Winnipeg | The Forks Market | Railside at The Forks

[Spocket]

What is it with Winnipeggers and "green space" ?

You can go to any suburb built in the past 60 years and find hundreds of acres of "green space" with all of two or three people in it on a good day. You want Japanese gardens or something? Sure, that's cool but it's hardly necessary to cover half the Forks with it. How much green space does this city need? Good grief, if you want a park, go to one. You're in a city full of parks, in a country that's basically one giant park. There's no shortage of parks and "green space" (whatever it is that we're talking about exactly) and you can't expect to have a park built just outside your front door.

[Hecate]

The forks doesn't have as much quality green space as you people keep suggesting. Most of it is gravel and concrete. It Would be nice to have some decent gardens at the forks. Would also be nice to have some fire pits along the river walk and little semi private picnic areas tucked into the bushes along the river. That have access to water and electricity. make it more... I don't know... like a park?!?! There's a reason the upper fort garry park is empty... it's utter crap and should never have been approved. Terrible design from top to bottom. The outlines depicting where the buildings once stood would be a disaster to take care of maintenance wise. Red rocks, limestone and wood chips everywhere. It should have been a rebuilding of the walls of the fort and nothing else. bonny castle park needs better connectivity to the forks. the rail line and Main Street really disconnect it. I think better signage and maybe more of a focus on ornamental gardens would help draw people there. As for there being too much green space. I'm sorry you can never have enough. Winnipeg must be the only city in the world where people bitch that there's too much green space! Lol And as for the river levels it should only be an issue in spring when it floods. Other than that There's absolutely no reason for the river walk to be underwater in June.

[goldenboi]

Originally Posted by Hecate

The forks doesn't have as much quality green space as you people keep suggesting. Most of it is gravel and concrete.

That is just blatantly untrue. Almost the entire eastern half of the forks is made up of diverse green space. Starting on the south across the Assiniboine river you have South Point Park, a downtown forest. Moving north across the old train bridge there is the Oodena Celebration Circle, a beautifully designed natural amphitheatre that is used for many indigenous gatherings. Then there is the new path that cuts straight from the via rail station to the walking bridge, moving through a fountain, a historic archway, and plenty of gardens. Then the prairie grasses surrounding the CMHR. Then the vastly underused triangular park by the ballpark. Not to mention the sprawling parkway systems that flank either side of the Red, Assiniboine, and Seine Rivers, all meeting at the Forks.

I'm starting to wonder if some of you have ever even been to the Forks. Before you suggest plopping another green space down on parcel 4, I suggest that you actually take a walk around the Forks and see how much there actually is. Not only is there TONS of green space, but it is diverse as well. We have forests, a natural amphitheatre, fountains, a festival park and stage, gardens, two walking bridges, prairie grasslands. In addition to that, there are areas that aren't necessarily green space, but that are a pleasure to walk through nonetheless. The skate park, the area surrounding the port, the market, and the pedestrian/bike path that they are about to add.

[bryanscott]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

I'd love to live beside a train track like that. Put me to sleep. The noise isn't that bad. You must have extremely sensitive ears.
And before you say I don't have a clue at the noise. I grew up beside main line CP. I know it well.

The sharp curve in the rail is unique, and my office is practically an arm's reach from that curve (maybe 50 meters). Spend some time in my chair and you'd likely change your tune.

[bomberjet]

Nothing is happening with the trains. The Government doesn't have any will. Or money. We've been through this. CN would say move your office as the train was there first. I mean that in the friendliest way possible. haha

[bryanscott]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Nothing is happening with the trains. The Government doesn't have any will. Or money. We've been through this. CN would say move your office as the train was there first. I mean that in the friendliest way possible. haha

Actually, from 50 metres away behind a closed window, I kind of like it. But walking to and from the building? Awful.

I want to see these spots developed and thriving—don't get me wrong. But I've got an office full of people that wouldn't live near this spot to save their lives—and it's because of the trains.

[biguc]

A concrete wall built 15 feet higher than the tracks would cut a lot of noise. So would parking garages, which are typically made of concrete walls. More buildings will also baffle and disperse the noise. Trees help. It's a little bit further away, but I know that in Rideau tower on Garry all you hear is the soothing thrum of locomotives; the trucks and motorcycles thundering down Broadway are far more disturbing.

[Gm0ney]

So are they just going to dig up that field in front of the stage every year for half a decade to expand the geothermal loop?

[bomberjet]

There is currently a small study on the rail proximity occurring and noise buffering will be one topic of discussion. There are many options, but it is difficult because the tracks are raised, and there is not much room on top to place walls. CN would likely not allow it, as they are too close to the track.

So it would have to be something else put in place from the ground below. Which becomes difficult again, due to the height. Not impossible as I'm sure something could be done.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Hecate

The forks doesn't have as much quality green space as you people keep suggesting. Most of it is gravel and concrete. It Would be nice to have some decent gardens at the forks. Would also be nice to have some fire pits along the river walk and little semi private picnic areas tucked into the bushes along the river. That have access to water and electricity. make it more... I don't know... like a park?!?! There's a reason the upper fort garry park is empty... it's utter crap and should never have been approved. Terrible design from top to bottom. The outlines depicting where the buildings once stood would be a disaster to take care of maintenance wise. Red rocks, limestone and wood chips everywhere. It should have been a rebuilding of the walls of the fort and nothing else. bonny castle park needs better connectivity to the forks. the rail line and Main Street really disconnect it. I think better signage and maybe more of a focus on ornamental gardens would help draw people there. As for there being too much green space. I'm sorry you can never have enough. Winnipeg must be the only city in the world where people bitch that there's too much green space! Lol And as for the river levels it should only be an issue in spring when it floods. Other than that There's absolutely no reason for the river walk to be underwater in June.

i used the upper fort garry park a few weeks ago and had a synth jam with a friend with battery powered gear for couple hrs
heres a snipit.
• Video Link

will be doing more things like this as it warms up.


if anything i find the parks we have to restricitive like bonny castle u cant use after 10pm and nearly got 400$ ticket for being there last summer(didnt see the sign didnt even know and got grilled for 20minuts by the cadets blah rather rude to us was bizzar) even though were well under the 55dbm noise bylaws at the edge of the park way below

and yes the forks could use some firepits that would be awsome also would like to go jam there but dunno how the busker rules would apply dont really wana deal with that bs

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by bryanscott

The sharp curve in the rail is unique, and my office is practically an arm's reach from that curve (maybe 50 meters). Spend some time in my chair and you'd likely change your tune.

o i know that squeel very well very very well worked across the street from it at portage and westbrook for a summer got worse depending if they were full or empty or if they were speeding up or slowing down there seemed to be a sweet spot for the speed that would stop that squeel though

[1ajs]

the forks is half and half and is not finished being built so we should have discussions and have visions like the one proposed... also folks the forks is trying to develop it self to stay sustainable as a organization... one of the few self sustaining things like it out there.... far more succefull then euclaire market in calgary

[Cam]

Originally Posted by Gm0ney

So are they just going to dig up that field in front of the stage every year for half a decade to expand the geothermal loop?

Looked to me like they will do it twice

[Wolf13]

True Viking on fire in here

Originally Posted by jmt18325

One thing that has changed (dramatically) since then is the population of downtown. While some things have gone backwards in the last two decades, that's an important step that can't be understated.

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't know what the population was in the 90s, but downtown went from 13,400 in 2006 to 16,000 in 2014. (I'm sure the 90s numbers would have been similar to 2006 since there wasn't much built in the 90s and early 00s.)

That's a nice increase, but barely 2,500 people isn't really what I'd classify as a dramatic change. I mean, I'm sure it has increased further since 2014, but to me dramatic change would be dozens of new buildings... highrises, lowrises and everything in between. If we had seen truly dramatic changes in population, I think downtown would look and feel much different compared to a decade ago, but I couldn't honestly say that it does.

I agree with both. We have made strides but have miles to go.

However, esquire, you're looking at the wrong numbers. The important number is 19,4

As in 2600/13400=19.4% INCREASE in downtown population. That's pretty solid.

The downside is that the rate may be high, but the number its based on is not. However, I think most would agree that this rate is climbing very strongly SINCE 2014.

You're not wrong, however, we have so much further to go before we can celebrate not progress, but a goal achieved.

Originally Posted by goldenboi

Why do we have this idea that residential development isn't a worthy use to pursue at the Forks? I understand that it is a historically significant area and everything, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have humans living there. The fact that the Forks is a significant and important area to us is a huge reason to have people living there. I think if the forks is turned into more of a sustainable urban community, as opposed to a theme park for tourists and people driving in from the suburbs, this would do it so much more justice. This thought that we should separate residents from the places that are important to us is just so backwards. The best way to experience a place is to live, breath, and sleep in it. And if we don't have anyone doing that at the Forks, it's kind of a waste. It's sad to see such an amazing place so desolate besides on weekends and for events.

Now with regards to green space... it has been said multiple times, but THE ENTIRE FORKS IS ESSENTIALLY ONE BIG GREEN SPACE. And I'm positive that there will be an effort to include greenery in this project. The suggestion that the forks is going to build some "concrete jungle" is just ridiculous. They are smarter than that.

Hearing Winnipeggers worry about a concrete jungle if we build something is like a girl saying "I don't lift anything above 5 lbs because I don't want to get bulky"... it won't happen.

Preserving the history of the forks without development is like grandma wrapping her old couch in plastic to spare its condition.

We're insulting our history if we do not GROW. Whether our biological ancestors or the founders of this city, we insult them if we do not build upon the platform given to us. The historical parts can grow with us provided they're not in the way.

[Curmudgeon]

Why is the debate between either green space or development with no exception? If each parcel is developed properly, the site can accommodate both additional green space and suitable urban development.

Each parcel should be developed around a central square which would be green public space. Think Savannah, Georgia, where the historic disctrict contains no less than 22 public squares. It is a stunningly beautiful city, in my opinion it is one of the top 5 most beautiful cities in North America in terms of the built environment. Many, many others clearly share the same opinion as it has been voted America's most beautiful city on many occasions. And guess what? It doesn't have a mountain backdrop or ocean views!

Across the roads (the roads on all sides of the square would act as a traffic circle) from the central square on each side would be residential development with commercial space on the ground floors of the four to six story buildings. I would love to see a youth hostel (this would be an entire building) with a small main level pub like the Ocean Island Inn in Victoria, B.C. across from the square. The squares themselves would not be large, perhaps an acre or so, contain one modest fountain in each square and would be well-treed and have some small gardens and a few benches. Simple, yet beautiful.

Further afield from the square would be residential only. This is essentially the Savannah plan. The residential buildings would consist of numerous styles of accommodation: apartments for various income brackets, condominiums, townhouses and co-operatives. I would even like to see some veterans housing. The building designs would vary but would be required to correspond with the basic philosophy of the City Beautiful movement and meet all the principles of New Urbanism, most importantly that they are aesthetically pleasing and they compliment rather that detract not only from one another but from the surrounding built environment, in this case the rest of the Forks, The Exchange and Union Station. This means the use of lots of limestone and brick and traditional architectural styles, from which there are many to choose. In particular, at that site, it is extremely important that the site of the CMHR, which is along with the Legislative Building Winnipeg's signature structure, not be compromised in any way. There would be little to no setback from the sidewalk for the buildings and all parking would be underground (rear lane access only) or street parking.

I agree with many of the comments suggesting that Winnipeg already has plently of green space downtown, including Bonnycastle Park, the Legislature Bldg. grounds and Steven Juba Park. It should be remembered that in cities such as London, New York and Vancouver the large parks in the central parts of the cities are legacy parks, in essence they are "parks by accident."

New York of the 1850's had no significant green space to speak of downtown (south of 14th Street). It is said that people picnicked in the cemeteries. Central Park was built on land that was outside of the urban area of the day. In London, the parks were the royal hunting grounds and in Vancouver, Stanley Park was originally a military reserve that was acquired as a park when it was still well outside of Vancouver's urban area. Few cities have large central parks like these. Certainly Paris, San Francisco, Seattle and Indianapolis do not, like Winnipeg they have large urban parks outside of the central core. Assiniboine and Kildonan Parks are true gems.

A point was made about how "disconnected" the Forks feels from the rest of downtown. This is as much due to the hundreds of acres of desolate and windswept surface parking lots that line Pioneer and Water Avenues and Westbrook Street (yes, I know Water is now called William Stephenson, but I am not calling a 140 year old street by any other name and nor do I refer to the Salter Street or Redwood Bridges by any other names. What kind of idiots would approve renaming bridges after minor local politicians? Anyways, that's another topic). The development of parcel 4, if done right, will spur the development of the south-east Exchange and bridge The Forks with The Exchange and the rest of downtown.

As for rail line relocation I can not think of anything that could be more foolhardy. Winnipeg is fortunate that it retains passenger rail service to the heart of downtown and to one of the most beautiful railway stations in North America. Far from seeing VIA disappear, we may well see increased use in the future especially if the Americans go ahead with the Midwest Rail Initiative. Even with a modest high speed network, Winnipeg - Union Station would be no more than 4 hours from downtown Minneapolis.

I am glad UrbanRecluse that you are confident about the project. I remain leary of the how any development might occur especially if the design work is not entrusted to a firm that has experience in projects following new urbanist philosophy. When I see recent development in this city, The Mere Hotel (on its own I quite like it but not in that location and who would approve any development on the riverbank side?), the Crocus Building (the windows butcher the building) or the ALT Hotel (surely Carbuncle Cup material), I am concerned about what might transpire at the Forks, that it will be just another disjointed, unappealing and tacky car-centric development with a few parkades thrown in for good measure. Oh quite humourous actually, a thought just came to mind. I'll never forget those giant yellow hoops they put along Ellice, or was it Sargent Avenue? Does anyone remember those?

[tree]

Originally Posted by biguc

Sure, the fringes of center city in Philly have a lot of wonderfully dense colonial areas that predate government and the spacious right of ways that come with it. It's not exactly European, but it's pretty cool and rare in North America. I should add that I forgot to include Quebec City as a place that has this kind of space.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@39.94634...8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Tor...831843!6m1!1e1

Those are awesome. Agree that if pulled off it can really be something - just hoping it doesn't feel / look 'forced' into the area - as you mentioned the examples in the older cities came about organically.

[biguc]

The best cities in the world were made without overarching design or any reference to new urbanism.

Originally Posted by 1ajs

if anything i find the parks we have to restricitive like bonny castle u cant use after 10pm and nearly got 400$ ticket for being there last summer(didnt see the sign didnt even know and got grilled for 20minuts by the cadets blah rather rude to us was bizzar) even though were well under the 55dbm noise bylaws at the edge of the park way below

and yes the forks could use some firepits that would be awsome also would like to go jam there but dunno how the busker rules would apply dont really wana deal with that bs

These are good points. We're basically forbidden from doing anything but walking and sitting in our parks, outside of designated area for sports. Since generally allowing us the responsibility of having a beer in public is too much for our temperance addled culture, maybe we could consider licensing parts of parks, like the zoo has done. And people should be allowed to play music anywhere in them. Finally, the Cadets need to go back to directing traffic and shutting the fuck up.

Your fireplace idea is a good one too. I've long thought that certain public spaces would benefit from having fires in the winter. It's really nice to gather around one at Festival, and they would make good gathering points. Our Decembers tend to be mild enough these days that an outdoor Christmas market doesn't seem crazy.

[1ajs]

the odena has a fire pit but u gotta book it to have the lid removed

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by biguc

The best cities in the world were made without overarching design or any reference to new urbanism.

Some of the best cities grew organically (ie. London) while others were planned to various degrees (ie. Paris) in accordance with what are today called new urbanist principles, even though that term was unknown at the time of their development. We are not building a new city, we are enhancing an existing one. There is no need for overarching designs, just a general philosophy and set of principles, call them "standards" if you like. There are many architectural styles that can be utilized. It must be beautiful and enhance the built environment though, this is why no ALT hotel would ever be built on the Champs Elysees.

Most of central Winnipeg was originally built in a way that would today conform to new urbanist principles, but many parts have been decimated by modernist postwar planning and development which has resulted in a largely unattractive and dysfunctional urban core, even with the improvements made over the past 25 years. Did you know that south of Graham was once residential with houses, apartment blocks and schools? Go up to the Whisky lounge and look north. Close to half of downtown is surface parking lots. Somewhere along the way, planners and developers forgot about the fact that a beautiful environment lifts the human spirit and increases quality of life. Look at the Radisson Hotel for example. When you look at it, the building returns an icy, almost sinister stare, a giant middle finger saying F-you to the people of Winnipeg.

[Urban recluse]

I often fantasize about a lot of those old homes still existing but now converted to restaurants, pubs, shops, etc. City planners back then chose to emulate the trends in other North American cities: demolish and replace with crap.