block 24 hour operations? If so, they have been unsuccessful. What difference would another thousand or two residents make?

bomberjet · #**2270** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 6:00 PM**

We're in outrage culture. Everyone has access to social media and can make knee jerk reactions to everything they disagree with.

People are losing it over the plane that landed with the medical emergency. When these are fairly regular.

People are literally panicing that coronavirus was brought here by WestJet and this person.

And it's easy enough to say just ignore it. But masses of people do not ignore it and believe the hysteria. Same with elections. It's a major issue.

esquire · #**2271** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 6:16 PM**

But is the airport thing even an issue? I can't remember the last time I read anything in the paper about residents in the area clamoring to restrict the airport's hours of operation... like maybe sometime back in the 90s.

bomberjet · #**2272** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 6:29 PM**

nope.

esquire · #**2273** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 6:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

nope.

Did a little digging and I see there was a big jump in noise issues in the mid 90s, like around 94/95, back when Air Canada scaled back its cargo operations to Winnipeg. That led to AC's bigger, newer, quieter planes being replaced by many more smaller, older, noisier jets operated by small airlines that took off and landed in clusters during the overnight hours. These would have been very old planes by modern standards, like 60s and 70s-era jets with minimal sound mitigation. There were no rules requiring hush kits then, that all came in during the late 90s and into the 2000s.

So about 25 years ago, that was probably the last time that airport sound was a big public issue.

bomberjet · #**2274** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 6:49 PM**

Ya. Like I said the only time I ever really noticed planes was when fighter jets were in the air. Otherwise it was a non issue for us on Mount Royal.

plrh · #**2275** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 7:29 PM**

I remember a few years ago there was an article about some old guy who lived in St. James and wanted the airport moved instead of the new terminal built. It was pretty funny back then. Google has failed me and i can't find it. It must have been a slow news day.

thurmas · #**2276** Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 11:57 PM**

Does anyone have info on what is taking the UofM so long to develop the old Southwood gold club by IG field? they left years ago now and still nothing for development this is such prime real estate coupled with the new rapid transit line should be prime for development.

Spocket · #**2277** Posted **Feb 29, 2020, 1:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by thurmas

Does anyone have info on what is taking the UofM so long to develop the old Southwood gold club by IG field? they left years ago now and still nothing for development this is such prime real estate coupled with the new rapid transit line should be prime for development.

I've been wondering the same thing, actually. Are they waiting for funding or city approvals or something?

dam_well · #**2278** Posted **Feb 29, 2020, 3:06 AM**

Aren't there already a few 10ish story buildings in the polo park area? Possibly even closer to the flight path? I don't know how tall Shindico and CF are wanting to build but I can't imagine it would be that much of an issue to have more 10ish story towers and if it really is there should just be some sort of notice for anyone planning to purchase/rent a unit. I live just on the other side of the St. James bridge and noise really isn't an issue at all.

On the flip side, I do agree that we shouldn't just go changing laws for some private companies. That said, the airport regulations probably could be revised to better suit WAA, all developers and all Winnipeggers in 2020.

Whatever happens, it sure would be nice to see something go in those empty lots sometime soon.

trueviking · #**2279** Posted **Feb 29, 2020, 5:14 AM**

It’s not about height. It’s about population. The airport wants to restrict the number of people who live in that entire area of the city to prevent a critical mass of people complaining about noise and forcing them to reduce their hours.

The restrictions certainly need to be revisited. They include a ridiculously huge area.

You’d think they could do it with some kind of no complaints agreement. But maybe that’s not a thing.

http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/DMIS/Docu....6378.cons.pdf

buzzg · #**2280** Posted **Feb 29, 2020, 5:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cllew

But until they are gone they will be the ones that generate the complaints about jet noise at night that the current zoning regulations are suppose to prevent.

I can support revisiting the airport regulations in 10-15 years when the freight jets are swapped out.

The tens of thousands of people already living in the restricted area seem to be getting along fine with no complaints.