Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
2) Who says what a downtown has to be for? If driving rather than walking in that area is what the people want, what is the advantage of forcing them to do something else? We already have pedestrian friendly areas on Corydon, Osborne, the Forks, etc. There no reason to artificially force it to be somewhere else just because it uses the word "downtown".
|
You could MAYBE make that argument if any three of the other areas were properly/fully developed.
Corydon is good in summer; dead in winter. The best stretch of Corydon pedestrian-wise is only good on one side and has a monstrosity of a blank wall (MTS) on the other. There's numerous street-fronting parking lots, a drive-thru, a gas station, several empty storefronts, and residents who fight any new development like its the apocalypse.
Osborne has so much potential but is nowhere near where it should be. Also has several parking lots at the sidewalk, it's windy and dusty as hell, vehicles blast though there at night, there's only people on the sidewalk at night waiting in line at a few bars, a gas station, trailer rental shop, a bunch of ugly one storey buildings.
The Forks is currently strictly a get in-get out destination mostly attended by vehicles. It'll be 10 years if not more before we see something resembling a neighbourhood there.
Winnipeg right now has no premiere destination that is the obvious place to go. The Exchange is probably winning right now but as we know is also severely underdeveloped. I talk to travellers all the time and they say "it's cool and nice but I don't understand where all the people are." Contrast that to other cities: when you want to go out to a few places in Minneapolis, you go to Uptown; Saskatoon, you go Downtown.