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

[eman]

[QUOTE=trueviking;7496557]

Originally Posted by eman

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.

Density at an iconic location,,with something worth looking at,, views from the Forks would be fanfrickintastic from the 18th floor,, and still have your lovely 6 floor podium. Waterfront Drive would be fine,, if there was a slender tower on each block above the lovely block long podium that they built. People bought penthouse views of a tree,, but if the same building had a slender tower on top,, that view would of the horizon, sun sets and sun rises and the river, the CMHR and the Forks. And still have Urban living with amenities and lifestyle. Thats where I want to live,, and I thought that was going to happen.

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

The skyscraper needs a podium,, the affordable units can have a view of the building across the street/courtyard etc,, and everybody has access to the amenities and courtyards and community

[eman]

Originally Posted by trueviking

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.

Then explain Waterfront Drive,,, because I see it as falling way short of being an amazing neighbourhood. The shorty block long buildings don't have enough density to support a convienance store and I have no desire to live there. A slender tower above on each block would change everything,, same foot print and liveable streetscape with hundreds of extra residents.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by trueviking

totally.

I wonder if any developers are sniffing around those areas. I am so happy that earls never got the green light for their low rise development.

[DonaldSmith]

Originally Posted by eman

Then explain Waterfront Drive,,, because I see it as falling way short of being an amazing neighbourhood. The shorty block long buildings don't have enough density to support a convienance store and I have no desire to live there. A slender tower above on each block would change everything,, same foot print and liveable streetscape with hundreds of extra residents.

It is one of the richest areas now and that demographic doesn't shop at convenience stores. Notice all of the restaurants popping up? The coffee roasters? The brew pub?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

I wonder if any developers are sniffing around those areas. I am so happy that earls never got the green light for their low rise development.

What's going on with Earls? Are they still working on a revised proposal?

It would be great to see them team up with a developer and do up a residential highrise with an Earls at the base. Main and York would be the perfect spot for a 300 Main-style showstopper of a tower.

[eman]

Originally Posted by DonaldSmith

It is one of the richest areas now and that demographic doesn't shop at convenience stores. Notice all of the restaurants popping up? The coffee roasters? The brew pub?

I am sure the architects envisioned coffee shops right on Waterfront Drive,, but it never happened. Not enough density and over priced. There could have been hundreds of extra units over every blocks. A great building has a mix of income levels,, everybody goes shopping,, a great building in a great neighbourhood has a mix of places close by to shop at. Waterfront Drive falls way short of being a great place to live,, and I certainly wouldn't pay north of $700000 for view of a tree and I'm surprised anyone else has,, but it took forever to sell out.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by eman

I am sure the architects envisioned coffee shops right on Waterfront Drive,, but it never happened. Not enough density and over priced. There could have been hundreds of extra units over every blocks.

agreed...not enough density...that's why the forks is doing the highest density building type possible....not sure how you are missing that point.

also agreed that they are too focussed on a single demographic...the forks is not...which is why I asked why you think you are their target demographic...they don't have a target demographic.

[buzzg]

As the East Exchange as a whole fills up, so will activity along Waterfront. You can't just put up four buildings and say it's its own neighbourhood. Are the highrise towers in Osborne Village their own neighbourhood? No, they walk to Osborne or River or Stradbrook, around the corner, where there's more activity.

[trueviking]

[QUOTE=eman;7496587]

Originally Posted by trueviking

BS,, density at an iconic location,,with something worth looking at,, views from the Forks would be fanfrickintastic from the 18th floor,, and still have your lovely 6 floor podium. Waterfront Drive would be fine,, if there was a slender tower on each block above the lovely block long podium that they built. People bought penthouse views of a tree,, but if the same building had a slender tower on top,, that view would of the horizon, sun sets and sun rises and the river, the CMHR and the Forks. And still have Urban living with amenities and lifestyle. Thats where I want to live,, and I thought that was going to happen.

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

The skyscraper needs a podium,, the affordable units can have a view of the building across the street/courtyard etc,, and everybody has access to the amenities and courtyards and community

what you are missing is that you cant do a tower on every building....if you have towers they need lots of elbow room around them...this is why density drops and the street becomes disconnected and less active.

[esquire]

For what it's worth I share eman's frustration. The cold, hard facts are that for all the success of the East Exchange/Waterfront Drive area, it still doesn't have enough density to support the basic elements of urban life. A proper, functional urban neighbourhood should have things like a small grocery store, a dry cleaner, a bank, in other words, all the basic functions you see at every local strip mall in town. A couple of towers could have helped immensely in that regard... not 40 storey beasts, but maybe a couple of 15-20 storey buildings.

Maybe it'll get there as people populate the developments that are either planned or under construction, but it just isn't there yet and that's a bit frustrating. Contrast with the area around 104 St. Edmonton that has a pretty good selection of shops and services nearby which are a) convenient for residents and b) animate street life, making the area feel more vibrant at all hours.

[Urban recluse]

Ando would accuse you of being negative. Careful...

[eman]

[QUOTE=trueviking;7496670]

Originally Posted by eman

what you are missing is that you cant do a tower on every building....if you have towers they need lots of elbow room around them...this is why density drops and the street becomes disconnected and less active.

I said each block, not building.

Either way,, explain how this is any different than Waterfront Drive,, sure you'll have some low-priced units,, but I don't buy your argument about 6 floors being ideal for density,, when we can see it falling short on Waterfront Drive. A slender tower on each block would add hundreds of units,, and for me and others,, its being above the 6th and having a fantastic views in addition to the vibrant community. This is our world class location,, and you are proposing slightly taller townhouses? The elbow room,, is the podium,, with apartments or offices. As long as you stick to slender,,, the opposite of slender is monster buildings with 14 units per floor,, how many does Fort Garry place have?

[Cyro]

Love the differing opinions( fodder for discussion), let's not start instigating by calling people out,..It won't end well for the the posters involved..thanks and carry on...

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Why going high may not be the answer:

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

I'm living in a land of high-rises everywhere and this article certainly doesn't reflect reality.

Most people live in 6 story buildings here although there are countless buildings that are taller. The reason 6 story buildings are the norm has more to do with the Chinese government's rules rather than any sort of magic number. In China, anything over 6 stories has to have an elevator. That's right...in China you don't get elevators until you go past 6 stories. Old people live on the first and second floor even if the building is crappy and they own a property in a newer building.

Anyway, that's not the point. Only one point in that article had anything resembling an economic foundation to base anything on.
You can have districts full of 20 floor buildings and there's plenty of sunlight. It's all about spacing obviously. As to that crap about gentrification and income inequality... whatever.

There are good reasons to limit heights that have to do with keeping a district more on a human scale. Absolutely true. This article talks about peoples' mental health and basically suggests you'll get depressed and throw yourself out the window if you live above the 6th floor of any building. Nonsense.

There was an argument about the environmental impact of taller buildings which made sense but it had more to do with a particular locale's building habits. We don't use much concrete in North America compared to the rest of the world. If you're building everything out of wood then it may be better for the environment. Not sure about that but I'm open to the idea.

As for the Forks, I see nothing wrong with a six story height limit. Not sure why it has to be capped at 6 floors rather than 10 but whatever. I think it's better to have varying heights going from lowrise to highrise packed in close. Either way, that's just my opinion. I can definitely say that there are plenty of configurations that can keep things at a human scale while being taller. But we don't really need anything to be tall at the Forks or anywhere else. Of course, that's the problem : Too much land to build on around Winnipeg so why bother building up ? I'm pretty sure we're trying to lure people away from the obvious option so whatever we do with the land has to be attractive in a big way. That's really what the aim has to be.

[dennis]

Personally, really like the views from a 3 to six storey building and a high rise. Either or for me. From a few storeys up, I can see the hustle and bustle of the street below. From a high rise the distant views. But I do agree with the above. Why isn't there a mix. A few six storey a few three and a few 15?

[trueviking]

[QUOTE=eman;7496716]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I said each block, not building.

Either way,, explain how this is any different than Waterfront Drive,, sure you'll have some low-priced units,, but I don't buy your argument about 6 floors being ideal for density,, when we can see it falling short on Waterfront Drive. A slender tower on each block would add hundreds of units,, and for me and others,, its being above the 6th and having a fantastic views in addition to the vibrant community. This is our world class location,, and you are proposing slightly taller townhouses? The elbow room,, is the podium,, with apartments or offices. As long as you stick to slender,,, the opposite of slender is monster buildings with 14 units per floor,, how many does Fort Garry place have?

waterfront drive is five buildings on one side of the street with a park on the other....it has no density at all....I am talking about a neighbourhood.

I don't see how towers equals world class...a vibrant neighbourhood is world class.

[roccerfeller]

Might the height limit also be due to not wanting to block views of the CMHR?

6 storeys does seem a bit on the small side for that development potential and for Winnipeg in general, imo, but maybe it is just the right size & fit for that area and the city.

Just have to trust that all those involved are taking the project very seriously, and at the very least, filling those spaces up with a pedestrian oriented space will be extremely welcomed and go a long way to connecting to the other portions of downtown.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by esquire

For what it's worth I share eman's frustration. The cold, hard facts are that for all the success of the East Exchange/Waterfront Drive area, it still doesn't have enough density to support the basic elements of urban life. A proper, functional urban neighbourhood should have things like a small grocery store, a dry cleaner, a bank, in other words, all the basic functions you see at every local strip mall in town. A couple of towers could have helped immensely in that regard... not 40 storey beasts, but maybe a couple of 15-20 storey buildings.
.

I agree, but 2/3 of the buildings in the exchange are empty or underused above the ground floor. Fill those buildings and you have a very dense neighbourhood...it has nothing to do with towers....the number of new residential units built in the exchange district over the last 10 years is the equivalent of 10 twenty-five storey towers....consider that.....and it is still nowhere near dense enough....had we built 10 towers everyone would think it was hong kong...the amount of density you can house in low buildings is so much greater.....you hardly even notice that is how many residents have been added.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

Might the height limit also be due to not wanting to block views of the CMHR?

6 storeys does seem a bit on the small side for that development potential and for Winnipeg in general, imo, but maybe otoh it is just the right size & fit for that area and the city.

Just have to trust that all those involved are taking the project very seriously, and at the very least, filling those spaces up with a pedestrian oriented space will be extremely welcomed and go a long way to connecting to the other portions of downtown.

I was on the design team...I can tell you without any hesitation, the 6 storey limit is to increase density, diversity, affordability and street activity...anything above six and you lose connection to the sidewalk.

the goal is to create a healthy urban neighbourhood and that is done with 6 storey and under buildings, not towers....

towers create a homogenous resident...rich people....because they are expensive to build and require high rents or sales costs to make work.

the pitfall of going after a 'target market' can be seen with waterfront drive....a thousand wealthy retirees is not a neighbourhood.....that's why it is a failure....a mixture of small buildings with all types of residents...that's a neighbourhood.

[trueviking]

we can build tower neighbourhoods anywhere in downtown...a tower can go on any block...the opportunity at the forks is to do something completely special and unique in Winnipeg and Canada....a new pedestrian only community that is rich and active and vibrant.....building a great urban neighbourhood from scratch....that's what I want...not four skyscrapers filled with rich old people who live seven months a year in phoenix and two others in the whiteshell.