Proposed Winnipeg Water Park

[trueviking]

^central park, stanley park, mount royal.....they all work because hundreds of thousands of people live immediately adjacent to them....that is not the case with the forks....there is no need for more green space at the Forks....the need is for residential development....it is a complete dead zone on tuesdays in february and every day after dark.....when the markets go from selling fudge to tourists to selling vegetables to people heading home to make dinner, the Forks will be a success.

the railside lands need to be high density residential......

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by trueviking

^central park, stanley park, mount royal.....they all work because hundreds of thousands of people live immediately adjacent to them....that is not the case with the forks....there is no need for more green space at the Forks....the need is for residential development....it is a complete dead zone on tuesdays in february and every day after dark.....when the markets go from selling fudge to tourists to selling vegetables to people heading home to make dinner, the Forks will be a success.

the railside lands need to be high density residential......

I know you have already written a similar story, but I really do think its time for another B.B article.

[trueviking]

Working on it.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Working on it.

I was walking passed the site on the way to the millennium library this morning, and I was thinking the exact same thing that you are. It is completely disconnected from anything that could possibly be considered a population hub. It is disconnect by Provencher, Waterfront and the rail tracks. In essence it would be a stand alone park, with nothing feeding it population wise. Waterfront and Provencher are too busy to allow efficient pedestrian access from the Forks, and as you said, the Forks is the only relevant population centre that could feed it, and it is dead after 5 pm anyways. All the park does is make absolutely sure that the Forks will never be connected to our downtown. And that as we all know is a huge mistake.

[alittle1]

Chris,

Just remember, no door is locked when there is no one is around.


One of the first things required to run for public office is; to have a cause, next, make your opinions known, and lastly, align yourself with people that will support your cause and consequently, you.

Also, don't lose the knapsack, it gives you the appearance that you are adventurous, and yes, youthful. Good luck.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I just spend three hours outside half naked (in my pyjama pants, no shoes, no shirt etc.) because I wasn't aware that my front door doesn't open from the outside, unlocked or not. Yeah, I will have to wait for Mayor Candidacy until after the common sense kicks in.... Mind you I have only been here 3 weeks, and I was never aware such doors existed.

Since when is it custom for civilians to walk faster when approached by a half naked man waving his arms in a "come here" gesture? Countless individuals did this as I tried to explain my situation. Ipods really do create a massive communication barrier. I finally found a house with the T.V. on, and in which the individual answered the door.

And in regards to cost, I have already looked that up and it is fairly cheap, less than a hundred dollars. But it is actually running a campaign that will really wear your pocket books, as in, if done successfully it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars. Evidently this is why millionaires tend to win elections.

Oh and the question in the second paragraph is hopefully obvious sarcasm.

[spiritedenergy]

Originally Posted by trueviking

^central park, stanley park, mount royal.....they all work because hundreds of thousands of people live immediately adjacent to them....that is not the case with the forks....there is no need for more green space at the Forks....the need is for residential development....it is a complete dead zone on tuesdays in february and every day after dark.....when the markets go from selling fudge to tourists to selling vegetables to people heading home to make dinner, the Forks will be a success.

the railside lands need to be high density residential......

the forks already have a produce/italian market doing very well it seems.

The problem with that lot and all the land at the forks is that it's right by the rail tracks... not easy to find people willing to live there.

I think parcel 4 should be used for something outstanding like the museum, so that the Forks will become the touristic attraction of Winnipeg. It could be a giant fountain, or a biome dome like the one in Montreal, or a huge tower like the CN tower. A destination, something people would want to go to visit or could see passing by with the train.

But what i find pathetic is the major who have no ideas about the site... he has really no business in being a major, does not have any vision apart from collecting taxes. So awful. Please, someone get rid of him ASAP.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by spiritedenergy

So awful. Please, someone get rid of him ASAP.

Like murder? Joking!

[alittle1]

Why not covered multi-use theater with an partial opening roof for the summer, but with some advance thinking into it. Could we have movies shown in it? How about a small to medium concert? Show art works? Go with a 'Gateway to the West Theme' with an arch partial hung over the CN trackage?

Let's get some creative juices flowing. Maybe start a new thread called, Creative Ideas for Parcel Four.

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by alittle1

Why not covered multi-use theater with an partial opening roof for the summer, but with some advance thinking into it. Could we have movies shown in it? How about a small to medium concert? Show art works? Go with a 'Gateway to the West Theme' with an arch partial hung over the CN trackage?

Let's get some creative juices flowing. Maybe start a new thread called, Creative Ideas for Parcel Four.

I think the current Scotia Bank stage should be re-developed into something like this (although I think that only the stage/screen needs to be covered...) A new stage with the capability to host concerts but also a movie screen. You could have free movie nights throughout the year. (summer movies every friday and saturday night and on special occasions throughout the winter).

[headhorse]

something similar Victoria does in Beacon Hill Park in August.

http://www.freebfilmfest.com/

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by headhorse

something similar Victoria does in Beacon Hill Park in August.

http://www.freebfilmfest.com/

The Assiniboine Park does this throughout the summer as well. There are many movies shown at the stage.

[spiritedenergy]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

Like murder? Joking!

lol maybe

I think Gerbasi should run as major, she could win...

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by spiritedenergy

lol maybe

I think Gerbasi should run as major, she could win...

I've got a love/hate relationship with her but one thing that is probable is that if she's ever elected to the big chair , you can kiss any high-rise projects goodbye . On the other hand , you'd finally get rapid transit rammed through .

Like I said ... love/hate .

[pollswpg]

Originally Posted by spiritedenergy

the forks already have a produce/italian market doing very well it seems.

The problem with that lot and all the land at the forks is that it's right by the rail tracks... not easy to find people willing to live there.

I think parcel 4 should be used for something outstanding like the museum, so that the Forks will become the touristic attraction of Winnipeg. It could be a giant fountain, or a biome dome like the one in Montreal, or a huge tower like the CN tower. A destination, something people would want to go to visit or could see passing by with the train.

But what i find pathetic is the major who have no ideas about the site... he has really no business in being a major, does not have any vision apart from collecting taxes. So awful. Please, someone get rid of him ASAP.

Honestly, rail tracks aren't that bad to live by. I like about 50 metres from a CN Line, and eve with my window open it's not that bad. It's comparable to living in St. James by the airport...the first time you hear it, its pretty loud but you get used to it quick.

Also, if a parkade or some sort of buffer was built behind the residential development then I'm sure that'd cut down on the noise.

It'd also be amazing if they could link Rapid Transit into Union Station sooner rather than later...that'd be another plus of living in that development.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by pollswpg

Honestly, rail tracks aren't that bad to live by. I like about 50 metres from a CN Line, and eve with my window open it's not that bad. It's comparable to living in St. James by the airport...the first time you hear it, its pretty loud but you get used to it quick.

Also, if a parkade or some sort of buffer was built behind the residential development then I'm sure that'd cut down on the noise.

It'd also be amazing if they could link Rapid Transit into Union Station sooner rather than later...that'd be another plus of living in that development.

Then, that station will finally be full of people for once!

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by Spocket

I've got a love/hate relationship with her but one thing that is probable is that if she's ever elected to the big chair , you can kiss any high-rise projects goodbye . On the other hand , you'd finally get rapid transit rammed through .

Like I said ... love/hate .

That isn't true at all. She is just very subjective to what the project is for, and she is very community orientated. She is very much for high rise projects downtown. She will however listen to what the community says in regards to suburban high rises. If the community doesn't want it, she will listen to them rather than shoving it down their throats.

The only problem with this method of counselling is that many outer neighbourhoods are filled with selfish NIMBY's and they will say no to any major development whether good or not. Therefore a line must be drawn between what is beneficial to the city, and what a vocal minority want.

For example a very vocal minority is against the Fort Rouge project, and even though I am very frustrated with the current contractor and his legal issues/history, the project overall is one of the most beneficial infill projects that Winnipeg has ever had. Yet NIMBY's don't like that we are turning into a big city, and would prefer our sprawling single family developments over medium to high density, multi family infill developments.

[spiritedenergy]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

That isn't true at all. She is just very subjective to what the project is for, and she is very community orientated. She is very much for high rise projects downtown. She will however listen to what the community says in regards to suburban high rises. If the community doesn't want it, she will listen to them rather than shoving it down their throats.

The only problem with this method of counselling is that many outer neighbourhoods are filled with selfish NIMBY's and they will say no to any major development whether good or not. Therefore a line must be drawn between what is beneficial to the city, and what a vocal minority want.

For example a very vocal minority is against the Fort Rouge project, and even though I am very frustrated with the current contractor and his legal issues/history, the project overall is one of the most beneficial infill projects that Winnipeg has ever had. Yet NIMBY's don't like that we are turning into a big city, and would prefer our sprawling single family developments over medium to high density, multi family infill developments.

i am not totally opposed to NIMBYs though, just because they actually favor downtown. Being that Winnipeg is anot a huge metropolis, it's kind of right for highrises to concentrate downtown and then expand from there gradually, while keeping the rest suburban. So if people in whyte ridge want the suburban lifestyle they can have it, while others who want the more urban life will move downtown. I don't really like apartment buildings being built in random places in the suburbs close to big box stores, they promote suburban development more than anything

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by spiritedenergy

i am not totally opposed to NIMBYs though, just because they actually favor downtown. Being that Winnipeg is anot a huge metropolis, it's kind of right for highrises to concentrate downtown and then expand from there gradually, while keeping the rest suburban. So if people in whyte ridge want the suburban lifestyle they can have it, while others who want the more urban life will move downtown. I don't really like apartment buildings being built in random places in the suburbs close to big box stores, they promote suburban development more than anything

That's a good point. Then you really wouldn't like London, ON. It is a city full of random high-rises everywhere. I am still apposed to NIMBY's though, simply because their mentality is not for the city, but out of selfish desire to have everything the way that they like, whether or not it is beneficial to the city. We may not be a giant metropolis, but Winnipeg pretty much since its inception has been a major city. If people would like a suburban lifestyle, then it is best that they move to a place where high-density is not viable and avoid the risk.

As long as high rise developments are infill in nature, or a part of expansion I am all for them. As I have been informed sprawl will always occur, I would prefer high density sprawl than low density sprawl, that way it is limited in Nature and can provide a better opportunity for Active Transportation, and community diversity.