Winnipeg | The Forks Market | Railside at The Forks

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by WolselyMan

I still stand by my position that we're strategically fucking up by putting more retail development within the forks. While I am as happy as anyone else to see business boom at the forks - or anywhere in the inner city for that matter, the sad truth is that there is absolutely nothing in any of these plans that couldn't be done in the exchange district, where it is infinitely more needed and perfectly designed to benefit from. I don't like this big push to turn the forks market into some hip social venue rather than its earlier configurations as more of a farmers market. There are turn of the century buildings just down the road that are literally falling apart onto the street from neglect. And instead of spreading the decades long success of the forks further into the rest of the city center, the only thing we can think of doing is to create direct competition to the exchange district by doubling the amount of retail already at the forks?

The Forks succeeded in it's mission of giving people a reason to come downtown long ago. We don't need to be worried about bringing even more people there. We need to be focused on attracting people into the areas surrounding it now. The whole goal of the forks in the first place was to act as a nucleus for further development. An undevelpoed area as large as the rail side and parcel 4 should be reserved for something that you legitimately can't replicate in a place like the exchange district, which is a large and continuous expanse of greenspace. (Which is what the forks was always originally intended to be at it's core; a nature-oriented area. Not some sort of amusement park!)

Yikes, how is competition a bad thing? I don't believe that having a healthy exchange or downtown or forks etc are mutually exclusive. These plans will bring a ton of new residents to an area that could really use the shot in the arm and will likely spur the development of the void between P&M and the Forks. While I lament the fact that we don't really have a functioning public market, it looks like the marketlands proposal will take care of that to some extent (I cross my fingers that they get this right). The exchange will be fine, there are so many good things happening there already, I can't see the Forks negatively affecting it that much. Plus the Forks pretty much is a giant greenspace already so developing the parking lots seems reasonable to me.

This will only be positive for the city IMO.

[WolselyMan]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Yikes, how is competition a bad thing? I don't believe that having a healthy exchange or downtown or forks etc are mutually exclusive. These plans will bring a ton of new residents to an area that could really use the shot in the arm and will likely spur the development of the void between P&M and the Forks. While I lament the fact that we don't really have a functioning public market, it looks like the marketlands proposal will take care of that to some extent (I cross my fingers that they get this right). The exchange will be fine, there are so many good things happening there already, I can't see the Forks negatively affecting it that much. Plus the Forks pretty much is a giant greenspace already so developing the parking lots seems reasonable to me.

This will only be positive for the city IMO.

Competition can do one of two things: Kill you or make you stronger. Competition generally ends up with both parties becoming stronger from continual self improvement, but if they get too unevenly matched, one just simply ends up swallowing the other.

Tell me what you would do in this situation if you were a small business owner looking to set up shop. Your first option is an area that has ample parking, and an already extremely high concentration of foot-going shoppers. The units are all completely new and have all the proper ventilation and utility requirements built in for you, without needing to tear down walls and punch holes through floors before its fit for you to open business. Your second option is a run down heritage building built in 190x and needs to be gutted out from the inside. On top of all the work for installing new floor boards, spaces for ventilation and doing all this work from your own pocket, you're rewarded with only a comparatively consistent trickle of foot traffic, inadequate parking and even the occasional crime scene here and there. Anybody who has ever given a thought to setting their business up in the east exchange will immediately change their minds if just a few blocks away there is a far more elegant alternative for where to locate their business in the area.

There should have been good things happening in the exchange 10 years ago, if we actually decided to give a damn and replicate the investment from all 3 levels of government that it took to lift the forks out of wasteland status. If both the exchange and the forks are national historical sites, why do we find it unnecessary to give the exchange the same level of attention? The money spent setting up railside and Parcel 4 for development could help pay for all of the renovation work on the heritage buildings + surrounding infrastructure that would otherwise be the burden of would be property owners. (As well as local community outreach programs for some of the more vulnerable residents). Don't you think a tweet with a proposal like that would be a better use of a public servant's time than one that would more likely than not delay any more good things from happening in the exchange for another 10 years?

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by WolselyMan

Competition can do one of two things: Kill you or make you stronger. Competition generally ends up with both parties becoming stronger from continual self improvement, but if it they get too unevenly matched, one just simply ends up swallowing the other.

Tell me what you would do in this situation if you were a small business owner looking to set up shop. Your first option is an area that has ample parking, and an already extremely high concentration of foot-going shoppers. The units are all completely new and have all the proper ventilation and utility requirements built in for you, without needing to tear down walls and punch holes through floors before its fit for you to open business. Your second option is a run down heritage building built in 190x and needs to be gutted out from the inside. On top of all the work for installing new floor boards, spaces for ventilation and doing all this work from your own pocket, you're rewarded with only a comparatively consistent trickle of foot traffic, inadequate parking and even the occasional crime scene here and there. Anybody who has ever given a thought to setting their business up in the east exchange will immediately change their minds if just a few blocks away there is a far more elegant alternative for where to locate their business in the area.

There should have been good things happening in the exchange 10 years ago, if we actually decided to give a damn and replicate the investment from all 3 levels of government that it took to lift the forks out of wasteland status. If both the exchange and the forks are national historical sites, why do we find it unnecessary to give the exchange the same level of attention? The money spent setting up railside and Parcel 4 for development could help pay for all of the renovation work on the heritage buildings and surrounding infrastructure that would otherwise be the burden of would be property owners. Don't you think a tweet with a proposal like that would be a better use of a public servant's time than one that would more likely than not delay any more good things from happening in the exchange for another 10 years?

Your objection ignores that the government isn't fronting the money to develop railside. Developers will be taking on most of the risk.

If I'm a small business I'm going to take cost into the equation. Your lease in the exchange is gonna cost a lot less than at the forks market.

Plus, the exchange is getting investment, a fairly large amount of private dollars to be exact. The area is actually also getting government help too, lots of the road infrastructure is being renewed, which just adds to the money that was spent on stuff like OMS and soon the Market lands proposal. I don't see the doom and gloom for the exchange you're going on about. There are a few shoddy landlords, yes, but on balance the developments have been positive.

That said, I totally would agree with the premise that the city should do more to preserve buildings owned by people with the intent to demolish by neglect, up to and including expropriating them for disregarding the rules as regards heritage status structures.

So in total, could the exchange use more investment? Probably, but I don't think it won't succeed without more government intervention.

[GarryEllice]

^ Agreed with optimusREIM's points. Also, urban development is not a zero-sum game. There's a lot of civic and entrepreneurial enthusiasm around the Forks these days, and there's no guarantee that if we put a lid on development at the Forks, all of that enthusiasm would automatically transfer to other locations downtown. The momentum that the Forks currently has is a precious rarity in downtown Winnipeg and it should be encouraged, not squandered in the hopes of stimulating another part of the downtown.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by Biff

I have been told of 7. The developers are ready to go. All that I have talked to are frustrated they can’t start. They are all waiting on municipal and provincial approvals if I recall.

Is there a proposed site plan showing the awarded parcels?

Has there been any discussion on the sale price of the parcels?

Are the parcels sold or on a long term lease?

Thx I must have missed all of this.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

^ Agreed with optimusREIM's points. Also, urban development is not a zero-sum game. There's a lot of civic and entrepreneurial enthusiasm around the Forks these days, and there's no guarantee that if we put a lid on development at the Forks, all of that enthusiasm would automatically transfer to other locations downtown. The momentum that the Forks currently has is a precious rarity in downtown Winnipeg and it should be encouraged, not squandered in the hopes of stimulating another part of the downtown.

If the Forks development takes off, it will really make a lot possible around the Pioneer/Portage E/Stevenson/Westbrook area (as long as the Richardsons can be convinced to part with their parking lots).

Right now, if you stay at the Fairmont (or the Hyatt being constructed on Portage E), walking to the Forks feels like a deserted wasteland.

With the Forks parking lots built out with residential developments, the wasteland between the Forks and P&M is shrunken, and I think it will look a lot more inviting for development.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

If the Forks development takes off, it will really make a lot possible around the Pioneer/Portage E/Stevenson/Westbrook area (as long as the Richardsons can be convinced to part with their parking lots).

Right now, if you stay at the Fairmont (or the Hyatt being constructed on Portage E), walking to the Forks feels like a deserted wasteland.

With the Forks parking lots built out with residential developments, the wasteland between the Forks and P&M is shrunken, and I think it will look a lot more inviting for development.

That and the feeling of connectivity between the two areas will make the distance between them feel a lot shorter. It may seem silly but when you walk through a good urban environment, distances seem more tolerable and shorter to walk along.

Also to the point about the Richardson lots, I believe someone mentioned here somewhere that the city might own some of them? (I'm not totally certain though)

[ywgwalk]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Also to the point about the Richardson lots, I believe someone mentioned here somewhere that the city might own some of them? (I'm not totally certain though)

I believe it was trueviking that mentioned that most of the lots in the area are owned by the city and by nutty club.

I would think at this point it's only the lot adjacent to the fairmont parkade that is Richardson owned.

[wardlow]

Ownership in that Westbrook - Pioneer - Portage E. area is a mixed bag. The City owns the lot where Pioneer and Water split off (south of the ballpark) and part of the vast lot on the east side of Westbrook. Other standalone surface parking lots owners in the area include CN (land under and alongside their elevated mainline), the Nutty Club people, and several other private owners.

[Wpg_Guy]

The Forks National Heritage Site Visitor Centre
Location: 45 Forks Market Road, The Forks National Historic Site, Winnipeg, MB
Developer: The Forks North Portage Partnership
Architect(s): 1x1 architecture inc.
Size: 7,653 sq.ft.
Status: Proposed
Description: Due to the requirement by Parks Canada to not increase the built form on the protected site, the proposed Visitor Centre is located at the site of the existing orientation node, and will renovate the existing washroom / office building which consists of a circular structure constructed of tyndall stone plinths carrying a wood trellis. A major east-west axis cuts through the National Historic Site. From the west, this axis starts at the dome of Union Station, situated at the end of the Broadway promenade, continues through the centre of the orientation node and culminates at the Saint Boniface Cathedral-Basilica Parish on the east side of the Red River. This axis symbolically connects St. Boniface to Winnipeg’s downtown. The design intent was not only to maintain this axis, but to enhance it, thus the Visitor Centre was split into two buildings.

The Forks National Historic Site of Canada is a 9-acre park situated at the confluence of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers in Winnipeg, Manitoba and is dedicated to preserving and presenting the 6,000-year history of human presence and activity on the site. The site, located along the Red River, is adjacent to the Forks Market and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

The primary cladding material in the design is wood that is treated with a process that polymerizes the wood to resist water and insects, and will develop a natural silver finish as it weathers. The second cladding material is local Manitoba Tyndall stone that is already featured prominently throughout the site. All other materials have been selected to be durable and low maintenance.

[Biff]

Also, related to Parcel 4 - the city has just put out an RFP for an Archeological dig for Parcel 4. The interesting thing is the location of the dig, clearly marked out...could these be the Skip the Dishes Building locations. If it is, hopefully the rest of the Parcel 4 site isn't surface parking. If it is surface parking then I don't want it.

[esquire]

^ I can't imagine that The Forks would sign on to anything that involves the creation of a long term surface parking lot. Wouldn't they just develop the rest of the parcel? I would imagine that parkades would be part of that, but at least tucking away the parking under buildings would soften the blow. But either way, seeing buildings go up on those two sites would really change the feel of that area, it would feel way less windswept and wide open with some buildings to define the street edge.

And kudos for digging up that Forks Visitor Centre, wpg_guy. That's a timely project... I always thought Parks Canada's presence at The Forks was a little too under the radar for what is at its core a National Historic Site. Something like this would make it a little more prominent. I'm not sure I'm 100% sold on the design, but functionally it will be an improvement over what's there.

[bomberjet]

Wow. Does the Forks visitor centre actually have legs? looks neat. Also looks like it replaces the circular thing they have out there now. Which I've always found kinda neat. Word of the day.

[buzzg]

I'm confused – is the developer of that visitors centre TFNP or Parks Canada?

Considering this new development, the Travel Manitoba info centre, the little kiosk in the Forks Market, and the multi-purpose visitor/community centre that's planned to eventually go beside Citytv – seems like we could end up with a confusing, redundant group of similar buildings at The Forks. Then add the eventual UFG Interpretive Centre which will likely also have some multifunction space...

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by Biff

Also, related to Parcel 4 - the city has just put out an RFP for an Archeological dig for Parcel 4. The interesting thing is the location of the dig, clearly marked out...could these be the Skip the Dishes Building locations. If it is, hopefully the rest of the Parcel 4 site isn't surface parking. If it is surface parking then I don't want it.

I really can't imagine that much important real estate essentially going to waste. I would think (hope?!) additional buildings and preceding archaeological digs will come later.

[EndoftheBeginning]

They updated the map showing the dig locations.

[Biff]

So if I were to hypothesize wildly....from earlier reports I heard that Skip was looking for a campus style office development with possibly three to four, six to ten storey buildings. If this has now been reduced to two buildings they could possibly be in the in the 15 to 20 storey range?

Again pure speculation on my part and I am totally with the concept of keeping things dense in the 4 to 6 storey height for the Railside Project, but...this does kind of excite me a bit regarding the views coming over the Provencher Bridge in into downtown.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by buzzg

I'm confused – is the developer of that visitors centre TFNP or Parks Canada?

Considering this new development, the Travel Manitoba info centre, the little kiosk in the Forks Market, and the multi-purpose visitor/community centre that's planned to eventually go beside Citytv – seems like we could end up with a confusing, redundant group of similar buildings at The Forks. Then add the eventual UFG Interpretive Centre which will likely also have some multifunction space...

Parks Canada is the client and developer.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by Biff

So if I were to hypothesize wildly....from earlier reports I heard that Skip was looking for a campus style office development with possibly three to four, six to ten storey buildings. If this has now been reduced to two buildings they could possibly be in the in the 15 to 20 storey range?

Again pure speculation on my part and I am totally with the concept of keeping things dense in the 4 to 6 storey height for the Railside Project, but...this does kind of excite me a bit regarding the views coming over the Provencher Bridge in into downtown.

i dont see taller building on the periphery of the site being an issue with Parcel 4. The area could still support a high density low rise urban neighborhood, it's been done in other cities around the world, if done right, the two can co existing in harmony.

(if those are the building layouts) i don't like the north-south orientated building, it leaves that pie shaped pocket cut off from the rest of the site, i could see that area ending up a parking lot which is not at all ideal. Id rather see the building east-west with maximum street frontage along WSW.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

(if those are the building layouts) i don't like the north-south orientated building, it leaves that pie shaped pocket cut off from the rest of the site, i could see that area ending up a parking lot which is not at all ideal. Id rather see the building east-west with maximum street frontage along WSW.

Exactly what I was thinking.

It would be interesting to see those two buildings in context, though... I'm sure FNP must have a pretty clear idea by now as to how the rest of the parcel would fill out, so perhaps it makes more sense if we could see the bigger picture.