Winnipeg Construction VIII

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by esquire

So every bad idea in the city should be given the OK because "it's what Winnipeg wants"? Seriously?

No, it shouldn't happen, but it does.

Winnipeg is a car city. I don't like it that way, but that's how it is.

[Cyro]

Wow...23-12 Storey residential complexes with underground parking? That's 276 floors of residential, what would a similar scenario be with all single family dwellings instead? Your regular sub burb.Surrounded by Greenpeace with no surface parking lots? What was the Edmonton Firms proposal.

It looks like thier is density in a park like setting.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Riverman

No, it shouldn't happen, but it does.

Winnipeg is a car city. I don't like it that way, but that's how it is.

Your defeatist sentiments aside, what does being a car city have to do with this plan?

The reality is that people at the U of M walk from building to building, regardless of how they arrive on campus... this concept, if built as shown, will force them to do that in isolation, through barren snow-covered fields, and will inhibit the development of an improved campus community.

This is probably the worst city planning concept in this city since the Canalta hotel was pitched for The Forks.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by rypinion

Sounds like city hall is starting to 'get' that surburban developments cost money:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...230517851.html

What I find very very funny about this is the fact that Fielding said he left EPC because of this... So, Mr. Fielding wants to leave EPC so he can run for mayor while at the same time not charging development fees. I love this guy!

I hope he wins -- Winnipeggers would do well with this guy. Another 4 years of tax freezes and so little in infrastructure spending that a bridge ends up collapsing.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by esquire

Your defeatist sentiments aside, what does being a car city have to do with this plan?

It's amazing how you see reality as defeatism.

Widely spaced towers, underground parking and as was said, virtually no walkability. Big box stores with ample parking close by. Throw in our winter conditions and it screams car city to me.

I'm looking at this as a residential neighbourhood not really associated with the university.

[Biff]

soooooo, I don't quite get it. What is the purpose of all of the huge segregated fields of grass? I could sort of understand a park like setting where it is all one shared park-like setting with buildings around it's fringes but they are all segregated by roads and forest. They are all totally closed off from each other. What a grounds keeping nightmare.

It looks like a giant high end suburb for slab condo blocks.


Wow, what a disappointment. Unless i am missing something, this could be used as an opposite definition for density in the dictionary.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Riverman

No, it shouldn't happen, but it does.

Winnipeg is a car city. I don't like it that way, but that's how it is.

http://www.dpz.com/Practice/0817

I would love if DPZ or PlaceMakers were brought in to do the planning for U of M... I think we could do so much with 120 extra acres directly beside the University. What they are proposing is just crazy to me.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

What I find very very funny about this is the fact that Fielding said he left EPC because of this... So, Mr. Fielding wants to leave EPC so he can run for mayor while at the same time not charging development fees. I love this guy!

I hope he wins -- Winnipeggers would do well with this guy. Another 4 years of tax freezes and so little in infrastructure spending that a bridge ends up collapsing.

Exactly - I've been planning to bring this up. When I saw that I was like "wait - THIS is the 'tax' you quit EPC over?" He's completely lost me on his mayoral plans.

[Cyro]

The Rosenberg-led group, which also includes Toronto consulting firm Arup and Winnipeg firms Cibinel Architects and Landmark Planning & Design, proposed to make riverbank redevelopment and open spaces more important than land-use concerns when the university develops Southwood and adds amenities to other portions of its Fort Garry campus.

"They, more than anyone, got the concept of 'landscape first,' " said Michelle Richard, director of the U of M's planning office, referring to the Rosenberg-led team.

Generally, land use is the chief concern during the development of a planning framework. The university, which has a city-planning school, placed a greater emphasis on landscape design in an effort to raise the bar for development in Winnipeg.

"We're strongly committed to that. It will be part of the project definition," said David Barnard, the U of M's president and vice-chancellor. "We have these expectations we like to meet."

But at this stage, both the new master plan for the Fort Garry campus and the Southwood-area plan are strictly in the conceptual phase.

winnipegfreepress.com

I guess the UM has no idea of the concept they want to present?? Right?

[TR_Chick]

Ugh this plan as stated previously here is HORRIBLE. The original posting had nothing to do with landscaping as an emphasis! It was all about building a walkable mid to high density community to integrate the neighbourhood with Pembina and surrounding areas and have mixed use areas... this well, BARF. This isolates the area even more and has no vision what so ever!

In addition, they obviously know nothing about geography, because the areas where they have the marinas are so unstable it isn't even funny! it is in an inward curve of the river which means that it is an active erosion zone! Give me a break. The University and city could do so much better. I hope they have another open house to get feedback on the winner because they will get slammed so hard its not even funny.

[Cyro]

^^ I love this debate, all the expert urban planners,designers, architects up high have all the answers, lol..but none of the experts will go out on a limb and tell us what should be done? Just what's wrong..., this is what we should do...welcome to our city of whine, that parts easy...but solutions...not so much...hilarious.

Re visit the conceptual proposal in mid 2015...then you can BARF all you want.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by TR_Chick

In addition, they obviously know nothing about geography, because the areas where they have the marinas are so unstable it isn't even funny! it is in an inward curve of the river which means that it is an active erosion zone!

It's been awhile since I've been down that far so I forget what the banks look like, and I know little about how accurate these marina depictions are but having a dock in the river for 23 years, I know that everything has to be removable as spring ice tears up everything.

Also, all dock ramps have to mounted quite high up the banks to make the facility use able during periods of high water. A large dock set like the one shown would either have to be cabled to the bank (dangerous) or built quite stoutly and be cantilevered. Stout usually means heavy.

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by esquire

Your defeatist sentiments aside, what does being a car city have to do with this plan? .

You want some defeatist sentiments!! Take THIS!

Good news is many major projects proposed in this city never happen, hopefully that happens to this nightmare.

It reminds me of a slightly better looking communist block from the 50's. I can only imagine those massive fields will be redeveloped sometime down the road into more low income/student condos/apartments.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by Biff

soooooo, I don't quite get it. What is the purpose of all of the huge segregated fields of grass? I could sort of understand a park like setting where it is all one shared park-like setting with buildings around it's fringes but they are all segregated by roads and forest. They are all totally closed off from each other. What a grounds keeping nightmare.

It looks like a giant high end suburb for slab condo blocks.


Wow, what a disappointment. Unless i am missing something, this could be used as an opposite definition for density in the dictionary.

I keep thinking there is some feature that was sold - like the boats - to make the reviewers overlook the deficiencies...sort of like they only looked at the lipstick instead of the pig and jumped directly to "sold!"

those blown up images of the plan are just....

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

Good news is many major projects proposed in this city never happen, hopefully that happens to this nightmare.

This is a sad commentary in it self, really it is.But forums are based on opinion, which makes debate interesting. It's hard to keep positive, but we'll try.

[TR_Chick]

Originally Posted by Riverman

It's been awhile since I've been down that far so I forget what the banks look like, and I know little about how accurate these marina depictions are but having a dock in the river for 23 years, I know that everything has to be removable as spring ice tears up everything.

Also, all dock ramps have to mounted quite high up the banks to make the facility use able during periods of high water. A large dock set like the one shown would either have to be cabled to the bank (dangerous) or built quite stoutly and be cantilevered. Stout usually means heavy.

I bike along the area of the river that would be developed on a daily basis in the summer as that is where the bike access is to campus from the main trails, and all along the bank there are warnings of an unstable bank, but basically as the river is winding, the outer parts cut deeper, and deposit to the inner ring as the river spreads out. Eventually when the river cuts itself too deep, it cuts off the loop (like what it wants to do but we have prevented at Kingston Row). Also agreed on the ice dangers too!

[Andy6]

It's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever seen. It looks like a screen capture from a 1990s version of Sim City, after it was played for 10 minutes by a bored six year old. It's not a concept of anything. Look, for pete's sake, at what makes other university-area precincts lively and wonderful in places around North America (such as where I have lived personally, in the Harvard-MIT area and the University of Toronto neighbourhood). It's not isolated commieblocks-in-the-forest or unrealistic boat docks that would never be seen again after one season.

[Cyro]

To fall into line with 99% of the posters reg: this conceptual proposal I will add this image on my suggestion on what to do with the land in question. No other suggestions have been presented.


Source

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Cyrodill

^^ I love this debate, all the expert urban planners,designers, architects up high have all the answers, lol..but none of the experts will go out on a limb and tell us what should be done? Just what's wrong..., this is what we should do...welcome to our city of whine, that parts easy...but solutions...not so much...hilarious.

Re visit the conceptual proposal in mid 2015...then you can BARF all you want.

The link I have above is exactly what I think an extra 120 acres of land on the University should look like, and while I'm not an expert or a professional I think that quite a few people here would agree with something near this idea.

[esquire]

What Andy6 said.

To add to his comments, I've circled the best part of the campus. Make the new parts of the campus as much like this as possible:



This part of campus is the best because it's filled with people, activity and buildings in close proximity with each other. In recent years the U of M has started to add residences which is a plus, because it adds life to the area, especially after hours.

Building the concept as shown would turn the U of M into a laughing stock. A bunch of isolated towers in a forest... yeesh. Way to build a campus.