Winnipeg | Forks Redevelopment | Parcel 4 - Rail Side Initiative | Proposals - Page 7

eman · #**121** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 5:02 PM**

I am totally disappointed there are no tall slender towers. They are repeating the same damn tragedy that was done on Waterfront Drive. I f-ing hate those condos,, that could have been great. They are so short that even buying a $700000 penthouse you are not high enough to see the river,, across the street through the trees. WHY WHY WHY,,, fail once,,, ok,, but you are doing it again. Learn from your mistakes,,, get it right this time<< Please tell me its not too late to put up some slender towers? Density,,, do it right,,, or just leave it as a parking lot,,, forever.

6 stories is perfect?

BS. Tall and slender,, spaced apart. Small floor plates lets in plenty of light as sun moves across the sky.

6 floors,, with block long floor plates is simply a WALL. Waterfront Drive,,, look at at it,, its a WALL. Architects,, built a WALL.

Waterfront Drive,, could have been great,, block long floor plates of offices up to 4 floors the topped with a few slender apartment/condo towers 15 to 30 floors. That would provide plenty of pedestrian traffic and demand for cafes. The way it is is now,, the last place I would open a cafe is Waterfront Drive and nobody has. A Korean family hasn't even risk opening a convenience store.

Urban recluse · #**122** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 5:19 PM**

Plenty of room to achieve this along the river in Point Douglas. The European model of densely packed smaller buildings will create a better pedestrian environment, a more intimate experience while indulging in shopping, eating, drinking, etc. What irks me is the "25 year plan". Seriously? Too long.

Cyro · #**123** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 6:01 PM**

Let's update this a little with some info from the article:

Larger number of shorter buildings planned for Railside development at The Forks
Latest plan to build up The Forks also makes room for smaller developers

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...lans-1.3664124

Quote:

The latest plan to transform a large surface lot at The Forks into a mixed-use development calls for shorter buildings, less parking and a wider mix of developers.

The Forks Renewal Corporation has tweaked its plans to develop the 5.9-acre parcel of land known as the Railside development, which is sandwiched between the CN Rail highline and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

The new plan calls for 20 or more buildings on the Railside land to rise to a height of no more than six storeys in order to maintain a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere at The Forks, according to documents published by the city last week. The previous plan called for three large towers.....

"Now we have to wade through it all and figure out which are those we'd like to partner with," he said. "If out of these 15 to 20, we get three or four really good projects, I'd be delighted."

Jordan said The Forks will spend three or four months deciding on development partners. Then archeological work will be conducted at the site, which has been a gathering place for indigenous Canadians for 6,000 years.

Work on the new development should begin in 2018, Jordan said. In the mean time, The Forks will put off plans to develop Parcel Four, the 5.7-acre city-owned gravel parking lot to the north of the Railside land.....

"We are committing to a TIF," said council property chair John Orlikow (River Heights-Fort Garry), referring to tax-increment financing, the formal name for the funding mechanism that allows new property taxes to be returned to developers. "What that TIF will be, we'll have to wait and see what the plan is."

trueviking · #**124** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 6:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Plenty of room to achieve this along the river in Point Douglas. The European model of densely packed smaller buildings will create a better pedestrian environment, a more intimate experience while indulging in shopping, eating, drinking, etc. What irks me is the "25 year plan". Seriously? Too long.

it wont be 25 years....they will go as fast as possible...its just safe to not get everyone's hopes up.

Skyscraper neighbourhoods look good in post cards but they are rarely good urban places at ground level.

eman · #**125** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 6:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

it wont be 25 years....they will go as fast as possible...its just safe to not get everyone's hopes up.

Skyscraper neighbourhoods look good in post cards but they are rarely good urban places at ground level.

Have you ever lived higher than 10 floors in Winnipeg? Sunrises,, sunsets and the horizon that goes on forever. To get that at the Forks,, with all the great things within walking distance. Thats perfect. That would be our NYC Central Park. You're an architect,, I expect better from you. My wife and I are potential buyers,, to us 6 floor penthouse at the forks is a joke. If Waterfront Drive was a raging success,, then by all means repeat at the Forks,, but its not so don't do it.

If you are thinking of Fort Garry Place I would agree,, that is a bad example,, 3 towers with huge floor plates. Had they built 2 towers, small floor plates,, and an appropriately scaled podium and even taller towers it would be a very different.

Vancouverism

Urban recluse · #**126** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 6:32 PM**

Thanks. I was hoping that was the case. Taller towers on top of the right kind of podiums could still achieve the pedestrian friendly atmosphere.

Kronos · #**127** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 6:38 PM**

Perhaps the development at Railside and Parcel four will spur development across the tracks to all those empty lots on the east side of Main St.

esquire · #**128** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 7:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos

Perhaps the development at Railside and Parcel four will spur development across the tracks to all those empty lots on the east side of Main St.

If this development doesn't spur action on the east side of South Main, then I don't know what will. Office, hotel or residential towers there would offer the benefit of proximity to Portage and Main and the major downtown drawing cards, while being situated in a spot with some of the most interesting views in the entire city.

I find it hard to fathom that no one has developed anything bigger than Earl's on that whole stretch from Wesley to Broadway.

Urban recluse · #**129** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 7:12 PM**

I think if that is the case, the city is truly f*cked up.

GarryEllice · #**130** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 10:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eman

6 floors,, with block long floor plates is simply a WALL. Waterfront Drive,,, look at at it,, its a WALL. Architects,, built a WALL

LOL. Yes, it's called a "street wall" and it's a very good thing from an urbanism perspective.

eman · #**131** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 10:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

LOL. Yes, it's called a "street wall" and it's a very good thing from an urbanism perspective.

I understand that too,, however,, that should be the podium for a slender tower to get some real density.

optimusREIM · #**132** Posted **Jul 6, 2016, 11:04 PM**

I don't think that it would be the end of the world to have several taller towers (20-30 floors) rise above a series of 6 floor podiums designed to look nice and European. The connectivity of these developments would be amazing. Even without the taller towers you could almost consider that TOD. Then if something amazing could materialize for the empty lots on main that would be great.

Urban recluse · #**133** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 1:52 AM**

This is a great example of how a podium should look with a tall tower rising above.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisvazquez/27238928803/

Tacheguy · #**134** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 2:32 AM**

European style density for Winnipeg is a pipe dream. Let's try to support densification while accepting and embracing the fact we are a prairie city with lots of land. I am very cool with that..

Urban recluse · #**135** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 3:04 AM**

Yes. Density must supersede height at this point.

trueviking · #**136** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 4:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

European style density for Winnipeg is a pipe dream. Let's try to support densification while accepting and embracing the fact we are a prairie city with lots of land. I am very cool with that..

Why is it a pipe dream? The forks is in control of the development. That is the plan they have.

Six storey neighbourhoods are higher density than skyscraper neighbourhoods BTW.

lilwayne · #**137** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 9:07 AM**

i think we should all stop arguing over this and wait to see the final renderings for how the project will look.. i think 4 to 6 story condos may suit the space better than towers.... although i would rather have 20 story bldgs personally .

i want to see our skyline grow and stand out from ever angle... theres so many surface parking lots downtown that i would rather have 20 plus story towers build on though...

and whats going on with the liquir and lotteries bldg and when will we get a water park

Tacheguy · #**138** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 1:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos

Perhaps the development at Railside and Parcel four will spur development across the tracks to all those empty lots on the east side of Main St.

Exactly. The long term impact of the Forks development on south Main Street should be very interesting to witness. With a transit hub eventually nearby this area has so much potential..

TimeFadesAway · #**139** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 1:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilwayne

and whats going on with the liquir and lotteries bldg and when will we get a water park

Dreamscape should start construction in about 14 months by my count.

Coming back to reality, there is clearly not a good business case to build a water park in Winnipeg, otherwise someone would have done it by now. Katz even said in one of his media 'exit interviews', IIRC, that he was going to look into privately building a water park in Winnipeg. What have we heard since then? Nothing.

eman · #**140** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 3:12 PM**

[QUOTE=trueviking;7496070]Why is it a pipe dream? The forks is in control of the development. That is the plan they have.

Then the Forks is planning for failure. Waterfront Drive took forever to sell out and there is not enough density to support a convenience store. If Waterfront Drive was a raging success,, then go ahead and do it at the Forks.

My wife and I are in the target market and we hate this plan. We were looking forward to this and participated in the consultations. Zero interest now. What a waste.