Winnipeg | Forks Redevelopment | Parcel 4 - Rail Side Initiative | Proposals

[TRiToNDREyJA]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Fair enough, but unless someone is willing to do a lot better than most of the suburban box and stucco crap.....if it's not going to be something exceptional, leave the land alone!

I actually agree

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Fair enough, but unless someone is willing to do a lot better than most of the suburban box and stucco crap.....if it's not going to be something exceptional, leave the land alone!

You know what I completely agree with you. Imo there are 3 better ways to utilize the site.

1. Go full on with making it a tourist destination and provide amenities like a recreation campus and idk a indoor waterpark

2. Explore it's historical significance and make the parking lots an archaeological site. There's at least 6,0000 years of known history at the Forks. Imagine what kinds of findings could be excavated here.

3. Go the educational route and just build a massive high school there. I'm talking a high school bigger then Sisler. There's already enough elementary and middle schools in or adjacent to Downtown. However, it seems like once someone living in Downtown gets past grade 9 they have too make a decently sized commute. With the Forks there's already so many amenities a school could utilize such as Shaw Park, Human Rights Museum, theatre, market, green space etc... I think it would also be the best way to get rid of our surface parking lot problem because if there is a state of the art high school next to a historic site it would induce quite a bit of demand for families to move to Downtown. Also, having 2,000 kids in the area everyday should improve safety issues a bit by having more eyes on the street, and even improve retail in Downtown since high school kids are massive consumers and usually work retail anyway.

[bomberjet]

There's some on here that are more in the know than I. But the build out timeline for railside is 30 years. Not sure what the start date is on that, as it's been many years already.

They're installing the mechanical bits for the geothermal district heating system in the near future. The rest of the infrastructure I have no clue where that is at. But generally, water/sewer/ etc are relatively easy to install for servicing if the main runs are adequate (eg. existing sewer capacity).

My opinion. The final built-out concept seems great. But my fear is we'll get like 1 or 2 buildings in a wind swept corner of the gravel parking lot. And nothing more for many years. My hope is that will not be the case, of course. And we'll get a decent set of buildings at the start, that will at the tone for future phases. From the design concepts that we've seen, the building are not the stucco boxes of Bridgwater.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Fair enough, but unless someone is willing to do a lot better than most of the suburban box and stucco crap.....if it's not going to be something exceptional, leave the land alone!

because western canada's largest urban parking lot is something to celebrate.

Railside has been delayed because it took years for the forks to convince the province to give them a TIF to build the infrastructure and public realm. They aren't a developer with money to do that.

It will be wildly successful...the fact that not one of the developers that was chosen three years ago has dropped out shows the demand they believe it will have....they are all ready to go as soon as they get the green light.

A housing development isn't the forks' thing....it takes time.....residential development is by far the highest and best use of those gravel parking lots.

[Hecate]

Who are these developers and who chose them? How ethical was the selection process? Why would anyone jump ship when you’re basically getting free land to build and sell condos on? Who would walk away from that deal? Lol.

[trueviking]

free land? LOL

There was an RFP process. LOL

[trueviking]

That is actually another reason the development has taken longer than a typical Bridgwater subdivision...the land is owned by three levels of government, and the developments will use a long-term lease structure. This is not typical in Manitoba and had to be worked through.

There was also archaeology.

[rivercity]

^and contamination

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by trueviking

because western canada's largest urban parking lot is something to celebrate.

Railside has been delayed because it took years for the forks to convince the province to give them a TIF to build the infrastructure and public realm. They aren't a developer with money to do that.

It will be wildly successful...the fact that not one of the developers that was chosen three years ago has dropped out shows the demand they believe it will have....they are all ready to go as soon as they get the green light.

A housing development isn't the forks' thing....it takes time.....residential development is by far the highest and best use of those gravel parking lots.

I think everyone else understood the point I was making, if what's built isn't exceptional then don't bother, we don't need stucco or watered down architecture. No one is advocating for gravel parking lots!

[trueviking]

all this being said....it is going waaaaay slower than it should.

[trueviking]

I actually think the neighbourhood is more important than the individual buildings themselves....if they aren't all architectural marvels, I'm ok with that. As long as they make very good public spaces around them.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I actually think the neighbourhood is more important than the individual buildings themselves....if they aren't all architectural marvels, I'm ok with that. As long as they make very good public spaces around them.

I remember seeing site plans for Railside where the 'public spaces' between buildings looked like would have won a town planning award in 1953: little relationship between buildings and the public street, a network of quasi-public/ quasi-private pedestrian walkway and 'squares.' I hope this has been redesigned to create a bit more of an urban context.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by wardlow

I remember seeing site plans for Railside where the 'public spaces' between buildings looked like would have won a town planning award in 1953: little relationship between buildings and the public street, a network of quasi-public/ quasi-private pedestrian walkway and 'squares.' I hope this has been redesigned to create a bit more of an urban context.

Yup.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by trueviking

free land? LOL

There was an RFP process. LOL

So will the developers be paying a specific amount upfront for the land? Or will the lease be paid out over time by occupants? Along with TIF too, Plus the geothermal for the buildings, it’s a pretty cushy deal.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by wardlow

I remember seeing site plans for Railside where the 'public spaces' between buildings looked like would have won a town planning award in 1953: little relationship between buildings and the public street, a network of quasi-public/ quasi-private pedestrian walkway and 'squares.' I hope this has been redesigned to create a bit more of an urban context.

for the non-urban planner like me, but who might consider buying a place there when i'm a empty nester, what would make it more "urban context"?

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

for the non-urban planner like me, but who might consider buying a place there when i'm a empty nester, what would make it more "urban context"?

A little bit less of this warren of semi-public public walkway spaces away from the public streets, and a little more orienting the buildings toward the streets, especially toward York Avenue and Waterfront Drive (or whatever it's called here), which are obviously important links between the Forks and the rest of downtown.



This plan for Railside (from 2017) looks like more of the same housing project site planning you find in Winnipeg's Lord Selkirk Park or Toronto's Regent Park. Yes, the buildings are more densely packed, and will accommodate mixed uses, but the same issues of the old housing projects arise: who does the semi-public space between buildings belong to -- is it private, or is it public?

(A second good question is, how does anyone aside from able-bodied men feel about navigating a network of semi-private blind alleys?)

Nothing at all wrong with a hierarchy of streets, so you have the major existing streets, and then create lesser local lanes, or mews, or woonerfs, but it would need to be a little more ordered than what this plan from 2017 showed, albeit vaguely.

[esquire]

Imagine pushing Waterfront Drive 100 feet west and having room for a proper urban street with buildings lining both sides... sigh.

[bomberjet]

I'd be less inclined to orient anything to York Ave. It's sunken, and will remain the 4 lane thoroughfare through the area. There is a planned walkway overtop I believe.

But orient more to Izzy Asper Way and then a new street parallel to Izzy Asper that the new building would face. Instead of the jaggedness of the proposal.

We looked at the internal walkways, and there is connectivity to the outside of the internal squares. It would seem better though, to just have a long straight street, with opening between some of the building for access.

[bomberjet]

Maybe when you get down to the granular level of the plan, the square type areas aren't so bad.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by wardlow

A little bit less of this warren of semi-public public walkway spaces away from the public streets, and a little more orienting the buildings toward the streets, especially toward York Avenue and Waterfront Drive (or whatever it's called here), which are obviously important links between the Forks and the rest of downtown.



This plan for Railside (from 2017) looks like more of the same housing project site planning you find in Winnipeg's Lord Selkirk Park or Toronto's Regent Park. Yes, the buildings are more densely packed, and will accommodate mixed uses, but the same issues of the old housing projects arise: who does the semi-public space between buildings belong to -- is it private, or is it public?

(A second good question is, how does anyone aside from able-bodied men feel about navigating a network of semi-private blind alleys?)

Nothing at all wrong with a hierarchy of streets, so you have the major existing streets, and then create lesser local lanes, or mews, or woonerfs, but it would need to be a little more ordered than what this plan from 2017 showed, albeit vaguely.

Safety is going to need to be a big priority, anyone who doesn't think its going to be a huge priority is clueless!

Ideally ground level of whatever is built should be some sort of commercial component, whether it be retail, restaurants or professional.