Winnipeg | Forks Redevelopment | Parcel 4 - Rail Side Initiative | Proposals - Page 8

buzzg · #**141** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 3:22 PM**

^There probably won't be too many, if any, more renderings I'd guess. The land is being splintered and sold to many different developers. The original renders with cafes and shop are probably more what this will look like.

I'm ok with 6 storey on the East side of the development, but I do think that it should be 8-10 on the side abutting the tracks. Because if there's going to be at least one floor of retail, and several floors of parking on that side, that leaves 3 storeys of residential at best? I do agree there should be no huge towers here though.

Although the thing is, in 15 years someone may decide to build a few big towers on south Main and the people at the Forks are going to be pissed. ahahhaha

Ando · #**142** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 3:24 PM**

[QUOTE=eman;7496356]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

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 waist.

I have to ask. Are you for real? This is going to be a very exciting development that will increase density and conform to the area. And many people are very excited about it. I'm sure they will be very sorry they ignored you and your wife, you being the target market and all.

Tacheguy · #**143** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 3:25 PM**

[QUOTE=eman;7496356]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

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 waist.

just out of curiosity, is plan b for you and your wife to consider living in the new builds proposed for the downtown?

Urban recluse · #**144** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 3:32 PM**

Why going high may not be the answer:

http://www.sustainablecitiescollecti...ill-livability

Tacheguy · #**145** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 3:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Why going high may not be the answer:

http://www.sustainablecitiescollecti...ill-livability

thanks recluse. this article was very informative for me. one of the reasons I like this forum a lot.

Urban recluse · #**146** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 4:13 PM**

Welcome. It made me think about my height fetish. A few super talls are desirable to give a city's image a sign of strength and prosperity, but other than that, incredible density with low rises seems logical.

DowntownBooster · #**147** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 4:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Welcome. It made me think about my height fetish. A few super talls are desirable to give a city's image a sign of strength and prosperity, but other than that, incredible density with low rises seems logical.

It would be a pretty dull skyline if the tallest buildings in your city were 6 stories.

eman · #**148** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 4:30 PM**

[QUOTE=Tacheguy;7496384]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eman

just out of curiosity, is plan b for you and your wife to consider living in the new builds proposed for the downtown?

Skycity,, Glasshouse, TrueNorth and D-Condo. D-Condo would be our first choice,, Tall, slender, great views that start on the 6th floor, walking distance to the Forks and work. TrueNorth and Glass House is a 20 min walk to the Forks,, not really ideal for going for a walk or cycling. However,, we would pick old buildings like 55 Nassau or 15 Kennedy before Skycity, Glasshouse, TrueNorth. The East Exchange or West Exchange,, are even further away,, ideal is South Broadway close the Forks or Osborne Village.

The ideal condo/apartment has indoor parking,, walking distance to shopping, work, parks and recreation and access to amenities that single family homes don't have like pools, gym and party rooms.

Urban recluse · #**149** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 4:30 PM**

LOL, yes.

bomberguy · #**150** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 4:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Why going high may not be the answer:

http://www.sustainablecitiescollecti...ill-livability

What a stupid article.

eman · #**151** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberguy

What a stupid article.

High-rises=gentrification and inequality; Low/Mid-rises=resiliency and affordability
Waterfront Drive is so affordable,, right? Right? People were lining up to buy there, right?

The photo in the article looks like Hong Kong. HK type density,, in Winnipeg? BS. For Portland? BS. HK towers are so close together they have created 30 floor walls,,, no one ever suggested that for Winnipeg. Tall, slender and spaced out,, VANCOUVERISM.

eman · #**152** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

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

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

Exactly,, love this. Enough density and lovely street feel, to provide customers for streetside businesses. Waterfront Drive doesn't even have enough density to support a convenience store or coffee years later.

scryer · #**153** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 5:32 PM**

Quote:

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

I think that I might be the one Winnipegger who is on your side here... Oddly enough I am totally a Vancouverite now.

The opportunity to develop on the Forks needs to be met with something great. It is an amazing opportunity for the many reasons that you described from a buyer's perspective. The view, the neighbourhood, the amenities, etc.

*sigh*

You guys, this is prime land in Winnipeg. And this is in downtown right across from the exchange district and right along the river. And it just opened up to developers in 25 years.

Accepting anything that isn't iconic on a parcel of land that has an incredible amount of history, access to downtown, access to the forks, and is central to the entire city is unacceptable. 6 floor condos are unacceptable.

I get that Winnipeg waffles when it comes to taking a direction of whether to sprawl or develop the core (7/10, sprawling wins in this city) but when it comes to developing land that other Canadian cities would kill to have in this day and age, do it right! This is a call for at lease one iconic skyscraper not because I love them but because the area justifies it. Want to know how to do proper podiums? Just walk through Vancouver.

trueviking · #**154** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 5:36 PM**

[QUOTE=eman;7496356]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

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.

I'm curious what market you are that you think the forks is targeting?

Why would living in a skyscraper be more attractive than living in a building set on an active courtyard with narrow streets and shops?

Urban living is about more than a view....its about neighbourhood and the amenities that support a lifestyle.

The highest density, most active streets are 6 storey neighbourhoods....not skyscrapers....you could fit maybe 4 skyscrapers on that site...that isn't a neighbourhood.

Urban recluse · #**155** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 5:36 PM**

I suspect if the demand is overwhelming, we may see adjustments to the plans?

trueviking · #**156** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 5:38 PM**

I really don't get the fetish over 'iconic' residential towers....an urban neighbourhood that is vibrant and active is so much more appropriate for the forks...for anywhere really....a few towers would be such a lost opportunity....a great neighbourhood will be amazing.

esquire · #**157** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 5:39 PM**

This is one issue where we can have our cake and eat it too... recall that south Main near York is practically The Forks without actually being The Forks, and you could probably build as tall as you want on that strip. Perhaps FNP should be referring the developers who wanted to build skyscrapers to the owners of the land on the other side of the CN line? Hell, VIA Rail has a massive parking lot I'm sure they'd consider selling for the right price.

Then we could have our awesome low-rise urban village at The Forks, bolstered by large numbers of highrise residents a few feet away on Main. Everybody wins!

Urban recluse · #**158** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 5:41 PM**

That works.

trueviking · #**159** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

I suspect if the demand is overwhelming, we may see adjustments to the plans?

again.....skyscrapers are not as dense as 6 storey neighbourhoods...moving to skyscrapers would reduce the ability to meet demand.

It will be maximum six stories...that is the fundamental restriction...it wont change.

Heres a chart showing densities in neighbourhoods with different average building eights....skyscrapers, even with podiums need lots of room between them....6 storey buildings can be side by side.

trueviking · #**160** Posted **Jul 7, 2016, 5:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

This is one issue where we can have our cake and eat it too... recall that south Main near York is practically The Forks without actually being The Forks, and you could probably build as tall as you want on that strip. Perhaps FNP should be referring the developers who wanted to build skyscrapers to the owners of the land on the other side of the CN line? Hell, VIA Rail has a massive parking lot I'm sure they'd consider selling for the right price.

Then we could have our awesome low-rise urban village at The Forks, bolstered by large numbers of highrise residents a few feet away on Main. Everybody wins!

totally.