Winnipeg | The Forks Market | Railside at The Forks

[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.

[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...

[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.

[esquire]

^ Good point, The Forks has certainly earned a measure of trust based on how carefully they've managed the site over the past 30+ years.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Hecate]

This plan for railside overall seems pretty meh, honestly I'm disappointed. I don't think this plan will do anything to benefit the experience of the forks overall. In fact I think it will make it more unwelcoming and a pain in the ass for visitors and tourists. They should have followed the marketing strategy of a swallows. Family style restaurant by day, anything goes pan sexual bazaar by night!

[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.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

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.

I never said "don't make it nice".

I'm all for making this thing fancy as fuck provided it meets a budget, and functions. And functions means it meets the needs of the landlord, the tenants, and the neighbourhood. A ferrari is gorgeous but also puts down an incredibly fast lap time. Yes, maintenance, but that's neither here nor there.

As for as "nice" priorities, "mystery" or "surprise" come well after a usable building with a usable layout, functioning streetscapes (and ugly streetscapes don't attract attention ergo don't function"), and a nice general aesthetic.

Rotterdam has some funky houses that we could pull off if our downtown had the market intensity of Toronto or Vancouver, for example. It's just way down the list.

And perhaps this is where our perpectives may clash, but yes, you can make the field of design more linear. The architect/designer has a client who pays them, with a set of priorities. Maybe design in principle isn't linear, but real estate can be. This is a real estate exercise before it's a design exercise.

We probably agree more than we don't, but I think that this design (so far) has functional consequences that won't be outweighed by interest. I'm all for intriguing design, but the realist in me knows we don't have the most welcoming market for that... we have to be creative with less, hence the many (tragic) projects that are boxes with merely some panel or balcony variation.

[goldenboi]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

I never said "don't make it nice".

And perhaps this is where our perpectives may clash, but yes, you can make the field of design more linear. The architect/designer has a client who pays them, with a set of priorities. Maybe design in principle isn't linear, but real estate can be. This is a real estate exercise before it's a design exercise.

We probably agree more than we don't, but I think that this design (so far) has functional consequences that won't be outweighed by interest. I'm all for intriguing design, but the realist in me knows we don't have the most welcoming market for that... we have to be creative with less, hence the many (tragic) projects that are boxes with merely some panel or balcony variation.

I agree that we probably do agree more than we don't agree. And sure, in most developments, things like "mystery" and "surprise" might not be high priorities. But I don't think that this is necessarily more of a real estate exercise than a design exercise. The architects certainly do have a client, and that client is The Forks. From what I have heard, it seems like The Forks is not only interested in turning an immediate profit off of the land, but are more interested in creating a strong, vibrant, sustainable community that enhances the area as a whole. I believe that this changes the nature of the project, which affects the priorities of the architect. This is why they are including things like public art and small shops geared towards local products. However, I do see your guys' point about the functionality of the development. As much as I do want Railside to replicate the wet dreams that I have about whimsical, mysterious urban spaces, it does have to function well at the end of the day. I am confident (and maybe naive?) that the architects won't completely neglect functionality.

On a somewhat related note, I wonder how they will design the neighbourhood to enhance the winter experience. The Forks is probably Winnipeg's best winter public space, and for Railside to work, they must consider this.

[buzzg]

^The interior walkways will be pretty sheltered, for a nice winter stroll. I know the conceptual idea was to continue on-land skate trails through the new promenade on Izzy Asper, and maybe once demand requires it, into that interior path. Their hope eventually was you could skate up to winter patios over there. That would be amazing.

[goldenboi]

Originally Posted by buzzg

^The interior walkways will be pretty sheltered, for a nice winter stroll. I know the conceptual idea was to continue on-land skate trails through the new promenade on Izzy Asper, and maybe once demand requires it, into that interior path. Their hope eventually was you could skate up to winter patios over there. That would be amazing.

Wow! That would be really cool, and it might be unique to Winnipeg if it happens. It is attention detail like this that makes me think that they aren't just going to incoherently plop buildings down.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

Wow! That would be really cool, and it might be unique to Winnipeg if it happens. It is attention detail like this that makes me think that they aren't just going to incoherently plop buildings down.

I love the idea of skating between those nodes. That will be so Winnipeg. I hope they sprinkle a few changing shacks around the sight as that is becoming a bit of a bottleneck.

[headhorse]

there are a couple proposals online now for the railside site.

atlrg arch and david penner, green seed the developer:

Single 5 storey building comprised of 15 200 sf gross floor area plus a 400 sf parking footprint (accommodating 10 stalls in a vertical automated system). The program distribution includes three 250 sf retail units, 1800 sf commercial daycare, nine 400 sf rental apartments, four 1200 sf condominiums and a 1200 sf penthouse condominium with common roof deck.


from davidpennerarchitect.ca


from davidpennerarchitect.ca

there are larger and more photos here: https://atlrg.ca/cloud-9

and one from atlrg architecture and vishin developments:

2 600 SF four storey mixed-use building with a maximum of 5 ground level micro commercial units totalling 2 000SF and three storeys containing 18 micro-residential rental units totalling 6 560SF. Additional programming includes ground level public washroom, exterior tenant planter box space, roof-top deck, and urban bee farm.


from https://atlrg.ca/

[Wigglez]

wow......... when can i buy one? lol

[Urban recluse]

I am impressed. This development could be a game changer for downtown.