Winnipeg | The Forks Market | Railside at The Forks

[Cyro]

Let's try to be clear on potential developments on the site(s) in question. 6 floors is the MAXIMUM height allowable being proposed. This area may have 4 storey structures, maybe 2? (Those involved in RFP's can correct me if I'm wrong).

Do you feel different knowing 6 is the max.? It may be much less.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Cyro

Let's try to be clear on potential developments on the site(s) in question. 6 floors is the MAXIMUM height allowable being proposed. This area may have 4 storey structures, maybe 2? (Those involved in RFP's can correct me if I'm wrong).

Do you feel different knowing 6 is the max.? It may be much less.

IMO 4-6 storeys are sufficient for the reasons given by vike, but if it were up to me I'd set aside a small patch of land on the site for a potential 20-30 storey tower in case the area really takes off. If it doesn't, then FNP can build one more 4-6 storey building.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by esquire

IMO 4-6 storeys are sufficient for the reasons given by vike, but if it were up to me I'd set aside a small patch of land on the site for a potential 20-30 storey tower in case the area really takes off. If it doesn't, then FNP can build one more 4-6 storey building.

Can't this be accomplished by fulfilling the plan set forth on the Forks Sites with 6 storey buildings and then, if "things take off" filling all the surface parking lots 200 ft away across the tracks along Main St and around the Nutty Club Buildings with 30 storey towers.

Everyone wins.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Biff

Can't this be accomplished by fulfilling the plan set forth on the Forks Sites with 6 storey buildings and then, if "things take off" filling all the surface parking lots 200 ft away across the tracks along Main St and around the Nutty Club Buildings with 30 storey towers.

Everyone wins.

Biff's problem solving is on point today, good work

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

This is exactly trueviking's point about skyscrapers being good for postcards but not much else. What looks nice on a postcard is not necessarily the same as what makes for a lively, functional urban area.

Exactly. Look at our postcard right now. Esplanade Riel and CMHR look great, but you actually can't tell that 75% of its immediate surroundings is surface parking.

Originally Posted by esquire

Personally, I'd vote for the lowrise 6-storey buildings not because I think towers don't provide desirable streetscapes, but for the reason that it's attainable. vike's comment below is my main fear regarding what would happen if residential at The Forks was planned as a group of 30 storey towers

This is a very Winnipeg scenario...

Precisely. I'd rather fill all the surface lots abutting the tracks (the Main side included) with medium density than throw everyone at The Forks, likely not have great street presence, and still have South Main sit empty and desolate.

Originally Posted by esquire

IMO 4-6 storeys are sufficient for the reasons given by vike, but if it were up to me I'd set aside a small patch of land on the site for a potential 20-30 storey tower in case the area really takes off. If it doesn't, then FNP can build one more 4-6 storey building.

This is a good idea.

Side note, not 100% sure but IIRC there is a 4 storey minimum. The thing to remember here is this is a planned neighbourhood owned by 1 entity (essentially). So they will be able to nitpick every detail of every development. If there's something they don't like, they won't allow it. It's not like a developer is magically going to have free will to build a duplex at Railside.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Side note, not 100% sure but IIRC there is a 4 storey minimum. The thing to remember here is this is a planned neighbourhood owned by 1 entity (essentially). So they will be able to nitpick every detail of every development. If there's something they don't like, they won't allow it. It's not like a developer is magically going to have free will to build a duplex at Railside.

Yes, I've seen a planning committee, etc. , what have you, have oversight over an area,(with individual developers who actually own and develop the properties) and the outcome in the past.

Dev. of a supposed urban nature turning into something that resembles...suburbia. I'll wait to see how FNP rolls out the first few developments

[crocket]

Originally Posted by Biff

Can't this be accomplished by fulfilling the plan set forth on the Forks Sites with 6 storey buildings and then, if "things take off" filling all the surface parking lots 200 ft away across the tracks along Main St and around the Nutty Club Buildings with 30 storey towers.

Everyone wins.

Exactly.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Biff

Can't this be accomplished by fulfilling the plan set forth on the Forks Sites with 6 storey buildings and then, if "things take off" filling all the surface parking lots 200 ft away across the tracks along Main St and around the Nutty Club Buildings with 30 storey towers.

Everyone wins.

Yeah... and this is kind of why I haven't been committing to a particular side with my posts as there is no telling what the future holds. I think it's great that we all have strong feelings on this but it all boils down to speculation and subjection. I mean this project could all be residential or it could be mixed-use... Hell, it could be office space for all we know at this point.

Towers would have been a disaster. We would sit here for ten years as proposals came and went. Selling 1/3 then bailing. One would get built and everyone would rejoice and say now finally the other three will happen. More will be proposed. And die.

The economics of smaller buildings are far more appropriate for Winnipeg's market. Has anyone noticed how many years SkyCity is taking? The artis tower will be the worst investment they have ever made. And that's with a substantial TIF subsidy.

I absolutely agree. Don't get me wrong, I still don't think that low-rises is the entire essence of a dynamic urban neighbourhood and that the location of Parcel 4 is too prominent. But this discussion is really getting out of hand based on proposals that haven't even been proposed lol.

I will come back to this thread in a couple of years when the proposals have been submitted and state my clear opinions on the project(s) then.

[Cyro]

I'm not disagreeing with an architects opinion on the potential for this future, urban, neighborhood. I just wanted posters to realize, this development could contain a majority of 4 storey dwellings, maybe smaller in height. We'll see when we actually start hearing about the actual proposals.

[esquire]

^ Mainly 4-6 would be OK, but mainly 2-4 would be a bit of a letdown. This is still a central urban area we're talking about... we should have more density than something like this can provide:

[Cyro]

I agree, 2 floors^, possible at the forks, and that particular photo to illustrate your point,(looks like Man. Housing, in a really nice area of the city), would never happen. I'd consider 2 floors a Major let down, but we need someone involved in the project(s) or more detailed information on the MIN/MAX height of what may be built..and I don't have that personally..

[trueviking]

Buzzg you are correct. The Forks controls the process. They are looking for the right mix and will not accept two storey townhouses if they feel it won't provide the density or street presence appropriate to build an urban community. I actually do think that within the 30 building mix there could be a few two storey projects in key places.

The reality is though that most developers want to max out their investment and will build to the allowable maximum. The developers I dealt with all wanted more. It's counterintuitive to force six storey. I get why people are reacting the way they are. Most developers are the same.

I worked on the tower scheme too, but I really feel this has the opportunity to be something truly special. A real model of urban design. We know what a group of towers would be like. 30 buildings focused on small completely pedestrian lanes and courtyards will be something special. Something totally unique.

I should also say that the low Buildings is not seen as 'settling' or a compromise by the forks or the design team. Like we couldn't do better so we will just be happy with this. It is carefully calculated to create a specific type of neighbourhood. This is why if it is wildly popular with developers they won't say, ok let's all do towers. They don't see towers as better. In fact they see them as worse. They will not build the type of community they want.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by trueviking

.I actually do think that within the 30 building mix there could be a few two storey projects in key places.

.

Thx for the clarification, 2-6 is the min/max. being looked at.

[Urban recluse]

Let's see some bold designs and colors. I personally enjoy Netherlands architecture. Glass bricks? Oh yeah. They would adorn many heritage buildings in Winnipeg beautifully.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Let's see some bold designs and colors. I personally enjoy Netherlands architecture. Glass bricks? Oh yeah. They would adorn many heritage buildings in Winnipeg beautifully.

As long as it doesn't look like glass block...

[Wolf13]

Not to be that financial complainer again, but it depends on what our construction method options are, because theses determine our cost.

Nothing works if it doesn't check out financially. We'd end up with pretty, but empty buildings. Yes, we want more nice shit, but vibrancy is contingent to people, not structures.

4 storeys works. Wood construction is cheaper and proven.

6 storeys is a gray area... code will soon allow 6 storey wood construction, but with a lot of other costly requirments. It isn't proven to truly, consistently work outside of BC. Unless wood frame contractors from BC come in to do the job.... which would require a high enough volume of buildings to justify the trip, which would require a high enough interest from the population to fill these buildings.

Which could end in overbuilding. Other options include structural stud construction, but I don't know of many specialists that do that in Manitoba (could be wrong). 6 stoery concrete construction isn't that cost effective, and you make that money back by increasing structure density ie. going higher.

It might be more feasible to build 2-3 ten+ storey buildings than 4-5 six storey structures.

Yes there are ideals, but we must choose our ideals from a list of approaches that are achievable and financially responsible... that might be going 8-12 storeys twice rather than going low 5 times. And I'm quite sure we can still make that look pretty.


I still think that Biff's approach is best. Keep it to 4 storey wood construction, and hell, we know where the surface lots are should we have to grow more. But that is a citizen's perspective. We still have to live with whatever the developers choose to do to maximize their site.

[crocket]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Not to be that financial complainer again, but it depends on what our construction method options are, because theses determine our cost.

Nothing works if it doesn't check out financially. We'd end up with pretty, but empty buildings. Yes, we want more nice shit, but vibrancy is contingent to people, not structures.

4 storeys works. Wood construction is cheaper and proven.

6 storeys is a gray area... code will soon allow 6 storey wood construction, but with a lot of other costly requirments. It isn't proven to truly, consistently work outside of BC. Unless wood frame contractors from BC come in to do the job.... which would require a high enough volume of buildings to justify the trip, which would require a high enough interest from the population to fill these buildings.

Which could end in overbuilding. Other options include structural stud construction, but I don't know of many specialists that do that in Manitoba (could be wrong). 6 stoery concrete construction isn't that cost effective, and you make that money back by increasing structure density ie. going higher.

It might be more feasible to build 2-3 ten+ storey buildings than 4-5 six storey structures.

Yes there are ideals, but we must choose our ideals from a list of approaches that are achievable and financially responsible... that might be going 8-12 storeys twice rather than going low 5 times. And I'm quite sure we can still make that look pretty.


I still think that Biff's approach is best. Keep it to 4 storey wood construction, and hell, we know where the surface lots are should we have to grow more. But that is a citizen's perspective. We still have to live with whatever the developers choose to do to maximize their site.

There is no way anyone would build wood frame there, even by Winnipeg El cheapo standards, you can't do 6 plus wood anyway, but that would be sacrilege. These would have to be mid priced to higher end loft type condos to be marketable.

The 6 story range is perfect. I was just in NY and when you look around the East Village, Brooklyn, Upper East Side, it's all low to mid. Obviously they have high rise anchors in some places but the amount of 5-12 story buildings is what makes those neighborhoods so interesting. Of course, the Exchange is a perfect example just down the way.
Ex.

[Urban recluse]

The charm along streets such as those has to do with the age of the buildings, and the materials used. If such buildings were built at the Forks (ie: King Street parkade), the vibe would be amazing. Cheap materials must not be allowed.

[crocket]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

The charm along streets such as those has to do with the age of the buildings, and the materials used. If such buildings were built at the Forks (ie: King Street parkade), the vibe would be amazing. Cheap materials must not be allowed.

Agreed, they've done a good job in NY with new brick, reclaimed brick or just blasted brick to look the part on the newer buildings that blend with the old.

[Urban recluse]

http://inhabitat.com/glass-bricks-st...ewgallery=true