Winnipeg | Downtown | The Forks Market | Railside at The Forks

[Kris22]

Yikes that StreetSide proposal is just too basic for the Forks. It's a rectangle box with extremely minimal effort put in to give it some visual interest. I'd hope for higher standards for the facades at Railside. There's much nicer buildings on Waterfront dr. and I'd expect at least that quality here. This proposal looks like it belongs buried in the residential parts of OV where not a lot of people see it.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Biff

^^^Well said WildCake

The plans are there for the first phase of residential buildings (6 or 7). The developers are ready to go. The issue was firstly with the approvals by City and Province. Apparently that is all complete. Now the issue is with the servicing. The developers are waiting for the Forks to service the site so they can begin construction. I have heard the Forks is having some Covid related revenue issues...vastly reduced parking income from Portage Place etc. The income that would be used for the servicing just isn't there. I'm not sure what the answer will be.

I've also been told that servicing is the hold up, but lots of that hold up centres around the geothermal. The entire Railside development was supposed to be powered by expanding the geothermal system that's currently under Festival Field. Was told it's a mix of budget and capability issues – it turns out that it will be a lot more complex and expensive to get the required geothermal capacity than they initially thought, so they are still sorting out if it will be feasible to do. I'm guessing likely they will end up servicing the new public buildings/amenities with geothermal, and connect the private buildings to the grid.

Originally Posted by Kris22

Yikes that StreetSide proposal is just too basic for the Forks. It's a rectangle box with extremely minimal effort put in to give it some visual interest. I'd hope for higher standards for the facades at Railside. There's much nicer buildings on Waterfront dr. and I'd expect at least that quality here. This proposal looks like it belongs buried in the residential parts of OV where not a lot of people see it.

I agree. It's of note though that these developments are being built on land leased from The Forks (99 years I believe) so the The Forks gets final sign off on design.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Agree 100% filling the forks with condos is not the answer. Just look at the exchange. The people buying there want it quiet past nine. Lol. The forks will attract the same type of crowd. Wealthy, older retired couples who own properties in other cities countries. I’d rather see the empty lots on Main Street filled up where the earls and train station parking lots are. Keep the forks free from residential. Put in some soccer pitches and baseball diamond. You want families living downtown? They need these types of amenities.

I’d rather see the new Métis centre commission a purpose built building for the site instead of trying to squeeze something into the bank at P&M, a museum/cultural centre would be much more appropriate use of the land than condos. Winnipeg has a gem here that should not be squandered for money. The forks is a national historic site and has been an important meeting site for indigenous peoples for literally thousands of years... sorry but FUCK the condos.

This times 1000s. I don't have the answers for "what should be at The Forks" but if we have gone with the early proposal to build condos there we wouldn't have the CMHR there today and might not even have it in Winnipeg. The space is too valuable to sell it off to the highest builder so a few people can have condos there. There are so many places not far across the tracks that are sitting under utilized that would be such much better fit for condos is there truly is that high of a demand for more in the downtown area.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

I think their views are heavily influenced by the city of Winnipeg. It's pretty common for new builds in Winnipeg to have zero or minimal ground level interaction. If you hear "condo building" and the image that comes to your mind is a building that you'll never interact with, I understand the fear of putting condo buildings in a public space.

[cut]

I'm honestly wondering if the "no" crowd has never been to a major city before and actually walked around and interacted with locations. Or if their travel experience is resorts or Disneyworld locations - something wholly dedicated to their gimmick. I'd hate for the Forks to be a place to buy shiny knickknacks, take a couple selfies, and leave because the only thing to do there is say you've been there.

Seems you perhaps haven't looked at the repeated fails attempts at the ground level commerical/public space in Winnipeg under something else. The Delta/Holiday Towers block next the the Convention Centre is the first failed attempt at this is Winnipeg although 175/185 Carlton still try to limp along and hold up a pretense of public space while outside of East India Company 155 has just completely thrown in the towel and the Japanese themed park seems lost to most. The street facing units on Holiday Towers well there is definitely a thriving retail block. /s

Attempt number two was Place Promenade behind Portage Place, aka the downtown retail that actually exists in Winnipeg which everyone would love to see erased. Place Promenade was designed with low speed streets and ground level retail/commercial units. That so few people here talk about that shows just how hard it failed. And the residential units were initially marketed as high end spaces for working professionals. Again this model didn't work here.

Attempt number three the Waterfront condos. Much was made about the street level commerical/retail spaces. Take a look how that actually turned out and let me know if it is something we should repeat over at The Forks.

Attempt number four CentrePoint. Where a busy block of downtown retail gets demolished to make way for a new development which promised street level commercial spaces under a parkade toped with a residential tower. After the builds were removed we instead got a parkade next to the residential tower and zero retail/commerical space permanently killing one of the small street level retail areas left in downtown Winnipeg.

Attempt number five - True North Square. Too early to fully make the call here but blank walls facing streetside and most of the retail/commercial space being on the second floor it definitely does not look promising longer term.

Do we really need to do this sort of long term damage at The Forks chasing after some idealized model from another city? Clearly the concept has been tried here and it just doesn't work. Repeating it again isn't going to get a different result.

[GreyGarden]

I never like the argument that what works in other cities cannot work here. I also don't think that CRUs are needed to make for a pleasant walking experience. I don't find walking next to a wall of glass with a Rexall in it in central Toronto to be a particularly pleasant experience either. Walking past a nicely designed lobby on a narrow street is a better experience than that.

We've built something special in the Forks market. In my opinion, the problem is that its cut off and isolated from the rest of downtown and the Exchange. To me it seems like such a good idea to try and bring these different areas together. I just don't think more parks and "cultural centres" are really going to achieve that.

I also think there are lots of people who wouldn't live downtown but would live at the Forks. So while the market is similar, I do think its different. Anecdotally I have some friends, who happen to be women, who have expressed concerns about the safety and lack of people downtown, but have said that they'd love to live at the Forks.

My main concern with this project is that the buildings will end up looking "cheap". I think if that can be avoided, this will be really good for Winnipeg.

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Seems you perhaps haven't looked at the repeated fails attempts at the ground level commerical/public space in Winnipeg under something else. The Delta/Holiday Towers block next the the Convention Centre is the first failed attempt at this is Winnipeg although 175/185 Carlton still try to limp along and hold up a pretense of public space while outside of East India Company 155 has just completely thrown in the towel and the Japanese themed park seems lost to most. The street facing units on Holiday Towers well there is definitely a thriving retail block. /s

Attempt number two was Place Promenade behind Portage Place, aka the downtown retail that actually exists in Winnipeg which everyone would love to see erased. Place Promenade was designed with low speed streets and ground level retail/commercial units. That so few people here talk about that shows just how hard it failed. And the residential units were initially marketed as high end spaces for working professionals. Again this model didn't work here.

Attempt number three the Waterfront condos. Much was made about the street level commerical/retail spaces. Take a look how that actually turned out and let me know if it is something we should repeat over at The Forks.

Attempt number four CentrePoint. Where a busy block of downtown retail gets demolished to make way for a new development which promised street level commercial spaces under a parkade toped with a residential tower. After the builds were removed we instead got a parkade next to the residential tower and zero retail/commerical space permanently killing one of the small street level retail areas left in downtown Winnipeg.

Attempt number five - True North Square. Too early to fully make the call here but blank walls facing streetside and most of the retail/commercial space being on the second floor it definitely does not look promising longer term.

Do we really need to do this sort of long term damage at The Forks chasing after some idealized model from another city? Clearly the concept has been tried here and it just doesn't work. Repeating it again isn't going to get a different result.

I'm not really sure how you got that out of me literally saying "It's pretty common for new builds in Winnipeg to have zero or minimal ground level interaction" 1 sentence earlier...

But, anywhoooooo... onto the rest. You've managed to list off a series of things that had zero foot traffic and were part of random failed mega projects to bring people back downtown (convention centre, portage place), an area that didn't previously exist and has had some rising levels of success (Waterfront) as the rest of the exchange around it continues to develop, and ignored the new building on Portage/Donald as part of CentrePoint that is fully occupied on the ground level and quite successful.

The difference between your list is the Forks isn't a desolate part of downtown with a project designed to hopefully bring people there.

I'm looking forward to the 1/8th of this that you read and respond to

[Biff]

^^^I took a cursory look at you post and this one part stood out:

I believe "anywho" should have two O's....like anywhoo. That is just my opinion.

[esquire]

Any. Who.

Anywho.

It's just logical.

[Wigglez]

From a quick look on Google:

The definition of anywho is a slang word used in place of anyhow, anyway or however. An example of anywho is what a person would say before going from one uninteresting topic to another.

and

AnyWho has a consumer rating of 2.78 stars from 9 reviews indicating that most customers are generally dissatisfied with their purchases. Consumers complaining about AnyWho most frequently mention phone number problems. AnyWho ranks 14th among People Search sites.

It looks like 'anywho' is the correct spelling and also a really terrible "people search site" (whatever that is).

[Biff]

...but you need to drag on the whooo, like you are board of the conversation. It's English 101. I want to feel like you are rolling your eyes.

pfffft - the internet, what does it know.

[esquire]

[Wigglez]

ohhhhhhhh so you're looking for the eye rolling annoyed "anywhooooooooooooooooo...."

ok I got ya and agree. I've updated the previous post to reflect this correction. thank you for your input!

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

I never like the argument that what works in other cities cannot work here. I also don't think that CRUs are needed to make for a pleasant walking experience. I don't find walking next to a wall of glass with a Rexall in it in central Toronto to be a particularly pleasant experience either. Walking past a nicely designed lobby on a narrow street is a better experience than that.

We've built something special in the Forks market. In my opinion, the problem is that its cut off and isolated from the rest of downtown and the Exchange. To me it seems like such a good idea to try and bring these different areas together. I just don't think more parks and "cultural centres" are really going to achieve that.

I also think there are lots of people who wouldn't live downtown but would live at the Forks. So while the market is similar, I do think its different. Anecdotally I have some friends, who happen to be women, who have expressed concerns about the safety and lack of people downtown, but have said that they'd love to live at the Forks.

My main concern with this project is that the buildings will end up looking "cheap". I think if that can be avoided, this will be really good for Winnipeg.

from my observations.

looking at the bdc holiday plazza failure and cru. well part of the issue is design of the erra and the fact the larger plan for the area was never completed witch invvled more residential but instead w ewould up with feilds of parking with a n island of this where it sits.

place prominand. neat idea was never exicuted proper.
you walk down that street and its got no scale its like it was an aftershot of a backlane that had some token ideas tossed at it not very inviting..

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Seems you perhaps haven't looked at the repeated fails attempts at the ground level commerical/public space in Winnipeg under something else. The Delta/Holiday Towers block next the the Convention Centre is the first failed attempt at this is Winnipeg although 175/185 Carlton still try to limp along and hold up a pretense of public space while outside of East India Company 155 has just completely thrown in the towel and the Japanese themed park seems lost to most. The street facing units on Holiday Towers well there is definitely a thriving retail block. /s

Attempt number two was Place Promenade behind Portage Place, aka the downtown retail that actually exists in Winnipeg which everyone would love to see erased. Place Promenade was designed with low speed streets and ground level retail/commercial units. That so few people here talk about that shows just how hard it failed. And the residential units were initially marketed as high end spaces for working professionals. Again this model didn't work here.

Attempt number three the Waterfront condos. Much was made about the street level commerical/retail spaces. Take a look how that actually turned out and let me know if it is something we should repeat over at The Forks.

Attempt number four CentrePoint. Where a busy block of downtown retail gets demolished to make way for a new development which promised street level commercial spaces under a parkade toped with a residential tower. After the builds were removed we instead got a parkade next to the residential tower and zero retail/commerical space permanently killing one of the small street level retail areas left in downtown Winnipeg.

Attempt number five - True North Square. Too early to fully make the call here but blank walls facing streetside and most of the retail/commercial space being on the second floor it definitely does not look promising longer term.

Do we really need to do this sort of long term damage at The Forks chasing after some idealized model from another city? Clearly the concept has been tried here and it just doesn't work. Repeating it again isn't going to get a different result.

Just because it's been done badly -- and I agree it's been done extremely badly, over and over -- doesn't mean it can't work. It's not an "idealized model from another city", it's literally the way any city with a functioning street life works.

A lot of the developments that you mentioned are great examples of the naive "build it and they will come" approach to downtown planning that seems to predominate in Winnipeg. There seems to be a belief that adding CRUs literally anywhere is an inherently good thing, and then shock when a bustling street life doesn't magically appear simply because there are now one or two shops.

Place Promenade and Waterfront are two of the worst cases. Place Promenade is basically an alley tucked away behind a mall, leading from nowhere to nowhere (in the sense that you don't need to use it to get anywhere; it's no more efficient than using Ellice or Portage). You can put all the CRUs you want in a location like that, and make the streetscaping as attractive as you like, but it's doomed to fail from the start. The only foot traffic will be the people who are making a special point to visit those CRUs, plus a few people going to and from their apartments. Which is not nearly enough to sustain a vibrant street life. Whereas on Portage Ave you have hundreds of people going past every hour.

Waterfront Drive is basically the same thing. Yeah, it's a pretty street, but there is zero reason for anyone to be there unless they make a special point of going there. Whereas streets like Main and King have tons of people constantly pouring through for various reasons, which is way more conducive to prosperous ground-level commercial. King Street is always going to be busier than Waterfront Drive and thus it's always going to be a better location for thriving retail. A lot of people seem to have the idea that any street can be successful and vibrant, if only a few shops would open up there, but it really doesn't work that way.

Misguided attempts like the above are part of the reason why we've ended up with a smattering of retail units dispersed all across our overly large downtown, rather than being concentrated on a few streets that could be truly great urban environments. Instead we have so-so shopping streets like Portage and a few blocks in the Exchange, which could both be much better if the urban life was consolidated there rather than being spread out so that there's like one CRU limping along on every block.

With all that said, I don't think Railside at the Forks would necessarily fall into the group of failed attempts. If it's designed well, the Railside development should work as a route between downtown and the Forks, which means that people will naturally pass through there, giving it at least the hope of attracting enough foot traffic to sustain a vibrant street life. Plus, as other posters have said, the Forks has a different profile from the rest of downtown, and is attractive to many Winnipeggers who would otherwise shudder at the thought of spending time downtown.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

Misguided attempts like the above are part of the reason why we've ended up with a smattering of retail units dispersed all across our overly large downtown, rather than being concentrated on a few streets that could be truly great urban environments. Instead we have so-so shopping streets like Portage and a few blocks in the Exchange, which could both be much better if the urban life was consolidated there rather than being spread out so that there's like one CRU limping along on every block.

You're right in that most storefront retail downtown is a bunch of pretty underwhelming disconnected fragments. But that also arguably mirrors the level of demand...if demand for retail storefronts downtown suddenly surged for some reason to Chicago Michigan Avenue levels, then all of a sudden every building lining Portage Avenue would have main floor retail space. But because demand is so low, not a lot of spaces are made available... most of it is used as office space, lobby space, parkades, what have you.

As someone watching the situation for the last 25 years, I hate to say it but downtown streetfront retail is pretty well dead. Or at least it will be for many years post-covid. It is basically the domain of local neighbourhood services that every local suburban strip mall has, or nice but low-volume, somewhat low-rent type stuff like what you see in much of the Exchange (e.g. Tara Davis, Haberdashery, that kind of thing).

But that said, The Forks is a bit of a different animal and given the success of The Forks Market I think it is reasonable that there could be a different outcome in the Railside development... although I probably wouldn't bet on it.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

I'm not really sure how you got that out of me literally saying "It's pretty common for new builds in Winnipeg to have zero or minimal ground level interaction" 1 sentence earlier...

And right there you again make it clear you have zero understanding of downtown Winnipeg. From the redevelopment of the north side of Portage between Garry and Smith, Hydro Place, CentrePoint, Waterfront, True North Square, and even the Convention Centre expansion, there has been some level of ground level interaction. I cannot think of of a single new build in downtown Winnipeg after Portage Place which didn't include ground level interaction and even Portage Place itself was planned with street facing entrances to the retail units. It is pretty reasonable to say that none of them have done this really well but they attempted it. The chance of them getting it even remotely close to right at The Forks seems incredible slim.

And before you call it out, MTS Centre originally had the pro shop in the northwest corner, the ticket outlet on the northeast corner, and a couple food vendors open to the public (Tim Hortons and a series of others) on the south end when events were not happening.

Originally Posted by Wigglez

But, anywhoooooo... onto the rest. You've managed to list off a series of things that had zero foot traffic and were part of random failed mega projects to bring people back downtown (convention centre, portage place), an area that didn't previously exist and has had some rising levels of success (Waterfront) as the rest of the exchange around it continues to develop, and ignored the new building on Portage/Donald as part of CentrePoint that is fully occupied on the ground level and quite successful.

1. I did talk about CentrePoint. If you look at the before and after of the impact of CentrePoint is is actually a significant loss for that block. The northwest corner was home to sort of a strip mall development that was nearly fully occupied with some small restaurants and business. Near where the Glasshouse is now was home to the Wagon Wheel, a popular downtown lunch spot, and before True North took it over the southeast corner had been home to A&B Sound. After the development we have three restaurants and lost any other sort of retail. Further, what had been a productive corner trying to bridge downtown into the Exchange and the retail that has been happening to the north of Portage along Donald for decades is now more cut off due to the addition of a ground level parking structure. That's exactly what we don't need more of, but I guess you didn't bother to read all the way through my post before writing your reply.

2. Having "zero foot traffic and were part of random failed mega projects to bring people back downtown" is a perfect description for the Railside project at The Forks. Having walked from downtown to The Forks more than most people ever will I can tell you that York to William Stephenson Way along Isreel Asper Way is a dead zone and adding residential buildings, even with the perfect ground level spaces will do nothing to change that. The issue comes down to origin and destination of the foot traffic. Anyone walking from downtown to the Exchange is not going to come into the area on York and walk north. Even if the purposed route did not dead end at Shaw Park it is a significantly longer route. Coming the other way, downtown west of Main will for the most part stay west of Main even if Portage and Main opened to pedestrians. People are going to travel from their office up to about 3-5 blocks by foot and The Forks area is too far for most. The Exchange/Waterfront also lacks the volume needed to make Railside a thriving success even if you say the east Exchange is the origin, the Forks Market is the destination and extending the walking distance for evenings and weekends.

Based on all that, whatever goes in the Railside area needs to be a destination for traffic, not something that needs induced demand going past it in order to survive. It is why the CMHR is a perfect fit for the area. It is also why green space/athletic fields for downtown residents would be a better fit as that is a destination purpose.

Originally Posted by Wigglez

The difference between your list is the Forks isn't a desolate part of downtown with a project designed to hopefully bring people there.

I'm looking forward to the 1/8th of this that you read and respond to

Let's see if you bother to read this time, as I covered above, the railside area of The Forks is a desolate place and slapping up some condos there is exactly the sort of desperate project that has repeatedly failed in other parts of downtown Winnipeg. Considering us citizens currently own this large, undeveloped space on the edge of downtown we really deserve better than for it to be sold to the highest bidder for some cookie cutter residential condos and we should be raising our voice to demand better. If we don't we might as well let the condo developers that want in Assinboine Park take over that space too.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

Just because it's been done badly -- and I agree it's been done extremely badly, over and over -- doesn't mean it can't work. It's not an "idealized model from another city", it's literally the way any city with a functioning street life works.

A lot of the developments that you mentioned are great examples of the naive "build it and they will come" approach to downtown planning that seems to predominate in Winnipeg. There seems to be a belief that adding CRUs literally anywhere is an inherently good thing, and then shock when a bustling street life doesn't magically appear simply because there are now one or two shops.

[cut]

With all that said, I don't think Railside at the Forks would necessarily fall into the group of failed attempts. If it's designed well, the Railside development should work as a route between downtown and the Forks, which means that people will naturally pass through there, giving it at least the hope of attracting enough foot traffic to sustain a vibrant street life. Plus, as other posters have said, the Forks has a different profile from the rest of downtown, and is attractive to many Winnipeggers who would otherwise shudder at the thought of spending time downtown.

I covered it in my other post, due to how our streets are designed, and yes even if Portage and Main was open to pedestrians, the Railside area will never have significant foot traffic and never be a preferred route from downtown to The Forks. Most of the downtown streets have a slight southeast angle to them while the east Exchange has a slight northeast angle to them. This means if you are coming from west of Main and going to The Forks it if more beneficial to enter via York as it is a slightly shorter route and that matters when you are on foot with limited time such as a lunch hour.

No amount of building development is going to change the layout of the streets or the CN main line which define the property in question. It is also why Railside's "build it and they will come" approach is going to fail and be added to the list I posted previously.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I covered it in my other post, due to how our streets are designed, and yes even if Portage and Main was open to pedestrians, the Railside area will never have significant foot traffic and never be a preferred route from downtown to The Forks. Most of the downtown streets have a slight southeast angle to them while the east Exchange has a slight northeast angle to them. This means if you are coming from west of Main and going to The Forks it if more beneficial to enter via York as it is a slightly shorter route and that matters when you are on foot with limited time such as a lunch hour.

No amount of building development is going to change the layout of the streets or the CN main line which define the property in question. It is also why Railside's "build it and they will come" approach is going to fail and be added to the list I posted previously.

I don't follow you. I frequently walk from P&M to the Forks, and this is the most efficient route:



Straight through what will eventually be Railside. It's a natural corridor to connect P&M and the Forks.

[optimusREIM]

I don't see how adding new people to the area will be a bad thing? There's a lot of moaning about 'these things will never work' and lots of doom and gloom, and there will never be downtown retail and yada yada. What are you proposing? To just yield and cede the area to destitution? That would literally be the most Winnipeg response ever. There is good momentum in the core area, and it will continue. To simply throw in the towel would be to admit that there is no hope for the city. Get out if you don't like it.

[Wpg_Guy]

There has to be people, 24/7 in the neighborhood for successful retail to ever take hold, Something the downtown severely lacks. Organic growth will happen when there’s a critical mass of people, DT is not there yet.