HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2016, 10:39 PM
Ando Ando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ajs View Post
Rgalston aww if it is u I will have to close this account it's in violation of rules u can't have multiple accounts..
My god, this is hilarious. You seriously followed all that and now think that I am Rgalston?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2016, 10:55 PM
Ando Ando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
Ok, Borat. Try Barceloneta, then, Barcelona's iconic waterfront neighborhood.




Exactly. Very narrow streets and very high density are key to making this work, as well as mixed use ground floors wherever builders want them. I honestly don't think individual building design is that important when you start getting an urban tapestry so fine, but H20 wouldn't fly--that building belongs in the suburbs. I'm also pretty sure building stick framed buildings like H20 in the kind of close-knit neighborhood we're talking about would be a fire hazard and wildly illegal.
Totally agree. There's lots of room for skyscrapers elsewhere. If this works, it is going to be unique for Winnipeg and suit the rest of the Forks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2016, 10:56 PM
Ando Ando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
Haven't dodged it yet...city still owns the property.
People were smarter than council last time and I'd like to think they would rise to the occasion again if it came to it. People are pretty passionate about the Forks area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2016, 2:04 PM
crocket crocket is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by scryer View Post
What's with the commas, Eman? The grammar-nazi in me is convulsing a little.

I don't want to make this into a Vancouver vs. Winnipeg thing either because every city is different and what works in Vancouver doesn't necessarily work in Winnipeg. Even as a former Winnipegger and current Vancouverite, I know from living in both places that there is a HUGE difference in cities/provinces. And both places need to be uniquely loved.

That said, I would still like to see at least one tower and I have the following concerns:

-- A 6 floor limit is very weak for a prominent location downtown in comparison to any city. Should be more like a 6 floor minimum, and maybe a 12 floor limit if we're going for that fabled European mid-rise density.

-- From looking at other mid-rise proposals and U/C projects on these forums in other cities, I see the common "modern, boxy" styled architecture and I fear that the current mid-rise architectural trend in Canada won't do the area justice. Of course I will just have to wait to see who ends up winning the bid on the land and what the proposals actually look like. But bolder designs are typically meant for high-end buyers (regardless of mid-rise or high-rise), which brings me onto my next point...

-- There isn't a large laundry list of reasons to buy in downtown Winnipeg and live there for most. Let's sit down and talk some real here; the core is still considered a hotspot for criminal activity, and the transit system is unreliable and inefficient making Winnipeg a more car-centric city, even in its downtown. In this city, you can spend about the same amount of money on a house or on a condo. In both lifestyles, to reliably get yourself to and from work on time in Winnipeg you still end up purchasing a car. It is a car-centric lifestyle in Winnipeg and in my opinion there is no denying it.

With that said, I feel that there really is no real market for Winnipeggers or new residents to live in downtown when they still need a car to get around conveniently anyways. Bottom-line: I don't think that there is a market for people to actually live in this parcel of land and that this project may have a stronger market for real-estate and foreign investment. And with a 6 floor limit, as a developer, I would want as much bang for my buck.

All in all, I need to see some proposals before making any judgements. But my first impressions of the land's potential bids is underwhelming. I hate to bring back Vancouver as a point of comparison (as someone got carried away with it...) but if you look at Vancouver's Yaletown area, and if you took away the fact that it was almost completely built out of foreign investment, then you pretty much have the same potential for Parcel 4. And I don't want to see Winnipeg screw up this amazing opportunity and it is frustrating as a former Winnipegger to see that there is already a very weak 6 floor limit on proposals.
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.

And the move to less car orientated design is this. If you work downtown, then you wouldn't need a car.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2016, 2:53 PM
Urban recluse Urban recluse is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,797
Some variation in height makes it more appealing: a mixture of 6-10 story buildings is my preference.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2016, 5:11 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by crocket View Post
And the move to less car orientated design is this. If you work downtown, then you wouldn't need a car.
This is key. Just add another Spirit route/extend times and you could sell a lot of people on moving here. Work at Hydro, free 5 minute bus to and from The Forks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2016, 5:22 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,534
Whatever happened to that flower art proposal for the smoke stack? Was it a joke?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2016, 1:19 AM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by crocket View Post
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.

Last edited by scryer; Aug 9, 2016 at 1:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2016, 1:28 AM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,212
The connection (via Main, and under the tracks) between Downtown and The Forks is going to be critical. Not in the sense that The Forks residential necessarily needs it to be in order be successful in its own right, but for all areas of downtown to feel connected and be livable and walkable between each other, and its perception as a great place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2016, 5:28 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is online now
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 11,249
Not having a height limit would be the mistake. The Forks is committed to the limit. They believe in it completely and reject towers out of hand. They will not happen on Forks land.

Two parking lots in Winnipeg can not be compared to an entire district in Vancouver. The economics are different, the scale is different.

Five towers or thirty smaller buildings. Which is a neighbourhood?

Last edited by trueviking; Aug 9, 2016 at 5:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2016, 5:36 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is online now
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 11,249
Towers would have been a disaster. We would sit here for ten years as proposals came and went. Selling 1/3 then bailing. One would get built and everyone would rejoice and say now finally the other three will happen. More will be proposed. And die.

The economics of smaller buildings are far more appropriate for Winnipeg's market. Has anyone noticed how many years SkyCity is taking? The artis tower will be the worst investment they have ever made. And that's with a substantial TIF subsidy.

If downtown Vancouver is a successful high rise neighbourhood, it is a rarity. I can give you a hundred examples of 6 storey neighbourhoods that are vibrant and healthy.

I think everyone needs to go down there and look at how big the site is. Yaletown is dozens of blocks. This site is the size of a Costco and a Superstore side by side.

There are so many reasons to do a mid rise neighbourhood. A few tower blocks would just be good for skyline postcards. Nothing else.

We need to move on from this idea that downtowns can only be skyscrapers. Most great urban neighbourhoods are not towers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2016, 5:57 AM
lilwayne lilwayne is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
Towers would have been a disaster. We would sit here for ten years as proposals came and went. Selling 1/3 then bailing. One would get built and everyone would rejoice and say now finally the other three will happen. More will be proposed. And die.

The economics of smaller buildings are far more appropriate for Winnipeg's market. Has anyone noticed how many years SkyCity is taking? The artis tower will be the worst investment they have ever made. And that's with a substantial TIF subsidy.

If downtown Vancouver is a successful high rise neighbourhood, it is a rarity. I can give you a hundred examples of 6 storey neighbourhoods that are vibrant and healthy.

I think everyone needs to go down there and look at how big the site is. Yaletown is dozens of blocks. This site is the size of a Costco and a Superstore side by side.

There are so many reasons to do a mid rise neighbourhood. A few tower blocks would just be good for skyline postcards. Nothing else.

We need to move on from this idea that downtowns can only be skyscrapers. Most great urban neighbourhoods are not towers.
I disagree with this completely the future is high rises and tall buildings.. low rises and houses will only prepeutate the problem that already exists.. Investing in high rises will make our downtown look more prominent and attractive.. And also help increase in residential population. Maybe for forks smaller housing would be more practical but in general our downtown needs more bigger buildings.. Skyscrapers represent a cities status. With a city inching closer and closer to a million people to make ridiculous statements like artist Riet building an apartment tower downtown is the worst investment they will ever make is ludicrous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2016, 6:03 AM
lilwayne lilwayne is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 729
Truviking it seems like you are pro sprawl and anti density I
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2016, 1:50 PM
GarryEllice's Avatar
GarryEllice GarryEllice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilwayne View Post
Investing in high rises will make our downtown look more prominent
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilwayne View Post
Skyscrapers represent a cities status.
This is exactly trueviking's point about skyscrapers being good for postcards but not much else. What looks nice on a postcard is not necessarily the same as what makes for a lively, functional urban area.

In fact, I would say that there's nothing inherently urban about high-rises. Plenty of cities have suburban high-rise office parks. And take a look at the condo towers that have sprung up along the Sheppard subway in suburban Toronto. They look impressive, but the streets still feel totally dead and suburban.

Even in downtown Toronto, Bay Street, which is lined with high-rises, feels colourless and boring in comparison to nearby Yonge Street, which is lined with shabby low-rise shops and is full of people and activity.

"The taller, the better" is like the kindergarten version of urbanism. It's more complicated than that. High-rises can be part of a successful urban district, but mid-rises also have their place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilwayne View Post
Truviking it seems like you are pro sprawl and anti density
If you think mid-rises are the same as sprawl, you have no clue about real cities. So Barcelona is just a bunch of sprawl, then?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2016, 2:22 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 25,235
This is not based on any book learnin' but what I've seen on the ground around the world... obviously density is a necessary element for an area to attain urban character, but to vike's point lowrise is sufficient for those purposes. What really matters is how things look at the ground floor... you could do the Pruitt-Igoe style towers scattered in a park with no ground level interaction at street level and the end result is terrible despite there being hundreds or even thousands of people crammed into a small area. However, you can still have great streetscapes with towers... just look at the other extreme of Asian megacities where you have midrises with plenty of retail space at the base and street interaction, which in turn leads to animated sidewalks.

Personally, I'd vote for the lowrise 6-storey buildings not because I think towers don't provide desirable streetscapes, but for the reason that it's attainable. vike's comment below is my main fear regarding what would happen if residential at The Forks was planned as a group of 30 storey towers:

Quote:
Towers would have been a disaster. We would sit here for ten years as proposals came and went. Selling 1/3 then bailing. One would get built and everyone would rejoice and say now finally the other three will happen. More will be proposed. And die.
This is a very Winnipeg scenario, and for that reason it's far better to build a bunch of lowrises that we know will actually get built. In case the area proves to be a success and demand ends up being significant, perhaps a modest amount of land could be set aside somewhere that isn't obtrusive for one tower or something like that. But this the neighbourhood's fates wouldn't totally ride on the sensitive economics of a tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2016, 2:35 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,198
Let's try to be clear on potential developments on the site(s) in question. 6 floors is the MAXIMUM height allowable being proposed. This area may have 4 storey structures, maybe 2? (Those involved in RFP's can correct me if I'm wrong).

Do you feel different knowing 6 is the max.? It may be much less.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2016, 2:39 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 25,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro View Post
Let's try to be clear on potential developments on the site(s) in question. 6 floors is the MAXIMUM height allowable being proposed. This area may have 4 storey structures, maybe 2? (Those involved in RFP's can correct me if I'm wrong).

Do you feel different knowing 6 is the max.? It may be much less.
IMO 4-6 storeys are sufficient for the reasons given by vike, but if it were up to me I'd set aside a small patch of land on the site for a potential 20-30 storey tower in case the area really takes off. If it doesn't, then FNP can build one more 4-6 storey building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2016, 2:50 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,198
I'm not disagreeing with an architects opinion on the potential for this future, urban, neighborhood. I just wanted posters to realize, this development could contain a majority of 4 storey dwellings, maybe smaller in height. We'll see when we actually start hearing about the actual proposals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2016, 2:55 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 25,235
^ Mainly 4-6 would be OK, but mainly 2-4 would be a bit of a letdown. This is still a central urban area we're talking about... we should have more density than something like this can provide:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2016, 3:08 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,198
I agree, 2 floors^, possible at the forks, and that particular photo to illustrate your point,(looks like Man. Housing, in a really nice area of the city), would never happen. I'd consider 2 floors a Major let down, but we need someone involved in the project(s) or more detailed information on the MIN/MAX height of what may be built..and I don't have that personally..
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:29 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.