Winnipeg | Osborne Village & Corydon area

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by Cyro

378-384 Wardlaw Ave. (kitty Corner to Scott St. above), Richard Wintrup & Associates, RMF-M to RMF-L, 36 residential units, 29 parking spaces partially below grade. ( this seems to the trend in the area). Even though these proposals are no more than 4-6 Floors, the parking is starting to go underground in many of these new developments, the area is reaching a critical mass IMO.

The City's recommending the variance be denied for RMF-L. They're calling 36 units out of character for the neighbourhood and telling the developer to propose RMF-M. Seems ridiculous to me -- if they can make a 35+ unit building work on that site, more power to them -- it would be great for the neighbourhood.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Biff

I see the design has changed a bit. Still pretty busy though.

Busy is a word.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

The City's recommending the variance be denied for RMF-L. They're calling 36 units out of character for the neighbourhood and telling the developer to propose RMF-M. Seems ridiculous to me -- if they can make a 35+ unit building work on that site, more power to them -- it would be great for the neighbourhood.

36 units is out of character for the densest neighbourhood in the city?

[bomberjet]

On the tower at Confusion Corner. Seems pretty pie in the sky. I'm also skeptical if the City would approve such a structure. They've been threatening for some time now to upgrade/update/do something with Confusion Corner. Heard they want to extend the underpass of Osborne further to the north, among other ideas.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

On the tower at Confusion Corner. Seems pretty pie in the sky. I'm also skeptical if the City would approve such a structure. They've been threatening for some time now to upgrade/update/do something with Confusion Corner. Heard they want to extend the underpass of Osborne further to the north, among other ideas.

As far as bad intersections go, this is one of the best bad intersections, I don't know why they would "upgrade" it before any others. I personally don't have any problems with the way confusion corner works right now.

As a matter of fact, the only portion of Confusion Corner that I don't like is the underpass, and they want to add more of it...

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

The City's recommending the variance be denied for RMF-L. They're calling 36 units out of character for the neighbourhood and telling the developer to propose RMF-M. Seems ridiculous to me -- if they can make a 35+ unit building work on that site, more power to them -- it would be great for the neighbourhood.

Out of character? Seems odd if anyone isn't familiar with the immediate area and making this decision would only drive by and take a look see. It fits the area like a glove, taking what developments already exist in the area into consideration?

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

As far as bad intersections go, this is one of the best bad intersections, I don't know why they would "upgrade" it before any others. I personally don't have any problems with the way confusion corner works right now.

As a matter of fact, the only portion of Confusion Corner that I don't like is the underpass, and they want to add more of it...

You're right, it operates rather smoothly from my experience. That Osborne underpass is getting old. I'm not sure exactly what the plans are. I just know it keeps showing up on City budget documents. And heard the plan was to expand the underpass.

[CoryB]

I am not an expert on underpass design but recall reading that the current standard has some minimum visible distance you need to be able to see. I would suspect that is the issue with the Osborne one especially with the construction of the BRT bridge/station.

[bomberjet]

Stopping sight distance. Basically a clear view of vehicles in front of you, allowing appropriate distance to stop. A lot of the older underpasses provide inadequate distance.

The new Pembina Underpass at Jubilee that will be constructed in the coming years has inadequate SSD that will be grandfathered for the replacement. There's really nothing you can do about it without spending even more cash. I suspect this will also be the case for the Plessis underpass. Doesn't seem to be much room from Dugald heading northbound.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

You're right, it operates rather smoothly from my experience. That Osborne underpass is getting old. I'm not sure exactly what the plans are. I just know it keeps showing up on City budget documents. And heard the plan was to expand the underpass.

By expanding do you mean the width or the length? Because I don't think they'd be able to add much more room (if any) under the BRT station.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by buzzg

By expanding do you mean the width or the length? Because I don't think they'd be able to add much more room (if any) under the BRT station.

When I've walked under the Osborne Underpass, it looks like the new portion under the SWBRT is designed to accommodate more lanes on Osborne. The old railway underpass, of course, does not. But it really does seem as though any widening of Osborne is many years away considering how tightly Osborne is hemmed in by buildings.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by rkspec

or maybe this one?

i thought that was a concepte that predates the last praposal though it sur mataches the style of cvists brt station

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by esquire

When I've walked under the Osborne Underpass, it looks like the new portion under the SWBRT is designed to accommodate more lanes on Osborne. The old railway underpass, of course, does not. But it really does seem as though any widening of Osborne is many years away considering how tightly Osborne is hemmed in by buildings.

I know 265 Osborne was owned by the City, and housed the GCWCC, but the building was sold (aside from around 6 meters of frontage to make way for a widening of Osborne). GCWCC is now housed in the area where the City of Winnipeg Health department was, before Health got completely take over by the Province.

[rkspec]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

i thought that was a concepte that predates the last praposal though it sur mataches the style of cvists brt station

you are correct

[buzzg]

Anyone know what the deal is with the City surface lot at Osborne & Stradbrook? Like is there some sort of CoW service around there that justifies that existing at one of the most prominent corners? That lot would likely sell in a second for good money if the city put it up for sale. That's probably top of my list for Osborne. It'd help make the other 2 parking lots at the corner not seem as bad.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Anyone know what the deal is with the City surface lot at Osborne & Stradbrook? Like is there some sort of CoW service around there that justifies that existing at one of the most prominent corners? That lot would likely sell in a second for good money if the city put it up for sale. That's probably top of my list for Osborne. It'd help make the other 2 parking lots at the corner not seem as bad.

That lot is necessary. Street parking can be quite difficult in that area.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Riverman

That lot is necessary. Street parking can be quite difficult in that area.

Then why don't they charge for it?

[Riverman]

It is in fact metered parking.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Riverman

It is in fact metered parking.

Street parking... Why don't we charge for the street parking if it's so tough?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Riverman

That lot is necessary. Street parking can be quite difficult in that area.

There are about 20 spots in that lot which makes it pretty trivial in terms of the amount of parking in the area.

buzzg makes a good point, you have to wonder why the City just sits on valuable land that could be developed.