Quote:
Originally Posted by crocket
Gonna rehash this, but when you look at some of the best parts of Vancouver or any city really, it's the low rise 6 stories and under that are most appealing. When you go higher and build away from pedestrian corridors you become less pedestrian friendly. Yaletown is a good example where what ignited that area is the low rise conversions, then when it got really popular, the high-rises came in. In NY, the lower east side, Soho, etc. all low rise areas. The exchange is so appealing for the same reason. There are places for high rises but this 6 floor and under, pedestrian corridor is an excellent plan for this area.
|
Actually you are dead wrong about the low rise statement... It really doesn't matter how tall a tower is as long as it interacts with the street well. Living in a city that is consistently ranked as one of the most livable cities in the
world (don't read: affordable), I can attest that
some of it has to do with how our towers interact with pedestrian traffic. You don't have to necessarily become pedestrian un-friendly as you go up, and Vancouver is actually a very great example of this. You can walk down almost any street and find it to be very dynamic. Hell, every street in downtown Vancouver is essentially a pedestrian corridor from my perspective... except east hastings lol. And by that low-rise theory, the suburb city of Richmond BC should be bumping by now with all of its mid-rises but alas it's not.
Also, because we are on the specific topic of Yaletown, we should also talk about how all of those highrise developments also had to contribute to build some of the best bikepaths in North America, as well as some parks, and they all added an exponential increase to the walkability score of the area (and of the city). It was a a huge collaboration between the city and the developers.
Back to Winnipeg: I say all that to say, that it isn't going to take a bunch of new residents to make the Forks a great area downtown, it's going to take significant investment in the livability of the forks to develop this parcel the way that it should be. I am not necessarily towerz-only with the forks as long as the land is being developed to achieve its potential; rather I am rooting for a signature development. And approaching this project with height limits, already, is a mistake. It wouldn't surprise me if Winnipeg waffled on this, and let it sit empty for a couple of years.
Quote:
|
And the move to less car orientated design is this. If you work downtown, then you wouldn't need a car.
|
Boy if only it was that simple....
Walking in winter is treacherous with the way most of the sidewalks aren't properly salted or even plowed; have you tried walking to the Forks from Main Street? Even in Summer, it's not fun or necessarily pedestrian friendly at certain points. And it's even more of a serious concern for anyone with physical disabilities nevermind the fact that workers need to get to their jobs on
time. It can be a bit of a pain in the ass to walk to work, especially in Winter. And as demonstrated in the transit thread, there was a post about Winnipeg's commuting patterns (of 2011) and downtown Winnipeg doesn't appear to be a huge job centre for the city. So it can be a hit or miss as to whether the average Winnipeg resident works in downtown.
A job site isn't the only destination a Winnipegger has. Winnipeg is less centric than you think... I mean, for example, polo park is the only decent mall in the city and that is located way down portage.
But I think that a little investment in pedestrian pathways (that connect more smoothly to the rest of downtown) could go a long way in this particular parcel of land. And I do think that a healthy dose of new residents can be a great shot in the arm for downtown. But people will see through the prestige of living downtown if there are no tangible benefits to it.
Prev
Linear Mode
