Winnipeg Construction VIII - Page 70

Wigglez · #**1381** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 3:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Great article in the Freep today by one of the best poster's in here, as someone in the comments section following the article stated, maybe he should run for mayor, I concur!

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/think-like-big-city-neighbours-230455801.html

The city of Winnipeg doesn't vote for logic, they vote for no change.

Besides his forum name is Viking, vikings are scary.. It will scare away the older voters!

Riverman · #**1382** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

But apart from that, I do like the marina idea.

Marinas are very difficult to do on uncontrolled, wildly fluctuating rivers like ours. The Forks marina is poorly designed and the two remaining private marinas are having a hard time despite their collective experience.

And the sailbotes kill me, they are in the render because the greenies don't like to see powerboats. Same as the first Forks renders. Pretty damn hard to sail on a river!

Cyro · #**1383** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 4:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

Wtf is that u of proposal? That is the walkable model community they asked for? Towers in a park? Unbelievable.

You seem unhappy with the concepts proposed for the UM campus, your thoughts on what the concept should entail, rather than the group that has been chosen to lead the developement, as an expert in the field? thx TV

Cyro · #**1384** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 4:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Marinas are very difficult to do on uncontrolled, wildly fluctuating rivers like ours. The Forks marina is poorly designed and the two remaining private marinas are having a hard time despite their collective experience.

Very true, very difficult in our specific situation.

esquire · #**1385** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 4:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Marinas are very difficult to do on uncontrolled, wildly fluctuating rivers like ours. The Forks marina is poorly designed and the two remaining private marinas are having a hard time despite their collective experience.

And the sailbotes kill me, they are in the render because the greenies don't like to see powerboats. Same as the first Forks renders. Pretty damn hard to sail on a river!

OK, well so much for that... I guess the bike paths will be lovely.

rrskylar · #**1386** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 5:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

The U of M just cannot seem to resist the urge to squander its land resources on atrociously sprawled-out buildings and parking lots. In a place like Hong Kong you'd have close to a half a million people living on something the size of the U of M campus, while the U of M slaps up a one-storey Smartpark building on four acres and then has to buy a golf course because it's running out of land.

I especially loved this part:

When I first saw the Smartpark plan a decade ago I, like probably everyone here at the time, knew it was going to be a homogenous business park. Why the sudden change in heart?

I love the concept for a tower schlepped right in the middle of the Pan Am Stadium field. Because there is nowhere else to put such a building.

Low density, unwalkable, no means of establishing a neighbourhood within the university campus... this plan, at least a conceptual level, flat-out sucks. It's just more of the same with flashier, more modern buildings compared to what's already there. I'm sure the defense will be that this is just a concept, but when this is the plan you're starting with, it probably isn't going to get much better than this best-case scenario.

But apart from that, I do like the marina idea.

Have to agree with both you and Vike, terrible plan, no cohesiveness with the campus it-self. Any plan with the University golf course land should probably start with a new entrance to the university itself which includes an BRT or LRT corridor, active transportation and such. Any housing should be clustered around a small area of commercial/professional space.

Cyro · #**1387** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 6:07 PM**

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/thinking-ahead-230455641.html

Private-sector investment is expected to drive the creation of as many as 4,200 new housing units and commercial development in the Southwood land. The university is also working with Winnipeg Transit to develop a transportation corridor through Southwood that will extend the forthcoming second phase of the Southwest Transitway from Pembina Highway to Investors Group Field and the rest of the Fort Garry campus.

"This gives us the opportunity to think about how the University of Manitoba should orient (itself) to the community," Barnard said. "We're planning here for decades of development, not just a matter of years."

The actual plans to guide the campus redevelopment, meanwhile, will take at least another year to create and may not be presented to the public until the spring of 2015.

How much do we actually know at this point? Are thier actual posters here with firms that entered the bidding process for this multi decade project that have expressed thier opinion. I'd like to here from a firm that was not accepted in the over 45 world wide entries and how they would have developed it differently from the concept proposed. A different perspective, is that to hard to ask?

roccerfeller · #**1388** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 7:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Great article in the Freep today by one of the best poster's in here, as someone in the comments section following the article stated, maybe he should run for mayor, I concur!

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/think-like-big-city-neighbours-230455801.html

Great article tv. I wish Winnipeg would get a new young, energetic leader sooner than later

Though fwiw, Calgarians do complain a lot here in their own right too so those issues are not exclusive to Winnipeg either.

But what difference the right leader makes.

rypinion · #**1389** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 7:20 PM**

Sounds like city hall is starting to 'get' that surburban developments cost money:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/City-considering-10-12K-tax-on-new-homes-230517851.html

Cyro · #**1390** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 7:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rypinion

Sounds like city hall is starting to 'get' that surburban developments cost money:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/City-considering-10-12K-tax-on-new-homes-230517851.html

This is similiar to what re-elected calgary mayor Nenshi is proposing...

To achieve an even better growth, the city must have more housing choices in more places, said the mayor, which is why he wants to put an end to what he calls “subsidies to development on the fringes.”

“We must make developers and builders pay for the cost of their growth and create a level playing field for all development,” he said.

“We’ve made great strides on making new suburbs easier to serve by transit while creating wonderful neighbourhoods, and we must continue to do this.”

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2013/10/21/21212556.html

trueviking · #**1391** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 7:34 PM**

^^^hilarious timing!!!

trueviking · #**1392** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 7:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

The U of M just cannot seem to resist the urge to squander its land resources on atrociously sprawled-out buildings and parking lots. In a place like Hong Kong you'd have close to a half a million people living on something the size of the U of M campus, while the U of M slaps up a one-storey Smartpark building on four acres and then has to buy a golf course because it's running out of land.

I especially loved this part:

When I first saw the Smartpark plan a decade ago I, like probably everyone here at the time, knew it was going to be a homogenous business park. Why the sudden change in heart?

I love the concept for a tower schlepped right in the middle of the Pan Am Stadium field. Because there is nowhere else to put such a building.

Low density, unwalkable, no means of establishing a neighbourhood within the university campus... this plan, at least a conceptual level, flat-out sucks. It's just more of the same with flashier, more modern buildings compared to what's already there. I'm sure the defense will be that this is just a concept, but when this is the plan you're starting with, it probably isn't going to get much better than this best-case scenario.

But apart from that, I do like the marina idea.

I just got back from the invited media event...I guess im media now...was the only one there....this plan is incredible....it is le Corbusier all over again....23 12 storey towers in a park...all single function, all parking below, all serviced by a single independent road...its literally 1930's ideal city...nobody asked me what I thought...odd since I was the only on there....i'm glad they didn't...I wouldn't have been able to hold it back...all the retail is in big boxes along Pembina....all the way across the site from the residential...totally void of any urbanism....no ground plane treatment...not walkable in any way....no density...its truly shocking....didn't meet the request of the outline at all.

the second place one was great...same guys who won the Edmonton airport lands competition.

Wigglez · #**1393** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 7:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

I just got back from the invited media event...I guess im media now...was the only one there....this plan is incredible....it is le Corbusier all over again....23 12 storey towers in a park...all single function, all parking below, all serviced by a single independent road...its literally 1930's ideal city...nobody asked me what I thought...odd since I was the only on there....i'm glad they didn't...I wouldn't have been able to hold it back...all the retail is in big boxes along Pembina....all the way across the site from the residential...totally void of any urbanism....no ground plane treatment...not walkable in any way....no density...its truly shocking....didn't meet the request of the outline at all.

the second place one was great...same guys who won the Edmonton airport lands competition.

I'm guessing the second place one cost "money" while the winning entry costs as little as possible...

trueviking · #**1394** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 7:48 PM**

trueviking · #**1395** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wigglez

I'm guessing the second place one cost "money" while the winning entry costs as little as possible...

its actually the exact opposite...what will kill the winner is that the infrastructure costs will be too high...single roads to each tower paid for by the university...not enough density to support it.

Riverman · #**1396** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 7:57 PM**

Who decided on the winner?

I strongly believe that this is the kind of thing Winnipeg wants, that is probably why it was chosen.

rrskylar · #**1397** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 7:58 PM**

University Cresc. should be closed at Thatcher Dr. on the north on the south University should be re-routed in line with Markham or onto an entirely new route to Pembina. Nobody in the residential area to the north of the campus asked for the Stadium to be built on the campus and to endure the traffic that accompanied it.

ediger · #**1398** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 7:59 PM**

that seems like a horrendous use of space.

esquire · #**1399** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 8:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Who decided on the winner?

I strongly believe that this is the kind of thing Winnipeg wants, that is probably why it was chosen.

So every bad idea in the city should be given the OK because "it's what Winnipeg wants"? Seriously?

vellakaran · #**1400** Posted **Nov 4, 2013, 8:04 PM**

looks like a second year ED project. Looks cool and sexy in plan. but that is about it. who was on the jury that picked that as the winner?