Winnipeg | The Forks Market | Railside at The Forks

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by kalabaw

I am quite excited to see this project come to life. Since moving here in Winnipeg 2 years ago I have always thought of those parking lots as good places to have mixed-use facilities, ie. condos and retail. I don't get why those people who were interviewed get so scared to lose the parking lots. There is always the option to take the bus, or you know, just walk.

I really hope they plan to put one or more parkades on the other side of the tracks, with some elevated entry points to the Forks.
Is it just me or does it seem that Winnipeg has hit a tipping point from a development point of view? I know that in some highly skilled/educated segments of the immigrant community we are being looked at more and more favourably as a destination of choice. Exciting times. Now about that Stanley Cup 😀

[goldenboi]

I don't think getting lost will be an issue. The whole Parcel-4 property is actually pretty thin. If you do lose your way, it won't take long before you find your way out. Anyways, this is the Forks; people come here to stay and enjoy themselves. I think they may actually be trying to cultivate the feeling of wandering around and getting lost. Not many people walk through the Forks. And if they do, they can take the linear park that is replacing 2 lanes of Israel Asper Way or the straight path from the Esplanade Riel to Union station. There are plenty of clear walking routes through the Forks, this is not meant to be one of them.

[Urban recluse]

Great, as long as the Winnipeg phenomenon does not kick in, and we see progress.

[Wolf13]

Not a fan of the zig-zaggy orientation... too strong.

If they want ground floor retail then it has to be way more walkable than that, atleast offer some resemblance of a pathway, rather than simply walking into buildings. All that's pedestrian friendly is actually only resident friendly, with de facto interior courtyards... and that's good, keep some of them... but few people will want to walk through that is they literally need to exit the parcel to east or west just to find out where they are.

As far as that density? Man, I'm a fan. Hopefully they find some way to accommodate a bit more parking, because while I like a reduced dependency on it, I can't see Winnipeg adjusting that quickly.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Not a fan of the zig-zaggy orientation... too strong.

If they want ground floor retail then it has to be way more walkable than that, atleast offer some resemblance of a pathway, rather than simply walking into buildings.

Agreed. Suddenly I'm a lot less optimistic about this development. Have they ever seen an actual walkable urban area? A few bends in the path for visual interest, sure. But this just looks incoherent -- no vista beyond the next building, no sense of whether you should keep walking or whether it's a dead end.

[bomberjet]

I think the whole development would be like a European square. I picture cobble stones filling every piece of space between the buildings. Put in some trees, planters, etc to spruce it up. Maybe a fountain. Then have every floor level unit being retail, commercial, etc.

In the winter it could be skating trails snaking through there.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I think the whole development would be like a European square. I picture cobble stones filling every piece of space between the buildings. Put in some trees, planters, etc to spruce it up. Maybe a fountain. Then have every floor level unit being retail, commercial, etc.

In the winter it could be skating trails snaking through there.

As long as those cobble stones are not placed on the roads. They are best suited for sidewalks or "promenades".

See Graham Ave. as an example of what not to do with cobble stones.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by LilZebra

As long as those cobble stones are not placed on the roads. They are best suited for sidewalks or "promenades".

See Graham Ave. as an example of what not to do with cobble stones.

Agreed. The spaces between the buildings will have no roads.

There will be very little roads with the Railside development. Basically an access lane similar to what is there now along the tracks/VIA building. In fact, the Forks plans to close the 2 southbound lanes of Izzy Asper Way or whatever its called. So there's will be a reduction in roads! They want to go more transit oriented from what I can tell.

[WildCake]

The forks is a downtown location. The fact that there is a sea of parking next to our (probably) largest tourist draw is embarassing. I do understand it might help draw more locals since we're so cheap here. Glad we are developing these lots.

That being said, I don't drive to other cities expecting to find easy or free downtown parking for tourist attractions. I don't expect the closest spot where I can walk out on the curb and I'm 10 steps from the front door of my destination. If anything, parking further away lets me walk around and explore the area a bit more.

I was in Calgary on a Tuesday morning. Had to park 5 blocks away and walk to go check out the Calgary tower. Did that wreck the experience? No. Did I change what I wanted to see in Calgary because I had to walk a tad farther than expected? No. Hell, I drove all the way to Calgary. I'm not going to give up on seeing what I came here to see just because of a slight inconvenience in parking.

I get that I might not be a typical tourist. I feel many tourists will have a checklist of sites that they want to see and go in-out then off to the next one. Those are probably the same people that will circle a store parking lot 5 times to get a close spot when they could have grabbed a farther spot but be in the store already.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by WildCake

The forks is a downtown location. The fact that there is a sea of parking next to our (probably) largest tourist draw is embarassing. I do understand it might help draw more locals since we're so cheap here. Glad we are developing these lots.

That being said, I don't drive to other cities expecting to find easy or free downtown parking for tourist attractions. I don't expect the closest spot where I can walk out on the curb and I'm 10 steps from the front door of my destination. If anything, parking further away lets me walk around and explore the area a bit more.

I was in Calgary on a Tuesday morning. Had to park 5 blocks away and walk to go check out the Calgary tower. Did that wreck the experience? No. Did I change what I wanted to see in Calgary because I had to walk a tad farther than expected? No. Hell, I drove all the way to Calgary. I'm not going to give up on seeing what I came here to see just because of a slight inconvenience in parking.

I get that I might not be a typical tourist. I feel many tourists will have a checklist of sites that they want to see and go in-out then off to the next one. Those are probably the same people that will circle a store parking lot 5 times to get a close spot when they could have grabbed a farther spot but be in the store already.

Exactly. It will turn into a neighbourhood that's great for the residents and even more attractive for other locals to visit. Couldn't give a rat's ass about locals who think they should be able to park right in front of everywhere they want to go for free.

When you travel somewhere, you're always way more forgiving and expecting that you will need to pay for parking, and likely park "far" from your destination. That's how cities work. Also, most people wold prefer not to rent a car (both for hassle and money) when travelling, so the more walkable and dense an area the better. You could stay at Inn at the Forks, mere, or a new Forks hotel, walk to so many amenities – and if you wanna go somewhere like the zoo, you cab/bus/uber/lyft there just like any other place on earth.

[esquire]

Yeah, I'm not feeling the zig-zag layout. It looks like a Manitoba Housing project from the 60s.

We all know that continuous streetfronts aligned with the street work best... why mess with success?


designforwalkability.com

[goldenboi]

Originally Posted by esquire

Yeah, I'm not feeling the zig-zag layout. It looks like a Manitoba Housing project from the 60s.

We all know that continuous streetfronts aligned with the street work best... why mess with success?

Actually many of the most attractive European city centres follow an incoherent zig-zag layout. It creates greater variety and surprise. There is a time for a straight grid system, and there is a time for a less linear approach. I think this property calls for the latter. In my opinion, the more important factor for walkability is small blocks, and these are probably the smallest blocks in the entire city.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

Agreed. Suddenly I'm a lot less optimistic about this development. Have they ever seen an actual walkable urban area? A few bends in the path for visual interest, sure. But this just looks incoherent -- no vista beyond the next building, no sense of whether you should keep walking or whether it's a dead end.

Exactly. If consumers feel trapped, they won't bother.

Furthermore, prospective tenants for retail will be all "fuck that"

Originally Posted by esquire

Yeah, I'm not feeling the zig-zag layout. It looks like a Manitoba Housing project from the 60s.

We all know that continuous streetfronts aligned with the street work best... why mess with success?


designforwalkability.com

It builds these interior courtyards that pose a threat... because of high construction costs in Winnipeg, there is a chance that these buildings look... simple... and if you have these incoherent courtyards where only residents hang out because others get lost, these could become projects. Especially with this emphasis on affordability. It needs high traffic flow.

Originally Posted by goldenboi

I don't think getting lost will be an issue. The whole Parcel-4 property is actually pretty thin. If you do lose your way, it won't take long before you find your way out. Anyways, this is the Forks; people come here to stay and enjoy themselves. I think they may actually be trying to cultivate the feeling of wandering around and getting lost. Not many people walk through the Forks. And if they do, they can take the linear park that is replacing 2 lanes of Israel Asper Way or the straight path from the Esplanade Riel to Union station. There are plenty of clear walking routes through the Forks, this is not meant to be one of them.

But that's a problem with Winnipeg mentalities... like P+M, we say "why open it, just walk a block further down" much like "if you get disoriented, just leave the parcel".

That's not how real estate works. People don't go to destinations for that experience, and tenants don't sign leases when casual walking traffic isn't enabled. If you have a chance to do it right, just make it easy for the pedestrian and the entire neighbourhood right from the start.

More importantly, that's not how non-Winnipeggers work. We rely on our own familiarity to get around confusion corner or underground P+M, but an outsider asks "why is this so stupid?" and it reduces the attraction

Originally Posted by goldenboi

Actually many of the most attractive European city centres follow an incoherent zig-zag layout. It creates greater variety and surprise. There is a time for a straight grid system, and there is a time for a less linear approach. I think this property calls for the latter. In my opinion, the more important factor for walkability is small blocks, and these are probably the smallest blocks in the entire city.

Many European cities...

a) already are global destinations
b) these areas have gradually densified over centuries, so retail demand is already there.
c) while they do not follow a grid, it isn't such a dense zig-zag. The public walks through areas that change direction from block to block, not building to building

We're Winnipeg. We have to nail this. We can't throw some random thing on a parcel, blame its incoherence on artistic merit and say "Surprise, we're Barcelona now!"

[goldenboi]

I don't think this site will struggle with attracting foot traffic. The Forks is already a busy place, and adding residents and new shops will only increase that.

Also, they haven't released the final plans yet. I say we wait until we see it in pavement until we criticize it for being too disorienting. I'm sure they are considering these things, it seems like they are paying a lot of attention to details like this. I truly believe this will be a huge step up for the Forks and downtown as a whole. I guess we will see...

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

Actually many of the most attractive European city centres follow an incoherent zig-zag layout. It creates greater variety and surprise. There is a time for a straight grid system, and there is a time for a less linear approach. I think this property calls for the latter. In my opinion, the more important factor for walkability is small blocks, and these are probably the smallest blocks in the entire city.

Yes, but there’s little variety or surprise in a uniform orientation of buildings set among plaza after plaza after plaza. More importantly, good traditional urban environments (in Europe and North America both) don’t turn their backs on the nearby high street the way the Railside concept turns its back on Waterfront Drive/Asper Way and York. Rather, they are oriented toward them: buildings are built right up to the sidewalk, ground floors are typically more active. What open space exists on the important streets in traditional European urban environments is typically well enclosed and meaningful, not just serrated landscaping strips.

The Railside concept began with a couple of architects sitting on a patio in some old town in France and thinking: let’s do this at The Forks. Okay, fine. But when I look at the concept plan’s relationship to its surroundings, I wonder if when they sat down to draw it out they mistook traditional Europe for a lowrise LeCorbusian housing project ala Toronto’s Regent Park.

I get wanting to make the development permeable and invite pedestrians to wander around and discover, not knowing what’s around the corner. I get how a variety of small open spaces can create diversity and take on lives of their own, rather than one big managed plaza. I get wanting to have many buildings with a variety of sizes but generally smaller, and how this can also generate diversity, rather than a small handful of bigfooted midrises. I applaud have multiple builders, and letting this project develop gradually over time rather than the same old ‘build-it-and-they-will-come’ megaproject mentality. This is all great, and wisely focuses on the organic nature of human settlement. I just wish the concept plan could apply the same principles to the plan’s relationship the existing streets and pedestrian paths at The Forks, rather than turn its back on them.

[Tacheguy]

Don’t forget that Israel Asper way is being converted to a north south linear walkway on the west side. I think the zig zag pattern takes that into consideration

[buzzg]

The important thing to remember in this is that, as with other parts of The Forks, they are meticulous with details and (purposely) slow with development. The entire build-out for Railside is pegged at 20 years, or approximately 1 building per year. This allows them to assess and adapt as they develop the land. Also why they're leaving a land bank at the south end of the site to start, so in 5-10 years they have some space right in the middle of The Forks to utilize however the future dictates.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by buzzg

The important thing to remember in this is that, as with other parts of The Forks, they are meticulous with details and (purposely) slow with development. The entire build-out for Railside is pegged at 20 years, or approximately 1 building per year. This allows them to assess and adapt as they develop the land. Also why they're leaving a land bank at the south end of the site to start, so in 5-10 years they have some space right in the middle of The Forks to utilize however the future dictates.

It just seems too long for me. I do agree though it should be done slower and in phases. But 20 years. There seems to be more interest to at least get a few buildings going right away then go 1-2 per year or something. Still leaves room for changes.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

I don't think this site will struggle with attracting foot traffic. The Forks is already a busy place, and adding residents and new shops will only increase that.

Also, they haven't released the final plans yet. I say we wait until we see it in pavement until we criticize it for being too disorienting. I'm sure they are considering these things, it seems like they are paying a lot of attention to details like this. I truly believe this will be a huge step up for the Forks and downtown as a whole. I guess we will see...

It won't struggle for foot traffic, but the master plan has to be conducive to foot traffic... the foot traffic shouldn't have to work in spite of bad design.

Maybe they've got something up their sleeves, but for a first impression on such a critical location that is so truly, madly, deeply pitched as an urban walkable neighbourhood, this is a massively ignorant miss on by the architecture collective

On first impression, the layout leads only towards the inside of the parcel, and the inside is incoherent.

Originally Posted by wardlow

Yes, but there’s little variety or surprise in a uniform orientation of buildings set among plaza after plaza after plaza. More importantly, good traditional urban environments (in Europe and North America both) don’t turn their backs on the nearby high street the way the Railside concept turns its back on Waterfront Drive/Asper Way and York. Rather, they are oriented toward them: buildings are built right up to the sidewalk, ground floors are typically more active. What open space exists on the important streets in traditional European urban environments is typically well enclosed and meaningful, not just serrated landscaping strips.

The Railside concept began with a couple of architects sitting on a patio in some old town in France and thinking: let’s do this at The Forks. Okay, fine. But when I look at the concept plan’s relationship to its surroundings, I wonder if when they sat down to draw it out they mistook traditional Europe for a lowrise LeCorbusian housing project ala Toronto’s Regent Park.

I get wanting to make the development permeable and invite pedestrians to wander around and discover, not knowing what’s around the corner. I get how a variety of small open spaces can create diversity and take on lives of their own, rather than one big managed plaza. I get wanting to have many buildings with a variety of sizes but generally smaller, and how this can also generate diversity, rather than a small handful of bigfooted midrises. I applaud have multiple builders, and letting this project develop gradually over time rather than the same old ‘build-it-and-they-will-come’ megaproject mentality. This is all great, and wisely focuses on the organic nature of human settlement. I just wish the concept plan could apply the same principles to the plan’s relationship the existing streets and pedestrian paths at The Forks, rather than turn its back on them.

Agreed.

And we need economic activity and social vibrancy WAY before we need mystery around each corner as if life is a f*cking cartoon.

[goldenboi]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

And we need economic activity and social vibrancy WAY before we need mystery around each corner as if life is a f*cking cartoon.

I'm not sold by your "we need ____ before we need ____" argument. You can't simplify the field of design into a linear set of priorities that must be accomplished in order. It is possible to design for the things you mentioned while also making it a nice place. I was talking about designing a place that has surprise and mystery so that people want to be there, causing economic activity and social vibrancy. It remains to be seen whether this will be the case, as they have not released the final plans yet. It is totally possible that your concerns about walkability will be true. I hope that they take a holistic approach.