Winnipeg | Forks Redevelopment | Parcel 4 - Rail Side Initiative | Proposals

[esquire]

Originally Posted by biguc

The problem with the original tower idea was that it would be too dependent on a developer being able to sell thousands of units at once. Winnipeg isn't adding a hundred thousand people a year like Toronto, so building Liberty Village here is a tall order. And Liberty Village kind of sucks, so there's that.

That's a very good point to consider in all of this... I'd rather have a lowrise village materialize over the next 10-20 years than wait half a century for a highrise cluster to materialize.

The downtown box surrounded by Main, Ellice, Memorial and Assiniboine was pegged as our dense highrise district in various 1960s planning documents, but it's taking forever to actually get there. We're seeing some progress now with TNS, dCondo and others, but it will probably be at least another 100 years before that part of downtown Winnipeg really reaches what was envisioned for it. Maybe something a little more in line with what our growth levels can actually support is a better idea... I wonder if that was part of FNP's rationale for what they ultimately chose?

[WolselyMan]

Originally Posted by esquire

That's a very good point to consider in all of this... I'd rather have a lowrise village materialize over the next 10-20 years than wait half a century for a highrise cluster to materialize.

Why wait any amount of time for a lowrise village to materialize when we've already built an underused 125 year old one, that is screaming it's lungs out for the city to recognize it's potential? And just so happens to be right next to the forks as well? In my view, building a European-style village from scratch is nothing but a dangerous distraction from nurturing our already existing European village called the exchange district. Besides, I thought the whole point of developing this land was to build something we couldn't build anywhere else. A lowrise village isn't something that we can't build anywhere else if. we've. al-ready. built. one!!!

And who says it has to be a cluster of high rises? Just one or 2 would be enough to house a few hundred people at the forks. And it would barely take up any of the space that I'm proposing we turn into a park. In fact, you don't even have to put these residencies within the official designated boundaries of the forks. The area is completely surrounded with a ring of empty lots right on the outer side of the tracks. Can't you imagine a string of midrise towers on the east side of main street? Or what what about all those empty lots behind portage and main? Maybe if we even have the energy we could convince the Northwest company to sell their parking lot for development. There's lots of options we can choose from. I simply fail to see how a low rise village on the railside land will stand the test of time.

[Urban recluse]

To radically change the Exchange, all building owners would need to be on board with $$$. Sadly, over the last 30 years, the change has been slow because of the fact that there has not been the will to see this happen.

Clearly, in this case everyone is coming together as planned, dealing with vacant land owned by one entity.

I would love to see McDermot, Bannatyne (from Main to Waterfront) lined with low rise infills, and Princess from at least Logan to Notre Dame, lined with taller buildings.

Unfortunately, we are dealing with too many property owners with no desire.

Hell, I think Princess could become a canal, as was achieved in OKC's Bricktown. Very cool!

[biguc]

You could have made all of those same arguments against waterfront drive. But far from siphoning off development in the Exchange, it's been a catalyst for growth. With 98 Market up, and the pump house development starting, it's about to get seriously dense around there. Not to mention Youcube and the flying saucer. 15 years ago, could anyone have imagined condos within spitting distance of Higgins? The Exchange will continue to grow, this is not going to change that.

The Forks development is going to bring new people to the downtown that otherwise wouldn't consider the market. The people who are going to live there probably wouldn't live in the exchange, they'd go for one of the places out by Ikea. This will further normalize city living, and compel more people to consider living in surrounding neighbourhoods, like St Boniface, South Portage, and even the Exchange!

Towers in the park aren't great for getting people out into their surroundings. Look at how few people use the Grant Mill park in St James despite it being surrounded by Soviet tower blocks. St James Place may maximize greenspace between it's towers, but nobody uses it because it's shady, windy, and weird. The closer people live to the street, the more they use it. Get a lot of doors opening onto a space and you get a lot of traffic.

Smaller buildings also give smaller developers an opportunity to play, not just the usual suspects who have tens of millions to play with.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Hell, I think Princess could become a canal, as was achieved in OKC's Bricktown. Very cool!

Funny you should say that, I've long wished that Winnipeg had gotten its shit together sooner on flood control and managed flood waters by cutting a series of canals through the city. It would be cool if each phase of the city's development were ringed by a mini floodway. One around the old fort, one around the 1890s city, one around the 1910s city, another for the 1950s.

[WolselyMan]

Originally Posted by biguc

Funny you should say that, I've long wished that Winnipeg had gotten its shit together sooner on flood control and managed flood waters by cutting a series of canals through the city. It would be cool if each phase of the city's development were ringed by a mini floodway. One around the old fort, one around the 1890s city, one around the 1910s city, another for the 1950s.

Nah. Back then, we were too busy painstakingly paving over entire creeks throughout the downtown area to have found the time to dig a canal of any sorts.

Those were the good old days of the 1860s, when our city planner's understanding of hydrology could pretty much be summed up as "If you get rid of the creek, you'll get rid of the water as well!"

[1ajs]

actualy there was a couple visions for some industrial canels for running water wheels in wosely and i think south point douglas?

[esquire]

The Forks prepares to narrow 'highway' entrance to make room for a linear park
Israel Asper Way to become 2-lane street, parallel to tree-lined parkway

The main road running into The Forks will be reduced to two lanes to make room for a tree-lined, pedestrian-friendly parkway.

In the coming weeks, The Forks Renewal Corporation will launch a design competition to transform Israel Asper Way from a four-lane road to a linear parkway running parallel to a two-lane street.

The change is intended to make The Forks more pedestrian friendly, create better connections between different areas of the development and slow the speed of motor-vehicle traffic, CEO Paul Jordan said.

"What it does is it reduces the four-lane highway that goes into our parking lot at the [Forks] Market. Why we did that in the first place, I'm not quite sure," Jordan said last week in an interview.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...ipeg-1.4088730

[Tacheguy]

That is going to make a huge difference. Jordan has a real good feel for the site.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

That is going to make a huge difference. Jordan has a real good feel for the site.

I agree. The Forks has really become the antithesis to typical Winnipeg slapdash, half-baked planning, and this change is very much in that vein. Paul Jordan really gets that... his comments always reflect a great understanding of, and sensitivity to, the site.

I guess back in the 80s when The Forks was one big wide-open brownfield, the super broad, suburban style boulevard was understandable, especially when no one really knew exactly what was going to end up there. But now it's pretty clear that road is overbuilt relative to the area's needs, and this change will give it a feel better suited to the large numbers of pedestrians around there.

[Urban recluse]

Excellent!

[biguc]

I knew I'd heard before about the Izzy Asper road diet. Good stuff. It doesn't need to be that wide, and hopefully it cuts some of the traffic through there too. A lot of people believe it's some great way to get into downtown, but it really isn't. You can spend several light cycles trying to make a left onto Main. Hopefully this diet also kills the slip lanes for right turns on and off of Main. Those have no business in an urban area.


This talk about how well the Forks is run makes me think of another advantage housing offers: revenue. Right now, the Forks makes some good money off the Portage Place parkade, which has been an impediment to developing the rooftop tower pads there. In the long run, it would be great to see the Forks become self-sufficient and get all the money it needs from its own site. It would also be great if they could divest themselves of the PP parkade. And, like I've said before, parking could become a big-time losers in 10 to 15 years.

Originally Posted by WolselyMan

Nah. Back then, we were too busy painstakingly paving over entire creeks throughout the downtown area to have found the time to dig a canal of any sorts.

Those were the good old days of the 1860s, when our city planner's understanding of hydrology could pretty much be summed up as "If you get rid of the creek, you'll get rid of the water as well!"

Too true. Colony and Ross creeks could have made a great canal But even left natural, like Austin's downtown creeks, they would have made a great feature for our city.

[bomberjet]

That's awesome. They really should tuck a parkade away up against the tracks and get rid off all the parking lots near the market. Just get cars out.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by biguc

Hopefully this diet also kills the slip lanes for right turns on and off of Main. Those have no business in an urban area.

I could not agree more. Those are treacherous for pedestrians and completely out of place in an urban setting. Frankly they're inappropriate even in suburban settings or anywhere that isn't an expressway. Who ever thought that it was a good idea to put in these slip lanes that get drivers to focus to the left when there are pedestrians coming from the right... just a terrible idea.

There needs to be a concerted effort made to eradicate the most egregious slip lanes like the one you mentioned.

[oftheMoon]

Originally Posted by esquire

The Forks prepares to narrow 'highway' entrance to make room for a linear park
Israel Asper Way to become 2-lane street, parallel to tree-lined parkway



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...ipeg-1.4088730

Do you think this will only affect Israel Asper Way from York to the Forks or will this narrowing extend all the way to William Stephenson Way?

Aside from this brilliant idea, I too would love to see that surface lot by the Market removed and have all parking on the further edges of the Forks. That lot just seems too busy and out of place for what's going on there.

Proof the Forks can exist without it is when they have markets there on Sundays in the summer. The more pedestrian oriented the Forks is the better it will become!

[oftheMoon]

Like this intersection is massively unnecessary for the Forks area:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.89097...7i13312!8i6656

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

That's awesome. They really should tuck a parkade away up against the tracks and get rid off all the parking lots near the market. Just get cars out.

Excellent suggestion. Narrowing the roadway makes absolute sense as does removing the surface parking lot near the Market building. A better location for the parkade could be just north of the City TV building. The roadway south of Broadway going under the tracks could then be feed into the new parkade and the surface lot in the site proper turned into something pedestrian friendly, like a permanent farmers market in summer and a larger ice skating rink in winter perhaps. Too bad the hotel is located where it is or the whole area could be turned into pedestrian only.

[WolselyMan]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

To radically change the Exchange, all building owners would need to be on board with $$$. Sadly, over the last 30 years, the change has been slow because of the fact that there has not been the will to see this happen.

Clearly, in this case everyone is coming together as planned, dealing with vacant land owned by one entity.

I would love to see McDermot, Bannatyne (from Main to Waterfront) lined with low rise infills, and Princess from at least Logan to Notre Dame, lined with taller buildings.

Unfortunately, we are dealing with too many property owners with no desire.

Hell, I think Princess could become a canal, as was achieved in OKC's Bricktown. Very cool!

The neighborhood is a designated national historic site. That's gotta be a recipe for some kind of a will to demand that we give the area the respect it deserves. When the forks was designated one, we poured in money and effort from all 3 levels of government and turned the area into the most memorable defining feature of our city.

Now, imagine what the exchange district could turn into if we gave it the exact same amount of attention. Even without this vision for it today the exchange is steadily blossoming into one of the biggest pedestrian retail districts in Winnipeg. So much so that it's actually sucking businesses up from Osborne village and Corydon! We could impose special tax breaks for the area, and advertise it as the place to start a small business. All the best cafes, restaurants, bars, and bakeries that you'll find in Winnipeg could find themselves densely packed together in the dozen or so blocks that make up the east and the west segments of the district. Albert and Arthur street could be turned into permanent pedestrian walkways while King and Princess would be converted back into two way streets. The reason it's easier to simply build a new pedestrian village rather fix up the one we have right now is the exact same reason why it's easier to simply build an entirely new infrastructure out in the suburbs than fix our already existing crumbling urban infrastructure. Complications such as having to deal with dozens of separate owners instead of one simply comes with the territory of being a responsible long-term thinking urban planner.

[rrskylar]

Never understood why they hacked in a four lane divided "highway" into the Forks to begin with, that being said there are more pressing issues for Winnipeg and where tax dollars need to be spent. You don't replace your driveway when your house is falling apart!

[Urban recluse]

More seems to be happening in the east exchange now, while nothing is new in the west. Pathetic actually.