Winnipeg | The Forks Market | Railside at The Forks

[buzzg]

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.

Exactly. Lots of talk of developing this like and old city and that... think about a place like Barcelona (or other similar cities)... they don't have a separated tourist area.. the whole city is so great that that's what the draw is. Most people who travel want to experience a city and its people, they don't go for one attraction. People don't go to Paris just to see the Eiffel Tower Louvre, or Toronto to see the CN Tower - they go to experience great cities, and sure, maybe take a picture at a landmark. People want the real experience when they travel. The ones who don't care go on cruises.

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?!?!

A campground. You are describing a campground.

Originally Posted by Hecate

There's absolutely no reason for the river walk to be underwater in June.

Other than floods or something.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Exactly.


A campground. You are describing a campground.


.

no hes not

theres area like this at assinboin and kildoland parks to have fires there even a fire pit up on garbage hill

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by tree

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.

Philadelphia was planned from its inception in the late 17th century. It was designed on a grid patttern (radical for the time) and around several central "publick" squares to provide green space for the residents.

Sociey Hill is a wonderful old neighbourhood in Center City Philadelphia. Consisting primarily of Georgian townhouses from the 18th and early 19th centuries, it became one of the worst slums in the city by the mid 20th century. Rather than follow the predominant philosophy of time, the neighbourhood was not levelled for surface parking lots and sterile modernist tower blocks but was carefully preserved and renewed over a period of about 25 years with proper consideration for aesthetics, right down to lighting, the pavements and signage (no teal and purple signs or giant yellow hoops), everything presents very, very well and today it is one of the city's most desirable areas. Unfortunately they did build a few tower blocks on the edges of the area in the 1960s, but all in all it is an excellent example of urban restoration and sustainability.

I really like Philiadelphia in general. A very authentic city with a somewhat gritty undertone and not particularly touristy. Fantastic food too. It does not have a large park right in the centre, but Fairmount Park is nearby and the public art on display in that park really is incredibly beautiful.

[Curmudgeon]

Oops, should read "Society Hill" at the beginning of the second paragraph.

[Gm0ney]

Originally Posted by Cam

Looked to me like they will do it twice

They install the first part of the loop in year 3, expand it in year 4, expand again in year 6, and one last expansion in year 10. Seems like a lot of digging...

[Spocket]

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.

Well who said the Forks was was ever supposed to be a park full of gardens, anyway? Nobody. It was never planned to be that and nobody in government ever told us it would be planned that way. It was a railyard and then somebody said "Hey, this place is historic...shouldn't we do something to honor that?" And that's what we did. You want parks? Pick one and go to it if that's what you want?

Nobody's bitching about too many parks. What people are saying is what I'm telling you: If you want parks, there's no shortage. Go to one.

[esquire]

Winnipeg already has a number of big urban parks that outdo anything The Forks could ever deliver when it comes to greenery... Kildonan Park, Assiniboine Park, St. Vital Park, etc. The Forks is not some piece of unspoiled nature and shouldn't pretend to be.

[EndoftheBeginning]

Exactly, always amazed at how people forget that it's a reclaimed industrial site, it was never park/green, unless you go more than 100 years back to early settlement. As soon as industry sprang up, the rail yard was there.

Even 45 years ago in 1972...green it was not

[WolselyMan]

I am so sick of hearing that "downtown has enough green space already". If I'm going to honest, I don't really think there is such a thing as enough green space.
Do you mean enough so that the parks are usually empty, meaning you can have the space all for yourself whenever you want? If so then the downtown's current amount of green space is enough to satisfy that criteria. That is while the area currently only has the population of a small town.

But I'm not thinking about the downtown of today. I'm thinking about the downtown OF THE FUTURE. It's not like there's a shortage of developable land downtown, so reserving this area for green space isn't going to come at the expense of loosing the opportunity to increase DTwpg's population. The more greenspace per downtown resident you have, the more livable the area becomes. And that's just a scientific fact, let alone an obvious bit of common sense. Do you think an area can ever be "livable enough"? (The only reasonable purpose of life is to make life more livable for all life in the first place!)

Building an entirely new neighborhood from scratch is an incredibly irresistible opportunity to pass off, but let's not kid ourselves why we like the idea. It's because it's easier than improving an area that already exists. People have been known to regret development projects when they look back at it decades later. But I can guarantee you that no one has ever regretted the creation of a new green space when they look back through the time span of decades. I'm thinking in the long-term, and I'll bet you the future of the province that a park will have a long-term impact that would pale to anything you could possibly build on that land. period. Generations of downtown residents will be forever thankful if we create a new park. Create a new building and they'll simply wonder why this building couldn't have been located in the booming urban neighborhood of point Douglas, or the former dirt farm that our chinatown of today once was.

[goldenboi]

Yes we definitely need more green space downtown, but not at the Forks. I already mentioned the surplus of green space that the Forks has. Broadway-Assiniboine also has plenty of green space for its residents. The part that needs it the most is the centre of our downtown. It is less of a concrete jungle and more of a concrete savannah, with all the open space. Especially in the business district between Memorial, Broadway, Main and Portage. We desperately need more residents in that area, no one can even keep a store open past 7pm. I agree with you that we should reserve some of the empty space while we still have it. It would be a great way to attract people to live in that area. But I believe that it is unnecessary at the Forks.

[goldenboi]

It seems like some people are thinking of downtown as a whole, when it is really a collection of parts. We need to give each part individual attention while considering how they interact with each other. Putting in a massive green space at the Forks isn't necessarily revolutionize downtown living all over the map. In fact, if there is no one actually living at the Forks, putting in a green space wouldn't have too much impact in the daily lives of downtown residents. We need to mix in residents with green spaces of all sizes. Plopping a massive park on the edge of downtown won't solve much at all.

[goldenboi]

If I say the term green space one more time, I'm going to have to delete my skyscraperpage account.

[WolselyMan]

I'll articulate this point one last time. An expanded green space is NOT necessary for the downtown of today. I repeat. NOT necessary.

But it is of existential importance for the downtown of the future. That is if you want it to have a future.

[Urban recluse]

Plenty of land to develop this if the demand is so great. Developing the downtown is nowhere near complete, so 50 years from now, perhaps what you seek will be a reality along Higgins as an example. I do not think we have to worry about this today. I do not think we need more green space at the Forks.

[1ajs]

in future we should incurage rooftop gardens and park space

[Urban recluse]

Good point.

[goldenboi]

Originally Posted by WolselyMan

I'll articulate this point one last time. An expanded green space is NOT necessary for the downtown of today. I repeat. NOT necessary.

But it is of existential importance for the downtown of the future. That is if you want it to have a future.

Wow, I didn't think a discussion about green space could become so militant. And existential.. This forum is a strange place.

But in all seriousness I can't help but think that you didn't read my post. I went in depth about spreading variously sized green spaces throughout all of downtown instead of concentrating them all at the Forks. Don't you think there are other places that need it more?

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by WolselyMan

I am so sick of hearing that "downtown has enough green space already". If I'm going to honest, I don't really think there is such a thing as enough green space.

Move to the country. Seriously, it's not like there's any sort of lack of green space there. What exactly is it that you want? You want trees? Country. Streams? Country. Lakes and fields? Country.

Originally Posted by WolselyMan

Do you mean enough so that the parks are usually empty, meaning you can have the space all for yourself whenever you want? If so then the downtown's current amount of green space is enough to satisfy that criteria. That is while the area currently only has the population of a small town.

Well, that seems to be what you're aiming for. Name the park in downtown Winnipeg that's ever packed. At most Bonnycastle seems somewhat popular from time to time. Central Park is...well, if you're familiar with it then you already know. The Forks has some park components and they're nice. Until Winnipeg increases its downtown population by an order of magnitude, you're not going to get the need to create more parks in the area. Hell, look at the parks in every established neighborhood. They're never full and they're always quiet and peaceful. Occasionally you get the odd concert or some such thing but otherwise, nada.

Originally Posted by WolselyMan

But I'm not thinking about the downtown of today. I'm thinking about the downtown OF THE FUTURE. It's not like there's a shortage of developable land downtown, so reserving this area for green space isn't going to come at the expense of loosing the opportunity to increase DTwpg's population. The more greenspace per downtown resident you have, the more livable the area becomes. And that's just a scientific fact, let alone an obvious bit of common sense. Do you think an area can ever be "livable enough"? (The only reasonable purpose of life is to make life more livable for all life in the first place!)

Well I want a downtown, not a park where downtown should be. Furthermore, if there's going to be anything leisure-oriented situated at the Forks then it should most definitely be some sort of destination or attraction. You can get parks anywhere.

Originally Posted by WolselyMan

Building an entirely new neighborhood from scratch is an incredibly irresistible opportunity to pass off, but let's not kid ourselves why we like the idea. It's because it's easier than improving an area that already exists. People have been known to regret development projects when they look back at it decades later. But I can guarantee you that no one has ever regretted the creation of a new green space when they look back through the time span of decades. I'm thinking in the long-term, and I'll bet you the future of the province that a park will have a long-term impact that would pale to anything you could possibly build on that land. period. Generations of downtown residents will be forever thankful if we create a new park. Create a new building and they'll simply wonder why this building couldn't have been located in the booming urban neighborhood of point Douglas, or the former dirt farm that our chinatown of today once was.

Well, in 50 or 60 years when the downtown is overflowing with people, we can start looking for places to plunk down a park. In the meantime we want to focus on getting the downtown overflowing with people.

I'm not against a park, I'm against pretending that the Forks was ever supposed to be one. In fact, they've been saying from nearly the beginning that the Forks was always going to have a residential component but never anything about turning it into Japanese gardens. Frankly, we're far, far better off with that residential component than any park that's going to sit barren of people %95 of the time. Who's going to use the park, after all? People who are driving to the Forks from some suburban community. They can drive anywhere and get a better selection while they're at it. First come the people, then come the parks.

[WolselyMan]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

Wow, I didn't think a discussion about green space could become so militant. And existential.. This forum is a strange place.

But in all seriousness I can't help but think that you didn't read my post. I went in depth about spreading variously sized green spaces throughout all of downtown instead of concentrating them all at the Forks. Don't you think there are other places that need it more?

It's not the forum. It's just me.

I have to admit I did write that post down in haste before I fully read your comment. But I decided to post it anyways as I felt it would add value to the conversation just on it's own.

I think you all make a great point though. The forks green space is too far removed from the rest of downtown to make it easily accessible for residents in the south portage area. In fact it doesn't really matter what you put at the forks be it a green space, a condo, a market or a waterslide. Any of those things will have the exact same problems with pedestrian access to the rest of downtown. The forks needs to be better connected to the surrounding neighborhoods if it is to truly be part our downtown area, and also if the urban renewal we've seen at the forks these past decades can spread to the rest of the inner city. Fail to do that and whatever we accomplish at the forks stays put at the forks.

If only main street and all our other arterial roads could be more pedestrian friendly, instead of having to take on the role of a poor man's substitute for a freeway system. I could imagine it would be possible to construct pedestrian overpasses/underpasses across main, but that certainly can sound a little too elaborate just give people access to a waterslide (a joke).

I think I should have been more clear about this earlier on, but I have nothing against putting residential developments inside the forks. In fact I love the idea. It would do wonders for the forks market to constantly have hundreds of potential customers living right next door, and could elevate the place to masterpiece status, with the massive increase in business capacity that would come with a more reliable stream of customers. But there's an easy way to make us all both happy, and it's as simple as building up, instead of out.

Even though I later thought that a park was the best use of parcel 4 and the rail side space, I absolutely loved the original idea of putting residential high rise towers there with mixed use retail at the ground level. I thought it was a sexy looking proposal that would really create a spark for developing the rest of downtown, and simply saw it as a chance to build a unique neighborhood from scratch that you can't do anywhere else in Winnipeg. But that was before all the university architect students (who believe that feminist dance theory or something like that has much more applications for designing buildings than a proper knowledge of engineering) complained about it lacking
"human scale". So instead we now have replaced that idea with a "European village." It's really this new plan that I cannot stand, and I'll explain more about why I do in a later post.

[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.

Getting rapid transit into Union Station will help connect the Forks and points west, as more people realize that they can actually use and walk through Union Station. I hope they can find room, as Parcel 4 develops, to make a tunnel under the tracks to St. Mary.


And since I'm on a roll proposing road diets lately, I'd like to propose one for Main st. Two ten foot lanes lanes each way, turning lane in the middle, medians outside that separating bike lanes and right turn lanes. Make it a more manageable and attractive boulevard, rather than the brutal and intimidating grind it is now.